The Church Hurt ME! Should we say that?

Should we be saying, “The Church Hurt Me”?  This was a title of a rebuke article over at the Gospel Coalition this last week. 

 

I thought to myself – WOW talk about bad taste to bring up such a thing after some pretty ugly opinions in the light of the ‘alleged’ victims of C.J. Mahaney’s network of churches.  Remember this was just a week PRIOR!

 

Are they seriously that out of touch?

 

Remember this tends to be a figure of speech.  Most of the time people are referring to a principal of hurt they experienced at a church.  The author went the literal route.  As in every Christian on earth, and every Christian Organization HURT me. 

 

I guess if it wasn’t published so quickly after the SGM Scandal I might not have such a bad taste in my mouth.  I would still think it was a bad approach being so literal, but it wouldn’t seem so ugly if the circumstances were NOT as they are!

 

Timing is key at times, and under the circumstances the author seems to be speaking of some petty things in comparison to the ‘alleged’ lawbreakers at Sovereign Grace Ministries they supported just a week prior.  When you think the of heat they took after their statements?  It looks really bad.

 

Here are some items the article brought up for discussion.

• Failure to hear the person's feedback on controversial issue.
  Refusal of certain type of service.
  Church member offending you in some way

Now, under normal circumstances I can see addressing these items.  Yes, some people do get very hurt or dismayed at church.  Heck I suppose even as ‘literally’ as the author wrote to be as well. 

Although since we aren’t under normal circumstances?  Taking a phrase that people use – when you are under criticism of enabling ‘alleged’ lawbreakers? 

Timing of this type of rebuke is just distasteful.

 

The Universal Church

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.

 

The person could also mean Sovereign Grace Ministries under C.J Mahaney’s authority, and the brotherhood of pastors that stood by him due to friendship.  OH YES, as they also threw the victims under the bus! 

 

Again most of the time people are talking about a ‘circumstance’, and to try to make your point by being ‘literal’?  Universalism maybe?

 

Some have every reason for the mistrust, and not everyone that gets ‘hurt by the church’ means EVERY universal aspect of Christianity.  Your application is ridiculous!

 

Maybe we need to, “Check to see if someone is referring to a principal of a circumstance – and not literal’. 

 

Sounds a little silly to ask people to ‘dial it down’, because honestly?  He used the same extremes he accuses others of. 

 

I realize the author most likely wasn’t addressing this group of individuals, but more along the types of circumstances he mentioned.  I get that.  Problem is when the wounds are fresh like they are?  You need to at least mention something to them.  You should understand that some of them have said the very same things, and for good reasons.

 

You don’t write an article to rebuke people over petty items compared to the here and now circumstances his own ministry is dealing with (Rebukes of their support).  Can we get real here for a moment?

 

Sadly, they are showing how completely insulated they are from the world their audience lives in.  Honestly?  All it would have taken is a short disclaimer.  I have no doubt he doesn’t even grasp how ugly this sounds.

 

Shall we look at his points?

 

1. Take your pain to the Lord who bore your pain and bore the sin of those who offended. In His arms are 10,000 charms.

2. Take your heart to the ones who actually offended you and seek reconciliation–and if necessary take godly, impartial help.

 

When I see this type of instruction it is rather patronizing to those that are mourning families involved with the Sovereign Grace Ministries scandal.  People that have ‘allegedly’ been harmed by forms of ‘spiritual abuse’, and manipulating scripture to fit an ideology.

 

If we glance at some of the family stories you will find a small child right out of ‘toddlerhood’ being asked to come to a meeting with their pedophile for ‘reconciliation’, and to show forgiveness.  The leadership of the church called this meeting – not the wounded family. When the leadership was called out on this type of thing?  They ignored the rebuke, and a lawsuit followed.  I hope you asked them to dial down their ‘universalism.

 

This family was ‘hurt by the church’.  Figure of speech – not literal!

 

What seems to be a pattern with some churches to never use ‘traumatic’ events like this, and it is what most think of when others speak of being hurt by the church.  After what happened recently?  Why wouldn’t they?

 

When you are writing an article like this on the coat tails of your followers being highly offended by using ‘friendship’ as a basis for ignoring this type of pain?  It would be common sense to view the article being presented in bad taste – and even offensive.  Did you acknowledge those comments under your article?

 

You see the brotherhood of pastors refused to acknowledge those they ‘offended’, and cut off the paths to reconciliation.  Remember the removing of their statement off Facebook when they didn’t like the comments?  Placing it on another website, and closing the comments completely?  Its sad that they don’t see how tacky that is – at the very least!

 

3. Stop saying, “The church hurt me.” It’s affecting your heart toward an entire congregation, many of whom are likely unaware and uninvolved in your hurt, and possibly affecting your heart toward all Christians everywhere. Don’t blame “the church.” Don’t spread your “hurt” over a wider area. If you do, it will dominate you. But if you target your pain and your reconciliation efforts–making it as small and specific as you can–you’ll experience greater control over and freedom from the hurt.

 

Stop taking a general term that most can realize the meaning of, and hinting that your definition only is appropriate one under the circumstances.

 

Most people can ‘discern’ what people are driving at by talking to them when they use this term.  In most circumstances a validation with a pure heart and intent could move mountains, and will crush the domination you see.

 

If you can’t reach people where they are?  Those very TRUE statements you do mention will be completely loss in the translation by most.  You should know that by now.  Please.  THINK!

 

4. Do realize that not every church hurt you and people are not “all the same.” Find a local church you can join. Start slow if you need to. But let the Lord’s manifold grace come to you in the fellowship of His people. That’s normally how He comforts us in our trouble and pain (2 cor. 1).

 

Do you realize when people say this term that their definition does not always align your all compassing one. You see most adults realize that people are not ‘all the same’, and if I were guessing figured that out in childhood.  Please tell us that wasn’t lost on you!

 

OH!  Can you clue the preacher boys in that people that don’t agree with their interruptions of scripture aren’t all evil feminists, or emasculated males?   You see they do give the strong impression that those that don’t agree are ‘all the same’ in that manner.  Matter of fact they make some very strong statements to that effect. 

 

5. Live in hope. Your Lord is also Lord of the Church. He cares for your brokenness but also the brokenness of the Church. And guess what? Your pain is the means He will use to teach the church to grow in love and their love will be the means of your healing. The church needs your hurt and you need the church’s love.

 

That would start if people would speak out against the authoritarian nature of some churches or Christian Organizations, and acknowledge humans tend to use their positions within the hierarchy to ignore the hurt.  Yes, its just that important!

 

The ‘church’ is good at giving you examples all the time on ways to show your love for them, but sadly are NOT very receptive to rebuke when their own ‘authority’ it gets out of hand.   Sadly, it’s a part of human nature that makes them extremely uncomfortable to admit.  Placing the words like:  Biblical or Godly in front of their statements, names, etc. doesn’t always make it so.  People are noticing!

 

Just so I’m clear – most realize that churches aren’t ‘all the same’ in that realm.  Too many are, and it would help if people like yourself dropped the spiritual spin on things and spoke out against them.  Just think of the healing that could take place, and the reconciliation that could start upon that acknowledgement!

 

Lead by Example!

 

Tell the preacher boys that claim the lawsuit, and charges against CJ Mahaney were NOT about ‘founding a ministry’.  How they are intelligent enough to know that, and instead of just deleting that sentence in their statement?  It would look a bit more transparent if they acknowledged the statement was foolish, defensive, and an outright untruth!

 

Remind them that YES friendship can be strong at times, and they can still be friends in private.  BUT when it comes to professionalism within a ministry under such terrible circumstances?  Its not a ‘biblical’ basis of innocence, and their opinions of his character don’t change that.

 

As hard as it is for them they MUST acknowledge that a statue of limitations doesn’t mean there is no grounds for suspicion or lack of guilt.  They wrote this statement from their own emotional state at this time, and their attempt at diversion out of loyalty was sin.

 

Your article asked:  ‘Should we be saying, The Church Hurt ME?’  Yes, unless you have an audience that tends to take things too literally. 

 

There are times to take the literal approach, but sadly in this circumstance?  No.  HECK even if your audience DID say it under the circumstances that you listed?  You tend to look as silly as they do.

Victims are against forgiveness as the solution to the problem

I actually call forgiveness the "F" word for the evangelical community, because of how they use forgiveness.  

It's not that victims are against forgiveness. 

Victims are against forgiveness as the solution to the problem.  

Because the problem will go on and on and on as long as every victim continues to give forgiveness.  The organization does not have to address the issues. 

All God’s Children Documentary

As you might have guessed I was watching All God’s Children on Youtube the other night, and the above quote I felt was very profound.  The Video segment above has this quote.

Children of missionaries were placed in boarding schools while their parents served as missionaries – in this case in Africa.  The children were abused badly by the caregivers, and as adult survivors they asked the missionary organization to start dealing with what happened.  The organization threw out the ‘forgiveness’ card, and stonewalled with prevention of this from happening to other children.  They wanted to blow it off as a ‘select few’ that I’m sure they wanted to treat as bad apples, but were overwhelmed with the numbers of survivors that came forward after the story went public.

What happened next was a show of fear towards the missionary alliance’s reputation, and self preservation.  They attempted to ‘deal with it’, but you get the sense they did it more from pressure than from genuine concern.  

Once the heat was removed (somewhat anyway) they were able to go on ‘doing God’s work’.   What they failed to realize or face was helping these victims, and preventing future victims IS God’s work as well.  They pretended their priories were not out of whack.

Sadly, what it shows is if other missionary children are abused?  They have no hope of true support within their community.  They will be set adrift.  I pray that the links I supplied below will be of help to you.

As the men and women within this video documentary spoke of the triggers they deal with to this day?  That doesn’t show a lack of forgiveness, but of struggle. 

They are still struggling to learn to cope with their past, and superhuman type of forgiveness others demand of them is NOT helping them by any stretch of the imagination.

Its true that the faith community does tend to use forgiveness so they don’t have to address the problem or issues.  Once the victim ‘forgives’ they move on as if nothing ever happened.  Victims are left to deal with this on their own, and sharing the burdens that comes from healing is the ‘unforgiveable’ to ask for.

Today forgiveness is a tool that is used, so the church doesn’t have to deal with things that seem to ugly.

Forgiveness is suppose to be for us, and yet it is used as a ‘on demand’ concept for others.  The forgiveness then turns into something for others, and not for the victim at all. 

You see this way to often when dealing with emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and spiritual abuse.  Most of the time people that abuse others in this way?  The victims are asked to forgive their abuser, and then sadly those victims must then find ways of forgiving those that counseled them (on forgiveness) because they would rather wipe the slate clean afterwards – then help them mend other aspects that go along with healing afterwards.

You see those cycle of emotions afterwards are used as ‘points of unforgiveness or bitterness’, and that is the big lie when it comes to support of abuse victims.  Its laziness, unforgiveness towards victims, and fear of how this would impact THEIR circumstance and might bruise THEIR lifes or organization.    It has nothing to do with smearing God in some way, but has everything to do with their fear of facing sin.  Its self perseveration in the ugliest form.

Cycle of Healing – When do you face this?

They say its human to take the path of less resistance.  Victims are easy to steam roll because they are in weaken state anyway, and sadly all too often the faith community takes the ‘secular’ path that is far from biblical.

People that are abused, and are allowed healing tend to have cycles similar to the cycle of grief – loss of a loved one.  I remember when my father died they reminded me of these stages, and how they may not go in order – and you can deal with one cycle again and again at times.

• Denial: “This can’t be happening to me.”
  
• Anger: “Why is this happening? Who is to blame?”
  
• Bargaining: “Make this not happen, and in return I will ____.”
  
• Depression: “I’m too sad to do anything.”
  
• Acceptance: “I’m at peace with what happened.”
  

They tell you these cycles are normal and healthy.  In time you will reach the other side in which you learn to live with what has happened, and are able to go on with life.  That doesn’t mean you forget about the death, and you don’t mourn anymore.  It means that grief no longer overwhelms your life.  Most people have dealt with a death, and you see the genuine support people need as acceptable due to this.

Sadly, that is NOT true for abuse victims most of the time.  That seems especially true if those victims are within the church body – and the abuser is also.

It amazes me that people just ask this superhuman concept of others (instant forgiveness) when abuse happens, without having them process things that they have dealt with.  Then you notice those that counsel this ‘instant forgiveness’ are the ones railing against some pet sin they are against, and then place this aura of how its ‘everywhere around them’.  No, they aren’t ones that do the superhuman concept of instant forgiveness either.   Sadly, they are in so much denial they can’t see it.

Transformation is what is truly amazing!

They say if you beat a dog long enough he will learn to bite you in return after a while.  In softer terms if you torment a cat all the time you may get a good scratch or bite in defense as well.  Most people can ‘grasp’ and understand these concepts, and most are NOT going to blame the animals for their reaction.  If you take that animal and place it in better circumstances people are amazed at the transformation. 

My Siamese cat died in January – he was 17 years old.  He was rescue animal, and you could tell something had happened in the past due to his fear towards things that most cats would not be.  He never lashed out, or would bite.  He was just full of fear.  He was a young cat, and we used plenty of love, patience, and fun to help him come out of his shell.  In time he slowly came out, and he learned that not everyone/everything around him was worth fearing.  Those fears would pop up from time to time, but they lessoned as he enjoyed being spoiled with praise, kisses, rubs and plenty of kitty treats. 

He learned to trust us, and knew we had his best in mind.  When he was older we brought home a puppy, and at that point our cat was strong enough to show him (the puppy) WHOM the top dog was in the house.  Our cat also was secure enough in his position within the family to learn to love the puppy, and in return the puppy had a healthy respect for that ‘old man’.  My Siamese didn’t fear him as he would in the past, and after the patriarchy was established (if you will) he truly cared for his new pup. 

Towards the end of his life I think he sensed my fear of losing him, and he just lovingly endured things as we tried to save him with genuine affection in his eyes.  The day I put him down he was not afraid either, and he almost gave me one last smile as he fell asleep for the last time.    The transformation in that cat was amazing.

I think it is the same with people that are hurt and abused.  They need love, patience, grace and loads of support.  Fear hurts, and is NOT a comfortable state of living. 

Asking victims to forgive is all well and good, but telling them NOT to process their grief, fear, and the other host of emotions?  Its not healthy nor is it normal way of dealing with things.   People are big on saying love is not an emotion, but an action.  Sadly, the actions are not there with most abuse victims.  Using forgiveness as a tool to wipe the slate clean instead of helping them process what happened to them?  That’s not love its fear.

Avoidance is fear – not love!

On the one hand I can understand and empathize with this fear, but on the other hand I can see the terrible effects not facing those fears have on life.  The instant forgiveness crowd may not realize they cement belief systems in victims when they can not do as God would have them do. 

You learn to NOT trust an abuser, and you learn NOT to trust counsel as well when they also aren’t safe to help them process things.  That isn’t being a perpetual ‘victim’, but common sense towards the human nature.   Its like learning to speak ‘cat’, and telling my old pal he didn’t need our love to move past his fear. It’s unrealistic, and spiritual pixie dust to expect it.

When you read Psalms you hear similar cries of pain and anguish, and yet Psalms is NOT used to show you how NOT to deal with injustice, abuse and neglect.  It doesn’t tell others to have this superhuman forgiveness, so others can wipe the slate clean because they are afraid of dealing with reality of circumstances.  Instead it shows the pain and reality of life at times, and does NOT encourage people to stuff things down because those around them are to afraid to help. 

Its sad that people can show MORE compassion towards the death of pet than they do the destruction of a person.

The church sadly is no different than the world when it comes to injustice within the church.  They just have their unique way of NOT dealing with it.   The abuser tells you that its all your fault, and the quote ‘healthy’ ones within the church tend to send the same message once the abuse surfaces.  Telling them to forgive where the church can forget!  Yes, it’s the same as telling victims its their fault all over again.

It’s a sick mindset.  The denial is also very strong, and you could see this within the IFB community when the Tina Anderson story was exposed.  They just were plain unable to to understand WHY people were against Chuck Phelps being a board member afterwards.  They didn’t conceive the reasons that others didn’t accept their ‘authority’ to hound, manipulate and bully those that cried foul.  The organization called, Do Right BJU was started and BJU felt they were right – and they showed the world how sadly they do not have good grasp on reality nor scripture.

We had a person on a faith board that used to be in existence that loved to use manipulative statements of forgiveness towards other hurting people.  He or She would say something along the lines of, “I’m glad MY God forgives me better than you can forgive others!”  Why people think that type of statement is anywhere near helpful towards anyone just boggles the mind.  Yet this statement reassembles the attitude towards victims of abuse completely.

When it seems forgiveness is more for them than for you?  Its okay to cry foul, and please continue to reach out and find those that do understand what God asks from them towards your pain.

Victims are against forgiveness as the solution to the problem.

Forgiveness isn’t the solution to the problem of denial – its just one step of many towards healing.  It’s the scapegoat of the church uses to NOT do what God asks of them.  You can’t share in each other burdens when you pretend those burdens no longer exist.

The church sadly in most cases are more hurtful than secular society when dealing with sin within their own circle.   I’m so thankful for those individuals, organizations, churches and leaders that live out Christ like Love towards victims.  I just pray that some day they aren’t so few and far between.

Please accept the following links if you also need support:

All God’s Children – Documentary website

Missionary Kids Safety Net

Missionary Kids Advocates Forum

MK Planet online community for current MKs and Adult MKs (MK=Missionary kids)

The Hope For Survivors Ministry providing support for victims of clergy sexual abuse

In the links section at the top of my blog is other types of support and missions to help you with your faith towards healing.

My prayers are with you, the faith community, and lastly the abusers themselves.

Chuck Phelps and the BJU legacy lives on

Chuck Phelp’s legacy lives on.

Another member of Trinity Baptist Church - Joshua Budgett – has been charged with sexual assault of a minor.  Joshua is no stranger to law enforcement, because he has been convicted of it before. 

Sex offender released on bail

Sex Offender Faces New Charges In Underage Assault

What makes this story worse is that Chuck Phelps actually married this man to a lady in his congregation while he was still in a half way house.  They actually married AT the half way house.  She had a small child already, and later had children of their own.

So lets get this straight.  Its okay for a convicted sex offender to ask Chuck Phelps to marry them at the half way house after his conviction (the first one it seems), and to come to church, etc. 

Its not okay for a raped teenager (Tina Anderson) that gave away her baby – fathered by another church member – to come back to school there. 

One would be a bad example for others (especially their children), and the other most won’t know about so its okay.  (head spinning)

Trinity Baptist Church also issued a letter of support for Joshua Budgett’s family.  One sentence seems to stand out for me. 

Besides bearing the hurt of these disgusting allegations, suddenly the primary wage earner removed from their house has caused immediate financial difficulty for (blank) and her children.

This was one of many reasons they did not wish to deal with Ernie Willis either.

Playing with words, and their meanings…

Since the dust has begun to settle around the Tina Anderson Rape trial we have all been able to look at things more closely.

I had mentioned on my blog talk radio interview with Jocelyn Andersen, and Cindy Kunsman that I questioned what Chuck Phelps had actually told the police when he claimed he reported the rape.  In most cases in life presentation is key to getting your message across.



Let’s take a portion of his online website for his defense (Chuck Phelps):

I immediately complied with the statutes of the State of New Hampshire by reporting the situation to Officer Jim Cross of the Concord Police Department.  I also reported to Erin Dickson of the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth, and Families.

It was at my recommendation thirteen years ago, that Tina's mother, Mrs. Christine Leaf, also reported this relationship to law enforcement.  Even though Tina begged her mother not to report, Mrs. Leaf did report this sexual relationship with Mr. Willis to Lieutenant Gagnon of the Concord Police Department.

The Concord Police never contacted me further about the reports or about the welfare or the whereabouts of Tina Dooley Anderson.  They also never contacted Mrs. Leaf for any investigation or additional information.  There was certainly no intent to cover up the allegations, or hide this 16 year-old girl.  I have always been committed to a police of compliance and partnership with official investigations of any kind.

Unfortunately, what Pastor Chuck Phelps DOESN’T say was he was informed that he must make a report in writing at the time of his phone call.

He called the police and ‘reported’ the rape as a consensual sexual relationship.  Basically, he didn’t follow through on all compliance needs to file a report.   So his ‘numerous’ reports is not factual.  It was more like phone calls to say this happened, and didn’t follow through with the rest of the obligations he was told about.

I was trying to find a word that matches how he seems to be approaching things.  He will say things that would seem obvious to most regarding what he means, and yet what he means is something else completely.  The best term I could come up with was ‘double entendre’.  It ‘is a figure of speech in which a spoken phrase is devised to be understood in either of two ways. Often the first (more obvious) meaning is straightforward, while the second meaning is less so: often risqué or ironic.’

Phelps knew he had to do the ‘report’ in writing, but he never did.  That is the type of report he knew the police and investigators had in mind, but figured the layman would never figure that out.

I believe at trial he made the excuse that he never received the paperwork, and yet again we see he never followed up either.  Now tell me does that show, ‘committed to a policy of compliance and partnership with official investigations’?

Prayers for Tina Anderson Today!

Prayers for Tina Anderson as they start the trial Monday Morning!

Emotional Abuse and Your Faith Interview

I was interviewed on Blog Talk Radio this afternoon, and it seemed to go very well.

Jocelyn Anderson and Cindy Kunsman discuss relevant issues within the church each week. I encourage you to check out the archives from their past shows.

What is NEAT is

• You can have an email sent to you with reminders for the shows, and what the shows will be about.
• If you get a signon name on the site you are able to participate in the chat that does on during the shows.
• There is also a phone number that you can call during the show to make you own points.
• Its neat to hear the personalities online I think!
• You can also listen after the show is done if it doesn't fit your schedule.

I have been listening to their show for a couple of months now, and they truly do have some great interviews and prospective.

Listen to internet radio with jocelyn andersen on Blog Talk Radio
If you can't see player click here.

Here is the player to listen to today's show, and I'm going to place their station on my side bar as well. You can access any of their past shows there.

Thank you so much Jocelyn and Cindy for this opportunity.

Spiritual Leadership Coverups Enabled? You Get What You Honor

One theme that is written about to many times, and is quickly echoed as ‘not in my church’ is the blame shifting.

In the case of Chuck Phelps people are quickly asked to blame the police.  Chuck called, and Chuck reported.  He had her mother do the same.  

Chuck’s defense of Ernie Willis NOT being arrested until 13 years later is blame shifting.  No one wants to admit it for some reason, because ‘technically’ he followed the law.  The police never followed up.

The fact that the law was indeed broken, and a child was harmed wasn’t a good enough ‘biblical’ reason to make sure the police DID follow up.  Did this man EVER encourage the mother to make sure SHE followed up?  I would assume not, because he never EVER mentioned that.  He knows that people are questioning him NOT following up with the police, and yet he stays silence.

Since most are well aware of the fact that there are churches that don’t like outside influences within the church?  Since most know that they would rather handle these things ‘in house’?

The lack of following up by her mother and her pastor, and their example of blame shifting and also the church taking heat due to his authority is a great example of:

You Get What You Honor

I think to most that have not experienced the influence of a neglectful church truly have a hard time wrapping their minds around what happened with Tina Anderson, and so many others.

I found an IFB handbook online, and just to be clear that doesn't mean every Independent Fundamental Baptist Church follows this handbook. 

If you read parts of it particularly regarding the Head Pastor, and how he is to be seen from the congregation?  If you have wolf in sheep's clothing your congregation is being primed for abuse.  Lets look at one section, but you can read the entire handbook as well.

Responsibilities of the church to the pastor.

a. The church is to pray for their pastor; for God to give him wisdom to lead the church, and to willingly follow his leadership (Heb. 13:7).
b. The church is to submit to his God-ordained authority over the church, so that he may have a joyful ministry in the church (Heb. 13:7).
c. The church, especially the men of the flock, are to help him and be supportive of his pastoral ministry (See Exodus 17:8-13 — two men who held up Moses’ hands in battle).
d. The church is responsible to provide his family needs as well as the expenses of running the operations of the office he holds (1 Cor. 9:7-14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18).
e. The church is to protect the pastor and his family from those who would go about sowing seeds of doubt and discord among the membership; casting a shadow upon his ministry and accusing him of misdeeds in the ministry. It is a dangerous thing to attack this sacred office; and equally as dangerous to allow others in the church to do so (1 Tim. 5:19-20; Prov. 6:16-19).
f. The church should exercise firm church discipline to those who refuse to live in harmony with the other members; who are bent on destroying the fellowship of the church (Mt. 18:15-19).
g. The church member should always consult the pastor first, on any problem or matter of concern, and not spread talk around until it gets built up all out of proportion (the devil will see to that). Most often, when you sit down with your pastor, with an open Bible and prayer, things will be clearly understood and resolved so that peace can continue and that misunderstanding doesn’t create confusion.
h. There can be only one leader in a church. The pastor is that man. A church cannot survive when it has a divided allegiance towards more than one leader.
i. When God is finished with the pastor in a church, He will lead him to another work. Unless he is found unfit for the ministry, or is guilty of open sin, he is to be respected for the office he holds by all the members.
j. If any member of the church, after serious counsel with the pastor, still cannot follow his leadership, that member should, in the spirit of Christian love, quietly seek another church and pastor where he or she can serve the Lord. If that same member persists in trying to destroy the integrity and ministry of the pastor, he or she should be dealt with in accordance with church discipline as found in Matthew 18:15-19.

I have formatted the text they way they did on page 9.

Blind leading the blind ...Yet another form of confusion

Blind leading the Blind

I started to read Waneta Dawn's latest piece on her blog Submission Tyranny, in church and Society.

Her article started by speaking of a magazine cover on American Family Association Journey March Edition for 2011.  WELL the first thing I wanted to do was look at the article before I continued to read what she had to say.  I wanted to be sure I knew what she was talking about first by looking at her reference!

In my last post to everyone I pointed out that double standards cause confusion within the church.  When I clicked the article in question that Waneta Dawn was speaking about?  Something just stuck me right over the head, and I wondered is the blind leading the blind here?  Let me quote from the article:

The Billy Graham Association conducted a survey recently and the results should be disheartening to Christians. Of people in the Builder Generation, also known as the Greatest Generation, 65% profess to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But the slide is steep from there. About 35% of Baby Boomers profess faith in Christ, 15% of Generation X, and only 4% of Generation Y.

    Why the dramatic drop? According to the 2000 census, the majority of children at that time came from single or blended families. Jim Weidmann, executive director of Heritage Builders, said this causes a society in which people don’t have good faith mentors in their lives, so they don’t know how to model faith to their children. “A statistic quoted by a pastor in Texas was that only 10% of parents talk to their kids about spiritual things,” said Weidmann. “That means 90% don’t!”

    Weidmann said one surefire way to stop the hemorrhage of faith in Christ in this nation is for men to take on their God-given duty and become spiritual leaders in their homes. He shared the following thoughts with AFA Journal.

Let me place my business hat on here for a moment, and tell me if you DON'T see what I see!

Keep in mind I realize the church isn't a business - I'm going to talk about business principals that most churches SHOULD be aware of already. 

We have a fall in numbers for people that are claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ. It fell from what would seem 90% during days past to 65% then to:

35% of Baby Boomers
15% generation X
4% generation Y

NOW as a business person if those were percentages for profits, number of customers, or what have you?  That is a SERIOUS drop!  You are bankrupt already if your company's margins went to 4%.  You were in REAL trouble prior to that, and good luck EVEN keeping your doors open with 35%!  That's the reality here, because most churches do have overhead like electricity, mortgage/rent, etc.

Now you can see also from above as well the cause they have identified or hemorrhage is also a good term. It was due to single parent homes, or blended families numbers that are growing in our society.  That's their claim okay?  According to the 2000 census, the majority of children at that time came from single or blended families.

NOW from a business point of view YOUR lucky you found your bottleneck.  Your business isn't reaching the single parent homes, or the blended families homes.  They are not doing business with you for what reasons?

Benevolent leadership headship authority...what?

The Big Cheese Shows Benevolence

Does anyone else get the impression when you READ some author's explanations of 'headship' it more reads as 'top dog'?  Does TOP DOG mean benevolence?

Wayne Grudem to me is a great example when attempting to explain away why Egalitarianism is 'bad'. He begins a chapter in his book about how for 19 centuries people clearly understood WITHOUT confusion Ephesians 5:22-24, and of course he also noted other passages.

If we look at those past 19 centuries the human race truly struggled with respect and dignity towards those 'lower' on the hierarchy chain of command.  Notice how he didn't bring up that point!  We can't ignore this lack of benevolence, but we do when we 'glorify' the past without those facts.

They seem to truly struggle with WHY people started to search, because something JUST didn't line up!  It could be due to claims of 'how God intended' things to be were NOT lining up with a sense of benevolence they claim to represent.

• We have all heard about the schools or organizations that took care of children or women that found themselves in abusive circumstances. 
• If you look today at articles that 'announce' pastors or church leaders that were found guilty of crimes against someone else in the church?  You find excuses as to WHY they fell, and how it was the person that the crime was committed against was at fault.  Check out just about ANY sexual abuse conviction!
• When "Christians" came to America did that they treat the Indians with this type of benevolence?
  
• Did "Christians" NOT use scripture as a weapon to keep slaves? They can chant all they wish about how you are to show benevolence towards your slaves, but we also can see from history words were cheap!
  
• Lets look at the benevolence shown towards unmarried women that had babies. The boy or man could walk away, but the woman and child were gifted so much benevolence it wasn't even funny right?

We can come up with tons of examples of how supposedly 'benevolent' leaders were far from the example they claim. Even to this day MOST won't acknowledge it unless their backs are against the wall.

Does that look like we 'understand' with no 'confusion' what passages within the bible truly mean?  PLEASE!  Give me a break!  Actions speak louder than words!

People that redefine abuse for motive

Look out for teachers that redefine words and concepts!

It seems we need to find a way to separately define common abuse (a general failure to love as we ought) and damaging abuse (serious, habitual harm to another person).

For instance, if a man neglects or speaks unkindly to his wife (and this goes both ways) he has in fact abused her. She was given to him to love and cherish; yet, he has failed to love her as he loves himself. And in a husband’s case, he has also failed to love her as Christ loved the church. He has sinned. He should repent and win back his wife’s trust.

Still, most of us would not view him as an “abuser.” We can’t go around labeling every person who sins against others an “abuser,” unless we’re willing to claim that label for ourselves as well (Romans 2:1-3).

The first paragraph assumes that most of the world doesn’t recognize a ‘pattern of behavior’ when speaking about abusive behavior.

The author herself as taken it upon herself to 'redefine' the word, and then use it.  She pointed to an definition from an old dictionary, but ignored what they stated about 'pattern of behavior'.  As of today we have a NEW definition of abuse that involved no pattern of behavior according to the author.

The author's second description more fits the 'global' meaning.  The first definition is her own personal one to show how she and others misuse the one referenced in the dictionary.

Abuse has been, and chances are always WILL BE a 'habitual' or 'pattern' of harm to another.

In her example, she is attempting to show an individual that may have sinned against their spouse one day by being unkind.  I think we can all agree that is indeed sinning against another by failure to love as we ought.

Stating this makes you an abuser is a personal definition, and one that is not applicable to the one referenced in her own dictionary.

Rather than stretch the meaning of abuse (which has been redefined into oblivion) to include anything that offends our sensibilities, and instead of labeling anyone an “abuse” who gets in the way of what we want to do, let’s examine legitimate ways people harm one another, and discuss when and if the church or civil authorities must get involved.

The author once again has 'redefined' the word abuse to include now a third definition.

It went from: a general failure to love as we ought to now 'anything that offends our sensibilities'.

In other words, the author is saying labeling everything you don't care for as abuse.

Its strange how the author speaks on how others 'redefine' the concept of abuse, and then turns around does it herself.  Then to make sure the point is made, she redefines it yet AGAIN to another definition to use against others.  Notice the 'selfish' slant she attempts to spin with her final definition.

WELL to be fair she is adding to her own definition of abuse with the slant to show how the world gets it wrong.   She basically loaded up her own definition, and slanted it show how others misuse it for their own selfish motives.  Don't know how that is possible since it was recently just invented.

Its quite amazing how others will divert in such ways in order to NOT deal with the correct concept isn't it?

This leap is not uncommon sadly.

The author wishes her audience to realize we are ALL abusers!

We have a bit of a dilemma. Webster’s “maltreatment” definition may simply describe the way we all regularly sin against one another. Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:37-40 that all the commandments are summed up in the two commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

So, maltreatment (or abuse) could be described as failing to properly love one another. Of course, that means, to varying degrees, we all abuse one another, since we all fail to perfectly love. Defined this way, each of us has been abused, and each of are abusers. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:10)

Yikes!  You notice the setup for the shaming?  "No one is perfect, so we all are abusers?"

But, again this shamefully detracts from the seriousness of true abuse—the scary kind—the kind you read about in the news. It also minimizes other forms of real abuse that may not leave visible marks. Obviously, there are varying degrees of harm people inflict upon one another, and sometimes the extremes create crisis.

Now that she has shamed everyone SHE will educate us on the 'real' forms of abuse.  The poor author just doesn't seem to get it does she?

There are other ways man harms man—actions that are rightly called abusive: physical or sexual assault, spiritual exploitation (cults), harmful neglect of the helpless under our care, and cruelty to the elderly or infirm. More extreme situations call for more drastic measures, and some situations necessitate the involvement of civil authorities.

Can anyone recognize the 'habitual' pattern of behaviors in the above paragraph?  There are additional concepts of course that fall into her above description.

The author then generates four different types of abuse in which she has come up with, but do not line up with dictionaries.  At this point you need to wonder WHY she would do this.  What is the motive?  She will give you hints when she redefines the concepts for you.  Lets take a look her catagories:

Type A: A general failure to love as we ought, which is not habitual and which occurs within the context of an overall healthy relationship. This, at the very least, includes every one of us. (In other words, we are all abusers.  Which of course is not what the dictionaries say.)

Type B: A habitual and ongoing failure to love as we ought that escalates to the point of damaging the physical or emotional health of those around us. (Getting closer she mentions 'pattern')

Type C: This type of abuse includes physical or sexual assault, or serious wrongful neglect. (Hmm.  Must be the 'real' abuse she mentions prior.)

Type D: This type of abuse is sometimes (ironically) abused. It describes the behavior of groups which are marked by false teachings or a false teacher—a cult. Unfortunately, there are those who use the loaded term spiritual abuse to label true brothers and sisters in the faith with whom they disagree. (Can we say not even close the definition of spiritual abuse?)

When people attempt to 'redefine' concepts like abuse?  When they can't even stick to the dictionary definitions, but go way beyond that?  When they try to tell you most people will claim 'abuse' when they don't like something?  You need to start sniffing out motive on their part.

When I look to the list above with the types of abuse?  Since Type A and Type D are completely incorrect, and off the charts?  Chances are good the motive as they continue will focus on these.

It will also show how their sensibilities were offended by something, and they have decided they must redefine some concepts to show how either something is or isn't abusive.  Since they have loaded the true definitions we need to keep that in mind as they continue to 'teach'.

Since New Oxford American Dictionary hasn't announced they have revised new definitions for words like they did for Palin with repudiate?  All we can do is wait and see if they will accept the new definitions, until then sadly we will have assume motive.

How To Spot Religious Abuse

How to Spot Religious Abuse by Rafael Martinez, Director, Spiritwatch Ministries

Link

(This article below really spoke to me! I can see how people that are abused within the family are never heard in such communities.  Keep in mind another term for Religious abuse is SPIRITUAL Abuse)

As we have consistently asserted, there are indeed many fine, balanced and healthy Christian churches and associations where wholesome and uplifting spirituality serves as the foundation for their activity, ministry, and contribution to society as a whole, seeking to serve its needs for the sake of the Christian Gospel, and for the love of all men. Sadly, however, there have been some which have lost their balance and focus, becoming spiritually toxic places where many people and many communities were adversely and irreparably turned away from Christianity itself. Who would want to trust in a faith where God's love was seemingly quite conditional, where hypocrisy and judgmentalism were quite visible, and where salvation came at a price of divided families, alienated neighbors, and self-righteous parishioners?

This has become a serious thorn in the sides of the Christian church which no serious believer can ignore any longer, especially when such sinful excess has only served to alienate men from God. Yet the problem is made worse tenfold when the congregants of an abusive church seem, at first and even several glances, to be upright, sincere and responsible people to the casual observer who knows nothing of their group dynamics of control and abuse. How can you tell whether a church or other group is religiously abusive? Several subtle yet unmistakable warning signs can help you identify places of spiritual worship, vocation and social activity that are likely to be of questionable integrity. We now will endeavor to share these with you, yet a very careful qualification must be made here before we begin:

It is essential to keep in mind one major principle when seeking to define the spiritual state of any given church: the occasional faults and weaknesses of spiritually sound, even spiritually struggling Christians in various situations can be easily mistaken for these danger signs. It is vitally important, therefore, to realize that seeing the failures of Christians in a given church you may be wondering about does NOT, repeat, NOT necessarily mean that their fellowship is unsound and religiously abusive. Mature judgement and careful examination, along with counsel received from other mature Christians from outside the given church. such as the pastors and pastoral staff of another church, must be deliberately pursued first before arriving at a conclusion. We at the TVBSA are not interested in initiating witch hunts nor scandalizing finger pointing at any church or church leader, and disavow any attempt to do so. However, we are attempting to share with you some sound guidelines that will help you arrive at informed, rational and fair choices and decisions regarding any group you may find that seem questionable.

Bearing in mind the observations we have made concerning the "seven bars" of spiritual prisons, those also are observable characteristics of domination, manipulation and intimidation that former members have recognized "from the inside." These guidelines which will enable you to spot religious abuse on the basis of these five warning signs which are - relatively speaking - the most easiest to identify by outsiders. Ron Enroth's excellent book Churches That Abuse (Zondervan) has provided great insights into these warning signs, from which we will now share.

The Five Warning Signs Of Religious Abuse

1) Unchecked Authoritarian Leadership

The first danger sign of a possibly unsound church, Enroth explains, can be seen through a high-handed exhibition of its leadership's authority, which often appears unnervingly legitimate. "Spiritual abuse can take place in the context of doctrinally sound, Bible preaching, fundamental, conservative Christianity. All that is needed for abuse is a pastor accountable to no one and therefore beyond confrontation. .. Authoritarian leaders are ecclesiastical loners. That is, they do not function well or willingly in the context of systematic checks or balances. They are fiercely independent and refuse to be part of a structure of accountability. To put it crudely, they operate a one-man (or one-woman) spiritual show. And God help the person who gets in the way or makes waves."

He continues: "Yes, sometimes they will point to a board of elders or its equivalent, but more likely than not, this turns out to be a faithful inner circle of clones that implicitly accepts all that the leader sets forth. .. Abusive pastors often come from troubled backgrounds and are very insecure persons despite the 'take charge' image they may project. They are power hungry people who crave visibility. Leaders who inflict spiritual violence often hide behind the smoke screen of authority to gain power." (pp. 203, 217, 219 of Churches That Abuse). It is important to understand that religiously abusive church leadership is most visible when it demands public and private attention to be given to the authority and control over the flock by the pastor. Often, in aberrant churches, this is not an easy thing to discern, and yet, it is frequently it is one of the danger signs that are too easily overlooked. Such leaders will seem too quick to chastise members, often in harsh forums of public rebuke.

2) Imbalanced Congregational Life

Secondly, the congregation's social characteristics provide danger signals as well. Enroth points out that "membership of authoritarian churches is frequently comprised of young, spiritually immature Christians. This kind of church is successful because it is meeting basic human needs - the need to belong, the need to be affirmed, to be accepted and to be part of a family. It is not unusual for the leaders to assume the role of surrogate parents, especially for those young adults who come from dysfunctional family backgrounds" (p. 216). It is just this sort of yearning need and sincere zeal that the aberrant church pastor uses to exploit his flock through manipulative control. Mr. Enroth explains that abusive church leaders "foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and otherwise, by focusing on themes of submission and obedience to those in authority. They create the impression that people just aren't going to find their way through life's maze without a lot of firm directives from those at the top" (p. 217).

These firm directives are fleshed out in a demanding lifestyle rigidity that is actually a form of controlling and abusive legalism. A black and white view of the world is the mentality that is created in the minds of the abusive church's congregation. Do's and don'ts found in church-supplied codes of conduct are taken so seriously that they have a stifling effect upon the spiritual liberty that Christians should enjoy and impose a dangerously controlling conformity upon the congregation. A major component of such control is the usage of unspoken expectations: moral directives that everyone in the group knows are "the law", the way "things are", but which are never explicitly spelled out until one haplessly breaks one of them. It is then that punishment or sanctions are imposed.

3) Conscious Threats Of Discipline And Disfellowshipping

"Another sign of impending trouble in a church is an obsession with discipline and excommunication. Beware of churches that warn of certain doom if you leave their 'covering,' or if you 'break covenant.' Once banished from the group, little compassion is shown the wayward one." Again and again, it has been observed that former members of aberrant churches, when contemplating leaving the group, were issued dire warnings that they were backsliding, compromising and facing judgment from God. Church members who are seen as stepping out of line will find themselves being shunned or criticized by the so-called "true believers" in public, and will usually face much harsher treatment in the larger abusive church congregation. Demeaning public rebuke, even ridicule from the pulpit is one means of religious abuse disguised as "discipline."

But more often such power ploys are extended across the congregation or congregations in question through even subtler and indirect ways. As a means of preemptive control, the public teachings and private social life are regularly used to deliver indirect, yet unmistakable hints to potential "troublemakers" and the membership at large that one could never gain the same depth of spiritual truth anywhere else. Only among the group could true insights into life be found, the real interpretation of the Bible be discovered, the closest and deepest fellowship be experienced. With such carrots dangled on such long sticks for all to see, the reinforcement of the group's exclusivism is accomplished, making the fear of exclusion from such a group so close to the "ultimate truth" an ultimate horror to be avoided at all costs.

4) Deliberate Disruption Of Personal Relationships

A fourth sign of aberrance in a church is when the church encourages complete isolation or strong distancing of it's membership from family and friends not involved in the group. Enroth observes that even family relationships within the group become severely disrupted and strained, since the demands for attention to be given to the "spiritual family" become all important. Parental and marital bonds may be strained or shattered over the need for individual family members to more fully identified with the church group, and non-member relations outside of the group are often stunned at how cold and distant their once loving family members became when they "got religious." The abusive church's "spiritual family" then appear to become the recipients of the warm family ties and affections that group members have withdrawn from their own family.

This is one of the most heartbreaking and shattering consequences of religious abuse dispensed by aberrant churches. We know of many, many people who have suffered unspeakably agonizing losses of their marriages, children and parents at the behest of abusive group leaders who deemed their members' relationships with them far too spiritually polluting, smothering and destructive. A marriage of twenty years was abruptly ended by a divorce initiated by the pressures placed upon the couple by an abusive church through its leadership, simply because the husband left the Polk County "church" where both he and his wife were members. Such unbelievable occurrences are all too frequent and too real to ignore.

5) Withdrawal And Isolation From The "Outside"

Enroth goes on to say that another sign of abusive behavior in a church is it's tendency towards isolation from other churches. There is a conscious effort to limit input and contact with thoughts and ideas from outside the church's own circle. This is what is known as "information control" and is a crucial element of what is known as mind control. "Beware of the church, " he writes, "where outside speakers are consistently denied access to the pulpit, and where other Christian churches are regularly denounced, belittled or ridiculed." News events, local happenings, and even personal events are reinterpreted by the church leadership in such a way so as to lead the congregation to see the world as they wish it to be perceived. Bible verses are misquoted as divine sanction for these actions, citing the need to be separate from the doomed and satanic world order outside of the group's domain.

This contributes to the construction of a completely sealed society of people who effectively shut out the world from among them, even though they may continue to move within it. Newspapers, television programming, and even ordinary social interaction with other members of the larger culture become strongly discouraged. The issue goes way beyond a pious avoidance of tempting imagery and thought but actually is a means to stifle and control the thoughts, consciences and spiritual autonomy of the individual member. This marks the final terrifying descent of a group of zealous Christians under the leadership of manipulative leaders into a horrific deception and legalistic bondage, from which it is then almost virtually indistinguishable from outright cultism. Such groups do exist here, in the "Bible belt" and have wrought untold amounts of spiritual havoc in too many lives.

Spiritual abuse is one of the dark secrets of the Tennessee Valley, a serious problem that for too long has remained overlooked, ignored, and neglected by much of the Body of Christ. Abuse in the name of the one true God who is the embodiment of love and grace is certainly one of the great tragedies of our time that have both broken His loving heart and aroused His wrath upon the false shepherds who have savaged his flock. The Gospel of Jesus Christ can never be served or proclaimed where fear, coercion, and outright spiritual trauma is inflicted. Only the cause of religious tyranny and megalomania is advanced. It is our prayerful hope that this brief overview can help you avoid such pitfalls.

Additional Resources:

Keep mind Religious Abuse can also be termed as Spiritual Abuse


Defining Spiritual Abuse (Index)
Spiritwatch
Battered Sheep
Spiritual Abuse Recovery Resources