Crazy Love and Domestic violence

Leslie Morgan Steiner has a video about, “Crazy Love”.  I enjoyed it because she approached the subject of domestic violence in a some what different manner than most.  Keep in mind the video is only 15 minutes long, and she can’t touch on everything.  You can see by the comments on the TED website that some found her short approach refreshing, and others felt she left to much out.

 

I wanted to take parts of what she said, and maybe glance at why some just don’t see (victims and non victims) the ‘crazy love’ as she put for what it is.  Victims no matter whom they are – male, female, child – should be able to identify with parts or all of it.

I was 22. I had just graduated from Harvard College. I had moved to New York City for my first job as a writer and editor at Seventeen magazine. I had my first apartment, my first little green American Express card, and I had a very big secret. My secret was that I had this gun loaded with hollow-point bullets pointed at my head by the man who I thought was my soulmate, many, many times. The man who I loved more than anybody on Earth held a gun to my head and threatened to kill me more times than I can even remember. I'm here to tell you the story of crazy love, a psychological trap disguised as love, one that millions of women and even a few men fall into every year. It may even be your story.

Let’s stop to think about the words, ‘crazy love’ just for a moment.  I realize that isn’t a biblical term, but it is a good definition of the type of love you see in relationships with domestic violence.  You have abusers that tell their victims they are the worse type of person, and that is why they abuse.  Then you have the victim that feels the need to fix, and views the abuser as a soul mate type of individual. 

 

Keep in mind I don’t wish to place those descriptions into a box, and that I’m generalizing here!  Abusers have all kinds of reasons as to WHY they do what they do.  Victims may not feel the ‘soul mate’ part, but do feel love for them.

 

The problem I see is most don’t recognize the word ‘crazy’ in front of the word love, and the reason it was placed there.  Its not just the victims or abusers that don’t clue into the concept, but also general society as well.  All we have to do is look at how to many in society – within the church or out – respond to domestic violence.

 

Let glance at how this ‘crazy love’ begins:

One of the smartest things Conor did, from the very beginning, was to create the illusion that I was the dominant partner in the relationship. He did this especially at the beginning by idolizing me. We started dating, and he loved everything about me, that I was smart, that I'd gone to Harvard, that I was passionate about helping teenage girls, and my job. He wanted to know everything about my family and my childhood and my hopes and dreams. Conor believed in me, as a writer and a woman, in a way that no one else ever had. And he also created a magical atmosphere of trust between us by confessing his secret, which was that, as a very young boy starting at age four, he had been savagely and repeatedly physically abused by his stepfather, and the abuse had gotten so bad that he had had to drop out of school in eighth grade, even though he was very smart, and he'd spent almost 20 years rebuilding his life. Which is why that Ivy League degree and the Wall Street job and his bright shiny future meant so much to him. If you had told me that this smart, funny, sensitive man who adored me would one day dictate whether or not I wore makeup, how short my skirts were, where I lived, what jobs I took, who my friends were and where I spent Christmas, I would have laughed at you, because there was not a hint of violence or control or anger in Conor at the beginning. I didn't know that the first stage in any domestic violence relationship is to seduce and charm the victim.

What abusers tend to do is make this person feel very special, and I never thought about the part of creating them to be the ‘dominant’ partner in the relationship.  Keep in mind it isn’t the type of dominant we normally hear about.  Remember the word “CRAZY” here! 

 

What is the crazy part?  Remember in her story he idolized all that she was and did.  Abusive personalities then concentrate on breaking down the ‘dominant’ traits they felt so lovely before.  I guess they feel that is what makes them dominant, and yet all that they loved about that person to begin with is gone.  They end up frustrated, and the victim completely destroyed.  No one wins, and everyone loses.

 

Its all part of the dance.  We can all look back at abusive relationships, and recognize the idolizing part afterwards.  It’s not so easy to see at the time, because the early stages of falling in love tends to be described as:   sweep them off their feet.  In healthy relationships the ‘adoring’ part stays, but you aren’t so easily sweep up in the moment anymore.  You move on to the next stage of working on the whole of your relationship, and you grow to love the person more and more in different ways.  It’s different, but still awesome.  Your firm foundation is present, and now its time to build up and out from there.

 

Before I go on lets picture a group of small children, and one of the children just received a new toy that they love.  Their whole world at that point revolves around this new possession that is all theirs!   This type of thinking is normal for a young child, and at times they can get very possessive of it.   They don’t want to share it, and no one can touch or play with it.  They might do something to it, or break it, or change it in a way that they don’t like!  Along comes their friend to see what all the excitement is about, and they aggressively pushed away.  “It’s MINE!” you hear screamed.  We have all seen this scene played out at one time or another.  Then you have caregiver or parent come and attempt to teach the child the what's, whys, and how's of sharing, and learning to be better friend.

 

In abusive relationships you see similar dynamics.  What may seem like early stages of being swept off you feet now turns into a reality of YOU being their possession.  Think of a young child with a favorite NEW toy in which they refuse to share with others.  The difference is you no longer have a caregiver or parent to enforce how their behavior and attitude is wrong.  After all, they are an adult at this point. 

 

In healthy relationships you can point this out, but in abusive relationships such statements are returned with violence.   It’s similar to the dynamic of the young child being told by another child that they need to share their new toy, and they refuse to.  You don’t have someone helping them realize this is a immature trait that leads to selfishness.  You are ‘theirs’ and they will do what they will with you.  A young child can be taught, but abusive person will remind you they will do what they want, when they want, and how they want.  If you don’t like it?  Tough!

 

Most people will attempt to ‘reason’ with such a circumstance, and sadly that is when the abuse escalates to very scary levels.  Since you are no more than a possession to them they do not realize the irrational nature of their behavior.  What they do realize once they have calmed down there is the distance between them and their victim.  Their response to that distance isn’t rational either. 

 

They will then use your ‘dominant’ position within the relationship against you, and then manipulative the past to make them look like the ‘true’ victim.  They need your help since they were the abused child of the stepfather, and they FOUGHT all their life to get where they are now.  YOU are their partner, and if you love them enough you will help them evolve.  You will help them to get your level of ‘dominance’.   Yes, it’s a crazy type of dominance as well.  It’s a brand new definition that Webster’s dictionary hasn’t even considered yet.

 

They will pick one trait at a time (most of the time anyway) that they ‘loved’ in the past, and demand that it be altered or stopped all together.  This trait is the cause of all the tension within the relationship.  They will point out that you look ‘stuck up’ or ‘better than everyone else’ when this trait is present.  That mysteriously turns into how the world sees it the same way they do, but they were brave enough to finally point it out to you.  How you were lucky that they were gracious enough to live with it up until this point, and they had every right to finally SNAP!  YOU are just to uppity to admit it.

 

This is also the time they start to use all those secrets that were revealed in that ‘magically atmosphere’ of trust in the beginning of the relationship.  After all, they were not the only ones that were sharing during that time of excitement.  Those secrets between the two of you at one time were received with empathy, compassion, and love.  It now is being used against you, and to make you feel badly about yourself.

 

I will use an example in this case.  As I have written about myself in the past I wasn’t given much guidance in certain areas growing up.  Lets pretend for now it was in the area of cleaning up the house.  Now in the beginning of the relationship I might have shared that I felt inadequate because I didn’t know how to do something in regards to cleaning the house.   How I try my hardest now – because under the surface it makes me feel better. 

 

In response your new partner makes you feel so much better about this aspect of your past, and they will love you EVEN if it were true – which of course they believe its not.  They see you as one of the tidiest people they know in so many areas, and they will be there to remind you about those – and always make you feel better.  I know silly example, but lets use to get view the principal here!  The basic point is everyone has tender spots, and insecurities in some areas. 

 

In a healthy relationship you realize the lines in the sand with your spouse or partner that you do not cross.  You don’t cross them, and you realize your spouse wouldn’t either.  I’m not saying in times of tension humans aren’t tempted to, because we are all capable of this.  If we value the relationship on any level?  We realize the trust that would be destroyed on some level if we crossed that line during the uproar.  It’s basic respect of any relationship.  That’s not to say you might not say something else hurtful or stupid, but you also know where the lines are drawn.

 

The abusive person sees no line in the sand, except when it comes to them.  You are the child’s toy in our story above, and as their possession there is no need for boundaries.   So there is nothing wrong with reminding you that since you grew up NOT knowing how to clean a house that lets just face facts here – you a slob when it comes to 98% of things you do in life!  It’s the truth, and they shouldn’t have to hide it!  Notice they don’t just use the ‘house’ only, but makes sure to include that 98%.  It will be useful for them in the future.  Why?  You were defined as a slob, and they will use it in most areas of disagreement the future as well.  Your secrets are now turned into ammunition.

 

At the same time?  As we see with most con men in life they also have learned the art of manipulation.  The whole entire conversation will again turn to them, and their woes in life.  Some abusive personalities will turn on the water works (tears) at this point, but others use different tactics.  Remember con men have a way of turning their ugly actions around, and make it about the injustices towards them. 

 

That aspect isn’t all that uncommon, and YES there are different ways of doing it.  For example, when Jack Schaap was arrested and jailed within the last year for fooling around with a child.  The parties that he had wrapped around his little finger were the first to say he was one of the most Godly men they knew, and how everyone makes mistakes. 

 

We have one small grain of truth there (everyone makes mistakes), but the overall principal of the sin is completely lost on them.  No doubt it took time and effort for Jack Schaap (or certain circles of the IFB in general) to mold these people to think this way.  Abusive partners do the same thing in some ways.  They have a way of warping reality, and their campaigns of minimizing the abuse is very successful.

 

I think in some ways people in church or in general society have a hard time realizing just about anyone can get taught up in something very ugly and dangerous.  It’s easier to think of others as either totally naïve or stupid then to realize its happened in history to many times to count.  It’s easier to think you are immune, and can’t be manipulated.  In reality its just the opposite.

 

I guess it was interesting to me Leslie’s prospective on being made the dominate person in the relationship.  In reality, she was only speaking of qualities or characteristics of her that were thought to be positive.  Gifts, if you will.  Instead of appreciating those gifts, and realizing its an asset to the relationship?  They are turned into threats of the abuser’s need for dominance and control.  Yes, indeed doing your best to destroy what you claimed you love is a crazy love for sure.  It certainly isn’t the type that Jesus would have us portray towards others.

Patriarchy: Its not the remedy

The question egalitarians have never satisfactorily answered for me is if you’re raising an eight year old little boy or little girl, you're mom or dad, and that little girl says to mom mommy what does it mean to grown up and be a woman and not a man?  Or the little boy – daddy what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman?  It will not do to just talk in terms of plumbing – biological – cause that's not your personhood.  And it won't do to simply say courage, humility, righteousness, Christ's likeness.  Cause [the] little kid's gonna say no, no I mean a woman and not a man. – John Piper

 

There seems to be loads of debate recently that Patriarchy maybe losing some of glow of the past. 

 

Is patriarchy really God’s dream for the world?

 

It was such a short time ago that those that truly felt lead to uphold Patriarchy would give examples of marriages, families and relationships that were healthy, happy, and they would indeed hint at ‘holy’ as well.

 

These are the example to those families destroyed by the ugly side of the misuse of the power and authority of the father figure (most of the time).  The message tended to be ‘try harder and you too can have this holy family life’. 

 

That’s not a remedy.

 

It reminds me of a family suffering from a raging alcoholic destroying not only THEIR life, but those that they ask to suffer along with them.    The answer being to show them a ‘happy’ family  that has one member that partakes of couple of a beers on Friday night, and all is still well with them.

 

Yes, this example of the remedy is nonsense.  Showing an example of a family living with (loving – ahem) Patriarchy at its core is also a nonsense type of remedy for the family in trouble.

 

Live Life Counter Cultural

 

They are preaching from the rooftops that Patriarchy is the biblical way, and people need to live life ‘counter cultural’. 

 

How many thousands of years, and how many cultures has it been the norm? 

 

How many places is it still the norm, and you will see that it has effected that culture in more negative ways than positive.  Most of the time you have barbaric treatment of not only women, but men and children as well.  Look at the overall poverty that surrounds them, because they want to keep people – especially women – ignorant to put it bluntly.  These factors have HUGE impacts on their society, and you can see it anywhere that ‘power over’ concepts are placed upon others in abusive ways.

 

I would HOPE that we can agree that feminism isn’t the issue in these parts of the world.  The fact is if it showed up at all?  I’m pretty certain that woman – or women would be stoned on the spot.

 

Mob attacks women protesting sexual assault of women in Egypt

 

No Patriarchy group deals with abuse within their movement effectively, and when the remedy is the attitude of if you don’t like this hierarchy GO talk to Paul or GOD ?

 

I say NO!  Answer the questions, and learn to deal in solutions not diversions.  If the Patriarchy crowds wishes us to answer questions along the lines of John Piper’s quote above?  They need to provide answers as well, and stop minimizing the ugly effects this can have on humans, and of course then stop diverting to go ask God if you don’t like their answers.  It should be a clue that something IS NOT WORKING with their counsel.  We are to look deeper, and not just blow it off.

 

That’s not a remedy for the fear and reality of families.  Sadly, it is a show conceit and arrogance. 

 

Women in the Church Compared to Homosexuals

I was over at Shirley Taylor’s blog this morning, and she had written a piece called “They’ve stolen Jesus!”

 

The quotes she mentioned are patronizing, and shows the low opinion of the ‘other’ gender.  They can claim all they wish about how they LOVE women, but no offense I don’t wish to have their type of love.

 

If you look past the sugary spiritual pixie dust so many use instead of speaking in plain English?  The patronizing attitude is clear. 

 

We all know by now I suppose that supporters would RUSH to their defense, and say things like how they are misunderstood, etc.    How scripture is clear in their eyes as far as women in certain positions within the church.  What they don’t do?  Is separate their ‘belief’, and listen very closely to how it is being presented.

 

All these years of being ‘misunderstood’, and yet you see no true effort to clarify these things. Its tells you something.

 

We all have our own journeys we must travel in order to be led by the Holy Spirit, and to know in our hearts where God wishes us to go.  At times I will admit I wonder why some paths have to be so painful, and but I also realize God can use those hurtful things to bring us close to him.  He can use our experiences and challenges to help others.

 

I have people I know that are very uncomfortable with this topic, and don’t mean to offend but believe that women should not be in a place of leadership within the church.   What they never do is patronize others in their belief.  Honestly?  I don’t mind talking about this topic with them, because I know they will not attack – and know I would never attack either.  Strange how some can have a decent conversation without all the ugly stereotypes, and labeling isn’t it?

 

Those friends realize that you don’t compare women to homosexuality.  These friends would never throw the radical men hating feminist label at others while having a conversation.  They understand human dignity, and view others self worth as God would have them do.  YES we can disagree on many topics, and that doesn’t have to place us in the enemy camp. 

 

Presentation is Key

When we look at Jesus in the bible, and see his presentation we never see a patronizing attitude.  He will call out the religious leaders at the time, and he will point out how some will not be capable of living the life they say they want.  He never even went NEAR speaking down to people.

 

There seems to be a new marketing ploy in how to NOT talk about women in ministry.  Today they are compared to homosexuals.  They will speak with their sweet sugary spiritual pixie dust, and their followers just swoon and believe they didn’t mean it in a way that would be offensive. 

 

If you dare challenge them you must be one that wishes to be in leadership and usurp men, or of course labeled a feminist with all their radical ideas about what that means.  I for one am not interested in leadership.

 

Did you ever notice the threatening response to those that DO NOT cow town to how they believe?

 

Lets look at a quote from Shirley’s blog.

I have a PhD in ministry. I studied under Wayne Grudem, and did so well that Wayne Grudem urged me to get a PhD.  I asked him what I could do with a PhD?  He said “Teach children in Sunday school.”  I told him that I don’t need a PhD to teach children.  Finally Wayne Grudem could only come up with this: I could write books under the authority of some man.

If some could place their beliefs to the side about women in leadership, and LOOK at what is being said?  They would need to also replace the name ‘Grudem’ with Jack Flash or something as well!

 

Most people that are honest with themselves could see the patronising attitude.

patronising - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension

superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"

Grudem realizes this ‘woman’ had  gift, and encouraged her to go further.  He was then reminded of his ‘group think’ about women when she asked her question, and he stumbled along with the rest of his parroted language.   Could it be the Holy Spirit’s way of knocking at his door?

 

I mean who in their right mind would recommend someone to and get their PhD to teach Sunday School? He caught himself in a fumble if you will.

 

Women compared to Homosexuality

 

I attended John Piper’s church.  I told John Piper of my calling into full time preaching/teaching.  John Piper said, “You are just like the homosexual, right desire, wrong gender.

Or

A church hired a graduate of The Master’s Seminary, founded by John MacArthur.  This seminary will not accept any women in leadership position and the seminary will not allow a woman to take Bible classes. This graduate told a church board: “Listening to a woman preach is like listening to a homosexual.”

I have to mention here that I don’t ride the ‘pet sin’ train of homosexuality.  I don’t agree with the demonizing people in this way.    I realize its really popular to do so, and then in the next breath chant the ‘love the sinner – hate the sin’.  I’m not one for parroting the popular lingo, especially when I don’t believe those that state this.  Its pretty plain how they feel by other statements they use, and quite frankly is shameful and hypocritical.   You can’t tell people you offer them grace, and then back stab them. 

 

I personally don’t understand the desire for the same gender okay? I don’t have to in order to realize their treatment by some Christians is sinful.  I believe most of the popular things that are said along these lines are more fear mongering than anything.  Its amazing to me that some seem to think they will saved when they are graded on a curve due to being straight.

 

The statements made by the two pastors do not show dignity and worth towards women.  They meant these things as derogatory statements towards both women and homosexuals.  Why?  As we know the word homosexuality is almost used a spiritual swear word in the church.  Its like the mean high school boys that are picking on a smaller boy by calling him ‘fag’ when they know he isn’t.

 

Women are the threat here!

 

Cindy Kunsman forwarded me a link this week about a church in the southern states that hired a female pastor.  The local ‘faith’ association quickly disassociated that church from their group. 

Only a week after Pastor Nelson’s first Sunday in the pulpit — on July 10, 2011 — Flat Rock Baptist Church

“received a letter from the association’s membership committee citing “concerned pastors” and asking for a meeting to discuss “possible solutions” to the issue they said threatened the fellowship of the association.”

These “concerned pastors” were so worried about the grave situation of a woman preaching in one of “their” churches that they had to act within a week of the young lady assuming her pastorate.  Don’t want to let her settle in or even meet her before moving to oust the church.  If I had to guess, these pastors would probably not be as gravely concerned about obese pastors preaching in one of their churches, as long as that overweight pastor was a man, but I digress!

I realize its not funny, but I do have giggle at the ‘threatened’ part.  Its quite amazing how much power they give away isn’t it?  They make it sound so ominous.  I guess it is to them, and that is why they react the way they do.  Its hard for me to understand personally.

 

When you have such a view of women?  Its easy I guess to speak in court like Chuck Phelps in the Tina Anderson Case.

 

Recently notes from the trial were posted online.  From what I have been told they are awaiting permission to get the actual transcripts.  The notes are from day five of the trial, and with Chuck Phelps speaking:

 

Phelps: Ernie Willis had more to lose than Tina Anderson. That is why I naturally assumed Tina was lying to me. I did not understand why Tina would go out to eat with Ernie, if he had just raped her. She was being dishonest. When I told her that, Tina turned and looked at me with anything but love on her face. The Bedford Inn is not McDonalds. They both went to the Bedford Inn for Tina’s birthday. Tina was very angry with me. So it was obvious this was consensual.

Wayne: Did your wife, Linda, ask Tina at one point if she “enjoyed it?”

Phelps: That is a lie! (starts crying). That is so outside the character of my loving wife! It was not a discipline service. I wanted to prepare the church for the news, and I knew the media would get ahold of this story, and I wanted to prepare our church family with how to deal with the false media reports. I wanted Trinity Baptist Church to know so they could embrace Tina and Ernie. If I am not a compassionate person, I am not fit for ministry.

I would never have someone involuntarily come before the church. Tina Anderson’s success as a person, her success in life, success as a mother, wife, teacher and citizen of America is all attributed to the loving church family she had here at Trinity Baptist Church. Some people have the inability to make good choices in life. This time of confession might have been interpreted as “painful” by Tina. The news media definitely made her story look painful. I can’t say this any stronger. I never said “forgive and forget.”

Wayne: Did you make Tina go and apologize to her stepfather while he was in jail? Did you make her ask forgiveness for his molesting her?

Phelps: If the social workers are telling Tina to work with her stepfather, and rebuild their relationship, then she should listen to them.

So when a pastor doesn’t agree with your story, and calls you a liar?  If you get upset about that you are then labeled guilty.  Keep in mind also they look to the one they feel has the most to lose, because THEY will be the truthful ones.  It goes against logic doesn’t it?

 

Stating that he presented to two cases separately – calling them a discipline action – then NOT a discipline action – then stating he had to do this to ‘prepare his church’ for WHAT they could not have known.  Why?  As far as everyone was concerned – they were told they were separate issues.  Notice the flip flops this man makes as well?

 

On a last note, I wanted to quote something from the blog The Unspoken Words that Mara mentioned this week in her blog.    Its speaks of some of the stereotypes we hear about women, and from the description you often – how women are a threat because they want to take over or something.  You hear stereotypes from dress, makeup, the way you walk, sit, talk and interact.  How you raise your children, treat your spouse, and if you step into the working world or stay at home.

 

It just resonated with me.

 

The women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s (and continuing today) fights hard against the idea that women are objects to be looked at. Women wear what they wear because they want to wear it. Maybe they want to look good to themselves. Maybe they want to look put-together for the next job interview. Maybe they want to correct a few perceived flaws like thin eyelashes. Maybe they want to look better in photographs.

But here’s another thought: what if the things women wear aren’t all about how they look?

• Some women wear bikinis to look attractive. Some wear them because they like the feeling of the sun on their skin and they don’t care if anyone looks at them.
• Some women wear pants so that they can take longer strides, ride horses or climb walls, not because they want to “usurp male authority.”
• Some women wear sleeveless dresses because they enjoy the freedom of movement in their arms and find such dresses comfortable in the summer.
• Some women wear high heels to look attractive, but some women also wear them to appear taller so that people will treat them with more respect.
• Some women wear nail polish because they enjoy looking down at the different colors and matching them to their outfits, not because men notice them.
• Some women wear makeup because they like playing with colors on their faces and feeling decked out makes them more confident, not because they want men to perceive them as more sexually desirable.
• A woman might even want to look attractive to a particular man, but not to all men under all circumstances.

You get the idea. The Message teaches that women are always, always, always constructing their daily lives around the male gaze. Everything they do is to attract men. Women, however, know from experience that it isn’t true. When I wear my swimsuit, it’s about my relationship with the sun, wind and water – it has nothing to do with a creepy lecherous dude who might ogle me as I walk by. (Trust me, they’ll ogle no matter what you wear – I’ve gotten sexually harassed in public more often in sweats and long skirts than I ever have in a swimsuit.) I’ll talk more about the dangers of the belief that women’s clothing has power over men’s behavior when I tackle Branham’s disfigurement of Matthew 5:28.

 

The way the preachers preach it?  They also objectify women. 

 

The last part where you mentioned she got ogled more often in her conservative dress?  Women can feel it without words being spoken.  Its strange how men pastor’s seem to think they can tell the world what women’s motivations are.  Somewhere along the line they lost sight of the dignity and worth that God sees in his creation.

 

Don’t get me wrong – we all know all men aren’t like this.  Yes!  Yes!  I realize ANYTIME you mention these things its like an attack on the entire gender.  Sit and back LOOK who screams the loudest.  They are normally like the ones mentioned here today.  How does the saying go again?

 

The squeaking wheel gets the grease! 

 

We are worth far more then those types give us credit for.  I’m thankful for the men that stand up and state this on our behalf.  I pray MORE do so as time goes along.

 

Women aren’t a threat to the church.  Homosexuality isn’t a threat to the church.  Pastors that preach bigotry?  I think we have something there.

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’?

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!

Egalitarian Beliefs neuter gender differences?

Example of Neuter Gender Differences

One thing that tends to come up ever so often that I can never seem to wrap my head around is the concept about people wanting to 'neuter' gender differences.

How is that possible - to neuter gender differences?  It isn't as far as I know.

By the time we are a young child we tend to realize the differences, and everyone acknowledges them for the rest of our lives.  There is no way to 'neuter' this.

I have to admit some complementarian views do make me giggle when they speak about egalitarians views of the human race.  I realize it makes others upset, but to me its so ridiculous I find it rather humorous.

You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.

First of all I don't know WHERE they get the idea that egalitarians deny essential differences.  Its like the picture I found today, and added the text about being 'genderless'.  Yep!  Egalitarians deny gender differences, because we see people walking the earth as genderless blobs.  I mean seriously?  How completely silly to even go there.

Now this theory mentioned above would make sense if egalitarians denied the obvious difference - genatila. If that was possible for some I think everyone would admit maybe its time to be admitted in a center for mental health!

Think the Best of Them!

My last post I wrote about an article I had found online that did a book review for 'No Place For Abuse".

I received a comment, and additional issues started to pop into my head.  How regular advice turns into actual enabling of the abusive relationship.  Here is the excellent comment in question.

Hannah, a supportive friend sent me that article before I left my abusive relationship. At that time, I was thrilled that a Christian article endorsed separation, because my advice was that I could not or should not separate.

But reading another article on the site (gotquestions.org) about divorce for abuse concerned me. Although there isn't anywhere to respond or comment, there are contact details so you can write to them. That's what I did, and my concerns were exactly what you referred to. It is incredible how people dismiss the experience of the abused victim and deny her the right to judge or observe the abusers' changes. Her safety is also discounted, with the recommendation to reconcile taking priority as soon as things look "safe". There is no acknowledgment of the abusive cycle, or the manipulative tactics involved.

But the great thing is that I saw the recommendation for that book and being new to all of this, I was hungry. One thing led to another, and I slowly gained more information and insight to abusive behavior, and eventually separated.

Thanks for your post - if only more people challenged the type of thinking propagated by that article.

Thank you Anonymous!

If there is one thing I see over and over again on advice to victims is to 'think the best' of their abuser.

Concentrate on the good things.

Look at the positives.  

I think you get my drift here.

Victim Mindset

The victim mindset is normally geared to 'think about the positive' aspects of their abuser.  At times they go to great lengths to place themselves in a negative light JUST so their abuser is thought about in a better one.

They are willing throw themselves 'under the bus' as the saying goes for the benefit of the abuser.

People that claim they understand the power and control aspect of domestic violence within the church?  They tend to take the assets and debits at face value. They don't see this as part of the cycle, and yet again they show how little they truly do know.

What people tend to do when victims point out NOT so nice things about their partner?  They apply stereotypes towards them.  They are being to negative, and can't think of nice things to say.  They need to take their 'black and white' view of things off for a moment, and stop viewing things as they are cutting the spouse down, being negative, etc.

If everyone has to be so 'nicey nice' all the time is it any wonder why people don't go to the church before things get really bad?

People get so caught up with this 'preconceived' ideas that if someone states one thing in frustration or anger they are half the issue.  They aren't thinking enough of the good traits of the spouse.  Victims like most people will either 'own' the fact they are awful person for even showing that 'disrespect', or will get defensive because most people only hear and deal with one nasty portion they mentioned and nothing else.

It may seem easy to most to 'stick' to negative thinking about your spouse, because we hear church ranting and raving about that all the time.  Victims at times will actually do this as well, but if you look beyond the surface stuff?  The coping mechanism most of the time is doing just the opposite - think the best and make excuses for them.  They may at times voice their frustration, but most of the time their 'self talk' goes in the opposite direction.

Victims throw out surface stuff to see what the reaction will be. It like sticking your toe into the water to see how COLD it is!

They are a good parent, but when they drink they get nasty.

They are good spouse, but tend to be very jealous if someone even looks at me - or I at them.   

The reactions I see a lot:

Are you both Christians?  Have you spoke to your pastor?  Are you counseling?  What is your definition of 'drink to much'?  Is their infidelity in your past, and is that why they are jealous? Are they stressed at work?  What are doing to serve your partner so they don't go there in their thoughts?  You need to make sure you don't concentrate to much on the bad stuff, and remember they are good parent and spouse!  If you spend to much time in the negative aspects you will be come hard hearted, and you will make them react worse!

Ever notice how advice tends to border line encouragement of codependency?

Alot of the times victims have a hard time even getting to 'but' part of the sentence, and when they are brave enough to finally do that?  People around them already have this 'image' of the abusive person in their head, and they just can't fathom that the extreme negative aspects that victims tend to 'hint' at.

You said they were a good parent/spouse, so maybe you are taking this to far!

WAFFLING

Waffling is a term people use about victims going back and forth over being 'angry' at their circumstance, or feeling 'sorry' for the abuser.  We all need empathy, but victims tend to take it to far.  If they would just be 'nicer' or 'more understanding' the abuser won't abuse.

If I follow the recommendations of the police that filed a restraining order?  My partner will get more depressed.  They will get angry with me.  They may lose their job.  I just want someone to help me, and to help them!  If I would have just kept my mouth shut that night he/she wouldn't have been arrested, and I wouldn't be in this place.  I made things worse.  What happens with the children?  They are scared, but they love him/her also.  They may blame me.  Is it my fault?  Why does he/she do this?

What they miss is balance.  They are so confused that they are indecisive and can't make up their minds.

This may be a trait that some have had all their lifes in dealing with relationships, or the abuser fostered this to use to their advantage. Waffling is helpful the abuser, because it is a aspect they can use to get themselves off the hook regarding accountability.   Doubt is a aspect abusers use as a weapon, and have no problems turning it around to their advantage.

People may be incapable of decisions at the beginning, but with help and support that can turn around.

People that try to help support victims and their families tend to miss the 'waffling' aspect of this.

Its a lingering aspect that is part of the power and control cycle that people claim they understand, and this is one aspect where they show their ignorance by not connecting the dots.

The waffling is a by product of the abusive relationship, and a tool the abuser used to keep them in their 'place'.  Abusive people will use this to their advantage, because confusion can easily be used as a 'power over' aspect.

Think only the Best of Them!

This is another red hot area people completely dismiss within the abusive relationships.  "Thinking the Best of Them' has been used as a coping mechanism for the relationship itself.  Victims use this all the time just to be able to deal with their reality.  They forever are making up excuses for their abusers actions, and only focusing on the positive in order to live in denial with all they have within them.

Thinking the best of someone can be enabling instead of helpful to victims.  This advice is good when you are dealing with a healthy couple, but with an abusive one?  You are asking the victim to use a coping tool they have used for a long time, because mentioning anything BUT the good can be dangerous.

They may have brought up things in the past 'softly', and it was turned around on them.  Abusers show them - because they are incapable processing anything negative about themselves - that they brought things up wrong, its actually the victim issue not them, or if you don't like it get f*ck out!

Helping parties don't realize their 'Think the best of Them' is received the same way.  You have now placed them in the corner, and they are ready for the attack.

In it's true form, Enabling behavior means something positive. It's our natural instinct to reach out and help someone we love when they are down or having problems.

However, when we apply it to certain problems in living - domestic violence, financial trouble, codependency, certain forms of chronic depression -- enabling behaviors have the reverse effect of what is intended.

Victims tend to 'look for the good aspects' so they don't have to deal with the ones that are dangerous.

Victims don't need to 'think the best of them', because they could hand you volumes of information on that subject.

They need help with dealing with the not so nice parts.  

They can give you all kinds of excuses for the behavior as well, because it has been drilled into them.  The Abuser's bad childhood, their drug, drink, or p#rn habits.  They have an awful boss, and their family doesn't cooperate.  Abusers basically drill into victims they are the 'true victims'.  They can't help themselves.  The victims role is to make their world safe and comfortable - anything less?  They failed at their job once again.

To think the BEST of them is another advantage people hand over to the abuser with the power and control cycle.

The abusers will tell them they don't think enough of the GOOD stuff, and their behavior is the end product of that.  They basically hint that even others know victims are pushing their buttons, and why can't they grasp their abusive behavior is a reaction to such.

If you would THINK the best of me like everyone says?  You would forgive and forget!  Since you can never do that you are actually 'abusing' me!  Don't you ever think of anyone but yourself?  Everyone knows how selfish you are!

People assume because they can identify the difference EVERYONE can!  They don't apply the 'abusive dynamic mindset', and use normal healthy thinking instead.

When parties that wish to help they must place the normal family dynamics to the side.  There is always an ugly twist to those that abusers use to their advantage, and you will miss your opportunity if you can't separate the two.

Waffling and "Thinking the best of them" are tools of survival within the abusive relationship.  People not able to identify the unhealthy use of these aspects?  They will not help anyone, but will allow the abuser to have the upper hand once again.