“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves." Lao Tzu link
Over the last couple of years, some pastors, having read, or heard, Good to Great reinterpret Collins' discussion of "getting the right people on the bus." Like the sheep metaphor, these guys have not heard an allegory that can't screw up. No one is better at this than Mark Driscoll, the Stephen King of the bus ride from hell. I love this particular quote because it highlights his self absorbed "vision" which includes piles of dead bodies that have been squashed by the Mars Hill bus. Link
"Here's what I've learned. You cast vision for your mission, and if people don't sign up, you move on. You move on. There are people that are gonna die in the wilderness, and there are people that are gonna take the hill. That's just how it is. Too many guys waste too much time trying to move stiff necked, stubborn, obstinate people. I am all about blessed subtraction. There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus (chuckle), and by God's grace, it'll be a mountain by the time we're done…. You either get on the bus, or you get run over by the bus. Those are the options." (P.73)
There is a problem with a charismatic leader who has unchallengeable vision.
Collins discusses the problems that develop when a charismatic leader becomes
the primary reality people worry about, rather than reality being the primary reality. (P.72)
When that happens
you have a recipe for mediocrity. (P.72)
Even more importantly, Collins demonstrates throughout his book that
Less charismatic leaders often produce better long-term results than their more charismatic counterparts. (P.72)
Winston Churchill had a bold vision for defeating the Nazis. However, he was also a wise leader who understood that his charismatic personality might make his advisors reticent to tell him any sort of bad news that detracted from his vision.
So, early in the war, he created an entirely separate department outside of the normal chain of command, called the Statistical Office, with the principle function of feeding him-continuously updated and completely unfiltered-the most brutal facts of reality. He relied heavily on this special unit throughout the war, repeatedly asking for fact, just the facts. (P. 73)
Today, within certain elements of the authoritarian evangelical subculture, vision casting is the new "winsome." The really cool leaders often add the word "audacious" to make it sound exciting. "Audacious vision casting" involves coming up with an "over the top" idea that has been ratified by God through the obviously gifted, charismatic pastor. So, a little church in Florida claims they will plant 100 churches in 5 years. To question the validity of the vision is tantamount to questioning God's ability to perform this "miracle." Said questioner is not "the right person for the bus" and must be thrown off and run over for good measure.
If a visionary pastor has "yes men" on his bus, he has the wrong people on the bus.
Stop and think about it. Most people in churches want to learn about their faith. Many want to do missions. Lots of people want to serve others in their community. In other words, most people are already onboard with the Great Commission.
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20 NIV Gateway)
Everyone in the Body of Christ is given gifts to use within the Body.
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. (1 Cor12:27,28-NIV Gateway)
Therefore, it stands to reason that the bus driver better be paying attention to the input of ALL those on the bus, not merely the guys sitting up front. To purposely ignore their input is to guarantee that the church will miss something extremely important. Corinthians tells us this is true.
Real leaders create a climate that motivates people to share the truth.
Let me say this in another way. If a leader does not want to hear from anyone who disagrees with him, he is not a good leader. In fact, he can be dangerous since he will miss information. There is a difference between "being heard" and "having your say." In other words, a suggestion box in which all the suggestion are dumped out does no good.
Let's talk about elders for a minute. They are supposed to be those who keep things in check. I contend that, in most cases, they do not. They are often there just to ratify and defend anything the pastor says or wants.
I had a great discussion with a reader who sent me the makeup of the elder board at his church which has an authoritarian, charismatic pastor. There are 6 elders. One elder is the lead pastor and 2 other elders are underling pastors appointed by the lead pastor. Since this pastor has hiring and firing authority over his underlings, those 2 will, of course, go along with the pastor. The other 3 elders are supposedly from the congregation. One of them is the lead pastor's best friend. The other two were nominated by the previous elders and the lead pastor. Although the congregation could submit names, those were never considered. And, of course, the slate is always elected. This pastor now has complete control with little hope for disagreement. This makeup guarantees bad leadership.
What is needed is truth-brutal truth. Nothing sugar coated. So, how does a real leader create a climate where the truth can be heard?
1. Lead with questions, not answers. Spark a raucous debate. (P.74)
An authentic leader will know the questions to ask that will bring insights into the truth. These questions, often "why" questions, exist not to manipulate but to understand what the person is saying. Often times these questions are open ended. "Tell me what's on your mind." What do you think we should be worried about?"
When was the last time you heard a good debate with passionate responses from any church congregation. It is usually a ho-hum affair, usually because few people really care about it anyway. Why don't they care? Perhaps because they believe it will not make little difference?
Think about it.
-When was the last time that you saw the pastor of a large church go up to a person that has been attending but is not important and say "What do you think about things?" or "What would you change?" and really listen?
– How many of you, instead, have been excoriated by a pastor/elder when you suggested something different than the status quo? How many of you have been blown off with a distracted nod or the dismissive quick pat on the shoulder?
2. Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion (P.75)
There is a misunderstanding of the word "unity" within the Christian population. Authoritarian pastors use the word "unity" to enforce a Driscollesque "my way or the road kill highway."
I once belonged to a church that allowed women deacons, but not women elders or pastors. However, prior to that decision, there was much discussion and dissension. There were elders and church members who supported the idea of women elders. After much time and prayer, it was decided to agree to disagree. In order to preserve peace in the congregation, the "women as elders" faction backed down. But, in the church's statement of beliefs, the dissenting opinion was permanently posted because the opinion of those folks mattered. That is unity in diversity. It is OK to disagree and still remain a church body.
How many of you have ever seen a church statement that outlines the areas of disagreements?
3. Conduct autopsies without blame. (P.77)
Do you have a leader who can admit to his mistakes? Does your pastor try to maintain a certain image such as a visionary leader? Maybe he presents as a guy whose worse sin is that he occasionally breaks the speed limit (insert rueful chuckle)? Collins quotes Joe Cullman who discusses, candidly, the mistakes he made when his company bought the Seven-Up Company.
In an era when leaders go to great lengths to preserve the image of their own track record-stepping forth to claim credit about how they were visionary when their colleagues were not, but finding others to blame when their decisions go awry-it is quite refreshing to come across Cullman. He set the tone. "I will take responsibility for this bad decision. But we will all take responsibility for extracting the maximum learning from the tuition we've paid."
Recently, it was learned that three church plants started by Ed Stetzer (the guru of church plants) failed. Nothing was said. It was all hush hush. Why? Shouldn't we figure out what went wrong? Think about the T4G statement on CJ Mahaney. It disappeared. The authors were embarrassed by it. It appears that these so-called leaders have gone to great lengths to preserve their image at the expense of honesty which could benefit the church as a whole.
4. The red flag mechanism. (P.78)
Most companies and churches have plenty of information. We live in an information age in which facts and figures are available to us in an instant. It is often difficult to sift through all of the data and figure out what is relevant. The "red flag" mechanism is quite simple. The people in leadership have a "no harm, no foul" response in place when an individual comes to them and says "I think you have a serious problem."
There is a church which received some early warnings about a staff member who was eventually arrested for pedophilia. The leadership got an alleged report from a young teen about some strange behavior about this man a year previous to the arrest.They chose to ignore the report, believing that the young man was just exaggerating. This young man was very involved in the church activities. He was present in situations with other teens when the pastors were not present. The pastors, instead, believed that they "knew" what was going on. Their inability to accept a "red flag" led to more teens being abused for another year.
The SGM Survivors blog has been around for years. There are literally thousands of comments alleging many, many concerning activities of pastoral negligence and child sex abuse. Yet, leaders throughout the country refuse to look at the red flags. Just this week, Wayne Grudem claims that CJ Mahaney has been unjustly accused.
These Neo-Calvinist leaders are living examples of the problems which are well outlined in the Chapter 4 which I have been reviewing.
- They ignore the squiggly things that lay under rocks.
- The blame others, including alleged victims.
- They state their vision without allowing for dissension.
- They ignore red flags.
- They throw people who should be on the bus, off the bus and then drive over them, causing tremendous pain.
- They refuse to listen to negative assessments (delete negative comments, refuse comments)
- They prefer coercion over debate
Perhaps these are some clues that tell us why people are fleeing the church. One thing is certain: these guys do not think that it might involve them.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 13:1-14:29 Acts 18:23-19:12 Psalm 146:1-10 Proverbs 18:2-3
Have a friend who has become disturbed at the number of 9Marks churches that are starting to infiltrate this part of Texas. He is just appalled at the new authoritarian, I’m never wrong at these churches.
Good guy, Master’s degree in his field, he and his wife are seriously looking at home church to get away from authoritarian minsters.
As he said, these “Modern preacher are going to wind up killing Christianity.”
K.D. wrote:
I think they have already started screwing things up. Look at the rise of the number of “Nones” under their watch.
reading all this actually makes me thankful for traditional denominational structures.When I was young I was impatient with church polity seeing it as drag brakes operating as an obstacle to the church moving forward with passion. The older I get, the more I believe that these checks and balances built into the system over the centuries are actually there for our protection.
Throughout human history tyrants have cared nothing for the human suffering and wreckage left behind by their juggernauts. Why should Driscoll?
Haven’t read the whole post yet. But WOW, that thing that Winston Churchill did. I stopped reading at that point. Asking for just the facts (the most brutal ones of reality). So very striking, considering the topic here.
i’ll go back and keep reading, of course.
Such wonderful pieces of information on TWW, from D & D and so many intelligent, educated commenters. I learn so much about the most unexpected array of things.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/215330521.html
The 155-year-old boarding school is known as a birthing ground for elite athletes and future leaders. A lawsuit filed a month ago claims that the Episcopalian prep school turned a blind eye to the sex games and sexual abuse orchestrated by Seibel. That suit remains open.
There is a provision in the rules and literature about emergency response planning: After an emergency response, evaluate the response to see what worked well and what did not, and modify the plan accordingly. Short hand: if it failed, figure out why and fix it. Arce taught: An emergency response plan NEVER works exactly as planned, so it ALWAYS should be reworked based on the lessons learned during an emergency.
Every member who leaves a church, other than by moving away from the locality, represents a failure by the church and should be interviewed and the responses should be evaluated to see what the church could have done differently — and the fixes should arise from the congregation, not be imposed by the pastor or elders.
TW — Apparently religious institutions attract a high number of sociopaths. This article from Church Mutual Insurance was an eye-opener for me.
https://www.churchmutual.com/dsp/dsp_RiskReporter.cfm?riskReporterID=30&page=qa
Arce
But you are a normal, nice guy. Authoritarian churches cannot admit a fail. Take a look at TW who is being held hostage by a church which refuses to let him go.
@ elastigirl: We also learn alot from you. It is truly a place to share important info as well as support.
Creepy Christianity. I poke fun at some serious authoritarians:
http://thouarttheman.org/2013/07/13/creepy-christianity/
Anon 2 wrote:
Thanks Anon 2. Great article. I linked to it on my FB page.
“After much time and prayer, it was decided to agree to disagree. In order to preserve peace in the congregation, the “women as elders” faction backed down.”
This is great (although I would have sided with the dissenters).
But what is to be done when dissenters don’t just dissent, but continue to sow dissent? For instance, someone who doesn’t like the music and so makes a point of weekly attacking the musicians after the service? Stuff like that…
Isn’t it better to eventually tell that person (after prior working to reconcile) that perhaps they’d be better able to worship elsewhere?
elastigirl wrote:
Contrast that with D-day when Hitler’s top staff were afraid to wake him up because he said he did not want to be disturbed.
E.G. wrote:
This is your key word. People who are dedicated to a church and the people in the church do not attack. They disagree and attempt to work out their differences. Eventually, everyone should have to give up a little something if people approach this with good will.
In the situation, that I mentioned, presenting the arguments of the other side and putting it into the permanent statement, showed the good will of those who were more complementarian.
It is important, however, to make sure that disagreement is not treated as an attack. In today’s authoritarian churches, legitimate disagreement is often mischaracterized as an attack. I have read a number of comments over at SGM in which a simple question is treated like an attack. There is then a counter-attack-“you are prideful,” “You exhibit the sin of questioning”
True leaders are so strong that they can give up the need to self justify and can even compromise on occasion. For example, if someone who has been in the church for a long time expresses a wish for a particular style of music, is there a way to give then what they want on occasion?
Anon 1 wrote:
Awesome observation!
@ TW: Any way I can repost some of this next week?
I don’t have time to read the comments…on my way to a meeting. But I just wanted to comment on the ‘stacked board of elders’ thing.
My former pastor use to make a big deal about how the board were the ones that set his salary…had final decision making, etc.
Thing is, they didn’t tell you who the board was…..him, his wife, his sister-in-law, her dad and a man with so many skeletons in his closet he would agree to anything. No accountability at all….but a nice, hiny facade.
As loathsome as Driscoll is to me, I’ll give him credit for one thing. At least he outright admits his intentions to leave a mountain of dead bodies in his wake. As Dee just said above, most “authoritarian churches cannot admit a fail.” Mine sure couldn’t. They spend an inordinate amount of effort polishing their halos as the accounts of abuse continue to climb.
Driscoll’s statement should give any prospective member cause for alarm. (Or at least a pause for thought.)
@ Lynne T: Agreed, Lynne.
dee wrote:
Yes, please do.
Anon 2 wrote:
Excellent article! It’s hard for me to pick out any one statement that stood out, but I’ll go with this one: “according to a 1990 study in which it is estimated that only 3 percent of sexual offenders ever get caught.” That’s frightening!
TW wrote:
As a child, growing up Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, this was the hardest thing for me to grasp. Like parents, the church was supposed to love you, want the best for you, nourish. Or so I thought. I could not wrap my mind around the fact that there is spiritual abuse in the church, or sexual abuse. It was beyond my comprehension. This probably hurt me more than the actual spiritual abuse. For years I thought it was my fault. I wasn’t good enough, smart enough, etc. It wasn’t until I was an adult in the church I currently attend and saw the huge difference that I finally got it. That is the subtlety of church abuse.
One red flag for me is how the “counseling” program is run. At a local 9 Marks church, the contract to get BIblical counseling (as opposed to “less effective secular or “Christian” psychology) is shocking. Basically, church members who have taken some Bible course are superior in their abilities to heal than university educated mental health workers. Also, they do not guarantee confidentiality, but request you don’t discuss your sessions with others “who are not involved”. Their statement claims that their way is superior to others, yet admit they have “chosen” not to be state licensed. The contract is a basic CYA document for them, with no protection for the counseled. This program is at Open Door Church in Raleigh, N.C. Click under “Adult”programs, and then click on Biblical counseling. Am I alone as seeing this as misrepresentative and potentially harmful? Thanks. Ann
Ann, that doesn’t sound too different from confidentially paperwork for MH counseling from a few years ago. In a setting like that the decisions pastors make are considered binding in terms of the church but considered nothing more than a form of entertainment by the state, really.
To some degree MH is way more up front about their aims. Wilkerson wrote that a goal was to get all existing programs to conform to pulpit theology (read that as Mark Driscoll becomes the measure of how recovery/addiction ministries should work). Noriega said his vision was MH not rely on any outside sources to help people and he was co-leader with Wilkerson of Redemption Groups and recruited by Driscoll from Doxa. Put these all together and by the account of Mike Wilkerson and James Noriega conforming ministries to Driscoll’s vision seems to have been the explicit goal of the reboot of counseling/recovery ministry that happened in the wake of the 2007 terminations. Never mind that Dan Allender and CCEF books were already available at MH at the time.
A friend of mine visited an SGM church years ago and told me that for him a red flag was that all the music was copyrighted by the church/group itself. The more unified and consolidated a church’s approach to intellectual property (i.e. they don’t want to pay to CCLI or other entities, have a cavalier attitude toward other people’s content and are picky about their own) the more that can be seen as a red flag even if other things don’t show up. Looking back on MH a bit more than a decade ago the leaders were cool with claiming copyright was outmoded and NOW? You have to scroll through a lot to get to the end of all their licensing considerations. 🙂 And Driscoll owns the copyrights on his best-sellers.
@ Ann:
I seem to recall that Open Door Baptist Church underwent some kind of theological changes before I knew anything about the YRR movement. It must have been well over a decade ago.
One of the elders was my daughter's Latin teacher when she was in middle school. I believe he was in seminary at the time and has since earned his degree.
Another elder is a biblical counseling professor at SEBTS. He is affiliated with Peacemaker Ministries and the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors.
Ann wrote:
No, you’re not alone! So many articles and statements from “9 Marks” pastors and staff shock me. I’ve been collecting links to some of their strangest articles.
– – – – – –
4 Examples of “9 Marks” pastors and staff encouraging each other to monitor you and your family members wherever you go:
Deepak Reju’s admission that he looks forward to stalking you. He’s an associate pastor under Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. And BTW, he’s the pastor of biblical counseling. – http://www.9marks.org/blog/gospel-minded-churches-cooperating-pastoring
Jonathan Leeman’s very unsettling post on making life miserable for former church members – http://www.9marks.org/blog/churches-cooperating-discipline
Deepak Reju again talking about maintaining information on your family members –
http://www.9marks.org/blog/why-use-house-church-membership-directory
Bobby Jamieson advises 9 Marks pastors not to let a church member go even if they submit a letter of resignation: http://www.9marks.org/blog/pastors-don%E2%80%99t-let-your-people-resign-thin-air
– – – – – – – –
Look at how young some of these guys are, still in grad school, and already publishing books on their weird authoritarian views. Fortunately people who wish to do research on the locations of 9 Marks churches can view this link:
http://www.9marks.org/churchsearch/searchmap.php
This tweet started a firestorm — and a discussion about spiritual abuse and children. I’m starting to be a Zack Hoag blog reader.
http://www.zhoag.com/2013/07/11/deeply-broken/
Janey wrote:
Thanks Janey. I put this in my reader. I still remember when I was engaged to my husband of 29 years. The minister of the Baptist church I was attending and had been since a child, continually came to my job and tried to talk me out of marrying because my husband was divorced. I had to tell them at the front desk to not let this minister in due to the daily harassment. He then kept leaving literature at the desk for me. Needless to say I ignored it. 🙂 But it was a tough time.
Janey, I have been reading Zack Hoag, also, and enjoying many of his perspectives.
@ Ann: "B"ig red flag! You don't sign any kind of agreement when you go to a licensed counselor outside of a church. They don't restrict your communication. As a matter of fact, they usually encourage you to communicate with those close to you as you progress. It's usually part of the healing/progressing path that you are on. Well rounded, trustworthy, Christian friends are the best place to seek spiritual encouragement, prayer, and communication while you are in licensed counseling. There are the rare Christian/licensed psychologists out there. But you still need the support of your close, trusted friends and family. A counselor can't (and doesn't) become everyone's support system.
@ Ann: Run!
@ Bridget:
Good catch, Bridget! My goodness what they are wanting people to sign off on these days. It is very revealing there are control issues.
dee wrote:
It is all law and no gospel; all legalism and no grace. They will say the magic prayer, which is called “grace”, but the entire rest of the Christian life is about obedience and submission. Otherwise, God is angry with you.
If I am understanding this whole story correctly (this to me kind of fits in with the abusive, controlling church topic)…
A preacher (named “Standridge”)in a church in Oklahoma publicly chewed out several church members during a service a few weeks ago, one for falling asleep in church, and I forget the trespasses of the other guys.
So, another preacher, Sapp, defended Standridge in a video, saying public browbeating of erring church members is necessary and a preacher’s right or duty, or something.
Here is a link about it:
Marvin Sapp Responds to Angry Pastor’s ‘Hissy Fit’ Sermon
Not only does one preacher verbally abuse some church members and during a service, but a second one (unless I am misunderstanding) jumps to his defense over it.
Here is a quote from the page:
I don’t recall the Bible saying that “preachers will have to give an account to God for [other Christians behavior/ beliefs].”
(The Bible does say teachers will be held responsible, but for their teaching, not how people under their teaching turn out – unless I am forgetting some passage or another.)
Would this fit with the previous post about Driscoll treating his church like it’s a corporation?
Using People The dark side of efficiency
E.G. wrote:
Why can’t they just bring an mp3 player to church and listen to their favorite hymns on their mp3 player with ear plugs, during the church music they hate?
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: I have come to the conclusion, dear doctor, that it all hinges on definitions for just about everything. I used to think that everybody thought the same thing when they heard words like “biblical,” “gospel,” “church discipline,” etc. Now some are redefining authoritarian behavior. 9 Marks’ Johnathan Leeman just wrote a post decrying authoritarianism.
http://www.9marks.org/blog/twin-temptations-pragmatism-and-authoritarianism
I almost choked on my cheese and whole grain crackers (I know proctologists encourage fiber consumption). This group of churches has a rigid authority structure. Heck, they won’t even let you resign from their churches over doctrinal differences. They are the Hotel California of the evangelical set. They are holding one guy hostage as I write this (Let my people go!)
Question everything! Do not assume they mean the same thing that you do.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Like it’s any of that guy’s business! 😡
I have as of late ditched several of my Christian beliefs, held since childhood or my teen years, such as the “don’t be yoked to an unbeliever” thing.
Now that I’m in my early 40s, if I do ever get married, it will probably be to a divorced guy (and possibly a Non Christian divorced guy, since I no longer care about the person’s religious views/situation) – unless I meet and marry a guy whose wife died.
It is just insane how some Christians try to shame or control other people over lifestyle choices.
@ Dee:
I wonder if this is an attempt at damage control. Perhaps they’re a little uncomfortable with the scrutiny of their rebranded Shepherding Doctrine.
Daisy wrote:
+1
i’m new to all this stuff and i have a question: i thought it was only the Catholic church that gave God’s power to men chosen by other men? How did all this creep into supposedly protestant churches?
Lynne T wrote:
Lynne, some people are tired of living in the “evangelical circus” and are discovering that spiritual stability can be found in traditional denominational structures, especially liturgical ones. I recently scampered back down the Canterbury Trail after 18 years in the circus. There is a lot of real, honest gospel in the celebration of Word and Sacrament. And peace. So. Much. Peace.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Good thinking.
nmgirl wrote:
That nasty little secret is that we have been going the way of Rome for years. Only worse. Some of the mega’s I was involved in had a form of Apostolic succession plans. I kid you not! It was all mapped out concerning leadership for generations.
Daisy wrote:
That is the biggest complaint I hear from the church I attend right now. And I’m no fan of the 7/11 music the under 40 crowd likes. I don’t like the 7/11 stuff, but I endure it. I really wish we had two services, a contemporary an a traditional one for us old timers….
Dee wrote:
You can say that again! Engsoc, anyone?
@ LL Carwin:
“a traditional one for us old timers”
Not just the old timers! I’m 23 and I hate 7/11 songs with a passion.
@ LL Carwin:
I’m in my early 40s now, but even when I would sporadically attend church in my 20s, and for about 2 – 3 years in my 30s, I did not like loud, fast, rock ‘n roll religious music in church. (But I like secular, fast pop music at home.)
My parents used to take me weekly to a church when I was little that had an old lady playing piano and a choir, and that was it – no guitar, no drums. That is what I associate with church music.
I remember “Just As I Am,” “Love Lifted Me,” and a couple other older hymns.
Actually, I don’t like music in church at all. Sorry to bum anyone out who works musically in a church, but I just don’t care for it at all.
One church I used to attend weekly in my mid/late 30s, I intentionally walked in ten minutes late specifically once or twice to miss the music part, and the “meet and greet part.”
As an introvert with a very shy nature and sensitive to loud music (in certain settings it can make me very nervous bordering on panic attacks), I did not like having to sit through loud music in church and shaking hands with people I did not know, and greet them.
I notice most contemporary church music is highly repetitive. A typical song might sound like,
“O Jesus, O Jesus you wonderful guy,
you wonderful Savior, I praise you, I praise you,
O Jesus, I praise yooooouuuu”
-repeat that about 200 more times.
dee wrote:
In the case, yes. Not even “on occasion,” but rather every week it’s a pretty wide mix of music.
Frankly, I likely lean more towards the complainers’ preference, but I find complaining (particularly to volunteer artists) to be a dang waste of time and hurtful to people who put in a major effort every week to deliver music to us.
Whoops… screwed up the quoting… But you know what’s going on.
Daisy wrote:
There are people in the church I attend who are always 15 mins late to church. I am sure it’s to miss the 7/11 portion of the service.
E.G. wrote:
Surely there has to be a middle way…like a request box. I don’t care for half the songs our contemporary band plays but I don’t complain. A close-minded band that plays only their own playlist is going to end up with half an audience: I agree with LL Carwin’s comment above, people will simply arrive 15 minutes late.
BTW I had to go to Urban Dictionary to figure out what a 7/11 song was:
“Christian music that repeats the same 7 words 11 times.”
Janey wrote:
Thanks, Janey! That always drove me crazy!
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Wait…Allender is a CCEF guy? No wonder his Wounded Heart book triggered me so badly when I tried to read it a couple of years ago. I was looking for something with a spiritual orientation, in addition to the many secular psychology books I have read, and this book got rave reviews on Amazon. I got a few chapters in and had to delete it from my Kindle because it made me feel even more deeply ashamed. Probably could handle it better now, but I shudder at what his books could do to someone early in recovery.
Sorry, that was off topic, but it was a light bulb moment for me. I feel better about rejecting the book 🙂
@ Daisy:
“It is just insane how some Christians try to shame or control other people over lifestyle choices.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
when it comes to professional Christians, it gives them something to do. Helps enhance the Job Description. Paycheck justification. (as well as Gospel Authorization to tap into one’s own darker human urges to control.)
@ lemonaidfizz:
“No wonder his Wounded Heart book triggered me so badly …I was looking for something with a spiritual orientation, in addition to the many secular…”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
another example overspiritualizing everything. Manufacturing spirituality & twisting people in knots for no reason other than opportunity to get published and make a name for oneself.
I myself want to develop myth about the spirituality of ladybugs, drawing heavily from Paul. (something about red = blood, black spots = sin, wings and flying, how they eat pests…)
I can see it now…. book, publishing contract, more books, merchandise, devotional tear-off-a-day calendars, annual Sanctity of Ladybugs Sunday, greetings cards, totebags, framed cross stitch, cross stitch pillows, silk-screened T-shirts,…
I have a feeling the more shame that can be woven in the better it will go over. Religious-guilt-fixation seems to sell. Mental self-flagellation sighs, as a means of attaining to godliness.
(this is becoming grotesque)
@ elastigirl:
no, this is it: religious-guilt-fixation creates jobs.
A problem is invented, fear mongering, and voila — solutions galore! dollar value attached.
Freedom? Forgiven and redeemed? not a lot of money-making to be had there.
WARNING: Do NOT read The Wounded Heart, unless you want to be told that YOU are the problem. You will learn about how sinful you were for automatically dissociating (“suppressing truth in unrighteousness”) AS you were being abused, and other such nonsense.
Oasis wrote:
Yes, the whole “dissociation=refusal to trust god” idea is pretty repulsive to me. I and many other survivors are alive today because we were able to dissociate to escape childhood trauma. So saying it’s sinful and selfish and a form of rebellion against god is a slap in the face to survivors. But I know biblical and nouthetic counseling have been discussed here before so I won’t rehash the topic; I was just so relieved to realize my instincts were right and I trusted them 🙂 That’s very validating for me.
Oasis wrote:
This is the sickest thing I have ever heard. Seriously. Religion of Death.
lemonaidfizz wrote:
If “dissociation” means what I think it means, it’s a Survival reflex. Where the alternative without dissociation would mean insanity or death. That said, once the survival situation (short- or long-term) is over, the continuing dissociation itself can become harmful and needs to be shed.
(I saw something similar in my stepmother, except her survival reflex had been to become very aggressive. She had to be to survive, but after her situation changed for the better, she was never able to take that chip off her shoulder. Much unhappiness resulted.)
lemonaidfizz wrote:
“Break that bruised reed!”, huh?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep, it’s all about survival when fleeing or fighting are not possible or may result in greater harm. The problem, as you point out, is that someone who dissociates to survive trauma may sort of generalize the response to all sorts of threatening (perceived or real) situations later in life. This, as you say, causes much unhappiness for the survivor and those around her/him.
Even for someone who is very determined, it’s very difficult to “unlearn” dissociation because 1) your brain and body learn very quickly that it is an extremely effective defense mechanism and 2) from what I’ve read, it happens in a very primitive part of the brain that is hard-wired to perform and retain functions related to survival. It’s kind of like having to learn to breathe differently or respond to stimuli in the environment differently…hard to describe, but dissociation is not something you can think or reason through no matter how hard you try, or even process on just an emotional level. It’s very visceral or maybe somatic is a better word, and for me it has taken years of therapy to get to the point where I don’t automatically dissociate in a frightening situation–I’m very fortunate to have access to treatment and a stubborn streak a mile wide that has kept me scratching away at this for so long. I’m sorry your stepmother had to live with the aftereffects of her trauma throughout her life, and that it hurt your whole family, too. The damage from trauma has a terrible ripple effect.
HUG, lemonaidfuzz, you both describe things Allender gets to in the second half of The Wounded Heart. Allender’s case, what I recall of it, in The Wounded Heart, is that survival methods for the immediate aftermath of the abuse, taken into adult life decades later, become unhealthy relational patterns that have to be recognized and overcome. It would grossly misrepresent how he employs the term sin to merely assert that he says the abused person is the problem. What you needed to do to withstand the initial trauma (dissociation and other adaptive strategies) aren’t healthy relational methods with non-abusers who make up most of the people you’ll relate to in normal life.
When Allender refers to how abuse victims sin he is generally referring to the level of distrust and dissociation applied to everyone across the board rather than to the initial abuse. This will not fit with a more nouthetic approach to counseling that wants sin to be sin in every possible relational circumstance but it will also be interpreted by lazy readers as victim-shaming if they aren’t patient enough to give Allender some space to elaborate on his usage. Obviously his approach and ideas won’t be to everyone’s liking but if people don’t read Allender’s books as whole entities they will generally be missing what he’s getting at.
Allender is not CCEF that I’m aware of. I was simply stating that Allender books and CCEF books were available at Mars Hill in 2005-2007. Grace claimed there was a dearth of truly biblical resources available at the time she shared her history, chapter 7 in Real Marriage, but this is unsustainable unless Grace wanted to say that alL CCEF materials and Allender resources were not biblical enough compared to whatever Mars Hill elders had in store.
HUG, lemonaidfuzz, you both described what Allender gets into in the second half of The Wounded Heart.
“What you needed to do to withstand the initial trauma (dissociation and other adaptive strategies) aren’t healthy relational methods with non-abusers who make up most of the people you’ll relate to in normal life.”
I am not sure I agree with that but would need to read the book first but doubt if I ever will. Just thinking out loud: Non abusers that an abused person might be around in “normal life” most often are not able to understand the depth of trauma– so the abused person would be wise to be cautious. I have seen one too many “non abusers” change their attitude toward a person when they learn of the abuse. Many do not want to believe it if it was by someone they think has status or credibility. And that is very unhealthy for an abused person to deal with all the time in every new potential relationship. I can see were disassociation would be a secure blanket.
@ lemonaidfizz: Yes, your instincts were spot on.
@ Anon 1: You said it.
“The power of dissociation is that it involves both flight and imagination. Flight involves a refusal to trust that, within an awful moment or event, God or good is to be found.”
Here we have Dan blaming the child for dissociating…and why? For “refusing” to “trust” that evil is in fact GOOD.
I have news for Dan: Not only are children NOT sinning by refusing or being unable to focus with their full attention on the horror that is happening to them, “God or good” is by definition NOT in the evil that is abuse.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Hmm…I have the book (given to me) but I haven’t read it. Just never felt safe….
WTH, if what you are saying is that he presents it as sin or wrong behavior, or whatever, in the beginning, then goes on, later, to explain what he means, then he has done a poor job of communicating to the ones I assume he was trying to reach.
From experience, if someone who is wounded and looking for help reads words that sound like blaming (even if it is explained later), they are going to put it down and walk away. Why should they be expected to slog through words that seem to be blaming to see if they really are? They are not going to get to the ‘explanation’ because they will run away from the wounding words. And well they should.
Just my .02.
Oasis wrote:
“Flight” is a God given instinct for survival when one is abused. Talk about turning something good to something evil!
Oasis wrote:
So….is he suggesting that when a child (or adult) finds themselves in the middle of an ‘awful moment or event’, that rather than trying to get out of it, they should ‘endure’ and find the good in it? I would like to see how well he would apply that theory if he was being mugged or beaten or having his life threatened. Many adults cannot hadle the psychology of being abused. How on earth is a child supposed to understand any of this?
And, as @ Oasis pointed out, there is no good to be found in a child being molested. Period. God is not involved with that. To suggest he is harkens back to the hyper-Calvinistic (soory, for those who are Calvinists, but it is what I have experienced) teaching that God ordained it, so just endure it and trust he had a purpose. That is almost more abusive than original event.
Okay, backing away…..
Jeannette, you’re mistaken. If any God exists that God has permitted the sexual abuse of children, period. If that God is good there has to be some explanation for how that works. Free will shifts responsibility to the initial active agent but does not absolve God of creating a universe in which the sexual abuse of children happens, does it? This isn’t about Calvinism, this is about the Grand Inquisitor. So long as you’re an atheist you can say that God is not involved in a world in which child abuse happens, but if you’re a theist, you have no choice but to concede that God has made a world in which the sexual abuse of children occurs. It’s non-negotiable and if you interpret Allender’s recognition of this unavoidable problem within theistic thought and are a theist yourself then you’re the pot calling the kettle black. An atheist on the other hand would just tell Allender that sexual abuse of children is the surest evidence that no god exists and that if god does exist that god is evil.
I’ve read it cover to cover and I don’t see that Oasis, or others who have admitted that they have never read the book at all or read more than parts of it and feel at liberty to object to Allender in some way have, so far, accurately or fairly represented anything about Allender’s ideas.
If people contest Allender’s ideas or don’t find them helpful for their specific case that’s fine, and to be expected. There’s no one size fits all for helping people deal with a history of abuse. But if people haven’t even read Allender at all or decided it would be too hurtful to read about sexual abuse then choosing to find fault with his ideas or personal character is a dogpile that isn’t even based on an attempt to understand what he has written.
Now in The Wounded Heart Allender explains 1) what constitutes abuse at a variety of levels; 2) discusses what the initial response tends to be to the initial abuse and 3) then discusses how abuse victims carry those adaptive methods into other relational settings. If Allender’s case is not considered in the order he presents it in the book as a whole it misrepresents the very nature of his work.
Again, it’s not like everyone has to agree with or like Allender’s approach but dogpiling on an author whose work you haven’t read is shameful. Now if Oasis and I both read the same book cover to cover and came to different conclusions about the most basic nature of Allender’s work we can have a conversation about that. But if you haven’t read his work to begin with resist the temptation to impugn the character and writing of someone whose person you don’t take seriously enough to even read to begin with. Surely Wartburg participants can do better than that.
Oasis is more than welcome to suggest useful alternatives to Allender, obviously. I’ve met several victims of sexual abuse who found Allender’s work immensely helpful but, again, helping people can’t be a one-size-fits-all endeavor.
@ Anon 1: Thanks, that really is another way of looking at it.
@ Jeannette Altes: He uses the example of a five-year-old. And I agree with you about there being no good to be found in a child being molested. The good was already in existence and is that which the evil destroyed. I have had enough of people leaning on the knife in my heart and calling evil good. I cannot take it anymore.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
I had the book.
I read the book, have excellent vision and am capable of understanding plain English. That was a direct quote from the book. Just one of many ignorant and damaging statements within. It’s worth noting that Dan is a coward and often contradicts himself throughout the book, so as not to offend.
I destroyed the book…and Oasis is not the only person on this planet who hates the book and/or did the same.
Perhaps you should read the book again? You can read much of it online.
Bye, blog.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Thank you for saying it WTH.
Yeah, unfortunately this is sounding a lot like gaslighting. I’m done with this one, too.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Can you shed light on that statement Oasis quoted?
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Many Christians look at sin so strangely!
To say that distrust after trauma is a sin disallows the healthy learning that comes with experience. When we’ve been hurt again and again, it is important not to trust. We would be fools to do so, and in fact, people who go on trusting are bound to repeat some version of the original trauma.
Of course it is also unhealthy to stay closed down for decades because humans need others. So eventually, we must set aside our legitimate fear just enough to dare again, and discover that there are those who are trustworthy and loving.
The traumatized are not bearing their own sins. They are bearing the sins done to them. If we find an abused dog, we don’t call it a sinner because it cowers and keeps to dark corners. We invite it out with affection and patience and reassuring safety. It can take a long time.
Dissociation and distrust is the *product* of sin, not sin itself.
The inability to parse the difference is what is so dangerous in Allender’s teaching, IMO.
Of course some never find the courage to try again (for various reasons some of which are personally sinful but not all) and others use their pain to manipulate others. But not the majority, and certainly never at first.
And Allender has NO understanding of dissociation. The info is out there; that he doesn’t take account of it is unprofessional to the point of malpractice.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Look, you can boldly declare that a big-enough good God allows evil. But it is actually a terrible soul-grinding insistence and at bottom, an incomprehensibility. If you’ve been severely/chronically abused, the only way to get through and maintain a belief in the non-apparent good God is to doggedly insist that God will someday administer justice and also will somehow use the horrible lessons we were forced to learn in ways that will be useful for us and others. And that usefulness must be for something He/She has in mind for heaven, because down here, no amount of “ministering to the abused from personal experience” or “new perspectives on evil” can make up for, or turn “good” that which I experienced as a child.
People have no idea the quality and depth of faith required to maintain that good will triumph, for those who spend their formative years in hell.
The platitudes and the close-to-shrugging attitude in Allender’s book regarding such a terrible conundrum was unpalatable to me. Some of his stuff is good, but it is never worth having garbage poured into the gaping wounds of a traumatized self, to track down the worthwhile nuggets. Thank God that lovely, careful and solid material is written other places! It is downright pathetic that it only resides outside the institutional church.
I found Judith Herman’s book, “Trauma and Recovery” to be very useful.
@ Patrice:
I will also add that it is NOT the institutional church’s responsibility to do this work. That their work is so awful makes that apparent. Theology is not the queen of human study out of which all else flows.
I am sad that the institutional church doesn’t value/recognize the work done by those who are believers but properly practice outside the church doors.
And it is hard to know who they are. No one in the church remarks them so they have no presence.
Plus they don’t go around touting their faith for two reasons: 1. It is not the job of a psychologist to push religion on people. It is their job to compassionately help them sort out what is getting in the way of living healthily. Clients are sent to a priest/pastor/imam when that part of their health comes up for discussion. 2. They work with whoever is in need, as is proper for any believer, and do not want the well-known vicissitudes of US Christianity to prevent them from getting the help they need.
Pete Walker is another fine therapist and he has a presence online. He is a Christian but I have no idea if he is Christian enough or the right kind of Christian for the instituational church.
http://www.pete-walker.com/
Oasis, you’re not allowing for even the possibility that some people have benefited from Allender’s work. You’re declaring Allender to be a coward who contradicts himself. You may not realize that you can come across like a gaslighter yourself.
lemonaidfizz, two people sincerely disagreeing about the writings of a person doesn’t have to be gaslighting. If we don’t agree I’m not saying you’re a bad person for disliking Allender’s work. It’s unfortunate that you’d so quickly decide what I’ve written is gaslighting. It closes off discussion of problems in Allender’s ideas in advance.
Patrice, Thanks for the additional posts. They help clarify where you find Allender harmful and helpful. On a short time frame presently. I’ve seen Allender’s work attacked enough that though I and others have found some of his work helpful it’d be good to know what other options are out there.
One last bit. The most amazing thing about a well-practicing Christian therapist is that (s)he knows how immensely valuable humans are to God particularly when people come into the office flooded with shame and damage. Compassion and wonder are at the center of his/her job.
The process of coming to terms with wrongs done, damage from those wrongs, ways that we get in the way of ourselves because of it, the ways we pay it forward—all of that is, on its own, a testament to God, beginning to end, for those with the eyes to see. Whether or not clients accept the therapist’s faith, they will become healthier and learn to thrive because (s)he continually presents fundamental truths re humans in this world. Because all truth is God’s truth, right?
Ok, I’m done. I am embarrassed for the several comments in a row but I think it is important that we all be clear why some people are so hurt by a book that is not nouthetic but only half-removed from it, that they disappear. I hope they will return to read my comments, and find solace.
Has anyone seen this new post over at The Gospel Coalition?
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/07/15/predators-in-the-pew-protecting-against-child-abuse-in-your-church/
singleman wrote:
Good stuff, except nothing in there about contacting authorities.
@ Jeff S:
Except to say that it’s bad when churches don’t involve the authorities. I just wish there had been a little more emphasis on how and when to involve the authorities.
Patrice wrote:
Yes, yes, yes. and nothing worse than to be told that what they thought of as good is actually sin and visa versa. That is why the determinist God paradigm is so damning to victims of abuse. No way around it.
@ Jeff S:
Good point. Still, it’s remarkable that somebody serving under Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church wrote that post. Maybe they’re finally waking up.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
You are starting with a premise that man has no volition and no free will. You are giving her only the Reformed choices.TedS. wrote:
sorry quoting all messed up~!
@ singleman:
Do you think their hearts have changed even after all the Mahaney support or is this an article just to try and make them look better?
Since they have never admitted they were wrong about Mahaney their “gestures” mean little to me. I hope folks don’t fall for it. They are not “teachers” or pastors to follow. And those who disagreed with the statement should have put out a statement of their own. Where ARE the real men these days? Seems there are only cowards in that group.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Benefit how based upon his premise?
Like Grace Driscoll? Is that a model of health for victims. :o)
@ Patrice:
Good comment, Patrice. I hope those who disappear will find healing and know that some here are praying for them.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
But it IS about Calvinism. Is Satan roaming the earth or not? Is God actively directing every molecule or not? Yep, it always comes down to determinism or not.
Because trying to get a victim of abuse to admit that God allowed the evil against her is so cruel I am having a hard time not being very insulting to you. This is just another reason I despise Calvinism/Reformed thinking. It is more important to defend the system than care about people!
@ Jeff S:
Have you figured out why so many churches, along with TGC, seem to avoid telling people to contact the authorities if they suspect child abuse in any form? I just can’t get past this. Why do pastors/elders want to try to determine the validity of child abuse themselves? Why do they think they are more qualified than a CPS employee? I see no reasoning why they should want to control a child abuse investigation when they are not trained to investigate an accusation of this kind. In fact, they could totally screw up an investigation with their interference and questioning. (Head banging.)
@ singleman:
This is a good post as far as it goes EXCEPT for this poison pill
In other words, resisting mandatory membership means putting your children at risk. And And this goes right back to the “Trust the insider, beware the stranger” cultural norm that has created the situation where children are at risk and outside helps (counselors, law enforcement, and medical professionals) are avoided.
Also, ignores the known reality that pedophiles groom adults and communities as zealously as they groom children. Their method is to be the ultimate insider. They will, therefore, jump the higher hurdle to gain more trust and credibility.
Despicable to use hurting children and families to promote the “membership” agenda.
Jeff S wrote:
One of several generally good “balancing” articles from 9 Marks since the quiet removal of Mahaney statement by T4G. I would wonder about Reju’s point 3:
“3: Emphasize membership.
A big front door to your church is obvious to sexual offenders. Membership is a self-conscious commitment to the congregation that allows the church to define who is “in” and who is “out.” No membership process (or a minimal process) means people too easily flow in and out of the congregation without any clear definition of who is the church. Think for a moment. Where do you think a sexual offender is going to go—a church with a ten-week membership class plus an interview, or a church where you can join right away without any questions? The lower the membership hurdle, the more likely they will jump over it.”
My understanding is that SGM emphasizes membership. How has that helped THEM protect predators…er…uh… children?
@ Anon 1:
Oh… I’d guess it’s window-dressing mostly.
@ singleman:
From “Predators in the Pew: Protecting Against Child Abuse in Your Church”:
I don’t think churches are all that desperate for volunteers. They say they are, but when a woman, especially an unmarried one, steps up to volunteer, they almost always try to shoe horn her into the kiddie nursery.
That seems to be one of the few roles most churches make available to women, especially the singles.
I’ve read of Christian female lawyers and CEOs offering their services free to churches, and churches trying to make them work as secretaries or in the nursery.
You also have Christians over the age of 30 who would volunteer, but most churches these days are only interested in making their churches appealing to teens and 20 somethings, so they water down sermons and ignore older people, which causes a lot of older believers to leave.
I do think churches need to stop being so naive about people, but, at the same time, older single (especially never married) men already contend with some harmful stereotypes, as we older never married ladies do as well, one of them being older guys are either 1. child molesters or 2. are homosexual.
Pages like that sort of encourage Christians to view each and every unmarried man as suspect. You should keep your eyes open, but not assume every unmarried man preys on kids.
The page does say,
But the example the author used in opening his essay seemed to be of an unmarried man (“Jimmy” – no mention was made of Jimmy’s wife).
@ Phoenix:
I completely agree. The smart abusers will go straight into membership and, if they can, into leadership where they are most hidden from inquisitive eyes. The emphasis is on the evil “out there”, the wicked “other”. Their answer: stronger/higher walls via membership rolls lol
Plus they need a clear format for what to do when abuse is discovered. People go into shock and emergency when it is revealed. That is the time for step-by-step procedures. Especially because it immediately creates a sticky wicket of church politics and relationship. That lack is another sign they’ve not yet grabbed onto the reality.
It’s a start. I have no confidence.
Jeff S wrote:
“Predators in the Pew: Protecting Against Child Abuse in Your Church”
I assume the first mention of “authorities” would mean the police, since it is in contrast to the mention of “church authorities” later in the sentence.
Under #7, it says, “Do you understand the regulations for reporting abuse?”
I would assume there that he means reporting abuse to secular officials, not within church channels.
Whoever wrote this is emphasizing getting everyone to be a member as a way to cut down on molesting:
“3: Emphasize membership.”
I don’t know if I will ever step foot in a church again or not.
If I do, after having been burned by Christians in the past, and after seeing all the church abuse stories on this blog and others, I am not the least bit inclined to become a formal member of a church by signing some paperwork.
I hope these kinds of people do not assume that reluctance to sign some membership paper work equates to being a child molester for pete’s sake.
Under that point, he wrote:
Is he serious? I am by no means a child molester, but there is no way I’d go through a “ten week course” and an interview just to join a church. 😆
I understand wanting to put measures in place to protect kids, but if you’re an Average Jane like me walking in and thinking about attending a church weekly, those kind of requirements seem a little over the top.
You can do a background check on me if you want, but ten wk. courses and an interview? No, I think I’ll look around at other churches. 🙄
Under point 10. Tell your children conflict is okay, it’s okay to have boundaries, which means, it’s okay to say NO to anyone and everyone, even adults. Stop telling kids that having boundaries, limits, and disagreeing with people is unChristian, wrong, or mean.
My Mom raised me to be a complete doormat, which left me wide open to be molested (thankfully I never was), and to being targeted over my life time by egotists, users, and mean people.
I’ve been bullied and harassed by kids in school, profs in college, boyfriends who took advantage of my nice doormat nature and bosses as an adult.
If you don’t want your child walking around with a bull’s-eye on his/her chest, (and believe me, bullies and abusers can read instantly which kids are easier to control and push around than others), teach your kids that self defense is fine – things like saying no, telling someone to get lost and kiss off, even getting physical (hitting back). If you teach your kids to be submissive, sweet little things that never speak back to people, you are asking them to be molested or bullied.
I posted this response: http://goo.gl/UzTe5 a while ago and since then another comment has been approved. I think they deleted mine because I cannot see evidence of my comment at all, so it looks like I shall be giving it a wider audience in Twitterville. I might give them another hour in case they called a meeting to discuss my comment: “should we or should we not post JA’s comment?”
Phoenix wrote:
All of the child molesters who were identified at the church I used to attend were not only members, they were highly involved members.
Concerning the comments in this thread about Reformed Theology/Calvinism playing a role in how churches treat victims.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think IFBs (Indpendent Fundamentalist Baptists) are Calvinists – don’t most of them despise Calvinism?
I don’t think IFBs would identify as Arminian either(?), but they can foster abuse in their churches and among families. It’s a pattern with IFBism (there are blogs that cover abuse among IFBers).
Some IFBs also hide abuse by their members and preachers, and/or require victims to apologize to their abusers.
IFB churches appear to emphasize legalism and man-made rules above grace (if grace and mercy are even mentioned among them), and they are exceedingly gender complementarian, to the point women and girls are treated lower than animals. That appears to be why they treat victims as they do.
@ Daisy:
Daisy – you raise a good point. SGM gets a lot of talk here and they are New Calvinist, but we cannot forget Calvary Chapel churches which are Arminian. Calvarychapelabuse.com has over 3 years of abuse stories documented by personal accounts among their franchise of churches (I’ve heard Chuck Smith say 2,000 churches).
@ Daisy:
I have a moderated comment about point 3 above your first one, as well. Then there’s this from the article:
“If a sexual offender arrived in the building, would your staff and volunteers know what to do? If a child were abused in your children’s ministry, do you know how you would treat the offender?”
Seems naive to imagine an offender is just going to “arrive” in the building and someone would recognize him as one. And the focus on the church building and the official children’s ministry misses the reality — much abuse is perpetrated in people’s homes by babysitters, family friends, care-group members, ugly step-fathers etc.
In comments, link to podcast from CCEF which is pretty good (so far, listening).
http://www.ccef.org/special-edition-how-church-leaders-should-respond-sexual-abuse-0
Daisy wrote:
I have often thought about opening a storefront church with “Tradition” services for older now, unchurched people in our area….I wonder if it would work?
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Ky. church wants pastor gone after wife’s column
A newspaper column lampooning Southern Baptists, calling the group “the crazy old paranoid uncle of evangelical Christians,” is causing quite a stir in a Kentucky city and put a pastor’s job in jeopardy.
The column was written by Angela Thomas, the wife of Bill Thomas, an assistant pastor at the First Baptist Church in Madisonville. Her column was done in response to the Southern Baptist Convention’s opposition to a new Boy Scouts of America policy that welcomes gay members.
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read/category/Top%20News/article/ap-ky_church_wants_pastor_gone_after_wifes-ap
I’m glad that some of you brought up the The Wounded Heart book again. I didn’t have time to research it when we discussed nouthetic counselling a little while ago. I have just dug into my home library to see if I still have the book and it’s companion workbook. I can tell by my bookmark that I made it halfway through the book and have only flipped through the workbook. I now remember that I had a general uneasiness about it and that I had tried several times to make it through it, and almost gave it out to people who needed help in this area, glad I did not now. I have just read through the Preface of the workbook and already see statements of Allender’s that I do not agree with and I now recognize the inconsistencies of his own thoughts. He seems to say that he understands how his theology can make an abuse victim feel like God is an abuser himself. I know that that is how I used to think of God, but then I learned that my theology was off, not my wounded heart. I did not remember that I had even heard about this author/pyschologist until recently. I was wanting to get involved in a human trafficking awareness program that he was speaking at here and looked him up on youtube to see who you all were talking about. I thought that he sounds like someone that you have to really really pay attention to what he is saying because his mannerisms seem a bit hypnotic. In any of you have any more specifics places in the book that you don’t agree with, I would like to know. I keep many books in my library with lots of sticky notes and markings in them where I agree and disagree. Thanks
Oasis wrote:
Sounds similar to a book I read by Ed Welch.
Many of these biblical counseling/ nouthetic counseling guys merely blame the victim (12 step programs also get into this blame the victim stuff, too).
You will be told you are a sinner, your sin brought upon whatever issues you are under going – which may not actually be true.
Even if it were, it’s ridiculous to tell a Christian “you are a sinner.” They already know that.
It’s like saying, “water is wet,” or “The pope is Roman Catholic.” Telling someone something they already know doesn’t help the person deal with their problem.
lemonaidfizz wrote:
A lot of preachers do the same thing with anxiety. If you are a Christian who has anxiety and/or panic attacks, some preachers will say this is a sin, as it is supposedly a sign you are not trusting God. 🙄
Anon 1 wrote:
Wenatchee was insensitive, not good for Oasis, but I’m not sure he was proposing a determinist god. I don’t know him (male, right?) but he says that if God is good and big enough to be creator-god, then He obviously is letting evil happen. I mean, that is happening and He/She isn’t stopping it. How do you see God’s relationship to evil? It’s an awful conundrum for theists. It’s a painful struggle for the abused.
Which doesn’t necessarily mean that he thinks God has his hands in evil or is directing it. Or that he is in a constant rage and is paying us back. Or that God lets it happen because he thinks it’s good for us, or that He allows it so as to bring greater glory to Him.
But yes, Allender comes from my background and it is via the van Til strand of Reformational thought which takes elements of a determinist God. It’s a strand he revived, which has appeared in many versions, with varying flavors, throughout the church.
It’s not the only Reformed strand, either, thank goodness. For eg, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen wrote “Gender and Grace”, also from the Reformed perspective, and it’s lovely.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
I’ve not read the Allender book specifically, but I have read similar ones, by Christian and Non-Christian authors.
There is, IMO, a very fine line there.
As I’ve said before, regarding 12 step programs (such as AA), teaching people about personal accountability for their choices is fine, but sometimes, these 12 step/ biblical counseling/ other counselors do veer a little into the “blame the victim” territory for my comfort.
I read a book by a Non-Christian author, a counselor, whose book was savaged by several readers on a book review site, but I ordered the book and read it anyway.
The reviewers accused the author of blaming the victim, though she specifically says in the book that she is not doing so.
The author only tries to get women who find themselves repeatedly in abusive or bad relationships to realize how their choices in adult life are leading them there, and to change how they make choices, so they end up with non-abusive, caring partners.
-Which to me was helpful, fair lessons, but some readers interpreted the author on those issues as dabbling in “blame the victim.”
But I don’t think she was. She was trying to help women avoid any future abusive relationships, which meant training women to recognize why they kept attracting mean guys and users.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Children are sexually abused; that is a fact. God is allowing it to happen – because it has happened, and it continues to happen. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning totally.
TedS. wrote:
Oh gosh, you will get hammered even if you did read the book in question.
On an older thread, I described my experience from reading a book by Ed Welch, which was a “blame the victim,” insensitive type work (despite Welch’s claims of sympathy towards the wounded sprinkled in chapters), where-upon two or three Welch fans showed up in the thread to indignantly say, “Why I never! Welch is the most tender hearted man to ever walk the planet, how dare you say otherwise” sort of posts.
@ Victorious:
I am right wing politically and have been a social conservative for years – but – I have really been turned off lately with the inordinate amount of attention conservative Christians (this means Southern Baptists too) pay to stuff such as homosexual marriage.
I’ve never been on board with Christian legalism, such as banning the Easter Bunny or Santa, which that page says that lady’s satire mentions.
I suppose if you’re a Christian, wanting to live a clean lifestyle to a point is fine, but some, IMO, take it to extremes.
Daisy wrote:
Yeah, I corrected my original statement with a second comment. I do think it was under-emphasized, though.
Phoenix wrote:
I think it is unfair to assume that point 3 is promoting a membership agenda. The author might truly believe that membership is a means of protecting children. And I agree. I don’t have a “membership agenda”, but I think having people who are going to work with children go through the membership process can help (it’s not the be all end all). At my current church they would not let me work with children until I was a) on the “road to membership”, which means I’d started going through interviews and talking to pastors, and b) had a background check. These seem to be good things to put in place.
Jeff S wrote:
Funny. I have never been interested in children, never at ease around them (even as a child myself), but any church I have ever stepped foot in assume all women are hyper maternal and want to work with babies/ kids.
Churches will practically stick a baby of some other family in your arms the first five seconds you step in the door (if you are a woman).
@ Janey:
Janey, the same is true of all the perps in the SGM lawsuit. It is also true of several other perps that I know by name in the stories of other SGM victims that were not part of the lawsuit. Two of these names are the ones redacted from the third amended complaint.
Janey, wasn’t Deepak Reju who wrote this post one of the ones who posted about making former members lives miserable? Or do I have the name wrong? I couldn’t find your comment.
@ Patrice: Patrice, thanks so much for both the rec and the clarification – it *is* a difficult issue for theists, you’re right.
People from many faiths have been wrestling with it since forever, I think. (me, too.)
Jeff S wrote:
You know, I agree with that, as well, insofar as those who are working with children should be thoroughly vetted. But that isn’t what Deepak said. He said “Membership is a self-conscious commitment to the congregation that allows the church to define who is “in” and who is “out.” ” Those words reveal his agenda.
Phoenix wrote:
Fair enough.
At my current church I was explicitly told I could participate on the worship team or any area of ministry without joining the church because they didn’t want me to join for the wrong reasons. But working with Children was an exception to that.
Daisy wrote:
There are some churches where single fathers would be all but excluded from working in children’s ministry. At my previous church I was never asked. At my current church they say they need anyone and everyone (who has undergone a background check and is interested in joining the church). As I’ve mentioned before, my pastor took a week off preaching to work in my son’s class. They really see it as a responsibility for the entire body, not just women. I do know some fathers who refuse to do it, though.
Phoenix wrote:
It was Jonathan Leeman. He is an elder at Capital Hill Baptist Church. He writes a post on making life miserable for former church members – http://www.9marks.org/blog/churches-cooperating-discipline
I found Janey’s post
So Deepak Reju is indeed Mr. Membership and (along with some good counsel that can be found in other places) he is playing the fear, exclusion, and control cards here.
Thank you, Janey. I found the post where you linked to three statements by Dever associates. You’re right about the one I specified but two of the statements were from Deepak. (I quoted your entire comment and that comment of mine is in moderation.)
Wenatchee. I wanted to step out of the shadows and warn people about the book, because it’s dangerous. Dan does contradict himself throughout the book, as he talks about children and dissociation. If you don’t see what I see, then you don’t. You may have no problem with the book, but I will continue to claim that it’s full of different kinds of nonsense because that’s what I found inside. My experience with the book was harmful, and is what compelled me to comment, even after deciding not to anymore. Just wanted to help prevent further harm. That is all… I was stupid to comment. And now I am gone!
P.S. Not even close to being a gaslighter…no idea where that came from.
Patrice, thank you for explaining what you did. I was so happy to read what you wrote…and Anon 1, thank you for your kind words and for praying!
You uttered Blasphemy against The Dan and The Faith must be Defended?
Hester wrote:
Me too!
formerly anonymous wrote:
I mean, I’m not 23 but I hate that stuff.
Jeff S wrote:
I am a woman who’s not interested in working around kids, but everyone assumes all women are. Churches, too. That’s a problem. I’m an introvert/loner/ tech head. But churches want me back in the nursery or kitchen baking muffins. My skills and interests are not in any of those areas and are being wasted.
lemonaidfizz wrote:
Actually, I had a similar experience. I can’t recall one word of what’s in that book now but I do remember I did not like it at all. I read it once and then tried again at a later time and just could not get how it was any good. I gave it two tries because the person who recommended it was someone I would have expected a good recommendation from. That was not the case with the Allender book.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Wow. Okay – when I say that God is not involved with a child being molested, I am not speak about him being disinterested. I mean he does not condone nor initiate for some greater purpose. He is not involved in that act of evil. I will stand by that statement. This is something that I have already wrestled with (and may have to wrestle with again later) but it is not a belief that I came to lightly.
You seem to be stating that I must either believe that God ordains and orchestrates evil or I must believe there is no god. Why are these my only choices?
Did God creating us with free will mean that evil was possible? Absolutely. It was possible when he created the angels. In fact, it was already present when he created us. And of course he was aware of it.
But here are the choices as I see them: 1) He created and ordained everything that happens. All the abuse and evil things that happen were orchestrated by him for some higher purpose we don’t understand; 2) There is no God; 3) He created us and his love demanded we have free will. If he prevented every free will choice to commit evil acts, there would be no real free will left. That does not mean he condones or approves or ordained or orchestrated those evil acts. If it did, then he would be extremely sadistic as it states repeatedly in the Bible that he hates these things. He would be a psychological mess if he hated the things he expressly ordained and orchestrated….
And for me, this is my position. No one has to agree with it, but don’t tell me that it is not a legitimate position. If the god who created all things ordained and orchestrated the things that were done to me as a child, there is no way I could worship him. To even try would require dissociation….would require being dishoest with myself. So, if the only choices were to worship that god or no god, honesty with self would require me to worship no god.
Thankfully, I believe there is another option. However, like all of us, my faith is a work in progress. I do not know everything about God. And I’m glad. If I did, he would be a pretty puny god. 🙂
As to the book, I have it lying here next to me as I type. I have leafed through it and am reminded why I did not read it. I agree with Oasis. It is dangerous. I read through some of the material toward the back where he explains what he means by repentance. I understand where he’s coming from. But I still believe that approach is dangerous, especially to those whose wounds are still in progress or very fresh. The statements he makes on this have the potential to crush the flickering spirit of hope that drive a victim to try and discover healing and truth.
I will share that for the past 6 years, during my (ongoing) healing process, one of my mantras has been, “I want the Truth, no matter how much it hurts.” And Allender is right on that point – it is a painful,chaotic process. (Seeking that truth is what caused me to wrestle with the concept of a determinist god. And those were some dark months/years.) But the religious/spiritual abuse that many suffer in conjunction with the sexual abuse make them extremely vulnerable to this teaching causing more damage rather than helping.
I don’t doubt that some have found solace and help in this book. I won’t debate whether they have. But I still believe the book is dangerous and suspect that they were helped in spite of some of the things stated in the book.
@ Patrice:
Patrice, thanks for this and subsequent comments. You said some of what I wanted to say, but with more grace and eloquence. 🙂
K.D. wrote:
It would for me! But I’m not technically “unchurched.” What it would communicate to me is that believers who still love the traditional way of doing church have not been kicked to the curb by God, only by other churches. (I’m in my mid 40’s BTW.) And it would tell me someone else not only thinks the same way I do about it but is also resourced enough to do something about it. I would want to support that.
In short, I like the idea.
I believe the “cool dude” pastor approach to church may bump into a roadblock in the near future. The baby boomers are reaching retirement age and there are fewer young people to replace them.
@ Jeannette Altes:
That’s a grand explanation. Woot!! I concur and will elaborate for symphonic effect.
There is something that many Calvinists don’t understand about the more thoughtful of their free-wheeling siblings. They think that free will undermines sovereignty, making God lesser because He/She doesn’t maintain specific control and because He hasn’t planned it down to the feather falling from a sparrow. They believe they are acknowledging God’s proper and greatest sovereignty by insisting that He is always in specific control and that all is ordained by Him.
But God is even bigger than Calvinists’ ideas of him. He/She is so astonishingly grand that He/She was able to make creatures with free will. And He is so wise that He doesn’t feel the need to keep them all under His/Her thumb in order to bring Him constant glory, but instead delights in “seeing what happens”. He is so sure of Himself, so essentially confident, that He is not threatened by things going awry or taking dives in unexpected directions.
He is like one of those rare teachers who offers information to students and then lets them at it—pushing them to make something of it for themselves—delighted when something other/more happens that is beyond the strictures of the subject at hand.
That is our God. In the end, He/She will make it right and nothing, absolutely nothing, will go to waste. But meanwhile, He/She is crying/laughing and slaving away to support these goofy little creatures, always coaxing them back to the best option, which is His view of things, all the good and pure and lovely. He/She counts the feathers falling from a sparrow because that is how much He/She loves every bit of what He made, not because He’s wants to keep it all under control down to the last penny.
I think that in a real way, we are still in the 6th day of creation and that when God finally rests on the Sabbath-to-come, we will finally be fully complete for the work He/she has in mind for us, which we do not yet know, but which requires that we understand/know evil and yet choose Him/Her. I think that was what Eden’s Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was about.
Amen and amen.
@ Patrice: Thanks so much for this! I have never sat down and tried to articulate these things in the way you just did, and am not sure I could.
😛 How amazing God is! I so look forward to knowing what’s up. I would do anything for Her/Him, if specifically asked, to promote His/Her grand schemes. And I know that He/She would never ever ask us to humiliate/demean ourselves for His/Her glory. @ numo:
Conversations expand quickly at TWW and now that I’ve got an actual day job it may be impossible to catch up with everything. But I can try.
Jeannette, I don’t take either Calvinists or Arminians who attempt to exonerate God from moral responsibility for evil in the cosmos seriously. My atheist friends have never soft-pedaled this objection to the very idea of any deity, that if any deity exists that deity has permitted the abuse of children and for them that’s no different from willing it to happen in terms of what happens to the child. Even Calvinists try to get around this one by appealing to prelapsarian free will. Patrice seems to have gotten what I was getting at, that the Calvinist and the Arminian can’t get God off the hook for knowing all things and creating all things yet permitting the abuse of children. That is, in fact, the heart of Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor. Ivan Karamazov says that a God who would establish heaven on the torture of one innocent child is still a monster even if that heaven needed to be built on free will being given to everyone. Of course that wasn’t the last word Dostoevsky had to say about the matter but Dostoevsky fans probably already know the rest.
I take as given a caveat that Allender’s book states it is for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It’s right there in the title. If you attempt to apply the book to any other demographic of abuse victim and, of course, it will range from useless to harmful. The book isn’t written for people who are currently dealing with an abusive relationship, have recently been abused, or are children. None of the above are the intended audience of the book to begin with. The criticisms presented about Allender’s approach as being unsuitable for recently abused people is a fair criticism but it is also fair to note that judging Allender’s work as wanting because it’s unsuitable for a demographic he wasn’t writing about or for to begin with should be borne in mind. The people I know who found the book helpful were adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It was very helpful for them but I don’t think any of them would say just anyone would benefit from the book, and I haven’t either.
Informed criticism of the book is great and seeing as it is decades old it will be bound to be out of date (particularly in light of so much research into the nexus of biology and socialization on orientation, for instance). I still think it’s worth saying that we should be cautious about condemning Allender’s work as dangerous for categories of abuse victims it was never designed to address to begin with. The friends and relatives I know who found the book helpful were exactly the demographic considered by Allender in his book, adult survivors of childhood abuse. It’s possible to appreciate that Allender’s book can be helpful in the very narrow range of abuse survivor he deals with. For children and those dealing with current or recent abuse Allender’s not the author to consult about anything.
And I do appreciate Patrice (wasn’t it?) mentioning other titles and authors.
Patrice wrote:
Good question and at the risk of being cited as a heretic here I will say I think we start in the wrong place. We always tend to look to God when the truth is we should look to adult humans responsibility for what happens on earth. And especially adult “Christian” humans. (for example, 1 Corin 5 tells us to clean up our own act before we dare judge the “outside”) God gets blamed for a lot.
I do not see God was a wimpy grandpa in the sky who cannot intervene. I look to Jesus to see what God is like. I see a God interacting with humans in the OT and a God who sent us an indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us. So when all this abuse goes on, where are the responsible adult humans who are given a choice in how they behave? Where are those adult Christian humans who are willing to lose position and earthly goods to protect the innocent?
Instead we see too many adult Christian humans who come up with complicated explanations for why victims are sinful or wrong in their response to human evil. It is uncanny! You know, Satan was defeated for those of us who believe but he still roams this earth and has quite a few doing his bidding for him here. And they also have a choice.
Our justice system is predicated on individual rights and individual responsibility. It is when we get in the church it becomes God’s responsibility.
I am weary of blaming God. God gave us dominion and some of His messengers he also gave free will turned on Him. As did the humans. I do not think He took away the free will with the fall. I think we see a picture of a long suffering, loving, merciful God interacting with his people and then becoming God in the flesh to defeat Satan’s hold on us and give victory over “original death” if we choose to repent and believe.
I know I probably did not explain that well at all but I hope we can at least focus on those who make excuses for evil, protect it, etc. I think that is pleasing to God instead of making the focus on why God did not intervene.
We believers must be about praying and doing. We are to be the kingdom now.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Fair enough. But just to be clear, I am an adult survivor of child sexual abuse. I am 50 years old. I still find the book to be dangerous to my own faith and spiritual equalibrium. But that’s just me. Just want to point out that I am the demohraphic intended….
As to the reference to The Grand Inquisitor, well….you are assuming that all here have read Dostoevsky. I, for one, have not. So the refernce was lost on me. You can make whatever assumption you care to from that. Not that I have anything against him, just haven’t read much of his work – so much to learn, so little time….
And I’m not sure Patrice agrees with you – it didn’t seem like it to me – but I’ll let her speak for herself on that. 😉
@ Jeannette Altes:
beautiful comment. Wise words.
Anon 1 wrote:
Hmm…this reminds mevof what my mother said a few years ago when I finally told her about the abuse: “What I want to know is where were the adults when this was going on?!” I still have trouble believing she actually said that with all seriousness…..
@ Patrice:
More beauty!
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Jeanette, interacting with victims of childhood abuse has caused me to really ramp up my interaction with my children with purpose. I want them to feel to tell me anything and it be natural progression for them without a knee jerk judgment. I want them to really trust me. And it has also given me many things to teach them that I might not have thought of had I not read your all’s comments. You all have also helped me be much more alert to the children around me and to really connect with them.
Some of you have no idea how much you are helping people by commenting here. I praise God for all of you and your courage here. I pray His blessings for you all.
@ Patrice:
Thanks for the counterpoint. 🙂 (I mean that musically, not debate-wise.)
http://www.zhoag.com/2013/07/15/paul-in-context/
Wow, great post by Zack Hoag. “Do No Harm”
@ Jeannette Altes:
Okay…I tried to read some of the book. In the first chapter, he sets the stage by stating that a victim’s enemy us not her abuser(s) or her feelings. It is her sin – which he then explains her enemy is her depravity. And that is as far as I can take reading for now….
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Oh, now I understand. It was my friend’s depravity that choked her and sent her to the hospital, not her husband. [sarcasm off]
Jeannette Altes wrote:
How is that thinking not like Nouthetic counseling? It simply takes the responsibility for evil off the person doing it! If the victim is “depraved” does that mean the abuser is super depraved? Are there degrees of depravity in that world?
@ Jeannette Altes:
Is this book written to Christians? If so, then I’m sick. But he wouldn’t be the first person to speak of the saints, friends, and siblings of Christ in such a way. Do these people not believe that we are new creatures in Christ Jesus, though we don’t always “feel” that way, especially when one has been abused?
😡
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Allender has been lambasted by those who adhere to traditional nouthetics. There are large elements in the church that kick&scream about any kind of movement and he has been in the crossfire. I am glad that he also has supporters. From looking at youtube, he’s doing fine. And his work is better than trad nouthetics. (And he’s better in vid than in Wounded Heart.) The problem for us, at the near end of nowhere regarding the US church is that he doesn’t go far enough away from nouthetics. He’s an in-between guy.
Until a psychologist re-constructs ideas of sin from the bottom up, the severely abused will be required to leave the church community for help that doesn’t also deepen some aspects of damage. Jeannette’s observation that she can only read Allender now is because she has developed some confidence/peace/healing in her understanding and can now go back to read stuff that takes a belt to what used to be open wounds.
I suspect Allender’s poor understanding of dissociative disorders are also due to wrong ideas about sin.
Of course, an awry sin doctrine emerges from ideas of God. So here we are. See next comment.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
You appear to think that free will doctrines are attempts to give God a pass. Yes, sometimes they are, but it’s not true for a fair few people here. In earlier comments, neither Jeannette nor I exonerated God from responsibility for the evil that happens. We simply have assigned God a much greater character and larger context than you allow. We have found a way to keep evil itself from the person or intentions of God, as far as the east is from the west, as He/She has done for us.
My “van Tillian” Calvinist friends carry a soupcon of scorn towards my grand ideas because they contain the imaginative, going beyond what is explained in the Bible. I have no problems with imagination, perhaps because I am an artist who has found that truth is far greater than logic, though logic is part of truth. I agree with Tolkien who wrote that the greatest faery tale of all is the story of Christ from which all other faery tales proceed. (“On Faery Tale” essay)
These friends of mine assume that those who adhere to free will doctrines are a tad stupid, can’t think logically with enough courage, or are sentimental. But I am smarter than most of these friends. I think it’s ridiculous that I need to state that, because intelligence is a small gift in the grand scheme of things. And I don’t see how I can be accused of lack of courage because I’ve endured hell and survived. lol. And surviving that erases any sentimentality that might have been in my character from the beginning.
You will find that people like us assign more power to the Holy Spirit, too.
Look, of all people who should be heard regarding sin/evil and the nature of God, it is people like us, who were sunk in evil for so long that we suffered permanent damage and yet have come out the other side still believing in a good God. Doctrine emerges from the lives of humans and the world God made, otherwise it’s just a set of interesting ideas with limited purpose.
Every person I’ve met who has been badly abused and yet maintains belief in a good God has a doctrinal stance similar to what Jeannette and I presented. But we are of little account. Not only are we set aside for beliefs of free-will, we are also set aside because of our damage: not quite in our right minds, too damaged to take the overall view, too fragile to take the bull by the horns. Thus, as ever was, the very people who have something to offer the church on some fundamental issues are shuttled into the leper colony. Ach!
Thanks for being willing to engage, Wenatchee.
@ Patrice:
Amen. If God gave us free will, then we have the blame for the consequences of our failures, not God. Evil is the effect of the choices humans make. (Natural phenomena, such as tornadoes, are not evil as they are not willful exploitation of others to their detriment.) I do not believe that God is to blame for human failure to love as commanded.
I think the point is regarding Calvinism/Arminianism is that neither one inherently gives God a pass. It’s a conundrum of Theism in general and neither “side” has a clear answer. But the Calvinists who wrote the WCF clearly stated that God is not the author of evil.
I don’t have answers to this myself, but I do trust God and believe that his is good. I believe he can and does use even the worst of circumstances and abuses for good, but I do not believe that he is the author of those circumstances. When a man rapes a child, that is his responsibility and he is the one who has done the evil, not God. And furthermore, God does not desire for people to be abused, nor does it bring him pleasure.
I may not know how it all works out, but I will say that my belief in a God who is good and does not abuse is stronger than my belief in any doctrine of Soteriology.
Jeff S wrote:
For me too. My ideas are held lightly because we don’t have enough info to draw conclusions. But I have met God in my heart and life, and know that, as WCF clearly states, God has no truck with evil.
But there are strands of WCF followers who have added to that open statement several shady ideas that have cascaded down to telling awful things to abused people.
They aren’t the only ones who do it. Versions of this harsh strand appear everywhere, both denominationally, in other faiths, and among atheists. It’s an issue within some human personalities, that they respond to the frightening and inexplicable conundrum of good/evil with harsh control.
An element in Calvinism happens to be the one presenting that strand right now in US Christian circles. Mistaken or not, I see it as part of my calling to dismantle this construction wherever I find it (and that included two rabid atheists among art faculty, who were causing students hurt and discouragement). 😎
(BTW, I don’t think Wenatchee is like this, not at all. I speak of the van Til/Westminster crowd.)
Dave A A wrote:
Absolutely. And I think the Sovereign Grace Ministries child sex abuse and coverup lawsuit highlights just that. The accused pedophile ring (at least 4 people) were all trusted teachers, volunteers, leaders, and/or youth workers who’d been at the church for years.
I appreciate the interaction, Patrice. My reservation about the free will argument is predicated on a few things, one of them is the mind-body conundrum. You may have read about the case of a man who had pedophilic impulses while he had a tumor in a certain part of his brain that went away when the tumor was treated, perhaps? Now obviously abuse is not exonerated in any way if the abuser has brain damage but it has come up as a question about the nature and extent of the freedom of the will. Then there’s the research into orientation in the last twenty to thirty years. I would venture to say we have freedom of choice but that complete freedom of will is not something that is quite as readily established.
I think the incarnation and Jesus embracing the cross must supercede systematic soteriologies. Nobody has established that God has to deal with everyone in precisely the same way. If God employs what would be called a Calvinist soteriology in one case and not in another God can do that just fine. I have identified as a Calvinist but I’m not the kind of Calvinist who assumes that my Eastern Orthodox, Arminian or Catholic associates are somehow not on the same team because they are alleged to deny double imputation.
I’m not exactly a big fan of Van Til. 🙂
Don’t have a ton of time just now but I wanted to thank Patrice for the conversation.
Sorry – slight tangent here. Actually, a quantum tunnel. I just wondered whether I’d get an Austrian flag on this post.
Yay!
Sorry, everyone. Serious contributions will resume later today.
@ Nick Bulbeck: 😉
No worries, mate!
I don’t recall the Bible ever telling us that church leaders need to develop a vision. As Dee and Deb have pointed out, our vision is to be the Great Commission and the faith of the age to come. Do we really need leaders to develop “visions” that are unique to their church? Much less use that vision as an excuse to run people over?
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Yeah it’s a seriously disturbing issue. We are not separate from our bodies and our bodies go awry. How much of what we do is just a product of our chemistry? Feelings of fated helplessness occur. It’s not surprising that some eventually believe there’s no just way to hold people responsible for anything, because biology.
This is, actually, the fundamental reason I decline Allender’s understanding of dissociative disorders, which are purely neurological responses to overwhelming stress. People do not get to vote on it. And if a person is subject to chronic trauma, eventually an internal switch breaks (don’t have better medical term, lol) so that whenever stress of _any_ sort occurs, that disabling neurological cascade kicks in.
Someone earlier in comments wrote of her years’ hard work to alter that response with some success. I salute her! My dissociative disorder has waned in intensity/frequency as time passes but even now, when facing an unexpected normal-level stress, my world immediately recedes into the distance, my body turns numb, dizziness takes over, and the spoken word become mere sounds. It is disconcerting when language, which we hear as meaning, is reduced to gobbledygook. 😯
A similar neural cascade causes flashbacks. They, too, wane in frequency and intensity after treatment and with time. But for eg, a nightmare can trigger one, jerking the recipient out of bed in the middle of the night in full-blown distress. Probably seen this in movies regarding vets. This still happens to me. Discouraging!
But yes, I agree with you, we need to take our physical vulnerabilities into account (which we are disinclined to do, being presumptuous creatures), be can’t base understanding of human nature on them. We don’t form a definition of humanity based on a schizophrenic, nor define God’s relationship to us by our brokenness. But it’s difficult to tease what goes where and we have a great deal more to learn about it. It’s fascinating!
I’ve enjoyed our interaction too.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
In a certain way, one could see van Til’s thought as a theological response to biological determinism. Van Til combined irrevocability and absolutely-wielded power into the person of God without letting up on humans’ responsibility while also insisting on utter incapabilty. The work of Skinner et al may have, in part, revived that ancient harsh theology in 1970s Christendom.
@ Bridget:
Yes, it was written to Christians.
dee wrote:
The RIAA’s running into the same problem. You can sell only so many remastered Beatles & Rolling Stones collections to the nursing home-and-Depends set.
@ Anon 1:
I somehow missed his comment earlier. Anon 1, thank you. Sometimes it’s had to know if people are being helped or annoyed. My upbringing votes for annoyed…. 🙄
If my talking about my experiences helps, then I am grateful and encouraged. 🙂
Holy. Moley. THANK YOU for this!!! It is so clarifying!!! Just left a “church plant” with just such a leader. He actually claimed I needed a “different seat” on the bus! I chose to jump off rather than allow him to continue to bully me and my family. This is so much more widespread than I EVER realized. It’s scary. Come, Lord Jesus, we NEED YOU!!!
Pingback: Serving two gods? | Stand Up for the Truth