I Believe You Faith Documentary

I recently saw on PASCH an announcement about a TV special called, "I Believe You".

This documentary approaches domestic violence and the Faith Community. 

Can I say IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! Check your local listing. 

Below is the trailer:

If you can't see video click here.

The Spin Zone of Patriarchy

I have spoken before about how I have noticed that certain segments of the faith community have labeled anything that has to do with equality as feminism.

It is strange to me how people in certain circles claim that equality has to do with 'sameness'.  When they say this I think of Mathematics myself.

Lets look at an equation made up of different parts, and yet are equal.

(3+1)=(2+2)

You notice both sides of the equal side add up the number 4.  Does that mean that 1,2 and 3 are the same?  No, yet the equation above is equal.  Does that mean 2+2 is trying to be 3+1?  No, yet they are equal.

Its funny how people can point out the differences between the equations, and realize that both equal 4.  They both equal the same number, and yet both sides represent different numbers adding up to 4.   When we were all young in our Math classes in school we learned to recognize the fact these types of equations are different but are equal.  Its not a hard concept here!

The sameness is the equality of the equations, but numbers are different.

Its not a hard concept to grasp, but people seem to want to make it complicated.  What is sad is within the faith community we see such silliness as dogma, doctrine, etc.  How does that look to the outside secular world?  We look like idiots.  People trying to 'spiritualize' equality in God's eyes as 'sameness'.  Women trying to be men or men trying to be women.  I mean seriously!  That truly must look really, very childish.

Follow The Leader Attitude

The other day I was speaking to the well known author, Jocelyn Andersen.  I remember I was telling her that I was a bit disturbed about the fact when I read articles on major Christian websites about domestic violence - they are genetic.  They generally say the same thing over, and over again.  To me there is no meat and potatoes there at all.

WELL someone upstairs must have been listening to me, because an article was placed in my email box today.  Christian Today had an article called, Towards an effective church response to domestic abuse.

“Restored is driven forward by two questions,” says Peter. “Where is the church and where are the men?”

The resource, Ending Domestic Abuse, is an attempt to answer the first question. It’s still being drafted and the final version is expected to come out sometime in 2011.

The answer to the second question is a new campaign to be launched in the next few months, First Man Standing. As the name suggests, the campaign is challenging men to be the first man to stand up in their church, in their sports clubs, in their workplace, or whatever group setting they may be in, and speak out about domestic violence.

I will be the first one to admit that woman that are outside domestic violence relationships are just plain awful in the viewpoints as well.  All you have to do is go to a forum online, and its clear as day.  It certainly doesn't matter what the gender is either.

The First Man Standing to me means stop 'following the leader'.  Its the group think and banter that is encouraged to be repeated, and the peer pressure to keep it there.

I have noticed if you are talking about a member of the family OUTSIDE of what they consider your 'immediate' family their approach is a bit different.  The article doesn't go into that viewpoint as much, but that isn't the purpose of their introduction so it makes sense why they don't.

For me personally I'm looking forward to hearing more about their program 'First Man Standing'.  Its not because the statistics state that more often women are the victims.  I don't personally look at this issue as gender based one.  It effects everyone and anyone.  The abusive individual - gender aside - effects men and women alike (this includes children).  I was more looking at it, because of the way the church views 'men's roles' within family, society and church.

If we look at how church approaches life for minute?  They concentrate a great deal on the man as the leader, the head, the authority of the family.  Yes, I'm speaking about what some view as the 'biblical roles'.  In a way his attitudes towards things should reflect what his family believes.  The man 'represents' the family type of thinking.  There is alot of peer pressure around this, and you see it in the attitude of men and women alike.

If you look at 'human nature' and not just concentrate on gender / roles for a moment?  Attitudes towards gender wouldn't be acceptable for his family, but would be more palatable towards others.   I'm talking in a general sense here, because we all know there are exceptions.  You read type of principal in loads of articles, books, and commentaries about the family all the time.  I'm talking the 'us against the world' with the examples they present.

I think it would indeed help everyone if we could place those stereotypes to the side, and recognize that we all at times use them.  If there was a way of changing that?  It would indeed help everyone in society overall.

First Man Standing is about challenging the behaviour of peers, modelling good behaviour and speaking up for positive relationships.

Peter continues: “There is a lot of peer group pressure to behave in a certain way. If you look at stag nights, the behaviour on these nights is all about what’s acceptable in a group and you need to be a courageous man to stand up in that group. There are other issues like language and jokes demeaning women. It’s about changing culture and challenging what is acceptable.”

I'm sure some of us can admit there are indeed 'peer pressure attitudes' towards issues within the church.  If you again just look at some discussions online you will see people attacked for coloring outside the lines.  It would be rather naive of others to claim such attitudes are not present within the church, but just online with 'those' people.

Its hard to admit I guess for some that there is a spirit of right and wrong approaches to what they seem to say is clearly written in scripture.  Pointing out such examples seems to be a source of defensiveness instead human nature and reality for some.

Since we hear about the women point of view in that realm a lot I wanted to point out something I saw recently that happened to a man.

I was reading a thread about man speaking of the 'entitled' attitude his wife (whom I believe is deceased at this point).  He believed in supporting his family, but he also spoke about how she should have support role as well.

I'm not talking about the spouse working outside the home, but basically a person that is a sloth.  I guess today we would call a sloth a lazy bum.  The wife in question expected to be served, and the man in question either had to do things within the home or pay someone to do them.  SHE was entitled to be taken care of.  In other words, there was no mutuality within this relationship.

He brought up this example of his wife up in another discussion of a family with two children.  The children were older, and due to the economy they had fallen on very serious hard times.  The husband in question requested that she help for a while, until things changed with their financial circumstance.

She dug in her heels and refused to get a job, because that would be outside her role.  HIS role was to 'provide'.  This the basic idea of the circumstance that I read, but I didn't see the whole discussion.  The second thread was started by the man, because of the 'entitled' attitudes of women charging to her defense of NOT working.

This man got dumped on.  The spirit of what was in scripture was ignored, and defensive responses followed.

• He didn't believe in providing for his family.
• He believed that she needs to provide her own income, and he will provide his - and the two will never meet.
• He doesn't value the job of the Stay at Home mother
• He concentrates to much on his wife that has passed, and not the value of the wife he is married to now.
• He spends to much time feeling sorry for himself.

You notice that none of their points have ANYTHING to do with the principal he was attempting to point out?

The couple he was speaking about wasn't going 'send their children to daycare to raise' since they were old enough to stay home by themselves.  The wife wasn't asked to work a full time career, but due to the scarey times was asked to give some much needed relief to their financial circumstance presently. 

If read between the lines with the responses this man got?  The women would have been more than happy to help if they also were in serious financial hardship (if their husband asked this of them), but due to this 'peer' attitude that women should be at home always?  They followed the banter and group think they are taught to follow.

The people that pointed out they missed the point completely?  They were told 'their points' made sense, but that wasn't what he was saying.  Sigh!

If you look again at what they were saying about the stag party?

Peter continues: “There is a lot of peer group pressure to behave in a certain way. If you look at stag nights, the behaviour on these nights is all about what’s acceptable in a group and you need to be a courageous man to stand up in that group. There are other issues like language and jokes demeaning women. It’s about changing culture and challenging what is acceptable.”

The principal of what the author is stating above is what happened to the man I was writing about.  The language and the jokes in the thread I read were demeaning to this man, and others like him.

He wasn't speaking about a family with a stay at home mom, and a man that was providing financially for the family in the traditional sense.  He was speaking about a woman that was taking advantage of this accepted viewpoint, and using it to her advantage.  She was basically selfish and cruel.

He was attempting to continue to make his point in regards to how his present wife approaches their marriage.  At this point in their lifes both of them decided they wanted to work part time instead of just 'retiring'.  He did mention he wouldn't have an issue with her just being a 'stay at home wife', but she made it very clear she wanted to work part time.

I think like alot of people that have worked all their lifes she felt uncomfortable just staying home, and being 'retired' in the traditional sense.  The man mentioned he had to respect that point of view, because he pretty much felt the same way.  He didn't want to 'retire' in the traditional sense either.

You could tell by how he said this the mutual respect and love they had for each other.  His point was his current wife wouldn't question if they were in a financial crisis about stepping up, and helping to support their family.  It was the attitude - the spirit of his wife and how to biblical handle the circumstance.

I was amazed at how these women were getting defensive, and felt like their 'role' within the family was being attacked.  The shear number of them, and how much they ignored the man's point of view?  It showed you what is seen as 'acceptable' to speak about, and what clearly isn't.  The discussion had nothing to do with their personal family life, but more about the attitude of his deceased wife's attitude towards - well - HERSELF!

It seemed so strange to me how these ladies admitted that they would go back to work, and some of them even had done this under similar circumstances - YET couldn't admit this man had a point.

The church can say what they want, but their 'follow the leader' attitude is clear as day.  It sets up this 'us against them' gender war, and also the treasured 'us against them' world versus church folks as well.

Myself and many others have followed the 'First Man Standing' principal.  I have been tossed aside, accused of things like the man above was, belittled and the rest.  I have noticed though that once those brave few do stand up?  You had additional 'few' that tend to stand along with you.  I have had men and woman come along side of me, and repeat how I had good points.  They would continue to validate that with their additional personal ones.

Its hard not to follow the leader due to the peer pressure you find within the church.  Its not easy to be the First Man Standing either.  The small pockets of brave people will continue to grow when more are brave enough to follow.  Its not about gender and its not about 'world versus the church'.  Its about the poisoning the principals and true spirit of how God would wish to treat others.

Domestic Violence - I didn't KNOW!

Pastor speaking to member

I have to admit over the years I have heard more comments about the church's reactions AFTER the relationships had been destroyed by domestic violence.  Some have the opportunity to speak with their pastor, and they said to them 'I didn't know!"

I just have to shake my head.

Sadly, about a year ago I remember reading a story about a pastor that decided to truly listen after a victim was killed by the abuser.  I can't even imagine the guilt he must feel, and how that truly shook his world.  He spoke about it, and how he was trained to make sure to keep the 'preservation of family' always in mind.  After the circumstance of murder happened his view on domestic violence within the church changed drastically.

Preservation of Family

Does the church realize that victims of domestic violence also cherish preservation of family? People have this idea in their head that if separation or divorce happens they are a hypocrite for saying such a thing.

It reminds me of the black and white world of the abuser.  Its either my way or the highway.  They don't listen to the dynamics of the abusive relationship, and assume once the abuser places their 'best face forward' they are finally working towards preservation of family.

The victim is normally the one that reaches out for help, and as long as the abuser dances to the music so to speak?  The victim is no longer heard.  I have to admit I wish moving past this abusive dynamic was so easy, and just magically happens.  It would make life for everyone easier huh?

I know people realize that victims cherish the preservation of family, but under certain circumstances it is not politically correct to acknowledge this belief.  That is more truthful whether they want to admit it or not.  They maybe programed to response in certain ways, but the 'church' talk or banter is just that .... TALK!  They are just parroting what was told to them.  Hypocritical?  Your call!

I mean face facts its easier to call the victims hypocrites than to directly deal with the abuser, and then to have the church's harmed when divorce seems to be the only avenue of safety.  Its sad when the image of the church is more important than the family involved.  Another truth about that is they will never acknowledge that fact either.  Its as obvious as the nose on your face, and the whole world sees it!  YET the church tells us we don't see anything.  Talk about gaslighting!

Politics and Image

I have to admit it seems to me that we have turned the 'preservation of family' into more of a political term and an image type of thing compared to what God intended.   They rail against the politicians that use the term 'family values' because they don't back up what they preach. Do they take the log out of their own eye?

It's easy to say that people are not following the Will of God, and rail on about how selfish people are.  To often the church comes across as a group of negative nellies, and all they are capable of doing is screaming 'SINNERS!"  They have a reputation of you either do life the way we present, or we have the right to condemn you.

With all the pressure for preservation of family we tend to gloss over the hurting people within the families.

They can't see the forest for the trees as the saying goes.

If the abuser for example put his best foot forward in church?  People never stop to think that most people aren't always the same behind closed doors.  Now if you have one that was accused of being abusive?  Most are able to use common sense, and realize those personality traits most of the time don't just disappear overnight, or even by next week.

The churches reaction though at times?  Its easier to rely on the saying, "God moves in mysterious ways' or things along those lines.

Do I believe people in the church are that naive?  No.  Sadly, I have to wonder if politics and image are more important.

What is sad is they go by what they are seeing or feeling in front of them, and just assume the victim is lying, deceitful, and just not thinking the best of them!

I was reading Ezekiel 33 today. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes someone’s life, that person’s life will be taken because of their sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for their blood.’ 

It seems today pastors are afraid to stand up firmly against certain issues like domestic violence in the church.  They don't wish to be seen as 'endorsing divorce', because it seems the image of preservation of family is pressuring them to do things a certain way.

When the pressure of 'reconciliation' at all costs is present otherwise the church's image is somehow harmed?  To me the watchman is hindered from blowing the trumpet. I will admit he SHOULD do it anyway, but we clearly see today they don't!

This turns into 'self preservation' instead, and it saddens me that the human politics and image factor is more important than what God would wish to happen.  Its a form of selfishness they never stopped to think about.

Talk the Talk, but Don't Walk the Walk

A reader named Amy commented on one of my posts, and it clearly shows how completely separated from reality that church wishes to be.  They have a choice like everyone else, and they choose to come across as:

Naive - when they aren't
Ignorant - when they have just enough knowledge to know they need more
Claim they are for 'preservation of family' - yet their actions show 'self preservation' of 'image' instead

I finally left that church last summer, but keep in touch with the pastor. Just recently I met with him to keep him up to date on what is happening re: our divorce (I just now filed) he had finally come to realize how my almost-ex had not really changed but was just talking it up. I finally shared with the pastor all that had happened two years ago with the way people from the church had treated me and what had really happened. He simply said, "I didn't know."

Personally?  I think the pastor was being a bit deceitful.  He may have not known all that was happening to Amy, but to say he didn't realize the pressure others were placing upon the family?  I doubt very highly the man is that much of an airhead.

I suppose I could hand him a bit more benefit of the doubt right?  Okay.  So the family saw that the abusive party was talking the talk, but his wasn't doing the walk.  When you have a serious matter like domestic violence within your congregation you don't pay attention?!  Well instead of deceit it could be termed neglectful.  If he can't deal with this directly he should have SOMEONE reporting back to him.  At some time he SHOULD be talking to the family directly as well.  Is it not his responsibility on some level to make sure the family is okay?

Do families leave churches when they are getting the encouragement, and support that is needed?  SURE the negative nellies will say, 'they went someplace else so they can hear what they want to!'  We overuse that excuse so much, and no one stops to think maybe we need to look at ourselves with a bit of humility.  In this case safety, support, validation, etc was needed - why would they leave if they got it?  They wouldn't.  People in REAL trouble aren't going to be as fickle as people tend to label them as.  They leave because its plain as day people aren't hearing them, but instead TELLING them things.

Listening skills is art.  The bible speaks about this in many places, and yet to many people are saying the church doesn't listen.  I agree.  They are also making up all kinds of excuses as to why they aren't.  In Amy's case it sounds like they ignored pleads to understand her circumstance, and instead she was given an image of 'preservation of family' as a response.

Should the church follow up if the family dealing with domestic violence just dropped off the face the earth, and never came back?  Common sense would say you need to find a 'safe' way of doing that due to family dynamics.

I didn't know!

I have to tell you that statement bothered me so much.  I would say most of the time they don't want to know.  I have to wonder if they realize playing that game is sinful.

'Well they asked for forgiveness, and said they repented!  Can't you see they are acting remorseful?'

'They were at the alter call crying their eyes out, and asking God to forgive them!  God would ask you to forgive as well.'

"Forgive and Forget - remember God hates DIVORCE!"

'God would never give up on us, and its a shame you can't do that for your spouse.'

Do pastors not know their congregation are saying such things either?  I don't believe that.  When a pastor says they 'didn't know' to me they are placing humility aside, and putting the others under the bus to take his place so he doesn't get run over.

If they don't know this is what is being said?  What does that say about their leadership skills for picking people to help with the family preservation within the church?

Protection from the abuse is what families need - not excuses. Prayer for the abused, and for the abuser is also a must. God would ask for action, and not "I didn't know!"