I’ve recently received many emails from a number of different people inquiring about why I have not been active online for some months.I never actually intended to spend that much time on the internet to start with, planning only to devote about 3 months in 2007 to communicating the anti-cult message to the population of people who were working through their issues with the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement.A few months proved to be an insufficient amount of time for me to adequately meet my original objectives.Very soon after I became outspoken online about these matters, someone asked me when I anticipated arriving at a sense of satisfaction with my efforts to “mark” what I consider to be an aberrant movement so that others would know to avoid it, after the admonishment of the Apostle Paul.In hindsight and in response to this individual’s question, it appears to have taken me two years.On that two year anniversary date this past May, I decided to take a break in order to get back to my other vocations, interests and responsibilities.As opportunity and conviction allow, I may return to offer more regular posts at some point in the future.
But about this time last year, I found that my conviction about my role in the online discussion of patriarchy began to shift.Of all of the patriarchalists, I believed that Voddie Baucham demonstrated a higher level of integrity until my disappointing email exchange with him.A list of very honest questions that I posed to him still remains unaddressed, so far as I am aware.Prior to this time, I believed that most of the leaders in this movement genuinely wanted to serve God in the best way that they understood, though I disagree with their position.As I have been misguided on matters of the Christian faith in the past while earnestly endeavoring to honor God myself, I considered that these men were very much like me.They were misguided but had virtuous intentions, even though many of them operated in a system wherein the end justifies the means.But after this exchange with Voddie who I viewed as a newcomer and subsequently less tainted by the system, my willingness to extend so much benefit of the doubt to these leaders in my own mind began to degrade. I did not find Voddie’s actions befitting of a man of good integrity based upon and within our exchange.I found his behavior quite disingenuous when it concluded, and I had thought much better of him.
I then reviewed materials from a number of Vision Forum affiliates concerning the collection of ideas that comprise their concept of “multigenerational faithfulness.”In general, I find that patriarchy's leaders tend to prescribe their social preferences as non-optional moral imperatives that are promoted as expressly orthodox and Biblical.They also tend to take the writings of venerated men and mingle them with these moral imperatives.They then take their presuppositions about their preferences for certain behaviors and social mores to the Word of God to find proof texts that will bear them up.But, I found that multigenerational faithfulness as a concept was quite different from these other tendencies of bad hermeneutics.They claim to arrive at multigenerational faithfulness from key Scriptures, interpreting the Word of God directly, then working to the social aspects of what I find to be little more than social engineering and social Darwinism.
For me, there is little in patriarchy that I more distasteful than the information I found in the “deeper layers” of the multigenerational faithfulness material.The disturbing teachings that fall under this concept caused me to realize the cruel elitism of the ideology on an entirely new and deeper level.Misinterpreting the Scripture in such a way, by men who should know better, strikes me as a more serious error than merely trying to rationalize and justify a preference.As a consequence, viewing the leaders of patriarchy as merely misguided became even more difficult for me on a personal level because I believe that the deeper layers of the multigenerational faithfulness concept lack the True Spirit of the New Covenant.
In late December of last year, I learned that Geoff Botkin was not merely a zealous, misguided individual who followed Vision Forum’s brand of patriarchy but was an early member of Jim McCotter’s cultic Great Commission.Again, something in my heart that thought better of these men as misguided Christians with good intentions in pursuit of good ends via questionable means fell away.Botkin was quite literally in this cult and former members remembered him well.If that did not raise red flags for Vision Forum’s following, then there is little more than I can do but pray.I’ve done all that I can do, and the Holy Spirit is responsible for the rest.
All these things reminded me that high demand groups employing thought reform always generate new material, controversy, and standards in order to perpetuate their system of ideology.Based upon what Robert Lifton outlined, such groups must use new propaganda, new demands of compliance and behavior, and ongoing fear and shame to drive their following and simultaneously to maintain milieu control.They must keep their followers off balance with these measures, motivating them toward the group’s endpoint.They must always dangle the carrot before the horse, inspiring their followers with the promise of lofty and desirable outcomes.But they also create new standards and controversies and rules and directives, like motivating a horse with snakes that snap at their feet, spurs that goad them with shame, and barking dogs that threaten them from behind.Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us, and with cultic religious systems or any such systems of ideology, patriarchy will have its new fear fostering crises and new campaigns. The system requires them all for survival.
So I had to ask myself whether, after two years of work, did I plan to continue reviewing each new crisis and twist?I’d decided that I’d done enough, because I know well that they will never cease.Early in 2009 and in anticipation of my two year mark in May, I began the tying up of the loose ends of any unmet objectives that remained. Since that time, I’ve enjoyed the rest and the renewed perspective.
I may continue to post here in the future, but I have no immediate plans.(There are a few very good books I would like to review here, perhaps in 2010.And I have a few more things that I’d like to add to the posts on the emergent movement.All in good time, as time allows.)I hope to eventually get caught up answering the many emails that I’ve already received, and I endeavor to answer inquiries as I get them.Thanks to all who have expressed so much kindness, concern, and encouragement.You have been and continue to be a great blessing to me.
Until we all come together in the knowledge of the truth…
Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me, for that child is thereby connected to that head which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me.
All mankind is of one author and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language, and every chapter must be so translated. God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness.
There was a contention as far as a suit (in which piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled) which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his whose indeed it is. The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? But who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? But who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
For those who follow Vision Forum’s homeschooling ideology and teachings, the Great Commission’s problematic history of college campus evangelism proves to be of great significance because not only because the problems manifested by Vision Forum’s “vision” match the very same problems of the Great Commission group (GC) at the height of their activities, it should also be noted that Geoff Botkin of Vision Forum worked with and for this cultic and aberrant evangelical Christian group for approximately 30 years.I’m told that the group leader and founder, Jim McCotter, was quite impressed with his creative ideas for evangelism dating back to their association in Norman, OK in the 70s on the campus of the University of Oklahoma (OU).I have found no documentation or testimony noting that Geoff Botkin renounced the past abuses of the Great Commission teachings and practices, actually now using Vision Forum to perpetuation the same core ideas.This information is also significant, because it relates to Geoff Botkin’s claims of a history of Marxism in his family and/or early history. (Please refer to this previous post with links to documentation the history of McCotter and his relationship with Geoff Botkin.)
The religious system that developed from Jim McCotter’s efforts quickly became an aberrant group, getting caught up in the peripheral aspects of the Christian faith by focusing on pet doctrines, performance standards, and a demanding submission to church authorities.There were many other churches that developed in the 1960s and ‘70s that fell into this same error, and this movement in evangelical Christianity became known as the Shepherding Discipleship Movement.Bill Gothard and Sovereign Grace Ministries are groups that advocate homeschooling as a religious right, groups that also classify as part of the Shepherding Discipleship ideology.According to the model framed by David Henke, these groups exemplify spiritual abuse because they manifest these hallmark signs:they are authoritarian, perfectionistic, image-conscious, they squelch criticism of their system, they are elitist, and they are unbalanced in that they focus on peripheral doctrine rather than essential doctrines of the faith, veering off-center from orthodox Christian teachings.
A few days ago, I made contact with an additional former member of the Norman, Oklahoma Great Commission group, a man named Ilgvars Vermelis.Information reported to me that some details about his own history I’d noted on this blog as reported by former members was somewhat inaccurate, so I would like to correct and clarify that information.Thanks to contact with and clarification of even more former members, I have been able to develop a clearer picture of the history of this group of OU students during and following the McCotter evangelism “Blitz” campaign in the 1970s.
The group participants in the Great Commission group were divided up into communal group homes that were overseen by more senior members in the group, referred to as “older brothers.”Married couples provided oversight of the group homes for the women members of the group, but as I understand it, there were cells of community within the larger group.Women wore head coverings and could not speak at meetings of mixed company, but they were permitted to sing. All marriages took place through courtships that were called for or approved by group leadership, and the group prohibited dating or the pursuit of romantic relationships that were apart from their oversight and authority through their system of strict ecclesiocentriticity.Those who did not conform to the group were disciplined, manipulated through positive and negative reinforcement, and were shunned if non-compliant with discipline from the group.
Most everyone who has contacted me with information about the GC group at OU Norman had a closer connection to Gregory Botkin but knew his brother Geoff Botkin, both of whom came there from Tulsa.Someone who was closer to Gregory’s sub-group and off-campus GC home was Ilgvars Vermelis, the son of survivors of the Marxist regime in Latvia who immigrated to the US following WWII.He was just a few years older than many of the new recruits on campus, and because of his powerful testimony that was well known among the Great Commission followers in Norman, he was seen as a role model within this group.He was a role model by example, age and testimony, but Vermelis was not a formal leader with the group in Norman in any capacity.The group actually subjected him to abusive discipline, and he reports that he was turned out of the group about the same time that Gregory Botkin and his wife left the Norman cult.
For those who had less direct contact with Vermelis and those who were not in his communal home and smaller campus group, it seems that his testimony took on a life of its own within the larger group.I’d presented these recollections of some of these former members on this blog last month, and I wanted to clarify the details according to my communications with Ilgvars Vermelis himself.Consider wide-eyed freshmen in the middle of the period of the cold war and during the protested Vietnam War hearing a testimony that spoke of Communism and protesting abuses of government.Some of the former members of the Norman group recall that Vermelis had some history that involved Communism and protesting who then became a follower of Jesus Christ.Some interpreted this or recall this as an actual history of Mr. Vermelis having been a Marxist or Communist himself.This is incorrect.Most specifically, Vermelis did have history “with Communism,” but it involved advocating for Latvians against Communist/Marxist oppression, petitioning the US to help these oppressed people in the USSR via peaceable means.So in the minds and memories that date back more than 25 years, some former members’ accounts lacked these details.Ilgvars contacted me recently to clarify these specifics that many innocently recall in error.Some also believed he was a teacher at OU when he was only a student, notably by those who are several years younger than he was and did perceive him as a role model.
My humble apologies and gratitude to former GC member, Ilgvars Vermelis, who very graciously corrected my reporting of his personal testimony details that were recalled inaccurately by former members, identifying him as possibly being supportive/sympathetic to Communism, an innocent error.He has always opposed Marxist ideology, and even prior to his faith in Christ, he opposed Marxism and did not support it as some may recall.He never held a leadership position within the GC group in Norman where he was a student at OU.
Why is this history significant to those who have an interest in Vision Forum or the call for the 2010 migration of homeschoolers to New Zealand?
First, I think it is important for those who are involved in these interests to have informed consent about the history of Geoff Botkin.Though his brother Greg left the Great Commission, Geoff Botkin continued in a relationship with both the aberrant Great Commission and with Jim McCotter, pursing McCotter’s interests and teachings through 2002.I’ve seen no documentation that Geoff Botkin has ever renounced or recanted the aberrant teachings and harsh practices of the original Great Commission group that many Christians and former members including Dr. Paul Martin,Lawrence Pile, Ilgvars Vermelis, and Greg Botkin abandoned.In fact, Geoff Botkin promotes most of the original core messages of the Great Commission through his work at Vision Forum including rigid performance standards for women; rigid courtship and arranged marriage; improper response to criticism; an elitist attitude; failing to distinguish between a Biblical command, a general principle and personal preference; authoritarian and/or insensitive leadership; harsh church discipline; lack of emphasis on formal education; and a belief that every man should become an elder [or prophet, priest and king of the home as it is articulate by Vision Forum].
Secondly, this information draws some of Geoff Botkin’s claims into question.In his capacity with Vision Forum, Geoff Botkin makes bold statements, claiming that his family was Marxist and that he himself repeatedly boasts a supposed history as a “committed Marxist.”
Ilgvars Vermelis adds his testimony to those who knew Geoff Botkin as a member of the Great Commission cult in Norman and states that he had no knowledge of the Botkin Family (Greg, Geoff or their family in Tulsa) professing any kind of Communism or Marxism.I’m sure that given his family’s personal interests and his concerns for the Latvians who were oppressed by Marxism, I believe that Ilgvars Vermelis would not have missed or forgotten that his friend Greg and the Botkin family had sympathy for Marxist ideology, let alone that his family members were committed Marxists.
If Geoffrey Botkin was a committed Marxist at one time in his history, exactly at what point did he participate in these endeavors?Considering the testimony of people who knew the Botkin family, unless the family kept knowledge of their beliefs very well concealed, it is highly unlikely that this Marxist training came by way of Geoff’s family in Tulsa.Geoff would have been about 18 years old in 1972-73 who I assume ventured off to college at this time, about the time of McCotter’s “Blitz.”He became a Great Commission member while a student there and actively participated in the group in the early to mid-seventies in Norman.Communism and Marxism was notably inconsistent with this very right-wing group.Was Geoff a committed Marxist for three weeks on OU’s campus during 1973 or while reading something about theFrankfurtSchool before the Great Commission recruited him?This seems highly inconsistent with the testimony he now offers.From Norman, Geoff followed McCotter to the Silver Spring, MD effort and is cited in the ‘80s as the Great Commission’s administrative assistant there.Geoff himself states that he oversaw a lobbying group, likely the ABG lobbyist group that the Great Commission mobilized in 1986, concurrent with their running of a total 19 candidates for political office in the November election in Montgomery County, MD.From Maryland, Botkin followed McCotter to New Zealand.They parted ways in 2oo2 when Geoff resigned.
None of these activities seem consistent with the activities and history of a committed Marxist.If this is such a notable portion of Geoff Botkin’s history, why is it that no one who knew Geoff as a young man knew him as a Marxist?When was he a Marxist and what specifically qualifies him as a committed Marxist?
As former members of the Great Commission group observe, there are those who believe that Geoff absorbed elements suggested by the powerful testimony of Ilgvars Vermelis in order to embellish his own testimony.The whole group at Norman was moved by Ilgvars’ powerful testimony of life in Christ, of his family, and of his advocacy for those who were oppressed, downtrodden and murdered by Marxists in the land of his ancestors.Did Geoff absorb distorted aspects of this testimony of another to sound more sensational of a figure himself? Who can say? A history of Marxism would establish Geoff Botkin as a more mysterious character within the leadership of Vision Forum thatpreaches for women to repent of feminism which they reduce to a Marxist origin.Geoff’s claims of a Marxist past and his agreement with this assertion of Vision Forum’s use of reductio ad Hilterum to vilify any position that challenges their gender hierarchy teaching make Geoff Botkin something of a desired expert.Both parties benefit from the validation: 1.) Geoff as the former Marxist finds a ready-made platform that zealously receives him because he agrees with and is useful to advance the group agenda, and 2.) this establishes him as a notable member in the Vision Forum group itself.The group that uses Marxism as a thought-stopping tactic and term now boasts a former Marxist that validates their teaching.Who would know better about the history of Marxism than one who was a former Marxist?
However, Geoff is very vague about his past, boasting claims that sound impressive, mysterious and fantastic at times, and there are many such exaggerations noted on his Western Conservatory website.One such notable one is that his son consulted with Johns Hopkins to assist the Navy with undersea warfare which seems quite implausible to me.Young Isaac likely had someone who worked for Hopkins help him with a homeschooling project at the ripe old age of 14 years.I would like to think that my friends are Geoff’s age who served in the Navy and have advanced degrees from some prestigious college engineering schools would have been more suitable for consultation.And I find it curious that if Geoff Botkins son’s skills were so advanced, why is he not a prodigy graduate of Hopkins or MIT now as opposed to a film maker? The website also boasts that Dr. Greg Botkin serves them as a scientist and as a Chief of Staff at a progressive hospital who participates in alternative energy research.I phoned the facility in Idahowhere he works, and he is not Chief of Staff there but is an Emergency Department physician who oversees Rehabilitation Services and Continuing Medical Education at this small community hospital (20 acute beds and 36 extended care beds).The medical data search engines that report information and histories of physicians (of interest to prospective patients/clients) deny that he held a “Chief of Staff” position elsewhere.Certainly, this does not diminish the accomplishments of either Isaac or Greg Botkin in any way, but it does point out the ability of Geoff Botkin to exaggerate, presumably to promote his marketability and image.
I am prompted to ask some honest and concrete questions, particularly after learning about Geoffrey Botkin’s history.If he makes exaggerated statements openly on his website concerning his family, it makes me that much more curious about the measure by which he qualifies himself as a Marxist.What other claims has he made also prove to be gross exaggerations?Geoff Botkin remains vague about the specifics and details of his former affiliations, including his claims of being a former committed Marxist.He does not boast of his involvement with the Great Commission and Jim McCotter.He does not give any specific information about his lobbying and his “think tank” oversight, though all of these things look very impressive on his “Vision Forum Curriculum Vitae” when stated as such.
For those who choose to deem Geoff Botkin as an expert, particularly those who choose to follow his teachings and perhaps wish to follow him to and within New Zealand, I believe that they deserve informed consent.They certainly may choose to follow the Botkin teachings and Geoff as a leader, but they can now do so with a more comprehensive picture of the one whom they have chosen to follow.
I wish I had access to the history and professions of my own Shepherding group and leaders years ago, prior to my involvement with them.If I had access to this information, I never would have joined this church and given any ear to these teachings that were concealed from me until I became entrenched and committed to the group.The aberrant teachings were not documented, and many I learned through the bad counsel given to others and through leadership meetings after I’d become more involved.I rejoice now that God used the Shepherding Discipleship teachings in a powerful way to conform me to the image of Christ, but it is not anything I would ever recommend.(I advise that a person turn and run from them.)
Ilgvars gave me permission to quote anything I wanted from our correspondence in order to clarify the details about his history. I found his description of his history with the Great Commission cult to be quite powerful, so I will leave you with his own words.They explain quite eloquently what it is like to become involved in an aberrant group, either through ignorance about this type of manipulation or by falsely believing that the Word of God insulates you from the spiritual abuse of ideological totalism within otherwise Biblical evangelical Christianity.
When I first believed it was confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit of God – for the first time in my life it was as clear as day that this is the truth –that Jesus is the Truth –everything finally made sense. This overwhelming joy however soon departed, and I was plunged into such conflict as I had previously never known [as a consequence of participation in the Great Commission at OU].I now understand what happened. At the time I did not. It was the classic Galatian error – “having begun in the Spirit will you now be perfected in the flesh?” I now have a clear understanding of legalism vs the grace of God – a tough lesson in a very tough situation. ( It is by abiding in Christ that we grow, not by attempting to fix the flesh to conform to some form of godliness –the flesh cannot be improved –that is what being crucified with Christ means.) But God did not waste the experience, and insufferable as it was at the time –He did promise to turn what was meant for evil into good. As I previously mentioned it was Jesus that I believed in and trusted even when I could not understand what was happening about me. It seemed as if everything was biblically based yet I sensed something at terrible odds with what I had believed. The imposition of false authority was “Scripturally justified”, yet I found myself at odds with the leadership constantly. I now know that true biblical authority comes by way of the Holy Spirit, not through the clever manipulation of man regardless how many verses one can fish out of Scripture to justify it.
For all those who found their way out of the Great Commission’s oppression and that of any other spiritually abusive group, I rejoice and pray for your healing.For those who are being drawn into or are entrenched in such a system, I pray for and rejoice in advance for God’s deliverance from these traditions of men.Glory to God!And my thanks to all of the former members of the Great Commission at OU at Norman who shared with me so many details about the group out of concern for these others at risk for spiritual abuse.
A few months ago, I posted a substantial portion of Geoff Botkin’s history with the cultic evangelical group, the Great Commission Ministries (GCM).Since that time, I’ve been contacted by several people who have reported information about Botkin’s past, his present activities, as well as his declared plans for the future.
THE PAST: Recruitment of the Botkins into the GCM Cult
It seems that Geoff and his brother, Gregory (now a family practice physician who now works in an Emergency Department), grew up in Tulsa, OK and were recruited into Jim McCotter’s Great Commission cult while attending Oklahoma University during the 1970s.McCotter spent time on the campus of OU during his “Blitz,” his evangelical recruitment campaign.The sources that contacted me and had knowledge of the family stated that they had absolutely no knowledge about the family professing Marxism, and neither Gregory nor Geoffrey were known to these sources to be Marxists.What is interesting to note is that there was a cult member in Norman, OK who interacted with Geoff who members report had a history of some involvement with Marxism and whose family immigrated to the US from the USSR. (This man whose name has been removed from this post reports that left the Great Commision cult decades ago.) It appears that, based upon the testimony of those who contacted me, unless the Botkin Family of Tulsa went to great lengths to keep their Marxism under wraps, Geoff Botkin may have absorbed aspects of the testimony of this man in order to embellish his own. [29May09 addendum: Name and some details regarding the former member who left the Norman GCM group removed per his request regarding concerns of privacy.]
Geoff Botkin’s wife “Vickie” (as she was known then and these sources find it quite strange that she would now choose to be commonly known as “Victoria”) was also a member of the Norman GCM group known as “The Saints.” The GCM elders approved and likely ordered the match between Geoff and “Vickie” per the group practice.Group leadership generally called for romantic matches and marriages, and no such relationships could be pursued without approval from the elder leaders in the group, the “older brothers.”Many of the recruits into the group who were encouraged to sell Amway and work construction for the religious movement’s local businesses did not finish college, and I cannot find anyone who can verify whether Geoff Botkin obtained a degree at OU.Many of the group members then followed McCotter to the Washington, DC area in order to plan the 1986 attempt to “take dominion” over Montgomery County, Maryland politics and to recruit Religious Right support for their cause.
About a year ago, word appeared on the internet discussing the information that the Geoff Botkin was disseminating, primarily calling for all Vision Forum-minded homeschoolers who wanted to escape the predicted coming socioeconomic disaster in the United States to follow the Botkins to New Zealand in 2010.Apparently, the political situation in the US is not conducive to the GCM ideal of taking dominion, so apparently Botkin wants to return to hopefully accomplish what he and McCotter failed to do successfully a decade earlier:conquer New Zealand through McCotter’s well-known “Media Mandate,” using newspapers and TV to establish a religious, social and political power base to advance their “gospel.” Note that part of Geoff Botkin’s 200 Year Plan includes his son becoming Prime Minister of NZ in his late 50s, the age that Geoff Botkin is now approaching.The Botkin family reportedly immigrated to New Zealand in the late nineties, per one report, and they apparently planned to return there with a following of new recruits.I find this all rather oxymoronic for a group of people that profess taking dominion, as it would seem to me to make more sense to take dominion over one’s own corner of the world rather than resorting to a retreat to another.
A group of Vision Forum notables recently made the trek to New Zealand in April, or at least they traveled for speaking engagements for a week according to this website.I understand that this was a male-only trip, attended by other Vision Forum affiliates including Matt Chancey who reportedly is NOT planning a move to NZ in 2010 but came to support the “good cause.” I received some feedback from New Zealand from someone who attended one of the meetings, and it was neither pleasant, nor was that particular meeting well-attended.
This homeschooling mom described a love for the wholesome image that the Vision Forum advertising paints and expressed her enjoyment of Voddie Baucham’s messages.Apparently, one session with the Botkins and the men that they took with them on the trip cured her of affection for the whole Vision Forum affiliated group.I understand that she was most disturbed by message about the subjugation of women, the religion overtly focused on gender and the idea that “daughters are engaged to their fathers until marriage” (her paraphrase and description of what she understood from the message).They also included a story of one of the Botkin Sisters’ suitors (who apparently approached Geoff Botkin) who was subjected to a process of Bible study similar to the process that Scott Brown required of the Peter Bradrick as described in the Botkin daughters’ “Return of the Daughters” video.From what was related to me, the Botkin daughter decided that she was not terribly interested in the young man after he completed this quite involved process, the young man was sent away in sorrow, and this New Zealander had the impression that the whole family expressed relief that the matchmaking did not work out.
The woman expressed to me that she has now been “cured” of any idealistic illusions about the Vision Forum agenda now that she has heard this message from the Botkins themselves.
Here are the websites noting the Botkin-Vision Forum April Tour of New Zealand:
The Vision Forum-minded homeschoolers have a separatist and elitist mentality, thus seeking to withdraw from culture rather than engage it for Christ.With men acting as the only sex permitted to have activity in the sphere outside of the home, women can evangelize others but apparently must do so from within their homes.Though it is highly admirable to protect one’s family, particularly women, the group goes to extreme ends to achieve this goal.It seems that under the guise of preserving Christianity, the Botkins are actually trying to build a type of protected utopia through fostering fear in their followers.
Before making the final retreat, they are apparently going to make a few sweeps through the US to do more recruitment.I’d heard that not all of the seminars hosted by the Botkins have been well attended, and seats at some of their highly priced gatherings in the US in the past have been given away to those seriously considering relocating to New Zealand.
Read about at least one of the Botkin’s upcoming meetings here:
I am put in mind of another person who was well-versed in Marxism, supportive of Communism, and who desired to build a safe and protected place for his followers to have a fighting chance of making a difference in this world. This man did not forsake his Communistic beliefs, unlike Geoff Botkin who forsakes his reported Marxist history that his friends do not recall.This other man gave the impression that he was running from trouble which is not true of Geoff Botkin, but this other man’s followers were following him, running to what they believed would be a better life.He was family oriented, ministered to families and recruited families, part of what made him so successful.He found a group of people with a great need, great fear and recruited those people through manipulation in order to further his own vision of a better world.His church ministered to the sick, the poor, those in need of legal help, and people joined his organization because their families joined and this is where their families were.In the midst of the Cold War, he feared that the US would be wiped out in a nuclear attack and he filled his followers with this same terrible fear.He and his followers believed that the United States would not support the culture they desired anyway, so from a place of great paranoia, he called for a retreat from the country, a major target for nuclear attack in what he likely thought would be an Armageddon.
The Great Commission and the group in Norman, OK have documented histories of rigid practices of church discipline.Group leadership employed such cruel church discipline, ostracizing non-compliant members who were called “factious” and “fractious” (the GCM cult’s version of Vision Forum’s “non-normatives”).Though I think the potential for Vision Forum followers to meet the same end as the followers of this other leader I have in mind is reasonably low, Americans that follow the Botkins to New Zealand will be easier to manipulate in a new environment and will suffer if cut off from their families in the US.If they do not have ample finances to return home, these families could find themselves in a foreign land, beautiful though it may be, and be subject to this same type of cruel discipline, manipulation of fear through patriarchal ecclesiocentricity and the Gothard-style cursing for having exited out from under the church’s “umbrella of protection” if found wanting.
If you have not figured out the religious leader who called for an exodus from the United States in order to escape its threats of tyranny, nuclear disaster, and paranoia over the disbanding of their religious group, I am referring to Jim Jones.
A former associate of Geoff Botkin told me:
“I hope that your friends in NZ will be extremely careful in dealing with the Botkins. They are incredibly attractive and seductive."
In closing, I would like homeschoolers and those who find Vision Forum appealing to consider a letter written by the leadership of Jim McCotter’s and Geoff Botkin’s religious group.I described this letter elsewhere online as the letter that many homeschoolers hope that Doug Phillips would write, repenting of his abuses and excesses.The issues addressed in this letter written in 1991 were those that took place in the ‘70s and ‘80s, criticisms of the GCM cult.In many ways, I believe these are not the issues of homeschooling that have developed recently but are the fruit of the Shepherding Discipleship Movement of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, come full circle.It is the (il)logical conclusion to the teachings and practices from the cultic ideologies that preceded homeschooling but found their way into this Christian subculture.In that respect, I believe that men like Doug Phillips and Geoff Botkin are merely reading off the old scripts of their predecessors, Bill Gothard and Jim McCotter.They are merely following the directives of their own gurus.
If you are thinking about moving to New Zealand, I hope you stop to seriously consider THIS INFORMATIONfirst.If you are a follower of Vision Forum’s dogma, I hope that you stop to read this 1991 Letter from the Great Commission.Please ask yourself if these are not the very same issues that Vision Forum and the cultic groups like them have introduced into the homeschooling community?Here are some highlights (and you can link to THIS COMMENT in response):
We realize that a number of individuals made poor decisions concerning their education and career partially because of our encouragement or because of the examples they saw in our churches. To these people, we offer our sincere apology and regret that our mistakes contributed to career decisions that caused problems, financial or otherwise...
One very negative effect concerned members who chose to leave our churches. Because of our conviction that God's plan to accomplish the Great Commission relied upon New Testament churches following the geographical progression described in Acts 1:8, and because we believed that our churches were unique in their commitment to pursuing that plan, there was a concern that a person leaving would miss out on God's will for their life...
A third example of our failure to clearly distinguish between commands and principles concerns the area of dating. Many of us in the early years of our churches encouraged young men and women to refrain from dating until they had a fairly strong conviction that God was leading them toward marriage to a particular individual...
[Blog host note:This is actually an overtly tame description of what actually took place within the Great Commission.Most marriages were arranged, though an individual could petition leadership to “suggest” a match.Any male/female romantic pursuits of any type had to be ordered by group leadership first, and anything the leadership opposed could not be pursued.The group responded to any behavior that defied their “better judgment” with punitive measures and the member was ostracized.The member was termed “factious” or what I have also heard called “fractious,” and this member was disciplined, avoided or discharged from the group for their non-compliance.]
Improper response to criticism.
An elitist attitude.
Failing to distinguish between a command, a principle, and a preference.
Authoritarian or insensitive leadership.
Church discipline.
Lack of emphasis on formal education.
A belief that every man should become an elder.
In the interests of clarity and brevity, we have just touched on a number of important and complex issues, e.g., the authority of a pastor, dating and marriage, church discipline, etc. The position papers that we are currently developing will address these issues in greater detail.
The Not Under Bondage website has new links and resources which you might find useful. I have been blessed with a marriage that has had it's share of problems, but I have not had experience with abuse, adultery or overt desertion. I defer to Danni Moss and her site and now to Barbara Roberts for their help and wisdom related to these matters. I'd also like to note Breakpoint's recent honest though disturbing report on domestic abuse in Christian marriage as well.
Please say a prayer for some new friends of mine today, for abundant wisdom for them so that God's words would be found in their mouths. Currently, they are walking out of a patriarchal spiritual abuse situation, making the hard decisions about what to do and how to do it. I'm so grateful that there are so many resources now for this couple who are new to the whole idea of spiritual abuse, resources that I wish I had as my husband and I made decisions about how to exit our own group years ago.
Their situation reminded me of my favorite 4Him song, which along with nearly everything else, can be found in some manner or form on YouTube. When I first heard this song, I was commuting from Norman to work in OKC in the early '90s, and I would play this song over and over and weep. My sinful nature and my self want to have their way, but I have relinquished my heart to the Lord and want my wheels to turn for Him, not for me.
I found this song to be a remarkable prayer, and I remember driving along in my old Volkswagon as I was going through a season of growth, singing such a prayer for God to put me where I would make a difference. A fleeting thought occurred to me. "What insane person prays for their feet to be placed where the rubber meets the road?" Driving the car, I thought that this meant that my feet would be run over, placed between the pavement and the tire. This is not unlike my prayers for God to give me and teach me patience, knowing that patience comes through suffering and the trying of one's faith according to the Book of James. But through and through, since I first heard it, this song has been such a prayer for me, so encapsulating my desire to please the Eyes of the Lord alone because I love Him so much. I love Him and I want my home to be His sovereignty.
Please pray for the Body of Christ. Pray that the Lord fill our minds with images of what he wants of us, particularly for my friends as they navigate through their experience with patriocentricity. May the Lord pour abundant wisdom out on all of us who call upon His Name. I love verses that speak of God's witness in our hearts and how He sends His Words to us from the most unlikely and unexpected sources. Pray that we would always be sensitive to that witness. I love how the Holy Spirit bears witness to us when we choose our paths, those ordered by God and created in advance for us that we might walk in them. Please pray that the Body would be delivered from evil and distractions that might lure us away from God's plan and purpose for us. May we never be distracted from the place of communion with Him, that place of rest and peace in Him.
I've been asked if I have regretted such prayers of dedication and promise to the Lord, particularly during seasons as my faith has been tried and as I felt the pain of the chisel as my friends do now. Am I sad that I've sung this song so many times, usually with tears and from the foundation of who I am and with ever part of me?
Not for a minute.
Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked. Psalm 84:10
There is a man inside of me Who wants to have his way And I cannot comply I relinquish this heart of mine Lord I am desperate for Your handiwork I’m ready for the change And I can’t wait to see What You can do with me It was for my joy You endured the cross And I am overwhelmed I want my wheels to turn for You Not for myself
CHORUS Let my eyes be fixed On the hope that cannot fail May my life be set Where the Hammer meets the nail Place my feet Where the rubber meets the road Shape my heart To please Your eyes alone That I may live my life Where the chisel meets the stone
Fill my mind with images Of what You want of me The path that I must take Lest I lose my way For my home is in Your sovereignty My destiny to be faithful Before Your face to serve At the throne of grace And as evil comes to cloud my sight And lure me away I will not be distracted from this holy place
Chip away what tries to hide the truth Until there is a remarkable Resemblance of You
I would like to point out for the reader that Dr. Jones now attends an Episcopal Church, but unlike my own background and many of the readers here, she is not from an evangelical Christian background.That proved very insightful for me, for the dynamics of human interaction in groups that are spiritually abusive all operate in the same ways, though there are distinct differences in manner and degree.Approaching things from a Catholic experience as a child, the book outlines involvement in a couple of Unitarian Universalist churches where I find it amusing that the author was censured for being too traditional and Christian.An initial experience in the EvangelicalLutheranChurch did not prove to be much safer for her.
The pastor of the ELCA affiliated church that the author attended shared inappropriate and private information with members of the church board and congregation.The Jones family also adopted a foster child, an older young man whom Lutheran Social Services brought from the Sudan, and this situation intensified their problems with the church.The book also describes the legal action that Dr. Jones pursued in an effort to hold the pastor and church accountable for what had happened to her in one too many settings where she was awarded a favorable verdict.
For those who come out of a spiritual abuse situation, I recommend reading several personal accounts, including "Combating Cult Mind Control" by Steve Hassan. Though Hassan's book traces his experience through the "Moonines," it is amazing to read it because his experience does not differ much from that of people in abusive evangelical churches. The trappings of the politics cross all denominational and even religious boundaries.
Join in the discussion and don’t worry about being off topic if we’ve moved on to a new one in what I hope will be an informative discussion about spiritual abuse!
I’m delighted to have you visit here to discuss the things you learned as a result of your own journey. I’ve pulled out some quotes from the book that discuss topics that I think would be helpful to those who read here. Some passages seemed to encapsulate the very same things I have heard from so many people who have been through this experience as well as the thoughts I’ve had myself. I marked this passage on my first pass through the book.
Pg 144 – 145, recalling a journal entry:
“I was really hurt and I wasn’t ready for others to know…There was no trust. I was terrified…I wasn’t ready. I still feel shame. And I want her [Rev. Patience] to know me as a strong, independent person. Not weak and needy… It makes me the identified patient. While it gets me nurturing, it also leaves me open to scapegoating… Rev. Dick used his knowledge of my vulnerabilities to hurt me…I let Sue bully me a little. I need to get better at defending myself…When I speak to Don, I must remember not to be bullied. I might call Sue and let her know how I felt about the things she said. And finally, the abuse is not a secret or something to be ashamed about, but I have a right to decide how and what people are told.”
This journal entry follows one of your earlier church experiences in the book where you mention scapegoating. Could you briefly define scapegoating for us?
You also note in your journal that you needed to get better at defending yourself and that you had underlying feelings of fear and shame. Of what were you fearful or ashamed about at this point in your journey?
I have unfortunately not had the pleasure of reading your book (yet) but I am excited for this opportunity to learn more about it and you.
In your experience with spiritual abuse in church, how would you address a woman who comes from a group very similar, with all of the elements of spiritual abuse and cult-like practices--the only difference being that the group is an all-inclusive family? Is there a difference in the approach?
Some say that fathers have a responsibility before God to be controlling or authoritarian. When this is coupled with all of the other hallmarks of aberrant religious groups, would you consider this still to be an exception based on the fact that it is a family, not a church? How would you suggest a woman begin to seek healing?
Good morning, there are a lot of good questions being asked. I will do my best to answer them throughout the day.
First I want to address Luna's question. I am uncertain what you mean by an "all inclusive family." However, there are some families that scapegoat one or several of its members. By that I mean, they blame that individual for whatever problems the family is experiencing. And of course teasing, ridicule etc. occurs in families as well.
Cindy asked what I mean by scapegoating. A scapegoat is when you heap the blame on someone for problems or mistakes with sufficient justification. In psychology we would call this projection and displacement. When you scapegoat you avoid looking at yourself and taking responsibility for your own mistakes.
By all-inclusive family, I mean a family unit that is completely dependent upon one another, often isolated, and does not rely on "outsiders" for accountability, spiritual headship, etc. An all-inclusive family could be for example, where the father is "prophet, priest and king", mother is his special helper, and the children perform/labor/live to fulfill the familial vision.
I apologize for prior ambiguity. Thanks for taking time to respond!
Cindy has just shared with me that many of the readers of this blog have come from extreme patriarchal families similar to the structure of many Moslems families. Fortunately i have never had that experience. My father, however, sought to control me through ridicule and some physical violence. I had to fight against his expectation that I be a stay at home wife and mother.
How did I overcome that and other abuse? I couldn't have done that without the help I received from therapists. The love and care of Dr. George Howard was instrumental in changing my life.
I was also fortunate that I did not get involved with drugs as many of my classmates did at the time. Instead I turned to reading and from there pursued an education.
I am wondering what in my experience can be of help to other women. Not everyone has a Dr. Howard in their lives. But you need to find support from somewhere. Keep looking until you get it.
Cindy asked, what I was afraid of. She was specifically referring to the time when a minister without my permission told people about my sexual victimization. Like most victims I was still feeling shamed by the assault. I hadn't yet figured out that it wasn't my sin that caused my "uncle" to molest me. I feared there was something terrible and evil about me. It was like I was wearing the mark of Cain. After all, when your own parents fail to love you, there must be something inherently wrong and evil about you, mustn't there be? I didn't really get it until I read Marie Marshall Fortune's book, Sexual Violence and her discussion of sin, that I finally got it. It was an epiphany for me.
A family is a kind of special group but the dynamics aren't much different. In families it is more likely people are bound together by love and motivated to take care of one and another. There are some really dysfunctional family systems that operate more like cults. Social workers often refer to these as enmeshed. One of the first steps to breaking free is to expand your perspective beyond what the head of the family is teaching. The isolation gives such a dictator power and they will work to prevent you from going outside the group. That is why reading is closely monitored and even forbidden.
I am wondering what in my experience can be of help to other women. Not everyone has a Dr. Howard in their lives. But you need to find support from somewhere. Keep looking until you get it.
I did not grow up in a patriarchal home, but I did grow up with a "1950s" ideal with parents who saw the strengths of my personality as weaknesses and tried to work them out of me. I have always had my "Dr. Howards" in my life, and those people were generally school teachers, Sunday School teachers and even my pastor. There has always been one person in my life who celebrated what most other people discouraged.
So I think that there is a lot of value and wisdom for people in "Margaret's" experience, because she was rejected for being different. Those differences were not necessarily good or bad, but who she was as a person was not highly valued in the different groups she found herself within. Family, school, church... I didn't really find my niche until I started teaching patients (and nurses after I had some experience under my belt).
Patriarchal families are intensely focused on roles, and though my own family did not observe those roles, they did have their own "family script." That experience of rejection and what was at times for me a scapegoating is something that I see as a universal experience, regardless of the type of system.
Simply my failure to defend myself. When people teased me I tried ignoring it. That was impossible and my tormentors knew they were getting to me.
If you want to stop bullying you must assert yourself and your rights in some manner. That doesn't mean being violent. There are several verbal strategies you can use to stick up for yourself. Some of them are mentioned are the Bullies2Buddies website. I don't agree with everything he says about victims but his Izzy's Game is worth listening to and learning to implement.
Part of the model in what some of the dissidents have named "patriocentricity" (the family patriarch being central to family life and family members) prescribes a narrowly defined role for women.
As each man is his own priest and king over his family, the loyal subject is taught to refrain from reading material that has been vilified. Sticking up for oneself when speaking with men is also vilified. (A friend of mine whose husband was about to pass out from diabetic low blood sugar was reprimanded for demanding that her husband drink a Pepsi, for example.) So learning how to do this kind of thing can be difficult because it is not allowed in the paradigm.
Cindy, my family was similar to yours. My mother encouraged independence and education but to the exclusion of love and tenderness. On think I realized when my maternal grandmother died, only my mother was allowed to openly express distress and anger. I was expected to be the girly girl who obeyed her father without question. But by temperamentI am emotionally demonstrative. I cry easily. That really bothered my father.
I have too much of an independent streak to be submissive to anyone, male ore female. That was part of the problem in the churches to which I belonged. Gretchen who is in the book wrote an email saying I needed to learn how to be a member of a group. By that I think she meant I needed to learn how to go along to get along. I have never mastered that trait and have quit trying. It doesn't work for me. I now believe God meant me to be different. I once heard a CIA man when talking about a former CIA agent who correctly warned about 9/11, "You need to take care of your mavericks, they may save your life one day." I realized that mavericks or people on the margins can play an important role in the family and other groups.
Restriction of emotional display was huge for me. Anger was outlawed, and it is in many Christian homes. The Apostle Paul says to be angry and sin not, but the self-protective emotion is taught to be evil in and of itself. Anger can indicate fear or sadness in a child and particularly grief in adult men. Though anger in a person can indicate sinfulness such as greed or entitlement or lack of self-control, the emotion itself is not sinful.
Unfortunately, we often treat anger this way, and it makes people uncomfortable.
Cindy, In what epistle did St. Paul say be angry and sin not? Since you read my book you know I was dechurched for raising my voice in my own defense. In every Christian church I have belonged to anger has been viewed as sin. But I agree it is a self protective emotion and what matters is what you do with it. Feeling it is not a sin.
Ephesians 4 talks about how the Believer in Christ should be different from other people as opposed to acting like everyone else.
24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27Neither give place to the devil.
Paul actually encourages people to deal with their anger and to do so in a timely manner, so that it is dealt with before going to bed that night. When he goes on to say "neither give place to the devil," on the heels of the statement about anger, it suggests that retaining or ignoring anger predisposes us to sin. I take that as Paul encouraging assertiveness.
I wonder what my priest, a Biblical scholar, at my present church would say about your interpretation of Ephesians. I have disagreed with him on anger before. Mostly because he confuses the feeling with overt behavior. However, he has never said I was wrong to be angry with the people from Immanuel. When I told him I did not know how I would feel if I came face to face with people from Immanuel, he was unconcerned. There was no indication that he thought that sinful. Like with so many things people say one thing and react in another way. Social psychology research has long shown that there isn't a one to one relationship between attitudes and behavior.
Paul is one of the more interesting New Testament characters, and though he clearly loved deeply, he was no pushover. When confronting the Galatians about their legalism, confronting the Apostle Peter, in Galatians 5:12, he says that he wishes that these legalistic men would go emasculate themselves. I would say that this classified as anger, but the Bible does not classify the statement as sin. (I don't think you'll find that recommended in "How to Win Friends and Influence People" anywhere!
I think also of the Gospel that says that it is not what goes into a man that corrupts him, but rather what comes out of him that defiles him. That's in Mark, Chapter 7, about a dozen verses into the chapter. Galatians, in that same chapter, talks about self-control. It is how we choose to deal with our anger and how we learn mental discipline to not be readily given to anger (slow to wrath) that is important. We are to be slow to wrath, but wrath is not outlawed. (James chapter 1 comes to mind, and Proverbs 15 on the slow to wrath point)
Dr. Jones, in your book you do display for us how people behave in ways that help them avoid their own emotions or their negative emotions. It really is a good study on how even people who desire a good end will behave to protect themselves from their own troublesome emotions rather than face them and grow and heal. Most people often show a level of discomfort with other people's difficult emotions as well.
There is so much in the Bible I don't know having rejected it for so long. Now I find great comfort in it. It was how I survived through one summer of my dechurching. I read through the Psalms.
I desperately needed something to cling to as I faced rejection and abandonment once again in my life. It became and remains an important anchor.
I am going to break for lunch but when I get back in an hour I want to turn my attention to the questions you asked about self injury and how I overcame it.
There are many young women who read this blog, many who I know struggle with self-injury, sometimes related to anxiety disorders, trauma and possibly as a behavior associated with ADD/ADHD. The behavior is also diagnostic for a particular personality disorder.
I’ve interacted with many young women in closed systems or high demand environments of a spiritually abusive nature since I’ve started this blog, so I hope that you might be able to share something to encourage them today.
In your book, you describe your own struggle with this behavior and how it provided a “white space” for you that you describe as “soft and safe.” You feel free of pain there, and “all reason was turned upside down” (pg 261). Can you describe to the readers here who do not understand the behavior what this experience was like for you and how you make sense of it all, looking back on it?
Particularly for young women who contemplate or experience the phenomenon, what were the most helpful measures, realizations or therapies for you, enabling you to control and/or cease the behavior? Understanding this phenomenon from an addictions model as a means of coping with shame as opposed to substance abuse or some other addiction, several authors suggest that the behavior does not ever completely cease.
Would you share your opinion about the model that views the behavior as an addiction, considering your own experience with the behavior?
Self injury isn't an easy subject for me to write about. The behavior waxed and waned over the years. It was associated with bouts of depression and anxiety. There was a period of ten years or more when I didn't engage in the behavior or even think about it. Then the problems with church happened. When my anxiety became unbearable the desire to burn myself returned.
I do not think self injury is a sign of a personality disorder. Actually I don't believe there are personality disorders. But that is a subject for another time. What has really helped me is learning to call someone when I am anxious. The self harming or the urge to self harm occurred when I felt I wasn't seen. Usually it was preceded by a desire to call or talk to someone. But I had learned it was dangerous to reach out and even told it was pathological. Dr. Steve Emmett really helped me with this. It made me see the need to call someone was the healthy side of me. Once he got me to start calling him the behavior dropped out. Now I now when I get anxious I need to talk to a friend or at the very least write about it.
I view self harming as a kind of addiction. It gave me temporary relief from high levels of anxiety. It was more reliable than the people around me who appeared more interested in silencing me. When people try to silence me or when i feel they don't really see me, that I am insignificant that was when I would burn myself. The white space was a kind of dissociative state where I didn't feel emotional pain and it was relieved by the rush I would get from burning my arms. Although it felt safe that was an illusion. If I kept going there eventually I would have killed myself.
I have overcome this behavior by handling lower levels of anxiety better. When I don't feel seen or understood I now talk about it with family and friends. I also write about it.
I believe if I allow anxiety to reach a high intensity I am at risk for returning to the white space. BTW, I can't will myself there. I suppose that when I am intensely anxious the high levels of stress hormones takes me there. Hence the importance of intervening before I get that anxious.
My understanding of self-injury from a clinical perspective is that of understanding overactivity of the Basal Ganglia, an anxiety center in the brain. On a SPECT scan, a bloodflow scan that reflects metabolism, self-injury is associated with overactivity in this anxiety center.
Actually the disorder that is associated with self-injury is now viewed as a trauma response rather than a personality disorder. And that's interesting, because it confirms and goes right along with the idea that this is a physiologic response to trauma.
It is unfortunate that it has such a difficult stigma attached to it.
I also understand that the process is not only dissociative but that it also releases endorphines that act as a type of soothing medication that the body generates itself (as opposed to taking a substance like alcohol).
It is also seemed as a means of dealing with shame.
In the chapter “Drowning in Grief,” I found that you described many situations and feelings that seem to be universal to spiritual abuse. In this chapter, I began to see you just starting to put your whole experience together, what I would describe as integration. A way of explaining this process would start by what great disappointment tends to do in a person’s mind and soul. Pain causes you to shrink back from having an unbiased perspective, yet our bias is very much part of our human experience and a means of survival for us when we have been hurt.
Our emotions become walled off from our better reasoning, and we “second guess” ourselves as a result of the negative reinforcement and confusion. We become splintered and distracted as a result. The task before us then would be to pull everything back together, take an inventory and “reintegrate” those aspects back into ourselves so that we are fully restored and healed. This is a process, and emotional healing is never linear. We seem to make progress then will regress, yet this is how emotional healing works. When we find ourselves stressed in the process of healing, we tend to drop back to a safer mode of function which seems like taking one step forward and two steps back. I can really see this process of growth beginning quite notably in many ways for you in this chapter.
For the benefit of the reader here, this chapter follows soon after you describe the problems you encountered after bringing an older Sudanese foster son into your home through the Lutheran Social Services to live with you, your husband and your older teen daughter (and occasionally with your adult son who came home infrequently to visit). In addition to the problems you encountered related to the patriarchal culture that James (your foster son) was familiar, you also had some specific discipline issues with him. There were individuals in your church that helped with James, but you also describe how some of the people undermined your parenting with James.
You state (pp 263 – 4):
“The thought of walking through the church doors on Sunday was terrifying. What was everything thinking of me? What would they say? Would they welcome me?
…The shunning made it clear. They were blaming me for James’ departure from my home. People who did less condemned me for not having done more. I knew that out of my hearing they were demonizing, blaming and judging me. They thought I had more power than I had. They refused to see that James had some responsibility for what happened. He stole. He defied his father and me. He refused to make amends. I was being held accountable for things that were beyond my control. I felt shamed all over again…
When I got home, I called my sister. “You’re responsible, Maggie, for the effort, not the outcome” she said.
“They’re blaming me for the outcome.” I feared there was only a place for me at Immanuel if I succeeded, or if I subjugated myself to their will.
This section jumped out at me, and I have found this type of experience to be quite a universal one for people who have endured spiritual abuse. Using Robert Lifton’s criteria for manipulative idealistic groups, this would qualify as the “Doctrine Over Person” and the “Demand for Purity” used to gain a member’s compliance. Acceptance is based upon the rules and mores of the group which are not openly, directly or objectively communicated to group followers, but they are understood by the way things like shunning both elicit and teach behaviors desired by the group through negative reinforcement or punishment. Groups often set unrealistic standards for members, “demanding their purity” though it can rarely if ever be attained. Sometimes, members do not even understand these standards, learning about them only after they violate them.
Can you tell us a bit more about how you felt at this time soon after you noticed definite changes in the way people reacted to you at church and how your sister’s encouragement affected you?
When I realized that I was once again being shunned, I felt desperate. It couldn't be happening to me again. I was grieving my loss of James and my "friends" abandoned me when I needed them most. I imagined I felt as Jesus must have felt in the Garden of Gethsemane. Would no one sit with me? My sister's words relieved a lot of the fear and I knew she was right. She eased any guilt I might have been feeling for failing with James. Her words gave me something to hold on to. I hadn't done anything wrong.
"I once heard a CIA man when talking about a former CIA agent who correctly warned about 9/11, "You need to take care of your mavericks, they may save your life one day." I realized that mavericks or people on the margins can play an important role in the family and other groups."
I believe your biochemical understanding of self injury is correct. You also correctly identify the problem of stigma. Many people assume someone who self injures is borderline personality disordered. I think therapists give that diagnosis to clients they either don't like or don't understand. They often deny the role trauma plays. It is like putting the mark of Cain on a survivor's head. Once diagnosed with borderline personality disorder very few if any therapists will work with you because they think a "borderline" is more likely to sue for malpractice. I don't think any of that is true.
I strive to accept and embrace my position in groups. The role of maverick appears to be the one God has chosen for me. Perhaps all those years of isolation and reading has given me a unique and valuable perspective. That other people are threatened by it doesn't make it wrong. However, the role of maverick can come with much pain. The guy who warned about 9/11 died in the twin towers as their head of security.
What, if any, were the similarities between this situation at the LutheranChurch and your experience at your previous churches? Did you connect anything back to your childhood? How did your previous experience affect you (feelings, anticipation, behavior, for example) as you returned to church after you arranged for James to be placed in a new home? How did the church hurt or help you through this process of grief and loss you describe so vividly in the book after James was placed elsewhere?
Hi All, I have enjoyed getting caught up with your discussion here and wanted to make a comment of my own. I realize that you have moved off of the topic of anger but that is the part of this discussion that I would like to speak about.
Fear and the feeling of injustice are often (in my experience and opinion) two of the main things that feed anger. I often refer to the verse in Ephesians 4, that Cindy typed in here, as a help for others dealing with anger. Paul was quoting Ps. 4:4 here to that not all anger is sin, but that we should deal with it in not only an appropriate manner but a timely manner as well.
We can also look at what Jesus told us, relayed by Mark, in Mark 11:25~ And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.~
It is very hard to tell a victim of any kind to forgive. Because they usually are blaming themselves rather than the abuser; that blame needs first to be placed where it belongs so that they can take it in prayer to be forgiven.
I understand very little outside the clinical definition of self injury. I have a friend that has attempted to help me to understand this better. I am going to be quiet and just read this afternoons discussion into this; so that I may learn something more of it.
I have had only two clients that have told me that they have done self harm in the distant past. I talked to them both about how to find a therapist that is experienced with this and urge both of them to return to therapy for self harm if they felt the urge to self harm again.
Dr. Jones, do you feel that was what I should have done? I am a life coach and so do not deal in therapy techniques and methods. I felt it better help them determine the best person to help them with this.
Nothing bad came of either of those situations, but what if in the future I have a client who tells me they are self-harming; should I also refer them to a therapist equipped to help them? Should I help them by helping them find the correct therapist?
As with all my dechurchings, people were quick to judge and unwilling to discuss things with me. I thought people were my friends who weren't. I failed to notice that they weren't inviting me out or into their homes. I mistook civility for friendship. I was naive. Our values were different. I wanted more from church than "some coffee and a little spirituality." Immanuel did not help me at all with my grief. In fact, they got angry with me. I don't think they thought it was real.
I didn't connect any of this with my childhood until I began writing Not of My Making. Writing the book helped me put it all together. Now I realized that my childhood left me vulnerable. Bullies go after people they perceive as weak. It also stigmatized me. A lot of people think survivors are abusers and want nothing to do with them.
Scapegoating also serves the function of uniting a group against a common enemy. In all the churches, that person was me. I was a foil. They successfully drew attention away from the real issues. In short, I was played. But it is better to be played than to be the player. At least I haven't lost my soul.
I can tell you that I am at an advantage having read the book! Dr. Jones makes reference to a book I found helpful in my recovery process (and I worked with a Social Worker who bears this name, so it is burned into my brain). It is Judith Herman's "Trauma and Recovery."
The thing that I've heard so often is the "Just get over it" comment. Get over being angry or hurt or afraid. I used to wonder why people thought I had the capability to get over certain events and chose not to do so, like their comment would make it so. If there had been a pill I could have taken, I certainly would have done so, long ago! I'd actually done many things (extended fasts and such) to make it happen. From a Pentecostal background, I also asked for "deliverance prayer" as a fix several different times.
In "Not of My Making," there is just a brief mention of what the author Judith Herman points out concerning the needs of those who have been traumatized. People don't understand that PTSD causes people to get stuck in a survival response that wont shut down. It is not rational or reasonable, but requires attention just like physical injury.
There are 3 stages of recovery:
• Establishing safety
• Reconstructing the trauma story
• Restoring the connections between survivors and community
So often, Christians expect us to be able to just go right to the last phase of reconciliation without first establishing safety. Yet we wouldn't ever dream of asking someone who was burned in a fire to go back into a burning building again, and we wouldn't expect a person who was assaulted to go back to the scene of their assault without much care.
In the last chapter of the book, Dr. Jones says that she needed the truth to be told before the healing could begin. It seems as though the truth was a safety parameter meant to protect from further harm.
The truth being told, knowing and acknowledging the truth, and understanding the roots of our wounds are some of the strongest undercurrents throughout my own work in progress. In my experience, perpetuating falsehood through denial and deception are some of the biggest stumbling blocks to healing.
Hi Cindy and thanks for the welcome! I have "Not of My Making" and I am about half way through it, I have not gotten to the parts that you are talking about yet...although I just cheated and flipped forward to see if I could find them!
I completely understand where you are coming from as I was raised in a Pentecostal family as well; but we were not as strict as most.
I to was at first confused, then angry when I was healing from past abuses, when others who did not understand would tell me to just get over it. At that time I did not know that what I was going through was probably PTSD.
I understand ALOT more about PTSD now however; because I now have it due to my military service. I am finding that the healing required now is not the same and that the same techniques are not working like they did when I was healing from Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse.
I would tend to agree with you on first glance about the truth being a safety measure. You are very correct in that we would not ask a burn victim to re-enter a burning building without safety precautions and therefore should not ask a victim of any other type of trauma to re-live that trauma either; without first having set the groundwork for the safety precautions.
Mary, a person who is cutting or hurting themselves in some way needs to see a trained therapist. Life coaching is not designed to do that. When faced with a problem you are not trained to handle the ethical thing is to refer out as you did. I would avoid referring such a person to someone who sees it as borderline behavior and is not aware of the connection to trauma.
In my book you will find a letter I wrote to my former "friends" where I say what you just said. You can't forgive someone until you clearly name what they did and put the blame on them. But I am at odds with a lot of Christians on forgiveness. I think it is a multidimensional concept that has many conflicting definitions. I never sought revenge against my antagonists but during my healing I made a conscious decision not to forgive them. That was a significant point in my recovery. My current priest who has read my book has said my former church mates were not seeking forgiveness but absolution which only God can give. I am not sure I know the difference between the two. I do know it is confusing when someone says they didn't harm you but you should forgive them for the nothing they did to you.
I hope the people here today will buy and read my book. If you send your email address to pluckpress@verizon.net, I will gladly give you a 25% off coupon.
It is amazing how intensely healing it is when people are honest with you. There are events when I look back and wish that healing had come. Sometimes the truth is told later, and there is still healing, but the collateral damage is high.
One thing I so enjoyed about "Not of My Making" was the honesty without concern about whether the response would be the right one. It just was what it was. There is something liberating in that, something we don't get to see in other types of books, even some Christian ones. Sometimes we are too worried about doing it right, so when things are written, they are sugared over a bit. This book does not do that.
Cindy, glad to be here. :) I agree with what you said about honesty, and will add to your words with, honest with ourselves. For many years I denied the truth that my pain existed in the first place, or glossed over it calling it 'the flesh' or 'hormones' or any number of things. THANK GOD for His illuminating light and healing!
Not having been in the mindset of doing this kind of thing...
How about anyone that leaves a comment and also sends me their email address here today (I'll give you till midnight per this crazy blog time which I think is Pacific and not my Eastern zone), I'll put you in raffle for a free book. So tell your bibliophile friends!
If you still have time, I hoped you might get to another matter in the book as well. (This is my first cyber visit!)
I will post it here as it will give some insight into other content in the book for people interested in the topic. If we get to it, we do, and if not, people will just have to buy the book! The question is involved, but it would also lay out the dynamics in a way that people could understand. I hope it will provoke some thoughts for people in their own situations.
People tend to objectify the players in unfortunate situations, placing them in “black and white” or “all or nothing” roles, oversimplifying often complex situations to avoid the inevitable pain of realizing that life is not always fair and that all people are fallible human beings. Most people shrink back from reckoning these things in life, choosing a host of varied ways of coping with this disappointment. In your situation, you were identified as the factor of blame for the unfortunate and disappointing outcome with James, a situation that I understand developed rather quickly from my reading of the book.
On page 404 and after enduring at the church for some time, working toward a viable solution that would bring you back into a sense of community with those you loved there, you state:
It was time to move on. There wasn’t any way I could be a full participating member of Immanuel again unless other members reached out far more than they were willing. They never considered the impact of their behavior on me. Casting me as either sick or evil, they denied their culpability. I believed I was just as deserving of acceptance as anyone else.On the next page, you note the research presented in Thompson and O’Neill’s “Best Friends, Worst Enemies” that identifies five basic types of children within schools:
• Popular
• Accepted
• Neglected
• Rejected
• Controversial
You state that
"My dechurchings made me painfully aware that these social distinctions continue beyond childhood. Over the years my place in the social strata moved between the rejected and the neglected group.The situation with James in your home, layered on top of the situation in your church, was all very complicated, creating a very interesting dynamic. You’ve said in the book that you did not have a great deal of training at that time concerning triangulation. (I have studied Murray Bowen’s work and tend to see triangles and enmeshment developing because it was the first model that I used to evaluate my own life and conflicts.) So I am curious to see how you put all of these players into perspective in terms of the social structure of Thompson and O’Neill, and how you do so now that you’ve moved through much of the pain of the whole thing. (I would say that you have moved completely through it, but I think that it would be a quite naïve statement to make. You speak quite passionately about how much you loved James and how dedicated you were to making a positive difference in his life.)
If you were the scapegoat (the rejected and neglected) in this complicated situation of adopting an older Sudanese foster son into a new culture, who were the bullies and the bystanders in this situation?
James was seen as a victim by certain individuals in your church, but that was not the opinion of all of them. I would say that within your own family system, James became a type of bully as well, making the whole situation more complex.
How would you classify the other main players within the situation with the church, based on this list of basic types?
What could each player have done differently, as I believe that you could have realized a much better outcome? Who do you believe could have been the most positive agent for change in this setting?
Dr. Jones, thank you for your comment about referring people out and what to look for when doing so. I had not heard of the borderline personality disorder problem before and so now know more of what to look for.
I have referred clients to trained professionals for several things that as a life coach I am not trained to handle! I know many who do not, having also study psychology and having had to leave my schooling just short of completion I understand all to well what my trying to muddle my way through something could do to a person. My intent is not to make matters worse; but only to help those that are ready to learn to live more healthy and happy.
I have not gotten to the letter in your book that you are referring to; I think I am almost there!
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
And, again thank you for writing this book that I know will help many.
Unfortunately, I never could quite figure out who was the bully and who were the bystanders. Some of the people were clearly bystanders. But who were the main culprits? What I tell people was I got run over by the bus, I have an idea who was on the bus but I am uncertain who was driving. Was Rev. Karen the driver or was Ruth? Beverly was probably a bully helper.
Ruth was definitely popular. All the other members of the chimes choir were accepted. Colleen was also part of the in crowd. It would be interesting to run the same experiment they did with kids with congregations and see what turns up, wouldn't it? I think this is an under researched area mostly do to psychologists lack of interest in religion.
I have to cook dinner now and go food shopping but I will check back for comments and try to respond where time permits. And don't forget to order the book. Everyone that participated is entitled to a 25% off coupon. I just need an email address so I know where to send it to. I will even give you free shipping. You guys have been great.
Thanks so much for this discussion! It is very interesting.
I totally agree that talking to someone who really cares is a good way to avoid self harm. I think the key is to find a better way to deal with the pain. For me, the temptation to self harm (in my case cause bruises) came when I was feeling shame, guilt, and worthlessness. For many years, I didn't know there was anything wrong with it. But then again, I didn't know I was in pain either.
My emotions were so buried that it took me many months during my healing to match the names of emotions with the emotions themselves. I am still learning to identify how I am feeling.
Unlike most others, the only negative emotion that was safe for me to express was anger. All other negative emotions were routed through frustration, irritation, yelling, and other forms of anger.
Having people who genuinely care and understand the effect of trauma is essential to healing, in my opinion.
Cindy, in your 12:47 comment, you mentioned the need to know the truth about the trauma before being able to forgive. That is so true! In my healing, I first had to understand that what happened to me was not right. That took some adjusting to. I couldn't believe it all at once. Part of the reason for that was that nothing "bad" happened to me. My trauma was mostly necessary "good" things that didn't happen. Emotional support that was not available.
I couldn't understand how I could be in such pain (when it finally surfaced through all the walls I had been stuffing it behind, it was rather brutal) when I had never been physically or sexually abused. I had never heard of emotional or spiritual abuse.
Only after I realized what the wounds were and that they were not normal, was I able to forgive and heal.
I have appreciated this conversation. When I read Dr. Jones' book, I found myself relating to quite a bit of it. I have been through different kinds of abuses, but I believe the underlying dynamic is fairly similar across the board.
One of the things that struck me was the idea of trying to identify who were the main bullies. I like the analogy of getting hit by a bus and having a pretty good idea of who the at least most of the passengers were, yet not being totally sure about everyone or about who was driving the bus. I know that, in one situation I was in, I think there were at least two people who were tag team driving.
I really appreciated Dr. Jones contacting me to do a review of her book. It was an honor and it actually helped me sort through a bit more of some of what I have been through.
Sharon wrote: "My trauma was mostly necessary "good" things that didn't happen."
It took years for me to be at a point where I could admit this, but what you describe is neglect. That is a very insidious form of abuse because when it comes to spiritual or emotional neglect, it is not always apparent either to ourselves or to others. How can you know you miss it if you never had it? Thus the aching begins and we go CRAZY trying to figure it out. I am so glad that you have become healed.
Hugs!
I was just getting ready to respond to this and you said much of what I was going to say! ;)
Neglect is difficult, especially if you've not been in a caring environment previously. You have either no standard of comparison or a very poor one. I am often asked why people stay in a bad environment. They may not understand that it was bad. Those environments are [generally] shame-based.
I think this is something that is described in "Not of My Making" quite well, depicted in how a person is taught to see themselves as not being worth the attention, merely from the neglect in general. Every human being has God given needs, and it glorifies Him when they are met. Often people are made to feel ashamed of their needs, something very common in situations where there is enmeshment.
The bully concept sets the stage for us and puts the game pieces on the board, so to speak. How those players move is also a force.
I have all sorts of information listed under the Conformity Studies Tag that discusses the way individuals filter out in groups. The Asch Experiments show the tendency to survive (What do they know that I don't?) that works as a stressor for people in a group setting when their peers choose differently. Most people will choose the obviously wrong answers to gain social proof.
"Not Without My Making" talks about how people tend to like bullies, and they really do not like the victims in the group.
We do not spend enough of our energy teaching our kids and encouraging one another to stand up against bullies and to be what Zimbardo calls "everyday heroes." Hannah Arendt who studied philosophy and wrote an excellent book on totalitarianism, among other notable things, described what she heard reported at Nuremberg as "The Banality of Evil." The men there spoke of evil as though it was as simple a matter as taking a drink of water. It became commonplace. Zimbardo is on a campaign to encourage others to find heroism to be just as commonplace.
As I stated a little earlier, I was not sure how much time Dr. Jones could spend with us today. I hope she has some time this evening to check back in here with us.
If not, I am thankful for her participation here today and grateful for her words of wisdom. Thank you for spending time with all of us today. It's been a great pleasure and I am surprised at how quickly the time passed today!
Please feel free to keep commenting here this evening. Dr. Jones may pop back in with us.
indy, one thing about being an RA survivor is that, in RA,everyone in the group is a bully of sorts...even the ones who appear not to be. It is all about deception and subterfuge and power. In those instances, the main bully is really a spiritual one, not a human one. Well...actually...the Word teaches us that it is always really a spiritual one. We do not really fight people, but spirits.
In the human realm of abusive situations...there can often be more than one main human bully that all the others follow. However, I know of one instance where it appears that there were two main bullies...with each one using the other for her own purposes. Kind of ironic really. The abusers and users were being used, too.
Maybe it's the later hour, but what is an RA survivor?
I have Rheumatoid Arthritis on my brain!
I came from a Pentecostal environment, and there things tend to be overspiritualized in some cases. I came to a point where I realized much of what got blamed on a spirit was actually related to the the fallen nature of man. It is man that does those things when he does not trust in the Lord and when he does not die to self. Sometimes I am my own worst enemy. Though I might fail to listen to and trust the Lord, I might be just following my own human nature which will desire my own satisfaction.
In Dr. Jones case, as she says, there was one main person driving the bus with some willing helpers.
When I first started working with an exit counselor a dozen years ago, I had a hard time understanding that my abusers were also abuse victims. In a way, they were far more trapped than I ever was. They were dependent on the system at that point, and many of them were financially dependent on the system. They could not leave without going hungry or losing their homes. Dr. Jones had a conflict with her primary pastor who manipulated the system and Matthew 18 so that it protected her (the pastor) and not Dr. Jones. In larger groups, the system also presses and manipulates the leadership. They become victims too.
It is ironic.
(Thanks for your input, too!)
May 4, 2009 8:05 PM
THANKS EVERYBODY!
I'm turning off comments and going to bed!
26May09 Addendum comment submitted via email:
RA means Ritual Abuse. It is an abuse that is both physical and spiritual in nature. I do hear you about things being overspiritualized. However...this is what I look at.
First...we ARE in a spiritual battle. That is why we were given spiritual armor and why we are told to use it. That is why he is described as a roaring lion going about seeking whom he may devour.
Is that supposed to scare us? I don't think so. I think it is like using chemicals. We need to have a healthy respect for them...not fear them. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. Cowering fear? No...a healthy respect kind of fear that comes from knowing who He is and how sinful we really are.
I also see it being a humility on our parts as we recognize that everything we have and everything we are is a result of His blessing upon us...a blessing we do not really deserve. Ahhhh...what mercy! Ahhhh...what grace!
Second, Yeshua said that we are either for Him or against Him. There is no middle ground. Our father is either His Abba...or the evil one...the father of lies. No middle ground.
When we are not living in accordance to His ways...serving Him...we are, by default, serving the adversary. Our selfishness and self-serving ways feed into the adversary's plans...not our Lord's plans.
Ever since the beginning the adversary has been trying to mess up Yahweh's plan. He has not given up. Granted...he doesn't have to do a whole lot. I mean, after all, in our humanness and sinfulness we do enough on our own. However, he and his henchmen do get in there and stir the pot at times.
I don't think that every evil thing that happens is caused by a demon. Nope. It says that the human heart is wicked! But I do see there being a spiritual side to all things...both good and evil. We are spiritual beings. If we do not worship our true Creator, we will fashion something else to worship. You see it all the time. Every tribe...every people group...has some kind of god. Even the atheists have their god...themselves!
Regarding what happened to Dr. Jones...yes, people had the attitudes and took actions based upon those attitudes. They certainly were not serving Yeshua when they did it. So, who were they serving...whether they realized it or not? The adversary. Did the adversary make them do those things. No! But I'll bet he (or his cohorts) whispered a few things into those people's ears...a few lies here and there...playing on the weaknesses he could easily see were there. Remember that, unless we are true followers of Yeshua, we don't have the Holy Spirit. I have to wonder how many of the people who caused her grief were not true followers and how many may have been but they were deceived and vulnerable.
We tend to make two opposite mistakes as believers. We either blame everything on the adversary and ignore our own sinfulness and culpability. Or, we think the adversary is either nonexistent or harmless. Both are dangerous positions to be in.
We need to be always aware of our own potential for sinning and also aware of our spiritual adversary. We also need to be aware of who we are in Yeshua and of the authority given to us along with His Spirit!
I have appreciated reading the comments on this blog post. Thank you for including me.
Concerning Things Cultic within Biblical Christianity
Spiritual abuse describes the process by which a spiritual authority misuses their power and the trust of their flock in order to meet their own needs or the needs of an organization or ideology. Many churches with sound and solid Biblical doctrine can be considered "cultic" when they practice techniques of manipulation and thought reform. Please read here concerning the many different aspects of this type of manipulation and spiritual abuse including development, practice and recovery from the phenomenon. Link HERE to UnderMuchGrace.com for additional information and other details.
Analysis of Scriptures Concerning Spiritual Abuse
Per Dr. Paul Martin of Wellspring, of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
99 verses(47%)concernBehavior
66 verses (31%)concern Fruit
24 verses (12%) concern Motive
21 verses (*ONLY 10%*)concernDoctrine
More About Spiritual Abuse
Click on a button below to learn more
A New Book and Blog About PATRIOCENTRICITY
My Favorite Titles on Spiritual Abuse
Also, see other book and film lists on this sidebar that aid and support one's recovery from the far reaching effects of spiritual abuse. For suggestions about how to prioritize, refer to this suggested list.
Link to Additional Essential Reading on Spiritual Abuse
Perfectionistic Blessings come through performance and noncompliance is punished.
Unbalanced Abusive religions must distinguish themselves from all other religions so they can claim to be distinctive and therefore special to God
List of Lifton's Techniques
Milieu Control -- The control of information and communication, and generation of propaganda
Mystical Manipulation -- The manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated
Demand for Purity -- The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection
Cult of Confession -- Sins, flaws and shortcomings (as defined by the group) are to be confessed to the group
Sacred Science -- The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute
Loading the Language -- The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand
Doctrine Over Person -- The member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group
Dispensing of Existence -- The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not
Social Proof A person tends to view behavior as more correct in a given context (to the degree that one sees others performing it)
Liking People prefer to say "yes" to those they know and like
Authority People naturally respond to authority with compliance
Scarcity People assign more value to opportunities when they are less available—if there are fewer resources and less time to get them, we want it more
More About Aberrant Christianity
~ Click a button below to link to more information about specific ABERRANT groups, individuals and topics within Evangelical Christianity ~
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International's 2006 Resolution Against the Family Integrated Church
* It encourages schism in the local church bodies by encouraging its adherents to change the theology and philosophy of the churches of which they are members.
* It does violence to local church authority, calling on local church members to leave their churches when the church does not bow to the philosophical demands of the movement.
* It espouses an ecclesiology based upon the family that is not based upon the New Testament but rather is an adaptation of Old Testament (Blog host note: ? or pagan Roman ?!) patriarchy.
* It falsely lays the claim that the destruction of the family in the U.S. is solely the fault of age-graded ministries in local churches. We contend that this is a simplistic and therefore false accusation.
* It espouses a postmillennial theology that is contradictory to a dispensational understanding of Scripture.
* It is oddly inclusive, basing fellowship on a particular philosophy of ministry rather than on the great fundamentals of the faith.
Dealing with Forgiveness and Disappointment ~~ Healing Our Relationships
** Frequently used propaganda techniques in Spiritually Abusive groups
Ad Hominem - Attack your opponent's person rather than the argument itself. Literally "against the man"
Ad Hominem Abusive (Sub category of Ad Hominem) - An attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against their position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend the self, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial (Subcategory of Ad Hominem) -A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance.
Appeal to Authority - Citing authorities or respected figures to support an argument or to discredit or negate an argument made by an opponent. This effectively thwarts the debate and the argument.
Appeal to Fear** - Fear is used to destabilize people so that they will be more likely to do or believe something that they would not otherwise choose under normal circumstances
Appeal to Force** (Argumentum ad Baculum) - Use of force and threats of force to "win" a debate. (baculum is a walking stick)
Appeal to Ignorance (also Argument from Silence) -An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
Appeal to Prejudice** - Using emotive terms and connotation to attach moral benefit or goodness to the argument. Attach the modifier "Biblical" to that which should not be questioned. "Cleanliness is next to godliness." It can also be used negatively. "The opinions and unrelated beliefs of a non-Christian cannot really be trusted, even regarding matters that do not relate to morality or Scripture."
Argumentum Ad Nauseum - An idea is repeated relentlessly until it is accepted. Especially effective when there is a great deal of milieu control.
Argumentum Ad Populum - (also called the "bandwagon" and "inevitable victory") Persuasion based on social proof
Big Lie - Create a message that is so complex but contains enough truthful elements so that people will not identify all the fictitious and fallacious elements. By the time it is recognized, many of the ideas are a part of the fabric of the debate and widely accepted.
Black-and-White Fallacy** (also called the Either-Or Fallacy or False Dilemma) - Presents information so that there are only two possible choices, one of which is far more appealing than the other. Obsures the difference between that which is contrary vs contradictory.
Common Man - Taking on of the characteristics of the target audience to make the message more palatable
Demonizing the Enemy** - Dehumanize the enemy and remove elements of commonality so that the target is easily dismissed, worthless, and of "non-person" status
Direct Order - Simplification of the decision making process so that followers will respond to very simple commands without question or need for additional problem solving
Euphoria - Use of emotionally charged and euphoria producing events to perpetuate good feelings and utopian ideals
Flag-waving - Capitalizing on patriotic sentiments to further one's agenda.
Glittering Generality - The use of positive connotation and vague statements to present an argument as very desirable without evidence to support glittering claims
Intentional Vagueness** (also "Fuzzy Logic") - Conclusions are not directly stated and the message may be intentionally vague so that individuals may draw their own conclusions, and the speaker does not have to be held directly accountable for the ideas. This works well in concert with other propaganda techniques.
Oversimplification (also "Fallacy of the Simple Cause") - Very complex processes are described with trite explanations that do not provide a faithful perspective for the target audience. Trite explanations are used to reduce rationales into faulty causalities.
Quoting Out of Context (type of "Straw Man" argument) - Selected quotes are extracted from a passage so that without the full context of the passage, the meaning is greatly distorted.
Rationalization** - Positive and unrelated aspects of something are offered as evidence for an argument's validity. "But they can't teach wrong doctrine because they have a lovely family"
Red Herring - (large category of several fallacies) Irrelevant but compelling aspects of an argument are offered as a distraction from the core issues in order to derail the debate.
Redefinition** - Assigning new meaning to an old term, but this is a logical boobytrap because of the ease of equivocation and confusing meanings. "He who defines, wins."
Reductio ad Hitlerum (type of Red Herring - see also Transference) - Suggestion that a popular idea is associated with something deplorable, hateful and unthinkable so that people will react and reject the argument or source of information based on the association.
Repetition - A rhetorical or literary device that is lyrical and gets stuck in one's mind like an advertising jingle. It is akin to argumentum ad nauseum, but also has literary quality.
Scapegoating** - A single cause or element is identified and vilified as the source of all undesirable circumstances or outcomes. The scapegoat distracts the audience from other possible contributing factors.
Slogans - Short phrases or motto used to make emotional appeals and support ideas. Slogans become "thought stopping" techniques quickly and become communication shortcuts that suspend critical thought.
Steriotyping (also "Name Calling" or "Labeling") - Reduces people, events, practices or ideas to capitalize on prejudice to evoke fear or distain.
Straw Man** - The Prince of All Fallacies (Subtype of "Red Herring") - Attempt to refute an opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by the opponent. Argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" the arguer has set up, but misses the target. A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples.
Testimonial - Reports or testimony from trusted sources are offered, out of context, in support of or for vilification of an idea, person, etc.
Transference** - Projection of either positive or negative qualities to something or someone in order to connote qualities that may or may not be related. It capitalizes on emotional response and is related to "Guilt by Association" and "Reductio ad Hitlerum"
Unstated Assumption** - Beliefs are implied or stated indirectly because a direct statement would seem less credible. "Women's suffrage is outside the prescriptive will of God and Kingdom Architecture." As a woman and a voter, you now have been told that you are acting outside the will of God and willingly disobedient. Any Christian understands that willful disobedience of God and the Scriptures is sin. The speaker can imply that they have not accused anyone of sinning, skirting accountability; however their inference that voting for women is a sin is understood.
Healing the Mind After Disappointment and Trauma
Thurman and Amen, both Christians, present helps to right thinking, what the psychologist calls "cognitive behavioral therapy" and what the Christian calls "spiritual warfare" and "bringing every thought captive."
Another List of Techniques Used to Change Your Mind
