THE BIRTH OF HEALING

I was asked recently about how and when I began to heal.  

It was a good question and one I hadn’t really considered. But to my surprise, the answer came easily as well as instantly. So, I thought I’d elaborate a bit more on this subject of my healing in a blog post.

The much abbreviated answer is,  “My healing really began...

 when I opened a book.”

Of course, there was more to it than that, so here’s the rest of the story. 

About six months after our dramatic departure from this assembly we refer to as “The Baptist Taliban”, I was meandering around in a small, local Christian bookstore.  It was a simple pleasure that I had always thoroughly enjoyed- but never more than at this time.  

I had several school-aged children then, so much of my days were given to ‘efforts’ at home schooling them.  It was exhausting! Especially since all still doing school work were dedicatedly resistant to anything that even resembled a book, so I was often desperate for such ‘mindless wandering’ breaks.  

Still processing the pain from all that had happened during the months before and by now acutely aware that I no longer had any friends, I found this little bookstore to be a calming sedating, inviting retreat.  Skimming over the new books was also a welcome distraction from my constant, intrusive thoughts. 

While scanning the titles, I happened upon one that instantly caught my attention. Two words--‘spiritual abuse’--were in the title of one particular book.  Spiritual abuse? Really?  I didn’t have to wonder at all what that meant, but I wasn’t sure just what to think of the idea.  

I stood there staring at the book, not quite able to pick it up, but curious, perplexed, intrigued, even kind of embarrassed...all in the same instant- probably more embarrassed at the mere terminology than anything else.  

After all, we had drawn such hard-lined, dogmatic conclusions about the very existence of mental illness as opposed to The Preacher’s belief that unconfessed sin was the only biblical explanation for emotional/mental problems, that I found the idea of ‘spiritual abuse‘ almost laughable! ‘Spiritual abuse’, indeed! Ridiculous!  

Must be the contemptuous work of some atheist or worse, liberal theologian! I tried to dismiss it and walk away.  Try as I might, I could not stop thinking about those two words that kept luring me back to the shelf where the book stood tall and conspicuous. 

I wanted to pick it up, to open it out of intense curiosity, but I didn’t want to for fear someone would see me.  I kept thinking, “What if someone from the church came in and saw me looking through a book about something as anti-God sounding as ‘spiritual abuse’?  

They’d think I was on the lunatic fringe for sure!  There’s no chance at all I’d be taken seriously then-even if by some miracle I was ever given the opportunity to explain myself.”  

And I so wanted to explain, at least to those I considered my friends, that our...that MY decision to leave was valid, necessary, most importantly, Spirit led.  I so wanted... so hoped... for my ‘friends‘ to understand. 

Finally, curiosity got the best of me and I snatched the book, found a secluded corner... and opened it.

I did with this book what I did with every book that captured my attention.  I read over the contents page; I flipped through the pages following- reading chapter titles and subtitles, scanning over areas where certain key words jumped out at me .

I could hardly process all that I was seeing!  Chapter titles like: “Because I’m the Pastor, That’s Why!”, “Image is Everything” and “Straining Gnats, Swallowing Camels”.  It was if someone had written a first-hand account of our very own Baptist Taliban experiences! This author understands! 

Then there were abuse-identifying terms in reference to particular kinds of pastors.  Words such ‘pastors’ use frequently to establish themselves as the authorities they desire to be to their congregations like: ‘Representatives of God’ and ‘spiritual authority’.  

Then there were the buzz words that I immediately recognized as consistent with our experience: fear, shame, manipulation, distortion of the Gospel, formulas, legalism and many more.  

Once I got the taste of validation revealed on every page, I could not help but yearn for more.  Before I had even read it, I knew this book contained answers...answers to questions I had not yet even known to ask.

Towards the end of the Introduction by Jeff Vanvonderon was a definition.  I read it and realized, without question, this is exactly what we had endured and survived....Spiritual Abuse.  

“Spiritual abuse occurs when someone is treated in a way that damages them spiritually.  As a deeper result, their relationship with God-or that part of them that is capable of having a relationship with God-becomes wounded or scarred.”   

The full title was, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by Jeff Vanvonderen. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764201379/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

I went home with that book.

It was only the first of many more to follow.  It was the beginning of a long process that I have no problem calling, ‘deprogramming’, because that is literally what it was... and still is.

But, it was and is... a new beginning and the birth of my healing.

  

QUESTIONS? ACCUSATIONS? REVELATIONS? IT'S YOUR TURN

I remember a particular discussion Paul and I had with The Preacher and his wife a few years before we left the church.

We were discussing how aggravated we were at the ease with which members could leave.  Being convinced that ours was ‘the only right’ church in the area, we believed we had the right to incorporate whatever means necessary to discourage anyone suspected of wanting to leave from doing so...for their own good, of course.  Nothing worse than “church hoppers”, after all.  

I believe it was The Preacher who first suggested (as I am sure he had been thinking on it for some time) members wanting to leave the church be invited and encouraged--even urged to come before the church and state why they were leaving.     

Surely, by doing so they would realize their error once they found themselves in the awkward, uncomfortable position of having to explain their decision to remaining fellow members.

Surely this would cause not only the ones leaving but any others in the congregation who might be thinking of leaving, to reconsider....surely....

So we supported the idea and The Preacher made it policy.

But truth is, there was little chance that once ones were set on leaving, any such endeavor would change their minds.  We knew that.  So it was really more about retaliation.  

It may have been around this time that The Preacher decided he would no longer grant letters to churches that the departing members joined, unless these members had moved to another area too far to travel back and forth and unless the church was an independent fundamental Baptist church of like faith and practice.  Just another disguised ploy to keep people in. 

Then, when it came our turn to leave...strangely...the ‘policy’ suddenly changed.  

We were more than willing to explain to the church why we were leaving.  We didn’t even intend to take advantage of the opportunity to reveal anything that would raise suspicions.  We just wanted to explain that we believed the Lord leading us to help in another struggling work in a neighboring town.  We could be sent off into the sunset after saying our ‘Good-byes’ and none would be the wiser.  That’s all. 

What sense would it make for us to stir up more trouble?  We wanted to keep our friends.  We wanted to restore our families.  We had no desire to ‘hurt’ anybody. We had no desire to hurt the church.  

When my husband presented this option to The Preacher, as a way to minimize possible damage....he declined.  “I’ll take care of it,” he said.  And he did.  Now, we know just how well THAT worked for him.

Even after all this time, I am sure there are members from that time who are still there, who have questions, accusations, rebukes, warnings, revelations....whatever....for us.  For those who had some things they would like to have asked or stated to us at the time, but were compelled for whatever reason to remain silent,

I have a challenge for you.  

If there is anything you would like to ask or say to Paul or I, I am inviting you to do so now.  

You can comment anonymously.

This is YOUR chance to be heard. 

Be as rough as you want.

And, just to make this even more interesting, let’s open this up to any outside the Baptist Taliban.

Do it NOW, or forever hold your peace!

  

ME AND POLITICS

I am in something of a quandary. 

I am not sure I can support any of the conservative candidates for president.  I don’t even think I can be faithful to my conscience and continue endorsing much of the conservative political beliefs, particularly the ones having to do with the economy and even some of the social positions.

This may put me ‘out on a limb‘ with some of my Christian conservative friends, and certainly makes for some edgy discussion with my husband, but pretense for the sake of acceptance doesn’t work very well for me for several reasons which I may or may not reveal.  I haven’t decided yet.  

So, I am going to come clean. 

I hope my friendships will survive.  I am happy to say that my marriage is still thriving-- touchy political discussions notwithstanding.  I have found my husband remarkably willing to relax some of his more ultra-conservative political positions, though there are some on which he remains firm. That’s okay.  Some diversity between us has actually added some extra spice. But I am a good bit more unsettled than he is.

First of all, I must confess, I just did not like the whole Tea Party thing.  

Maybe it’s because it was marketed as ‘Christian’ as well as conservative--supposedly good things--but conversely anti- everything ‘Obama’. I am not saying at all that I am in favor of President Obama’s political ideologies, but the derogatory labels I have heard within my own community of Christian, Tea Party friends and acquaintances as well as those I have seen on the news are still unacceptable even in politics. 

Attaching Nasty brands of ‘anti-Christ, Hitler, socialist, fascist, half-breed Muslim, Nazi and dictator just to name a few are well outside what I believe to be ‘Christ’-like‘ behaviors and attitudes towards anyone based simply on their political ideologies and beliefs--much less the President of the United States.

  

From what I can see, I do not believe Mr. Obama is aspiring towards any of these evil persuasions neither do I believe anyone is qualified to accuse his motives.  Regardless of how fervently one hates his politics, I believe he truly desires (however misguided)  this country’s good. 

Our interest as believers and followers of Christ in the governing of our Nation can be expressed with passion without intended insult.  Just because one is ‘right‘ does not give that one the right to abuse--verbally or otherwise.  It appears to me that the Tea Party participants at town hall meetings and such have behaved abusively at times. I do not want to be identified with such a ‘movement’.

As for the conservative candidates themselves, there are many articles written by professing Christians as well as not, which expose Reconstructionist/dominionist foundations in their education and training. 

For those who are unfamiliar with Reconstructionism, you can learn about it here: http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm 

First of all, for those who are Premillinnialists, Reconstructionism is a direct contradiction.  The Reconstructionist believes that American will be brought ‘back to God’ by placing Christians in positions of governmental authority which will prompt the return of Christ to earth. They believe that America was intended to be a ‘Christian’ nation and that it must be returned to a Theocracy and the Constitution should be used to enforce Old Testament Moral Laws and penalties.  Ultimately that would mean capital punishment via stoning for homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, atheists, witches, rebellious sons and other such ‘crimes’.

Radical, extremist ‘fundamentalist Islam, and extreme, fundamentalist reconstructionist/dominionist ‘Christianity’ appear to be alarmingly alike in these areas.

Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and  Rick Santoreum all have suspicious connections to notable Reconstructionists R. J. Rushdoony, C. J. Mahoney, John Eidsmoe and others.

Now, I understand that by being connected to or as particularly Michelle Bachmann being a student of Reconstructionist teachers,http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=alldoes not mean that once at the helm, any would straightway institute ‘stoning rebellious sons’, but it does cause me to suspect their beliefs about our purpose as Christians in this world.  Any person or ideology that purports a human being can bring the country to a place of righteousness through OT Law thereby actually prompting the return of Christ through those human efforts is suspect with me.

A Theocratic government would be fine with me, as long as it is God Himself ruling, or if he speaks directly, unmistakably, miraculously to a modern-day ‘Moses’ as he did to Moses.  Otherwise, our country would be no different, no better off than Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I am also suspicious given the fact that I have heard The Preacher of the Baptist Taliban verbally, emphatically promote the same ambitions.  Wonder where he was getting these ideas?  Perhaps he’d been reading Rushdooney’s writings?  Now, I am finding quite a bit written about professing Christian presidential candidates at the least ‘flirting’ with those same political beliefs and that makes me wonder if this persuasion isn’t more widely entertained than just by a rabid, fire-breathing preacher.  

And, since I have suffered plenty personally from one professing such ambitions, naturally I am going to be extra apprehensive.  

Admittedly, I am NO expert on politics.  I can’t even claim to be well-versed on the current issues.  What I am sharing here has more to do with ‘impressions’ I am getting as an onlooker-by-choice.  And, those impressions are of a religious/social/economic ‘class’ of our population who are perhaps overly preoccupied with their economic comfort, objection of and desire to eradicate all behaviors they interpret as immoral, and  fervor to champion anyone claiming to be a ‘born-again Christian’.  So much so that neglect to look beyond the surface images.

I am not saying these concerns are wrong, just an effective diversion and obstacle to our main purpose--to “love God, love our neighbors as ourselves, pray, bless, do good to (even) our enemies, give our cloak also if they sue for our coats, go the extra mile for, and offer our other cheek when smitten on the one.  

I believe these are higher goals to which we should aspire.  Who knows.  Perhaps by giving more attention to the Jesus Way, we can have a better America than ever could be achieved by human efforts.

Oh, and about being a pretender.  Well, truth is....I just stink at it, even when it is sanctioned-- as in acting out a part for a skit etc.  Also, I am just completely burned out on denial.  Seems I was the last to know that I was living in it, but once I figured it out, I was done...for good.  

For more about Reconstructionism/dominionism:


http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html



http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/139084313/the-books-and-beliefs-shaping-michele-bachmann


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ocdAIXrUU

   

THE BEST WORD ON CHILD DISCIPLINE

I am reposting this article with permission from the author.

It is rare that I find an explanation of the purpose and foundation for a ‘God-modeled‘ gentle, non-coercive process of disciplining children that so closely describes what I believe.

Few would argue that most young couples approach parenting, automatically instituting the same practices as was performed by their parents, and they by their parents, passing on the same bad habits and false teachings from generation to generation.

Most probably never even question enough to investigate the foundations for those teachings and practices.

If children, being eternal spirits, are to be valued as gifts-- heritages from God Himself, we should make our knowledge of how God would have us parent them our utmost priority. Yet, I fear that more time is spent studying how to train our pets than how to nurture our children into healthy, happy, committed adults.

It is vital that anyone entering parenthood know more about the subject of discipline than just ‘what methods work’. After all, we are not training animals here!

My hope is that information such as this will provoke more parents, pastors, teachers and anyone else in the child care profession to reconsider any and all conventional attitudes and practices regarding the discipline of children as to whether they are consistent with the way God parents.

You may be surprised to discover that many of those long-held and passionately defended beliefs are preserved more for our pleasure than our children’s profit. Hebrews 12:10

The Moral Claim of Discipline

Posted on January 3, 2012 by C.L. Dyck

 Unfortunately there have always been a very small number of unreasonable, crazy, or besotted parents who beat up their own children. This is a matter of the greatest sadness, and the full force of the law should be used in punishment. But to say we should outlaw all spanking because some parents are rotten, is like saying we should outlaw all policing because some cops are rotten, or all laws because some are badly applied. The first step is to make the right distinctions…

Is it so illogical to spank a child who hits? Well, once we agree that spanking has a crucial moral component that hitting lacks by definition, then when all else fails it is legitimate to use a small pain now, a moral reminder, to prevent a greater future pain. Pre-emptive pain is a universal concept justified in law. It is used within nations and between them all the time to prevent catastrophes and rebellions, and all criminal law relies utterly on the fear of pre-emptive pain.

-William Gairdner (read full essay here)

Whether or not one agrees with physical discipline, and whether or not one agrees with Bill Gairdner, Gairdner here pins the tail on the donkey. Discipline of any kind claims a moral ground, and without a moral ground, becomes irrelevant–a mere gesture or a hollow tradition.

Here, too, we see the point of confluence between theology, philosophy, ethics and social theories on discipline. There is one core point here which applies equally to self-discipline, the regulation of society, and the raising of offspring, and that’s whether objective moral values and duties exist or not.

If they don’t, then all parental input (and all social input, and all self-motivation) comes into question.

What is Discipline?

The ultimate purpose of discipline is to instill a moral framework, a way of being. Discipline has the good of the student as its goal. Punishment has no such component, being about retribution (the self-satisfaction of the punisher). Punishment is arbitrary, based on the ability to exercise power and on personal whim or preference. A child hits for the self-satisfaction of punishing. A parent disciplines to teach.

This distinction, not whether discipline encompasses a physical component (are handcuffs on a nonviolent prisoner physical? Are they moral?) is the defining nature of the discipline process.

How is Discipline Formulated?

But children are not mules to be trained, and they are not blank slates to be written on (a concept that’s not historically Christian, but modernist). The qualitative moral difference between an untaught child and an offending adult of reasonable mental capacity is what invokes the logic of gentle parenting, rather than a flat baseline of physical correction of all children for all (or even most) offenses. Again, we’re talking about invoking a moral valuation here. What is the child’s true learning need? How is teaching best implemented for that individual child?

When is Discipline Morally Valid?

"discipline and driving"

The difference between discipline and punishment doesn’t reside in the offense of the child, the treatment of the child or the opinion of the parent. It resides in the moral framework.

It’s no wonder, then, that a society whose morality is entirely relativist, entirely based on “personal empowerment,” arbitrary whim, and the exercise of one’s opinion, has little to no capacity to recognize discipline and differentiate it from punishment. And this is not a question of physicial versus non-physical discipline. The only way to outlaw all parental punishment forever is to outlaw parenting; parents who react to children for their own self-satisfaction will continue to do so in nonphysical ways as well as physical.

Nowhere has this been more clearly illustrated than amid the professing church, where all grace is available, and yet sinful people still have the choice of whether to act for self-interest or self-sacrifice.

Christianity Under Fire

It’s no wonder that the Christian community, which lays claim to an objective standard of moral values and duties, comes under extra criticism when caught out in the exercise of power and arbitrary opinion for the purpose of self-satisfaction. Christian gentle-parenting advocates are entirely correct in opposing such spiritual and moral dishonesty.

Our problem as Christians is not ultimately our theology of punishment, our theology of discipline, or our theology of parenting. At a base level, our problem is our lack of theology. Period. Theology, after all, is the knowledge and study of God.

Where is the Discipline Rationale Found?

If evil exists, then objective moral values and duties exist. That is, I have a duty to evaluate evil and to act to prevent and/or correct it. If objective moral values and duties exist, then we can surmise that good exists in an objective form.

But where is good located? In the right arm of the spanking parent? In social consensus? In a Lawbook In The Sky to which God must refer and defer in order to judge our hearts and actions?

In the power and arbitrary whim of God?

Or is God a non-ultimate mediator of some external legal proclamation to which even He must bow?

Neither. Rather, biblical Christianity holds that God is the Good. His character and nature define good and eliminate from “the good” that which is not in keeping with His personal nature. This is neither arbitrary, nor does it reduce God to something less than the Universal Law.

Who (or What) is the Source of the Moral Imperative?

If we believe that God and man do not have an innate nature–that humanity in the image of God is a blank slate waiting to be acted upon by life’s events and urgings–then we are caught on the horns of Euthyphro. Either God is non-ultimate, or He is arbitrary. Both of these solutions destroy the moral framework of Christian theism, because they invoke either a God who’s not really God (the Law is), or a good that’s not really good (i.e. in another scenario, God might have decided murder and torture are good).

Furthermore, the moral claim of discipline is that it instills inward principle, not necessarily obedience to others. Here we run into another test between discipline and punishment: is the goal an independent moral rectitude, or merely unquestioning obedience to an authoritarian enforcement of external morality?

Here the deepest need of the child is revealed: free access to the grace of God, and freedom to choose or reject it without coercion. Today’s free rejection may be tomorrow’s free repentance; but today’s coercion will certainly be tomorrow’s moral chaos. We cannot set ourselves in the place of God. And even more importantly, if it is against God’s nature to coerce, we cannot set ourselves against God by demanding unquestioning obedience.

Ultimately, true Christian discipline must teach children that their parents are not the final authority, are not always correct in administering discipline, and are not always 100% to be obeyed. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23) It’s for this reason that pastors are not mediators for their congregants, and parents are not mediators for their children: for there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 2:5)

The goal of discipleship is to get out of the way of God’s work in another human being’s life: our child’s. Only personal relationship with God can unify obedience and moral right–getting to know Him as a personal God with an innate character. We find moral rectitude in knowing and obeying God; not man, who can never provide sufficient moral basis.

That is the ultimate moral claim of discipline: that God exists.

Image credits:

flying sidekick by kaibara87 on Flickr | License: CCBY2 discipline and driving by Mike “Dakinewavamon” Kline on Flickr | License: CCBY2

TIME FOR A LITTLE CHANGE

I have begun this year by making a slight adjustment to my blog title.  

I want to assure my readers that my focus is not only on my past, but on the effects my past experiences have had on our present and on-going, ever evolving beliefs and practices.

It is a wise saying and one I agree with: 

“The past is our definition. We may strive, with good reason, to escape it, or to escape what is bad in it, but we will escape it only by adding something better to it.” Wendell Berry

I truly believe that it is our obligation to others to pass on the lessons our painful regrets and glorious successes have taught us.  This is how we make something better come of the things we cannot change.

I would also like to reassert my purposes for continuing to write on topics that one might guess would appear where a shadowy moniker of “Baptist Taliban” is applied.  That being, there continues to be many ‘Taliban’ like groups masquerading as churches in the world today.  What is worse is that most involved in such groups would never entertain the possibility that the attitudes towards women, teens and children they have embraced largely by default, are abusive.    

It is automatically assumed that where no physical signs of abuse exists, there is no abuse.  But spiritual, emotional and psychological abuse is still abuse whether obvious or successfully hidden. 

We can no longer allow this to remain a forbidden subject simply because it exists in what is considered our ‘sacred’ institutions.

But there is a more personal reason I am compelled to continue.  And that is, there are still families, members, who do not speak to their flesh and blood relatives--most of whom are their own children--years after they left the group.  

I can remember, distinctly, sitting through sermons where The Preacher preached emphatically that members should avoid anyone-even family-who criticized, scorned, objected to, made fun of, etc-the beliefs of ‘The Church’.  It was taught that their church’s authority was equivalent to God’s authority so it would only follow that his remaining members would continue to practice this on their ex-member family and friends. There is NO question he did this.  There are many witnesses.

So far, there is no evidence that he has made any effort at all to encourage any attempt at a reconciliation between these family members though it is 5 to 10 years later!

He has even denied that he ever told anyone to ostracize their family, so if that is what he wants us to believe, why does he refuse/neglect to utilize his influence towards their working at some semblance of reconciliation? 

As long as he goes on living his life in denial of his responsibility for such abominable division, I will go on writing about it.  At least, as long as it is what I feel I should do. 

So with that, it’s business as usual!