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 31, 2011
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.
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.
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.
- A list of ALL POSTS related to Lydia Schatz, Michael Pearl, and Blind Obedience
- CNN's Reports about the deaths of Lydia Schatz and Hannah Williams, and interviews with Michael Pearl on AC360 and Dr. Drew.
-
Posts about Kidney Disease related to the Pearl Method
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.
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.
That author, E. Calvin Beisner, goes on
to state in the conclusion of The
Roles of Faith in Justification and Sanctification: A Constructive
Criticism of an Element of Sonship Theology:
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. |
- A list of ALL POSTS related to Lydia Schatz, Michael Pearl, and Blind Obedience
- CNN's Reports about the deaths of Lydia Schatz and Hannah Williams, and interviews with Michael Pearl on AC360 and Dr. Drew.
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:
- Finding
Grace by the Way of Learning What Grace is Not
- Memories
of My Own Cognitive Dissonance: Gothard's Doctrine of Grace as an
Example
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.
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.
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 |
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


















