Emotional Abuse and Your Faith

Do Right BJU! The Principals of Protest!

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:14:33 PST

I’m sure some of you remember the backlash of the Tina Anderson story. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches all felt they were being branded for actions taken by the few. Yes, you tend to hear these type of responses anytime something ugly like this happens. Unfortunately, the victims tend to be lost in most of it.

Sadly, Bob Jones University is showing that Chuck Phelp’s response ISN’T all that uncommon. Sounds like the ‘few’ are the ones that can see the failings in this case.

On a very optimistic note, there have been students from the Bob Jones University that have stepped up to call out issues that arose that made them feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Chuck Phelps as you may remember feels that he is the true victim in what happened. He has taken credit for the conviction of Ernie Willis, and yet still feels justified on leaving his website up calling Tina Anderson a liar. How can you take credit for a conviction of the rapist, and then call the rape victim a liar? Could be one of the principals that make the students uneasy.

When the students found that Chuck Phelps was on the board of BJU a protest was started. They had a petition online for signatures, and started a Facebook page called, ‘Do Right BJU’. BJU is a very strict school, and the students were instructed to step down (stop creation of page) and remove the Facebook page. They have not done so at this point, and frankly it would be wise if the university addressed their concerns. Most knew when the students were asked to stop the chances of expulsion were highly likely. BJU also issued a statement that has been removed, but people uploaded screenshots online.

Sadly, the university had taken the stand in agreement with Chuck Phelps that he was indeed the victim in the Tina Anderson Case. They decided to stand behind their man, and if you read the statement itself? Its drips with manipulation.

They also refer people to Chuck Phelps website for details, and state that others that are speaking about this case don’t have the correct knowledge. At the end of the statement they tell you that God is Grieved if you do not stand where they tell you too. They claim they have checked into details, and asked the right sources – which again seems to be Phelp’s website.

No, they did not ask the victim in all this Tina Anderson according to her husband. I guess that would make things to balanced!

Bloggers have posted a wealth of information about this incident and how Dr. Phelps handled it. Dr. Phelps has been accused of not reporting the crime to officials, sending the girl out of state to hide the situation, harboring a criminal and protecting a sexual predator. We believe that the biblical way to approach this information is to get all the facts before judging Dr. Phelps or his actions, including going directly to him for answers to questions.

While the University maintained regular contact with Dr. Phelps since the matter came to light, we have recently spent time on Dr. Phelps’ website—drchuckphelps.com —and reading what the bloggers are saying. To verify facts and get our questions answered we called him and he answered our questions. After speaking with him and weighing the criticisms against the facts,we have concluded that some of what is posted on the internet about this incident is true, but the majority is a little bit of truth mixed with a lot of opinion and speculation.

The problem with this statement is that the university DID NOT ‘get all the facts’, and yet claims they did. It would make sense if you are wishing to get ‘all the facts’ that you look further than a one sided website that is meant for self protection. Could be one of the principals that make the students uneasy.

The internet posts criticizing Dr. Phelps are a great reminder of the consequences of the negative use of social media—how it can be used to tear down a person’s reputation with little verification of fact. They are also a reminder that there are positive, biblical ways to participate in social media discussions, including not quickly rushing to judgment, considering the intent and motives of those posting, considering the tone of what is said and whether it is Christ like in nature, being willing to exert the time and energy to seek the truth humbly, and being willing to challenge others with deep questions and facts.

The BJU Board of Trustees and the Cooperating Board are comprised of godly men and women who exhibit wisdom and humility in their positions. If Dr. Phelps or any other Board member covered up a crime such as this, he or she would not be retained on the Board.

In conclusion, we cannot overlook the human side in all of this.

A teenage girl was raped—this is a tragedy.
A rapist is in jail—this is justice.
A faithful pastor is being pummeled in social media and his family maligned—this is unjust.
Our God is being grieved.

Does it exhibit wisdom and humility to look at one side of things – claim they are the facts – and use that to shame others? No. They just told you that, and yet…what did they do? Opps!

It seems that Dr. Phelps site has inaccurate information, because the courts found that she is not a liar about the rape. They also found at trial that the facts contradict his statements online. No one seemed to feel it was right to remind Dr. Phelps – in the fact searching – to remove the portions that accused her of lying or his contradictions of fact. It seems Phelps used the site to tear down a person’s reputation, but for some reason that is acceptable.

Could be one of the principals that make the students uneasy.

I guess it may look bad at this point for the school to be heavy handed online, and so they sent in ‘supporters’ to use the same shaming techniques that their supporting statement of Phelps had used. The picture you can click on to see two statements of many. How people are whiners at this point, and instead should be spending energy doing ‘God’s work’.

Dr. Phelps decided on his own to step down from the board, and yet the students are still asking for supporters to wear ‘red’ to their chapel service on 12/13. Now the Phelps supporters and university are playing dumb, because they can’t grasp why the protest will still go on. They feel since Phelps stepped down it should be over. They don’t understand WHY the students may still feel uncomfortable, and not safe.

No offense, but that alone is a red flag that maybe they don’t have such intelligent people in their administration.

I have heard you can get a excellent education at BJU, so it seems thankfully the professors may have some common sense that the administration seems to lack. How sad is that! The administration is going to kill the good reputation of the education you get there, because they can’t grasp what ‘verification of facts’ entails. Yes, its more than asking the ‘maligned’ pastor in question.

Recently, on the I support Tina Anderson site they had a news clip. They were questioning the PR employee of the university about the perceptions at this point, and also the protest. Watch what the man says carefully. He says a whole lot of nothing.

According to him the BJU’s statements online is NOT a ringing endorsement of Chuck Phelps. They have no plans as of now to discipline the students for the protest. The reporter – having went to BJU – stated that she knew that if she went to report something like this she also would be questioned. How that has to be hard for a 15 year old that was questioned by Chuck Phelps, and how the reality of this hurts to the bone. She asked for him to make students feel better about how they can be safe, and the response from the University representative was – they comply with state laws. (Anyone feel better yet?)

When the reporter and the other guest stated that Chuck Phelps did the right thing by stepping down? NO response from the BJU representative at all.

Now, it seems there are reports that Do Right BJU supporters on campus are being intimidated. So, no need to discipline I guess if intimidation can do the job that is needed instead.

Could be one of the principals that make the students uneasy.

So what is with the Sesame Street Martians? These ‘out there’ Martians give the response that BJU wants their students to give.

A teenage girl was raped—this is a tragedy. (Martians say, Yep Yep Yep Yep!)
A rapist is in jail—this is justice. (Yep Yep Yep Yep Yep!)
A faithful pastor is being pummeled in social media and his family maligned—this is unjust. (Yep Yep Yep Yep)
Our God is being grieved. (Yep Yep Yep Yep Yep!)

Want to join Do Right BJU? (nope nope nope nope nope!)

Should we look at the principals that are making our students uneasy? (Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope!)

Should we acknowledge they feel unsafe? (Nope Nope Nope nope NOPE!)

All is well now right? YEP YEP YEP YEP!!

Ahem. Could be why the protest is still going on this Monday. I plan on wearing red although I won’t be there. Its my way of showing support.

Disciplining those students would be the worse thing they could do. You think your faithful pastor had it bad? The backlash will then be felt by you personally if I were a betting person.

Stop the prideful, entitled bullying. Check your scripture boys – that isn’t the true way to change hearts.

Be gracious and show compassion so you don’t grieve your reputation, college campus, and lose what support you may still have. You want Martians go to MARS!

Do we understand insensitivity?

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:18:12 PST

Do we understand insensitivity?

The Pearls have been in the news again. Michael Pearl spoke on a program called Cooper Anderson's Show today. It was a followed up from a program called UnGodly Discipline on CNN.

I’m NOT going to talk about spanking. I want to write today about the insensitivity towards tragic life altering events.

The Pearls have a book called, How to Train Up a Child. There have been children killed by the parents that claim they follow the Pearls teachings. When the first child died I think most people were a bit take back by the Pearl’s reaction. They pretty much blew it off as nonsense. Now we have other children that died, and I wrote about one named Lydia The Girl The Pearls Laughed At.

We are talking about a death of a child. The parents are arrested. We have siblings that are mourning not only at the loss of their parents, but their sister as well. You have community, friends, neighbors – a whole network of Lydia’s life reeling over what happened.

The parents took teachings on discipline out of book, and took it to a level that killed their child. No, Debi and Michael Pearl did not kill those children directly. Their reaction to their deaths though were immoral.

They speak of the bible, but showed no grace, humility, or compassion towards what happened. They were to busy getting defensive over their book being brought up as a possible tool that the murderous parents used.

My five grown children are laughing at your foolish, uninformed criticism of God’s method of child training, for their kids—my 17 grandkids—are laughing . . . because that is what they do most of the time.

People all around the world, in places like Russia, China, Germany, New Zealand, Guatemala, Peru, Africa, and fifty other countries are laughing with joy because after applying the Biblical principles found in our books they finally have happy and obedient children.

Even my chickens are laughing . . . well, actually it more like cackling, because they just laid another organic egg for my breakfast and they know that it was that same piece of ¼ inch plastic supply line that trained the dogs not to eat chicken....

You can read the rest of it on Lydia’s page I linked above.

Does this not come across as insensitive to anyone else out there?

Elizabeth Ester was on the talk show with Mr. Pearl today. I noticed his demeanor wasn’t the same as the letters he leaves on his website. He didn’t preach to everyone about how they were foolish, uninformed people that didn’t understand God’s method of child training. He didn’t laugh at them because they will not have happy and obedient children.

The insensitivity towards the children is what helped the Pearls gain this attention. I guess they are reaping what they sowed. People are not going to look at you and your teachings with compassion when you mock, ridicule, and ‘laugh’ at dead children. Its common sense.

Most people can show some compassion towards a child that was beat to death, and its telling when a Christian Ministry (that is what they call it) can not.

No. It seems his followers are the ones feeling mocked today. The Christian Post wrote a story on, “To Spank or Not To Spank”.

But today, the topic of biblical spanking has reached such a peak in debate and conversation that it is time for Christians to make the case as to what biblical training is and is not. Approximately 95 percent of all liberal media outlets, the same media outlets that are driven to squash Christianity and our current conservative value system, is also "spinning" perspectives on physically disciplining and training our children. If we do not let our voices be heard and truth be told, this, along with basic religious freedoms, will be taken away from us as we are seeing at an alarming rate.
-------------

As the Rev. Michael Pearl accurately writes on his website No Greater Joy Ministries: “The people who condemn biblical chastisement do not believe the Bible. They judge others by their own experience. The only time they have ‘hit’ their children, or been tempted to, was when they were angry. They assume that when we spank it is with the same hostility they have felt.”

As I mentioned they are so busy being defensive they totally miss the point. They accused people of ‘spinning’ perspectives, and yet don’t you just love the spin Rev. Michael Pearl used. He wrongly assumes that those that are upset are the ones that hit when angry. How they seem to be projecting onto him.

In the article they get close, but were given no cigar as the saying goes:

And again Pearl states, “Opponents of the biblical use of the rod support their position by pointing to its occasional misuse. It is our contention that all authority is misused from time to time, but that misuse does not negate the legitimacy of the office itself, rather of the ones who abuse their sacred authority. When the courts are unjust or dishonest, we do not abolish the office of judge or the administration of law. When a law enforcement agent is corrupted by money or a desire for power, we do not fire all the policemen. When a president of the United States is hedonistic and sells favors, enriching himself through crooked deals, we do not resort to a dictatorship. When state social workers molest children and abuse them, we do not stop all social work.”

There is no doubt that the parents misused their position, and if they read the cases it went further that the ‘biblical rod’. Those children didn’t laugh like your family and your chickens Rev. Pearl.

The misuse of the position of authority IS the key here! Everyone can agree on that!    Sadly, the Pearls and their followers are more upset about their book being discussed by their own reaction. The fallout is of their own making.

Its not the liberal media, or the secular doctors, studies or courts. Its was your cold hearted response.   There is NO DOUBT the book and the Pearl’s ministry would have come up for discussion because of its controversial nature.    Debi and Michael Pearl’s response was like gas on a fire – since they love visuals.

It should have been a time to ask others to pray for the family, and then use that moment as a ‘teaching moment’. It would have been very appropriate to remind parents about misuse of the rod. The ramblings about the abolishing the office of Judge when you find one bad one? It’s a silly example, and also a spin.

Just a side note here, but if you look at the article today? They quoted a couple from an organization called Christian Discipline. Ahem! I don’t think that is the same kind of discipline that you think it is Mr. PEARL! They speak about ‘spanking wives’ on that site! Don’t we even research our sources?

Debi and Michael have horrible responses, and it shows their wisdom is in serious question when it comes to these types of things. It highly offensive, and you bring on the trouble and heartache by your own words and actions.

Maybe a hire a professional to deal with responses.    Your spin comes off as insensitive, and your followers coming to your defense? It makes things worse. Thankfully, their response towards Hanna was better. They still had to throw in their digs at the end, but it came across as a bit more compassionate.

Here is a quote from Elizabeth Esther:

Additionally, if the Pearls had shown a little humility, grace and genuine sorrow about these tragedies, then the line of questioning wouldn’t be as tough. But instead, the Pearls have repeatedly–and brashly–defended their views, refused to modify their harsh recommendations all while calling their critics “uninformed” and accusing bloggers like myself of inflammatory rhetoric.

Lastly, here is clip from one of the news programs. I think they were respectful towards Debi and Michael Pearl.

To give an account and to intercede for their wives

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:28:58 PST

Shirley Taylor over at Baptist women for equality had an article this morning about Advent. The article title did make me sigh a little bit!

Should women be looking for the Christ child, or a husband?

Towards the end of her article she had mentioned Cindy Kunsman, and educational program that Cindy had presented in 2008.

Cindy Kunsman can tell you that Baptist seminarians believe it. At a conference in 2008 at a Southern Baptist Seminary, Cindy says “Several young men asked how it was that I believed that they would not stand before God…to give an account and to intercede for their wives….These (young men) were Baptist Seminary Students.” (ethicsdaily.com April 2008).

Cindy’s video is very interesting, and I learned a lot! She hits on all kinds of areas of beliefs regarding Patriarchy. When she mentioned some teachings from representatives from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Federal Vision, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? They pretty much threw a hissie fit, and claimed she offered ‘misinformed accusations’. Did they pony up with the evidence, or actually point out the errors in question? Nope. Funny how that happens isn’t it?

This belief about how husbands are accountable for their wives and children's actions before God is crazy talk! We are asked to love and care for another. We aren’t asked to be held responsible to intercede, give an account or be responsible for another in this fashion.

When you face God its between you and him. It won’t matter if you were a popular pastor, head of the seminary, dutiful wife, wonderful mother, etc. He isn’t interested your office or role. Gender doesn’t give you leverage!

When I read things like this I truly feel badly for the men and women that are taught these things. It’s a very heavy burden if it were true for them, and being that humans can be selfish? No humanly incentive for women to do their best. It’s a teaching that states we don’t need Jesus, but a good husband to give account and intercede for us.

No offense, but they need to find another seminary.

I have to wonder if that is why some circles push the submission and authority so hard. If they ‘believe’ they are to intercede and give account for their families? I guess those teachings would encourage ‘cooperation’ in lightening that load a bit huh! Women and children don’t need Jesus – just HIM! So if they want to go and be with the Lord? They need to cooperate, because he has the power in his hands!

I’m sorry but it gets crazier each time I hear it!

Conference coming to Houston
April 27-28, 2012
A New Creation. A New Tradition.
Reclaiming the Biblical tradition of Man and Woman, One in Christ.
bWe Baptist Women for Equality has teamed up with
Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) and
Fuller Institute, and others
to bring a conference for women's equality to Houston

If you are in the Texas area I wanted to point the above conference out! NOPE, no ‘to give an account and to intercede for their wives’ stuff there!

Links of Interest

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:30:36 PST

I have some links of interest today!

I maybe MIA (missing in action) for a bit longer. I was cleaning up, and I was moving things around that I suppose were to heavy for me. Sigh. Now I have hurt my back.

Certain kiddos reminded me that I can't do things that I used to do, and maybe I should take it easy. (giggles) I reminded THEM - I'm NOT that OLD!

Sidenote: They may have a slight point but still...

I haven't started to use my Dragon Naturally speaking either. Ahem - so expect the normal typos and grammar mistakes!

Gaslight is a movie from 1944. Gaslighting is a term that was taken from the movie.

The husband in the movie wanted his wife to think she was insane for his own personal motive. He would get the gaslights to flicker at certain times, and then refuse to acknowledge they flickered at all. He would basically tell her that she was imagining it, and it must be due to stress, etc. Another example was some jewelry that she had, and he removed it from where she placed it. Then made her feel terrible because she was so careless due to losing it.

A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not "Crazy"

This is an article written about gaslighting, and geared towards women. Honestly? I do believe anyone that has been experienced gaslighting will be validated by reading it. It most certainly isn't a 'gender only' concept.

Here is a quote from the article:

Today, when the term is referenced, it's usually because the perpetrator says things like, "You're so stupid," or "No one will ever want you," to the victim. This is an intentional, pre-meditated form of gaslighting, much like the actions of Charles Boyer's character in Gaslight, where he strategically plots to confuse Ingrid Bergman's character into believing herself unhinged.

The form of gaslighting I'm addressing is not always pre-mediated or intentional, which makes it worse, because it means all of us, especially women, have dealt with it at one time or another.
Those who engage in gaslighting create a reaction -- whether it's anger, frustration, sadness -- in the person they are dealing with. Then, when that person reacts, the gaslighter makes them feel uncomfortable and insecure by behaving as if their feelings aren't rational or normal.

My friend Anna (all names changed to protect privacy) is married to a man who feels it necessary to make random and unprompted comments about her weight. Whenever she gets upset or frustrated with his insensitive comments, he responds in the same, defeating way, "You're so sensitive. I'm just joking."

Abusive people in general have a hard time admitting in the honest way when they were abusive at all. Remember abuse is a pattern of behavior, and not an occasional 'acting like a jerk' moment. We can all be ugly at times.

It's about the general insight our conditioning gives us into admitting fault and exposing any emotion.

When we are discouraged in our youth and early adulthood from expressing emotion, it causes many of us to remain steadfast in our refusal to express regret when we see someone in pain from our actions.

Abusive people tend to use the 'BUT' word on a regular basis. 'Okay I was a jerk, BUT'

100% ownership is not in their make up.

Trent Dalton's award-winning feature 'Home is Where the Hurt is'

Australia like many parts of the world are struggling with how to handle domestic violence cases.

Honestly when you look how most places handle domestic violence - its sad to say but - they are alot like the church. They tend not to help anyone.

Unlike the church - at least people will talk about it.

When I read this article it reminded me of the attitudes towards domestic violence when I was growing up. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the USA is any better, but some of the attitudes of the past haunted me as I read this piece.

Part of the article spoke of how abusers will break their 'no contact' orders upwards of 28 DOCUMENTED times before they get their first slap on the wrist. That sends a message to families that there will be no true accountability, and not only is the spouse uneasy but the children are as well.

Think about it. If you have 28 documented times of contact before ANYTHING happens! How many times were undocumented, and does this show the proper degree of seriousness of the circumstances? I can understand why people feel helpless, and tend to give up.

Expected to be completed next year, it's the first formative review that Donna Justo, director of the Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast, can recall in two decades.

"I think it's vital that both a civil remedy and criminal remedy sit alongside each other," Justo says, with "synchronised responses nationally".

Rosemary says the courts "need to send messages of accountability to the offenders by sentencing at the first breach of the DVO".

Accountability. Every victim who spoke to Qweekend can understand why Susan Falls killed her husband. They can understand why a woman might throw herself off a bridge to escape her violent relationship.
The people they can't understand are the boyfriends, the husbands, the aggressors, including their own.

The same question is asked by them all. "This is what I'm doing to change my life. What about him?"

"It's easier, resource-wise and in safety terms, to put the onus on victims to protect themselves from violence rather than to stop men from being violent," says Heather Nancarrow, deputy chair of the National Violence Against Women Advisory Group.

"So there's this underlying acceptance that some men are going to be violent and we better do what we can to protect women. But as a society we have to find ways to raise young men so they don't see this as acceptable."

Says Amanda Whelan: "Even if every single woman in Queensland left the violent relationship that exists, what happens to those men? They're going to find other partners. We're not changing anything."

One thing both the faith community and the secular community have in common is concentrating on the victim, and sadly ignoring the needs of the person whom is abusing.

YES the victims do need to find ways of protecting themselves - and the children.

We also need to find ways of helping the abusive person as well. As Amanda Whelan noted - abusive people will just move to abuse someone else if we don't.

SO we protected their current victims, but we do nothing to protect their future ones.

What have we gained? Pretty much nothing.

Abusive people are broken people. They are hurt and they only know how to hurt others.

We as society are kidding ourselves when we only partially deal with one aspect, and ignore the other. Does jail time have its place? Yes. Will jail time help in most circumstances? Honestly I don't think so.

Yes, we have abuser programs. Sadly, unless people want change in their lifes? It just won't happen. Its just like an addict. They must WANT to quit, or we are just spinning our wheels.

Its just like a victim that doesn't recognize the danger they are in, and lives in denial. YES we can take that person that put them in protective custody. Unless that person wishes to face the truth? Chances of that person returning to the abusive person is almost 100%!

The resources we have tend to be concentrated on the victims, and YES at times it takes upward of 8 - 10 times before the victim will leave for good.

Sadly, we ignore the most dangerous part of this equation.

We would have to fix this by changing societies attitude towards the denial they use when it comes to abusive dynamics. Children would need a safe place to speak to when things are dangerous at home. Victims would need help, and SO would abusers.

Focusing on the Jewish Story of the New Testament

I loved the idea of this. Jewish perspective on the New Testament

The Jewish Annotated New Testament

So what does this New Testament include that a Christian volume might not? Consider Matthew 2, when the wise men, or magi, herald Jesus’s birth. In this edition, Aaron M. Gale, who has edited the Book of Matthew, writes in a footnote that “early Jewish readers may have regarded these Persian astrologers not as wise but as foolish or evil.” He is relying on the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo, who at one point calls Balaam, who in the Book of Numbers talks with a donkey, a “magos.”

Because the rationalist Philo uses the Greek word “magos” derisively — less a wise man than a donkey-whisperer — we might infer that at least some educated Jewish readers, like Philo, took a dim view of magi. This context helps explain some Jewish skepticism toward the Gospel of Matthew, but it could also attest to how charismatic Jesus must have been, to overcome such skepticism.

This volume is thus for anybody interested in a Bible more attuned to Jewish sources. But it is of special interest to Jews who “may believe that any annotated New Testament is aimed at persuasion, if not conversion,” Drs. Levine and Brettler write in their preface. “This volume, edited and written by Jewish scholars, should not raise that suspicion.”

I plan on placing this on my Holiday list of WANTS! How often do we hear at times that we need to take the Jewish culture and prospective into account when we read our bible? YES - there are some that claim that isn't important, but that is from a place of ignorance IMO!

Jesus was a Jew after all, and he lived as a Jew. Most of his followers were Jews as well, and they observed the Jewish culture at the time. That culture has changed from then compared to NOW as well. Think about it. How often do we hear about the Jews sacrificing an animal as we read about in the bible?

Think about OUR culture now overall! For example, my children would not even recognize a culture without email, the internet, etc. My generation had 9 TV stations, and my parents? They had NO TV but just radio programs.

When people state that we don't need to pay attention to the Jewish culture at the time of Jesus when reading the bible? I have to wonder WHY they are so scared of learning about it. It does MATTER! The text in blue above is quoted from the article. The Wise men that we learned about were not seen as 'wise' after all in the eyes of the culture at time. How much else have we got wrong? I for one want to KNOW!

Myself personally? I want to know what else I'm missing! YES I love history as well, but I also think we can learn the proper prospective on things as well. Ignoring the fact that Jesus lived a Jew, and chances of him actually looking like the blue eyed handsome man pictured in our Sunday school class is false? I don't wish to ignore big chunks of history myself.

I think the Jewish prospective, history, etc will open our eyes and hearts further. Heck it might even stop some of the crazy stereotypes we have about each other as well. For example, in the article the author wrote as a child she was told that SHE killed Jesus on a school bus one day. Thankfully, she had parents - and friends I'm sure - that showed her how cruel that 'accepted' statement was at the time. She didn't kill Jesus after all did she? ick! How terrible!

I hope you enjoy my links of interest!

Taylor Swift - Mean

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:51:49 PST

Taylor Swift–Mean Video–

Can’t see Click here

You, with your words like knives and swords and weapons that you use against me
You have knocked me off my feet again got me feeling like I'm nothing
You, with your voice like nails on a chalkboard, calling me out when I'm wounded
You, pickin' on the weaker man

Well, you can take me down with just one single blow
But you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

You, with your switching sides and your walk-by lies and your humiliation
You, have pointed out my flaws again as if I don't already see them
I'll walk with my head down trying to block you out 'cause I'll never impress you
I just wanna feel okay again

I'll bet you got pushed around, somebody made you cold
But the cycle ends right now 'cause you can't lead me down that road
And you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

And I can see you years from now in a bar, talking over a football game
With that same big loud opinion but nobody's listening
Washed up and ranting about the same old bitter things
Drunk and grumbling on about how I can't sing

But all you are is mean

All you are is mean and a liar and pathetic and alone in life
And mean, and mean, and mean, and mean

But someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean, yeah
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me

And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Why you gotta be so mean?

Someday, I'll be, living in a big old city

(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

(Why you gotta be so mean?)
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me

(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

I know I have been MIA!

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:38:54 PST

Hello!

Sorry for being missing in action lately. Almost 2 years ago I was in a car accident and hurt my left side. I have gone through the physical therapy, the doctor's visits etc. All is well now on my left side!

Unfortunately, I have been overcompensating on my right side. I've had a lot of pain and it's very difficult to type.

Recently, I have used some Best Buy Bucks (which is a retail store) to purchase a program called Dragon Naturally Speaking.

I'm slowly learning to use the program. Dragon naturally speaking is a speech recognition software program. It's kind of neat! You speak and it types!

The program slowly learns to recognize your voice. Then you have Hannah slowly learning to use the program!

I'm hoping the combination of the two will have me up and blogging soon.

Meanwhile, I will be posting a new music video I found.

I get the impression that the lyrics are about bullying. I felt the lyrics applied to so much more.

Is Bachmann Offering Two For The Price Of One?

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:09:37 PDT

I'm sure I was not the only one that watched the Debate in Iowa this week. The blog world and the media are still on fire about a question that was asked to Michelle Bachmann about submission. I found the clip in question that they keep referring to.

Is she saying we will get two for the price of one if she is elected?

can’t see video – click here
At first when I heard about her comments I was surprised she would say what she did to a general audience. Then I found out she said them within church walls.

‘…and from there my husband said, ‘Now you need to go and get a Post Doctorate degree in Tax Law . And I said, ‘‘TAX Law?? I hate TAXES! Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, Be Submissive! Wives you are to be submissive to your husbands! ‘

I realize people felt it was sexist to ask the question they did of Michelle Bachmann about submission due to her comments. I don’t agree.

There is plenty of preachers out there that teach an authoritative position in which the husband is the ‘boss’, and you are to respect him in that fashion. The clip in question does bring her position into question. Yes, I realize they wouldn’t use the word ‘boss’ but in essence that is what they teach no matter how much spiritual pixie dust they place on it.

The way she answered the question in this church, and the way she answered the question in the debate were two very different positions.

“but by faith! I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband. “

On the complementarian side of things you do have those that stress more of the authority within marriage, and would very much appreciate what she said about being submissive to her husband. Although we do need to admit the complementarians WILL have issue with her being President due to her gender alone.
Looking back when Palin was running for Vice President there were articles on how will she be able to do her job while being subordinate to men. Keep in mind some feel submission to is ‘men’ in general, and others feel it is just your husband. The fact she was a woman, and would be in a position of authority? They liked she was a Christian, and was given this opportunity. Political issues aside the gender circumstance made many just wiggle.

This week we now have Bachmann whom gave more a complementarian position in the church, but in the debate in Iowa she was more egalitarian in nature.

From what I saw she also didn’t answer the question.

Some of the media seemed satisfied with her response, but I guess they don’t realize that from the complementarian position she gave a very ‘feminist’ response. I can’t see the Bachmann’s practicing the extreme form of complementarians, because of her job or position in the past and present. So does that make her a soft complementarian?

If Michele Bachmann got into the White House, and the big decisions came to her would she defer to her husband’s position of ‘head’ or not? I think most realize that President or not you discuss things with your spouse. To a point they also would have some influence. That’s just common sense. Given that she seems to be complementarian how much ‘weight’ does she give to the authority role for her husband.

As President when she makes huge decisions will she then have to change it due to her husband NOT in agreement?

THAT is what was asked in the debate, and she never answered it.

If elected are we going to be handed Michele as the decision maker, or a person that makes sure her authority is fine with decisions we elected her to make. There is no question in my mind what leadership within the complementarian position would say, but I still don’t know what Michelle would say.

Would Marcus Bachmann be a healthy influence like the President’s spouses past and present? And how rigid are their complementarian beliefs? Respect is a given in a healthy marriage. How much complementarian type of honor would she use as President in regards to husband. How rigid are the roles when it comes to this.

She makes me uncomfortable because she seems to be pandering to both sides.

But Land said there is really only one way of interpreting the concept.

"It's not shared leadership in the end," he said. "In the end, the husband submits himself to his wife by giving himself in sacrificial service to her and she puts herself under the authority of her own husband as unto the Lord. It has nothing to do with equality or inequality of the sexes.

"It has to do with gender roles in a divinely ordained institution called marriage in which God understood there had to be an ultimate authority and the ultimate authority is the husband. And he's going to hold him responsible if that home is not everything it should be."

As for the potential political fallout, David Brody, chief political correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, said the controversy will help Bachmann.

"My guess is there will be more evangelical support for Michele Bachmann in Iowa because she will be looked upon as somewhat of a victim," Brody said. "I think this will actually be a boon for her. Not just in support in the polls, but probably an uptick in donations as well. ? It just feels like there is a lot of victimization here that the Bachmann campaign may actually get an uptick in money and polling."

Sigh. She is hardly a victim when it comes to this statement. It’s a legitimate question. When Bill Clinton stated during one of his elections how people are getting TWO for the PRICE of ONE? He learned people were not all that crazy about the idea.

When we look at Michele Bachmann’s statement? We have to wonder we will get two for the price of one – in the complementarian format. There is nothing WRONG with the question!

Statements like Land’s above? That doesn’t go over well in understanding her conflicting statements.

Bachmann’s candidacy poses the question of how to accommodate the evangelical worldview of women’s ‘proper’ role with their husbands with what seems to me the inherently feminist notion of a female leader of the free world. I’m just speaking from what I see their point of view, and what the complementarian’s parrot on a regular basis.

Should they ask the other candidates if they have loyalties even close to this subject in their life? YES! They should! Its legitimate as well.

Is showing respect deferring (or submitting) to your husband in everything? Is the husband giving respect to the wife due to the fact she submits to her husband in everything? There is nothing wrong with asking – are we getting two for the price of one!

Submit, How?

Afraid of Conflict Resolution

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:01:40 PDT

I will admit at times I get apprehensive about being ‘real’ around certain people. I used to be REALLY bad at that, because I was taught that you should always be the sugar sweet person at all times.

That means instead of voicing your opinion about why something makes you upset? You have to stop, think, and possibly go a different route to voice this – or you know not to voice it at all.

Why? People tend to point out your attitude as they see it, and wish to deal with that more than the substance of the point or hurt in question.

I’m not going to say that it’s a bad thing to watch your tone and approach. I will say at times we tend to go a little to far in that realm. If your approach isn’t ‘just so’ that is what is pointed out and concentrated on more than the true hurt that people need to deal with.

The Wartburg Watch recently had an article called the confessions of a SGM Pastor. They speak of two awful stories about people within a fellowship that found out their children had been sexually abused by another party within the fellowship. The principals that church followed were to help bring ‘peace’ among all parties. The problem is in order to have this ‘peace’ they basically avoided dealing with the circumstances completely. The families couldn’t speak of the hurt and betrayal they felt over the molestation, because to the church it showed their lack of forgiveness.

These were situations where the family of the victim and the family of the perpetrator were friends. There were pre-existing, close relationships. As they’re trying to sort these things through, when relational conflicts arose between the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s family, we unwisely used a Peacemaker model for conflict resolution. This resulted, put them on an equal plane – get the log out of your eye, get the log out of your eye, go for the speck, go for the speck – this resulted in the victim’s family being corrected when they should have been gently cared for as sufferers.

I read this and I thought of the many stories we have all heard not only that dealt with this issue, but also the theme of the blog – domestic violence in the church. This is more doctrine that fact.

How often are men, women and children asked to look at their own sin before they speak about verbal abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse? I think of Tina Anderson , and how she was asked to own 1% of the sin of her being raped. How many stories have read over at Danni Moss’s Blog, Because It Matters in which she spoke of boy and girls being molested by people in the church, and adults feeling very justified in attacking the children to defend the adult. How these children were running after the molester to be with them – thus they must have wanted it. How the adult in the church was a 'Godly’ person, and just made a mistake.

How often do we hear hints of BE more submissive, watch your tone and approach, and make sure you are ‘encouraging’ to the person that is abusing you verbally, emotionally or physically?

We don’t do well in gently caring for sufferers. When a spouse or child are being abused we see more often than not how we need to realize a relationship is 50/50 in fault, and we never attempt to deal with the dangerous brokenness of character – or obvious sinfulness of that person. We are asked to look for the GOOD qualities, and don’t be so nasty that all you see is the BAD ones!

Yes. There are always assumptions about your motivation, character, and how you dealt with things so far.

The Equal Plane

How can people honestly place abusive acts from individuals and their victims on equal planes?

It makes about as much sense as people stating to the starving in countries that are rift with corruption, “Why don’t you just move?” It doesn’t matter if the resources aren’t there to move. Although if someone is trying to make a point they will search for individuals that DO have the resources, and didn’t move to make their point. They don’t seem to grasp their point still hasn’t been made.

I honestly think people don’t understand the principals that the bible speaks of. It is possible in a overall healthy and regular course of life that YES you need to look to yourself before accusing another. It’s a good thing to approach the brother you felt sinned against you, and settle things between you if you can.

Hinting that you must place a murderer and the victim’s family into the realm of ‘take the speak out of your eye’ or ‘approach your brother that sinned against you’ before you can grief, be angry, feel hurt, betrayed, and all the rest of it that comes along?

That dear people is called stuffing, and its not healthy. You must deal with those emotions, feelings, etc. That doesn’t mean you marinate in them all your life, because YES you must find a way to move forward.

Here is example of nonsense that seems to be regularly given.

Abuse

Question 5: My husband is both verbally and physically abusive. Some friends say I should just forgive and submit. Others say I should get out. What does the Bible say I should do?

Answer: The Bible calls us to love our enemies and do all we can to resolve conflicts in a way that will lead to complete forgiveness and reconciliation. It also teaches that we should submit to those whom God has placed in authority over us. But neither of these commands cancels other biblical principles that apply to domestic abuse.

Matthew 18:15-20, Luke 17:3, and Galatians 6:1-2 clearly command us to lovingly yet firmly confront someone who is caught in a sinful habit pattern. There is nothing in the Bible that says a wife should not follow these passages. If your husband is sinning against you through verbal or physical violence, God says you should do everything in your power to help him repent. If you cannot confront him safely on your own, you should go to your pastor and ask him to talk with your husband (Matt. 18:16). Or you could appeal to your husband to go to counseling with you. If he refuses to respond to counseling, then you should ask your church to exercise discipline in an effort to bring him to repentance (Matt. 18:17-20). (If your pastor is inexperienced in dealing with domestic violence, encourage him to read the CCEF booklet on Domestic Abuse).

If your husband refuses to respond to church counsel or discipline, and if you or your children are in danger of serious harm, it is appropriate to separate temporarily and seek help from the police and civil courts (Rom. 13:1-5). Sometimes a violent man has to face civil consequences before he sees the seriousness of his behavior.

Even while you pursue these avenues, you also need to follow other biblical commands with regard to your own heart and conduct. While nothing would justify abuse on the part of your husband, Jesus still calls you to take responsibility for your contribution to the situation, even if it seems small (Matt. 7:3-5). As God enables you to change things you may be doing that aggravate conflict in your marriage, it may be easier for your husband to submit to counseling and make lasting progress in controlling his anger.

As God brings repentance and confession to your husband, you can grant forgiveness and experience a genuine reconciliation in your marriage, thereby demonstrating the redeeming power of God's love and forgiveness.

If you notice they concentrate TO MUCH on forgiveness, and no true mention of healing. They state you need to take the log out of your eye, and yet in the first breath state you are not responsible for the abuse. Lets not confuse people here huh?

Its well known WHY you WOULD NOT place a victim and their abuser in the same counseling session, and yet the victim here is encouraged to do so.

Domestic Violence is not an angry problem. Anger is present, but it is only a symptom.

The way abusers handle anxiety, conflict resolution, or just life in general is up to them. The way the above reads is that victims have not made a good enough effort to calm the storm. They are responsible for being willing to learn ‘spiritual pixie dust ways of healthy’ conduct with a dangerous person.

YET, There is no true acknowledgment of the danger the victims are dealing with.

Normally, victims are afraid of abusers because they are unpredictable – among other things. If counselor gets deep enough with the abusers they realize there is no visual ‘switch’ that sets them off. So this junk about learning about what it is that you do that aggravates the conflict? It show their lack of knowledge of what they are dealing with.

Remove Your Log and Blame Shifting

I think we all know at this point that both abusers and victims have their own separate issues. One of many main issues with victims is lack of self worth that had been crushed, and also codependency. Part of breaking the habit of codependency is losing your habit of being responsible for other’s feelings, actions, etc. A codependent tends to own things that are NOT theirs to own. There is no line in the sand between what is your part, and what is their part. They tend to own all of it – if not most.

They feel responsible for the person NOT being happy or content or whatever label you wish to use. The above advice doesn’t recognize these traits, but encourages them to use the traits instead. Can we say what a dumb way to approach things?!

There is no vision towards recognizing the line in the sand between their actions, and the abuser’s actions. They already have a unhealthy sense of responsibility, and the above basically validates it. You have to stop and ask yourself WHY in heaven’s name would they want to do that?? Its because they seem to think they understand abusive dynamics, and clearly don’t. Sadly, not uncommon.

They are basically giving the same unhealthy message to victims that it is their fault, and the blame shifting begins. There is no true ownership of their abusers faults, actions, and behaviors – its also something shared. That’s nonsense.

When the abusive party comes home from work in a bad mood, and kicks the children’s toys across the room upon entering the home? SCREAMS that they hate toys being around, etc? All of a sudden the rage starts.

What normally happens with parties that love this peacemaker stuff? They ask the family if it is true the spouse hates toys on the floor when they come home from work. How you need to own that part. That validates the abusive party, and invalidates the harm that happened that evening. They don’t see that adds to the conflict, and does nothing towards ‘resolution’ which would be true ‘peace’.

We can only be responsible for our own actions, and abusive people don’t do that at the beginning. They may say, ‘sorry’ but then quickly remind everyone if they hadn’t done this, that or the other they wouldn’t have exploded. That’s a non apology. There is no repentance there. The above advice almost tells you that you are to give benefit of the doubt, or they will question your motivation towards reconciliation.

The church in question at the beginning of this article? They may have started to take their own log out of their eye, but time will tell how genuine it is.

As they’re trying to sort these things through, when relational conflicts arose between the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s family, we unwisely used a Peacemaker model for conflict resolution.

Its sad how often we see this. Find a way of making peace, but conflict resolution? That doesn’t happen until you DEAL with the conflict.

Recently, on Ibelieve.com there was a thread about a wife confused because her husband had brought something up she may or may not have done A MONTH ago! It was an action that all agreed was out of character for her, and the parties that were with them don’t even remember the event he claimed happened. She doesn’t either it either. She didn’t feel comfortable with an apology for something she didn’t do, and her husband was upset.

Another aspect of this ‘peacemaker’ model is people telling her that she should apologize anyway, because someone has to offer forgiveness. How this would be a way to show love and service towards your husband. How Jesus took shame, mocking, etc. How is that for manipulative?

This is really DUMB advice as well. Notice that they didn’t advise her to find out what the TRUE conflict was, but find a way of making it go away. There was someone in that thread that mentioned – it has be both at fault here. How? No one has a clue, but it still has to be both SOMEHOW, SOME WAY! So he felt in conclusion she needs to repent of some mystery sin that may or may not have existed to make peace.

That’s is NOT biblical conflict resolution. That’s being lazy, because you don’t want to go any deeper than the surface stuff. You don’t accuse your spouse of something no one remembers happening, and then demand apology – then think if you get one all is well with the world. Something has to be bothering this man that has nothing to do with the mystery sin, because most in a healthy relationship aren’t going to marinate on it for a month before they bring it up. If people don’t remember it happening – then get mad because they don’t remember? Its immaturity that wasn’t brought up as well.

If you think about this long enough? They basically broke one of the first rules of the peacemaker model as well. They held on to the circumstance of sin for a month, and held it against the spouse and family. It seems once the sin is brought up – then use the model. You don’t need to if others don’t being up conflict. Yes, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Certain posters were MORE upset over her not giving PEACE in their eyes compared to actually resolving what was happening. They were not interested in what was really happening – just apology and move on. Did they ask WHY she brought it up and why it was so confusing for her? Nope. Didn’t go in that direction either.

This isn’t peacemaking. Its avoiding. Its diverting.

Resolution and Peace

There seems to be a lot of speeches about how we are take the penalty as Jesus did, and you are reminded how he was mocked, beaten, accused as an innocent man.

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Can we apply the principal Jesus is speaking to here to all the sins that have been placed upon us? No. At times people do indeed know what they do.

When we pretend that everyone that sins against us are on the same level as those that Jesus is speaking about? There will be no peace.

We have to stop and ask ourselves HOW Jesus would respond to one of his inner circle that accused of something he did not do. How would Jesus respond if one of his inner circle sinned against him – besides the sins that were written about.

John 3:19-21 (Phi) "This is the judgment: that light has entered the world, and men have preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Everybody who does wrong hates the light and keeps away from it, for fear his deeds may be exposed. But everybody who is living by the truth will come to the light to make it plain that all he has done has been done through God."

Heb 4:12-13 (Phi) For the word that God speaks is alive and active; it cuts more keenly than any two-edged sword; it strikes through to the place where soul and spirit meet, to the innermost intimacies of a man's being: it examines the very thoughts and motives of a man's heart. No creature has any cover from the sight of God; everything lies naked and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to deal.

John 12:35 (NIV) Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going."

Ps 32:5 (NIV) Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

Pr 4:18-19 (NIV) The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble.

Notice the passages concentrate on the individual, and not percentages! He wishes to deal with substance and not generalities that are made by man.

Women in the Church Compared to Homosexuals

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 19:34:47 PDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentation is Key

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

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

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

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

Lets look at a quote from Shirley’s blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women compared to Homosexuality

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

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

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

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

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

Women are the threat here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just resonated with me.

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

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

Some women wear bikinis to look attractive. Some wear them because they like the feeling of the sun on their skin and they don’t care if anyone looks at them.

Some women wear pants so that they can take longer strides, ride horses or climb walls, not because they want to “usurp male authority.”

Some women wear sleeveless dresses because they enjoy the freedom of movement in their arms and find such dresses comfortable in the summer.

Some women wear high heels to look attractive, but some women also wear them to appear taller so that people will treat them with more respect.

Some women wear nail polish because they enjoy looking down at the different colors and matching them to their outfits, not because men notice them.

Some women wear makeup because they like playing with colors on their faces and feeling decked out makes them more confident, not because they want men to perceive them as more sexually desirable.

A woman might even want to look attractive to a particular man, but not to all men under all circumstances.

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

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

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

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

The squeaking wheel gets the grease!

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

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

Mini-Me Jesus?

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:47:00 PDT

I have never watched the Austin Power’s movies, but I have seen clips here and there.

I was communicating with Cindy Kunsman, and she was speaking about the huge load that men are handed in terms of scripture at times. The load she spoke about to me was a misinterpretation of scripture – to Cindy as well I will point out.

This is the impression I came away with of certain people’s views on Ephesians 5:

You hear at times about how men will be held in account for the actions/sins of their family/wife. They take that command from Ephesians 5. This has always boggled my mind, and I never did figure out how they got there. For some reason Mini Me from Austin Powers popped into my mind. He is the little person pictured today.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶ to make her holy, cleansing^[a] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷ and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

This scripture concentrates more on how Christ loved us, and how he gave himself up for us. He gave himself up for her (the church) to make her holy. He did this by washing with the water through the word, and then presents her (the church) to himself as the radiant church without stain, wrinkle, or other blemish. Jesus makes us holy and Blameless (by the forgiveness of sins).

Cindy describes some gentleman’s reactions to her scholarly presentations. They told her that they will be held responsible for their wife in this way. To me? It was as if they were taking on a Mini Me position of Jesus. They were going to held accountable for their wives, because he was the one to present her without stain, wrinkle, etc. Ephesians isn’t asking this of the husband. That’s crazy talk!

Men – no matter what their position – are never held responsible for other human’s sin. We are all held accountable for our own sin. This scripture doesn’t say that husbands are the mini me of Jesus. He isn’t saying you are able to do the things that I (Jesus) do for those that believe in me. We are saved through Jesus, and to me this scripture is speaking more of a comparison. LOOK at how I love you, and how I show my love for you. I ask that you show a comparable love for your wife.

²⁸ In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰ for we are members of his body.

Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies (comparing in a way to Jesus love for his body – the church). We feed and care for our literal body, and it’s the same principal of how Jesus cares of his body (the church). We care and feed our bodies differently of course, but to me he is more speaking of a principal. Humans are not able to present anyone – let alone themselves – to Jesus without stain being holy without Jesus. That would be like stating I can present a person that has been given no food as someone that will not starve. We can’t do that as humans.

Teaching men are accountable for their wives in this way? Its like saying I gave no food to my wife, but I am the one that is starving (literally speaking). Jesus could pull that off, but we as humans aren’t able to no matter what. Jesus does not ask this of husbands.

³¹ “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”^[b] ³² This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ³³ However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now, if you view the husband as some mini me of Jesus? I guess that is how they get this ‘head of authority’ thinking. The one flesh in their eyes at this point is – husband is the head of the body, everyone else is the body. The head being the mini me of Jesus. He will be in authority since he is responsible for the family, and the covering of his wife’s sin. I guess they solved the profound mystery.

Could be how this ‘biblical role’ thinking started. The only problem with that is men are not the mini me of Jesus. The passage was speaking of how Jesus loves us – washing, etc. He was not saying husband you are to be, and do my role like I do. It seems to me they are taking the comparison the wrong way. Humans can never be the mini me of Jesus. Its not possible.

Doing your biblical roles would be ‘works based’ in order to get salvation. Women are to treat their husbands as the mini me Jesus. When you think of yourself as the mini me of Jesus – you would see yourself with power and authority over others. Then Jesus would be asking wives to respect the mini me – and not the human. In other words, you need to respect the role – not the person. Do we do that with Jesus?

If husbands truly had the power of the mini me of Jesus? All this yacking about how wives treat their husbands either make them wimpy, dominating, or Godly? It places the woman in position of making the Mini me in the family.

So we are all given unrealistic burdens that Jesus never asked us to take. Women can’t respect a person enough to make them a mini me Jesus, and the man –being the mini me Jesus can’t be responsible for the other’s person sin.

I realize they like to use this ‘military’ visual, but heck even solders are held accountable for their actions. In the past year a soldier is being held for trial due to the fact he got into a fight with fellow military personnel, and then shot them dead. Do we see the commander and chief being held responsible for the murder or do we see the soldier?

According to what I’m reading with this teaching? The commander and chief of the family would be held responsible for the murder in the eyes of Jesus. You see these men that love the position of the Mini Me Jesus, but when it comes to being held responsible for others actions? They don’t want that role so much anymore. They resent being told if something bad happens in the family – its all their fault. Heck, I can’t blame them!

The problem is you can’t expect people to be ‘literal’ in just one direction to suit the mini me Jesus. If you are the Mini Me Jesus you take the whole burden to make it light.

Come to me all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30

If you look at that scripture? We realize there can be no mini me Jesus. Sadly, there are huge burdens of that role that Jesus did not ask men to take. They can’t take them, because only Jesus can.

Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶ to make her holy, cleansing^[a] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷ and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

This portion of scripture is speaking about Christ. It isn’t NOT asking men to become the Mini Me Jesus. Jesus loved the church, and this is how he shows his love. We say that sin separates us from God. Jesus takes away the sin. Mini Me can’t do that. That is something Jesus does for us out of love. Why would people feel Jesus is asking the husband to do this for his wife? Its not possible.

One year of Silence or Ridicule?

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:47:44 PDT

It was year ago that I had written about the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition.

With the ‘political’ atmosphere within the church about gender at this point? I was expecting pretty much silent from the Top Dogs, but I also realized that would encourage their mouth pieces to speak instead.   Silent on that was also very telling.

To me it is a very sad sign about how ‘leadership’ skills are viewed today. I assumed they would be blown off as unbelievers, feminists, rebellious – you know the labels. What happens to people when they get labeled by the an organization – even without knowing what they are about? They don’t have to acknowledge you. Nice for them huh? Still waiting for those leadership skills to to appear though.

They have tendency when something is mentioned in a negative light about their approaches? It isn’t repented of, but silently disappears.

For example, it was less than year ago that I found out that a video I had uploaded to youtube with John Piper clearly showing his ignorance towards the abuse issue? His transcript and video vanished from the website. It was as if it never happened.

I believe my video upload is the only thing that remains – besides transcripts. I have it burnt on a DVD as well just in case, because their site clearly states you are allowed to use their work. Yep. Documented that as well.

Another tendency I find is what I call the Southern Belle Approach. They play ignorant to the issues around them on purpose, and play the ‘I don’t understand’ approach when confronted. You see a proper Southern Belle if they don’t like something or someone? They don’t say anything in order to be polite, or just play ignorant. When placed against the wall? They whip out the name calling, divert off the subject, and blow people off as ‘so confused’.    In the past it was Yanks, Scoundrel, etc.

Just like the Southern Belle? We know the group isn’t confused, but it goes against the group think to admit it. If they or their mouth pieces can throw out enough labels that are packed to ignite? It helps to shut the discussion so they don’t have to deal with it at all.   The points, organization, or issues brought up? They are ignored, and those that brought them to light are encouraged to hush or they are also looked upon as enemies. Ie: labels they use.

Personally? I find it very cowardly approach. Its very secular, worldly, fleshy, and unbiblical – take your pick of additional labels they use regularly.

Recently at the SBC convention Frank Page stated:

It is time to come together, he said. "It is time for Baptists to be known for what we are for and not for what we are against." Unified ministry, he said, is one aspect for which he wants Southern Baptists to be known.”

Nice dream, but you have to do something to make that happen, acknowledge where you lost your way. There is way to much fear and pride to do that, and those are nice words – but meaningless unless they step up.

Then you have Al Mohler who is either playing the Southern Belle, or has what is called a convenient memory. The Associated Baptist Press ran a story about Mohler’s embarrassment of youth when it was pointed out that he didn’t believe as those within the leadership of his group did on women in the church.

"With the insouciance of youth and with the stupidity of speaking more quickly than one ought, I gave him my position," Mohler recalled. "He looked at me with a look that surprised me, and he simply said to me, 'One day this will be a matter of great embarrassment to you.'"
Mohler said that for him, the embarrassment was immediate.
"I went to the library. I looked for every book that I could possibly find on the subject," he said. "Frankly, the urgency on me was such that I didn't think I could eat or do anything until I found out why I was going to be so embarrassed. The campus was full of people who appeared to be wonderfully unembarrassed about the whole issue."
Mohler said he didn't find much, but there was a book by Stephen Clark titled Man and Woman in Christ that "led me, thankfully, into some Scripture study."
"I ended up staying up until I could figure this out," he said. "Somewhere between Carl Henry saying what he said to me and the dawn of the next day, my position had completely changed."

Most good teachers if they see that there seems to be a misunderstanding (difference of opinion, doctrine, etc), and the teacher was once in their shoes? They will acknowledge it, and then show what changed their opinion. Today things have changed, and you either pretend you didn’t hear it – or as Mohler did on his twitter claim regarding his ‘old belief’ system others still feel is valid are ‘confused and not quite together'.

It also seems that Al Mohler and the CBMW didn’t read the confusing document, because it didn’t come from an Egalitarian group. Could be his dementia like memory again.

A decent person would acknowledge the letter, and it would show leadership skills even if there is a disagreement. Tweeting instead? It shows immaturity instead. Seriously. Children do that kind of stuff.

Do they train people at seminary on how to divert in order to show followers they are wrong, and make it sound like you aren’t doing something deceptive, deceitful, etc?

What happened to all this ‘trust’ that organizations realize has been broken, but say they want to change that…yet you have leaders that play these games.

I believe this was the only response out of all the organizations that were contacted. A tweet to ridicule. Nice.

This response and the attitude is rude and very disrespectful. It’s a prime example of what people within the church speak about when they feel stone walled or ignored.

It’s the same attitude no matter what the subject is, and honestly doesn’t even have to do with the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition.

It’s a pattern when they don’t like something. Strange how a church leader feels its acceptable behavior to openly mock others isn’t it? As others would say, “Scripture Please!”

Some have learned accepted principals of human dignity, and others still refuse to accept or acknowledge them. They tend to get legalistic, or come up with exceptions to the rule. If you read a newspaper about a church scandal? You see the church speak parroted as they were taught.

For years individuals and groups have tried the soft approach – you get more flies with honey than vinegar type of the thing. Extremism and stereotypes was the response. Equality has always meant the same thing in history. It’s a principal most understand.

Some individuals now show responses that ignore the meaning in the past. Let’s try to apply the approach to other circumstances in history that asked for a sense of equality! Lets see if their approach works shall we? I mean most look at the term ‘equality’, and understand the universal meaning. Does their approach show this?

Did the African Americans get ‘skin confused’ and want sameness?

What about the American Indian? While they were being unfairly persecuted at the beginning of American History their rights were a dirty word. We realize now the error, and we know why. I mean were they just looking to usurp the white man?

Doesn’t seem to apply does it? Why does it make sense towards others? WELL it doesn’t there either. They just pretend it does.

Sadly certain groups of people are just trying to confuse its meaning. It has always meant the thing same, and today’s rhetoric that is based in fear doesn’t change the meaning no matter how hard they try to show you differently.

These concepts aren’t as complicated as some may wish you to think. They are about principals of dignity and respect as a fellow human. Nothing has changed from that definition, and yet you have groups that write articles, books, seminars, sermons, etc all trying to redefine the concept to create fear.

Sadly, the more they talk the more they sound like this is about competition compared to being ‘complementary’ in nature. The radicals they speak of from the pulpit aren’t in their churches. Its strange how they claim they run into them all the time. The attempt to talk about issues of dignity shouldn’t be approached as if you are opening Pandora's box. The statements of how if we accept women in a certain fashion – what’s next homosexuals? Its degrading and please don’t whine when you are called a bigot. It is what it is.

I pray that by the time my grandchildren come into this world? History will play the role it always has when it comes to this kind of thing. They will look like fools for the attitudes and their propaganda. Yes, the children will be able to acknowledge the radicals did exist but they were far from the majority within the church. They will scratch their heads, because who knows what they meant by ‘seeing it all the time’. They will also see the games they played to make others see things the way they want them to. That is how propaganda works. The fact they state they are speaking from Christian point of view? Where is the truth they will ask!

Will they acknowledge the ridicule they dish out? I doubt it. If they do people will ask for more. It might be sexual abuse, domestic violence, emotional abuse, child abuse, spiritual abuse! They would have to acknowledge the stone walling and deceit that was present as well. Their careers maybe in jeopardy, because asking for that much repentance is TOO much to ask. How dare the helpmeet require so much from them!

The disrespect towards one gender is acceptable, but darn it all don’t you dare emasculate the other!

Join me in breaking the silence, and stopping the lies and spiritual pixie dust! If they are ignored they would call it what it is. Disrespect. Why is it any different for anyone else?

It's First Anniversary of the Freedom For Christian Women's Demand for an Apology from CBMW Make sure you go and click on the tweet in question on her site!

A Year Ago This Coming Sunday...

Discussion about Apology Demand – Part 1

FIVE SMOOTH STONES

When biblical means Shut up

Its not a Communication Problem. Its not an Anger Managment Problem.

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:33:13 PDT

Can't see Video? Click here.

All to often when abuse victims try to describe what is happening in their life they are told they have ‘communication’ problems.

That is one of the biggest misunderstandings it seems to me. It isn’t a communication problem between the two parties at all.

On occasion my children and I watch Teen Mom. One of the couples since the show started was Amber and Gary. Amber in this case is the abusive party. Gary on the other hand seems to be the enabler, along with the victim.

I don’t think most people blame a couple for trying to stay together, because they have a child. If you watch Amber she got herself into trouble for physically attacking Gary, and like most abusive people has a really hard time dealing with the consequences.

I wasn’t able to upload these video clips to youtube due to copyright, and you may have to download Adobe Flash in order to view it the video I have supplied.

One thing you notice is that abusive people refuse to handle the ugly sides of things most of the time. I can empathize being scared because you know the police and child protective services is looking to speak to you. Anyone in their right mind would be a bit intimidated and scared. Amber on the other hand handles this in true abuser fashion.

It’s the way they handle anxiety that causes conflict. Its not a communication problem, and its not an anger problem. They divert this anxiety to other things, and attempt to start fights. They next thing you know they are saying things to bait you into saying something they can attack you over. They are screaming irrational stuff that makes no sense. You are often left confused, and wondering how the conversation got to the point it did.

Lets look at the first scene:

Right away Gary is trying to approach this ugly circumstance in a smart way. He wants to speak to Amber about getting lawyer, before they deal with the police or Child Protective Services. Notice how they can’t even have that conversation!

The police want to talk to Amber, and she doesn’t want to deal with this at all.

“So you do thing it would be smart for me to get a lawyer, or do you think it would be smart for me to go to jail?”

“So, if a lawyer is more than jail should I just go to jail?”

You can tell by Gary’s face he realizes she is attempting to bait him into a fight. She rambles off two irrational questions right off the bat.

She doesn’t want to deal with this. She doesn’t want to get a lawyer. She doesn’t want to talk about this.

Gary at this point is attempting to communicate with a person that is going into her irrational mindset. When abusers get like this?   There is no talking to them.

I realize some people would tell you then approach it at a different time. What they REFUSE to acknowledge is this is HOW abusive people deal with anxiety and fear – and there IS no GOOD time to approach this.

Amber would much rather fight if Gary doesn’t shut up, and make this go away. Amber would rather blame Gary for this happening to begin with. We all know that things can’t be approached in that fashion. The victim is placed between a rock and hard place. You already know a fight is going to happen, because the irrational nature has already started.

She is combative because she thinks the world should leave her alone, and if it has to happen GARY can pay for it! Why? Its his fault this happened, and he needs to pay for the consequences.

“The next time someone calls for me how about your give me the phone” – as if she could handle this circumstance.    As if that has anything to do with the conversation.

When Gary points out they wanted to talk to him as well? She goes off on this rage about how it doesn’t matter, because its her life that is being affected. She is the one looking at trouble and jail time. This is ALL ABOUT HER! In reality? The circumstance is not all about her. Its about Gary, Amber and their child. Abusive parties can’t see things in a healthy manner. They see how it is affected them, and that is all that matters.

“Pretty much this is what is going to happen! You’re Scott Free! My Ass is in Jail for no reason at all! If it were you going to jail it would be a whole different situation.   Its all about ME now Gary! Its not all about YOU! “

Gary wasn’t making it about HIM. He was making it about HER when he suggested she needs to find a lawyer.

People can pick apart conversations like this all they wish.    How they could have done this better – or that better.

Until society can face the fact that when abuser rages, and there doesn’t have to be a ‘reason’ for it? That buttons don’t have to be pushed?

People will deny help to victims, and basically enable abusers to continue.

In the second scene? You notice that abusive people can keep control in certain circumstances – like with her and child at the beginning.

When they come off the rage? They will whine to their victims, “You know I’m a good mother”. Say you feel sorry for me. Say I’m great. Again all about them, and how you need to cater to this. They already told you in their rage how this is your fault, and now I’m not so mad please tell me what I need to hear.

How would any rational person react to this? Again this is NOT a communication problem or an anger problem.

In scene three you notice Amber states THEY decided it was time to get a lawyer. If we remember this is what Gary was trying to get across to her in the first scene, and she couldn’t deal with it. Now it was ‘their’ decision. Okay then.

You also notice it is not AMBER that is making the phone call to find a lawyer but Gary.   Most victims will do this because they realize if the job was left up to the abusive party? They would be looking at another rage session afterwards. Abusive people have a very low tolerance level for anxiety.

You also notice that Gary is the one that needs to introduce the circumstances to the lawyer, and again Amber decides to tell him that “THEY” decided to get a lawyer. Gary doesn’t need a lawyer – she does. Abusive people tend to look at relationship as an extension of themselves. THEY don’t need this attorney – Amber does. Amber looks at this as ‘their’ problem, and not mostly ‘her problem’ that she caused.

The lawyer addresses Amber, and makes sure she realizes what could happen due to her actions. He doesn’t ask them as a couple if what he is saying worries ‘them’ but worries HER!

Sadly, you can pretty much predict another rage is going to come.

In scene four – Amber is stressed now, and feels Gary doesn’t understand. Really? Who’s idea was it to get the lawyer? Who was the one pleading with her about WHY she needed one? Here we have her in the irrational state once again.

Amber then goes on her tirade about how Gary needs to learn how to respect her. Amber never clues into the fact she doesn’t respect him, or the circumstance that she placed herself in.

Amber whines, “Everything is my fault for hitting you, but the thing is Gary …what was it that provoked those situations?”

Gary states, “I’m not having this conversation, because nothing I did should have provoked you enough to hit me!”

Amber yells back, “YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! GOING THROUGH NOTHING!!! Except that maybe YOUR daughter maybe taken away from YOU! You going through NOTHING”

Gary responds, “She’s not being taken away from me!”

Silence.

Amber shouts back, “I’m so sick and tired of EVERYTHING you do!   EVERYTHING you’ve DONE! Everything that has ever happened between us!   I’m so sick of EVERYTHING! “

Gary responds, “Is that why you hit me?”

Amber snidely says, “I HATE you! Gary I’m done. I’m going to F**king go!”

Victims are to OWN what the abuser decides they need to. They are to shut up and take it. One thing you notice they will not do is deal with their actions, admit any wrong, or own any part of what happened. Gary attempted to listen and be supportive, but she went to far. She then gets mad when he doesn’t take it.

In the final scene Amber is whining to her friend. She starts off much the same way as she did with Gary, but you notice she doesn’t attack her or be snarky towards the friend.

She whines to her friend that she tried to talk about Gary about how this circumstance is very stressful for her, and how Gary doesn’t understand. How Gary doesn’t care.

Then to make sure that her friend gives her the sympathy she feels she deserves? She purposefully twists the dialog between them to her friend by leaving key parts of the conversation out. She told her friend that Gary doesn’t care, because he said that CPS is going to take Leah away from YOU and NOT ME!

Recently, on the Ibelieve.com board there was an abusive male posting about his relationship. He talked to the board like he trying to be a reformed abuser. He was trying to show a bit more openness than Amber seems to be capable of. The next thing you know his wife comes on, and lets the board member know what he was leaving out of his points. He got called on the deception, and got defensive and announced he wouldn’t ever come back. Confrontation towards themselves is something they flee from.

Its not a communication problem. Its not an angry problem. Its an entitlement mindset with narcissistic behaviors throw in. Rages are much different than anger. If society can’t grasp this? Sadly, they tend to be more blind than those the accuse. Its not that hard to understand, and when national TV shows examples? Why is it people still don’t get it? Seriously. They need to think about that.

Respect My Authority!

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:09:04 PDT

I had a neighbor years ago that just LOVED to giggle at Cartman from South Park. I have watched the show a couple of times, and yes it is for mature audiences. The show lampoons reality for some, and yes it is satire.

Cartman is loud, obnoxious, racist and obese—is often portrayed as an antagonist whose has a anti-Semitic attitude. He is a child of a single mother, and she oozes the meek and mild attitude of ‘how women are to be’ attitude. On the other hand, she also represents an extreme model of free love if you catch my drift! Cartman tends to be in denial about the one side of his mother, and yet loves to control and manipulate the other side.

People tend to giggle at Cartman because he is one to demand you respect his authority, and yet you see the loud, obnoxious and immature boy that doesn’t have much to respect.

I found this description of him: Cartman is frequently portrayed as an antagonist or villain whose actions set in motion the events serving as the main plot of an episode. Other children and classmates are alienated by Cartman's insensitive, sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-sematic, lazy, misogynistic, self-righteous, and wildly insecure behavior, but are occasionally influenced by his obtrusive, manipulative, and propagandist antics.

Okay. I have to admit there are some in the church to me that represent Cartman to a tea! Jack Schaap we wrote about within the last couple of months, and YES his attitude is the extreme case of what I’m talking about. You remember how he started his ‘holy’ tirade?

ABC news called me this week and said "We heard that you believe that men should be in charge of their wives"
I said, "No sir, I didn't say that. I said God said that. He said husbands are the head of the wife."
I said, "You got a problem with what I said when I'm quoting the Bible, then maybe you should take it up with God."
He said, "Do you think that's appropriate?"
I said, "Son, anything God says is appropriate. I think you better get that straight right now."
I never apologize for standing where God stands. I never worry standing where God stands. Somebody says, "You know what they are going to say about you?"
Pffft, who cares?
Stand in line, pick a number, slob!
Get you little squirt gun out and squirt away.
Bigger things to worry about. Heaven, Hell, life, death.

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

David J. Stewart wrote an article that I picked apart many years ago. He was asked about divorcing an abusive spouse.

Interestingly, and sadly, all we see on the internet and in society today is talk about domestic violence; but NEVER do we hear anything about statistics on wives who refuse to obey their husbands. It is evil. It is just as sinful for a wife to frustrate her husband through insubordination and disobedience as it is for a man to commit domestic violence. I am not lessening the sin of domestic violence, I am emphasizing the sin of wives who rebel against their husbands by not being obedient. I realize this is ancient mentality to feminists today; but it is 100% Biblical doctrine. A wife is expected by God to obey her husband. Feminists are eagerly willing to crucify abusive husbands; BUT they won't even address the issue of wives who disobey, mistreat, and frustrate their husbands. It takes two to tango.

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

Reb Bradley wrote an article about Emotional Abuse and Marriage.

Let us remember that the apostles who gave us God's commands were themselves the victims of severe emotional and physical abuse. They, like Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, endured torture beyond anything we have ever seen. In his books, Pastor Wurmbrand describes his 14 years in a Romanian prison at the hands of communist torturers. His love and compassion for his torturers testifies of the assurance we have as Christians that we too can selflessly love our wives and husbands.

Certainly if those tortured on a daily basis can see the good that comes from suffering, then we as minimally suffering, soft Americans can handle the opportunities for growth that come our way through the difficulties of marriage. If we are able to cease our "giving to get" mentality and begin simply "giving" we would finally be able enjoy the fulfillment that comes from loving selflessly in the image of Christ.

Mr. Bradley feels that you came into marriage to ‘get’ instead of serve. You must be like Pastor Warmbrand, and have love and compassion for your abuser as you stay and be tortured. If you can’t your to soft!

Does anyone doubt that such a man would also love to scream out, “RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

Then we have Bruce Ware:

and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.

John Piper, and his famous endure abuse for a season!

She’s going to say, however, something like, “Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. I think God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership.” And so – then she would say – “But if you would ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t – I can’t go there.”

Now that’s one kind of situation. Just a word on the other kind. If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.

Paige Patterson

And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.

And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.

Be the Change is starting a series, ‘The Marks of Manhood?” that I just couldn’t help myself from commenting on! I think my comment is in moderation at this point. It should be a good series.

This is, of course, all a precursor to what this really has to say about women: we are babes, lost in the spiritual world, who need guiding from a big, strong man. By putting both women and children in the spiritual hierarchy under a man – because, regardless of the “nuance” you may try to put in there, it is what this position ultimately does – only serves to infantilize the woman. It makes the woman dependent upon the leadership of the man, which is contrary to many examples we see the in the Bible: Deborah as judge over all of Israel, Esther as basically a rebel against the regime of her husband, Phoebe as a leader in the church, and women as the first witnesses to the risen Christ. It sets up a false hierarchy within relationships and within the church that fails to acknowledge the contribution of women, especially that of single women.

And that is the real tragedy here: If we continually tell women that they are weak, that they need guidance, why, then, would we expect them to be anything else, why would even they feel like contributing? Infantilizing a grown, adult human being only serves to alienate them from the growing body and community of Christ. And that is the real disaster.

Oh. Yeah. Jesus wasn’t married. Just saying.

You know what is strange? When you don’t agree with comments similar to Eric Cartman type of preaching of, ‘You respect my AUTHORITY!” You normally are called names, “Feminist, Jezebel” etc. How you don’t respect God either. You know what also reminds me of? Another Cartman antic.

(giggles!) yes I had to throw it in there!

Why Women Can't..

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:21:13 PDT

“I’m sick of it. I’m sick of writing about equality for Christian women in our churches and homes,” I emailed a woman equality blogger.
But as long as pastors and bloggers and “Bible scholars” tell the world that women just don’t measure up, I will keep on.

Above is a quote from Shirley Taylor, and she can quoted a pastor’s reasons why women would not be good in certain positions compared to men.

I searched for the article, and I believe I found the one in question. It was titled, Why women can not be head pastors. I had to admit I’m getting rather used to silly examples that are said to used to make points that are somehow suppose to make sense to the general public.

To quote one of his comments to his ‘ahem’ points that made me giggle, and also has a sting of truth to it?

“I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony; I don’t know where to begin!”

To me? That said it all!

I seriously don’t think people that come from this point of view truly realize how completely racist and bigoted they sound. I really don’t think they stop long enough to hear themselves at times. Its truly sad!

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me because the Christian faith has been fighting bigoted overtones for how long? Almost since it began?

The pastor in question used a common circumstance we have all giggled about in the past. Wife hears noise in the house. Wife wakes up husband, and has him go and investigate.

You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.

It also seems to be human nature to pick the biggest and strongest when possibility facing a battle of strength. If we look at the story of David and Goliath? It seems to slap the theory the pastor made in the face. If people didn’t know the story? WHO would have thought that David would have creamed the bigger, stronger, and more aggressive Goliath? Can people deny that those at the time felt he would get beaten as well? I mean seriously, if we didn’t know it came from the bible? We would SWEAR it was a movie made by Walt Disney!

When humans are faced with dangerous circumstances gender doesn’t always play a role. The term, ‘momma bear’ for example. A tough, aggressive, and protective mother. Often going to extreme lengths to protect her children and herself. We have to admit we have used this term to describe more than the animal.

Why Women can’t?

God gives everyone the strength needed in combat of different sorts.

What has that got to do with being pastor? According to the author the pastor is also better at confronting false teachings. He feels since men are better at being physically and mentally stronger? They are in a better position of confronting false doctrine.

To make matters even MORE confusing? It was pointed out that Christian faith has been pelleted with false doctrine (again I would say since the beginning), and pastor agreed. One poster’s ending point was:

I am seeing few men with the characteristics needed for true shepherding. That troubles me.

His response?

I too am troubled by the lack of male leaders. Frankly, think that there are many reasons, but one that is very important, in my opinion, is that men are not taught to be men anymore. They don’t know what it means. They are taught that they don’t have too many essential differences between them and women. They are taught that they don’t have a particular role. They are taught to suppress their masculinity and embrace their “feminine side.” It is confusing. In the end, I think we need more people who are complementarian leading the church and expressing this value with greater confidence and boldness.
Men will still be wimps because we are still sinners. Adam still followed Eve.

I have to wonder if this pastor doesn’t see that he can’t seem to grasp ‘essential differences’! His examples sure don’t show them. I mean according to what he says above? Sinner equals wimps. Okay then.

I think we can all admit that some take the ‘embracing your feminine side’ a bit to far. What they also need to admit is what is culturally seen as effeminate has also been a source of scorn. Like most things they add to the definition of effeminate just as they do ‘jezebel or feminist’. The examples of the ‘worse of the worse’ according to feared label has also been used as a tactic of what you will turn into if you listen to women – and their talk about the ‘feminine side’.

Do we try to NOT remember WHY that ‘feminine side’ issue came up to begin with.    With the stereotypes of women dealing more with ‘feelings’ and ‘nurturing’ compared to stone hard men that were completely closed off? Yes, some take this to far I will agree. The fact they play ‘Miss Southern Belle’ as to the principal of why it came up to begin with? Please. We aren’t stupid! The constant diversions make their stands weaker – not stronger.

Why Women Can’t?

I don’t buy that the ‘most important’ thing that men aren’t taught is to be men anymore. What ‘people’ in general lack is true character and integrity.    They buy into these crazy definitions of men being aggressive and combative as acceptable.   They take those definitions that turn it into the worse ‘worldly’ definition. A chauvinistic definition.   The type of man that can never be wrong, or corrected. The type of man that feels his last word should be respected, even if his decision is seen as sinful or repulsive.

Lets look to the newspapers, and there you will find sexual predators, adulterers, and thieves with their occupations called ‘pastor’.    They have all heard the excuses for their sins, and if you wish to take the ‘right side’ of things you will agree with them. They are given excuses about how everyone can make mistakes, and how they are a GODLY person.

A true person of character would admit their sins, and take their lumps that came with it.    It’s called naming the sin, owning the sin, and repenting of the sin the way God would have you do.

Being a coward and being a person that takes advantage of his position of ‘authority’ isn’t feminine. People that makes excuses for the lack of integrity and accountability within the church aren’t due to some ‘feminine side’. Seriously, you think when you die that ‘its those women you gave us’ will work for you? My forced ‘feminine’ side turned me into a traitor for your cause!

Being a traitor in the church has a history that goes way beyond our great grandparents. It happened in the times in which ‘men were men’. Blaming some ‘feminized’ equation for certain men that have lack of character and integrity?   Stating they are wimps because Adam followed Eve, or men are sinners?

Goodness no wonder we have issues finding real men. They can’t get even get serious about the real issues without diverting to something ‘feminine’. Ministry is to be serving others, and yet we tend to serve more pride and ego in some serious circumstances.

We have all met men and women in ministry that have a true calling, and have the character and integrity to back them up.    Sadly, most deal with pets sins of the DAY! They refuse to deal with the deep dark ugly ones like sexual abuse, or domestic violence. They give our the spiritual pixie dust for the serious issues that shatter families, and spend more time and effort towards the marketing of ‘hating gays’. Just like Adam did they shift the blame to others: You don’t take your vows seriously!    I’m not going to tell you MEN are the only ones that do that. That’s hardly the case.

When people use excuses to keep women out of certain areas of the church with lame explanations like the Military or the burglar in the night? When they use generalizations, stereotypes, and bigoted remarks about the female species? Please don’t tell me that its because men don’t know how to be men anymore. You insult many MANY good men that I know personally.

When I see people repeating this crap (for lack of better term) again and again and again? When they encourage their wife to be their mouthpiece of encouragement? It may signal a bit of aggressive nature I will give you that. When you are shown your points are crazy, and can’t be backed up? Its more your pride and ego talking with the excuses to say they do make sense. That’s is your ‘manly’ issue, and sadly its not seen as strength to anyone but your buddies.

Stop and think. Look at your characterizations, and replace anything ‘feminine’ with class status, ethic background, etc.    You would sound like a bigot. How is that seen as any different when pointed towards your mother, sister, or wife? If its racist for others, why is it not racist for her? If you realize that would be labeling others as ‘less than’ why is it different for gender? The reasons and comparisons for this are very weak minded, and downright hurtful.

This is NOT a recent opinion, but one that women have had for centuries. Check your history. Believe or not, the feminist didn’t come up with it! I know shocking right?!

A Primer on Gender Identity

A Jesus I can Beat Up

What is Masculine?

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:53:29 PDT

I was reading a discussion recently about masculinity.   I guess I shouldn’t have been so surprised as to what some felt the term consisted of.

As much as the church tries to tell you to stay away from worldly concepts? It seems the traits of masculinity have indeed been poisoned by culture.

You at times get this impression of the burly man that is career driven to support his family. He will be a sportsman on the side, and go out of his way to show strength more in the physical manner than anything. He is the top dog that just oozes manly man, and people just rush to respect and honor. He will use his inner courage to stand firm against the world, because he is gatekeeper for his family. The image we get from most sources is not so approachable.

You almost have to stand back, and wonder HOW do you approach such a person?

We concentrate so much on actions or behaviors in the sense of gender, and yet to me its more about character. The character of the person is more important than some masculine trait that some church leader claims you should have. Masculine traits are cultural. One person’s view of masculinity may not be the view of another.

I remember a video of Mark Driscoll taking a questions from his congregation. One comment was about circumstances of a stay at home father.   He immediately emasculates the man, and then asks his wife to basically back him up. Which she did by saying she couldn’t respect a man that doesn’t support his family.

Strange how pastors can break that cardinal rule of not doing something to emasculates a man isn’t it?

Income to a family is important don’t get me wrong! If you have a family in which income is being taken care of by the woman, and its agreed upon? Who is Driscoll to say it is sin? I’m sorry but ‘supporting a family’ is so much more than income. It’s sad that so many people are so closed minded that they can’t see that. What one family may need may not be what another family may need in the form of support of the family. Support should be seen by the circumstances.

Proverbs 28:⁶ Better the poor whose walk is blameless than the rich whose ways are perverse.

This is a character trait, and not something that is based in a cultural role.   It’s a virtue of the person. Support as the definition seen by the Driscoll’s example maybe hard to accomplish by people that are poor income wise. The person’s walk is what God looks to. There are plenty of families that go hungry and are homeless.   Their character and their integrity are not bruised just by this circumstance. Read Proverbs again!

The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits.

Jeremiah 17:10 “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”

Not knowing the circumstance in which the man that asked the question about the stay at home Dad there is no way he was able to know this man’s heart and mind. There is no way of knowing how his wife viewed his conduct or deeds.

For all we know she looked upon him with honor and respect, but due to the cultural shift in churches that try to define biblical roles for gender? He may have placed Mark’s opinion of himself above his wife’s opinion. This form of shame can cause friction within the home that should not be there.

Its circumstances like these that make the blanket requirements that you see so often that I feel give undue burdens to others. I think most people realize there is a right way and wrong way to do things. If a man or a women decides they are going to be a stay at home parent? Most assume they know the responsibilities that come along with that job. YES it is a JOB among other things! If the person wants to stay home, and place the children in front of the television, because they want to do online gambling for example? Gender wouldn’t matter for people to realize that their conduct and deeds are not in the right place. If wouldn’t matter if the gambling brought in tons of cash either.

The video in question has Driscoll’s wife giggling at the thought of him being at home taking care of the children and household. She snickers, and says, ‘Lets just say its better that I’m doing it!” That’s FINE, but its NOT fine that they judge another family by their own personal assets and debits.

Jesus Christ is the perfect expression of all that we are called to be.   Its not because he was man, but because he shows us the virtues that God loves. It wasn’t because he showed some ‘masculine’ trait by putting the pharisees in their place, or by showing a ‘feminine’ trait by being nurturing in other circumstances. Yes, I generalized to make a point! (Grin!)

Today we seem more concentrated on types of behavior, or occupations, etc.    They seem to base character and spiritual identity on defined traits more than on TRUE character and integrity.

It befuddles the mind that people just assume men are ‘soft’ due to occupations like Stay at Home father, or maybe musician, designer, etc.    They look to the construction worker or business man for a more proper definition.

Did it never entered their minds that this is the world’s way of judging people? When did we decide to bypass the character part? You can’t automatically judge by a honorable occupation, which all of them mentioned are. Jesus can be a tendered hearted man, or a vocal man when it comes to others and circumstances.

When you have a interior designer and a truck driver standing in front of you? Why do we assume if the wrong gender is standing in the shoes of the occupation that they can’t be properly emulating the character that God would approve of? That is cultural and that is worldly, and yet we use it all the time.

It is all about Christ start to finish is it not?

Are we like Christ in all that we do, whatever it is? Are we like Christ when engaged in our hobbies, our work, or obligations, our parenting?   If so then the Holy Spirit will not only allow us to be ourselves, but the Holy Spirit will mold into our character the very image of Christ's own person.   Man can’t do that by defining ‘roles’ the way we do. Let the Holy Spirit do the job God called the Holy Spirit to do for goodness sakes – its NOT YOUR ROLE!

It doesn't matter what the world might say regarding what's masculine and feminine.   The real issue is... are men and women imaging Christ in their lives and allowing the Holy Spirit to mold and make them what God designed them to be?   Or are we being molded by some pastor’s definition of that?

If there weren't any traits specific to gender there wouldn't be genders some state. Sorry but they miss the point.

Some man viewed trait doesn’t make the gender. Doctrines aren’t needed to define this.   Anyone can point out a woman that is more nurturing than another. Anyone can point out one man that is stronger (physical strength) than another.

That doesn’t mean that one is more ‘biblically defined’ than the other.

There are characteristics that make the genders different like our plumbing! (giggles) It’s okay to say ‘generally’ women can be more nurturing and men have more physical strength. GENERALLY, it could be true! Those are gifts that God blessed them with, and others that have more or less of that particular gift doesn’t make them more or less man or woman.

We were lovingly made customized AS IS, and God us loves this way! That is HIS definition of US! He looks to your character as a person – your heart, motives, deeds – our insides I guess you could say NOT the plumbing!

People YACK to much about this silly concept of ‘gender sameness’. How the world is ‘gender confused’. Can we say that people are over thinking this stuff? It seriously is very dumb.

When God looks at the Christian Female Truck Driver and the Male Stay At Home Dad? He looks into their heart, and examines their mind as scripture says. (Giggles) He doesn’t say you two switch jobs and then we will talk! Nope. Just silly Christians do that.

Real Men Versus Imitation men

Working Women Downfall of Society

What Bugs me about the Manliness movement

The Fear of Homosexuality

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:33:25 PDT

I get so frustrated with hate at times. People won’t call it hate, but to me it is hate just the same.

I’m going to start with a story about a time when I was young teenager. The names will be changed, but I wanted to use names so people could get a better visual.

I had a boyfriend named Jay, and his best friend Alex dated a friend of mine from school. We did see each other, and did things together quite a bit.

One day we went over to Alex’s house to play cards I think it was. We walked downstairs to the basement, where his family had the card table, chairs, etc. Off to the side there was a bedroom, and in there were pictures of ‘girls’ all over the walls. I remarked to Alex that I surprised he had all those pictures on his wall when he claimed to ‘love’ my friend. Everyone except me was giggling at this point, and I knew I was missing something. They told me that this wasn’t Alex’s room in the basement, but his adult sister’s room. Yes. Alex’s sister was a lesbian.

A few weeks later Alex’s parents allowed he and Jay to hold a small party with a few friends down in the basement. Jay and I along with other friends were sitting around the pit group talking. Then I heard someone else come down the stairs, and she announced to her brother ‘I brought a man this time!” It was Alex’s sister, and she introduced the man to him.

The next thing I knew she walked over to get something, and tripped on something laying on the floor. She landed right in my lap. My reaction? I got her up off me so fast it wasn’t even funny. I think everyone felt my reaction was one of being startled when she fell on me out of no where. I knew differently, and after that happened I was so ashamed of myself. How could I react that way? I would have never reacted that way to someone that was heterosexual.

I allowed the fear, stereotypes, and culture to have me react in ways I hated. I was so mad and disappointed in myself. I was acting homophobic, and was prejudiced against someone I didn’t even know.

I don’t think I had ever met a lesbian up to that point. WELL at least not that knew of.   I knew I had to learn to change that reaction, because it wasn’t healthy – and it would be unreasonably hurtful to others. It was MY issue not theirs. A far cry from a proper Christian response.

I did grow up and grow out of that type of response. I have worked and dealt with people that were homosexual since that day, and thankfully I have never had that fearful reaction again. I can’t say I understand the lifestyle, but learning some grace I don’t have to be uncomfortable or fearful now. I have met some very nice people, and some NOT so nice. (giggles) just like any other human interaction!

I realize what the Christian response is to the issue of homosexuality, but I have to admit that is an area I struggle with. You won’t see me taking a stand in either direction, because I don’t feel right either way. I do know I will not hate, nor will I react in ways I did as a teenager.    I will not fear homosexuality, because fear brings out the worse in people. I treat them as I would anyone else. I am ashamed of some of the Christian responses, because at times they can very vile.

I think I realized I grew once I was new parent. I brought my daughter down to where my grandparents lived for a visit. That Sunday we went to church, and the pastor preached the most hateful sermon towards homosexuality. I was downright appalled and offended. Hate had no business in the pulpit.   He was encouraging fear, resentment, and revenge towards those that were brave enough to come out. There was steam coming out of my ears by the end. I just couldn’t believe my ears! How DARE he! You never should encourage HATE!

I realize there will be people that never accept the lifestyle, and my own grandparents would be in agreement with that. There is a huge difference between that and being hateful towards the lifestyle. There are plenty of things I don’t accept in life, but I don’t go out of my way to throw judgment and pain towards them.   I try my best to do the opposite. People do that to feel justified in their beliefs, and not because the lifestyle is right or wrong. Can we at least be honest about that?

There is a way to bring your beliefs across without being offensive. Being offensive because they seem to think they are ‘right’ on purpose like we all know people do? I will admit I lose respect for people that do that so fast. There is nothing there to respect as far as I’m concerned. No one is justified in being hurtful on purpose. Its an attitude and heart issue. There are ways of saying you don’t accept, without being a jerk.   Period.

Incongruous Circumspection wrote today:

That's it. The thing is, I'm not settled on the answer and I never intend to be. If I do decide it is wrong, I'm going to be forced into some sort of life flip-flop every time I talk to or hang out with some of my dear friends who are gay. I'm going to have to have that nagging, gnawing feeling every time I approach or chat with my gay relatives. If I decide it isn't wrong, I will be alienating many of the people I love. In fact, the issue is so important to some, that they may reject me as a legitimate human being – one that cannot be trusted or easily dismissed as foolish, regardless of the wisdom of my words on related or unrelated subjects.

Sigh. It can be a struggle.

The black and white of this issue in the way he describes it? I can empathize. People will damn you in your struggle. Just another subject Christians don’t want people to talk about.

With the political environment today regarding gay marriages? The part that really ticked me off about it was preachers claiming those marriages will be the downfall of the family.

Why does it tick me off? We have churches FULL of people dealing with drugs, booze, porn, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse that tears apart the fabric of the ‘heterosexual’ (talking generally here) families. We hear remarks from Misogynist preachers about if we accept ‘women’ into certain places of ministry – are we expected to tolerate gays next?

My response? Nope. We realize you can’t handle dealing with your version of “God’s people” with issues NOW, because they are the elephant in the living room already! HOW would anyone expect you to ‘tolerate’ those outside of your acceptable lifestyle. You can’t deal with what you got at this POINT!

SERIOUSLY! We realize its to much for you already! I just don’t understand the marketing and piles of money you are throwing at this! You have PLENTY on your plate already that is tearing apart the fabric of families, but instead of dealing with it? You make it seem like if gay marriages happen it will be a a contagious virus, and everyone will catch it! You do realize you are just taking the easy road by not dealing with things you have right in front of your nose now, and pretending that the homosexuals are taking over the world.

To the haters of the world that claim to follow Christ? How about you use the advice you have no issue giving those that struggle outside your dreaded topic.

Live it at the cross.
Only think the best of them.
Give them benefit of the doubt.
Forgive and forget.

We could go on. I think you get the picture.

Those don't work for you?

Why it is they should work for the families that came to you for help?

Not the same? How about the shoe is on the other foot now.

Don't use the homosexual lifestyle as an excuse NOT to deal with bigger issues that are tearing society up.
Get off the hate train - we have bigger fish to fry.

I have to admit I struggle with this issue, but I know hate isn't what God would wish. Love our enemies? To the haters - is that conditional?

Its just another issue the church seriously need to look at better. This isn’t an easy issue either, but YESH the fear mongering doesn’t help anything.

Okay. Frustration out.

Prejudice is Ignorance

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:58:38 PDT

Marriage can only have one head.

If it has two heads then it becomes a two-headed monster.

I think I must first warn you that I’m on a soap box today. I first read Mara’s article, Have you heard this one? I then moved onto Wartburg Watch, and their article Is Racial Solidary really possible in the SBC?

Prejudice Is Ignorance

I guess I first need to explain. I will be speaking from the eyes of a small child that watched her parents fight in a southern atmosphere during the civil rights, freedom riders, Martin Luther King, Jr. times. They both grew up in an atmosphere of bigotry, and they were both lead by the Holy Spirit to stand up for what was right and just on this issue.

From what I have gathered they waited until adulthood, and away from the immediate family pressure to do everything they wished to do. They did small things prior, but went all out once the restrictions of their family life was removed.

I remember my own grandfather telling me that he sent his good Christian girl off to Baylor thinking it was a good Christian college – and they ‘ruined her’. Mom told me later she just felt more free to express their beliefs later in life. They were always there.

During that time if you did such a thing you were the worse of the worse. You were the white traitors, and dealt with contempt.

If you watched any of the Freedom Riders program you would understand how truly UNCOMFORTABLE at the very least this stand would place you in if you were in the South. Which is where we were.

My brother and I never saw my parents treat people of color any different than anyone else. They repeated over and over again, ‘Prejudice is ignorance’. They showed us what that meant, and I’m truly thankful for that.

My children have friends from just about every background imaginable. I realize they know history, but their freedom of having those friends with no attitude, comments, and sense of bigotry like I saw in childhood? That is SO big to me!

Prejudice Is Ignorance

This comment can be applied to so much more than my childhood experiences with seeing direct racism.

Prejudice is about power and authority in the eyes of a bigot. If you attempt to place the bigot on the same plain with the source of their prejudice? They see it as taking their power and authority away. Its almost as if the competition is being handed things that was ‘theirs alone’, and they are being forced to share.

In their own pride, selfish nature they lash back. The sense of superiority that they had been raised with is seen as being unjustly taken away.

The Prejudice is ignorance comment that I learned from childhood applies here. Sadly, their response is what is dangerous, damaging and downright hurtful. They seem to think life would be the Dr. Doolittle's push me pull me animal.

I’m going to ‘pull me’ as hard as I can to keep my authority and superiority, and at times I will violently resist the ‘push me’ source of prejudice to view them any different.

If you read any of the myths of what would happen to society if blacks were given this position? You can feel what I’m speaking about. I remember ONE in particular, black men would rape white women.

Their true fear was/is ignorance. With ignorance came hate, contempt, name calling, labeling, lies, etc. Yes, Prejudice is ignorance.

Critics of Soft Complementarianism

I have often read statements being critical of the focus of service towards others when it came to men within the family life. They say it lacks direction, and how you can do this while keeping your God given authority.

No offense, but if they seem to not grasp, ‘I came to serve, and not to be served’. Does Jesus in the bible lack direction?

When Jesus was here on earth he would serve others, and yet sure he spoke of his authority.

It wasn’t due to his ‘maleness’, but due to the fact he was the Son of God. When he spoke of his authority it was always within that realm, and yet he never did have an issue with service towards others. Being the son of God, and being male isn’t the same thing. Sorry boys!

It never confused him. He didn’t view giving his authority away by his service towards others.

Mara writes:

Well, we start with the premise that head means boss/leader in the first place. I'm not going to get all into the Greek and culture of the time argument. There are many good sources that questions the head=boss song and dance. No, I'm going to start somewhere else.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

When a woman gets married, she suddenly gains two heads because Jesus or God should be her head or master and comp/patriarchal teaching gives her another master.

IF head means boss/leader/authority then married women have two heads and they deal with this two-headed monster dilemma anyway.

BUT if head doesn't mean boss/leader/authority then the dilemma is gone. And so is the problem of the two-headed monster. And perhaps this can then be applied: Two heads are better than one. (sorry, couldn't resist)

The way many view the biblical role of headship is seen by many as a sense of superiority. I realize they will say that is NOT the case, but their actions and attitudes are indeed what places that viewpoint in the eyes of others none the less.

We spoke recently of Jack Schaap’s radical view. I realize some are NOT so in your face about their views, but being subtle about it makes it no difference. Unlike the past, you can’t burn buses, hang people, beat the daylights out of them, but you SURE can use words to scare them!

This therapeutic orientation of contemporary evangelicalism is the reason, Wilcox explains, evangelicals don’t seem to speak often of male headship in terms of authority (and certainly not patriarchy), but usually in terms of a “servant leadership” defined as watching out for the best interests of one’s family—without specifics on what this leadership looks like. Thus, “headship has been reorganized along expressive lines, emptying the concept of virtually all of its authoritative character.

It is noteworthy that the vitality in evangelical complementarianism right now is among those who are willing to speak directly to the implications and meaning of male headship—and who aren’t embarrassed to use terms such as “male headship.

Its strange to me that people can read the bible about the ‘servant leadership’ of Jesus, and yet claim they need specifics in order to not lose their ‘authoritative character’. Was their type of authority that important to Jesus? He never mentioned it if it was.

^{Matthew 20:25} Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ²⁶ Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ²⁷ and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— ²⁸ just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Now how does,
‘If the marriage has two heads it becomes a two headed monster’
‘He is given the last word’
‘Marriage is like the Military, and the husband is the head’

line up with the spirit of what Jesus is speaking about in Matthew!

As long as you are not completely jaded in life MOST can respect a person that truly serves others to their benefit – and not their own. I mean that is what ministry is about! Is that not the type of respect that would be honorable to God?

Its sad that we hear more about what to do for your husband in order for them to ‘feel’ respect. We all need love and respect, and we would be in a sore place if we did not receive that from someone. As people of Faith we are to rely on God in those times, but it is not meant to be the norm.

When people make remarks like the two headed monster? That is pride talking. When you explain its not about being head, but being heard? You are accused of buying in the feminist agenda. You are labeled. We you try to explain that is more about respect or self respect? They don’t burn your bus, but they do divert the subject into blurring the gender lines. They also inform you that you are buying into what the secular media wants you to believe.

So instead of talking about issues, and fulfilling the role that should be plain to everyone? They decide what you should be happy with, and make all kinds of assumptions in order for you to either accept or walk away labeled as an ‘unbeliever’. They used to do that to the blacks in the south as well. I can’t tell you how many bigots BELIEVED they were the black man’s best friend!

Prejudice Is Ignorance

^Mark10:13 Some people brought children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples scolded the people.¹⁴ When Jesus noticed this, he was angry and said to his disciples, Let the children come to me, and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.¹⁵ ^(I)I assure you that whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.
¹⁶ Then he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on each of them, and blessed them.

How can you remind the world they need to respect your ‘authority’ due to maleness, and yet claim you received the Kingdom of God like a child?

Mark 10:17-31 MKJV And when He had gone out into the way, one came running up and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? (18) And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except one, God. (19) You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and your mother. (20) And he answered and said to Him, Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth. (21) Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him and said to him, One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, take up the cross and follow Me. (22) And he was sad at that saying and went away grieved, for he had great possessions. (23) And Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, How hardly those having riches will enter into the kingdom of God! (24) And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answering again said to them, Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! (25) It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich one to enter into the kingdom of God. (26) And they were astonished beyond measure, saying to themselves, And who can be saved? (27) And Jesus looking on them said, With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible. (28) Then Peter began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and have followed You. (29) And Jesus answered and said, Truly I say to you, There is no man that has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for my sake and the gospel's sake, (30) but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life. (31) But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

I honestly believe the money that in this story? It doesn’t just have to be money. It could be anything you are NOT willing to give up. In some cases booze, drugs, porn, and yes even their sense of ‘who should in charge!” That would be God, and just because we are called to be Christ like doesn’t mean we are.

(31) But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

How does that translate to the authority crowd? I honestly believe they are missing the point! Nothing is being taken from you, and much will be given. Women couldn’t take the authority if it were God given, and yet you hear about the threat all the time! That is either they don’t believe God gave them this gift, or they have little faith that God would not strip it from them.

To me they seem to try to borrow some ‘authority’ that Jesus had, and then use it as a means to the end. We are to be Christlike, but that doesn’t mean we have the worldly type of authority that you hear preached. Jesus spoke against that.

The two men in Matthew 20 also asked to be the second in command. Mat 20:23 And He said to them, You shall indeed drink of My cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but to those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.

Where in scripture does it state God has prepared that for husbands or wives? It doesn’t.

There are many good men. MANY Good men! Then you have have the ones that teach ‘superiority’, and can say that they don’t teach that all they wish! Its plain as day to most. You don’t have to use the word in order to see it actions, beliefs, and teachings. Its just a childish game, and something the bible states once you grow up? You don’t play anymore!

Its another form of bigotry.   I see it with the lies they spread, and the stereotypes they use to scare people with. Their way of dealing with objections? You don’t have a problem with me – you have a problem with God! Talk to HIM! Is that response even humble? No. Its meant to shut down the conversation.

The Wartburg article they spoke about how the SBC could be trying to attract more African Americans to the SBC due to their falling membership. I doubt that will happen.   History shows the damage of the ‘old boys network’. People of color felt that sting. It would be a double bond of oppression for women of color, because we all know bigotry isn't’ completely dead. Personally, its sounds like a desperate move by the SBC to me. It sure didn’t stop them from tooting their horn though, because they allowed their first black officer. Doesn’t the bible say not to do that as well – tooting the horn?

Once it was acceptable to the church to be bigots towards people of color. Times have changed that, and its not acceptable anymore. Sadly, the prejudice is more geared towards women and homosexuality.   One of the famous myths today? If we accept females, what’s next? HOMOSEXUALITY?!

Bleck! Will the church that has grown up and have big kid britches on please stand up?

Prejudice is Ignorance. I hope it dies a quick death.

Technorati Tags: Prejudice,ignorance,women in ministry

Half The Church

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 04:00:08 PDT

I was listening to a broadcast on Moody radio today, and they were speaking to the author Carolyn Custis James. Her book I pictured here today is called, ‘Half the Church’. She was speaking to the women ministry in the church. I uploaded the program if you are interested in listening.

Carolyn Custis James starts with Genesis, and how it seems to her that the genders are to work together. (6:15) I like how she called us God’s A-Team as far as image bearers!

I will summarize some of it for you, but I’m sure I missed TONS!

Half The Church Moody Program upload link!

How decisions and discussions are richer once you use the prospective of both men and women. When men and women come together, and value what each brings to the table then decisions tend to be better (7:50).   Its not a matter of whom is better or worse. Its not the competition that we seem to be taught, and yet I realize that isn’t what they would call it. Women see things differently, and their insights and views can open a whole new prospective.

(9:18) They speak of the lack of women’s opinion at times, because of the doors that shut to women in ministry. Its not about how high up the ladder the woman goes, and people that use that avenue of opinion tend to miss the point.

Some of the fears of men and women working together?

(19:45) One pastor raised a question that if we work to closely with women won’t we be tempted? I suppose one of the realities of living in fallen world is temptation. We are called to be a body, and to work together. How there seems to be a fear there.   The bible’s message is not for women to be seen only as a temptress, but to be redemptive.   Why is the church’s message at times is that women are a hazard and they are dangerous.   It seems to be a very small view of women when you have things like your computer or other types of things that don’t get talked about as much as the fear of women. (think goodness I know plenty of men that don’t fit that description)

Immaturity seems to be key here. I have had good relationships with Christian Brothers – as the women on the show mentioned as well – I would hate to be not allowed that due to some immature fear of women.   How we are to be models for the world, and them asking themselves, ‘what is it they have and can I get some of that!’ It would be modeled by our respect and love of not only each other, but of God.

We get so focused on fear of gender, not doing our roles, etc that we miss what we ought to be doing. We seem to be looking at what we are afraid of.

(20:20) God didn’t divide men and women – this is the sphere for men and this is the sphere for women. We are to be working together as a team to fulfill God’s purpose.    We are God’s A Team, and we need to come together and respect the prospective from each gender.

(26:20) They got an email from a man that stated, “Men aren’t afraid of women, but they are more afraid of themselves”.   They were not able to give him a follow up question, but wondered for one: They don’t trust themselves to be alone with a women if they are attracted to her? This is the type of fear they need to take to God, and have him help with it.

(33:20) When our voices are heard people just assume we are only talking about women, and not the church as a whole.    A women commented, ‘When I have brought up a concern in our churches small groups, about how we should have a time to be able to share on a more personal level instead of the ‘prescribed’ format? I was told it was a great idea, and something that needed to be the ‘women’s ministry’ for further exploration. They seemed to think that was a good idea for women, but didn’t feel look at the fact I was talking about the small groups overall.   Sometimes I feel our brothers only feel we are answering question for our gender. ‘

(34:30) This is where we need to have more communication, because when things are said like that? Women feel slammed, whether it was meant that way or not. What would be a better follow up to bring it back to point.

(38:10) They speak of the curtain between the genders during the biblical days. It would be seen as similar to what we see today in the middle east. How the genders did not, and would not work together as we see in other parts of the world today. It shows how radical Jesus was towards women in that day. How at times items like dress still today are still laid upon the women, and how they make them responsible just as the men do in the middle east today. I’m sure they were speaking of attitudes more than extremes.

(39:10) How women are put to death for being pregnant out of wedlock, because it is dishonoring to the men in their families. The men are the position of power. The men are in the position of authority, and yet God is raising women up.

In the case of Mary and Joseph? Joseph is written about as a ‘righteous man’.   If we think about what Joseph did in that culture? Heck even before then angel came to tell him to go ahead and wed Mary? He was full of grace and compassion towards Mary. She could have been put to death as well.   Joseph was ‘disgraced’ in the eyes of the culture at the time, and yet he was going to choose to ‘divorce’ her privately. No exposure, no punishing of her, no revenge upon her.   Joseph is a true man of the bible.

(48:15) Esther and Mordecai worked together to save their people.   Their goal for the bigger good, and Esther stepped out of her role.

Men and Women should be able to work together, and to met together, and not have the fear of each other. When you are involved in a cause that is bigger than yourself..then you are willing to do what needs to be done. You are not to be worried about if I have enough authority, or am I looked up as equal.

With both the Mary and Joseph - Esther and Mordecai stories big things were at stake. They were bigger than the people within. When men and women aren’t willing to partner together, unwilling to work together that means that the Kingdom of God suffers. Its not a light matter, because so do we as the body of Christ.

(50:00) Mary’s baby will save the world, and Esther’s King is going to save her people. The gospel doesn’t call for us to fight for our rights, but asks us to lay our lifes down. As the body of Christ we should be looking out for each other.   Today we are to ‘us’ focused – biblical roles for one – and yet we are to consider others more important than ourselves. Mordecai is cheering Esther on, and encouraging her to step out! Mary is at risk due to her pregnancy, and Joseph is standing behind her and shutting down his carpenter’s shop so that she can do what she was called to do.

(51:40) What you see at the end is mutual flourishing. They are all four flourishing as God’s image bearers. Real life examples? When the Elder meetings start the door shuts for the women. It doesn’t matter if they are equipped to help in that role. There are many men that feel ‘entitled’ to make all the decisions, without the need to even consult women. They feel they should serve only in nurturing roles only.

It definitely was a program that gets you thinking. Check out the facebook comments on the show. Here and Here.

Half The Church looks like an interesting book, and I think I will purchase it! Here is a Google preview for Half The Church for you to check out.

Technorati Tags: biblical roles of men and women,biblical roles in marriage,biblical gender roles,biblical roles of husbands and wives,women in ministry,women in the church,half the church,Carolyn Custis James,Moody Midday

Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women?

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 04:00:00 PDT

Pastor Versus Feminist

Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.

This one small sentence sure does pack a punch doesn’t it?

Do I buy that 100%? No. I do think at times patriarchy can be a contributing factor to abuse towards… WELL anyone!

I have family, and I have known families that tend to live by the ‘father rule’. If the sentence, ‘patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women’ you would see it in every instance of patriarchy.

You don’t find that to be the case, because not all people view patriarchy as authority and power based.

I’m talking a heart and attitude issue here more than anything. My uncle for example would NEVER use the trump card, ‘I have the last word’ type of thing. He respected and loved his wife to much to even condone such a stand.

I realize some people would think their decision making within their household would come to standstill. Guess what? It didn’t. Matter of fact I’m sure he would scratch his head, and wonder why that even needs to be factor.

When you have an abusive person I do believe there are many issues at work. I don’t believe when we get up close and personal that everyone has the same backgrounds and issues involved. I have mentioned so many times that people are custom, and I do believe when it comes to abusive people? Its no different.

‘Never the twain shall meet’

Have you ever heard that term before? Its Defined as: something that you say when two things or people are so different that they can never exist together or agree with each other.

A great example of this would be feminists, and complementarians. Can you imagine?

One group telling the other they are responsible for the fall of society and are man haters.

Then you have the other side the coined the phrase: Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.

I mean WHEN have you ever seen them ‘admit’ they agree on anything?! The extremists in both camps would rather be put to death it seems like.

I guess I seem to get more angry at the complementarians, because of their bull headedness towards being right. I’m not saying the feminist’s don’t do that, but complementarians should know better.

Whether or not they like the feminists they are to be Christ like towards them, and they have just as much fun throwing out myths and downright lies about the group overall.

Both groups I have seen use scare tactics, and it personally seems to me Christians are called to be above that.

Since complementarians love the word ‘worldly’? Their behavior shows they are projecting it, and please don’t use the excuse ‘we are all sinners’ okay? Its been going on long enough they should have grasped a clue a while ago and stopped.

There are VOLUMES written on authority and submission – biblical roles for the genders, etc. When it comes to family violence, or domestic violence very little is mentioned at all. Have I seen even a small approach to address this? Yes.

What is sad is then you see video’s like John Piper and Wife submission, and you sit there wondering if they actually believe what they say. Why? It tends to go against the ‘stand on abuse’ that they wrote prior.

Things everyone has to admit

If we look at history, and the treatment of women from the past to the present? No one can deny the abuse that has gone on, and is still present even today. The children suffered as well, because they were at the bottom of the totem pole. I honestly don’t understand why people get defensive about that fact.

We have removed laws that made beating of wives legal, and we have even had past church leaders such as Augustine blame the women if they were being beat. The extremes of the past? We all know there were abuses.

Extreme form today? Look at the middle east. The misogynist attitude has always been around, and its amazing that people wish to deny it.

In the Christian context? How often do we hear if women would do their part properly: Submission, modesty, roles, etc. they wouldn’t get raped, abused and mistreated.

Too often you hear pastors, and female mouth pieces telling women they are to take it with humility. On the other hand, excuses about how people can only take it so long before they lash out with justification.

Steven Tracy, author of Mending the Soul reminds us that:

So for many abusive men, in order to maintain their fragile sense of masculinity, they use physical force to keep their wives in their “proper place” and to squelch all threats to their limited male potency. This dynamic of insecure, powerless men using force to control their wives helps to explain why assault and homicide rates are highest when a woman separates or threatens to separate from an abusive husband or boyfriend. In other words, abusive men must be in control, and threats to their control of the relationship must be dealt with by force if necessary. Physical abusers also tend to employ many other forms of control (verbal threats, control of the finances, control of her relationships, etc.) to dominate and subjugate their
wives.

The fragile sense of self isn’t just based in gender, because women can be dangerous as well when they feel powerless.

No More Justifications

You often read about how its selfish to proclaim your ‘rights’, etc. I firmly believe that is a diversion, because everyone needs a healthy sense of self. Normally, those that are quick to call you selfish are also quick to remind you of others ‘God Ordained’ role, position, etc. It’s a spiritual pixie dust way of proclaiming their ‘rights’.

There is no doubt in my mind that faith in Jesus Christ has moved men and women to be more kind, compassionate, grace filled, and in short transformed their lifes! My uncle I mentioned above was a missionary, and it was clear how Jesus was a primary role in how he lived and treated others.

What seems to be lost on the complementarians is that certain men will use their teachings as justification of power and enforcement. I have seen too many use the excuse that God will transform them, and all will be well with the world! Sadly, after that they encourage their family members to act in ways that would enable the sinful behavior.

I was truly taken back when Shirley Taylor quoted Dorothy Patterson:

Dr. Dorothy Patterson said “Whenever my husband tells me to do something, and even though I know it is wrong, I just have to do it, and he stands accountable before God.” (used by permission Christianity Today 1998)

It seems to me that complementarians have a real problem noting the limits of what they see as men’s authority, and headship. Jesus noted:

Matthew 20:25-28 ISV But Jesus called the disciples and said, "You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. (26) That's not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, (27) and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. (28) That's the way it is with the Son of Man. He did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people."

The above scripture doesn’t say that no one can have authority, but it does place limits or boundaries upon the role – even a biblical role.

How often do we hear that truly abusive circumstances are few and far between? Phyllis Schlafly decided since she has never dealt with domestic violence, or know someone involved with domestic violence? If you run into a friend like that – get new FRIENDS!

John Piper attempted to deal with submission and domestic violence, and his example of it? Group sex.
Now how to apply realistic forms of domestic violence in the church when well known pastors aren’t even comfortable talking about it? Seriously. How.

Learn to deal properly with the least of these

It is much more realistic that a wife will face the dilemma of how to respond to a husband’s verbal abuse, harsh punishment of the children, or demeaning treatment. Its all well and good to say you should NOT submit to sin, but at what point does biblical submission allow a wife to go against her husband’s decisions?

John Piper encourages you to come to the church for help, but his ‘example’ using group sex to show how he understands domestic violence in the church? It shows he doesn’t, and people will be afraid to come to the church.

Bruce Ware got into a lot of hot water with his comment:

and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged,

Now if you look at the above quote? Does it show the boundaries of authority, headship, or his biblical role? No. It puts men in a box as well. Bruce Ware decided that if you don’t treat men in the fashion he sees as biblical he will either get abusive or act feminine (laid back).

Keep in mind some complementarians are softer in their beliefs. There are men that truly understand the serving of others.

When you look at history that shows the domination, control, and abuse towards women and children JUST due to gender or position? Then you have silly examples of how the church claims they understand domestic violence in the church by using things like: Group Sex, men get aggressive when a threat to their authority is present, get new friends if know victims, etc?

Why they can’t grasp that the impression that their form of patriarchy can encourage abusive men to take their teachings and run with it? Back off the hatred of feminists, and think about it.

While I don’t agree with, ‘Patriarchy is the ultimate cause of all abuse against women.’ I can certainly understand WHY they get that impression.

They need to point out the boundaries clearly, and speak against those with a low sense of self – that take the teachings and use them as competition. It doesn’t mean I’m on top and you are below me. I’m in control and you are to follow me. You are to do as I say, when I say and how I say – or else I have the biblical justification as HEAD to make you remember WHO is in charge!

If complementarians can’t admit that happens? Which sadly, they seem to think NOT so much – the fear will remain towards them as NOT being safe.

Formulating lies and scare tactics towards feminism is just going to cement that fear even more firmly.

The bible does state how to deal with the ‘least of these’, and so far? They have completely missed the target.

Splitting: A book recommendation

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:46:10 PDT

I was reminded of this book today, and I wanted to do a quick blog post about it.

Its titled, SPLITTING: Protecting yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or a Narcissist.

Its not a faith based book first of all, but I have heard so many GOOD things about it I wanted to mention it.

It not only can help those that feel their spouse is borderline or narcissist, but also those of you with abusive and difficult ones. In other words, don't get caught off guard by the labels.

Its a good tool for counselors, lawyers, and individuals in high conflict separations and divorces.

Barbara over at Sanctuary for the Abused quoted from the author:

I wrote SPLITTING after ten years as a divorce attorney representing many fathers (and mothers) whose spouses appeared to have Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorders or traits. Since I had been a therapist for the previous decade, I recognized these personality problems -- but I did not realize at first how successful they can be at manipulating and confusing legal professionals.

It reminded me of all the people I know that just raved about this book, and how helpful it was to them.

It doesn't even matter if you’re already somewhere “down the path” with your high-conflict ex, you will find that Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or a Narcissist will be a tremendous help in understanding with whom you’re dealing with. It is also helpful to show others such as your support system or professionals you are working with.

It will prepare you to better handle what is to come both personally and legally. It will be instrumental in helping you to understand the motivations of your ex-partner and the expectations of what will surely continue to take place both inside and outside of the court room.

As the saying goes, More tools is your toolbox the more prepared you are! Protection from abuse in regards to yourself and your children often times depend on being prepared.

I know it was extremely helpful for a friend of mine that was involved in a very ugly custody batter with an convicted abuser.

Domestic violence lawyers or attorneys have also found this book helpful, and I have heard them use this book as a reference point.

Chuck Phelps Enables Woody Allen type of relationship

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:00:03 PDT

Chuck Phelps is now trying to explain the new ‘forgive and forget’ sexual abuse accusation that he blew off.

You remember the scandal that happened to Woody Allen? He thought it was an awesome idea to shack up with his stepdaughter!

Well I guess we have another Chuck Phelps approved and not concerned about another 'Woody Allen’ saga. Why do I say that? Because Chuck Phelp’s story is a comedy of errors of sorts. I mean Cheryl’s stepfather attempted to do the same thing as Woody Allen did.

He also said he had no legal obligation to call the police because she was an adult when he learned of the allegations.

The sad part is? She had younger siblings in the home as well, and Phelps decided to take the family’s word that THEY reported Cheryl’s claims to the police. Can you imagine?

In the world of one of Woody Allen’s comedies that could happen. The fact we don’t live in the land of comedy – where people don’t get hurt? Chuck Phelps failed his moral obligation to protect those children in the house UNDER the age of 18.

He didn't just blow off Cheryl, but failed her siblings as well.

I have to wonder if we tell people that rob houses if they went to Chuck Phelps house, and they get caught? Tell Pastor Phelps you called the police before they made the decision to rob him. I mean if the man is gullible enough to think the family is going to going to report their own molester? Why wouldn’t he fall for it!

Here is a girl that has gone to his church, and his school. She tells him about unwanted touching from her stepdad Woody. Then Pastor Phelps decided since Chuck Phelps himself told him to STOP that Woody the stepdad did! This is a man that helped raise this young woman, and unlike Ernie Willis he wasn’t brought before the church for (ahem) a compassion plea. I mean he was unfaithful as well no?

It wasn’t until Cheryl was on vacation with her family, and told her Aunt and Uncle about what was happening at home did ANYONE do anything. They – thankfully – took her in their home since it seems her church, and AGAIN her own mother wouldn’t protect her.

In the portion of the letter posted on the website, Sheffield said Cheryl told him her stepfather had been touching her at night, starting when she turned 18 and continuing for a year. He said Cheryl's mother was told of the abuse in January 1996, shortly before Cheryl turned 19, and that her mother went to Phelps for help.
Phelps said the letter went on to say that an officer with the Warner police was investigating the case.

Sheffield said yesterday that he had read what Phelps posted on his website and said he remembered writing everything except the part about the police investigating the case.

"That's news to me today," Sheffield said. "That's completely foreign to me."
Sheffield said he wanted to call the police in 1996, but Cheryl was scared and refused to talk to an officer. Instead, Sheffield said, he called DCYF, since he was concerned about Cheryl's younger sister living in the Warner home.

Now, if we read the above? Phelps is hinting at the fact that Sheffield (the uncle) was going to report what happened to Cheryl, because she had younger siblings in the home.

You notice that Chuck Phelps himself – knowing about this even before Cheryl’s Uncle - didn’t think to do that. Once again Chuck Phelps is trying to say that it’s the police’s fault. It’s not Chuck Phelps that should have called, because according to him he had no legal obligation to do so.

The letter that Phelps posted on his website? It wasn’t even sent to Chuck Phelps to begin with. Another thing he attempts to take credit for receiving:

Sheffield also said he didn't send that letter to Phelps, but wrote it in response to letters he said Cheryl had been receiving from friends at Trinity Baptist. After Cheryl moved to California, letters began arriving at Sheffield's house, "questioning why she was leaving God, leaving the church," Sheffield said. "It was all being blamed on her by them."
He said the person to whom he sent the letter must have given it to Phelps.

This tends to line up with what Tina Anderson was saying from the beginning as well. How they were the one and true church – how everyone else is not doing it right, etc. Ahem. I'm sure Chuck Phelps will also state that he had no idea about the letters - which would be a lie.

Sheffield said he also had a phone conversation with Phelps either shortly before or after he mailed the letter. He said he asked Phelps why he didn't report the allegations to the police, and "what I remember him saying is he did not have any obligation, any legal standing to report this," citing confidentiality rules protecting a pastor's conversations with church members, Sheffield said.

While Phelps said yesterday that he never instructed Cheryl to forgive and forget, "I'll never forget that," Sheffield said, recalling his conversation with the pastor. "He used the words 'forgive and forget.' That it did no good to destroy that family."

Tina was thrown under the bus for the sake of Ernie Willis’s family as well. There was no reason his family needed to be destroyed, and so they sent Tina away to have her baby among strangers.

Now. Seriously. Can you imagine any pastor ‘condoning’ a Woody Allen type of relationship within their church? I guess in Chuck Phelps eyes he didn’t. I mean he told him to stop, and according to Chuck Phelps he did. According to Cheryl? Well, I guess that doesn’t matter. We must not destroy that family.

We also don’t need to make sure that stepdad Woody doesn’t go on to ‘touch’ anyone else in that family – well besides his lovely enabling wife.

Church’s like the ones that Phelps ministers to? They are ones that hold family above the people within it.

They are ones that use rose colored glasses to see the ‘best’ only. They refuse to deal with the dirty that happens in this world.

They are part of the reason that people leave the church, give up on God, try to drown their pain with drugs and booze. Why? They need to deal with the dirty parts, and find a way of living with them in order to heal.

Forgive and Forget? Phelps says:

"That is language that is being suggested by a special-interest group that publicly criticizes independent Baptist churches to generate media attention," Phelps, now a pastor at a Baptist church in Indianapolis, said in a statement. "That allegation is a bald-faced lie."

Malachi 2:7 “For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty and people seek instruction from his mouth. 8 But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the LORD Almighty. 9 “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”

Your play on words does NOT make your actions better. I’m not part of a ‘special interest group’, and it doesn’t take brain surgeon to realize you once again have shown your proven track record of betrayal.

Breaking Covenant Through Injustice
Malachi2:17 You have wearied the LORD with your words.
“How have we wearied him?” you ask.
By saying, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them”
or “Where is the God of justice?"

Partiality in matters of law God sees. It was so plain others see it as well. You don’t enable a Woody Allen type of stepfather to stay in the home with other children. Their safety and wellbeing is more important than the marriage. It was evil and even children can point it out to you.

Reference Article, “Pastor fires back in new abuse case”

9 “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”

Chasm of Forgive and Forget!

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 04:39:00 PDT

Chuck Phelps at Tina Anderson's Trial attempting to get
sympathy for being thrown under the bus.

Sadly, it has been brought out that a second victim of Chuck Phelps, and his time at Trinity Baptist Church in Concord NH has been brought forward.

Once again Chuck Phelps is working with his lawyer to make sure his response to this second accusation is not seen as pure damage control.

Watch the chasm again of Forgive and Forget.

ChucklesTravels has the victim's uncle response. The Concord Monitor wrote a story about, but they tend not to allow non subscribers read it. I placed a copy in my documents section online if you would like to read it.

Chuck Phelps of course has his response online once again. You can click to enlarge.

Phelps Excuse for new victim page 1

Phelps Excuse for new victim page 2

I'm sure as with the Tina Anderson story more things will surface as time goes along.

The one thing that is similar between the two stories is that Dr. Chuck Phelps is more concerned about defending himself, and calls this a 'second sad story'. He makes a point - once again - of the age of the victim. He then claims the abuses stopped after he was informed of this.

This victim - unlike Tina - moved in with her Aunt and Uncle after informing them during a family vacation what had been happening at home. The victim's mother told her brother (the uncle) that it had been dealt with - within the church. The uncle contacted the police in the area, because she had two younger siblings still living them. He also contacted Chuck Phelps who basically told him it was confidential, and the victim needed to forgive and forget.

Brian Fuller, current pastor of Trinity Baptist Church has removed the stepfather from worship, and other activities since learning about this second case. Something of course that never entered the mind of Chuck Phelps during Tina's nor the new victim allegations at the time. It seems that Chuck Phelps likes to forgive and forget.

Chuck Phelps also stated he contacted child services and the police once he was informed of the abuses, due to there being two other minors in the home. The police claim no such record was filed.

Chasm of Forgive and Forget

The above picture is what is called a chasm.

Definition of Chasm:

a yawning fissure or deep cleft in the earth's surface; gorge.
a sundering breach in relations, as a divergence of opinions, beliefs, etc., between persons or groups.

I think we can use two parts of the definition today.

The FIRST is the visual to make a point. It seems to me that some have victims make the leap from:

reporting an offense(Rock on left), and then a quick jump to forgiveness(Rock on Right).

The part in the center they try to avoid? That is dealing with what happened. Talking about the wounded part. Showing you the path to healing.

Chuckles Travels also posted a letter for a poor clueless pastor. Here is a portion of what was written.

First of all these people who have full blown bitterness are in serious trouble. This is not my opinion, it is God’s. Bitterness is a root! A root is a source. Where does the roots dwell? Under the surface of the soil. Can everybody see it’s root system? No, because it’s hidden under the soil or surface. The same is true with bitterness in a person’s soul. It is a hidden element that lies under the surface, and out of it springs up anger and other negative emotions against others and against the circumstances around us. People who have a root of bitterness find it easy to get upset over things that other’s are doing around them. It’s like a brewing fountain that lies beneath the surface, waiting to fuel something that is on the surface.

Countless women who are raped develop awful bitter spirits that affect and infect people around them. No one doubts that these women were hurt. It’s not because they were raped, but because they allowed the trauma to get to them, they nurse the bitterness for years. Many women are in bondage today because they became bitter under the surface about what was done to them years ago, and then refuse to forgive.

You notice this pastor's chasm? Their bitter because they allowed the trauma to get to them. You were suppose to jump from left to right - forgive and forget. I'm sure we have all heard the sayings, 'leave it at the cross' as another one.

Don't deal with what happened - forget it. Then all will be well in the world!

It seems to me their way of dealing with things is shame others into doing it their way. Its easier to call someone bitter than it is to deal with the roots of the wounded. Thankfully, there are people that aren't so cowardly.

If you run into such a cowardly type? Please try to find support elsewhere.

No one doubts that these women were hurt. It’s not because they were raped, but because they allowed the trauma to get to them, they nurse the bitterness for years.

I feel sorry for this pastor. He has not learned about grace. He has not learned about compassion. He just assumes he 'knows' things that quite honestly he has no way of knowing.

There is a term that people use that is to be descriptive of how rape effects them. The term is called, 'soul murder'.

People like the pastor above would remind you that is not possible, because they like to look past the term 'descriptive'. Its sad that they must take things so 'literally', and not truly grasp what all victims deal with.

Is there help and support so that you can find a way to live with what happened to you? Yes, there is support and help. I would recommend anyone search that out as well.

RAINN is one such organization that can put you in contact with someplace close to you. G.R.A.C.E. is another organization that is faith based.

I'm sure there are people that nurse bitterness for years. Unfortunately, I don't think the pastor in question realizes his arrogance is just shadowing his own.

Independent Fundamental Baptist and other places of worship that use these type of chasms? They are to full of pride to admit their chasm of 'forget and forget' isn't what God calls them to counsel victims.

You can also sense their projection of themselves onto others when they chant things like:

People who have a root of bitterness find it easy to get upset over things that other’s are doing around them. It’s like a brewing fountain that lies beneath the surface, waiting to fuel something that is on the surface.

He seems to think the 'tears' he saw in Chuck Phelps eyes in his company should be good enough for everyone to just 'forgive and forget' his errors. IFB are real quick to have others repent, but it seems they don't need to repent to the proper parties. They just repent to their friend. They shouldn't have to model what they ask of others I guess.

Dr. Phelps has been very humble, as he cried in my presence last fall, pouring out his hurt for both the Willis family and for Mrs. Anderson. Tina is not a 15 year old girl. Her memories have no doubt been influenced by bitter, angry people like Jocelyn Zichterman and perhaps you, whoever you are.

Does Dr. Phelps realize his 'friends' are making him look worse? I mean the man didn't even feel the need to do his homework on her age. She was 15 at the time she was raped, and 16 when she gave birth. The pastor is attempting to shame the author of the blog due to fact he doesn't know WHOM they are. The double standard was nor did he identify himself either.

Sadly, its people like this pastor that are bitter. They are angry that people don't use the forgive and forget chasm they feel is best. Cowards normally do project their own flawed characteristics onto others.

They can't be bothered with the true help, compassion, and ministering.

They will not be told they are wrong either.

Arrogance and pride tends to do that to you.

It seems the chasm of 'forgive and forget' is coming back to haunt Dr. Chuck Phelps once again.

Danni Moss Because it Matters

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:42:01 PDT

Remembering Danni Moss

Today I wanted to remember my friend Danni Moss. Some may have read a number of her wonderful, and very moving articles on BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

I have to admit I was praying to be able to write that our friend had conquered her battle with cancer, but sadly that was not to be. She went to be with our Lord on June 13, 2010.

Today is my one year remembrance.

Here are some quote from her series, "Stick and Stones: Why Verbal Abuse Kills"

Because we identify people by their external appearance, we are confusing physical injuries with the substance of the abuse. OK, that sounded a little disconnected. Bear with me a minute here.

Remember, who you are is not your body. You are the person who is wearing that body suit during this earthly lifetime. Who you are is independent of your body, though the two are connected.

What makes physical abuse so horrific is the same thing that makes verbal abuse so horrific. What makes either one unbearably bad is the attack on the person — the real person, not the body being worn by the person. Physical abuse generally comes with verbal abuse. The physical abuse communicates assault, hatred, even murder, against the person within the body. The physical abuse is a vehicle for the heart of the abuse – the attack on the person inside the skin.

Abuse is an assault on the person. It can and will kill the person. Physical abuse is just one manifestation of abuse – it is not the worst; it is the most visible and it can certainly kill the fastest. All forms of abuse can and will kill because they are attacking who the victim really is. The heart of all types of abuse is the assault on the person — sometimes through the person’s emotions, sometimes through the person’s self worth, sometimes through the person’s body, sometimes through the person’s spirit — but always against the person.

and another quote:

Words can also “call names” through strong implication without saying the actual name. When an abuser has a pattern of the calm diatribes, carefully and constantly describing, in detail, why you are a failure, wrong, have poor judgment, etc. he is describing you – your worth, value, acceptability, etc.

For instance, Gary frequently launched into long diatribes about all manner of things about me. One was about me liking white rice with butter/salt/pepper as a side dish with a meal. He wondered how I could possibly eat white rice and described in detail all the reasons why it is worthless, bad for you, tastes bad, etc., etc. He did this everytime rice came into his sphere of reference — could be in a restaurant, could be if I fixed rice, if he fixed rice, if someone else fixed rice, if the rice came up in a casual conversation with strangers — he launched into the “how can my wife/you like white rice because…” Yes, he did this — about me — to other people in casual conversation if rice was mentioned. What he was communicating was that I was so stupid I couldn’t make a rational decision about my taste for rice. I ended up being unable to eat rice for several years and I still struggle with it. The strong negative emotional connection to rice is very powerful. There were dozens of things like this that warranted long diatribes toward or about me. Water temperature in the shower, the direction of washing dishes (left to right sinks vs right to left), theological or political sub-points, favorite colors, styles of clothes, preferred recreation, types of books I liked to read, types of TV programs I enjoyed — the list is practically endless. There was always something to rant about – literally daily.

The reason these take a toll is because they “call names” even non-specifically. These rants quantified who I was as stupid, illogical, unreasonable, unsubmissive, rebellious, un-spiritual, non-Christian (literally), etc., etc. They communicated that I was not worth respect, and they communicated that he did not respect me because I was not worthy of respect. While he said he respected me if he was directly asked, his constant way of life said otherwise.

Name-calling, in any form that describes value, is powerful because it assaults who the person is at the most fundamental level. When the person calling names is in a position of authority or in the position of protector/provider his words hold that much more power.

Danni was badly hurt by no true support or understanding of abuse like so many of us.

The church didn't listen.

Her family had a hard time hearing as well.

Her youngest child didn't have to deal with living with it full-time as she did get divorced.

I know she had regrets about not doing it earlier, not only for herself but for her other children. Its hard when everyone is telling you its wrong, and you in a place that you can't communicate to them WHY they are not understanding. The pressure was overwhelming.

Her youngest had to go back and live with the man that abused them all after her death. I often pray for her, along with the rest of her children. Her family. Her friends.

The hole you left will never be made whole again here on this earth Danni. We miss you, but I'm thankful you are no longer in pain.

Thank you Lord for allowing Danni Moss to be a part of our lives - even for a short time.

She wrote about abuse....because it matters!

Chuck Phelps now taking credit for conviction

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:49:39 PDT

Below is a letter that Chuck Phelps has on his website now. He is basically attempting to take credit for the conviction that he fought very hard not to help happen in the first place. The quoted portions are my notes. His entitlement and diversions is amazing to me. No humbleness is shown. Its sad.

A Verdict Reached – Ernie Willis Guilty

The trail of Ernie Willis took place in Concord, NH, from May 23 to 28, 2011. After a week of hearing witnesses, a jury found Ernie Willis Guilt on all counts placed before them. There are those who may be curious about my reactions.

I am relieved. Tina Anderson had a right to seek justice, and she is no doubt thankful that Ernie Willis has been convicted. Ernie Willis broke the law. No one has ever denied this. When Tina made allegations concerning Ernie Willis in 1997, her mother and I reported the matter as a crime to the Concord police department (a fact now affirmed under oath by me, her mother, and the Concord police investigator assigned to the case). Unfortunately, the Concord police were not diligent to follow-up on the reports given to them. Further, it was affirmed under oath by me and a Concord police officer that I called the New Hampshire Division of Youth and Family Services and reported Tina’s situation as was required by the law. Sadly, this report did not bring the immediate follow-up that is expected norm today.

If you note from the trial?

Chuck Phelps and Christine Leaf both made it clear that Tina made no ‘allegations’ of rape to them – the purpose of the trial. They both repeatedly reminded everyone she never said she was ‘raped’. It was a ‘convert dating relationship’, and Phelps even noted on camera that he didn’t consider it rape. By calling this a ‘covert dating relationship’ does infer that he felt it was ‘consensual’, and not a crime at least in his eyes.

What Chuck Phelps is leaving out is they do not have record of him contacting the police, but do have a record of him contacting New Hampshire's child services. The police officer he mentions above contacted him – after children’s services reported to the officer, and Phelps never returned the calls. Chuck Phelps also needs to realize that he had a ethic and moral obligation – besides his duty lawfully – to follow up if he KNEW for sure Ernie Willis broke the law – as he claims no one denied. He needs to apologize for his lack of ‘diligent follow-up’ as well, that should have been expected to be ‘norm’ now and at the time.

At my recommendation Mrs. Leaf took Tina to see a licensed medical professional who examined her in private and never called the police (a fact also established by the medical professional’s testimony in court).

The facts posted on this website since the April 8th 20/20 program aired have now been stated under oath. On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the court determined that I could share what had previously been confidential information which I received from Mr. Willis many years ago. The release of this information no doubt played a very important part in bringing these matters to justice.

I have no doubt that Chuck Phelps notes did help in trial. What he doesn’t mention is how he and his lawyer fought to keep them OUT of this trial.

The judge basically told him because he made statements to the 20/20 program, and also had a website up? He can’t use ‘confidentially’ the way he wanted to. He was forced to use them, even after he made it clear that he was NOT happy that Brian Fuller (current pastor of Trinity Church) released them to police without his permission.

Did it play an important part in bringing these matters to justice? Yes. Despite his effort to make sure they were NOT used. That kind of changes things doesn’t it?

So in the rush to DEFEND himself, because he felt he was being put ‘under the bus’ his own actions, and judgment to this present day are being called into question. Chuck Phelps didn’t literally depend on the Lord to handle this war for him did he?

The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war rise up against me, yet I will be confident. (Psalm 27: 1, 3)

You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance. (Psalm 32:7-8)

I am thankful for the prayers that have been offered for me, my ministry, and my family. They have been much appreciated and have greatly encouraged my heart during this time. We have learned much.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefor the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Sadly, justice for Ernie Willis was long in coming. Much evil has resulted. I ask you simply to join me in praying that clarity will replace confusion and that God will be glorified.

Yes I pray that Chuck Phelps’s confusion – or covertly covering his butt – will be replaced with clarity and repentance of his own actions, attitudes, and teachings.    Taking his lumps for his poor judgment, lack of discernment, etc would be a proper show of humility. Sadly, this letter almost hints at the fact he wishes to take some credit for the conviction.

Matthew 6:1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
   2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
    5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Chuck Phelps is either stubbornly wanted to hold on to his justifications, or sadly after all this time truly doesn’t grasp the reality of what truly happened.

Unfortunately, another victim is coming forward. Chuck Phelps is again ‘covering his butt’, and still not owing up to his part.

…join me in praying that clarity will replace confusion and that God will be glorified.

Indeed!
P.S. Last time I checked he took down his letter to 20/20. I still have it.

Broad Brushing? Seriously?!

eaandfaith@yahoo.com — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 04:14:00 PDT

I'm not broad brushing, I'm NOT broad brushing....

This is a perfect example of the results of being inconsiderate and broad-brushing and passing judgment on an entire group of people because of the actions of a few.

I can see the objection to having all IFB churches painted with the same broad brush. What I find interesting, though, is that IFB churches are simultaneously claiming “We’re independent of each other; we have nothing to do with *them!*” and “Don’t malign all IFBs.” If we truly are independent of one another, then it shouldn’t be a “black eye” so to speak on all IFB churches when several are caught in this web of abuse and deceit. Those IFB churches who are truly God-fearing should be rejoicing that these things are being brought out into the open and justice is finally being served.

I guess I had a bit of an epiphany last night. The term, ‘broad-brushing’ came coming to my mind.

I think we may have all seen the defensiveness, and outright anger some are showing over the broad brushing as they claim is happening because a news program pointed out some of the ‘independent’ churches can act cultish.

The two quotes I have shown above are both IFB members, and they have a completely different approaches and views of what is happening to their world’s once the Tina Anderson trial started.

How often have you seen me write about the ‘generalizations’ that are seen in the church? The boxes that they want people to live in? The biblical roles that should not be stepped out of? SOMEONE has to be in charge! type of statements?

You will follow the party line they have in mind for women or you will be labeled that flying purple people eater – the dreaded feminist!

If you can’t grasp that there are firm roles for men and women? If you believe in equality between the sexes – you buy into the genderless blobs of ‘sameness’.

They have been broad brushing for like what? FOREVER?!

They broad brush what men should be – otherwise they are ‘feminized’.

They broad brush what women should be like – otherwise they are worldly feminists!

If you can’t handle being a follower of complementarism, and rather be egalitarian? WELL you buy into the men and women being the ‘same’ with no differences.

You can’t appreciate God’s purpose for us, and your emotional response shows how you brought into the worldly view of things……

WHAT no one has seen the ‘broad-brushing’? (giggles)

It’s strange how they feel attacked, and broad brushed when this 20/20 program started to speak about Chuck Phelps, Christine Leaf, and of course what happened to Tina Anderson. How Chuck had a letter sent to 20/20 instead of being interviewed, and it was used – but he wasn’t allowed to give HIS side of things! How we don’t like to be labeled as a ‘cult’, or ‘cultish’! How those things don’t happen in MY church!

Its strange how people within certain faith circles make their claim to fame for broad brushing others all the time, and yet get defensive when it is turned around the other way!

WELL as they see it turned around anyway. I believe most people have enough common sense to realize not all churches are like the ones you see on the 20/20 program. Heck it was even noted during the program, but I think their agitation level was to high to see it or hear it.

The churches shown on the 20/20 program broad brush all the time. Organizations like CBMW broad brush all the time. People that have very rigid ideas on how your faith life needs to be lived at times broad brush if you don’t live up to their expectations. It honestly reminds me of dirty politics.

I wonder if they will see how they broad brush people all the time, and remember what that feels like in order to learn from that experience!

They are upset over the word, ‘cult’. Hmm. Do you ever think they will see the broad strokes they use towards others on a regular basis? I sure hope so, but unfortunately I doubt I will see it in my lifetime.

Broad Brushing? Seriously?! I wonder if they have ever heard the term, 'projection bias'?