From the Lyrics of "Best of You"

Some (but not all) Lyrics from

“Best of You” by the Foo Fighters

Very descriptive of my own feelings and experience of spiritual abuse, and a "must see" according to VLOGGER, Mrs. Elfrog.

....................

I've got another confession to make
I'm your fool
Everyone's got their chains to break
Holdin' you

.

Tweet

Christ As Our Sanctification: The Meaning of Ephesians 5:22 - 32 ("The Jewish Way")

Concluding the comparison to and contrast of patriocentricity with the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage


In previous posts in the blog series, I've provided quotes from Rabbi Lamm's book demonstrating many beliefs and practices in traditional, orthodox Judaism that actually contrast if not denounce many of the submission doctrines taught by Bill Gothard, the Shepherding/Discipleship movement (Christian Growth Ministries, New Wine Magazine, Sovereign Grace Ministries, etc.) and the so-called “Biblical patriarchy movement.”

From Lamm's writing, we established the following:

Tweet

Marriage Is Sanctified From Concubinage Through the Law, Not the Bride and Groom ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In this post, I would like to lay the groundwork for the understanding of Ephesians chapter 5 and what Paul's language meant, based upon the significant similarities between “sanctify” and “marriage” within the Hebrew language. In the post that follows this one, I will explain why I believe Paul teaches and uses the language that he does to explain how Christ takes His Church Bride and sanctifies her to present her holy to God the Father. Paul, as an expert in the Jewish law and all things Jewish, once the Jewish legalist who demanded Steven's death to further the purification of Judaism, held nearly unrivaled academic expertise in the Jewish Law in his day. He was a “Pharisee's Pharisee.”

Tweet

Great Information About Spiritual Abuse and Mind Control from the Old Geraldo Show

I found a newly available series of videos taken from the old Geraldo Rivera show from the '80s. All the segments are very valuable, but I wanted to draw attention to some specific information first. The first video posted here opens up with a great description of what happens when you experience a high degree of cognitive dissonance.

There are many other elements of spiritual abuse (thought reform and mind control) that the guests on the show the discuss. In the first clip, some of the guests that emerged from fundamentalist Christian groups talk about their experiences in abusive fundamentalist Evangelical groups. It's very interesting to see the Teen Challenge alumni become offended. Since this original broadcast, Teen Challenge has changed leadership and experienced quite a few cultic problems which can be researched on line at sites like FactNet.

Rick Ross made it clear that not all Evangelical groups practice thought reform or mind control, and even Geraldo was kind enough to point this out. The Teen Challenge alumni become quite offended and question the salvation of the young woman who was raped in a cultic Christian church. They accused her of not reading her Bible or of studying the Word of God. This is a common misunderstanding about cults -- knowledge of the Bible provides NO insulation against cultic manipulation. The Teen Challenge folks also challenge the young woman by pointing out her sin of turning to drugs, even though she was born again. (It is the shame mongering that takes place in so many pious churches that I believe turns Christian kids into the world. It was certainly true of my peers and myself in my youth. Discovering that the pastor of the church that ran the Christian School I attended did not help.) Is this not similar to the experiences of so many in the Patriarchy movement?

"It must be your fault." When I eventually post all the videos of the entire program, you will note that she was blamed for her own rape by church staff because they said that her heart was unpure. She brought the rape on herself because she admitted to the desire to have a boyfriend. Wanting a boyfriend at age 16 makes a person at fault if they get raped? In the second segment shown here, Rick Ross (of the Rick Ross Institute listed in the resources on the sidebar of this page) and a counselor from "Fundamentalists Anonymous" compare and contrast "Exit Counseling" versus the antiquated practice of "Deprogramming", even though the Geraldo show identifies exit counseling as deprogramming on their graphics and the guests refer to it in this terminology.

The gentleman from Fundamentalists Anonymous describes contemporary exit counseling, though Rick Ross essentially agrees with him. In the next post on this topic, I will include the segment that contains the testimony of the young woman featured here who was raped by a staff member at her church. (She was at fault primarily "because she was the woman.") I will then post all the segments together in one post for future and easy reference.


 

Tweet

Video on Spiritual Abuse and Mind Control

All seven segments of the Geraldo Rivera Show discussing Mind Control and Spiritual Abuse in Evangelical Fundamentalist churches.

Tweet

A Man Does Not Answer For The Sins Of His Wife: She Is Her Own Moral Agent and Her Own Possession ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

One of the most disturbing things that I’ve heard in recent years is this whole idea that men somehow atone for their sins of their wives or will somehow answer for his wife’s shortcomings before God. I believed that this odd belief was just confined within the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement and patriocentricity, but when I lectured at a Southern Baptist Seminary a few months ago, I had several young men approach me to explain why I believed that they would not stand before God to give an account for their wives’ actions when they themselves one day stand before God to give an account of their lives. I never dreamed that anyone outside of this aberrant, spiritually abusive belief system would embrace such an idea. One can even easily find an example of this at Homeschooling Today Magazine concerning the editor and his wife. The editor declares that his responsibilities include “sanctifying his wife.”

Tweet

The Role and Value of "Ishah" in Marriage ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Within the patriocentric movement, women who are unable to bear children or families that, for whatever reason, have not been able to comply with the moral imperatives of the ideology are often relegated to shame and are treated with disdain by followers. Because the movement focuses so heavily on the importance of large families and the concept of “militant fecundity,” the value of woman as “ishah” becomes diminished. Read what Maurice Lamm wrote concerning barrenness in marriage.

Tweet

The Creation of Eve ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Groups such as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood offer teachings that include the concept that women bear the status of the “indirect image of God.” Women are defined derivatives of man, and some of the “hard complimentarians” and the patriocentrists use this speculation and theory to support many of their other gender-related views and practices. Women are seen as lesser creatures than men, both morally and by their essential essence. An extension of this concept maintains that women need a male head in order to fully bear the Word and Glory of God, and some Christians infer that women must have a man intercede for them before God and for them to live a holy life in a proper way.

Tweet

Consequences of a Husband Compelling His Wife Into Intimacy Against Her Desire ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

From Pgs 138 -141:

When conjugal relations are the result of compulsion, sexual intimacy is robbed of its essential holiness. It makes the blending of bodies and personalities inhumane. True, the tradition does counsel the spouse to yield if at all possible, but if that does not occur, the Halakhah has no tolerance. It is nothing less than “domestic rape.” The Talmud says, “He who coerces his wife will produce unworthy children.” The Rabbis go so far as to say that in such ugly exploitation of his wife, a man is considered morally, though not legally, to have cohabited with a harlot and to have produced a child who is akin to a mamzer. [mamzer: conception resulting from fornication]

Tweet

Sensitive Appreciation of the Sexual Union ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Many patriocentric groups such as those that follow Bill Gothard's teachings, the Shepherding/Discipleship movement and the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement advise wives that they must submit to all of their husband's sexual demands and timings as their wifely duties within marriage. Expanding upon the previous blog post that discusses the orthodox Jewish understanding that it is actually the woman who holds this right within marriage, note what Lamm states about the active and willing participation of both parties within intimate relations within marriage.

Wives within the patriarchy movement are encouraged and counseled to "endure" their husband's sexual desires, even if they are repulsed or caused physical discomfort as an act of service and worship unto God. According to Lamm, this is not the case in orthodox Judaism and was never the case, as "onah" (sexual intimacy when procreation is not an issue or goal) must always be an intimate encounter wherein both parties participate very willingly and with full willingness and interest.

Tweet

Sex As A Married Wife's Right and A Husband's Duty ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

When I opened this series of posts considering the writings of Rabbi Lamm, I mentioned how an elder's wife borrowed the book and never returned it. I believe that she did so because the information Lamm communicated about a woman's sexual rights within marriage strongly contradicted the male hegemony that is promoted by the submission teachings of men like Bill Gothard which were relied upon quite heavily in our church.

Two of the women with whom I shared Lamm's book had husbands with obsessive and pathological appetites for sex to such a degree that the women expressed great shame and embarrassment, to put it mildly. One husband's obsessions were so great, his means of “physiologically medicating” unpleasant emotional states, that the couple eventually sought counseling for sex addition for the husband and healing for the wife who felt much like a prostitute.

Tweet

A Woman's Independence and Marital Rights ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

I've mentioned my prior experience with the now familiar expression of “Submit to me, Woman” in previous blog posts. This phrase and example, more than any other in my judgment, reflects the servile tendencies that the patriocentric teachings promote with marriage. I've overheard husbands say this thing to wives when I've been on the phone with friends, and my friends have also lamented about how this served as the ultimate “trump” in arguments with their husbands.

Tweet

A Woman's Right to Work!!! ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In many camps that embrace the teachings of patriocentricity, women are not permitted to work outside of the home. This has been communicated both formally and informally, and patriocentrics cite many different reasons why women are to remain within and function only within the “sphere of the home,” a concept promoted to be the only “Biblical” way of proper conduct for any and all Christian women. In an effort to promote the very honorable vocation and profession of motherhood, encouraging women to remain at home to care and educate their children, this teaching has been extended to all women under all circumstances to such an extent that if a woman does not comply with these standards, she is said to blaspheme the Word of God.

Tweet

Woman Retains Her Individuality While Profoundly Blending Her Personality With Her Husband's ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Eric Wallace cites the writings of a late 19th Century Confederate Presbyterian pastor in his own book “Uniting Church and Home.” Benjamin Morgan Palmer, whose book on the family was originally published in 1876, pastored the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, giving insight into some of the beliefs of those within neo-confederate movements today.

Tweet

A Woman's Full Autonomy In The Betrothal Process ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

A woman of consenting age may refuse a potential mate, and Jewish tradition requires mutual consent, particularly the willing consent of the bride. This additional information offered by Rabbi Lamm further supports the legal rights of the bride and of the wife. Acquisition of a wife differs from all other types of “acquisition,” requiring the full, willing consent of the bride herself. The Biblical example of the betrothal of Isaac and Rebekah records how Rebekah's family discussed the matter but did not demand that she marry. She had full autonomy to either freely accept or reject the offer of marriage, a right that orthodox Judaism supports and defends for all women of consenting age. Witnesses that stand with the bride on her wedding day serve to attest that the woman's rights have not been violated in the process of betrothal, not to “transfer ownership” from father to groom.

Tweet

Acquisition Of A Wife Is Not Ownership ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

In this passage, Lamm points out that no person owns another person but that the use of the language concerning marriage involves the change in status from an unmarried woman who was available to all men to status as a married woman, eshet ish through redemption of marriage by setting it apart through the law given to Moses.

The only aspect of the word “acquire” that translates in this sense involves the sanctity of marriage and not sanctification of the woman herself (as this is denied both in both the spirit and letter of Jewish law). Jewish law provides the woman these rights regardless of her marital status, and the Jewish tradition supports that she is not property and retains personal autonomy.

Tweet

How the Letter and the Spirit of Jewish Law Deny that Women are Property ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Parenting bestows a profound responsibility and a very sacred trust upon those who marry and are blessed with fruitfulness through children. As previously mentioned, patriocentrics or those within the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement argue for a type of ownership of their unmarried daughters. Parents and father's in particular as the head of the household bear legal the legal power and responsibility for their daughters until they come of age and can make their own, independent decisions.

According to Lamm, Orthodox Judaism never views daughters as “owned” or as a type of property of their fathers. An under-aged daughter only requires her father's legal consent if she wishes to marry before she reaches an age that renders her legal autonomy. Consenting to marriage involves no “transfer of ownership” or legal right or autonomy from father to husband when a woman of legal and consenting age chooses to marry.

Expanding upon the previous post, consider this additional evidence that Lamm offers to solidify the concept that marriage only changes a woman's status from “available to all men” as a potential mate to “sanctified” or set apart for marriage to a specific man. There is absolutely no transfer of any ownership or personal spiritual sanctification for woman resulting from marriage, only a change in her status of availability to all men as a potential mate.

Tweet

A Daughter is "Ownerless" Until Married and Not the Property of Her Father ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Under the patriocentric paradigm, daughters train for service to their mates by serving as a type of “helpmeet” for their fathers until they are given to a husband in marriage. The proponents of this view offer Numbers chapter 30 as a proof text to demonstrate a type of “male headship” for all women during all times of life, despite the fact that the passage discusses fiduciary responsibilities of men as guarantors for their wives or for underage daughters (as specified in verses 4 and 17).

A modern analogy that involves a pledge of this type might be a married woman or under-aged girl who uses a credit card, vowing to make payment. The guarantor in the person of a father or husband would be responsible for making payment on purchases made with the card, should the woman not have independent funds with which to pay the debt personally. This passage mentions no assignment of personal moral responsibility of the father or husband for the woman. Numbers Chapter 30 also mentions nothing about a directive for a grown, unmarried woman to remain under mandatory “male headship,” care or ownership, though many patriocentrics use this chapter to support the their claims that a woman without male supervision lives “outside of Kingdom architecture.”

The concept of this interpretation of male headship within the patriocentric circles suggests a type of salvific ownership of women by men wherein care (ownership?) of women transfers from father to husband when a woman is given in marriage. This concept bears significant similarities to Saudi Arabia's “compulsory male guardianship of women and other 'grossly discriminatory' policies” and “denial of fundamental rights.”

On page 7 of the April 25, 2008 edition of “The Guardian Weekly,” every Saudi woman must have a male guardian that is usually a husband or father, though the duty can be assigned to another male such as a brother or son. Even when the law does not mandate the male guardian's approval for decision-making for the woman, “some officials still ask for it 'because current practice assumes women have no power to make their own decisions' over matters such as medical procedures or discharge from hospital.” In addition, women are “marginalized to the point of total exclusion” through discrimination against them in voting, employment and education.

In contrast, Lamm teaches that prior to marriage, a woman of age is her own, free moral agent. An orthodox Jewish marriage is not a transfer of property in the person of a daughter-turned-wife but is rather an indirect declaration of how God used the law to sanctify the institution of marriage (never the woman as the patriocentrists maintain). Jewish law never makes any overtures or suggestions that marriage becomes a vehicle for the personal, spiritual sanctification for either husband or wife, and this is certainly not a role assigned to a husband for his wife in marriage through either the letter or the spirit of Jewish law.

If a daughter was a type of property and ownership was transferred from father to new husband through marriage, why is a daughter considered to be in a “state of abandonment” and “ownerlessness” prior to her marriage while under the care of her father? If this concept came from Judaism, would the woman not bear the official status of one who was previously owned in regard to her relationship to other men so as to call for the use of language describing the transfer of property from father to spouse? Even Jewish law did not view women in as property or as one who was “owned.”

The marital distinction simply declares her change in status from available to all men to unavailable to men other than her husband. Lamm explains that the woman’s status under Jewish law only relates to her status of availability to potential mates, a status that was never held by her father. Prior to marriage, the law never declares that an unmarried woman requires a “male head,” and even the Hebrew language that describes her status (hefker) makes this distinction.

From Pg 150 - 151 

Judaism must protect the family from the tempestuousness of sex, the alternating patterns of love, the sudden ups and downs of very close relationships. Just as the buyer of property intends to protect it, develop it, make it productive, and cherish it, this must also be the plan of those who undertake marriage... As the formal acquisition transferred the property from someone else’s proprietorship or from hefker (a state of abandonment and ownerlessness) to his personal care and protection, so the establishment of formal kinyan in marriage rescued family life from hefker. In this way, the formalizing of the marriage bond made it possible for the family to become the foundation of all society and the pattern for all government as well as the governance of the “family of nations.” 

Before Sinai, married life was a loose, voluntary arrangement, a sort of ye’duah be’tzibbur (common law) situation. If two people wished to live together, they did. If a woman desired another man, she could not be accused of adultery. If she wanted to move out, she did. Just as in our “living together” situations of today, there were no binding ties. Under such conditions, the legal protections of the family, such as the husband’s obligation of support, honor, and fidelity, are at best fond hopes... 

The informal arrangement was the old institution of concubinage (pileggesh), which Maimonides affirms was the relationship of a man and his exclusive girlfriend, without benefit of a formal marriage and marriage contract. By formalizing marriage, Judaism saved marriage. By stamping it “legal acquisition.” it made firm that which was vague and inchoate. It held the family fast – so fast that the family eventually held together the whole exiled and hopelessly dispersed Jewish community.

In the next post:

More on the specific and limited rights of a father concerning under-aged daughters only (and not over daughters of consenting age) under Jewish law.

Copyrighted material quoted hereunder fair use for educational purposes from

“The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

by Maurice Lamm. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1980.

Tweet

Acquisition of a Wife ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

I’ve poured over this book many times and at many times over the course of the last twenty years or so, and I can find nothing in this book wherein a marriage offer must first be negotiated with the father of a woman of consenting age.

In the case of an under-aged daughter, Jewish law requires that the permission of a father must be obtained first, but this only applies to women who are not yet adult and who cannot say “I desire him.”

From page 165:

A Minor Female (Ke’tanah)

Historically, an under-aged girl found herself in difficult circumstances. She was frequently in danger of abduction by an enemy people if she was unmarried, and if her family was poor, she was considered a drain on family expenses. Girls therefore were brought into marriage at a very early age. (Even today Yemenite Jews emigrating to the modern state of Israel bring daughters married at age ten.) 

For these and other reasons, the law permitted this marriage with the permission of her father, although the Talumd considered it a mitzvah not to marry her until she is prepared to say le’ploni ani rotzah, “him I want.” Maharam Rotenburg, in famous Reponsum, advises the Jewish community to follow the rule of the Talmud, as he himself has done with his minor daughter. In 1950 the Israeli rabbinate passed a law that made it illegal to marry a girl until the age of sixteen.

Kiddushin is the legal process of establishing the marriage bond, and in the chapter in Lamm’s book that describes this, the father of the woman of consenting age is not mentioned. The woman herself does all the negotiation. Even in the marriage ceremony itself, both the bride and groom are to be accompanied by one or more people to meet under the chuppah, but this is to ceremonially demonstrate that the marriage has been approached in the proper way. This means that neither party was coerced into marriage and that the accompanying witnesses attest that both parties consent of the union. There is no requirement that the person accompanying the daughter must be a father or a “male head” within the Jewish law. If anything, this practice designates that the woman’s rights have not been violated in the preparation for the union. If the practice and the “requirement” that a father must give the daughter to a mate and transfer ownership, then this idea does not come from Judaism or from the Torah, according to Lamm.

If the woman has violated Jewish law in the selection of a mate, then that is a different matter and the family would have recourse for complaint. But because the principle of “leaving and cleaving” is held so highly in Jewish tradition, the choice of and refusal of a mate belongs to the woman. If there is no Jewish law dictating that a suitor must be acquired by the father as it taught in patriocentricity, this is cultural and not drawn from Biblical law, according to Lamm. Jewish tradition does stress considerations such as family approval, the joining of families and other very practical considerations, but there is no legal demand placed upon the daughter that restricts her choice of a spouse if she has not violated Jewish law. If there are other requirements placed on her, they are cultural and not something that stems from Jewish law.

Concerning the arrangement and initiation of the marriage covenant, during betrothal, the woman does all of her own negotiating directly with her intended future mate without mention of the consent of or the presence of her father or other male family representative.

From Page 146:

Kiddushin (a rabbinic term) is accomplshed by kichah (a biblical term), the “taking” of a woman by a man, in one of three ways (in ages past): 

1. Money (kessef). The man gives the woman money, even a low denomination coin, or the equivalent of money – today a ring is customary – before two witnesses and says, “You are hereby betrothed unto me with this ring in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel.” The bride, by her acceptance, indicates her willingness to be married to the groom. 

2. Contract (she’tar). The man gives the woman a deed, before two witnesses, which contains the names of the couple and the groom’s marriage formula. This deed is not the nature of evidence of the marriage, but is for the purpose of effecting the bond of marriage. It is not to be confused with the ketubah, which is given as protection of the woman after the kiddushin. 

3. Intercourse (bi’ah). After the man has addressed the marriage formula to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting betrothal through intercourse. The Sages considered this to be gross, virtually an act of prostitution, and in the third century Rav decreed flogging for those who chose this manner of betrothal. Nonetheless, if the marriage was performed in this way it was legally valid. 

Only kessef is performed today; both intercourse and contract as forms of betrothal are obsolete.

Maurice Lamm is an experienced orthodox rabbi and a man who, at the time of this book publishing in 1980, had been married for 25 years and had three children, some of whom were adult at that point in time. As a rabbi with years of experience, he has offered counsel to many regarding these matters and has had years of training in preparation, making him an expert on the subject of the orthodox Jewish tradition.

Though he speaks of the importance of family and tradition and holiness in his book, there is NOTHING about a father acquiring a wife for his daughter in this book that details Jewish tradition in love and marriage.

The selection of a husband and process of accepting the proposal, granted that the woman is of consenting age, rests entirely with the woman under Jewish law. Culture might be different, but this expert in the religious law of orthodox Jewish tradition says nothing about the patriocentric proof texts that I believe, ultimately, support male hegemony. The letter and the spirit of Jewish tradition, according to Lamm, support a woman’s independence and a woman’s rights. If we hear Scripture used to support that a woman cannot be without a male head or cannot govern herself, this does not come from Jewish tradition.

In the next post:

Daughters hold the legal title of “hefker” (a state of “ownerlessness”) prior to marriage and are not considered to be the property fathers.

Copyrighted material quoted here under fair use for educational purposes from “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by Maurice Lamm. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1980.

Tweet

Comparing Patriocentricity with "The Jewish Way In Love and Marriage"

About twenty years ago, as my now husband and I prepared to covenant together in marriage, we read every Christian marriage and relationship book available at the time, and they were plenteous. My husband found a beautiful book along the way called the "Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" by Orthodox Rabbi, Maurice Lamm.

This, of course, is not the Gospel or the Word, but in keeping with a sound hermeneutical approach and considering that Christianity originated with Judaism, it certainly could not hurt to consider what the other half of the "Judeo-Christian" ethic had to say about marriage and proper conduct. As the years have worn on, I have only begun to appreciate how important and helpful this beautifully written book became to us. Not affected by the Greek/Western prudishness or the austere clinical aspects that are found even in some Christian marriage books, this very Jewish book openly discusses delicate and intimate matters of marriage that most Christians blush over, all with poetic, reverent joy and eloquence. It’s among the loveliest non-fiction books I’ve ever read. It’s not Gospel by any stretch, but it rejoices in so many of the aspects of holiness, love and family that are shared by Christianity and Judaism alike, so I find it very informative. It’s been a great blessing to revisit it after so many years.

I thought that this book would be well-received at our former (spiritually abusive) church in Maryland, especially when I heard how so many people there appreciated some of Bill Gothard’s teachings on marriage. I did not delve deeply into this study, but many that I know did study his ideas, many of which seemed to be based within Jewish law. Hah! As my relationships grew and I met more women within the church as time went on, I eventually learned of the marital problems that some of these teachings and the counsel of the elders promoted there. Here is my most concise and however blunt summary of my overall impression: "Submit to me, Woman!" I had to chuckle when I first read Johnson and VanVonderan’s "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse," for in similar context, they have a chapter subtitle concerning women that says "Submit, or else!"

Basically, the advice and counsel given by leadership at that church relied heavily upon submission teachings such as those promoted by Bill Gothard, and what was communicated and effectively understood by the women in the church was very different from what I learned from Lamm’s book. Lamm was a rabbi and widely respected teacher, lecturer, writer and counselor (according to his blurb). In the book, published in 1980, on one of the first few pages, he dedicates it to his wife and celebrates their 25th wedding anniversary.

I have great admiration for this as well, unlike so many of the "young buck" ministers of today who tell so many others how to live their lives and raise their children while their own children stood no higher than their belt loops and they boasted few silver hairs of wisdom. I also find it terribly interesting that Bill Gothard (though he apparently dates young women per the account in "A Matter of Basic Priniciples") gives such specific and authoritative advice about marriage when he has never been married himself. But that's a whole other blog post... When you need brain surgery, do you want the guy who's only assisted through half of one, or do you want the expertise of the surgeon who's had an impecable reputation as an excellent and successful brain surgeon for 10, 20 or 25 years?

Something very interesting happened while I attended that church and heard of some of the outright bizarre and what I believed was sub-Christian advice and counsel that circulated among the women at my former, spiritually abusive church. When I heard things that essentially all boil down to "Submit, Woman" from women in the church, I stated that from my understanding, it was the woman who opens the door to the marriage chamber in the Jewish tradition. I loaned my copy of the book out to several people and, apparently, it caused quite a stir for some.

I was approached by an elder’s wife who asked to borrow the book because she’d "heard about" what some of the women who borrowed the book had to say about it. I happily brought it in for her the very next day, and she behaved as though she was excited about it. In the habit of loaning out books but often not seeing them make their way back into my library, my husband and I set up a system to keep track of things. Very neatly recorded with a date and all the vital book information, I noted that I had loaned this book to the elder’s wife. After a couple of months, I asked for her to return the book... And guess what? The elder’s wife insisted that she’d never heard of that book, didn’t know what I was talking about and looked me straight in the eye and said that I had never loaned her any such book! She looked me directly in the eye and said that no such events or discussions had ever taken place. Hmmm... I wonder if they went to lengths to actually burn it? I would not be a bit surprised if someone there had.

I’ve heard many of the same arguments from within the patriocentric movement, echoing the teachings of this church, presumably influenced by Bill Gothard’s teachings concerning the teachings of Judaism and marriage. Based upon Lam.’s book and using that as a comparison, Jewish law and Jewish tradition concerning marriage present a paradigm that is VASTLY different from that followed by the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement. Granted, I hear these concepts from women and I don’t doubt that the white-tower patriocentrists will call me a Judaizer, Kabbalist of some sort, a communist and whatever other pejorative rabbit they can pull out of a hat to poison the well and contain whatever I quote here from Lamm’s book. (Milieu Control from Lifton 101...) But to the contrary, I believe that Lamm’s material demonstrates that the patriocentric concepts are actually pagan and not Judeo-Christian at all.

I believe that Lamm’s language will also reveal some of the subtle ways that the patriocentrics deny the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ alone by actually adopting some of the "sanctifying" works of their own law. Jews live under the law, and I believe that the patriocentrics do as well, though because of professed faith in Christ, sanctification is only partially mediated by works (that which initiated, enhances or facilitates the work that is solely done by the Spirit.) Sanctification (for the Reformed Protestant) comes only through faith and is not mediated, enhanced or facilitated by our human works (that which Protestant theologians have termed "Romanist" because this was the practice and teaching of the Roman Catholic church, most notable through the practice of selling indulgences).

By adding the significance of the outward works (in this case, adhering to Old Testament or even Jewish Tradition) as having the power to effect that which can only be done by the miracle of the Spirit, I believe that the patriocentrists have adopted the outward signs and symbols of the inner work of the Spirit – a celebration of marriage and family – and have made them a legal requirement for ongoing sanctification in the heart of every Believer. I believe that some of the language that Lam. uses, as it is reflected in the works based faith of Judaism, demonstrates how modern patriocentrics actually use family and marriage as a type of sanctification practice.

The book speaks of what is meant (under the Old Covenant, mind you) by a husband sanctifying a wife, how a couple sanctify marriage, how mutual consent and participation governs marital relations, and even how Jewish law demonstrated that married women retained their individuality and their personal rights. Actually, in one passage, the book discusses how men have no rights in marriage and only responsibilities in contrast to the wife who is granted specific rights within marriage. So, though I strongly encourage all who read here to remain faithful to the Word of God and recognize that I am not displacing the Word with any of man’s wisdom or tradition, I encourage you to open up to the practice of good hermeneutics, considering the beliefs of the "other half" of the Judeo-Christian ethic regarding marriage from the viewpoint of a rabbi. (I highly recommend the book, by the way!) Consider what the students of the Old Testament believe about what the Tanach, Mishna and what Traditional Jewish Law has to say about conduct within marriage.

As a little teaser, before I dive into topics that the patriocentrics would prefer to keep hidden, just like the wife of my former elder’s wife, I’ll give you a taste of some of the beautiful sections that really rejoice in the best of both Judaism and Christianity. (Why does this sound so much more balanced than the rhetoric of the patriocentrists – and it’s so much more eloquent???)

Pg 121: 

Marriage is the natural home of love. Here it can grow and enrich itself, and leave something worthy in its wake. Love that is not able to express itself in the cares of married life is frustrated love. "It is not good that man should be alone: says Rabbi Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, "means that man’s inner capacity for goodness can never be realized unless he has someone upon whom to shower his affections." 

Mature love is expressed through giving, and through giving comes even greater love. To have a child is a flesh-and-blood connection with the future, and the birthplace of humanity’s future is the home. The future of the whole Jewish people depends upon marriage, the covenantal relationship of husband and wife. Marriage is not simply a private arrangement designed solely for mutual satisfaction; its importance rests in how the couple perceive their bond, the love they demonstrate, and the constellation of virtues they bring to the home. 

Every marriage covenant must partake of the original covenant. Jewish values thrive not as ephemeral theories, but as they are lived daily. This means that the Jewish couple needs a religiously-ordered home, an investment in the Jewish community, and a concern with the fate of God’s world.

I believe that the material from "The Jewish Way" will be quite eye-opening! Come by and visit later in the week and over the next couple of weeks as I get some blog posts together.

I don’t know from whence "patriarchy" developed their concepts of intimate relations and marriage (though I have my theories!), but they didn’t get them from traditional Judaism (if Maurice Lamm’s book serves as any indication)!

Tweet

What Goes on In the Soul of Those Who Abuse For the Cause of the Greater Good?

What Goes On in the Soul

of the Spiritual Abuser?

This question, more than any, other troubled me very much as I healed and continue to heal from my realization of spiritual abuse.

Delving deep to find these answers perhaps impeded my own healing in some ways, though after many years of pursing true forgiveness, I believe I also needed to search out the answers for my own well-being and acceptance. When one has been deeply wounded, I believe it is natural to ask questions about why someone was motivated or why they neglected to notice how profoundly they wounded us. I found it troubling to realize that there were essentially no simple answers to these questions.

Tweet

The Awe Inspiring Height of the Greater Good: Who Becomes a Spiritual Abuser?

To point out the powerful influence of the ideology of the greater good, I ask the reader here who is likely familiar with it to consider the "ethos of family" that has sought to overtake the homeschooling community in recent years. Think about that mix of American nationalism, Christian principle and love of wholesome living and the joy of family that comprises patriocentricity as somewhat analogous to this following statement.

Pay attention to what you feel as you read this passage from Robert Lifton and ask yourself if it sounds like a foreign concept.

I’ve taken out key terms and replaced them with ones that typify homeschooling and the ethos of family.

"Consider the more or less typical homeschooler, interested in patriarchy, who sought from the movement a form of national renewal; who laughed at the more extreme claims of the hard-line complementarians in the gender debate but was drawn to "Biblical manhood" with its emphasis on Christian unity; who considered the Christian faith generally superior, and feared ecumenism; who considered himself a rational rather than a fanatical homeschooler and was critical of the growing number and prominence of women in leadership in Christian churches; who had not marched in the streets with the more zealous homeschoolers but came to offer them obedience and service in exchange for social significance and a sense of Christian unity; who volunteered no great personal sacrifice on behalf of the cause of "Biblical family" but respected those who did; and who sought maximum professional and personal success within this newly dominant national movement. Such a homeschooler, despite a seemingly restrained relationship to ideology, could experience the mystical power of the Christian family ethos. He could also respond in some degree to the call of militant fecundity."

Now, read the original passage that describes the process of the acceptance of a foreign ideology and ethos from page 434 of Lifton’s book:

"Consider the more or less typical Nazi doctor who sought from the movement a form of national renewal; who laughed at the more extreme claims of the Nazi racial party but was drawn to "scientific racism" with its emphasis on German unity; who considered the Nordic race generally superior, and feared racial mixture; who considered himself a rational rather than a fanatical anti-Semite and was critical of the number and prominence of Jewish doctors in German cities; who had not marched in the streets with the Nazis but came to offer them obedience and service in exchange for rank and military uniform; who volunteered no great personal sacrifice on behalf of the Nazi cause but respected those who did; and who sought maximum professional and personal success within this newly dominant national movement. Such a doctor, despite a seemingly restrained relationship to ideology, could experience the mystical power of the German-Nazi ethos. He could also respond in some degree to the call of Auschwitz."

Lifton points out that doctors were especially vulnerable to these influences within the Nazi system because of their professions prepared them to be prideful. Doctors also become somewhat adept at learning to separate their personal emotions from intimidating or disturbing aspects of their work and from intimacy with their patients. They likely had pre-existing idealistic reasons for pursing medicine that could be tapped and manipulated as well. So they provide an interesting subject for study of the psychology of ideology and how it can twist us.

Here, we have men reaching for that which is greater and higher and more than what they are in and of themselves. Each passage sounds a similar call to nationalism and unity. The dynamics of the ideology of man – any ideology whether Biblically-based or fascist – all eventually degrade into some form of ideological totalism, something that Christianity clearly does not advocate.

The end never justifies the means. It is through a drift into legalism and the traditions of men that such good outward signs of a life dedicated to the Lord become corrupt. And because of human nature, all systems become corrupt in similar fashion. The deadly logic of the sacred science eventually overtakes all that is good and the end justifies whatever means necessary to accomplish the idealistic goals when pursued apart from mature, balanced service to God. When the greater good becomes greater in our hearts than anything else and out of balance, we can be so easily pulled off course.

Second quote taken from Robert Lifton's

"The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide"

Tweet

"Why Was It My Fault? Because I Was The Lady."

Four minutes into this video, a young woman describes her experience in an Evangelical church where she, at age 16, was raped by a member of the church staff. She refused to go to law enforcement at her mothers encouragement and went to her pastor instead. Hoping to find someone who would be a caring shepherd, an advocate and a protector, her pastor told her to "keep her mouth shut."

She describes how she was found to be at fault for her own rape because she desired to have a boyfriend. (It sounds so reminiscent of the things that I heard Bill Gothard say and the types of immature arguements offered by those who followed Gothard's teachings.)




As I mentioned in a recent post, in my former cultic church, whenever there was an issue in a marriage, leadership percieved issues of sin in the lives of husbands to be a response to the wife's refusal of his authority or her lack of care for his needs. If there was a marital problem and a wife approached the elders to confront her husband, it was incumbent upon that woman to prove that she had not created a situation that caused her husband to sin.

I also recall Jen Epstein's account of her experience at Boerne Christian Assembly where it was always assumed that a wife was "the squeaky wheel" in the relationship. I know this to be sadly true based on my observations in my own, Gothard and Shepherding/Discipleship influenced church.

Tweet

Audio & Video Resources Discussing Spiritual Abuse

AUDIO

Thatmom's Podcast Series on Spiritual Abuse:
(Series of interviews with Cindy Kunsman)

All podcasts can be downloaded by linking HERE.

Link to the separate online blog discussions following each podcast:

• Part I: What is spiritual abuse, what does the Bible say about it and how does it affect homeschooling families?

• Part II: Henke’s spiritual abuse model, an introduction to Robert Lifton and thought reform techniques.
• Part III: More on thought reform techniques, sales techniques in the church and an introduction to Cialdini’s “Weapons of Influence”
• Part IV: Conclusion of Cialdini discussion, and considerations for resisting influence and manipulation.
• Part V: Speaking out against patriocentricity, problematic teachings about the Trinity in complementarianism and the reaction to the online Patriarchy Workshop Video.
• Part VI: Examples of thought reform and Henke’s spiritual abuse at play in the examples of patriarchy and hard complementarian organizations.
• Part VII: Extending love, nurture and spiritual care to self and others after spiritual abuse.

Tweet

Theological Name Calling?

When Spiritwatch Ministries notified me that they had revised my Video Lecture on Patriarchy, I checked to see if the tag at the end of the video had also been altered. Scanning to the end of the video, I stopped at a point where a gentlemen (the president of the unnamed apologetics organization) makes a comment that caught my attention in a way that it had not previously.


When the organization became "concerned" about the video and the ramifications of the material contained therein, the term "name calling" entered the discussion at two specific points. Though I have strong opinions about the nature of these teachings, and especially in that forum, I assume that people perceive that I have called certain teachers and organizations "heretics" as this term was a major point of discussion in the Question and Answer Session following the lecture.

Tweet

Web Searches Concerning the "Return of the Daughters"

When I check the sitemeter on this blog, I notice that I still get regular hits for the "Return of the Daughters," the video produced by the Botkin family. I also get about one email every few weeks asking for additional information on the topic. In response, I've added "Return of the Daughters" as a Label/Tag.

I also would like to point out that although the video was not discussed during these podcasts, the young ladies who participated in the family effort to create the film also have written a book that delineates their views more specifically.

"thatmom" Karen Campbell and "Spunky" the Homeschool Mom reviewed the Botkin book in the fall of 2007 via podcast. For those of you who have great interest in this topic, I encourage you to listen to these podcasts to learn more about the ideology behind the film, "The Return of the Daughters."

Also, please note these other blog posts that I featured here on this blog concerning the film and just a few of my concerns about the material. I would write more about the issue, but frankly, I find the topic far too disturbing. (See also "The Disturbing Return of the Daughters" and "Recent Discussion Concerning the Vision Forum Concept of the Father/Daughter Relationship.")

Tweet

The Selling of an Idea

The topic of language gets into deep philosophical territory, and some of the best theorists have humanistic views, so looking at language itself gets pretty self limiting. I think the thought reform idea/model of a person being comprised of three components (thought, emotion and behavior) is more helpful, as our language and thought is affected by our emotion and our behavior, and no one element can be severed apart from the other.

Tweet

First Documented Occurance of Thought Reform, "Loaded Language" and Spiritual Abuse

From a reader:

“I am going to have to process this deeply. I have really gotten convicted about the loaded language and how much I have allowed it to define the debate.”

“Cindy, I would love to see you expand upon the use of words to redefine people’s beliefs. This is becoming more and more clear to me. I can see how just using the word ‘feminists’ redefines the conversation. All of a sudden one feels compelled to prove they are not a feminists and before they know it, they have aligned themselves with their views.”

Tweet

Not of My Making: Bullying, Scapgoating and Misconduct in Churches -- A Review

-->

The Universality of the Experience

of Spiritual Abuse

I highly recommend Margaret Jones’ “Not of My Making: Bullying, Scapegoating and Misconduct in Churches” for those who are working through a spiritual abuse experience as they sort out and sort through the good and the bad that the process brings. The author carries us into her world and with her through the personal aspects of spiritual abuse, taking us into those aspects of her life that were touched by church bullying and all those aspects of her life that likely paved the way for it. I appreciate the readability of the book but also how she introduces her professional perspective in a way that will not intimidate the layperson because the presentation is so honest. I enjoyed that little glimpse into how a mental health professional approached the experience, communicating to the reader that we are all souls that are vulnerable to manipulation and disappointment whenever we pursue idealistic ends. Neither professional expertise in human behavior nor the principles of the Bible itself can protect us from the cruel aspects of human politics, something we always risk when we cooperate in a community.

As is true of all of these types of personal accounts with psychological manipulation in religious systems, I found myself meditating on how alike we all are as human beings. We basically all desire love, acceptance and transcendence, yet we all experience the fear of taking risks. Doing right often requires a risk, and regretfully, even religious leaders can shrink back from the challenge. I drew much encouragement from the honest moments of choice narrated in the book that are so much a part of walking through the spiritual abuse experience, providing a glimpse into the struggle of deciding to follow what is healthy rather than the path of least resistance. Too many books gloss over the moments of struggle of choice between doing what is healthy and good as opposed to the familiar paths that provide us the opportunity to escape our pain. Some of us drink, some of quit trying, and some of us go fishing to escape the pain of facing our fears and our risk of further rejection for making the mature choices needful for our healing. The author takes us right into many of those painful and critical moments along with her, part of what makes this book so helpful.

We look to religion – that something idealistic and greater than ourselves – in order to make us better people as individuals and to find a sense of community wherein we can contribute with other like-minded people who want to do what we can to make the world a little better. We expect a higher standard and ethical code within those idealistic systems, as well we should. It continues to amaze me how common the experience of disappointment, scapegoating and what is often akin to schoolyard bullying proves to be for the survivor when religious people and systems fall short of that reasonable and high expectation. (Some people never mature beyond the schoolyard playground, a realization that the idealistic and innocent person often fails to recognize until they’ve walked through this disappointment as an adult.) I am amazed that Dr. Jones echoes the common words and expressions that I have heard from others and voiced myself – statements and feelings that must be unique to the experience of “suffering wounds in the house of one’s friends.” Though it may be a right of passage into wisdom, perseverance, and religious maturity as a person of faith, I’m continually amazed at the commonality of the process of the realization of that disappointment. And it is inspiring to see the “Maggie” that the reader comes to know realize some sweet victory and validation, too, giving hope to those who also identify with her struggle and pain.

Sometimes I do not know if this is a result of my own similar experiences rising to the surface, as I felt what I might describe as a sigh of exasperation that prompted me to set the book aside for more than a week before I was able to finish it. I share the experience of childhood sexual abuse and some past struggles of self-destructive behavior that are similar to those described by the author, though these very vivid glimpses into experiences that are carved into her life are not the aspects of the book that I found to be heavy. I felt avoidance and a resistance of the “next shoe dropping” that I anticipated as I read, but this is also a very real part of the PTSD and pessimism that accompany spiritual abuse. The details of the book become a little messy in my mind, calling for my short break from the book, but I also know well how such details become a very real part of the messy experience of traversing this church abuse territory. My own life lacked momentum in the midst of the pressures of my own similar experience, and I would have loved to have laid them down for a respite, too, just as I laid down the book. Perhaps the detail presents an aspect of “pushing and powering through” spiritual abuse to get equity out of the pain might be otherwise unavoidable when writing such an account? In any case, I had to put the book down for a breather and break, but I found that finishing the book was well worth the effort of picking it back up. Ultimately, this adds to the honesty of the account.

I strongly recommend this book for the spiritually abused but also for clergy who might need a broader perspective of this topic from a new vantage. As the author takes us into the process of finding meaning in her disappointment, she looks to the literature on bullying. She points out that when a bully pressures a victim, too often the bystanders say and do nothing to support the victim, perpetuating the bad situation. Studies show that one vocal bystander can often put an end to the situation or can provide enough validation for the victim so that the whole situation can result in a far more favorable outcome for all involved. I found myself thinking of Dr. Zimbardo’s “everyday hero” concept as describes in his book, The Lucifer Effect and Everyday Hero Project effort. Systems can loose balance and promote silence, and we must look to develop our good characters and willingness to be those everyday heroes who will stand up against injustice. “Not of My Making” is such a book that encourages and reminds us that we are all people with the same basic aspirations, pains and fears in life. That should encourage us to all take the deep breath, braving the often unknown pressures from the crowd and the status quo, in order to make a difference for what is good and right.

There are no innocent bystanders in spiritual abuse, and the whole of the group suffers whenever bullying, scapegoating and misconduct takes place in our churches. We just don’t always see the wounds.

My only other note: Be forewarned of some objectionable language noted on page 200, 254, and 317 that occurs as part of the narrative.

Stop by here at the Under Much Grace Blog on May 4th

for a cyber chat with

Dr. Margaret Jones,

the author of "Not Of My Making"

to learn more about the book and about her experience with the

"Matthew 18 Process."

(I will open up moderated comments for the day! Please come by and participate.)

Tweet