Saturday, December 31, 2011

Pearl's (Pre-Recorded) Segment on NBC's Today Show

The segment that Micheal Pearl noted on the NGJ website finally aired on NBC's Today Show on December 28th.

I find it interesting that the segment notes a more conservative estimate of book sales (700K), closer to the older citation of 650, 000 copies of To Train Up a Child that appeared on Pearl's site prior to Lydia Schatz' death.  In recent months, Pearl and other media outlets have cited a sale figure of 1 million copies, and some have informally claimed that the book's circulation exceeds 1 million.  It's difficult to keep up with Pearl's statistics in interviews, because he shifts in and out of citing statistics concerning numbers of American parents who accept spanking in general and not just those who are limited to following his specific methods.  I've heard him claim that 2 million parents follow his methods, then he sites greater numbers that seem to pertain to spanking alone.  He uses this ambiguity to his advantage to inflate the support for his techniques.

Even the Pearl supporters who appeared on the Anderson Show admitted that they do not follow Pearl's techniques without qualification by declining the use of the recommended plumbing line.  I've known many other parents (here's an example) who expressed discomfort over the use of plumbing line but followed the directives about continuing corporal punishment until the child manifests what the parent understands as a "broken" state.

Thanks to this site for offering a near-transcript of the pertinent elements of the Pearl segment on the show (and hat tip to Linda for the info).

 


Hermana Linda at Why Not Train A Child? pointed out that an  LA Times article that coincided with the Today Show segment implied that the Pearl supporter who used to offer a free online copy of the text of the book has removed it because of a change of opinion about the book.  I agree with Hermana Linda that the host of that site expresses a questionable rationale for pulling the book, or at least one that is not exactly limited to the terms that the LA Times article suggested.  It seems that the Christian Home blogger expressed just as much concern that critics will only use the copy advance their opposition to the Pearls and their methods, though she also claims that she deleted the text because she did not give the book an unqualified and blanket endorsement.  It does not appear that she disavowed it.  She doesn't want critics to enjoy easy access to the book, wrongly mistaking confirmation bias of critics for distortion of the book's context.  Providing the text eliminates the concerns about context.

Readers at Why Not Train a Child? astutely pointed out that the full text of the book can still be found online on the Internet Archive and on a mirror page posted by a critic of Pearl's Method that Linda's post also mentions.



Saturday, December 24, 2011

Thoughts on Christmas Eve: Michael Pearl vs Joseph and Mary

Some time ago, I pulled some material from Alice Miller's The Truth Will Set You Free to post on Overcoming Botkin Syndrome which speaks specifically to the problem of family dysfunction within patriarchy. Today, Christmas Eve, I'd like to draw from my blog post there to consider a stark contrast to Michael Pearl's approach and to introduce some new material concerning him. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in the subject of Pearl read Miller's book For Your Own Good as well as the aforementioned work.  You can read more excerpts as they apply to patriocentricity HERE.

Miller wrote about the “poisonous pedagogy” or the “black pedagogy” as it translates from German, a term which describes oppressive practices that people use when raising children.  She defines this term as the kind of parenting and education aimed at breaking a child’s will and making that child into an obedient subject by means of overt or cover coercion, manipulation, and emotional blackmail” (from the preface). . .

This section appears in The Truth Will Set You Free in the epilogue entitled “From Ignorance To Knowledge and Compassion.”  (In my edition, this section appears starting on page 190 and concludes with a section appearing on page 195.)  The book speaks of “generational faithfulness” as old patterns of dysfunction, of how parents unknowingly use their children to medicate their old pains of the past.  The whole chapter speaks respectfully of the Bible, but it draws into question the traditions of men (emphasis mine).

The figure of Jesus confounds all those principles of poisonous pedagogy…  Long before his birth Jesus received the greatest reverence, love and protection from his parents…  His earthly parents saw themselves as his servants… Would it not make eminent sense to encourage believers to follow the example of Mary and Joseph and regard their children as the children of God (which in a sense they are)?

[T]he members of the upcoming generations will have the courage to call evil by its name…It is high time to relinquish the destructive models and to mistrust the principle of obedience.  [Please read more about the culture of blind obedience versus the culture of virtue HERE.] We have no need of docile children brainwashed by their upbringing to be ideal targets of seduction by terrorists and lunatic ideologists, ready to fall in with their commands even to the extent of killing others.  Children given the respect they deserve from their earliest years will go through life with open eyes and ears, prepared to fight injustice, stupidity, and ignorance with arguments and constructive action.  Jesus did this at the age of twelve, and the scene in the temple (Luke 2:41-52) demonstrates eloquently that, if need be, he could refuse the obedience his parents asked of him without hurting their feelings.

With the best will in the world we cannot truly emulate the example of Jesus.  None of us were carried by our mothers as the child of God; indeed, for far too many parents, children are merely a burden.  What we can do, provided we really want to, is learn from the attitude displayed by Joseph and Mary.  They did not demand docility from their son, and they felt no urge to inflict violence on him.  Only if we fear the confrontation with our own histories will we need to have power over others and cling to it with all our might.  And if we do that it is because we feel too weak to be true to ourselves and our own feelings.  But being honest to our children will make us strong.  In order to tell the truth we do not need to have power over others.  Power is something we only need in order to spread lies and hypocrisy, to mouth empty words and pretend they are true.



Now, on to the stark contrast offered by Michael Pearl.


Please be forewarned that the individual who introduces this specifically edited material from Pearl has selected items that will portray him in the worst possible light, and he uses a term of vulgarity in his introduction of the video clips of Michael Pearl – clips that No Greater Joy would rather you not see unless you are one of their true believers. Though not in complete context and despite the offensive language in the introduction, I believe that it demonstrates the callousness that Pearl brings to the discussion. Pearl's material is offensive, so I don't know that it's entirely out of place.

I encourage the reader here to go directly to YouTube to save a copy of this video, because Pearl has already attempted to censor the material. In this clip, the offensive language falls at 42 seconds into the video, and the introduction concludes at time mark 1:17.

If the video doesn't automatically display, link to it HERE while it is still available.


Regarding the clip, The Why Not Train a Child? website transcribes from the clip and poses these questions:

If he screams too hard with the first 5… gets hysterical… Wait… You know, a little psychological terror sometime will affect even the pain.” Said while waiving a switch over the rag doll’s behind. He couldn’t possibly be advocating using psychological terror on your child, could he?


Thumping them on the head? You’re worried about that??? [turns to wife] Give me another question.” I’m trying to figure out how this quote was used in a Biblical context and falling short. I’m sure that someone will have an answer for me.


If your husband is an angry man, make love to him, make him happy.” This seems to be the advice given to a wife who asks how to deal with a husband who only disciplines in anger. It would seem that he is saying that his anger is his wife’s fault because she is not giving him enough sex. But I must be misunderstanding, because that does not sound Biblical to me.

[switching rag doll] “So I give them 5 more, so now get up” [makes doll sit, it's showing a frown] “Still got a bad attitude” [whack whack whack] “Get up” [checks again, still frowning] “I’m going to say, ‘You’re still crying… I’m going to give you something to cry about.” This sounds like he’s saying to keep on switching the child until he stops crying. I’m sure he must say at some point when to stop switching because they are making it look like this could go on for a long time. And why would a man of God teach parents that they should punish a child until he pretends to be happy? For the child to force himself to smile and pretend to be happy means that the child must pretend be something he is not, the very definition of hypocrisy. Surely he is not advocating forcing a child to sin! Our Lord, Jesus Christ, reserved His harshest condemnation for hypocrites.

I am trying very hard not to judge unfairly. This video comes from a secular source and was clearly edited to cast Mr. Pearl in a negative light. My purpose here is to provide arguments to counter his teachings, not to slander him. This is clearly a hatchet job, I need to know what his arguments really are in order to counter them. For that reason I linked to the video (removed by NGJ by Copyright Claim)  so that someone can explain this to me.

The source of this video offers other clips concerning Pearl's material, and I've been hesitant to present them here because of the offensive language. Today I offer them.

On this day of celebration of the Advent of the Messiah, I challenge people to consider that Joseph and Mary offer us a far better example of how to raise a child with respect as opposed to trying to dominate them into docility. How do we celebrate Jesus on days that are not holidays? How do we live out the love and honor of our faith, and how do we model that and teach that to our children? I'd much rather look to Joseph and Mary, just as Alice Miller poses the challenge.

~~~~~

Concerning the discussion of the Schatz Family on AC 360, The Mudbrooker offers this critique. Note that the critic uses an expletive at time mark 5:32 and 10:27.

Link directly to it HERE if it doesn't display automatically.



Please file this away and enjoy the spirit of the day, but I hope that you would think about the parenting style of Joseph and Mary.





Monday, December 19, 2011

Celebrating Christmas: Understanding the Criticism of “Pagan Christmas” as an Example of the Tactics of Spiritual Abuse



A few weeks ago, I received a letter from someone who had questions about some comments made at his new church. He questioned whether the church taught an abusive version of a chain of command gender hierarchy because of some of the language they used or whether they'd just borrowed a common buzz term from another group. There are no easy answers to such questions, as nothing is a litmus test. A person must become familiar with the problems of spiritual abuse and then evaluate whether the group in question follows those dynamics.

In that discussion which I may end up posting here online, the subject of Christmas Trees popped into my mind. Nineteen years ago, this was a hot topic at the time we were being inducted and love bombed into our cultic church. I wish I understood then what I do now, and the subject of Christmas Trees could have been a warning to us. But isn't that the plight of the young, and those benefits of wisdom that we just have to learn the hard way sometimes?

Within a month or so of a move from half way across the country and into an unfamiliar area, we started attending a new church and found a new great ease making friends. We tend toward introversion, but it appeared that we'd finally found a place that we fit into quite well, as though we found the right match in a “church for us.” We did go out of our way to meet new people and to establish new relationships, as we'd moved away from jobs that demanded the grand chunk of our time, both because of workload and shift work. Everything seemed spontaneous, but in hindsight, we understand now that we were being groomed and manipulated. (The best of skilled manipulators and expert “love bomb systems” create the illusion of spontaneity, and you generally don't realize that you've been taken in until after you've experienced some degree of loss or harm.)

We jumped into the group in the Spring of '93, and we started making friends at the time, significant because of the time of year. We had friends over for dinner and started striking up all kinds of conversations along the way in the Spring. We found it odd when a few people asked us whether we displayed a Christmas Tree. We did not realize that we had been targeted to take over a small, mid-week cell group, and I could understand if that elder at the church who chose us had asked us if displayed a Christmas Tree as a part of their evaluation of us. This elder's wife may have asked us, but if so, she did after we'd been fairly desensitized to the question popping up in May (as opposed to November when one plans to put up a tree). I believe that the elder did not ask us specifically until months later, because I recall being so shocked at his very strong and negative opinion on the subject which I would have definitely seen as a red flag at the time when we were just settling in to church life.

Initially, my husband and I speculated about why the subject of Christmas Trees in May might be relevant or why people would ask about it at all. Don't all Christians put up Christmas Trees as one of many ways Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus? We had several photos and paintings from my husband's home town of Bethlehem, PA round about our house, the “Christmas City USA” that Count Zinzendorf sent Moravian missionaries out from Moravia (Bohemia/Austria/Czech region) to establish. My husband and I took a sense of pride in our many connections to the Moravians who were birthed by Jan Hus (or Jon Hus as the name is sometimes noted), a protestant who significantly pre-dated the Reformation and was martyred in 1415 for rejecting problematic doctrines and abuses within Catholicism. Count Zinzendorf was a nobleman, musician, and terribly interesting character in the 18th Century who had been significantly by the writings of Hus, and he helped to fund the very first large scale Protestant missionary effort


As something religious that makes us unique, we considered that perhaps the Bethlehem and notably Christmas element such as the Moravian Stars and such hanging about in our home put the idea of Christmas in people's minds. (The Moravian missionaries used elements of Christmas celebrations as talking points to introduce the Gospel, even predating the Moravian tradition of the glass star lamps.) This explanation seemed plausible when we were asked about a photo of Central Moravian's bell tower or why we had stars and beeswax candles sitting about about, but it seemed less plausible when people broached the topic away from our home. We figured that it was a regional thing – perhaps people in Maryland had a thing with Christmas Trees? Either way, it didn't quite make sense to us and seemed increasingly less strange, assuming that it has been an issue of discussion among people in that homegroup with a story behind it that was not worth asking about. We were very happy and we didn't see any reason to investigate any further. We were not suspicious and we had a great need to be a part of the community after moving and after our work schedules has limited our ability to get more involved at a church at our previous home.

Now that I've had the opportunity to revisit the Moravian joy of celebrating Christmas, what can be learned from this Christmas Tree example and why did it pop into my mind as I wrote to this gentleman a few weeks ago?

I believe that the provocative nature of Christmas Trees at our church could have been a sign of the legalism within the church and how the church preferred uniformity (over unity within diversity). When we were being wooed and groomed in those first months at our new church which would eventually seem as cultic as any group of Moonies to us at the end of our experience there, the leaders and even the well-trained members don't want to introduce controversy during that process. These types of churches are not interested in providing full disclosure to ensure a good fit for prospective members, giving them informed consent about the church. They're interested in promoting a sparkling and idealized view of the church, so the true elements about the Christmas Tree controversy came through, but not notably. If we had believed that Christians used such tactics to recruit and retain members, we would have approached the odd and seemingly benign discussion differently. But we didn't suspect anything, and more importantly, we didn't want to suspect anything. We had a need to believe that this church was everything we'd ever hoped for in a church, so we let confirmation bias distract us.

I should also note that in addition to the grooming process and love bombing that manipulative religions use to facilitate members' identification with the group and its members, many of these groups often cycle through periods of being more and less controlling, very much like the cycle of abuse that occurs between individuals. These systems are effective, but they are not perfect. These churches need to respond to crises to control damage and doctrine, and to maintain their authority over members. They also need to keep people comfortable enough within the group so that they remain in the group after unpleasant experiences that effect the community.

Following crises, be they crises that affect the church or those that only affect leadership, such manipulative churches will cycle through periods when the leaders present a more laissez faire attitude and level of control. But as in many abusive relationships that operate under passive aggressive rules instead of through healthy communication and mutual respect, eventually tension will build, and leaders will shift back into more controlling behavior. In our personal perfect storm of involvement with this cultic evangelical church with the Christmas Tree issue, we entered into the system shortly after a large scandal when an elder left the church against the wishes of the other leaders and the pastor. We came in at the least abusive phase in the cycle of the life of this church, so our first impressions of it were quite different than if we happened to first visit there when the leaders were preaching against “independent spirits” and pounding fists on the podium during Sunday morning sermons.

In retrospect and after much study about the dynamics of manipulative religious groups, I see those early questions from rank and file members of the group as a cue to how the church taught Christian liberty and how they offered liberty to members. It told a story of the issues with dogma and control within the congregation and how it affected everyone in the congregation (when it later proved to be a hobby horse for some leaders in the group and not a primary issue for the whole church). The strong opinion of the elder with whom we had close contact initially concerning the celebration of Christmas would later put the questions of concern about Christmas into perspective for us, but we were not as sensitive to the odd nature of those questions as we could have been when it first came up as a matter of concern. We could have been more sensitive to that gut feeling that something was wrong. Rather than assuming that we were being too critical, we could have paid attention to our feelings and honored them by not completely dismissing them. Though I'm glad that the history can now be an object lesson in how to pick up on how liberty and manipulation work within a church, I wish that both my husband and I had not assumed that we were looking at the situation in the wrong way. I wish we had maintained more of a mindfulness of that dynamic as an example of how problems were handled in the church instead of dismissing it as an issue of a new culture.

I learned at our ladies Christmas meeting that year that the church displayed the very first Christmas Tree in the building for the first time in many years, and I chose to see it at that time that the church worked through a matter of concern for them and came to a conclusion that was healthy (because it was consistent with my preferences). If the elders had decided that Christmas Trees and other German Moravian traditions that we loved were verboten, I would have interpreted the matter as a sign of legalism. The truth is that the church suffered serious problems with legalism, but as luck would have it, that particular decision at that time fell in well with my own comfort zone. After more experience with that group, many other decisions would be made that were not consistent with my own preferences or my comfort, and worse, many were inconsistent with my convictions about what the Bible teaches.

If you find yourself in a group or a church where things just seem a little odd, I encourage you to pay attention to that feeling. Don't make premature assumptions about what is happening, especially if you have a vested interest in ignoring those little checks and lack of ease because you really like the other elements, characteristics, and benefits of the group. Use them to remind yourself that nothing in this life is truly ideal, even though that some places and systems will be a better for you than others. Use them as cues to pay greater attention to just take in information as opposed to a cause to dismiss information. You don't have to make a rash decision. Self awareness and paying attention to that feeling that something seems a bit odd or off center does not demand an attitude of cynicism or a response. Just take in that which seems inconsistent and keep it instead of throwing it away. This is one of God's gifts and a function of discernment, and from place of good and wise discernment, you can use this kind of information to make wiser choices.

Another consideration in terms of spiritual abuse concerns how peripheral doctrines can invade and distract your church leaders from the central elements of the faith and the gospel. One of the elements or criteria of spiritual abuse as David Henke defined it concerns a focus on doctrines or practices that eventually become more important than the Gospel message and the central elements and practice of Christianity. Spiritual abusive groups strive to prove that they are different and better than all other Christians, and they use hobby horse issues like Christmas traditions (or protest of them) to prove to others and themselves that they are special to God. No one is as seriously committed to God as we are, and you can tell because we are so committed that we oppose Christmas. This is quite a bit different than speaking out about postmodern commercialization of a holy day in the liturgical year, or even that the liturgy might be a tradition of men. Those discussions point out that the affection of our heart should be fixed on Jesus and not outward things. These hobby horse doctrines concerning pious abstinence from or vehement denouncement of the traditions practiced by committed evangelical Christians focus not only capitalize on fear, shame, and condemnation, they are designed to make a sensational statement to others to prove that the religious group is special and better than all of the others.

At this time of year, perhaps the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in how Christians celebrate Advent can give you some clues about how your church or your leaders respond. I tend to be less influenced by what people think about my traditions and whether they measure up to expectations of preference and whether they honor God and bring glory to Jesus. Christmas may have been set in December because of some pagan festival or the evil “Catholic” calendar , but I am quite reluctant to let any of that rob me of the celebration of Christmas. I know it as home, history, and as a tool of evangelism which great men and women used to share the message of God's love and grace in the town where I was born. I encourage you to follow your own convictions, but I challenge you to consider whether they are your own convictions and not just something you've assumed or taken for granted. I choose to embrace the liberty afforded us in Christ to see Christmas as a cause for celebration, and if Christmas did have some pagan origin, the Moravians, Zinzendorf, and Hus have certainly redeemed it for Christ and for me.

Embrace and enjoy liberty this season, and may yours be blessed.


The traditional "Putz" (the Nativity display) at Central Moravian Church, Bethlehem, PA





.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Another Church Advocates an Aggressive Discipline Program for Children? A 15 Year Old Beaten with Metal Rod

Arrested for Abusing 15 year old

On December 11, Orange County Register reported the beating of a 15 year old for the sin of carrying a cigarette lighter and was presumed to be lying about smoking. The father of the boy apparently gave permission to a leader in the church bring the boy their Irvine home in order tto beat his son repeatedly in the back of his legs with a metal pole which was reported to be 1 inch thick.

Police arrested the 39 year old man who worked for a Lutheran Church in La Habra, California, an individual in the church which this source states is employed by church members to deliver aggressive discipline to their children.

Though not confirmed, the congregation is believed to be an ELCA Congregation (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). The ELCA is generally known to be a more liberal Lutheran denomination. 

The LCMS (the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) accepts the Danvers Statement, a doctrinal statement about gender that emphasizes submission that is often used by individual churches to justify the abuse of women, but the ELCA opposes this position on gender.   (I rather expected to learn that the church in question was an LCMS congregation and is therefore given to an overemphasis on authority and hierarchy, so I am surprised to learn that the congregation is affiliated with the ELCA.)

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Merging Justification and Sanctification: More About Gothard's Thanksgiving Letter and Concerns About Grace

Note:  A few hours after posting this original version, I realized that I'd published a rougher draft when I sought to correct formatting issues).  Minor grammatical edits added to update to the final draft at 8:15AM.

In a recent post, I discussed the letter that Bill Gothard recently sent out to his Advanced Training Institute alumni wherein he defended his aberrant definition of grace as something that a believer needs to merit after their initial experience of salvation by faith.   (There was so much to say, I couldn't do it all in a single post.)  The error might seem like a rather simple one, and it's ramifications might seem quite limited. They actually turn Protestantism right back around into something that is strikingly similar to Roman Catholicism wherein performance of good works keep a person from damning themselves to hell.

To get technical, Bill Gothards views are heavily influenced by what theology geeks know as “pelagianism” or a variant thereof, a philosophical aspect of theology that maintains that a person has the power within themselves to “pull themselves up by their own boot straps.” I recently found Ron Henzel's notes about his research into Gothard's work in graduate school at Wheaton which demonstrates his admiration not only for pelagian Charles Finney but also the influence of the Keswick/Higher Life Movement and Shepherding/Discipleship Movement gurus like Watchman Nee.

Whereas the New Testament points out repeatedly that God works in the heart and soul of a person to change them through the power of the Holy Spirit which comes by grace (God's willingness to forgive us) through faith (when we repent of our sins and put our trust in God as the One who “pulls us our boot straps for us”), Gothard's version pelagianism teaches that Christian growth after the initial moment of faith in Jesus comes through willpower, striving, and determination to achieve a certain level of holiness through lifestyle. In this type of pelagianism, it's rather tricky, because its advocates don't necessarily deny that the Holy Spirit also works in a person to transform them, but it teaches that Christians who fail to strive and labor through their own will and power of their own flesh and striving are not really Christians.

Growing up as a Pentecostal, I first experienced this Higher Life influence through the discussion of the gifts of the Spirit. As a new Christian, my mother read a great deal of Dwight Moody's writing (a Baptist), and that eventually lead to a discussion with me of what made us different from him (as Pentecostals). I found that many Pentecostals put more emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit themselves than they did the Gospel in many cases, and they would often also look down on those who did not practices or pursue manifestations of the Holy Spirit (if that's indeed what some of them even were). Of those who attended churches that did not speak in tongues, for example, people would often call them and their churches “dead churches” because they were said to lack the full spectrum of power and benefit that was believed to be a result of speaking in tongues.

The “dead church people” were seen as those who made it into the fold successfully in order to eventually get to heaven, but they backed away from a real commitment and all that God offered them through the gifts. This always troubled me deeply, not only because we always had lots of “Baptist books” on our bookshelves, but it also bothered me because I was taught not to judge a person by their outward characteristics or to look down on others who didn't measure up to my own preferences. This perception of a “higher life” and higher level of being as a Christian would set me up to chase after divine healing through “acts of faith and holiness” that were little more than works of my own flesh to achieve a higher level of being. We should always look forward to “higher ground” as the old hymn sings to us, but even its lyrics cry out to God to take the believer to a new place of maturity. It is not a place that we attain on our own. Was it God that works in us or is it me who must be busy about the work in order to earn the right to seize it?

In terms of theology, what Gothard effectively does is merge justification and sanctification together because of the ongoing work needed that must be initiated on the part of the Christian to get the sanctification process to progress for them. The Protestant Reformers demonstrated that justification (to be declared righteous through the Blood of Jesus which is not merited) and ongoing sanctification were related but separate processes with one proceeding after the other. In Gothardism, the focus that one is made righteous (God's work within a person) plays the minor role in the process, and following the "Christian law" gets advanced to the forefront of a person's motivation and concern. In very pragmatic terms, it is a long process of continually giving -- in order to get something in return.

Romans chapter 5 says that by Adam's offense, many died, but through the free gift of Christ, we are justified (we are made free of guilt which comes through the law and are made acceptable to God). As believers, we receive the “abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness” and will “reign in life” through Jesus (vs 17). Grace is the freely given gift of God and precedes both faith and works. The word for “reign” means “to exercise kingly power.” In verse 21, Paul writes that sin reigned in death, but for those in Christ, grace reigns through righteousness. Grace is the first part of the process which starts the cascade which God initiates and perpetuates, and our “reigning in life” (which implies power) results in good works which are an outward sign and end result of what God begins in us through the abundance of grace that he has for us. While we were yet sinners, when we inevitably sin, and where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. (Gothard should know this.)


Gothard teaches something very different, reversing this chain of events. People don't reign in life through the abundance of grace and imputed righteousness that Jesus gives us, but according to Gothard, people are supposed to reign over their own lives through self-control and determination which they should use to do good works. To Gothard, those good works somehow change how God responds to us, and then God offers us grace which gives us power for living, and presumably, more power to have more determination to do more good works.  (Note the cycle in the above diagram.) Grace abounds only when we do works of righteousness, not when we sin. It isn't God's grace that reigns in Gothard's paradigm, it's the individual who is supposed to reign over their own behavior so that they can earn grace. It is a righteousness of self through works, righteousness of self that one must work to merit God's righteousness. Scripture doesn't support this view – it derives only from Gothard's formulaic and oversimplified views which argue a maintenance of salvation through works.

When that happens, justification collapses into sanctification. You must continually earn justification. This is not only a problem with Gothard. Sonship Theology which has become popular among some Calvinists maintains that justification comes through faith but that we are also sanctified by faith as well, arguing much of the same thing concerning works and merited righteousness that Gothard does. The author of an article that is critical of Sonship Theology states that this approach to justification is “associated with pietist, quietist, Wesleyan Holiness, or Keswick thought.” (Bells and whistles went off in my brain when I read this about this other religious system because it had so much in common with Gothard.)

Not only does the Westminster Confession that Gothard cites in his letter separate forensic justification (a legal status before God which delivers us from the law of sin and death), it establishes “definitive sanctification” which refers to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, while He takes and bears away our sin (the act He already completed at Calvary). And it differentiates this “definitive sanctification” from “progressive sanctification” which is the ongoing process of making us holy as we are transformed by the renewing of our mind and conformed to the Image of Christ. Like Sonship Theology, Gothard also confuses and collapses all of these single elements into one process through his redefinition of grace.


Justification neither comprises nor is grounded on a renewal of our character or conduct, but definitive sanctification comprises, and progressive sanctification grows out of, just such a renewal. The initial renewal (“having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts”) is definitive sanctification; the ongoing renewal (“and those graces . . . stirred up, increased, and strengthened”) is progressive sanctification.
If you recall in Gothard's Thanksgiving Letter, he claims quite boldly that his version of grace is drawn from and supported by the Westminster Confession. (I still cannot wrap my mind around that one, save that it is proof of more of his style of proof texting.) Here is what Beisner points out from the Westminster Confession in his article:
Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.
Second, consider how the Standards distinguish between faith’s role in justification and its role in sanctification. Of saving faith, Confession, 14.2, says,
By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
This in no way supports Gothard's claim that the Westminster Confession teaches that grace is a type of power that man must earn through striving to perform good works. Many Christians fall into error when they fall into the problem of black and white thinking. Beisner goes on to say:
Legalists collapse sanctifying faith into justifying faith without any distinction and so talk of an “active, living, obedient” faith in relation to justification without mentioning that it is a “resting” faith. Quietists collapse justifying faith into sanctifying faith without any distinction and so talk of a “resting” faith in relation to sanctification without mentioning an “active, living, obedient” faith.
In his elitism of Fundamentalism and Higher Life, and in his errors of oversimplification, Gothard acts like the legalist who does not differentiate between the “active, living, and obedient” part of faith to deny the rest that the believer enters into through faith.   Here again is an example of Gothard's black and white thinking, an informal logical fallacy and a propaganda technique, used to demoralize and “de-Christianize” anyone who does not ascribe to his teachings, and that results in reductio ad Hitlerum. (This can also be viewed as a primitive ego defense mechanism that children tend to use to feel better about themselves by diminishing others. Paul taught that we should esteem others better than ourselves [Phil 2:3], but that is a whole other doctrine that Gothard distorts, a topic for another day.)

Gothard esteems ALL those who reject his teachings as the evil quietists who make the the polar opposite extreme of his own error: a lack of appreciation for sober, responsible and “active obedience” which results in true antinomianism (those who follow no laws or standards). He fails to acknowledge or perhaps cannot comprehend that there is a sweet place of balance between these two extremes of the legalist and the quietist (a person who follows a type of passive, meditative mysticism that dismisses personal responsibility).

In closing, Beisner states that,
If we conflate these two aspects of faith in either direction, we risk becoming either legalists on the one hand or quietists on the other. The former is deadly, equating with the false gospel of Romanism. The latter is debilitating, leading to practical antinomianism and long-term immaturity in the Christian life. But recognizing and preserving the distinction enables us to rest completely in the saving work of Christ at the same time that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).


Thanks to Paul Dohse at Paul's Passing Thoughts and for the work he's done to expose the errors of the “New Calvinists,” a subject I hope to discuss here in days to come. I found Beisner's great journal article on Paul's website when reading about how many new and very popular Calvinists actually fall right into this same error that Gothard does.




Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Consecutive Clips of the Entire Anderson (Cooper) Show Featuring Michael Pearl on December 2, 2011



Hermana Linda posted video clips uploaded by VHSScott on her Why Not Train a Child? Website. Thanks to them both.

(I'd like to take the opportunity to say again that I love Mike Ramsey, the Butte County, DA.)











Please link here to read the entire series on the archive.
Also of interest:

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

The “Do Right BJU” Protestors: Bob Jones University's Own New Tank Men of Tiananman Square

The average young college student today will not be old enough to recall the events of June 1989 and the iconic photo that appeared in the media all over the world. The death of a Chinese government official, Hu Yaobang, who promoted free speech, freedom of the press, and free market trade sparked mass sessions of mourning in the streets and an eventual meeting of students to object to the government's lack of esteem for the work he had done. Students (100,000 of them) began to gather regularly in Tianaman Square for months after the first gathering in April for Hu's memorial service.

China declared martial law quite quickly, but little was done until June 3rd when tanks rolled into Tiananman Square, opening fire as they progressed to clear the path through the protestors and bystanders, thus ushering in a violent government crackdown throughout the city. As a column of tanks rolled through on June 5th, they started to break formation, what many people saw as a flagrant act of arrogance, mocking the people and their powerlessness. Suddenly, an unknown man took it upon himself to bravely walk out in front of the tank that lead the column, stood in front of it, and even crawled up on it and banged on the hatch. A single man stood alone in front of the Chinese Army, and for a few moments, stopped its progress while the world held its breath. The tank tried to turn to avoid him and did not open fire. Men from the curb of the street stepped in to usher the young man away quickly, and some unverified sources reported that he was executed publicly in the many executions that were aired on Chinese television over the next weeks that followed.

The momentary, bold act of courage shown by this one unknown man changed both China and the world. His act inspired the people of China from all walks of life to step forward to call for acceptance of the principles of basic freedom. The image of the lone man was later said to have inspired those who participated in the dismantling of the Soviet Union. (“If Tank Man could stand up to those Chinese tanks in Tiananman Square, I can stand up to endure my opposition.”) As a direct result of this one man's example, free trade and capitalism widely expanded across China which greatly benefited the people there and gave them expanded opportunities for free speech. (Not to say that more progress there is not still desperately needed.) That single man took an opportunity that the moment and circumstance gave him to stand up to oppression. He literally changed the world and became one of “the most important people of the [20th] Century.”


The Asch Conformity Experiment demonstrates the great power that social expectation creates for us and how difficult it is to resist conformity with the consensus opinion when we find ourselves in groups. As the Asch Experiment and other studies like the Milgram Study point out to us (studies that sought to understand how the WWII Holocaust could have possibly have taken place), the majority of people will follow not only group consensus most of the time, they will also follow the direction of an authority. Apart from the pressure from others, we would often offer a different response, but the influence to conform becomes quite difficult to resist, even when we are pressured to behave unethically. It is a part of our human nature.

Studies show that only an approximate 10% of people will resist these influences, offering an opinion or response to the contrary of the pressured consensus, and something wonderful happens when they do resist. That 10% of people who step forward create a safe place for others to also resist, just like Tank Man of Tiananmen Square. Dissidents encourage others to step forward with them. In her book, Not of My Making: Bullying, Scapegoating and Misconduct in Churches, Margaret Jones offers an insightful review of the parallel findings that come from the studies concerning bullying. The first person to resist the pressure to keep silent and steps forward to challenge a bully changes the whole dynamic of the group and takes undue power away from the bully and equalizes it a bit for the group. When one steps forward, generally step forward as well. Philip Zimbardo encourages all people to become “everyday heroes” who will cause that 10% to grow and to become the consensus. If we can conform to evil, we can surely learn to resist to support that which is good.


To those who had the courage yesterday to wear red to Bob Jones University to protest the abusive attitudes toward women and victims that the institution promotes, facilitates, and thus, teaches, today, I deem you the Tank Men (and Women) of your own Tiananmen Square. You did not brave death, but you braved fear, intimidation, and threats from authority. You've taken another great step of many recent ones to change that which is acceptable on campus at Bob Jones and admirable within the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist group.



The sanctuary in a church that has served as an oasis of love for me in the past displays a slogan discretely above the cross that reads, “Little is much when God is in it.” The words of a popular song also echo this message when it says that “little becomes much when you place it in the Master's hands.” And as Chaucer said in Troilus and Criseyde, “an ook [oak tree] cometh of a litel spyr [a young, small sapling].”

Keep, protect, and nurture these small beginnings, taking joy in them, though they are yet small. Find the still place of peace and strength (and the work of tension) that the Holy Spirit holds for you between justice for the abused and love for BJU – between righteous anger and the most honorable of behavior (Ephesians 4:26). In your heart, see that place grow through patient eyes of expectation of the good that will come in its time. Look to the Author and the Faithful Finisher of it – of all that He is doing and all that He seeks to do in you.


Take time to learn more about the Tank Man of Tiananman Square.



Monday, December 12, 2011

Gothard on Grace in his Thanksgiving Letter to Alumni

 
In a recent letter to alumni of his Advanced Training Institute (ATI, the homeschooling program offered by Gothard since the early eighties), Gothard gives out a personal phone number and an email, inviting students to contact him directly. He states at the close of the letter:

“I rejoice in all that God has taught us since ATI began twenty-six years ago. However, in the process I know various ones have been offended in different ways. Over the years, I have made my personal contacts or phone calls to ask forgiveness, yet I know there are others whom I have missed. Therefore, I would be extremely grateful if you would contact me directly if you have been offended."

There's no note about specific factors that prompted this letter. Some have suggested that shootings in recent years by ATI alumni like Michael Murray needed to be addressed. Others have suggested that Gothard feels quite threatened by the Recovering Grace website in particular and other such support groups and resources that offer help to those who have suffered because of his teachings and advice. It sounds as though Gothard wants to strengthen his reputation in the eyes of those who he views as his most devoted and most elite of students. I'm an IBLP alumna, but I received no letter in the mail.

Dr. Ronald Allen, a Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has been trying to set up a meeting with Bill since he first attended one of Bill's seminar's in the early 1970s. I've also heard Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach speak on the subject and have discussed with him personally about his attempts to address doctrinal concerns directly with Gothard. “Brother Bill” first behaved with a gracious attitude but then suddenly stopped showing up for regular meetings that the two had planned to set aside for regular discussion of the issues that many had with IBLP teachings.

I think that before Bill Gothard preys on the emotions of the participants of ATI, he should show himself accountable to these men, vetted Christian apologists who want to see all believers come to an orthodox understanding of the Gospel. Unfortunately, in this letter sent to others, Gothard continues to come out swinging at his critics, accusing them of being deceivers and those who promote lascivious behavior. As Battered Sheep describes in their review of the Midwest Christian Outreach book about Gothard: “The authors have demonstrated charity and forbearance towards Mr. Gothard and his staff, both in personal meetings and in their correspondence. Gothard on the other hand, has broken promises, resorted to stonewalling, spread misinformation, threatened lawsuits, and generally not acted in a biblical and loving manner.” Nothing has changed, it seems.

Gothard's Mystical Reinterpretation of Grace

I must admit that I enjoyed a hearty laugh over his faithful scapegoating by mentioning music, passing the burden of responsibility for the deficiencies in his system on to people who fail to adequately perform.

But more disturbing to read as he switches in and out of plural references to himself, Gothard staunchly defends his aberrant version of grace. As has been discussed here on this blog in the past, Gothard reverses the true meaning of grace which means nothing more than God's pleasant disposition towards us when we repent and turn to Him, turning it into something we must earn. Read this section from Gothard's letter:

The definition of God's grace has always been a major battlefield. There is no way that we can live the Christian life, keep the commands of Christ, or do the great works that Jesus speaks of in our own energy. But this is the special purpose of God's grace. Paul declared, “Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace” (Romans 6:14). The power of this grace is explained in Romans 5:21: “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Many who do not choose to live by God's standards twist the definition of grace so that it simply means an attitude of God's unmerited favor when we sin but leaves out the power to keep us from sin. This interpretation turns grace into a license tat God warns against: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4).

Even the Westminster Confession affirms the definition of grace that we have been using for nearly fifty years – it is not only God's unmerited favor, but it also the desire and power to do God's will: “When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.”

Because the definition of grace is such a critical point for Godly living, we have done a study on grace and found that every time it is used, it is in connection with the power of God in one of nine categories. This is explained in the book The Exceeding Great Power of God's Grace. I would be happy to send a copy of this to you as a gift.

Paul explains that grace is given to every person to receive Christ as Savior and to live a Godly life: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should liver soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11). He also describes the power of grace in his own life: “By the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10).

The Westminster Confession (and the quote that lifted from Chapter IX entitled “Of Free Will”) does not teach anywhere that after initial faith which translates a person into the Kingdom of God, a person must do good works to merit and maintain a certain degree of grace with God, and Gothard grossly misrepresents the document when he makes this claim. The Westminster Confession teaches the opposite. God's grace is not merited through willing and doing good, it is God's spirit that works in us through faith to will and do that which is good. Gothard deems grace, God's willingness to forgive us, and the work of the Holy Spirit which is given to us through faith as one and the same.

He fails to mention in this letter that he makes a point of repeating in his materials that “God gives grace to the humble” as a formula for success in the Christian life. He teaches that through the seeking out of acts of humility and submission that we earn grace from God. Through performing acts of humility and submission, we gain grace which gives us power to live so that we can do more good works. This is the opposite of grace!

Gothard confuses good works (that which he believes that the individual wills and does of his own volition) with the outward effects of God's ongoing work of sanctifying us, the process of changing us to make us more and more holy in character over time. We don't do good works to “work” grace into our lives. God works in us to bring about the change in our hearts that that change in us results in good works. Gothard misses the point that we are freed from working to will and do good works, because God works it into us through the miracle of what the process does in us.

I commend Bill Gothard for his sober concern about Christians who are insensitive about their conduct and those who carelessly show no concern about their behavior. When we sin, we show a lack of regard and tread upon the Blood that Jesus shed for us, that very Blood that purchases our ransom. Though we sin every day, we should feel remorse over our sins and failure. (When we approach God in humility after we sin, God offers us grace. When we are too proud to repent, God resists us. It's not a formula, about how to become powerful.)

What I don't appreciate is the way Gothard very childishly paints all those who disagree with his theology as deceivers who promote lasciviousness without cause to do so. This is black and white thinking, a logical fallacy that makes people seem like they are entirely against a principle if they oppose only an element of it. Don Veinot has opposed Gothard's definition of grace in his book. Is Gothard claiming that Veinot encourages people to disregard good standards of Christian conduct? One can understand God as gracious and forgiving while also noting with all seriousness that we are responsible to abide by the principles of the Word. As the Apostle Paul writes in chapter that Gothard likes to quote, “Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? God forbid!”

It is not sinful to note that when we become God's own through faith in Christ, we shift away from following a list of rules into what is described to us Hebrews 10, a working of the law into our hearts. Gothard misses the point, failing to realize that we are forever freed from earning and meriting grace when Jesus justifies us before the Father. We become stewards of our hearts instead of those who are consumed with following rules and lists, and it is our attitude of our new heart which is shaped by the Holy Spirit that will govern our behavior. We do right because we love and seek to please God as opposed to doing good works because we have a quota and a minimum competency to meet in order to stay in a state of grace with God. Our act of faith allows us to receive God's grace, and grace is entirely independent of anything we do.

Gothard says that his critics (like me) leave out the element of grace, a power that keeps us from sin. That power is not Gothard's conception of “grace” through good works. The power that keeps us from sin is something that we cannot conjure up through good works in order to get grace. It is the work of the Holy Spirit alone, He who is alive in us through faith. Our faith in God which the Holy Spirit works into us motivates our choice to resist evil. That keeps us from sin. It's not magic or anything we bank up through acts of humility. Making choices and standing in the faith which God births in us allows us to resist evil. We move our faith away from our own works or our preoccupation with whatever temptation we face, and we make radical choices to put our faith in God alone to bring about the best outcome. All of that begins with the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our inner man, not the following of rules or seeking after rituals that Hebrews Chapter 10 tells us has past away with the Old Covenant. Love, power and a sound mind which follows wisdom comes from the spirit that God puts in us, that which he freely gives us.

I pray that the aging Bill Gothard experiences something before the end of his days that causes him to take some real responsibility for the things he has taught. I pray that he becomes honest with God about the things he's winked and the things that he's done. He didn't need to be so cruel in his letter, accusing his critics of being ungodly men who deny and reject the Lord Jesus, ordained unto their status.

Read more about Gothard on Grace at UnderMuchGrace:


Sunday, December 11, 2011

How Do We Seek Justice when Religious Authorities Disappoint Us? Supporting the “Do Right BJU” Protest

 Are you wearing red tomorrow? Wear it and use it as a reminder to pray for us all to do right.

Raised to have great respect for authority and with a belief that God always plans good things for me, I anticipated that religious authorities in particular would always show my kindness and would offer the best help. Are they not people who have specially dedicated themselves to serve God and His people? The Apostle Paul says to esteem others in a positive way, giving them the benefit of the doubt, if you will. Especially when you are a young child and growing in faith in Jesus, it seems right to look to authorities as role models. This becomes especially important when you finally have the opportunity to carve out the specifics of how you would like to live the rest of your life as a young adult in college. Those early experiences have a profound effect on the rest of your life – how it will be lived and how you will experience it because it colors your outlook through experience. Good experiences build objectivity and confidence in God and in the community of believers around you.

What does the Bible say about example and expectation?

Jesus talked of just authorities through many parables. In a recent post about this subject, I mentioned the Good Shepherd who cannot rest until he leaves the ninety nine to go off to rescue one lost lamb. We are not told whether that lamb was disobedient or wandered off to find circumstances that they well deserved. Rather than playing out a principle of pragmatism that would seem to indicate that ninety nine are more significant than one wayward sheep who may have been entirely deserving of an ill fate, we find our Savior's examples quite different. That shepherd's actions not only tell us of the duty to do good, they give us great insight into the desirable character traits of benevolence that leaders should possess. We should be “moved with compassion” when we encounter those who are helpless, broken, and abused in a way that changes the usual rules of conduct, regardless of whether those who are helpless and broken deserved their condition. The story of the Good Samaritan offers us another example of undeserved kindness, as to the Samaritan People, the Jews were despited and deserving of whatever ill fate they encountered.

In Chapter 7 of the Book of Matthew, Jesus also taught us something about our expectations when it comes to our role models and those who are called to nurture us. Children are those who are in need and lack the ability to provide for themselves, so they look to their parents for help and nurture. When we are hungry and ask our parents for bread, it is unreasonable to expect to be given a stone. I was always perplexed by the other example that Jesus gives in that analogy when he mentions the egg. Could you imagine what it would be like to expect to be given an egg, perhaps the best form of satisfying protein, to discover that you'd not been given something more benign like a stone but had been given a stinging scorpion. They are predators that devour their prey alive, and one of the most deadly of all scorpions can be found in the Middle East and Africa, its Latin genus name translated as “man killer.” They can be small enough to be placed in a child's hand. I've often pondered why Jesus would have used such an extreme example to illustrate an obvious point.
 
Sadly, our Christian parents, authorities, and our religious authority figures do not undergo some magical change which makes them perfect, even though their influence over us is quite profound. If they have nothing better to give us in their hearts and within their reach, they sometimes give us something quite different from what we'd expect. Sometimes they forget the character trait of benevolence and follow only the fleshly desire to see the guilty punished for their wrongdoing.

Some forget that while they were still a sinner, the Ancient of Days whom they hated came to offer Himself in their stead by taking their punishment of death. Or perhaps they have always felt themselves more deserving of Christ's forgiveness, as if God really picked up on an excellent deal when they decided to pledge themselves to Him as a follower of Jesus? They forget that Jesus left many to come to them and find them in their distress to rescue them from certain death, motivated by God's much unmerited love for them. Though those who we look to as experts in Christianity cannot claim ignorance of these spiritual principles, perhaps many have never seen them modeled in real life. Or perhaps they have put all of their trust in the works of the flesh and traditions of men, and when they feel threatened (read of an example on chucklestravels), they find that they do not have enough faith in God to follow the Good Shepherd's example.

Purchase cards from Zazzle.com
Much to the terror of our hearts, sometimes those we look to as just authorities and God's special ambassadors to us (pastors and others who hold positions of ministry) don't give us eggs when we are hungry, wounded, and lack the ability to find that nurture for ourselves. Sometimes they give us scorpions instead. We look to them, expecting to find help when we are most in need of it, and we find something that makes our original condition much worse. Not only are their actions violent to us because they add insult to our injury, their abuse of our trust seems greatly magnified because of our vulnerability. We're not an ideal position to be able to “take the high road” right away, and their response can be far more devastating to us than our original pain.

We should expect to receive goodness from God through those who represent Him. Sometimes we don't, just as this mother of a student at BJU realized when she was also a student there. She is just one of many examples of women who were tossed aside because of attitudes that women who have become “bruised fruit” can be sacrificed to protect reputations and cover up scandals. Maybe it is that women are just of low worth in their eyes to begin with? They become the abandoned lamb, sacrificed under the pretense that it is what is best for the group. The virtuous end of what they deem best for the group justifies the means of abandoning wounded lambs. It's ironic when you step back to look at the original mission which focuses on rescuing the lost from destruction.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully
as when they do it from religious conviction.


Should we confront those who disappoint us?

In the same chapter where we find the parable of the wandering sheep, we read the instruction to go to those who have offended us to seek justice and reconciliation. Within institutions like Bob Jones University, you may find yourself without a voice and without recourse to be able to confront those who have offended you. Does this mean that justice should be abandoned? Does this mean that people should not expect their religious authorities to “do right until the stars fall”?

Also, this raises questions about a disappointed and abused person's duty to others. If you have been abused and do nothing to seek justice, you can go on to focus on your own healing and accept the matter over time. But what of others who find themselves in the same situation that you did? If you say nothing, it may seem that the matter affects only you, but you are not an island unto yourself. “Europe is the less” (John Donne). The community suffers because nothing changes the situation which perpetuates and facilitates the wrongdoing. Keeping silent becomes a passive way of strengthening the arms of those who abuse by supporting those who old up the abuser. If you came forward and it changed the situation enough that someone else could come forward, and the chain of events resulted in protecting another innocent lamb in days to come, does that not imply a duty to come forward? Evil often prevails, not because great men fail to do great acts to conquer evil. Evil often prevails when good men make a choice to do absolutely nothing, saying nothing because they don't want to get involved (based on the quote from Sir Edmund Burke).

Studies on bullying and on those who follow the ease of human tendency who go along with the crowd tell us that the actions of a single dissident have a profound effect on those around them. It seems that it is human tendency that when others around us say something that we don't agree with, we face tremendous pressure to conform to the popular opinion of the group. (Learn more about the Asch Study.) This is human nature – to go along with consensus, not necessarily to gain the good opinion of the group but because this is the path of least resistance. Doing nothing seems benign, but this is only an illusion. When we come forward, as Philip Zimbardo points out so well in his book, The Lucifer Effect, our actions create a safe place for others who are like us to step forward, too.

But I'm not directly involved....

Was the Good Samaritan directly involved with the injured man at the side of the road? I think that he made a choice to be involved, out of beneficence and benevolence. Ashley Henry who has been openly participating on the “Do Right BJU” protest has written a blog post addressing this issue. You don't have to be a student or an alum of Bob Jones University to support those who have been abandoned and mistreated. She writes:

I'm just becoming increasingly disturbed by the defenses I hear surrounding why people don't want to "get involved" with the Tina Anderson case. That's just it. It's really not about the Tina Anderson case. In fact, that's the entire reason Tina was willing to go through with this case. Because she realized this was a common issue and she hoped her case would bring these situations to light and at least stimulate a healthy desire to learn what to do WHEN you're faced with the issue of abuse. When, not if. Because you will be in one way or another. It may eventually happen to some of you. It may eventually happen to your brother or sister or son or daughter. And then what will you do when people start handing you the same generic excuses not to care that you handed out about this current scandal?

And that's just it. Most of the people involved with the Do Right BJU movement have either been abused or known someone close to them who was abused. This isn't about hating Bob Jones and being "bitter" towards them. This is a group of people who have heard all these same excuses in their personal life and they saw an opportunity in this case to speak out against the wrong responses to abuse.  [Read more HERE.]

Lend your voice to those that have none. Trust God for the courage to do what is right. You have a choice to keep silent about injustice, but you also have a choice to stand beside the disenfranchised and damaged, too. I am reminded of some other words of Jesus which speak of inaction from the end of Matthew, Chapter 25:

Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these,
ye did it not to me. (verse 45)

Don't leave Him and your own flesh in prison.


Live up to what the word says, just like Bob Jones, Sr admonished. “Do what you're supposed to do and you will see results.”


Also read Hannah Thomas' reflections about tomorrow's peaceful protest.

And remember, you only intimidate the weak...