“They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” Jeremiah 6:14 NIV
I would imagine many of you have read John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress or C S Lewis’s Pilgrim’s Regress. This week, I have become convinced that God led me (and my husband but I am talking about me here) on a pilgrimage of sorts after I left my former Baptist Church. Today I shall discuss the turmoil occurring at Chapel Hill Bible Church. Here is a chronological list of churches I experienced during my pilgrimage. So many of you have expressed difficulty in finding a decent church in your area. I want you to know that I get it.
- Providence Baptist church: I left due to what I perceived to be a mishandling of a large sex abuse scandal.
- Church of the Apostles Anglican Church: See #1 (pastors were friends) and a pedophile appeared to be omnipresent in the church.
- Chapel Hill Bible Church: I left due to a Calvinista takeover of the church
- Grace Church: Nice but a bit Bible Lite when we were there
- The Gathering: Loved the church but the distance from home was a bit overwhelming.
- Hope Community Church: Left before knowing of the pastor’s sexual relationship. We were there during the no membership phase
- Finally, after an exhaustive search, we found a home at a Lutheran Church close to our home.
Chapel Hill Bible Church: We loved the intellectual depth of the church but found it was changing when we returned.
Years ago, when we lived in Durham during my husband’s fellowship, we attended and were involved in this church. Even after we left for Dallas, we would follow the sermons, etc. When we returned to North Carolina, we chose to live in Raleigh and our kids wanted to be with their friends in church. After being hurt by two churches, we decided to return to CHBC.
When we had our elder interview, two elders, P. and W., warned us that the Bible church was not what we remembered. I got the feeling they were saying “Changes must be made.” This was an understatement. They wanted to hire Jay Thomas and brought him in for a Q+A. I submitted my question. “Are you a Calvinist?” My question was the only one not selected. I knew then that the church was hiring one of the New Calvinists. I didn’t vote for him. I was afraid he would be a strong authoritarian and a hardliner of the New Calvinist sort. I’d written about such folks prior to joining the church. I also knew I would eventually be targeted because of TWW.
In Thomas’s early sermons, he mentioned folks like Mark Driscoll and John Piper in a positive way. He quickly moved to change the Constitution and the Bylaws. I didn’t vote for the changes. These guys are so predictable. We mentioned our concerns to members but most people thought he was just a *run of the mill” Reformed type which wasn’t a problem. TWW readers would have picked this stuff up immediately.
He had all these glorious plans of groups meeting at taverns to discuss intellectual and theological subjects. However, when the time came, he would skedaddle into his office directly after church and appeared to be quite inaccessible. My husband mentioned that he rarely ever smiled and suggested he should try to do it more. I left without hearing about those very cool pub groups getting started. I’m thinking about starting one myself.
Shortly after he came to CHBC in 2011, he wrote the following post for The Gospel Coalition: So You Want to Be a Senior Pastor. I was surprised that he was giving advice on this matter just a few months after coming. He seemed pretty self-assured.
He then brought in his BFF, Eric McKiddie, from College Church in Wheaton to be a Pastor of the Gospel community or some such title. My husband named him “Mini-Mahaney” after he showed up in our Sunday school class to explain that pastors and members are different but they are equal in God’s eye. However, he held up his two hands and the pastor’s hand was noticeable higher than the member’s hand. I turned to my husband and said “We’re screwed.”
From this point on, we began to plan our exit. I discovered that the church had joined The Gospel Coalition without telling the members. I told an elder and he denied it until I showed him proof. Then they unjoined and rejoined. They have since joined 9Marks which is widely known for its authoritarian approach to ministry. I have written extensively about the problems in this group.
Jay appeared to promote Mark Driscoll early on. Driscoll imploded, accused of abuse. Jay promoted John Piper and his church. Bethlehem Baptist is imploding, accused of abuse. Jay wanted to hire someone specifically from Sovereign Grace. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace have imploded, accused of abuse.
The writing for the future of the church was on the wall and I knew many didn’t know it. However, I could not be a member of a church in which I suspected that authoritarianism and spiritual abuse would exhibit itself. We were put into a *shepherding* group without our permission, so we didn’t attend. The time came when Jay wanted to meet with us. We refused, saying we were leaving the church. He then sent us an email asking if we needed his help in finding another church. We politely declined and said we could handle it. We sadly left.
Why CHBC now?
Recently I was given information that is public knowledge. I still have friends at the church. I became concerned that my prediction of the typical Neo-Calvinist, 9Marks style of authoritarianism had reared its ugly head and was hurting good and decent members of the church.
Living in the light: Abuse and Pastor Eric McKiddie
I listened in shock as an elder and Pastor Thomas claimed that there was not any sexual or physical abuse. Did I misunderstand that the possibility of emotional abuse or a hostile work environment might not be seen as abuse by the church leaders? I have linked to a post on this matter at the end of my article. Also, why were they discussing abuse when the church was told that McKiddie resigned, ostensibly to pursue further education? Why was the church being told to be concerned for McKiddie’s wife and children during this time if he was simply pursuing education? Why was the church told to avoid *slander?* Why was the church being told to not discuss this with folks outside the church? Something wasn’t right.
Did Eric ever appear to threaten people? For example, Eric reportedly told a person who quit their job due to a hostile work environment, “If you speak well of us then we will speak well of you.” That seems rather hostile to me. If people reported what they believed to be an impossible work environment, were they told that it wasn’t so bad? Were they told to forgive and move on? Were they not believed? Apparently, there were reports of difficult behavior. Why was this seemingly being covered up?
Jesus told us that the church was to be a light on the hill.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
If CHBC strives to be a light on the hill, they cannot hide what is going on in the church. The light exposes those dark places. It will become known. I imagine that this blog post will soon be read by people who are trying to understand the truth. They will probably be told not to read this. (When this happens, I get a sudden spike of disobedient readers after the service.) I am now a conservative Lutheran. Luther taught that we are simultaneously saints and sinners. There is no hiding our sin when the light shines on us. We don’t get to tell people what they see when the light shines so we better be prepared to explain to others how we deal with that sin. That means we don’t hide our sins. We admit them and deal with them. We should repent and seek forgiveness from those who have been hurt by our actions.
It is next to impossible to hide the truth, especially when people are hurting. I have been writing posts on abuse since 2009 and I can attest to this fact. Hurting people will seek justice outside of the church if they think they are not being heard inside the church. The members were told not to slander McKiddie. I was confused. I thought he was getting his education. Yet, I believe that is not the truth. The very meeting was filled with allusions to abuse. I would imagine that this abuse happened to those who worked with him.
If one looks at the word slander in the Bible, one would find it means to lie in order to cause malicious harm to another. I wrote a post about this. When people tell the truth, they’re not slandering. In fact, if McKiddie hurt people, he will find that those he hurt will speak about it in order to understand what happened to them. If he was the source of that pain, then he is responsible if his children or wife get hurt. That responsibility does not rest on the victims who are truthtelling.
Church leaders should not try to silence those who have been hurt, especially if they have been hurt by leaders in the church. Silencing victims will always result in more pain being expressed. Also, those victims will seek solace from friends. These friends may become angry or concerned for their friends and speak to others. This is normal life. The church should be open about the pain that has occurred and should not spend its capital on hushing everyone up. Instead, they should eagerly seek help in dealing with this. We should actively love, protect and attempt to heal our fellow church members who have been hurt.
How did things presumably get so bad if Eric was a friend of Jay Thomas? Is it because Jay Thomas says he’s shy? Were the elders not paying attention?
Even if Eric had different oversight than Thomas, it would stand to reason that Jay would keep an eye on his buddy. Surely, if things got so bad that McKiddie had to *seek further education,* Thomas would have known about what was happening? What did he do when people attempted to speak with him? Did he hide in his office? Thomas claims he is shy. If so, he should have taken a job in which he didn’t have to interact as the pastor of a midsize church.
He also seemed concerned about his ability to study for his sermon for “30 hours a week” now that Eric is gone.I have heard this “30 hour a week” thing going around with the TGC dudes. There is a belief by some that the sermon is the most important time of the week. CJ Mahaney used to say that and the dudes would follow his words until the sex abuse scandal went viral. One well-known person said he didn’t do hospital visits or funerals because he needed to work on his sermon. This *rule* is perfect for someone who doesn’t do well interacting with church members or doesn’t feel like keeping tabs on what is actually happening in the church. I would suggest a shorter sermon while he focuses on serious issues affecting CHBC.
Were the elders ever informed about such issues as a hostile work environment or abusive interactions? Maybe someone could comment on this. Did they prioritize the reports of the leaders over the reports of the lower-level staff and church members? If they ignored these reports, new elders need to be appointed.
Are there similar concerns with Jay Thomas?
Some members know (or have been informed) that Jay did not notice that things were not going well with Eric. Is it possible that Jay supported Eric? I would imagine that Eric’s departure has not solved all of the problems. Is this a systemic problem? If there are similar problems continuing to be reported then the buck must stop with the senior pastor.
Some have been concerned about the minimization of reported problems. Others have reportedly been told to go back and report to the very person who abused his power in the workplace. That is adding further abuse onto the backs of the already suffering victims.
Let’s take a look at what he wrote in his post for The Gospel Coalition in 2011. Has he made sure that every meeting went well? Could the victims get a meeting with him? Did he even have meetings with low-level employees? he apparently believes he has a certain aura that intimidates people. If so, he should be working hard to get rid of the aura.
Here is a suggestion: Go out of your way to invite personal interaction, especially if people are struggling with your leadership. Invite people to talk with you. In my experience, everyone who has taken me up on that offer has had a genuine heart and wants to see a way forward. Every meeting ended well.
It is lonely at the top, they say. This can be true, at least at first. Your new role is going to put you within a frame that can keep colleagues, lay leaders, and congregants at arm’s length. There is often reticence to take up your time. Senior pastors intimidate people. There is an aura around the role that can kill intimacy and the ability to make friends. Also, you will feel tempted to keep your cards close to your vest and to even assume a defensive posture due to the horror stories you have heard from senior pastors who saw vulnerability create problems.
Until all of the pain is revealed and dealt with, there will continue to be turmoil. Allow the light to shine. Be willing to be open with groups like GRACE who will seek out the truth in your church family. Learn about other forms of abuse. Study up on the problem with power differentials in the workplace.
Finally, hostile environments within the church actually stem from spiritual abuse. Here is an excellent article. What Does Spiritual Abuse Within a Church Look Like? Such abuse is no different than other forms of abuse.
Spiritual abuse is the same as spousal, child, elder, or workplace abuse — it can be physical, sexual, or emotional. Because of the context, however, the impact is particularly widespread.
Jay Thomas is undoubtedly aware of Sam Allberry who is quoted on the subject of bullying.
Sam Allberry addressed the frequency with which pastors are fired from their positions for bullying. While “domineering pastors aren’t a new problem, they do seem to be more and more evident in the Western church today.”
He points out that the problem is as old as the Christian church, evidenced by remarks in 1 Peter 5:3 exhorting leaders to serve God without “domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.”
One would hardly expect pastors to be bullies since their example is Christ himself. Christ, though direct and honest about sin, was merciful, kind, and gentle, particularly to the most vulnerable members of society.
How does this affect those who work or serve under spiritual bullies?
Those under their care are apt to be more trusting because of the expectation that pastors will emulate Christ. Yet, like any domineering parent, spouse, or boss these leaders manipulate, censor, silence, ignore, verbally berate, physically/sexually assault, and/or humiliate their victims.
Church leaders who are also abusers will slowly escalate their behavior, while victims become confused, second-guessing their personal discernment. Victims might “know” in one sense that something is wrong, yet feel they must be mistaken because of their abuser’s position, or they believe they will not be heard so why speak up?
There are many excellent references in that post. It is my hope and prayer that those in charge will listen well. I loved CHBC. However, I saw this problem coming years ago and got out. Overemphasis on the authority of the pastor often kills the fruits of the spirit. Don’t let it.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
As Picard would say, “Make it so.”
“They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” Jeremiah 6:14 NIV
Blessings to all.
Dee’s seven church tour reminds me of Jesus’ exhortation to the seven churches in Revelation. Only 2 of the 7 seemed to have it together. I can hear Him screaming to many churches in America “Repent or else!”
“I submitted my question. “Are you a Calvinist?””
Many pastor search committees at SBC traditional (non-Calvinist) churches have asked this question to prospective candidates and been out-and-out lied to. Stealth and deception have been modus operandi of the New Calvinist takeover of SBC.
I remember Jay started every sermon touting that he was the senior pastor of the church. My wife thought it was more than odd. For someone that thought senior pastors intimidated people, he went out of his way to try to do that. I remember a series of sermons where he concentrated on Gideon, and talked about how sinful he was. Nothing about him being a hero of the church (mentioned that way twice in the Bible). Nothing about his being an example to us. Just how awful he was. I went up afterwards and asked why he would concentrate on that. We are all sinful, and we need examples of what we should do. He was not interested. *sigh*. We also left that church.
I think it’s time I coin a new term. There’s no possibility it could become as successful as 9 Marx(tm) (I should charge them royalties now that they use it themselves).
What Calvinistas do to take over churches = to Calvanize. I like it with 2 “a”s rather than 2 “i”s so it’ll rhyme with “galvanize”.
Yes, that describes the mission of the new reformers who have attacked the SBC. Two different Calvinista factions have been at work for years to “Calvanize” the SBC … the “Old” Calvinists (the Ascolites) and the “New” Calvinists (the Mohlerites). While the old (classical) Calvinists may not agree with the method and message of the new boys on the block, they put up with them because they are accomplishing what the old boys couldn’t do after years of trying in their “Quiet Revolution” … Calvinization of the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America. That mission is largely complete, thanks to the great multitude in the pew who have little clue what’s going on and who have offered no resistance to the militancy of the NeoCals.
“Look at me! Look at me! I’m important!!”
A subliminal message to tell you that even senior pastors live in sin. Antinomians love to do this to let you know that they have been released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law. If Gideon can be a low-down rotten sinner and still be counted as a hero of the faith, then they can too! (they usually use David as their example, rather than Gideon – that definitely is a new twist on the Gideon story!)
This way of thinking has been baked into New-calvinism. This article recently posted in TGC’s FB page is a good example:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/romans-9-anticipates-objections-unconditional-election/
The first sentence:
“Martyn Lloyd-Jones once said if no one ever accuses you of preaching antinomianism, then you probably aren’t preaching justification the way Paul did.”
The rest of the article is word salad proving Calvinistic election.
Dave,
Do you remember the time he got up and explained how pastors were not like members of the congregation. They were differenct. He wasn’t different. He was a member of the congregation but that must not make him feel important. “I AM THE SENIOR PASTOR.”
There sure appears to be a hostile work environment. I sure believe it.
I shall use that term from now on. Do I need to put a copyright™ when I do? 🙂
I never saw that! Good night!
They say they do but then pretend they don’t.
Nor do they care, so long as the potlucks and the social events calendar remains unchanged.
More than odd.
Red warning flag.
To me it sounds like the guy was bragging about himself and his superior rank.
Like a weak man trying to convince himself how Strong he is: “I AM FUEHRER!”
“YOU WILL RESPECT!!! MAH!!! AUTHORITAH!!!”
— Eric Cartmen, South Park
The Brag of Calvin’s Fanboys:
“More Utterly Depraved Than Thou” One-Upmanship.
“I AM THE MASTER RACE! BY DIVINE ELECTION!
YOU ARE ALL SUBHUMANS! SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GAWD!”
Just like the Taliban and ISIS are more Islamic than Mohammed,
so are these Elect more Calvinist than Calvin.
“Antinomanism” – fancy word for “I’m Predestined Elect, I can Do ANYTHING I Wanna and I’ll still be Saved! ANYTHING! ANY AND EVERY SIN!”
This is also a result “Once Saved, Always Saved” altar-call Salvation as well as Predestined Election/Determinism.
Like the one genuine Neo-Nazi I encountered during my college days:
Whenever someone divides people into Master Race and Subhuman Vermin, guess which of the two he always puts himself into.
(This was also a shtick of 19th Century Scientific Racism and Eugenics, which that guy with the funny little mustache just distilled down, concentrated into its purest form, and followed through (via his Cult) to its logical conclusion.)
Isn’t there a verse about selling your birthright for a mess of pottage?
Or should that be Potlucks?
You’ll find the same ideology in non-reformed fundagelicalism.
God cannot tolerate anything but perfection, which is why a jay-walker so to speak, deserves the same hell as a mass murderer.
It also starts with the assumption that God’s default disposition toward us is anger/wrath/hate/condemnation, and that he can only tolerate to love us once we are masked by something so that he doesn’t have to see us as we really are. Never mind that the ancient liturgies describe him as “the lover of mankind.”
Muff Potter,
I used to hear this in my circles. Earlier this month, the head of our women’s ministry unequivocally said not all sin is the same and I’m still giddy about it. 😀
Headless Unicorn Guy,
And the real “irony” is that “Scientific” Racism and Eugenics was really developed here in the good old US of A.. prior to the rise of Nazism… In fact, there are quotes from Nazi’s that they used USA Eugenics teachings to build up the Nazi ideology..
History which is “conveniently” not taught much….
Theology is no match to fried chicken!
I figure Paul would disagree with that! New Calvinism is a kingdom of upside down faith.
When the next thing comes along that will displace New-Calvinism, theology will be no match for designer coffee, skinny jeans, loud bands, and fog machines.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Oh yeah … the New Calvinists will never give up their big screens, fog machines and skinny jeans if/when a new theology rolls into town!
I agree. I’ll take fried chicken over Paul’s Epistle to the Romans any day of the week and six-ways-to-Sunday.
Muff Potter,
That would be total depravity, Muff.
Ah but such good tasting depravity!
As a recovering perfectionist who is trying not to pass perfectionism on to my children, the wrongness of this theology really hit home for me when thinking about one’s love for his/her children as an allegory for God’s love for us. I realized how warped and damaging this kind of view of one’s children would be. If it was warped in parenting, it must also be warped in theology.
But I’ve noticed this theology often trickles down into their parenting books. Tedd Tripp’s was just awful, using fear-mongering to frame anything it could through the lens of “rebellion.” Paul Tripp’s was more reasonable (at least in the two chapters I read before moving on to other things), but still heavy-handed with “rebellion” language. I don’t remember much of Elyse FitzPatrick’s (I read it prior to having kids) but one thing that stuck out to me was her (or her daughter’s?) use of the terms “rebel” and “Pharisee” as nicknames for her children in the book… like this was a good thing.
If God can’t tolerate to see us as we really are, then we have to be fake and inauthentic to be near his presence. How is it possible to have a deep relationship with someone if you have to be fake around them all the time?
here is an interesting book review:
Brad Vermurlen: Reformed Resurgence: The New Calvinist Movement and the Battle over American Evangelicalism
(Oxford: Oxford University Press) ISBN: 9780190073510, hbk, £64.00, pp304
https://pubs.ufs.ac.za/index.php/tcw/article/view/550/498
I see the cited author apparently detected characteristics of material dialectic (pincer movements).
it’s also ironic to see how certain emphases changed since the research was done.
Anyway, next time a youngish unknown turns up – it might be someone there for their PhD!
Michael in UK,
Come to think of it here are some propaganda slogans to parse:
” … seeks to create and redeem culture … joyful in the presence and
power of the Holy Spirit ”
which being interpreted meaneth, gain institutional power over other institutions, and use the corporation against individual members.
It’s like what I call “proximate equations of sin”: a subset of which is zero sum.
so needed to attract the old people with their hard earned cents
Exactly! The real question: “Is God Christlike?” If we have a view of God that is not Christlike, we should probably re-evaluate our view of God.
“Sam Allberry addressed the frequency with which pastors are fired from their positions for bullying.'”
Is bullying Love your neighbor as yourself? No.
Nor is harboring pedos, perverts, abusers, and the like (1, 2, 3, & 6).
Guessing that the social behaviors listed in 1 Corinthians 5 were meant to be church community dealbreakers.
God loves, forgives, redeems, and transforms, but perhaps never intended church social community to be a toxic soup of a predator’s paradise.
Too bad that with churches 1, 2, 3, & 6, the solution was to leave as the church couldn’t/didn’t get it right. They settled for far less than what they are meant to be.
Thank you for this
You’re not supposed to be asking those kinds of questions.
If it’s a parabola, and depending upon where the vertex is, and whether it opens upward or downward; it may have no real zeros.
I attend this church and can say that many people complained about Eric’s behavior to Jay and elders many times over a period of years. They were all dismissed, minimized, or told to “Matthew 18” (meet directly with) Eric. The elders were not (and are not) interested in holding these men accountable.
Print it and put this one on your refrigerator folks!
There may be more to this story this week. Stay tuned
Chbc member,
Sadly, this is why God invented blogs. Thank you for your information. It is my hope to help all of you in getting out this information to the church. The misuse of Matthew 18 is something we discuss frequently on this blog and is often used by unscrupulous church leaders to avoid dealing with pain and suffering. These men are usually Scripturally deficient and overly protective of pastors who should be doing their job as opposed to worrying about their 30 hour prep for sermons in a nice safe office away from their congregation.
That’s why in these kinds of church polities they want yes men, not elders.
It turns out to be a good litmus test for which leaders actually display the fruits of the spirit.
Which is simply a modern-day equivalent of “telling it to the (global) church.” Technically speaking, they ARE following Matthew 18, just further than abusive church leaders want them to.
Yes, of course! I usually can’t get the tm thing to show rightly myself.
Sycophants.
Then they are not “elders” in the true sense of the word.
“Study for his sermon for ’30 hours a week’”
Unpacking the 30hrs/week sermon is worth a post alone.
Notes:
1. In Business this would put someone out of business: 30hrs/wk presentation prep.
2. In Academia, the prof would be fired.
3. Teaching & pastoring are GIFTS of the HS to the church, Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4. No salary, no wages.
4. Preaching is not a HS gift to the church. If prep is involved, note #1 & #2 above.
-Is “preaching” even in the Bible? Jesus was addressed as a teacher. Note #3 above.
Dee & Todd, I’d love to see what TWWers from all walks of life come up with on the 30hrs/wk sermon prep. When you mention it in a post, it blows the mind of the working person. Like, Twilight Zone? Zombieland? What in the world under heaven is this … 30hr/wk sermon prep… chop down a tree, make paper, write things down? Build an ipad from scratch?
Max,
Gone are the days, or should be, when working people fellowship on the Sabbath, assuming the elders are thinking people with a conscience AND the pastor is actually working productively a normal work week for the Body of Christ (that pays him/her) during the work week. Gone days of ASSUMING these 2 things. Hopefully, should be.
Wow…one of my former dorm floormates from Moody (McKiddie) finally made WBW! (And not in a happy way.)
It was only a matter of time…
Anointing requires no such sermon prep … it just flows. When the Holy Spirit gives you a word, there is no study to it.
Gentle pushback from here. I’ll agree that 30 hours seems exaggerated. Yes, someone can teach from memory, and preach from inspiration. But the preachers I know spend a huge amount of time preparing their sermons. They pray privately for guidance, dig deep into those Bible passages, go back to the original Greek and Hebrew, research scholarly writings and popular references, all the while working on a draft and polishing until, ideally, it sings.
Good writing takes TIME.
Meanwhile there’s no letup from weddings, funerals, hospital visits, counseling, planning worship services, and other pastoral responsibilities.
During my long journey as a Christian, these were the sermons I remembered … the ones that penetrated my soul … the ones which convicted and energized me to know and fulfill my purpose in the Body of Christ. “Prepared” sermons also stirred and equipped me, but the “inspired” ones were meat to my weary bones.
Max,
Of course. But I’m not sure the preacher always knows what will inspire, and what will create thought and action.
A couple of times I’ve said to a preacher, “I appreciated your point about ______.” They always look surprised. Sometimes I wonder if I misquoted them, but usually I think they are human vehicles of inspiration.
It’s those “Wow, where did that come from!” moments which separate a sermon from a sermonette … the difference between a messenger and an orator.
Reminds me of James Dobson’s ticket into the big leagues, The Strong-Willed Child. In retrospect, Dobson viewed parent-child relationships largely to entirely through the lens of Power Struggle. The Parent must break any Rebelliousness, WIN any confrontation, or the kid grows up Heathen/Atheist.
When you see everything as Power Struggle, there is no relationship possible other than Who Gets to Hold the Whip.
“Only Prefect Seed must be Sown. Life to the Fit, Extinction to the Unfit.”
— Eugenics Society motto
And by taking this to its logical conclusion, the NSDAP thoroughly discredited it be example. At least until what they did passed out of living memory and genetic engineering appeared in the spotlight. (“What Could Possibly Go Wrong?”)
YES.
And there is something to be said for making sure parents (of younger children, not talking about adult children, here) win whenever there is a power struggle. After all, they do hold legitimate authority as the more experienced and more mature individuals in the parent-child relationship.
But the FIRST line of defense should be to avoid power struggles in the first place, and save it for when it really counts. “You want to wear rain boots with your princess dress to the grocery store? Sure, sweetheart. Want to hit your little sister to get at the toy she’s playing with? Nope.”
And something the “make sure you’re the one holding the whip” types seem to forget is that they won’t be around to boss their kids forever. At some point, the kid is going to have to learn to be responsible for their own decisions.
At some point, the kid is going to choose whether to limit contact or cut it off entirely. (And as somebody like Erma Bombeck said, “Be nice to your daughter-in-law. She’ll be choosing your nursing home.”)
Watch out for DARVO next:
Deny
Attack
Reverse Victim Offender
The absence of DARVO is an indication that someone or a group of people is acting on good faith.
The whole system is stained with deceit. Many of the elders are themselves deceived.
About five years ago I was on the board of our American Baptist church when we hired a part time pastor. Looking at his resume, I saw he attended a Southern Baptist College and seminary. Having learned from Dee, I asked him straight out, “Would you consider your self to be a Calvinist or do you teach from that perspective?” He looked me straight in the eyes and said, “No, but I understand why you ask that question.” He pointed me to some of his publications as proof. We got along great. In fact he was perhaps the most un-Calvinist pastor I ever met. But you do have to ask the question.
Excellent point!
I listened to a sermon on parenting that a friend from a former authoritarian church was raving about. It really emphasized “discipline.” Which I get, because not enforcing consequences creates it’s own set of problems. But discipline, when viewed through the lens of “training” as opposed to “punishment,” includes positive reinforcement and rewards, as well!
Anyway, the pastor’s anecdotes were heavy in the “discipline as punishment” category, though to be fair, he did emphasize taking the time to find out WHY the child was acting out before issuing a consequence, as a way of “reaching their heart.” And I kept telling him (not that he was listening, being just a recording) that if you don’t take the time to get to know your child as a person and to establish a positive relationship prior to trying to “reach their heart” when they act out, no amount of preaching at them is going to help in the long run.
Wild Honey,
I should add, this sermon was specifically addressed to fathers from a church where “a father’s job is to earn the money and a mother’s job is to take care of the children” was explicitly taught. Hence my frustration that the pastor didn’t emphasize the importance of a father’s relational contributions to the childrearing process as much as he emphasized the “enforcing consequences” contributions.
Too many parents … and pastors … never get this.
You were fortunate. A lot of SBC pastor search committees have had candidates lie to them when asked that question. Stealth and deception are modus operandi of the New Calvinist movement. These “pastors” seem to think it is OK for the good of the new reformation … to restore the one true gospel that the rest of the church has lost (gospel = Calvinism).
She also said “God created man, but I could do better.”
I resemble that remark 🙂
Test
🙄
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Until you challenge “total depravity” Calvinist leaders .. then how dare you assume the worst.. you need to give the the benefit of the doubt..
The word DARVO itself sounds like a veterinary disease.
New Reformation or (stage-Russian accent) REVOLUTION?
Because Advancing a Righteous enough Cause can justify any Atrocity.
When the only difference between Christians and Communists is which Party Line is mindlessly recited, something is definitely WRONG.