Repost: Things Spiritual Abusers Say
Repost: see here.
Helping Survivors and Victims Heal: Things Not To Say To Someone Recovering
The subject of abuse is one of the hardest things to talk about when it comes to survivors and victims speaking out. For a survivor or victim to take the chance to break their silence and reveal the truth about what has gone on in their lives takes so much courage on their part. Yet, for those who do speak out and break their silence, they are often judged and put down by those who haven’t been abused and even by those who have been abused. There are so many phrases that people say to those who share their stories of survival that don’t help them heal but actually hurt them more and sometimes cause survivors and victims to completely shut down and not say another word about what they’ve experienced. For those who claim they want to help others heal, there are some pretty ignorant things that are said to those speaking out. Survivors and victims have gone through so much all ready that they don’t need negative remarks and assumptions made about them, especially not from those who have gone through abuse in their own lives. As a survivor, I’ve heard many phrases that were judgmental. Now, I know that sometimes people say things that they think will help others to heal, but you have to be careful in what you say because as survivors and victims, we are still fragile from what we’ve been through. I can always tell the people who are bitter about their past and the ones who think they know everything by the things they say to me on here. Even as a survivor, I still hear from people how I am a victim. I’m not a victim though and I often disregard those remarks they make because they apparently don’t really know me or what I’ve gone through. But I wanted to make a list of things that should not be said when you are trying to help victims and survivors heal and not to say to someone who is recovering from the past. These are things that I have been told and have heard and I will give the reasons as to why they should not be said.
“Stop being a victim”
This phrase is something I hear a lot. That’s so easy for people to say who have never been through abuse in their lives. They don’t know what all abuse does to someone and all the battles that we survivors have to fight long after the abuse is over. When someone says “stop being a victim” it’s the same as someone saying “shut up and quit whining about what you’ve been through.” Survivors are not victims! There is a difference between survivors and victims. A survivor is someone who has escaped their situation and has broken the cycle of abuse. A victim is one who is still trapped in their abusive situation and still suffering and enduring it daily. Survivors do not act like victims. Just because they are expressing their feelings and emotions does not mean that they are in any way a victim still. They are just releasing those feelings that have been locked up for all that time they were being abused and lived in silence. Never tell a survivor to “stop being a victim.” Even for those who are victims that you are trying to help, do not say that. For some victims, it is very dangerous for them to leave their situation right away and they have to be smart about how they make their escape by making plans and plotting the best time to leave and how they’re going to leave without their abuser finding out. This phrase causes many victims and survivors to shut down and not want to talk about what they go through or have been through because this is often taken as a degrading remark.
“You didn’t have it as bad as I did so quit whining and complaining about your past”
First off, when a survivor or victim tells their story, they are not whining and complaining. They are reaching out for help by sharing their story and some survivors use their stories to help others out there. How do you know that someone didn’t have it as bad as you when you weren’t even present in their lives when they went through the abuse? Everyone has the worst case of abuse because every case of abuse is bad! There is no way anyone can sit there and tell someone else they had it worse since none of us have ever been in someone else’s shoes. Sure, we’ve been through similar situations, but everyone’s background is different and the pain that we feel is not the same because everyone feels and deals with pain differently. No one has the right to tell someone else they didn’t have it as bad. When people write their story or share their story, it doesn’t mean they are whining and complaining. It just means they are letting things out that they need to let out. Otherwise, if they keep holding it inside, it hurts them even more.
“Why do you make surviving all about being abused? Is that all you hope to be and all that you are about?”
Surviving is about dealing with the scars from the abuse we endured and overcoming the pain from the past as we allow ourselves to heal. When it comes to spreading awareness, survivors use their stories of how they were abused to open people’s eyes to the truth about what really goes on behind closed doors. Survivors are not all about being abused. No, we are about shedding light on the truth and we reach out to others by sharing our own experiences. We’re about educating people on the dangers of abuse and exposing the truth for all to see. We’re about giving other survivors and victims hope and faith that they can have a life after abuse and live an abuse free life. That it is possible. There would never be any change and none of us could ever make a difference if we didn’t share our experiences with others. The life of a survivor and victim is not all glitter and glam. Abuse is not pretty and neither are the battles we face after we go from being a victim to becoming a survivor.
“It’s your fault that you were abused and you must have done something to deserve it.”
NO!!! IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT!! No one does anything to deserve abuse. No one does anything to ask for it either. Oh this is one of the remarks that really makes me upset. I have had survivors come to me and tell me that when they tried to tell someone about the abuse they went through, they were told that it was their fault and that they asked for it. My ex told me that when I told him about the abuse my father put me through. He told me I must have done something to deserve it. When I told him that I stood up to my father and wasn’t afraid to stand up to him, his reply was that since I talked back to my father, I did deserve the abuse. It is never the person’s fault because people do not have to abuse other people. I believe that we are responsible for our own actions and we can control our anger instead of letting it control us and taking it out on others. Those of us who go through abuse or have gone through it had no control over the situation we were in. We were innocent lives caught in the middle of someone else’s anger and instead of them getting help for the things they went through, they chose to take their anger out on us. We didn’t tell them to hit us or abuse us or hurt us. Trust me, none of us want to go through that pain and live with it.
“I hope that you close that chapter of your life and learn to forgive so you can move on”
Forgiveness is a decision that one has to make for themselves. When it comes to the ones that have hurt us, it’s not easy to just forgive them for what they did. For me, it took awhile until I finally forgave my abusers for what they put me through. With forgiveness, you have to be ready to do it on your own; no one can make that decision for you. For most survivors and victims, it’s hard to forgive the person who beat them every day, who tore their spirit down, who shattered their dreams, who made them grow up too fast, etc. Some people can forgive easily while others struggle with it and never forgive their abusers. But that is a personal choice and it doesn’t make someone a bad person if they don’t forgive right away or at all. As far as closing that chapter of our lives, well that’s a part of our history that will forever be a part of us. We cannot run away from who we are and what we’ve gone through just like we can’t deny what we went through. Those chapters are all ready closed once we find ourselves away from the abuse. Just because we write about it does not mean that we have re opened those chapters. It just means that we are reflecting on those experiences and if we want to help others, sometimes we have to go back to those chapters. It’s like in a book that you read. Sometimes to understand something, you have to go back to a place in the book and re read a part to understand the next part. In our lives, we use parts of those closed chapters to help people understand the present chapters in our lives.
“The past is the past, it’s over and done with, so get over it all ready”
Sure, the past may be done with, but the memories stay with us forever. Even as survivors, we still have to fight battles that come our way because the past has a way of coming back and taunting us or haunting us. Some of us have flashbacks from what we went through. It’s so easy for people who haven’t been abused to tell us to just block it out but we never can fully block out the memories from those days. We never forget where we came from. Everyone heals in their own time and the healing process is not something that happens over night, either. You can’t just tell someone to get over it. Everyone has their own ways in which they heal and for some, it takes longer.
“You must have gone looking for an abusive relationship or you must have had a target on you that attracted an abusive partner”
This one I have heard many times. I’ve been told before that those who have had abusive relationships or been in abusive childhoods have some kind of target on them which attracts other abusive people. I’ve heard that abusers can tell who’s been a victim before by the way they act. I personally don’t believe that anyone goes looking for an abusive relationship. Most of us dream about that happily ever after and meeting that special someone who will love us and cherish us for the rest of our lives. For those of us who have been victims before, we don’t want to repeat that part of our lives. As far as abusers being able to tell who’s been a victim in the past, I really don’t know about that. We don’t enter abusive relationships intentionally and unless we tell someone about the abuse we’ve been through, then how do they know we were victims before? Okay, my ex didn’t know about that part of my life until after we got married. In fact, to everyone around me, I appeared to be a strong, confident woman. The man I married saw me as someone confident and strong and that is one of the things he liked about me. I never suspected that he’d turn out to be like my dad because he didn’t show that side until after we got married. Some of the strongest, most confident women have entered abusive relationships but I don’t think it was because of the way they acted or because one could tell they’d been abused before. Most people don’t ever talk about being abused. I think it has more to do with people are good at hiding their abusive side and keeping things about themselves buried so the can lure others in. Obviously, they won’t show their true colors right away because then the person would know to run away and an abuser doesn’t want the person to run away. I mean, when I look at the people around me when I go out, unless they have a black eye or bruises which most people conceal, I wouldn’t be able to tell if someone has been abused simply by looking at them and watching them interact with others.
“What’s wrong with you that you would find yourself a victim of abuse” or just “what’s wrong with you”
Believe it or not, this is one I was asked a few years ago. There is nothing wrong with a person who has been a victim of abuse. As I’ve stated before, no one asks to be abused and no one does anything to deserve it. To ask someone what is wrong with them that they would find themselves a victim really puts all the blame on them. It makes them feel that the guilt belongs to them and that they must have done something to deserve it. Then they start having feelings of shame over it when they shouldn’t be carrying guilt and shame for things that were never their fault. You don’t ask someone “what’s wrong with you”. There’s a difference between asking “what’s wrong” and “what’s wrong with you”. What’s wrong implies that you are there for them to talk to and that you care about what they are facing. What’s wrong with you suggests that you are saying they have qualities that made them become a victim and that according to society, they are not “normal” which you cannot define the word normal when it comes to people.
“You’re not normal like everyone else because of what you went through”
Don’t compare a victim or survivor to others who have not gone through abuse. This is one of the things my ex also did to me all the time. He compared me to his first love and his friends and even his friends’ wives who had never gone through abuse. He would sit there and tell me that I deserved to be locked up and that I wasn’t normal because I suffered abuse. I believe that when it comes to people you can’t define the word “normal.” I hate the word “normal” when it’s being used to regard people. I believe everyone is unique, special, beautiful and one of a kind despite what they have been through. Everyone in life has been through different things and unless we’ve gone through what they have, then I don’t think we’ll really understand what it’s like. We can be there to listen but as far as knowing how it feels, we’ll never know since we aren’t them and don’t live their lives.
“Well, you didn’t suffer the abuse long enough to really know how the pain feels”
Time has nothing to do with the pain someone feels. There are survivors out there who really believe that for those who went through abuse for a shorter time than they did, they can’t possibly know what the pain is really like and that they’ve been through even more pain. The abuse in my marriage went on for 9 months. Yeah, to some people, when they look at my age and how long I was abused in my marriage, they think that I can’t possibly know what the pain is like since they went through their abuse for 9 years, 19 years, etc. Those 9 months may not seem like a long time to other people, but to me it felt like an eternity. Those 9 months left behind so many scars and to this day I still feel pain from it. It doesn’t matter if one has suffered abuse 9 hours, 9 days, 9 weeks, 9 months, 9 years, 29 years, etc. because abuse, any form of abuse, leaves behind scars and after effects that stay with a person and that the person has to continue to battle and heal from after they leave and it’s stopped. All forms of abuse, no matter how long they last for, hurt. No matter how long someone endures it, they feel pain from it.
“Your story isn’t as important because there are others who have been through so much more”
Every story is important. Every story is different. Don’t tell someone their story isn’t important and don’t tell them that others have had it worse. When we go through abuse, do you honestly think we are thinking about who has it worse? No! Our mind is on the pain we feel and to us, we do have it worse. Every voice deserves to be heard and every story deserves to be told. Why do we insist on using stories as a way of comparison and why do we make being abused a competition as if we are making it a game of who has the most scars and battle wounds? Come on, that is stupid! Yeah, it’s okay to be proud of being a survivor but why brag about the abuse you have gone through? Stories should be used not to brag and boast but to help spread awareness and reach out to others. We can all learn from one another. But being abused should never be used as a competition.
“No one will ever want you since you’ve been abused”
That’s not true. There are people out there who don’t look at the past but look at the present and the future. They don’t care about your past because the right one will love you for who you are. When they look at you, they don’t see flaws and imperfections. The scars fade away out of sight because in their eyes, you are the most beautiful person they have ever laid eyes on. They appreciate your outer beauty as well as your inner beauty. They notice the things about you, the qualities about you that others are blinded to. Even when you do tell them about what you’ve gone through, they don’t run away but they help you fight through it. They choose to stay because they love you and care about you and to them, you are someone worth fighting for. If someone is only focused on your past, then don’t waste your time on them. If they can’t handle the truth when you tell them, if you choose to because that’s up to you, then they don’t deserve you. Be with someone who can handle it and who loves you, cherishes you, protects you, and fights for you. The one that you can be yourself around and don’t have to hide anything from. That’s the person that is worth being with.
“You’re nothing but damaged goods”
I hate the term “damaged goods.
” According to www. urbandictionary. com, this is one of the definitions of damaged goods, 2)Someone who was once healthy and/or normal but isn’t anymore due to unfortunate, traumatic events in his/her life (i.e. physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, drug abuse…u get it). Again, people love to use the word normal and stick labels on survivors and victims. Labels are for products, not people. Being a survivor is not a disease and it’s not a bad thing. We’re the fortunate ones who lived through the abuse and lived to tell about it. Many don’t survive. Survivor is a title that we should wear with pride and honor and not be ashamed about it. So we’re not healthy because of what we went through and we can’t function properly? I mean seriously, what is this? They treat us as if we are outcasts and if we are non human because of those events. This shows you how ignorant society is. Even for those who haven’t gone through abuse, they have gone through hard times in their lives before too. But you won’t hear anyone saying they are damaged goods . No one is damaged goods. We survivors are tougher and stronger than people give us credit for. I admit, I have anxiety attacks and flashbacks; I used to self inflict, I used to drink a lot, I used to be a tease and look for love in the wrong places, but does that make me damaged goods? No! I am happy with who I am today and those things I went through in my past helped make me stronger. I believe that survivors are not damaged goods but are warriors healing from the pain of the past. We’re finding our way in life and rebuilding it. Just like anyone else, we have a chance at love and happiness in our own lives, too. Don’t let anyone tell you that you are damaged goods. I have found survivors to be the ones who have hearts filled with compassion towards others hurting. That in my mind makes them stand out and makes them some of the most beautiful people there are.
These are just some of the phrases I have heard that I don’t believe should be used when helping survivors and victims heal. Listening is the best thing to do when helping those recovering. The ingredients needed when reaching out to victims and survivors are empathy, insight, compassion, care, understanding, love, and patience. Be careful how you word things and don’t say something that can hurt someone and make them just shut down and not talk about what they’ve gone through. It hurts them more when they don’t talk about it. Don’t treat them the way their abusers treated them by saying things to tear them down. Every story deserves to be told and every voice deserves to be heard. We need to encourage survivors and victims to speak out and talk about it whether then being the cause as to why they remain silent.
Caste Systems: Are They the Key to Understanding Rape, Tyranny, Impotence, and Reformed Theology in the Church?
“So, it begs the question: how much of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general is part of a caste system philosophy? Are the elect, non-elect , ruling elders, and totally depraved more spiritual social strata than doctrinal truth?”
Regarding my upcoming book projects, volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism will merely trace New Calvinism back to its Reformation roots. Volume one traced it from present-day, back to the resurgence movement of 1970. However, The Reformation Myth (TRM) will delve deep into Reformation philosophy, history, its false gospel of progressive justification, and its bogus motif. The so-called Reformation is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind—that’s the thesis of TRM.
During my research for TRM, I stumbled onto the whole issue of Caste Systems. Woe, what an eye opener. What is also very intriguing in regard to the discussion thereof is the topics ability to organize and lend understanding to complex philosophical issues. That makes the concept dangerous to those who prefer their parishioners dumbed down.
Let’s begin by stealing some definitions:
A caste system is a type of social structure which divides people on the basis of inherited social status. Although many societies could be described in this way, within a caste system, people are rigidly expected to marry and interact with people of the same social class. India has a well known example of a caste system, although various forms of caste systems can be found in many other cultures as well (Online source: http://goo.gl/tcCzX).
Yes, India is caste on steroids, but that only serves to lend understanding to caste systems in general. We must also thank Indian culture for demonstrating how caste systems interact and integrate with religion. Often, caste systems come from religion, and determine the social strata, especially in theocracies. The following chart is helpful accordingly:
And….
The roots of the Indian caste system can be found in the Hindu scriptures, although the caste system was adopted by other religions in India as well. According to scripture, Indian society could be broken down into a number of different groups, known as Varnas. Brahmins, the highest caste, were scholars and priests, while Kshatriya were warriors, rulers, and landlords. Vaisya were merchants, while Sudra were manual laborers. Beyond there four basis Varnas are the Untouchables or Dalit, and the system also has a space for outsiders and foreigners who do not conform with the system (Ibid).
Massive research has been done by sociologists on this subject—it is a treasure trove of understanding. I am 56 years old, done my share of schooling, and have never been exposed to this vast topic and its implications. And as we will see, the absence of consideration regarding caste systems, and its very, very likely influence on Calvinism is downright scandalous. Add it to the list of why Calvinism is a “scandalous gospel.” Moreover, the understanding gained via this topic in the realm of spiritual abuse and tyranny is absolutely priceless.
Caste systems can take on many forms, but for now, let’s stick with the more naked forms. These are caste systems that have actually been enforced by civil and criminal law throughout history. As the former and latter excerpts note, caste systems, social and religious, are not exclusive to Indian culture. In fact, European culture has been inundated with caste systems throughout history:
According to Haviland, social systems identical to caste system elsewhere in the world, are not new in Europe. Stratified societies were historically organized in Europe as closed social systems, each endogamous, into for example nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie and peasants. These had distinctive privileges and unequal rights, that were neither a product of informal advantages because of wealth nor rights enjoyed as another citizen of the state. These unequal and distinct privileges were sanctioned by law or social mores, confined to only that specific social subset of the society, and were inherited automatically by the offspring.
In some European countries, these closed social classes were given titles, followed mores and codes of behavior according to their closed social class, even wore distinctive dress. Royalty rarely married a commoner; and if it did, they lost certain privileges. This endogamy limitation wasn’t limited to royalty; in Finland, for example, it was a crime – until modern times – to seduce and defraud into marriage by declaring a false social class. In parts of Europe, these closed social caste-like groups were estates.
Along with the three or four estates in various European countries, another outcast layer existed below the bottom layer of the hierarchical society, a layer that had no rights and was there to serve the upper layers. It was prominent for centuries, and continued through middle 19th century. This layer was called serfs. In some countries such as Russia, the 1857 census found that over 35 percent of the population was serf (крепостной крестьянин).
While the serfs were of the same race and religion, serfs were not free to marry whomever their heart desired. Serf mobility was heavily restricted, and in matters of who they can marry and how they lived, they had to follow rules put into place by the State and the Church, by landowners, and finally families and communities established certain social mores that was theirs to follow because the serfs were born into it.
In modern times, regions of Europe had untouchables in addition to the upper castes and serfs. These were people of the same race, same religion and same culture as their neighbors yet were considered morally impure by birth, repulsive and shunned, just like the Burakumin caste of Japan and Osu caste of Nigeria.
A sense of hereditary exclusion, unequal social value, and mutual repulsion was part of the relationship between the different social strata in Europe. In late 19th century through the early 20th century, millions of the outcasts, downtrodden and socially ostracized people from Europe migrated on their own, or transferred as indentured laborers to the New World (Online source: http://goo.gl/Fx4VU).
Caste systems form naturally from our tendencies to be prejudice against, in varying degrees, what makes us uncomfortable. And different usually =’s uncomfortable. Therefore, the formation of caste attitudes come naturally to us, and unless restrained, become caste systems. And, unless the brakes are applied to caste systems, the mentality can deprecate to the point of the upper social strata viewing the lower strata as less than human, and a threat to the purity of the upper strata. Can we say, “genocide” ?
This gives new brevity to the basic idea of “love” which strives to value others as much as we value ourselves. The antithesis leads to all kinds of formal, informal, spoken, and unspoken caste systems according to what people look like, talk like, have, have not, etc., etc., etc. Does Hollywood have a caste system? Do high schools have a caste system? Do churches have a caste systems? Yes, yes, and yes.
Interestingly, in regard to the founding fathers of this country, they resisted caste systems. You were pretty much judged by the game you brought to the table regardless of how you got the game. That is why there were African American congressman, mayors, and notable educators early in American history. However, the same cannot be said of the Southern states who implemented a racial caste system that was civil and criminal law:
The term caste entered American debates long before the American Civil War, in the antebellum era and has continued through modern times. Frederick Douglass, William Garrison, Horace Greeley, Harriet Stowe, William Seward, Gerrit Smith, Charles Sumner, Theodore Parker, and Cassius Clay used the term caste, rather than race or class, in their writings and speeches to discuss and inspire America to abolish slavery.
And by the way, Calvinism was the predominate religion in the South during the Civil War (at least in regard to backing the South’s apologetic). Just sayin’.
Like falling off a log, the documenting of Plato’s influence on the father of the Reformation, St. Augustine, is equal in task. The same goes for Augustine’s connection to Martin Luther and John Calvin. And to say that Martin Luther had a caste mentality would be the understatement of the century. And caste systems were part and parcel with medieval history. Even more evident is the hyper-caste mentality that influenced the views of Plato. According to Dr. TS Girishkumar:
Plato had a theory of soul which has three parts, reason, courage and appetite. The development of them shall be different in different people. When reason is dominant, and other part dormant, it is the philosopher. Courage is dominant, the warriors. Appetite is dominant, the traders and cultivators. When all three are dormant, the slaves.
This is just the copy of the Varnashrama system in Indian Philosophy. Four Varnas according to the quality of individuals, and unlike Plato’s theory, the quality is acquired and not by birth. The Brhamanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and the Sudras (Online source: http://goo.gl/JuuGU).
So, it begs the question: how much of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general are part of a caste system philosophy? Are the elect, non-elect , ruling elders, and totally depraved more spiritual social strata than doctrinal truth? I intend to research that question thoroughly.
How much of the abuse/tyranny problem in the church today can be related to a caste mentality? What about the indifference regarding church abuse/tyranny that we see in our day? In a caste system, the system answers to nobody about anything. Is this the dynamic that we are experiencing?
What about impotence? In society, lack of social mobility is proven to cripple society because the possible contributions of the lower strata are ignored and shunned. In the church, do caste systems limit spiritual mobility? Certainly, a plenary pushback regarding such attitudes by Christ and the apostles can be seen throughout the New Testament by word and lifestyle.
And we should not expect that the natural degenerative activity of a caste system will behave any differently in the church. Indifference towards justice, abuse, and tyranny will be the same result.
paul
Reformed Masters and Blogger Slaves
That’s the consensus. Once again, a situation that is hopeless. A man who stood for what is right came to realize something: the leadership of his “family” church had subtly indoctrinated his wife over time to believe church “polity” and “orthodoxy” trumps his authority in their own home and his wife’s God given ability to think for herself. He never got it, but unfortunately, she did.
“But, they can’t tell her to divorce him, that’s against the Bible!” That’s what I used to say when I still didn’t get it. Now I get it. The Bible isn’t our authority because the masses are not qualified to interpret the Bible for themselves. The spiritual elite must interpret it for us. The agreed upon basic principles by the majority of the elite (certified by a seminary degree in indoctrination) is “orthodoxy.” Church “polity” protects the orthodoxy.
However, most of the spiritually ignorant masses cannot understand orthodoxy, so we have creeds, confessions, catechism, “Daily Bread” devotionals, and of course, books, books, and more books. The totally depraved masses wait at the doors of Christian publishing companies with bated breath for the next divine unction from the who’s who of neo-Calvinism.
On the Protestant side, it’s the “Westminster Divines.” On the Catholic side, it’s popes and cardinals, but there is no difference. The Reformation was a fight between philosopher kings for control of the mutton—nothing more and nothing less. The Reformers saw Rome as immoral philosopher kings. Gee whiz, something had to be done; they were supposedly better suited to rule the totally depraved. The Reformers then came up with a doctrine that was a different twist on the total depravity and utter ineptitude of man. But both parties were, and still are, fundamentality Augustinian in their philosophy.
Where has all of this taken us? Look for yourself. In the South during the pinnacle of slavery, I am sure there was an outcry among the slaves concerning the abuse by masters. How far did it get them? How many masters stood against other masters on behalf of the slaves? I don’t know what the primary conduit for the outcry was in that day, but today, it’s blogging. Where is it getting us in comparison? Look up “same” in the dictionary.
What kind of abuse? Oh, pretty much the same kind we see today: an expectation that you will burn yourself out for the masters, and to the neglect of your family which they will use against you for asking the wrong questions. If a master wanted to break up a slave marriage; done. If a master wanted a slave’s wife; done. If a master wanted to molest a slave’s son or daughter; done. If a master wanted to ruin a slave’s name; done. If a master wanted to deprive a slave of friends; done. If a master wanted to compel a slave to believe something; done. And for certain, if a master wanted a slave to keep their mouth shut; done. In regard to the master controlling what the slave learned and understood; done.
The masters of the South had the law at their disposal to control the slaves. The Reformed masters of our day have to improvise. That’s relatively new for them; in the past, they also had polity with government on their side to enforce the orthodoxy (Google, “Calvin’s Geneva, Inquisition, witch wars, peasant wars, The Thirty Years War, English civil wars 1,2,3, and Salem witch trials” to get you started). Controlling the slaves with polity alone takes creativity, but the Protestants of our day are getting the job done. We are slaves to the formal church by choice through manipulation. And worse yet, unlike the slaves of the South, we are paying good money for it.
And we are slaves. “No we aren’t.” Oh really? Then why do we keep giving our money to abusers and co-abusers who cover for them? Why do we keep going to their churches? “Well Paul, somebody has to be in control.” Exactly. Because somebody “has to be in control,” we are no better off than the slaves of the South—only more pathetic because we are willing participants who pay good money to our abusers. Google, “ABWE Bangladesh Missionary Kids.” As one former member of a Reformed church stated it: “I paid good money to have my marriage destroyed and my family divided.”
It took years, but we have finally been brainwashed into thinking that we need rulers in the church as opposed to leaders. And after all, rulers are never perfect. And after all, if not them, who? And after all, but for the grace of God, there go I. And after all, better that some suffer from elder boo-boos in quietness for the betterment of the whole. And after all, unity and peace are always the best remedy though imperfect in this totally depraved world. And after all, we know it’s bad, but where else can we go? And after all….you fill in the blank.
Far from the psyche of the American church is Christ’s call to value the one as much as the other 99. The Jewish proverb of, “He who saves one life—saves the world” has been replaced with spiritual Marxism and its cult of The Group. Many oppose the cult of group, while holding to the Protestant gospel of progressive justification. Sorry, that doctrine will eventually lead to the cult of group. Some of the Puritans who landed here wanted to shed the oppressive church polity of the Reformers, but retained the same gospel (Google, “Savoy Declaration”)—guess what eventually happened? Doctrine always, in time, dictates behavior; there is absolutely no exception to that rule.
The data that verifies the following formula is not hard to come by: Formula A; God > Bible > Elders > Orthodoxy > Polity > Control > Creeds > Totally Depraved.
Never before in church history has there been more Christian academia in an information age to boot; yet, never before in church history have the saints been more dumbed down. Ignorance =’s control. This is by intention. This is the Reformed endgame. Susan and I correspond with people all over the world about the doctrine of progressive justification, and the continual roadblock is the fact that most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification. How can this be? Answer: model “A.”
Formula B: this is the biblical model; God > Bible > Saints (led by elders) = Christ’s mandate to the church to make disciples.
If one breaks the bondage we are in today, and reads the Bible for his/her self—some amazing things are discovered. In an irony that I cannot even begin to put into words from a contemporary perspective, Jude began to write to a group of believers about the gospel, but instead addressed something more urgent: false teachers. And take note: the letter, like most others in the Bible, is addressed to the saints and not the elders. The saints were to take ownership of the problem. And this was regarding false teachers who were among them—who had “slipped in unawares.”
As with Peter, the instruction is clear: one way or the other; separate from them. This isn’t rocket science. But why does that not happen? Because Christians, by and large, operate by formula “A” which leaves them no choice. Supposedly. But think about it; if “A” is reality, what are your choices? You can only start your own church under the authority/approval of the same, and quitting church will get you excommunicated (Google, “Mark Dever excommunicates 256 members”). If leaving the authority of the church would put you in disfavor with God, what choice do you have? Hence, it is what it is; we suck it up and “trust the problem to those who are fully apprised of the situation.” Amen. “Just please trust us as we have the whole picture”; ie., there is dirt in the situation that you don’t know about (but probably not).
That wasn’t Jude’s approach at all. Not even close. He instructed the saints directly on how to detect false teachers. We are not to be associated with false teachers in any regard, period. There are no exceptions. And the premier heresy of our day is progressive justification. And progressive justification is the source of the abuse. And we have simply chosen to enslave ourselves to false teachers.
And model “A” is not our authority, and there is simply no excuse for this. We are owned by Christ, not false teachers. We often cling to model “A” because it’s easy and “safe.” Turning a blind eye to abuse is easier and more comfortable then fending for ourselves and others even though Christ has promised to be with us “till the end of the age.” This is a matter of trusting Christ and not vile men with impressive Reformed pedigrees. Is this what Psychologists refer to as “codependence”? Well then, I might have to give them credit for knowing something. Embracing evil as a way to avoid confronting our fears has never been becoming for anyone who names the name of Christ.
Quitting church is not the answer either. Jude totally missed the memo on that one. But it is high time that the discernment/anti-abuse blogosphere stops the whining, it is rather time to get solution oriented. The outcry of Southern slaves who could do nothing else is understandable, but there are many options available to ministries that deal with abuse. And by the way, “having a place to voice your pain” IS NOT getting the job done. The abusers are getting the job done, but not us. I think it is time to ask why that is.
There is only one thing that can stop tyranny: action. What action? The sky is the limit. The Dohse family will begin doing their part this Sunday. We will begin to hold church in our home with pastor Paul presiding. Maybe some of the spiritual orphans out there will join us. Then there are many options in the future if we grow.
Enough whining and psychobabble already. Form a coalition of bloggers who can organize things like a thirty-day tithing blackout. Do something, but for crying out loud….
Stop whining!
paul
Is All Truth God’s Truth? And How Does the Question Relate to Spiritual Abuse?
There is a thinking crisis in our culture that is greatly compounded in the church because faith is often a license for subjectivity; an inability to think coupled with an attitude that pragmatism is the antithesis of spirituality. Especially in Reformed circles, knowing things and being solution oriented =’s “arrogance.”
Propositions are judged by how good they sound, or how logical they sound, or if the hearing thereof incites a stimulating chemical reaction in the brain that we seem to like.
All truth is God’s truth; is that true? No. However, the following is true: that truism has led many to destruction. Why? Because it assumes truth is the same as facts, and it doesn’t understand that all teaching is a process of propositions that lead to a conclusion. And, logic always yields the same results.
“Dr. John Doe has said many valid things here; I would only disagree with this point or that point.”
Facts and truth are two different things. Facts are usually passive and an elementary part of a larger schema. 2+2=4 is a fact, and a tree is a fact, but unlike truth, they are morally neutral and can rarely take you anyplace by themselves. Truth has a moral aspect, and usually has a purpose in mind. Jesus Christ is not merely a fact, though His existence is certainly factual—He is “The Truth.” He is the epitome of all that is good and gives life.
When the serpent deceived Eve in the garden, he used facts to take her to a rejection of the truth. The fact that Eve was not going to die on the spot after eating the apple was a fact. Satan presented many facts to Jesus when he tempted Him in the wilderness, but the goal wasn’t truth. Does that make the facts God’s truth? Hardly.
True facts that lead to untruth are not God’s truth, because God’s truth always equals life and has that end in mind. Sub truth, or facts, are only as true as what they yield whether life or death. When ill motives are attached to a fact, it is still fact, but it isn’t truth because the fact was used for ill intent. Truth has a moral qualification.
It is not a good idea to sit under the tutelage of Satan because he espouses facts that are undeniable—his facts never lead to truth, he is “the father of lies.”
“Satan has said many valid things here. I agree that Psalms 9:11,12 states that the angels will bear Jesus up. However, I disagree with his suggestion that Jesus should have jumped off the temple pinnacle.”
Really? That’s nice.
Secondly, each proposition that builds up to the conclusion needs to be evaluated. Sub points need to be true and they need to fit together logically to affirm the conclusion. When we have some disagreement on a point in a message or teaching, the possible application of it for another conclusion should be irrelevant. It needs to be judged according to its proposition and contribution to the conclusion at hand. Not all incorrect propositions on the way to a conclusion do irreparable damage to the conclusion, but it’s rare.
Thirdly, Philosophy forms logic which always leads to the same results. All “truth” teachers have a philosophy. All teaching seeks to lead you to a conclusion. Conclusions form logic and lead to action. Hence, “….the student will be like his teacher.”
Philosophy is metaphysics (what we believe about reality and being), epistemology (the theory of how we come to know what we know, or how we obtain knowledge), ethics (the moral application of what we know), and politics (how we use what we know to relate to others, or how we communicate it). The first two elements of philosophy always determine ethics and politics. Often, behavior reveals the philosophy: “….by their fruits you will know them.”
This is exactly why we categorize teachers and reject all that they say out of hand because once their philosophy is revealed, we know where the logic will always take us. Even if some of what they say is factual, the conclusions they want to take you to are based on the philosophy. Therefore, their factual stepping stones are only relevant to the truth or error that is the goal, and for all practical purposes, the same value is placed on the propositions leading to the conclusion. Hence, the biblical prescription for those who have errant philosophy: “AVOID THEM,” and, “Do not allow them into your home or bid them God’s speed.”
Therefore, facts that are part of a conclusion that is a lie have no moral value and are not truth, but part of a deception.
This is the folly of sitting under the teachings of people with errant philosophy, or even greeting them: even the facts that they present are intended to lead to untruthful conclusions. So no, all truth is not God’s truth. God’s truth always has a good ending. Scripture states plainly to completely avoid anyone with errant philosophy.
How you would then glean what is “good” from their teachings while “leaving what’s bad on the shelf,” or “eat the chicken and throw away the bones” is a mystery to me. God forbids that the chicken is even in our house and disallows the use of our shelves.
What does this all have to do with the war against spiritual abuse in the blogosphere? Well, there is a reason it is beginning to look like the Jerry Springer show more and more every day. Even though the Christian culture of our day is primarily framed with two gospels that are radically different, nobody is required to state their philosophy. Spiritual abuse blogs are fraught with Christian mystics, Gnostics, and proponents of progressive justification.
As I have confronted some of these bloggers in regard to their abhorrent psychobabble solutions for spiritual abuse, at least one informed me that the Bible (what the Apostle Paul called “the mind of Christ”) is “not enough” to fully address the problem. And let there be no doubt: what you read out there is a gargantuan volley of propositions from a myriad of philosophical camps followed by massive chatter that evaluates the propositions.
If the Apostle John said that greeting a person with errant philosophy was to also partake in their sin—then it is no less for propositions—factual or otherwise.
Do I think there is an endgame to all of this “all truth is God’s truth” business? Yes. I think it is a ploy to keep us at the feet of those with errant philosophy because there are some “facts” in their teachings that can be added to the “wider field of knowledge.” But those facts can’t help us who strive for truth because the usage of those facts are in a context leading to bad conclusions.
And I think that’s the crux. It creates conduits between ill philosophies and good philosophies. There isn’t the wide separation God calls for.
Whatever is used to endorse error is not God’s truth, even if it is factual. The moral goal is not the same. It may be a fact, but it’s not God’s truth.
Propositions are only as good as the conclusions and results that they always produce. And that qualifies the propositions as either endorsing truth or not endorsing truth. And only TRUTH sets us free from spiritual abuse.
paul
Dr. Jay E. Adams on Cross Congregational Discipline
Cross Congregational Discipline
Introduction by paul: How much suffering could be avoided in the church if we would get serious about following Scripture? Consider that even independently autonomous churches, for the most part, belong to a fellowship of churches. Therefore, the following as articulated by Dr. Adams could stop abuse dead in its tracks. A church being shunned by several other churches in a fellowship of churches is no small matter. Think of all the church fellowships who have refused to follow this procedure–even for the sake of the sexually abused. Without further ado, read what this gift to the church has to say on this issue:
So far I have been considering discipline within the local church that involves members of the same congregation. Now it is important to tackle the somewhat more complex questions of how to handle the problem of cross congregational discipline.
Within the same denomination the ways and means for pursuing cross congregational discipline are usually formalized in a denominational book of government and discipline. If they are not, you should work for a common Book of Discipline that provides for such measures.
What I wish to address in this chapter is the more difficult problem of how to carry on discipline among churches that are not related denominationally.
Bob and Phil, members of two Bible believing congregations of different persuasions, have broken fellowship over a business deal. Phil, an automobile mechanic, maintains that all the work he did on Bob’s car was necessary and, though he charged Bob five hundred dollars, that was a good price for the labor and parts provided; indeed, below the going rate. Bob disagrees. He thinks that Phil did unnecessary work on the car and has stuck him with a huge bill, which he refuses to pay. Bob claims that he told Phil to let him know if the cost would exceed two hundred dollars; Phil says Bob gave no such instructions. Rather, Phil maintains that Bob said, “Go ahead and do whatever has to be done,” and indicated no reservations about the cost.
The matter cannot be resolved by going to court (1 Corinthians 6 forbids that-God forbids believers to take other believers to court.), But since they cannot work it out between them, the matter must be settled by the church. Bob has told a number of people at his church what a rotten deal he got and how Phil cheated him. As a result, there is evidence that Phil’s business is suffering. Phil has not yet been paid.
Phil goes to his pastor for advice. The pastor says, “It seems to me that since Bob has made the matter public, it can be dealt with on that level. But why don’t you take a couple of mutual friends and try once more to work out matters? If you do not succeed, go to his pastor and seek help.”
One more visit is made. Phil and those with him get nowhere. Bob says he will not pay a cent more than two hundred dollars, and he refuses to discuss the issue further. Phil makes an appointment with Bob’s pastor, asking him to bring the matter officially before the church. The pastor in turn suggests that all four talk about it; he sets a date for the conference. But nothing comes of their meeting. Both men state and steadfastly maintain their positions. Bob tries to hand Phil a check for two hundred dollars and declares that the matter is over. He wants to hear no more about it. Phil shows the pastor receipts for parts that, apart from extensive labor costs, amount to nearly two hundred dollars in themselves. He refuses to take the check, declaring that to do so is to forfeit his right to a larger sum.
Where does the matter go from here? Regardless of how the issue turns out—which is not our concern at the moment—what steps should Phil take from here on?
Phil has two options. First, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:7 he can determine to accept the loss and drop the whole matter. If he does so, he must be sure he bears no resentment against Bob. In particular he must not speak disparagingly about Bob to others. If Phil drops it, it must be dropped entirely (Incidentally, Phil had this option at earlier stages as well.)
But it would seem from his refusal to accept the check that Phil will want to pursue the matter further. Given his rejection of the first option, what is Phil’s second? He may pursue the matter officially before Bob’s church. He should inform the pastor that he is not satisfied to let the matter drop and settle for two hundred dollars, especially since he has lost five customers from Bob’s church because of what he can only call slanderous gossip on Bob’s part. His concern is that the church deal with his charges of theft and slander against Bob.
Before making charges of slander or gossiping, Phil must have evidence to substantiate them. This will consist not only of presenting the bills and receipts that he brought to the first conference, but also being able to call on witnesses to the slanderous statements made to others. If he can produce such evidence, he will be in a position to establish his case. Apart from evidence and witnesses, he should not proceed further (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:1).
WHAT IF THE CHURCH DEFAULTS?
All of the foregoing is rather simple and straightforward. But what if Bob’s church refuses to hear Phil? What if the pastor says, “Well, Phil, I’ve done all I can to reconcile the two of you. In our church we don’t do anything more; no, we will not discipline Bob.” This possibility is not at all unlikely today.
There is no direct biblical instruction about this matter because there was no denominational problem in the first century (although there were interchurch dealings such as the council described in Acts 15). But using the approach stipulated by the words of Christ in Matthew 18, it would seem that the following procedure should be followed:
1. Phil (perhaps with the guidance of his own pastor) should gently read Matthew 18:15ff. to Bob’s pastor and urge him and his church to follow the Scriptures in this matter. He should not simply go along with weakness on the part of Bob’s church. Rather, in a kind but firm manner, he should insist that, since they call themselves a Bible?believing church, they are bound to do what the Bible requires. Often this sort of kind but strong pressure will prevail.
2. If that action proves to be fruitless, then (on the basis of Matthew 18) he should take someone with him (preferably his own pastor) to confront Bob’s pastor. Frequently the matter will be settled at this level.
3. But suppose Bob’s pastor refuses to hear them. Then, on the analogy of Matthew 18, he should “tell it to the church.” That would probably mean having Phil’s elders request a meeting with the elders of Bob’s church. If this meeting occurs, Phil’s elders may be able to persuade Bob’s that this is the biblical thing to do and may be able to help them in conducting a fair trial. The issue in points 2 and 3, please note, is not Phil’s losses, but the question of whether Bob’s church will follow Matthew 18. The two issues should not be confused.
4. Let us suppose, as too often is true, that Bob’s elders refuse to meet or, after meeting, refuse to carry the case further. Then, short of Phil’s willingness at this point to drop the whole matter, his church would seem to have but one recourse: again, on the analogy of Matthew 18, Phil’s church should declare Bob’s church to be “as heathen and publicans.” That is to say, they should declare them to be “no church” since they will not draw a line between the world and the church by exercising discipline. (Even if Phil should wish to drop his matter against Bob. the other issue—the dealings between the two churches—should be pursued to its end. A church. declared to be no church. may be restored upon repentance.)
This decision should never be taken unless the most careful and kind attempts have been made to try to effect proper discipline in the other church. But there must come a point at which the matter is set to rest. God will have no loose ends dangling in His church.
5. If Bob’s church is declared to be no church by Phil’s church, then and only then may Phil treat Bob “as a heathen and a tax collector.” If he wishes to do so, Phil may now take Bob to civil court. At times this may be an unwise move, a poor testimony in a community that doesn’t understand, and in some cases, even an unloving act if done in bitterness. But the practical possibility now exists. Sometimes it is wiser to drop the matter here (or earlier), and Phil always has that option.
6. If the act of declaring another church to be no church (because it will not define itself by church discipline) is to be carried out, it is important to keep accurate records, testimony, etc., of all that transpired. Moreover, before doing so, the other church should be warned of the possibility of this action.
Let me suggest two variations on this theme. Where a congregation is part of a denomination, the matter should be taken through the procedures prescribed by the denominational standards before taking the step of declaring it no church. In the case of a nondenominational congregation or one in which the denomination does not function in cases of church discipline, it might be advisable to call in one or two other congregations in the community to intercede; if nothing results from this, have those congregations agree also to declare the contumacious congregation to be no church .
Handbook of Church Discipline
Dr. Jay E. Adams: excerpt from chapter 10
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment