1 Corinthians 5 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Labels: C.J. Mahaney, child abuse, fellowship, John Piper, sexual abuse, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM)
Saturday, February 23, 2013
I know Christians freak out over stuff sometimes. I’m not encouraging you to spaz about “Baby Bear’s Baby Doll.” I don’t think the world is ending as a result of this episode. I actually think that this show is silly, and worth laughing at, because the God-encoded truth about sexuality and gender is obvious, and boys playing with dolls is foolish. Furthermore, the world–in point of fact–has not ended as of October 2011. So make sure you don’t misconstrue my take or CBMW’s take. - Owen Strachan CMBW
Sigh! I can't believe the CMBW stand about dolls and young boys.
If we read anything about the history of dolls you will find that in ancient Greece ‘children’ played with dolls. I believe that these are some of the oldest toys they have found so far. They have found dolls in graves of young children – and note here I didn’t say just girls. Sadly, what Owen Strachan doesn’t tell you is when they started to make ‘fashion’ dolls? The marketing of this toy was more focused on girls.
Lets put on our preschool cap on here for a moment, and think about this:
Baby Bear wanted to pretend he was a ‘Daddy Bear’. Is Owen stating playing Daddy is foolish? Its okay for girls to want to be a Mommy, but BAD for boys of this age to want to be a Daddy. They want to play their role model, and aren’t born with this hyper sense of masculine and feminine. Sadly, our culture in time does push that part to the extreme.
Its okay to appreciate their innocence at this age!
Boys do play with different types of dolls all the time. We have stuffed animals, my brother had a couple of GI Joes, and then we have action figures. All those things are considered dolls.
Although the stuffed animals? THOSE must be the ones that are confused! They are played with by BOTH boys and girls! Poor things…. They must be confused about their roles!
The message that seems to be lost on Owen Strachan is it is not right to make fun off, laugh at, or hint to a child that wants to play ‘Daddy’ that he is somehow bad for doing so. That is the child’s innocence talking, and we need to push away our cultural lenses and come down to the child’s point of view.
Boys play with their sisters, and at times dolls are involved. That doesn’t change any part of their DNA when it comes to their sexuality or gender role.
Father’s have been known to sit down for tea parties with their daughters. Daddy’s allow their girls to create hair styles on their males heads, Including putting barrettes in.
I remember my brother and I putting his GI Joe in my Barbie Camper, and we pushed it down the road in front of our house. How confusing is that right? GI Joe has no business in a Barbie camper does he? It’s a wonder we understand our masculine or feminine side due to that tragic experience!
Baby Bear’s Masculine Side
One additional thing that Owen Strachan seems to miss was Baby Bear putting a ‘boy’ spin on things when he turned the doll’s bib around to make it into a superhero’s cape! I mean how BOY of him!
What about the part when he played with a tractor, or football? That part seems masculine enough. If we are going to play this game? You need to stop that notice the ‘masculine’ parts of the short as well. Sadly, he instead decided to get his nose out of joint instead.
This is the type of stuff that drives people nuts when it comes to CBMW. A young child wanting to be ‘daddy’ is now not ‘gender role’ enough. This has nothing to do with gender roles, and has more to do with this man’s discomfort over a boy playing with a doll. You can tell that by all the ‘male’ dominated things Baby Bear did while playing, and that Owen Strachan completely missed. I mean seriously SHOOSH right over his head!
Toys of this type are used to model healthy behaviors of their parents, caregivers, grandparents, etc. Watching a young father nurturing his baby isn’t foolish, nor does it show how gender neutral he is. Although I will say most people may wonder about the people that think it does!
My parents had a picture of brother when he was about 2 years old, and we just got back from Easter services at church. He had his adorable little suit on, but he seemed to have this fascination towards my Easter hat, gloves and purse. Dad took a picture of him wearing all of them. Who knows what the reasons were for the fascination, but it wasn’t foolish. He was 2 for goodness sakes. Nor did it ‘confuse’ him in any fashion as far as his gender, sexuality, etc.
Masculine and Macho – there is a difference!
I have wonder – seriously – if Owen Strachan took a little to much of the ‘macho’ traits from his child’s play, and incorporated it into adulthood. There is a huge difference between macho, and manhood keep in mind.
1: a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity
2: an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength
Yes, Macho with all its exaggerated masculinity would read into Baby Bear’s actions as being foolish. A child’s viewpoint, maturity level, innocence, etc. don’t even factor into it. Sadly, what he seems to miss is the exaggerated masculinity is what is foolish. Jesus reminded us when he spoke of children, ‘the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.’
The times, how they have changed. We’ve now transitioned culturally to an era in which the basic foundations of the Protestant worldview are under assault. This is true on many levels, from MTV (obviously) to sexual education in public schools to, apparently, the television shows aimed at tiny kids. This episode, “Baby Bear’s Baby Doll,” is subtly but directly overturning long-held conceptions of manhood and boyhood. Boys can play with dolls; there’s no reason they can’t do exactly what girls do.I seriously think Owen Strachan needs to stop looking for evil around every corner. We are talking preschoolers here, and not teenage boys playing with a baby doll OR watching MTV. Allowing a child to play with a doll at that age does not make the boundaries between the sexes fluid. I mean WHO thinks like that???
The boundaries between the sexes are fluid. Behind this teaching is of course the view that there really aren’t what we call “gender roles” given us as a fact of our existence. Gender is a construct, to use academic language; it’s the differentiated vision of boys and girls our society has historically bought into, but there’s nothing fixed or unchanging behind it. We’re free in this modern and enlightened age to blur the boundaries, and to raise boys and girls in essentially the same ways, without specific training of any kind for distinct manhood or womanhood.
He acts like children today playing ‘house’ will get it wrong now too. Don’t you know they reverse the genders just to make things equal. (okay – so I threw out some sarcasm…sue me!) Most of the time? That thought never crosses their mind, and yet you would never know it from his reaction of Baby Bear wanting to play Daddy Bear. Playing ‘Daddy’ is masculine last time I checked!
We need to put on our ‘child’s mind’ before making assumptions like this. It’s so ignorant. We are talking about children right out of babyhood here!
Although he seems to feel its okay to make a child feel badly about how he plays, and seems to forget the mindset of the child during this age. It’s not okay to allow the child to be a child.
Why not appreciate the fact he looks forward to being a Daddy? That he wants to be gentle with his children? You see those are assets, and it doesn’t mean other aspects of manhood aren’t present at the same time.
No. They don’t have these silly notions of manhood that he no doubt will learn, and in the case of Baby Bear is starting to learn. That is why Baby Bear was embarrassed after all. Notice how girls playing with Ken (Barbie’s male doll) doesn’t blur the gender roles? How it doesn’t warp the distinct womanhood viewpoint.
Will wonders ever cease!
Love it (not!) how Owen emphasizes the difference between Adam and Eve when the first man actually emphasized the similarities, "The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” (Genesis 2:23.) - Marg Mowczko
Friday, February 22, 2013
Labels: child abuse, cycle of abuse, Domestic Violence and the church, sexual abuse
Social Media was on fire yesterday with:
Most should remember a story in the media last year about Julie Anne being sued by her former church pastor, because of some comments she left about her former church on google reviews. The church turned out to be spiritually abusive, and Julie Anne was brave enough want to forewarn others. The pastor at the church decided he didn’t like what Julie Anne had to say, and sued her and three others for defamation to the tune of $500,000. The pastor didn’t win, but no doubt he felt this would be a great tool to use to silence those that would speak out against him. He figured wrong, and was left will some hefty legal bills instead. Julie Anne has a new website that she started after this experience called, Spiritual Sounding Board. Kudo’s to HER!
Julie Anne and many others are now helping to sound the alarm about Pastor Bob Grenier of Calvary Chapel Visalia (CCV), California. This time around it is the Pastor that is suing his own family member (stepson), and a family friend that witnessed the abuse. Alex Grenier (stepson) started a site called, Calvary Chapel Abuse. Just as Julie Anne did in the past Alex Grenier started to speak out about a wolf in sheep’s clothing that claims to be a Man of Gawd! Sadly, Alex and his siblings had to endure years of abuse growing up with the father’s rages, beatings, and sexual assault. Daddy Dearest didn’t like the fact his son grew up, and decided to tell the world about the hell they had been through.
Pastor Bob has one son left – out of 4 – that isn’t estranged from him. He is siding with his father, and no doubt hoping to inherit the church kingdom after his father retires. For some strange reason people are to shallow the fact that Pastor Bob did nothing wrong during their childhood years, and no red flags should be waving due to the fact most of his children will have nothing to do with him.
The lawsuit was filed on October 17, 2012, in Tulare County, California, where Pastor Grenier served til recently as a chaplain to the local police force. (He agreed to a leave of absence on February 19, 2013.) In his lawsuit, filed with his wife and co-plaintiff Gayle (who is Alex’s and Paul’s mother), Pastor Grenier claims to be an innocent victim of a “cyber-bullying hate campaign.” They are asking for an award “of exemplary and punitive damages.”
On February 8, 2013, Paul Grenier submitted to the court a sworn Declaration supporting Alex’s allegations. For instance, Paul claims that as a five-year-old boy he “was forced to perform oral sex on Bob.” He also details a childhood of suffering sadistic physical and sexual abuse by his father.
The defendants’ attorney, Paul Clifford, filed an anti-SLAPP motion on December 17, 2012, contending this is a clear issue of freedom of speech and suggesting the lawsuit is frivolous. A tentative ruling on the motion will be made on February 25, 2013, with a court hearing scheduled for February 26 before Superior Court Judge Paul Anthony Vortmann.
The decision on this case has momentous ramifications for First Amendment rights as “citizen journalist” bloggers and spiritual abuse survivors organize and speak out against ecclesiastical abusers. This may also involve separation of church and state. A social media campaign around the theme of #WhoWouldJesusSue begins February 20 to publicize the suit.
Abusive churches and Pastors don’t like the internet do they? In the past these types of suits would be unheard of, and the silence around the abuse would stay silent. It always amazes me that abusers never realize that their children do grow up, and become adults that can think independently of them. I guess they assume that their control over their lifes will extend for a lifetime, and yet more and more of these children are speaking out once they do hit adulthood.
Thankfully, with the internet and how society has changed? People have started to speak out earlier, and this type of evil is brought into the light. I pray that this slows down the cycle of violence that has been swept under the rug in the past.
Below are articles and resources about this campaign, and I encourage you to educate yourself. I think a healthy trend is starting with a band of bloggers that reach out and support those that are brave enough to call out their abusers.
I would encourage you to participate, and Julie Anne has written a piece on how you can do that online. The big BANG of social media was yesterday, and I think a continued effort beyond that is needed to keep this in front of people’s consciences don’t you? Place the articles on your Facebook pages, and tweet them as well.
Growing Outrage over Bob Griener’s suit. – has additional links to the legal paperwork in question.
Stand Up to Wicked Shepherds with #WhoWouldJesusSue? – Cindy is very good at speaking on the technical issues, background, and beliefs that stem from this type of dynamic.
Calvary Chapel’s Tangled Web – new article on case
Who Would Jesus Sue – Facebook Page
Monday, February 11, 2013
I saw an incredibly inspiring video this week. The speaker’s name as Dr. Benjamin Carson.
It spoke on the current culture of today, and goodness yes it could even be applied within the faith culture as well.
Yes, he brings up his opinions on the political atmosphere, but I agreed with him on the Political Correctness. We see people police EVERYTHING to death, and attach motive when it doesn’t need to be there.
The silliest example I can come up with recently was when Brent Musburger commented that the quarterback’s girlfriend Katherine Webb was a beautiful woman. Everyone was having a hissie fit over this comment, and honestly there wasn’t anything wrong with it. It was a compliment, and there was no ‘dirty old man’ motive behind it. He was being complementary. Then ESPN was pressured to have him apologize for the compliment. It’s stupid. Now we can’t compliment people nicely anymore? She is beautiful…and?? Katherine herself commented that no apology was needed, because it wasn’t a ‘sexist’ thing to say.
Today in the faith community we see similar types of attacks – just as you seen the secular realm. If you are comp, egal, liberal thinking, conservative thinking, etc. Watch the debates, and you will see the similar tactics you see in the news media and secular politics today. I guess we have our own brand of ‘biblically correct’ now. How nice. Sigh.
They take one thought or sentence and get all bent out of shape over it, and completely dismiss the overall message. OR lets say you wish to speak about a debit in a line of thinking. Do they stop to think about the debit? No, they tell their readers what they REALLY meant. Yes, most of the time it has NOTHING to do with what the principal of discussion or point they were trying to make. How Christian of us.
We can’t debate anymore, because we are too busy demonizing. If you are on THIS side then you automatically believe X, Y and Z. We as a culture have completely lost the respect factor for fellow human beings. It’s more popular to tear them down so we can hate them instead. It breaks my heart. Now we see to much of it within the church….of all places. Shame on US!
Dr. Carson states:
Now, it’s not my intention to offend anyone. I have discovered, however, in recent years that it’s very difficult to speak to a large group of people these days and not offend someone. [laughter]And you have to wonder if that maybe the point of all this ugliness. Keeping people from saying what they really believe. We can’t point out nonsense anymore, because you get attacked with motive attached automatically. It’s the popular thing to do!
And people walk away with their feelings on their shoulders waiting for you to say something, ah, did you hear that? The pc police are out in force at all times. I remember once I was talking about the difference between a human brain and a dog’s grain, and a man — and a dog’s brain, and a man got offended. You can’t talk about dogs like that. [laughter] People focus in on that, completely miss the point of what you’re saying. [laughter] And we’ve reached reach the point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended. People are afraid to say Merry Christmas at Christmas time. Doesn’t matter whether the person you’re talking to is Jewish or, you know, whether they’re any religion. That’s a salutation, a greeting of goodwill. We’ve got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe.
Sadly, this game is damaging to the fabric of our world. Our Politian's do it, the media does it, and sadly the church also has used this craft as well. The church sadly just spiritualizes it to justify themselves.
Dr. Carson starts out with some scripture verses:
Proverbs 11:9 With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escapes.
Proverbs 11:12 A man who lacks judgement derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue
Proverbs 11:25 A generous man will prosper. He who refreshes others will himself, be refreshed.
2nd Chronicles 7:14 If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land.
I had this video sitting on my computer for some days, and I didn’t know what I was going to do with it. Then Mara From Bitter Waters to Sweet dropped a perfect example of what Dr. Carson was speaking about in the quote I mentioned above RIGHT in my lap! The principal of the ‘biblically correct’ crowd that refuses to listen to what others have to say, but instead tells you they said something that wasn’t there at all.
Elizabeth Esther, among other bloggers started to speak about the ‘purity’ movement, and how some of its views can do more harm than good.
On the surface the purity movement does have some decent ideals on the surface. Here is a quote from their website:
The Father Daughter Purity Ball is a memorable ceremony for fathers to sign commitments to be responsible men of integrity in all areas of purity. The commitment also includes their vow to protect their daughters in their choices for purity. The daughters silently commit to live pure lives before God through the symbol of laying down a white rose at the cross. Because we cherish our daughters as regal princesses—for 1 Peter 3:4 says they are “precious in the sight of God”—we want to treat them as royalty.Now one item they do talk about is the role of father within their daughter's life. They wish for them to feel treasured, because they feel if they do not they may stray to someone else’s arms and be hurt in the end. There isn’t anything on the surface that is wrong with that premise! A man of integrity is a treasure to anyone he encounters is my belief!
One of the most memorable highlights of the ball is when the fathers stand in the middle of the ballroom and form a circle around their daughters standing all aglow in their lovely ball gowns. The fathers place their hands on their daughters, and together we pray for purity of mind, body, and soul for generations to come.
What about the problematic parts that tend to hurt the fathers and the daughters? It seems according to the Gospel Coalition you aren’t suppose to talk about that. If you do you are questioning God’s plan for marriage, and you want a commitment free LOVE zone. Problem is if you don’t talk about it YOU don’t SOLVE anything!
For example, when the girl fails when it comes to her virginity. If we look at part of their mission statement above? Her father doesn’t value her, or will no longer value her. When you tend to overcompensate on one aspect, and you FAIL at that aspect….you start to question your worth. The young girls at times are given the impression that their worth as a human has been lessoned in God’s eyes due to their sin. If you listen to the documentary on this movement? They are told this one failure will cause insurmountable damage to their husband and marriage.
Mr. Wilson – a founder of the movement – acknowledged ‘that 88 percent of girls who take a purity pledge would fail to keep the pledge until marriage, but placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of fathers who neglect to guide their daughters in decisions about relationships.’ So now you have girls that feel like damaged good, not valued by Daddy, and Daddy is to take on the entire responsibility because HE failed as well. He not doubt will on some level, because the young man has to get his permission to court his daughter to begin with.
Isn’t there are more Christ like approach to this QUOTE failure – if and when it happens? It’s okay to deal with what happened, and find a healthy way of moving on. Christ will forgive us, and we shouldn’t act like our world have just STOPPED and will be plagued from then on. We can admit our guilt to God, but he doesn’t wish us to hold on to it as a badge of disgrace. Consequences may follow of course, but we always need to remember his love, forgiveness and grace. We can balance these things. We can!
In the documentary, “The Virgin Daughters” a young lady named Jessica is very different. When she became 19 years old a young man asked her parents for permission to court her. She intended to remain a virgin until marriage, and a result of not having any sex-education, she became pregnant . Her story starts about the 18 minute mark in the documentary that I linked too. The circumstance that she fell into – the guilt, shame, etc. was one aspect bloggers were wanted to start the discussion about. You also need to talk about the guilt trip they are laying their Father’s as well! Talking about this DOESN’T mean they endorse ‘sleeping around’ for goodness sakes. Yet, for some reason the Gospel Coalition seems to say it does MEAN this. So they had to ‘apply motive’.
So what does this all have to do with the Gospel Coalition? Well, check this title out for a discussion starter: Commitment-Free Critics and the 'Christian Virginity Cult' Nice right? They are loading their guns!
How I do know this? Well they introduced Elizabeth by a description of: Former fundamentalist and current feminist.
So we know right away they need to find something wrong with what she has said, and those that tend to agree with her opinion (Remember keyword FEMINIST here). Although at the beginning they wanted to make you think they ‘somewhat’ agree with a feminist:
They all have a point. Too often in an over-sexualized culture, Christians engage in what Elizabeth Esther calls "reverse objectification." Purity policing leads to a strange objectivism—a surrender to the sexual message of the age. Christians risk ceding the argument that a woman is a purely sexual object when it comes to her visible physical nature. So in response, her body must be hidden or else made ugly to keep the spirit clean and pure. In the end, much unjust suffering comes down upon girls and the rest of society because of various abuses.Then you realize they are coming from the Definition of feminist that Mary Kassian proclaims as truth! How? Look at their title of the first section of debate:
‘Individualism Gone Wild’ Remember Mary Kassian’s website is called, Girls Gone Wise. Her definitions of feminism is like a broken record that just keeps playing over and over and over again! You take any aspect of life, and the feminist have GONE WILD with it, and of course they (Mary Kassian, or Gospel Coalition) have GONE ‘wise’ instead. We have all heard the stereotypes about how feminism gets to define everyone, and whatever her definition of words/concepts are just IS! Everything is individualist, and of course against what God had in mind.
Lets start with Gospel Coalition’s critique, and possible comprehension issues.We changed the rules of male-female relationships. We became loud, demanding, and aggressive. We boldly pushed back against traditional definitions of gender and sexuality. We claimed our freedoms. We traded in the “Leave it to Beaver” model of womanhood for the “Sex in the City” one. We bought into the feminist promise that woman would find happiness and fulfillment when she defined her own identity and decided for herself what life as a woman was all about. – Mary Kassian
At the same time, all is not well with these virginity critiques. The underlying complaint seems to demand that we accept different decisions without critique or even regret. But sin—especially sexual sin—affects the entire community. Likewise, fornication (as with any other sin) interrupts communion between God and man and thus must be reconciled through Christ.Frankly, the definition of anyone they feel is a feminist seems to jade their comprehension of what was being said. It’s almost as if they didn’t read the material AT ALL! Shall we look at some of what was said by Elizabeth Esther?
The sin of fornication is not minimized by "mutual consent." Contrary to popular belief, the Old Testament is not chauvinistically patriarchal, and the Scriptures are clear on sexual mores. The most honest skeptics intimate sexual standards based in an old book should be thrown out altogether. Couples "really committed" to each other, we hear, should be able to do as they please outside the bounds of traditional matrimony.
What a strange understanding of commitment! This new standard eliminates the risk of love. The traditional understanding of the marriage covenant requires trust, especially in the sexual realm. A couple is taking a plunge into the world of family life because they love each other. Couples who abstain until marriage tell one another, "I love you so much that I will surrender my body to you. I have denied the pleasures of a moment for a life tied to only yours in this dangerous world, from this point on."
Like other Christians, I talked about the “sacrifice” of abstinence. There were princess-themed books about saving our first kiss. Some of us wore purity rings and made pledges to our Daddies not to have sex until we’re married.Notice that Elizabeth Esther mentions that America no longer seems to share our values – and she is speaking about abstinence. She acknowledges the ‘sexually permissive society’. So how they get the ‘do as they please outside the bounds of traditional matrimony’? Seems to be a VERY popular tactic in the ‘we must attach a motive even if it isn’t there’ train of thinking. OR – as I said before a serious ‘comprehension’ issue! Take your choice!
Ultimately, we implied that a woman’s inherent worth and dignity could be measured by whether or not a man has touched her.
I understand why we do this. Christians are alarmed by what we see as a sexually permissive society. America no longer seems to share our values. This scares us. The less sacred sex seems to the broader culture, the more sacred we insist on making it among fellow Christians.
The intention might be good but over-emphasizing the specialness of virginity has unintended, harmful consequences.
We start by making ridiculous promises to our daughters. We tell them that “sexual purity” is a guarantor of a more intimate married sex life. We tell them that if they “lose” their purity, they will never really get it back. Oh, yes. They can be forgiven. But. You know. They’re damaged goods.
Christians say that the world objectifies women through immodest dress and a permissive sexual ethic. However, by idolizing sexual purity and preoccupying ourselves with female modesty and an emphasis on hyper-purity, Christians actually engage in reverse objectivization.
They seem to accusing people that want to have this discussion that ‘losing your virginity’ is no big deal. That’s NOT what they are saying. They want to discuss how we handle it if people do. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Then the others I have read about state they bring this up so people don’t ‘feel bad’ about losing their virginity. Yet, that was never addressed either. Talking about what to do with those feelings, doesn’t mean not having them. Hello!
The point was the term they acknowledged as: reverse objectification. Sadly, it seems the Gospel Coalition has to much “Sex in the City” type of viewpoint towards her and others. They have bent it so badly out of shape they honestly can’t seem to grasp what was being said.
For generations, this model of marriage has proven remarkably resilient. In this context, love can be truly maddening—people do crazy things like have children together, stick together through debilitating diseases, and mutually endure declining health. On the other hand, what reason do the "really committed" have not to jump from one sex partner to the next? One could conclude that such "commitment" is merely strong emotion—a passion of the moment—that has little to do with true resolve.Guess what? If you read the articles you linked to? They were not asking people to LIE to themselves about it, but learn to move past it. Big Difference.
Thankfully, healing is possible for couples who do not abstain. The gospel of Jesus Christ can overcome any sin! Still, pastors who counsel couples tell me the process of restoring trust is long and painful. Virginity does not make someone "better," but young Christians deny themselves the fullness of romantic love by fornication. They will only make things worse by lying to themselves about it.
For the longing singles among us, we have heard it said that love is patient. So go out there, date, and maybe get married. Just do not make allowance for the lustful flesh.
They were not tearing down the aspect of abstinence, or telling people to go for a commitment free relationship. Hello! Take off the sex it in the city glasses, and read what was SAID! You might learn that even feminist’s don’t live the life Mary Kassian has been telling you about. Shocking that it is – it can happen!
It’s okay to talk about this. We MUST talk about this. What they are scared of? Talking about it doesn’t endorse it. No doubt it started to happen after Adam and Eve…don’t you think its time to start? I have to wonder if that isn’t the point of the silly commentary. They feel people might think they are endorsing something that they can’t in good conscience. Do they doubt their power of communication, or fear that others may put words or motives in their mouths?
What? They don’t want the biblically correct crowd doing the same to them?
This article just SCREAMED we need to use our stereotypes about feminist’s, and wrap it around what was said so we can have the proper BIBLICAL aspect. Did anyone else see the connection? I saw it right away, and bugs me.
We’ve got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe. - Dr. Benjamin Carson
Other Articles of Interest
The Purity Conversation - My Two Cents
Sex, Marriage, and Evangelical Purity Culture
Monday, February 04, 2013
I recently heard about Dr. Marc Monte tweets, and I wanted to point out this example of projection.
His last statement was, “Seems unreasonable to make comments about me when we’ve never met. You come across as an angry young man.”
Now, lets look at his comments on twitter that for some reason to him DON’T come across as ‘angry’. OH! Lets not forget the important side note – what spurred the ‘angry’ man (cough!) to respond to him at all!
Went to BJU from ‘85-‘89. Never heard one word about abuse. Only psychos feel ‘abused’. The rest of us had fun in a protected place.
Too many ‘victims’ use the Internet as a platform for whining. If laws were broken, involved the police – not the internet.
Here is one definition of projection: Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety.
Dr. Marc Monte uses projection by telling someone they come across as ‘angry’, but doesn’t see how he is coming across as ‘angry’ by his own statements.
Also, he has never met anyone that has been abused – by his own statements – and yet feels perfectly calm and cool about calling them psychos and whiners.
The truth of the matter is he didn’t like being called out on his unchristian like statements. In return stated the person that mentions this as ‘angry’ instead. No doubt this did reduce his anxiety about stating things the way he did. He can now blow the man off, and not deal with his own sinful comments (coping mechanism).
Then Dr. Monte – I guess – somewhat attempted to change his tone and demeanor (I don’t think I’ve had the pleasure of meeting you), and states he is curious about the specifics the gentleman’s comment.
Now, you have to wonder if Dr. Marc Monte lives under a rock…and thus wonder why he made the comments he did. BUT that would make him clearly look foolish, since his friend Chuck Phelps had just been through all this.
Its just deflection because he doesn’t like being called out on the cruel comments that he made.
Notice also how the responder states he doesn’t understand the blindly insensitive comments he made towards suffering victims. Dr. Marc Monte decides at that point to completely ignore the conversation.
What does that show? Common sense would tell us that he isn’t all that interested in ‘specifics’ is he?
Then we see statements do show some serious arrogance.
Since he never saw – or heard of – any abuse that automatically means NO abuse happened.
BJU (Bob Jones University) brought in an organization ( Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment – GRACE) to investigate these claims, and I would assume he also sees this as waste of time and energy. No, Dr. Marc Monte didn’t feel the need to call them names, or assumptions about this action.
Could be because he realizes that all hell would break loose all over him if he did state that BJU succumbed to the pressures of the world, and brought GRACE in at all. Yes, I threw in a bit of sarcasm in that last comment. It’s something they would no doubt parrot about others if it were NOT happening to them.
Right after these cruel tweets that sadly Dr. Marc Monte can’t comprehend as insensitive at best he received another response: You never caught a whiff because it was common to get rid of those who shine light on what happened. That's psycho.
People that refuse to own their statements and opinions don’t tend to respond, and as you can see he pretty much mastered that skill. BJU like the Catholic churches that are in the news again now have this in common. The Catholics got rid of the priest, and IFB got rid of the victims. They both got rid of the problem so they didn’t have to deal with it. They just chose different ways to basically do the same thing.
The difference is that the Catholic CHURCH will acknowledge what happened, and are mourning the aftermath. Worshiper’s of the Catholic church mourn for the victims, and they are upset at a system of cover up. Yes they are angry, and justifiably so. Empathy for the victims is the Christian thing to do, because that is what Jesus would ask of us. The Catholic church will be dealing with this for years, and still have a ways to go. Dr. Marc Monte doesn’t seem to grasp this needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
Now, BJU News asked him to look at a page that calls out Dr. Monte’s behavior, and ask him if he knew what BJU was even being investigated about.
Dr. Monte decided that playing dumb, and instead stated the article had no specifics about BJU in it. In reality, Dr. Marc Monte didn’t like the fact it was talking about HIM and his response to abuse victims. That also is deflection. The part about asking him if he knew the specifics of the investigation at BJU? He pretended he didn’t even read that part at all. The silence is deafening.
The intelligent thing to do is be gracious, and admit his error. Instead, because it wasn’t HIS experience it didn’t happen at all. Then he felt he must go a step further, and state that people that are abused are ‘psychos’.
Dr. Marc Monte that received a honorary Doctorate, ”in 2005 for work related to exposing the dangers of radical Islam in America.” Yet the poor man can’t even grasp WHY people refer to comments like his as The Baptist Taliban. Could it be he learned how to ignore these issues by watching them (radical Islam) do the same thing?
NOW that is something to truly ponder isn’t it?