We CALL OUT SIN here…well except for our own.

I read an article today called, ‘Sharing Cake with Prostitutes and Gay Couples, Alike’.

 

There was a video attached to the article, and I have to tell you this man was very entertaining!

The Whore’s Birthday Party

 

You notice each time you mention to uppity Christians that their approach to things at times isn’t very attractive they get all bent out of shape?

 

He called them the Country Club Christians, and he has a point.  Its an attitude more than ‘literally’ being part of a Country club…yet (snickers) you know they will mention that don’t belong to one anyway.

 

You have a lady that no doubt has been used and abused all of her life, and if I were guessing someone that never knew love, compassion, or experienced any true empathy.  Yet, the owners of the diner he went to that night mentioned what a nice person she is.  Despite what profession she has?  What a GOOD person she is. 

 

The Pastor above brought decorations, and the diner baked a birthday cake for the next night when she came for her break at 3:30 in the morning.  The owner of the diner had a wife, and she sent out WORD that they were going to Celebrate Agnes’s Birthday.  She had quite a crowd that came to join her.

 

At the end of the story she (Agnes) didn’t want to cut her cake, but wanted to bring it 2 doors down first to show it to her mother.  She would be back, but she wanted her mother to see it first.  As we know from the story she never had a birthday celebration her entire life.

 

What they didn’t go into in the video that I can see happening?  She went to show her mother the cake that she was so proud of, and in return her mother gave her some nasty response.  Yes, similar to her friend’s response in the story when she mentioned she never had a Birthday party in her life.

 

Why would they do that for you?  What, now you are all ‘special’ because someone BAKED you a cake?  Did they cough up cash as presents since they took time away from your job to do this?  If they didn’t give you cash for your time…it was a waste of time.

 

Anyone else familiar with this attitude?  Someone that wants to take the wind out of your sails?

 

Now the Country Club Christians would be quick to mention that ‘Christian’ parents would never be that cruel.

 

Sure, maybe they wouldn’t be that cruel to their children…but what about to Agnes (the prostitute)?  Notice their response had NOTHING to do with her.  Sadly, it has to everything to do with THEM…instead. 

 

Now lets read what he said at the end of the video.  She had just left to go to her mother, and there was a uncomfortable silence…and he began to pray:

 

….and I prayed that God would make her new because we are here to declare the good news.  That no matter where you have been, or what you have done Jesus can make you new.

When I finished the prayer, Harry (owner of the diner) leaned across the counter and said,

“HEY Campolo you told us you were a sociologist. YOUR a PREACHER!  What kind of church you preach in?”

And in one of those moments when you come up with JUST the right words...

I said, “I preach at a church that throws birthday parties for whores at 3:30 in the morning!”

I never forget his response. NEVER!

He said, “NO you DON'T,  Nahh you don't.”

He said, “I would JOIN a church like THAT!”

Wouldn't we all??

Wouldn't we all LOVE to join a church that threw Birthday Parties for whores at 3:30 in the morning!

I got news for YOU!  I GOT NEWS FOR YOU! 

That is the kind of church that Jesus came to create!  I don't know where we came up with this one that is 1/2 country club! 

Jesus came to create a people that would give people parties that have no parties!  Celebration into the lifes that have NOTHING TO CELEBRATE!

If all you got to offer a bowl of soup and some clothes ...its not enough.  Jesus came and said that my joy might be in YOU! and that your JOY might be FULL!  And we must do more than just give them bread and some clothes.

We have to bring love and joy into their lifes.

 

Now, notice at times when people bring home a HUGE point like he has?  They will be begin to tear him down.  You know like the media does towards politics they don’t like?!

 

His confession of faith isn’t just right.  He believes this, and we all know THAT is wrong!  What he says about Jesus on other issues is wrong…YOU know the drill!  He must be one of ‘those’.

 

They divert the point that he made that was correct, and figured out ways of discrediting him instead.  They find something about him they disagree with, and just assume everything that comes out of his mouth from then on…is wrong too.

 

Here is one comment about the video that tends to make the point stronger: 

 

don't think anyone would refute the notion that prostitutes' birthdays are valid.
Furthermore, if a prostitute announced, in church, that she had accepted the Lord Jesus as her savior on Sunday, but sold her body to a strange man on Saturday night, are we to believe that her confession was genuine? Does that church have the right and/or the responsibility to perform biblical church discipline or to reject her as a member?
Finally, if I claim that homosexuality is not a sin, must I then also claim that prostitution is not a sin?

 

Notice the poster went down a LONG whining road that has NOTHING to do with the point that was made?  Matter of fact it better much ‘validated’ it.

 

He was willing to give a prostitute some bread – by allowing her the opportunity to accept Jesus…yet was not willing to do more.  No, reminding us that he has the RIGHT or RESPONSIBILITY to perform discipline…and reject her is a MUCH more the important point.  HE MUST be able to call out SIN, but what about finding ways to bring love and joy? 

 

That extra step beyond the bread is so important, and it SHOULD be so in your face OBVIOUS too.  Yet, getting defensive and showing our country club attitude is the response instead.  Next, they will claim that ISN’T what is keeping people from the Lord’s house!

 

Notice that this ‘Christian’ did the same thing her mother did in my example. 

 

Why would I do that for you? What, now you are all ‘special’ because you accepted Jesus as your Savior? Did you stop sleeping with strange men on Saturday? I have the biblical RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to perform church discipline, and reject you as a member.  YOU were a waste of time, because we call SIN out here.

 

Nice right?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

New International Version (NIV)

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

People need hope. Not an English Comprehension Lesson.

It is these pearls that I encounter each time I dive below, into the dark and lonely cesspools of Christendom.  They’ve been left for dead by much of the Church, yet they are the first to expend of themselves in pursuing and loving other hurting souls.  Their own cries have been ignored, but they’re the first to listen to the cries of those around them.  Though the commitment of the Church to abuse survivors is often self-centered and short-lived, the commitment these survivors demonstrate to each other is usually selfless and lifelong.   - Boz Tchividjian

Joe Carter is one of the newer employee’s of the Gospel Coalition. He recently wrote an article that is leaving a bad taste in many mouths (Figure of speech Joe – Wink! Wink!).
It starts by:

For years it was merely an overused rhetorical trope, a hyperbolic claim that
followed a predictable pattern:

Step 1: Take an issue of concern for Christians (e.g., abortion, sex trafficking, global persecution, the gospel).

Step 2: Claim that no one in our churches is talking about the issue.
Step 3: Assume the dual role of educator and Old Testament prophet by explaining why the issue matters and why the church must stand up and speak out about it.

 
I read Boz’s opinion of victims speaking out about injustices they see in the church, and then Joe Carter shows the clear attitude they tend to be faced with presently. There is no hope there – something they clearly need – and he wants people to have a comprehension lesson for English.
 
It breaks your heart. One wishes to try to reach people where they are, and the other feels it’s a fun game to mock them into silence.
 
His technique is familiar to me! We have seen such pettiness before.   Remember this article?

Should we be saying, “The Church Hurt Me”?  Let’s review the logic they were attempting to ‘teach’ you with this article:

The person could mean the big-C Church has hurt them–all Christians everywhere. That sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But think about it. When a person says “The church has hurt me” and they’re refusing to visit or join any local congregation of believers they have practically projected their hurt onto the entire universal body of Christ! They have assigned their offense to every possible Christian and Christian congregation imaginable. Practically, their distrust has reached universal proportions. In every case this is false. We might provide some of our best care by helping our friends recognize the practical universalism in some of their reactions. Hopefully we can get them to dial it down to the next possible level.

 
Can we say this is a TAD bit over the TOP? They may provide their best care recognizing a common form of speech isn’t to be taken so literally.   Talking down to a hurting person isn’t going to help your case.  You do want to reach them right?
 
This form of ‘emotional’ dribble maybe taken as mocking them, and you won’t get to far.
 
Let’s imagine a young person coming to them for counsel, because they were abused in the past in the church. Empathy, and a listening ear should come first.

Sadly, it seems being petty about the phrase they used would be given first. Do they really expect this person to trust them, or even truly finish what they have to say after that? Can we use a bit of common sense for goodness sakes!
 
Well it seems that Joe Carter decided to take the same route, and ignored the context – and then took it a tab bit over top once again.
 
Janet Mefferd Quoted the issue in a nutshell:

Carter thinks that if you say, “No one in the church is talking about (an issue).”you’re “slandering Christ’s bride” because you can’t know what every individual human in every church is saying. Fine, but that’s not the sense of the term “no one” when used in that context.

 
It reminds me of a time when my son was little and I said to him,
 
“Son! Its time to go we need to put our shoes on!”
 
Son says, “These aren’t shoes MOM their Sandals!”
 
Yes, my son ignored the context of my statement. At my son’s age when this statement was made? It made sense to him that it was TRULY was a hill worth dying on!
 
Yes, he was in that kind of mood. He was going to ‘show me’ that SANDALS was the more proper way of stating my request! The fact that sandals are in fact shoes? Made no difference to him. Yes, he could be a frustrating child at times. (giggles) Thankfully, he grew out of that!
 
Now I feel I’m back in my child’s toddler years, and I’m suppose to ‘acknowledge’ since you haven’t spoke to every human in every church you can’t know that ‘no one’ is talking about some subject. Is the man freaking serious? Grow UP already!
 
Why this is so important is beyond me, because not stating it HIS way truly isn’t ‘slandering the Bride of Christ’ by any stretch of the imagination.

I can’t believe he is that ignorant that he can’t grasp the intent of those words. What can I assume? The poor man isn’t going to get to far in ministry if he can’t reach people where they are – like Jesus did.

One aspect that came up between a twitter war between Joe Carter and Janet Mefferd was about a statement that Boz said.

While comparing evangelicals to Catholics on abuse response, ”I think we are worse,” he said at the Religion Newswriters Association conference, saying too many evangelicals had “sacrificed the souls” of young victims.

My Friend – Danni Moss – Who’s blog her family left up after she passed away?  She has an article on there about the growing numbers of sexual abuse in churches.  Her source?  The churches insurance companies:

The Associated Press reported recently that three insurance companies receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, challenging the assumption that clergy sexual abuse is an exclusively Catholic problem that does not take place in other churches.
That is a higher number than the annual average of 228 “credible accusations” brought against Catholic clerics in records reported by the Catholic Church in response to media scrutiny, a priest observed in a Fox News commentary questioning why the story isn’t garnering more attention.
While the report about abuse in Protestant churches doesn’t absolve guilty Catholic priests or those who enabled them, said Father Jonathan Morris, it offers a more complete picture. “The problem of sexual abuse has no denominational boundaries,” he wrote.
The AP obtained figures on sex-abuse claims from three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America–Church Mutual Insurance Company,  GuideOne Insurance and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company.

 
I suppose if Joe Carter was all that interested in ‘truth’ doing his own research like the AP reporter did – would happen.

Honestly?  The show of true care and compassion towards victims would be along the lines of what Father Jonathan Morris stated above.  There are no denominational boundaries.  Who has MORE sexual perp’s isn’t important – hope for victims IS!  Why are we missing the big picture here?

All you have to do is read some newspapers online, and sadly stories of Pastors – or church personnel – are in there almost everyday because they have been arrested.  Something is clearly wrong with how we approach this subject, and we want to NIT PICK on how to phrase something before we address it?
 
Sadly, it seems ‘context’ isn’t big on the radar of individuals at the Gospel Coalition – among others ‘offended’ by this statement.
 
When you read what Boz had to said in context? The Evangelical Church should be ashamed of its arrogant attitude towards the Catholic Church.
 
The fact that Evangelical churches don’t have the same type of organizational structure as Catholics? It’s a perfectly legitimate smoke screen to use their type of structure to minimize abuse within their own ranks.
 
When you use ‘independence’ of churches? Distances them even further.
 
They are free from some the systematic and vast numbers of victims under the same umbrella. I mean you can’t ‘tie’ all the different churches together – we are all SEPARATE – so our numbers aren’t even CLOSE!
 
These men would make awesome politicians wouldn’t they?

Twist some differences just enough to attempt to show how they are COMPLETELY different….yet they aren’t. Yes, at this point you are supposed to drink the Kool-Aid and feel better about yourself. “We don’t have a child sexual abuse PROBLEM!”   Talk about Slandering the Bride of CHRIST!
 
Lets move on to some aspects SOME actually can acknowledge – while others play their ‘Christian politician game’ shall we?
 
Mr. Tchividjian’s comment:

The greatest failure of the church/Christian organizations when it comes to responding to abuse is institutional self-protection.  Too often Christian institutions have been willing to sacrifice the individual human soul in exchange for the protection of their own reputation.

Is so true!
 
Here are some other comments from a separate interview I found that we see all to often.
 

Why do some churches and other Christian institutions struggle with reporting suspected abuse to the civil authorities?  Regardless of the stated reasons, the common thread running through this struggle is a “fear” that is rooted in self-centeredness.  It is a “fear” of losing the “good reputation” of a ministry, it is the “fear” of losing ministry donors, it is the “fear” of losing congregation members, it is the “fear” of losing a ministry altogether, and all such “fears” are usually wrapped in a fundamental falsehood that reporting such abuse within the Christian community will “damage the cause of Christ”.[ix]  Do you see the great tragedy of this self-centered fear?  Ultimately, fear?   Ultimately, it is an attempt to rob God of his sovereignty and glory by attempting to “protect” identities and possessions.  This is in direct contravention of the Gospel.

God doesn’t need our protection, and sadly they forget the roles in that aspect are reversed.

We need HIM! The lack of faith within these churches just blows my mind. We see Job in the bible, and he had everything taken from him…WELL just about he still had God. Yes, that was all he needed. He still loved and obeyed him. In return, God gave back to him.

Seems preachers can preach about Job, but they don’t have the faith that he did. They would rather twist some scripture around, and throw people under the bus…for their ministry! I guess they feel God wouldn’t restore it.

Don’t you get that is what people are trying to point out?  You aren’t suppose throw people under the bus, and FEAR for our ministry!  Those abused people are more important to God.

Talk about lack of backbone! Churches can survive such an ordeal, and yet some don’t want to be bothered with such details.

A fundamental point that must be understood early on in this discussion is that the crime of child sexual abuse is not merely a personal offense, but rather it is an urgent public concern.  Child sexual abuse does not even fit into the paradigm of which Jesus was speaking in Matthew 18.  Jesus never intended his statements in Matthew 18 to be twisted into the required method for handling murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, or genocide.  Child sexual abuse is not a private matter but rather a public and civic one, rightly under the sword of the civil authority.  All are endangered by this crime against a little one.

There is another teaching of Jesus that regulates how child sexual abuse is to be handled procedurally.  In Romans 13, Jesus tells us through the Apostle Paul that believers are to be subject to the civil authorities.  They swing the sword as God’s ministers, bringing wrath upon evil-doers (Romans 13:1-4).  Child sexual abuse has been deemed to be criminal by the civil authorities deserving of just punishment.

The scourge of child sexual abuse is not just a sin violating the 7th Commandment in Exodus 20:14 and Matthew 5:27-30, but it is also a criminal offense in all 50 States.  It is not a matter which can be handled quietly between two persons or between two families, as was misguidedly done in Genesis 34 and in many churches today.  It is a matter of public alarm, because of its pervasive, extensive, and expansive nature, causing a cascade of misery in countless lives.  Additionally, the God-ordained civil authorities in virtually every jurisdiction mandate in some fashion that suspected child abuse be immediately reported to law enforcement. 

When Christian organizations are to busy nit picking over silly things like figures of speech?  That’s a sad state of affairs.

It seems the Gospel Coalition, and Joe Carter had their feeling hurt over a aspect of Church life that they would rather give lip service to – than acknowledge.  When they would like to be handed stats, and proof – rather than see the more important aspect of helping the hurting? 

They have lost the discernment they claim they have, and others need to use in this area. 

You see the people you whined about Joe?  They need hope – not articles about their use of the English Language.  One is certainly more important to God than the other.  People don’t need your encouragement to correct their wording when they need help either – and yet that is what you are teaching.  You are teaching others, “Ignore them!  They used one of those phrases we all know is ridiculous!’  Is that seriously the message you want to send?

You really need to go back to the basics of our faith.

Why speaking truth in love is not ‘slandering Christ’s Bride’

Where are the Voices?  The Continued Culture of Silence and Protection in American Evangelicalism

Join Boz Tchividjian on Steve Brown Etc. for a discussion of what it takes to recognize, investigate and respond to child sexual abuse in religious institutions.

Janet Mefferd on Joe Carter: Round 2--'Carter's message to Christians is SHUT UP'

Language taken literally Cartoons

Domestic Violence: A New Tool To Help

There are times in which its hard to prove domestic violence.  Victims have a hard time standing for themselves for a number of reasons.    I have heard today about a potential tool that could help all involved.  Its called a ALS or Alternative Light Source machine.  There are different ALS machines for different purposes.

 

Strangulation is one aspect of domestic violence that has been hard to prove, because it doesn’t always leave marks.  Waneta Dawn sent me a link on a News Story from USA Today. 

 

States cracking down on strangulation attempts

 

 

 

Attempted strangulation cases have long vexed police and prosecutors seeking stiff penalties for attacks. The act can leave victims close to death, but unlike blows that produce a black eye or broken nose, it generally leaves few, if any, external signs of injury needed to prove a felony assault charge. An attempted murder charge is also hard to sustain in cases where suspects intend to frighten rather than kill. As a result, advocates say, suffocation cases have historically been handled as misdemeanors that don't reflect the act's severity or carry meaningful punishment.

Debra Holbrook of Mercy Medical Center is in the above video, and she speaks about using Alternative Light Source for documented proof of strangulation.   Alternative Light Source is also known as “ALS”.  It has been used in the past for sexual abuse, sexual assault, or rape.  The process reminds me of Luminol.  Instead of the blooding glowing – the popular known use of luminol that you may be familiar with – marks from the strangulation can be seen.  Alternative Light Source or “ALS” you don’t need the chemicals like you do with Luminol.

 

This process takes the ‘he said she said’ option off the table.  It can be done at the crime scene or in the hospital.

 

William Umansky, a Defensive attorney was noted in the USA article to say:

he thought his state's law was flawed because it allows for felony prosecution without objective proof of a victim's injury. He said it gave prosecutors too much leverage to secure guilty pleas.

"Domestic violence is always bad, but the way I see it commonly prosecuted, there's no ligature marks on the woman's throat, no evidence of bruising. Just the verbal allegation, and all of a sudden, there's a felony charge," Umansky said.

The process of Alternative Light Source, or ALS does tend to take ‘doubt’ out of the equation.  As noted in the video Debra Holbrook states bruising is not needed, because the process shows the perpetrators hands on the throat – “they light up like a Christmas Tree!”  This can even happen days later when victims come to the hospital complaining of a sore throat.

 

This has to be a huge validation for the men, women and children that fall victim to strangulation.  This is a new technology designed to detect hard-to-see injuries and has been successfully used to prosecute domestic violence suspects.  ALS or Alternative Light Source is used to detect bruises hidden under a victim's skin.  Forensic Nurse Debra Holbrook states, "you can actually see hand marks, fingerprint marks, on somebody's throat."  Marked Woman is an article in which she goes into detail. 

Holbrook also stresses that women can come to Mercy even if they are not ready to involve the police. In Maryland, healthcare workers are not required to report domestic abuse cases to the authorities. "We're here to help," Holbrook says. "We will collect their evidence. We will take the pictures. Everything we do goes in a locked file, their insurance company won't know, their significant other won't know, their private doctor won't know. It's confidential and when they're ready to report, we can bring all these cases forward and can use them all to help them."

Keep in mind every state or country may be different as far as reporting domestic violence.

This is new technology, and I’m sure not all areas have this to use.  Hopefully, with time it will be more readily available.

 

Get in touch with your hospitals, and local domestic violence agencies to make sure they are aware of Alternative Light Source. 

 

New Use of Technology Shines Light on Strangulation is an article about ALS or Alternative Light Source.

 

Debra Holbrook

 

Power and Control has other medical videos, and is the source of the one I used in today’s video above.

Strangulation is the topic of today, but the same principal could be used for other parts of the body that bruising hasn’t surfaced.

Afraid of Conflict Resolution

I will admit at times I get apprehensive about being ‘real’ around certain people.  I used to be REALLY bad at that, because I was taught that you should always be the sugar sweet person at all times. 

 

That means instead of voicing your opinion about why something makes you upset?  You have to stop, think, and possibly go a different route to voice this – or you know not to voice it at all. 

 

Why?  People tend to point out your attitude as they see it, and wish to deal with that more than the substance of the point or hurt in question.

 

I’m not going to say that it’s a bad thing to watch your tone and approach.  I will say at times we tend to go a little to far in that realm.  If your approach isn’t ‘just so’ that is what is pointed out and concentrated on more than the true hurt that people need to deal with.

 

The Wartburg Watch recently had an article called the confessions of a SGM Pastor.  They speak of two awful stories about people within a fellowship that found out their children had been sexually abused by another party within the fellowship.  The principals that church followed were to help bring ‘peace’ among all parties.  The problem is in order to have this ‘peace’ they basically avoided dealing with the circumstances completely.  The families couldn’t speak of the hurt and betrayal they felt over the molestation, because to the church it showed their lack of forgiveness.

These were situations where the family of the victim and the family of the perpetrator were friends. There were pre-existing, close relationships. As they’re trying to sort these things through, when relational conflicts arose between the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s family, we unwisely used a Peacemaker model for conflict resolution. This resulted, put them on an equal plane – get the log out of your eye, get the log out of your eye, go for the speck, go for the speck – this resulted in the victim’s family being corrected when they should have been gently cared for as sufferers.

I read this and I thought of the many stories we have all heard not only that dealt with this issue, but also the theme of the blog – domestic violence in the church.  This is more doctrine that fact.

 

How often are men, women and children asked to look at their own sin before they speak about verbal abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse?  I think of Tina Anderson , and how she was asked to own 1% of the sin of her being raped.  How many stories have read over at Danni Moss’s Blog, Because It Matters in which she spoke of boy and girls being molested by people in the church, and adults feeling very justified in attacking the children to defend the adult.  How these children were running after the molester to be with them – thus they must have wanted it.    How the adult in the church was a 'Godly’ person, and just made a mistake.

 

How often do we hear hints of BE more submissive, watch your tone and approach, and make sure you are ‘encouraging’ to the person that is abusing you verbally, emotionally or physically? 

 

We don’t do well in gently caring for sufferers.  When a spouse or child are being abused we see more often than not how we need to realize a relationship is 50/50 in fault, and we never attempt to deal with the dangerous brokenness of character – or obvious sinfulness of that person.  We are asked to look for the GOOD qualities, and don’t be so nasty that all you see is the BAD ones! 

 

Yes.  There are always assumptions about your motivation, character, and how you dealt with things so far.

The Fear of Homosexuality

I get so frustrated with hate at times.  People won’t call it hate, but to me it is hate just the same.

I’m going to start with a story about a time when I was young teenager.  The names will be changed, but I wanted to use names so people could get a better visual.

I had a boyfriend named Jay, and his best friend Alex dated a friend of mine from school.  We did see each other, and did things together quite a bit.

One day we went over to Alex’s house to play cards I think it was.  We walked downstairs to the basement, where his family had the card table, chairs, etc.  Off to the side there was a bedroom, and in there were pictures of ‘girls’ all over the walls.  I remarked to Alex that I surprised he had all those pictures on his wall when he claimed to ‘love’ my friend.  Everyone except me was giggling at this point, and I knew I was missing something.  They told me that this wasn’t Alex’s room in the basement, but his adult sister’s room.  Yes.  Alex’s sister was a lesbian. 

A few weeks later Alex’s parents allowed he and Jay to hold a small party with a few friends down in the basement.  Jay and I along with other friends were sitting around the pit group talking.  Then I heard someone else come down the stairs, and she announced to her brother ‘I brought a man this time!”  It was Alex’s sister, and she introduced the man to him.

The next thing I knew she walked over to get something, and tripped on something laying on the floor.  She landed right in my lap.  My reaction?  I got her up off me so fast it wasn’t even funny.  I think everyone felt my reaction was one of being startled when she fell on me out of no where.  I knew differently, and after that happened I was so ashamed of myself.  How could I react that way?  I would have never reacted that way to someone that was heterosexual.

I allowed the fear, stereotypes, and culture to have me react in ways I hated.  I was so mad and disappointed in myself.  I was acting homophobic, and was prejudiced against someone I didn’t even know.  

I don’t think I had ever met a lesbian up to that point.  WELL at least not that knew of.   I knew I had to learn to change that reaction, because it wasn’t healthy – and it would be unreasonably hurtful to others.  It was MY issue not theirs.  A far cry from a proper Christian response.

I did grow up and grow out of that type of response.  I have worked and dealt with people that were homosexual since that day, and thankfully I have never had that fearful reaction again.  I can’t say I understand the lifestyle, but learning some grace I don’t have to be uncomfortable or fearful now.  I have met some very nice people, and some NOT so nice.  (giggles) just like any other human interaction! 

I realize what the Christian response is to the issue of homosexuality, but I have to admit that is an area I struggle with.  You won’t see me taking a stand in either direction, because I don’t feel right either way.  I do know I will not hate, nor will I react in ways I did as a teenager.    I will not fear homosexuality, because fear brings out the worse in people.  I treat them as I would anyone else.  I am ashamed of some of the Christian responses, because at times they can very vile.

Prejudice is Ignorance

Marriage can only have one head.

If it has two heads then it becomes a two-headed monster.

I think I must first warn you that I’m on a soap box today.  I first read Mara’s article, Have you heard this one?  I then moved onto Wartburg Watch, and their article Is Racial Solidary really possible in the SBC?

Prejudice Is Ignorance

I guess I first need to explain.  I will be speaking from the eyes of a small child that watched her parents fight in a southern atmosphere during the civil rights, freedom riders, Martin Luther King, Jr. times.  They both grew up in an atmosphere of bigotry, and they were both lead by the Holy Spirit to stand up for what was right and just on this issue.

From what I have gathered they waited until adulthood, and away from the immediate family pressure to do everything they wished to do.  They did small things prior, but went all out once the restrictions of their family life was removed.  

I remember my own grandfather telling me that he sent his good Christian girl off to Baylor thinking it was a good Christian college – and they ‘ruined her’.  Mom told me later she just felt more free to express their beliefs later in life.  They were always there.

During that time if you did such a thing you were the worse of the worse.  You were the white traitors, and dealt with contempt.  

If you watched any of the Freedom Riders program you would understand how truly UNCOMFORTABLE at the very least this stand would place you in if you were in the South.  Which is where we were. 

My brother and I never saw my parents treat people of color any different than anyone else.  They repeated over and over again, ‘Prejudice is ignorance’.  They showed us what that meant, and I’m truly thankful for that.

My children have friends from just about every background imaginable.  I realize they know history, but their freedom of having those friends with no attitude, comments, and sense of bigotry like I saw in childhood?   That is SO big to me!

Prejudice Is Ignorance

This comment can be applied to so much more than my childhood experiences with seeing direct racism.

Prejudice is about power and authority in the eyes of a bigot.  If you attempt to place the bigot on the same plain with the source of their prejudice?  They see it as taking their power and authority away.  Its almost as if the competition is being handed things that was ‘theirs alone’, and they are being forced to share.

In their own pride, selfish nature they lash back.  The sense of superiority that they had been raised with is seen as being unjustly taken away.

The Prejudice is ignorance comment that I learned from childhood applies here.  Sadly, their response is what is dangerous, damaging and downright hurtful.  They seem to think life would be the Dr. Doolittle's push me pull me animal.

I’m going to ‘pull me’ as hard as I can to keep my authority and superiority, and at times I will violently resist the ‘push me’ source of prejudice to view them any different.  

If you read any of the myths of what would happen to society if blacks were given this position?  You can feel what I’m speaking about.  I remember ONE in particular, black men would rape white women.

Their true fear was/is ignorance.  With ignorance came hate, contempt, name calling, labeling, lies, etc.  Yes, Prejudice is ignorance.

Chasm of Forgive and Forget!

Chuck Phelps at Tina Anderson's Trial attempting to get
sympathy for being thrown under the bus.

Sadly, it has been brought out that a second victim of Chuck Phelps, and his time at Trinity Baptist Church in Concord NH has been brought forward.

Once again Chuck Phelps is working with his lawyer to make sure his response to this second accusation is not seen as pure damage control.

Watch the chasm again of Forgive and Forget.

ChucklesTravels has the victim's uncle response.  The Concord Monitor wrote a story about, but they tend not to allow non subscribers read it.  I placed a copy in my documents section online if you would like to read it. 

Chuck Phelps of course has his response online once again.  You can click to enlarge.

Phelps Excuse for new victim page 1

Phelps Excuse for new victim page 2

I'm sure as with the Tina Anderson story more things will surface as time goes along.

The one thing that is similar between the two stories is that Dr. Chuck Phelps is more concerned about defending himself, and calls this a 'second sad story'.  He makes a point - once again - of the age of the victim.  He then claims the abuses stopped after he was informed of this.

This victim - unlike Tina - moved in with her Aunt and Uncle after informing them during a family vacation what had been happening at home.  The victim's mother told her brother (the uncle) that it had been dealt with - within the church.  The uncle contacted the police in the area, because she had two younger siblings still living them.  He also contacted Chuck Phelps who basically told him it was confidential, and the victim needed to forgive and forget.

Brian Fuller, current pastor of Trinity Baptist Church has removed the stepfather from worship, and other activities since learning about this second case.  Something of course that never entered the mind of Chuck Phelps during Tina's nor the new victim allegations at the time.  It seems that Chuck Phelps likes to forgive and forget.

Chuck Phelps also stated he contacted child services and the police once he was informed of the abuses, due to there being two other minors in the home.  The police claim no such record was filed.

Chuck Phelps now taking credit for conviction

Below is a letter that Chuck Phelps has on his website now.  He is basically attempting to take credit for the conviction that he fought very hard not to help happen in the first place.  The quoted portions are my notes.  His entitlement and diversions is amazing to me.  No humbleness is shown.  Its sad.

A Verdict Reached – Ernie Willis Guilty

The trail of Ernie Willis took place in Concord, NH, from May 23 to 28, 2011.  After a week of hearing witnesses, a jury found Ernie Willis Guilt on all counts placed before them.  There are those who may be curious about my reactions.

I am relieved.  Tina Anderson had a right to seek justice, and she is no doubt thankful that Ernie Willis has been convicted.  Ernie Willis broke the law.  No one has ever denied this.  When Tina made allegations concerning Ernie Willis in 1997, her mother and I reported the matter as a crime to the Concord police department (a fact now affirmed under oath by me, her mother, and the Concord police investigator assigned to the case).  Unfortunately, the Concord police were not diligent to follow-up on the reports given to them.  Further, it was affirmed under oath by me and a Concord police officer that I called the New Hampshire Division of Youth and Family Services and reported Tina’s situation as was required by the law.  Sadly, this report did not bring the immediate follow-up that is expected norm today.

If you note from the trial? 

Chuck Phelps and Christine Leaf both made it clear that Tina made no ‘allegations’ of rape to them – the purpose of the trial.  They both repeatedly reminded everyone she never said she was ‘raped’.  It was a ‘convert dating relationship’, and Phelps even noted on camera that he didn’t consider it rape.  By calling this a ‘covert dating relationship’ does infer that he felt it was ‘consensual’, and not a crime at least in his eyes. 

What Chuck Phelps is leaving out is they do not have record of him contacting the police, but do have a record of him contacting New Hampshire's child services.  The police officer he mentions above contacted him – after children’s services reported to the officer, and Phelps never returned the calls.  Chuck Phelps also needs to realize that he had a ethic and moral obligation – besides his duty lawfully – to follow up if he KNEW for sure Ernie Willis broke the law – as he claims no one denied.  He needs to apologize for his lack of ‘diligent follow-up’ as well, that should have been expected to be ‘norm’ now and at the time. 

At my recommendation Mrs. Leaf took Tina to see a licensed medical professional who examined her in private and never called the police (a fact also established by the medical professional’s testimony in court).

The facts posted on this website since the April 8th 20/20 program aired have now been stated under oath.  On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the court determined that I could share what had previously been confidential information which I received from Mr. Willis many years ago.  The release of this information no doubt played a very important part in bringing these matters to justice.

They Turned Out Despite THEM!

I sitting here praying this morning for Tina Anderson, and all those that are watching and waiting for the jury to come back.  Will there be justice? 

I think some justice has happened even before this trial started.  Willis will go to jail no matter what the jury comes back with today. 

I pray for a different type of justice – that people will open their eyes and hearts to those families that don’t give their children a chance.

What I saw at this trial – among other things – is adults at the time trying to SHAMEFULLY take ‘credit’ for the awesome adults that Tina and Tom turned out to be.  It amazes me because their ‘safe adults’ in childhood were just as dangerous as their stepfather Daniel Leaf at the time.

These adults – Tina and Tom – turned out despite the outrageous conduct, behavior, and ghastly beliefs the adults in their life's made them endure.

The church’s ignorance is killing children, and if we are lucky enough to have some survive?  It wasn’t due to the adults in their life's – they survived despite them.  Can we get REAL for a moment!  Its shameful that people TRY to take credit where CREDIT isn’t due!

Tina and her brother Tom never had a chance.  It is their faith, and their push to have a life later on that should teach others.  Yet you have people like Christine Leaf – their mother – that use their mostly awful judgment as a parent to say it wasn't all that bad – look at how they turned out!

The truth is they turned out well despite their mother.

Christian Authority is Freedom

One of the huge differences that I see within the church is the meaning of authority. We see to often that the church tends to use a worldly use of the authority, and the use of enforcement of that authority. Jesus spoke more than once against that type of authority, and his actions back that up!

Mark 10

There is a couple of times within Mark 10 that Jesus is trying to get across the type of authority he had in mind. This type of authority tends to go against the grain for us humans, or if you will definition of how you and I may define it.

Mark 10:13 One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could touch and bless them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him.
14 When Jesus saw what was happening, he was angry with his disciples. He said to them, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” 16 Then he took the children in his arms and placed his hands on their heads and blessed them.

The kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children.  If we do not received the Kingdom like a a child we will not enter it. We need to pay attention to ONE more statement, "I tell you the truth".

Jesus is speaking of a characteristic of humility that children have. Humility is a theme that is spoken about throughout the bible.  Jesus was giving them an example - a visual if you wish - of the type of humility a Christ follower is to have.  He is taking one trait of children that is treasured, and basically asking us not to lose it.

James 4:6  But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

1Peter 5:5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

How often do people use 'humility when they describe those in authority that are known for true enforcement of that earthly authority?  We are CLOTHE ourselves in humility.

Lets go back starting at Mark 10:29

“Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or property, for my sake and for the Good News, 30 will receive now in return a hundred times as many houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and property—along with persecution. And in the world to come that person will have eternal life. 31 But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then."

The last sentence is speaking of our place in Heaven. The humble - or least important - will be the greatest.  Where does that leave those that 'use authority' in the opposite manner that the Lord intended?

Mark 10:39 “Oh yes,” they replied, “we are able!”
   Then Jesus told them, “You will indeed drink from my bitter cup and be baptized with my baptism of suffering. 40 But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.”
 41 When the ten other disciples heard what James and John had asked, they were indignant. 42 So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. 43 But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

When this scripture speaks of the drinking of the bitter cup, and the baptism of suffering?  He is speaking also to the indignant 10 disciples present.  We are to be the opposite of those within worldly authority positions.

Lets look to Luke for an example of authority! When He cast out demons, He exercised authority over the demon, but not the person whom He set free.  When the disciples returned from their mission Jesus made it clear that he had given them authority over serpents and scorpions and all the power of the enemy, but not over humans. 

Luke 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Do not 'rejoice' that spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.  If we wish to 'twist' this verse like the world we could show the 'authority' the world has in mind.  Jesus stated the opposite is what they should be rejoicing about.  You should be rejoicing over your name being written in heaven, and NOT how someone 'submitting' to you.  Jesus states that the authority he has given them?  The power of the enemy will not harm you, and yet according to some followings?  This authority is threatened by all kinds of earthy and human aspects.  What I take from that?  It must not be the authority Jesus gave to them if that is the case.

The nature of the authority of Jesus may be seen in the authority that he used, and which he gave to the disciples when he sent them out as apostles.  He gave them authority and sent them to, “Proclaim the Kingdom of God, to heal the sick, and to cast out demons.”

Matthew 10: 5 Jesus sent out the twelve apostles with these instructions: “Don’t go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, 6 but only to the people of Israel—God’s lost sheep. 7 Go and announce to them that the Kingdom of Heaven is near.[d] 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cure those with leprosy, and cast out demons. Give as freely as you have received!

Does anyone get the impression in that scripture that Jesus gave them the authority to go out, and remind others since Jesus gave them the authority you better listen or ELSE?  You had better 'respect' my authority?  "I" am in the position to tell you 'what's what'?  Does that attitude give freely as they have received?

When Jesus met them at the mountain after his resurrection, he cited His authority and sent them out to make disciples and teach.  

When He appeared to them on the first day where they were hidden, He authorized them to receive Holy Spirit and remit Sin.

In none of that authorization did He exercise any enforcement of his way of life.  Instead, Jesus invited them to enter the Kingdom of God, which is at hand, and to meet the King.  To know the King is eternal life.  When we are authorized to proclaim the Kingdom we are to let people know that they too might know Jesus so they might be set free, not subjugated in bondage.

When He forgave Sin, Jesus set people free from the bondage to guilt and shame that besets much of the human race.  

The authority He gives us is to do all that He has done for us as well as for others.  He has given us the ministry of letting humans off the hook, rather than hooking them with guilt.  Anyone who uses guilt as a motivation in the faith community is exercising the authority of the world, not the authority of Jesus.

Jesus has given us the authority to share the life that he has given for us and to us.  He has not given us the authority to judge one another.  All of the authority Jesus has given is compatible with Forgiveness.  It is in His love and the forgiving nature of that love that we find the meaning and nature of Christian authority. To often we concentrate on 'worldly authority', and try to melt the two together. 

We do not seek so much to change people as to bring them into the love and presence of the one who is able to recreate them and make them new.  It is not for us to order them about, but to allow Jesus to reach out to them through us to make them His own.

Agunah is to stay chained

I was directly recently to an article called, "Why are Christian Divorce Rates so High?"

In that article they mentioned the term 'agunah' or literally translated is 'chained woman'.  The man had the power to desert the family, and leave her without the 'get' or divorcement.  She was what they term as the chained women to the man, because she was not allowed to remarry at that point.

If she did remarry she was looked upon as adulterous, and her offspring were literally labeled as illegitimate or bastards. What isn't mentioned so much is that men also had this position laid upon them, but the consequences were not as severe.

What you don't see today in the church?  Is the proper definition of  'putting away' and 'divorce'.  If you 'put away' your wife she was 'chained' to the man.  If he gave the woman a 'get' she was no longer chained, and was free to remarry.

Putting away was a big problem, and the 'get' was a form of mercy.  You really don't hear to much about that at all.  I will be speaking in general terms about 'putting away' and a Jewish 'get'. 

There are plenty of ins and outs to this concept, but I want to look at it generally in terms of how it is presented in scripture.

Deuteronomy

In Deuteronomy 24 it mentioned: 'he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house.."  They are talking about a 'get' in Jewish tradition.  If the husband didn't give the 'get' to the wife she wasn't allowed to remarry, and she was still 'chained' to her husband.

An honorable man of society would not 'put away' his wife, but if he was hard hearted enough to do so he would be bound to give her a 'get'.  A man that wasn't honorable enough to do so was at times threatened with excommunication which was very serious as you can imagine.

There were times in which a wife would request from the leaders of the temple to approach the man about a 'get'.  Women were not allowed to issue 'gets', but religious leaders did approach the husband at times on her behalf.  The Law of Moses mentioned three main reasons that women applied for a 'get'. 1) Husband following a disgraceful vocation. 2) cruelty to the wife 3) refusing to provide. The courts would 'compel' the husband to agree to the 'get' by threatening him with excommunication. If that didn't work they would go non Jewish courts to take care of it.

If you look at the times we are speaking about it makes sense.  The woman was left in a very vulnerable state, and her options were extremely limited if she was 'put away' without the 'get'.   The relatives or the society at the time would be left to care for her, or she was left with little options.  To me God is on the side of the 'underdog' if you will.  His sense of compassion towards her and the children, and a sense of mercy was given with the 'get'.

I think we realize that there are some people that would leave their spouse out of just plain spite.  I'm sure part of the motive to withhold the 'get' was the dowry, among others things she would be entitled to once she received the divorce.  If she received no 'get' she was out of luck.

I think some have heard of the 'get' when it came to times of war when you husband would not return, and was presumed dead.  I have always heard about receiving a 'get' when the spouse was marked 'insane'.

Malachi

If we move on to Malachi 2 it again mentions 'putting away' or lack of a 'get':

 ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
 ¹⁵And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
 ¹⁶For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

If you look at the principal of the 'get' refusing one would be dealing treacherously with the wife of your youth.  If he didn't hand her the 'get' or divorce papers she was chained to him for life.  She was left with little options, and very vunerable in soceity.

If you look at this passage from that viewpoint?   If you look at the culture and laws of the day?  This passage makes so much more sense.

The husband basically profaned the covenant and the Law of the Lord by abandoning his family, and then came to the temple to worship the Lord.  If you are to be seen as an honorable man in the eyes of the Lord you would follow his commandments towards your family.  Scripture speaks to those that did not:


¹¹Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
 ¹²The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
 ¹³And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
 ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
 ¹⁵And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

God basically tells the men that abandon their families WHY are to questioning my reaction to you in the temple when you come to worship and give me offerings.  Why do you think I have refused them?  Did you not treat my laws with contempt?  He also mentioned the man will be 'cut off' that doeth this.

¹⁷Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

In other words you did evil towards your family, and you want me to delight in your worship of me?  You live a life of treachery, and you wish me to ignore that with no judgment?

As the kids would say today, "You ain't all that!"

Matthew

Matthew 19: ³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


If you look at the passages above?  It again speaks of 'putting away' without a 'get' by Jewish Law.  Without a 'get' if you remarry it is seen as adulterous.

At that time from what I understand if a women was found committing adultery they were put away in certain circumstances, and as we know stoned in other circumstances.   The bible speaks of how both parties were to be stoned actually, but when you read about the woman that was brought to Jesus you notice she was brought alone.

I'm sure we have all heard about how there was two schools of thought regarding marriage at this time, putting away, and divorce.  One school of thought was very restrictive, and the other was very frivolous. 

Matthew 19: ³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God said we are to keep marriage Holy, and the couple is seen as one flesh.  God does not wish man to put that asunder.  Now if you look at it from that prospective would God feel it is lawful for a man to 'put away' his wife (no 'get') for every cause?

⁷They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  ⁸He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
 ⁹And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

They basically asked Jesus HOW come Moses said it was OKAY?!

In my eyes he was correcting their arrogance.  God allowed the 'get' to protect the wife, because of the treacherous nature of the hard hearted men during that time that would abandon the family.  Due to the nature on how they 'put away' their wifes, and left them vulnerable and destitute? Moses commanded that the men give them a writing of divorcement so they were not 'chained' to the man out of his own spite.

From the beginning it was not 'so', because God views marriage as a Holy union of one flesh.  The hard hearted men that 'put away' the wifes put it asunder.  She was given the 'get' so she was not 'chained' to him for life out cruelness of his actions, and how it left her socially and morally.

To me again God wanted to save the underdog in this circumstance, and the 'get' was a form of mercy.  The 'get' was the divorcement papers to place in her hands so she could remarry, and not be left destitute due to hard hearted men.

Without the 'get' or divorce if you remarry another it will be seen as adultery.  If you marry someone that was married without the 'get' you are committing adultery as well.

So NO you can't just 'put away' your wife for any reason, and be right in the eyes of the Lord.  In the light of the law of Judism 'adultery' isn't the only way OUT of the marriage as it has been taught for centuries in the church.  These verses were speaking of  'putting away' your wife without the divorce papers or 'get'.  They don't say you can only divorce due to adultery as the church seems to teach.

Romans

In Romans 7 I have heard this referenced to 'the law of the husband'.  They are speaking of Jewish law of marriage.  The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives.  He was bound by the marriage until death as well.  This passage isn't speaking to divorce by 'get', widowed, or single people.

If you look again that the times, and the husband 'put away' his wife and she married another?  It would be adultery.  The 'dominion' of the law was the same for the man.  If he 'put away' his wife to marry another he also would be in adultery.

In that light, the 'law of the husband' is not what they seem to think it is.  Those who KNOW the law also realize that it has dominion over him as well.  People seem to miss that part.

¹Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
 ²For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
 ³So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Putting away and divorce is NOT the same thing!

When you look at the difference of 'putting away' and divorce?  You see the scripture in a different light.  I'm ending this by quote part of the article I linked to above:

Leaders need to grasp the Biblical truth that the law kills, but the Spirit brings life. Leaders have been heaping dump trucks of man made doctrines which violate the core relationships of couples and families. We have placed laws over love. Marriages should be based on and grounded in love. We know love is the greatest, yet the church does not take love seriously. We have called love wishy washy and undependable even though the Bible says that love never fails.

The Bible says that the Law failed. Yet the basis of most Christian marriages is law rather than love. Dishing out prefab roles in the name of Christianity is destructive to marriages because every person and every marriage relationship is unique.

We have changed the original enlightened Biblical message of equality in marriage to one of hierarchy and false submission. Thus we have separated two who God intended to be one. God's idea of oneness does not mean the front end and the back end of a jackass. But that's exactly what our recipe calls for. The promotion of hierarchy in marriage also causes us to have high statistics of domestic abuse and it causes many divorces.

If you look at how churches approach divorce in the light of many uglies such as domestic violence, etc?  They seem to take the opposite approach compared to the Jewish culture they preach about.  You are to be agunah (chained to) a hard hearted spouse that has abandon the spirit and purpose of marriage - the one that put it asunder.  The 'get' doesn't exist according to the church, and God's mercy towards those that the 'get' was to protect?

¹⁷ You have wearied the LORD with your words.
      "How have we wearied him?" you ask.
      By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?"


I think they have the backwards.  The 'get' was for justice.  The church label it as selfish and sinful.  The  agunah is to stay chained.  If you look at in the terms of Jewish culture?  The church seems to be teaching this incorrectly.  Putting away and Divorce were two different concepts, and yet they treat it as one.

Goodness no wonder we are confused!  The Agunah or 'chained woman' God was looking to protect with his mercy towards them.  We tell the Agunah to celebrate their place of honor and dedication to the chain.  We tell them they have no choice - its law!  Then they sprinkle it with spiritual pixie dust to make it look better than it is.  No wonder they look at love as wishy washy, and not dependable.  It wouldn't fit the doctrine otherwise.

Fear Tactics within the Church

I was looking at my grandmother’s collapsible metal cup she had for years as I was growing up the other day.  I was putting dishes away, and saw it on the top shelve.  I grabbed years ago when I was cleaning out my grandparent’s house, and it reminded me of all the trips we took together.  When my brother or I would WHINE in the backseat, “Mimi!  We are thirsty!” she would take it out and pour us some water.

Mimi was the type that followed her husband’s leadership, and did her best to respect his authority within the home.  I recognize the speeches I hear about the roles within marriages, because she grew up in that type of circle.

I will admit they didn’t call them ‘roles’, and back then they were more in your face about the roles.

I see the same speeches today, but they more ‘nice’ about the definitions.  I have to giggle if those darn feminists made people realize how ugly it truly sounded, and it forced them to change their approach a bit.  Sometimes I wonder if that is why they hate them so much?!  I realize they will say that don’t ‘hate’ them, but how about a STRONG dislike!

The approach may not be the same, but the belief systems haven’t changed too much.  They just found a bit more politically correct way of wording if you will.

My mother grew up in this environment as well, but I know she questioned things.  You soon realize questions are not really answered, nor are they tolerated if they are in anyway seen as threat to that belief system.

It’s like today!  You either follow the program or you are one of those women like God talked about after the fall.  She will want all the authority for herself, and you can’t have it!  MEN were given that part!  There is no middle ground, but an either or circumstance.

Invisable Line of Domestic Violence

We had area where we used to go and visit for long weekends.  It was a rural area, and the deer were plentiful.  Time had already taken out the natural predators (like wolves, etc) due to the threat to humans, and the deer were over taking the area.  They were killing all the vegetation.  You see the animals knew the boundaries of the vacation areas, and knew the hunters could not cross that line.

What the animals may not have realized is they were killing off their food sources as their numbers grew, and the food sources were not as plentiful anymore. They were facing a new type of death, and that was starvation.

Soon people realized they had to do something with this booming population, and they brought in professional sharp shooters to bring the number of deer down to a manageable population.  As you can imagine some people were very upset over this.  They felt the death of these animals over the vacation homes flowers, trees and vegetation was just plain sinful. 

I can understand their view on the surface okay?  What they didn't see was the bigger picture of what would happen to these animals - and the area - if the food sources disappeared.  It wouldn't benefit anyone, and animals aren't likely to move outside the invisible line at the time just for food.  You would think so wouldn't you?  The deer meat was donated to local homeless shelters, and rest of the deer population had enough food to survive the winter.

Some deer were cocooned in that small vacation area for so long they didn’t realize there was life outside the invisible line.  There were deer that stayed inside the invisible line once the sharp shooters came, and then you had those that scattered. 

What would happen if the sharp shooters never entered the area?  In time after the land completely went to waste the deer would have moved on, but not until the resources were completely gone and many deer had died. You now have a whole section of land that went to waste, and those factors that surround that issue.  Then you have this population of unhealthy deer, and the effects of those deer integrating into the more healthy population of deer outside that invisible line.  Most people I think realize you don’t want sickly animals within healthy ones without a plan of action.

Not in my CHURCH!

I was doing a little reading the other night, and I came across the blog called Duh Daily Scoop. The author reprinted an article by By Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post. The article was called, "A Call for Clergy to Spotlight Domestic Abuse".



Glenn F. Ivey is a State's Attorney for Maryland, and he wanted to get out the word about domestic violence. As we know October is Domestic Violence Month in the United States, and he made a couple of calls to the churches so they could take the lead. He figured it would be a 'slam dunk' as they call it. It will be an easy sell! HOW hard could this be right?

"But no, I heard things like: 'Brother, it's a little hot to talk about that one.' Or, 'Well, I'll take it up, and we'll form a task force and get back to you.' . . . And then there are churches where the response to the victim is, 'You have to stick it out.' "

Glenn Ivey is a man that wishes to help the 'weaker vessel' within churches, and the church basically turned their backs on the State of Maryland, Glenn Ivey, and women that he wishes to help. What a 'holy' slap in the face huh? We aren't talking about a few little small towns, or neighbors here after all! We are talking about an entire STATE within the USA, and their churches decided that domestic violence really wasn't a topic they wanted to deal with right now.

The article goes on to say:

On Sunday, gatherings will be held at churches -- including Ebenezer AME Church in Fort Washington -- and community-based organizations across the region for "Project Safe Sunday," an initiative aimed at getting people to talk about the sometimes-taboo subject of domestic violence. President Obama has designated October "National Domestic Violence Awareness Month."

The goal is to help people understand the serious and complicated problem and to spur them to learn how to help themselves and others get out of an abusive relationship.

Mr. Ivey speaks about one of his revelations about how people just can't seem to approach this subject when news came out about Chris Brown and Rihanna. We all know they talked about it, but how they wrap their minds around the reality of domestic abuse? It seems that took him by surprise.

In another Washington Post article Glenn Ivey was quoted with saying:

At least initially, a large contingent of people thought that Rihanna was guilty until proven innocent. Not only were they willing to defend Brown, but they also seemed convinced that she must have done something to "deserve" being beaten. Even after a tabloid released photographs of Rihanna showing extensive bruises and swelling, some persisted in defending Brown. Her decision to reunite with him after the photos were published was seen in some quarters as confirmation that she had somehow wronged him from the beginning.

He was speaking to a many of middle school students about this crime, and he was surprised at the reaction of the children. It was the same, and the stats, stories and whatever else he could show them was basically lost to his audience of children.

The surprising comment that he made finally got these children to stop and think for a moment!

Finally, exasperated, I blurted out, "Do you think Barack would ever hit Michelle like that?"

Everyone in the room froze. One student weakly suggested that "Michelle is big enough to fight back," but I knew I had them then.

"Even if she were a foot shorter, can you ever imagine Barack hitting Michelle?" I pressed on: "Is there anything she could possibly do that would lead you to think she deserves to get beaten?"

At that point, the debate was over. Putting hands on Michelle Obama was somehow unthinkable.

Mr. Ivey commented about how the domestic violence issue needed someone like Michelle Obama to step up and support it. He also mentioned that maybe this was to much of a hot topic even for her. No matter what your political party lines are can you imagine the impact that would have? The fact that domestic violence rips people's lives apart, and that isn't falling along gender lines either! Generations of families dealing with this, and for some? Domestic violence is far too controversial to make that commitment.

He closes:

But this sort of campaign is clearly needed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that about 1,200 deaths occur each year as the result of domestic violence. Nearly 2 million attacks annually don't result in death but can be nearly as devastating -- such as what happened to Yvette Cade of Clinton in October 2005, when her estranged husband set her on fire. The Chris Brown/Rihanna case is the sort of domestic violence that I see nearly every day in my job as a prosecutor.

On top of all this, the ripple effects of violence continue to rip apart families and distort young minds. Many of the killers that come through my courthouse have a history of domestic violence in their homes. It will take powerful forces to break that generational curse.

For years groups have sought to reduce domestic violence nationwide. We would all benefit from the credibility and charisma that the first lady would bring to these efforts. Perhaps with her help, we could reverse recent trends and reduce domestic violence in America.

I have to wonder if it will take someone like Michelle Obama for people to truly stop and listen. It seems to me that the church is afraid to use our most powerful source GOD as the motivator!

I see people searching for the grey area so they really don't have to deal with the meat of the issue. Recently I wrote about one of the red herrings that stop them, and that would be the 'authority' within the home.

I truly feel people are afraid of opening this can of worms.

Its a can of worms that God would wish to be dealt with, but we humans use scripture as reasons we don't.

You also see this in history all the time.

From Bitter waters to Sweet mentions how Christians used scripture to justify slavery for example! We can't even imagine that today, but it was accepted and believed!

A Wife's Submission talks about Nate Phelps, and how his well known father Fred Phelps uses 1 Corinthians 11 as a tool of terror towards the women in his family. How he can use this power to take away their salvation. Nate Phelps has now completely turned his back on his faith.

Its just like the stories you find about the sexual abuse within the church that Because It Matters brings to our attention. People are so taken back and hurt by the stories they accuse others of 'judging' and remind them that they are a NICE person. They are a man of God. They just can't face they are a fallen man of God. The accusers are normally placed on the hot seat at that point as people search for flaws in their character to use as the excuse. They just can't place the fact that this person can do this using their own freewill. You can't heal broken people if you can't face the fact they are broken to begin with! IT doesn't happen in MY church...afterall!

We have all heard the sermons and read the articles about commitment. How we have covenants that we are fulfill. Men and Women that are abused are asked to fulfill a commitment and covenant by themselves, because their abusers aren't capable of that. What makes it harder is that society it seems can't seem to OWN that fact that they are not capable either. I will admit society is further along in loads of aspects when it comes to the 'world' versus domestic violence within the church!

Sadly, I think Glenn F. Ivey does have a point. It will take someone like Michelle Obama to start the push for the world to see the reality of this sin.

Its not due to being 'provoked' as people love to say.

Its due to two broken people that have separate issues they need to face and deal with.

Sadly, in alot of cases? They may never see it, because the world refuses to. The 'healthy' ones can't point it out, and help because its just to controversial. I guess its easier to blame the broken people. It would be to UN-politically correct to truly look deeper. The next time I hear, "That would never happen in MY church!" I hope they aren't Maryland! If they are I wonder if they will go as far as to ask about the invitation from Glenn Ivey! You know! Check to see if the denial is NOT in YOUR church! I can't believe Maryland is the one and only!