The Wilderness II
August 18th, 2010 | 
Author: The Wilderness experience (after a lengthy break) is still something that I am wrestling with in my journey.
What sustains a person on this journey? Probably many different things. But for me, imagery and themes become key, imagery and themes from the Scriptures. That may seem like a contradiction, because one of the classic signs of a Wilderness experience is losing touch with the immediacy of the Scriptures. The words – as I said earlier – can often blur like an instruction manual written in a foreign language.
But images, pictures, they are different.
My key, sustaining image comes from the start of the Old Testament in Genesis 1-3 and Jesus’ temptation in Luke’s Gospel.
In Genesis, we have a lush garden (Gen 2:8-10), with abundant fruit and an abundant presence of God. What happens? Adam and Eve are given one command by God: you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). Then the snake comes along, throws around some doubt about the motives of God (and who of us haven’t been there!), and suddenly fruit is being eaten like it grows on trees. The “Fall” occurs, humanity is banished from the Garden, hardship and toil are introduced into our vocabulary, as is the concept of being distant or separated from God. The start is glorious, but by the end of Genesis 3 we are lamenting that there is no road back. And that is how the Wilderness feels – once in, we feel we cannot find our way back.
Of course we can’t. We need to go forward. Luke 4 opens with the opposite of Eden: the Wilderness, and for forty days and forty nights the main companion to Jesus is Satan. Whereas Eden is dominated by God’s presence (with Satan as an interloper), Luke’s Wilderness is different. Temptation to give up, to walk away, to take the easy shortcut, abounds. And three times we hear those temptations articulated. And three times Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry, holds true to his relationship with God. He walks away from the Wilderness, victorious, and as Luke adds: Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit…(Luke 4:14).
The Wilderness is redeemed. It is a difficult place that can be a place of growth. From an imagery point of view, Luke’s Wilderness redeems Genesis’ Eden. Where Adam fails, the second Adam triumphs. There is redemption. There is hope.
If you find yourself in the dirt and the dust of the Wilderness, I hope the image of Jesus redeeming the Wilderness resonates with you. It does for me. The Wilderness is not a dead end, but a now-but-not-yet beginning.
Craig Brown
Posted in 
A Release Ritual from a Spiritually Abusive Church
Today we are seeing a very large number of people leaving their church and not joining another. This is known as ‘Drift Out’ and from 1996-2001 the percentage of drift out was about 10% of regular attendees across churches Australia wide (Sterland, Powel & Castle, 2006). Reasons for this trend vary, but a common complaint is abuse or mistreatment by the wider church or church leadership (Burchett, 2002:3). Many leave the church wounded and disillusioned, believing that the rejection and/or hurt they have experienced has come from God. “One thing I’ve learned in my lifetime is that church wounds go incredibly deep and they take a very long time to heal” (Jackson, 2007:24).
This particular phenomenon has already attracted its own terminology. An ‘exile’ is a person who has left a church and not joined a new one. A ‘toxic church’ is a fairly general term usually referring to a church that typically adheres ostensibly to orthodox belief, but has seriously abusive practices. What constitutes a ‘cult’ is difficult to define easily, but typically it is a religious group, often professing Christian beliefs, who none the less add to or change the gospel message in some way. Cults are often very insular and focus on ‘The Leader’ or the leader’s special vision, rather than Christ. Authoritarian abuse occurs when leaders of any church use their position of authority for personal advantage. ‘Spiritual abuse’ has many definitions, but in general it occurs when a distorted image of God is presented to a sincere seeker. Typically, this takes the form of lengthy and elaborate ‘rule keeping’ and ‘regulations’ enforced by the church that are required to please God. Trauma, without going into detail, may result from spiritual abuse. I have observed and experienced this in the form of fearful reactions to anything ‘religious’, such as hymns, robes, baptismal tanks, holy communion, stain glass windows, church buildings, crosses and even the Bible.
Since many people mistreated in a church (or cult) may have suffered through the use of rituals (which is the visible part of church attendance) it is appropriate that a ritual may assist the healing process. In many cases, victims feel that there is something still connecting them to their toxic church even after they have ceased attending services. They may even be suffering under the stigma of excommunication. In order to make a fresh start, they need to feel that their church no longer has any power or authority over them and that they are free from old patterns of behaviour and thinking. The ritual therefore, needs to enact a sense of divorce or severance from their church and a deliberate step towards freedom. Ideally, this should be done leaving the participants faith intact. We would hardly want them to give up on Jesus! The eventual hope is for the participant to be able to join a more healthy church (but this is not always possible).
As a sometime church exile myself I would like to develop a ritual for the use of people in this situation.
Biblical and Theological Rationale
Jesus said “…and you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32), and “…my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:30). A common characteristic of toxic churches and cults is that their teaching is burdensome and oppressive. For example, many churches impose a restrictive dress code. Women may only wear dresses and must cover their hair when in church. In our modern culture, this is degrading and oppressive. Christians are called to find freedom in Christ. When Christians are oppressed by a false image of God, it is not only damaging to them, but also blasphemy.
Ideally, this ritual needs to be as non-religious as possible so as not to traumatize the participant further. And old saying goes: “The cat once bitten by a snake, afterwards fears even a piece of rope”. Overtly religious imagery or music can trigger a negative response in many exiles.
This ritual has three stages and I have chosen a scripture to represent each stage. This is partly to encourage the participant to hold on to their faith, but also to remind them that Jesus never intended for them to suffer spiritual abuse or oppression in his church. For the first stage I have used Jesus’ words: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…” (Matthew 7:15-18). For the second stage, I have used Ephesians 6:12, for we struggle against the forces of evil, even though they may inhabit the church. For the final stage I have used Matthew 11:28-30 as a reminder of what a relationship with Jesus should be like in his own words.
I have drawn on my new faith tradition in the case of the prayers, but the wording is not overly religious and universal in its expression. The role of the facilitator is to set the participant free, not bind them further. The participant must not be coerced in any way. If they wish to stop the ritual at any time, they must be free to do so.
Reflection
I have drawn on the Anglican Prayer Book for Australia (1995) for the two prayers used in this ritual, largely because they are so well written and capture the needs of the participant well. There is prayer for both the victim and the perpetrator, which will hopefully assist the participant to forgive their abusers. I have chosen not to use Christian hymns as none of them really reflect this particular circumstance and may well cause distress to the participant.
The resources I have that are not specifically from a Christian tradition used in preparing this ritual include coloured candles, coloured fabrics, chains (both metal and paper), butterfly models and flowers. The black candle surrounded by chains symbolizes the participant’s sincere faith even if it rests in a dark place. Intertwined with the chain is a finer polished chain with a crystal cross. This represents the cheap glamour that is often characteristic of toxic churches – the ‘bait’ in the trap. The glamour is really disguising oppression. Extinguishing this candle represents their faith being moved to a better place. The paper chain represents their psychological attachment to their old church. It is the paper chain that is going to be cut. On the second table there is another candle that is pale blue and non-traditional in shape. It represents faith being transported to a new and freer setting. The flowers represent freshness and new life and lend decorative effect. The butterflies are to remind the participant that they are now free to fly (a bird could also be used here).
The only music I have chosen to use is Angry Anderson’s Suddenly, in the place of a song or music chosen by the participant.
The Ceremony
Preparation for this ceremony may include visiting the place of worship where the abuse happened. In order to immerse myself fully in this process, I have visited the now empty building where my old church met. As part of the welcome at the beginning of the ritual, I have tried to be considerate of other exiles who may be witnesses, and may begin to feel uncomfortable during the ritual. There are two tables in this ritual. The first is towards the ‘back’ of the room and is covered with dark cloth. This is to represent the toxic church from which the participant is seeking to depart. The second table is in front of the first, at a distance that is about double the length of the paper chain. This is to give the impression that leaving the old church is a step forward in growth. The witnesses are ideally seated around the tables closer to the second table. This is to encourage the participant to move forward.
I have begun this ceremony by welcoming the witnesses, most likely family and friends. Since some of them may also be exiles, I have included permission for them to leave or take a break if they feel uncomfortable at any time.
In order to set the mood for those who are not exiles or not Christians, I have included a brief quote that describes why people get involved in a toxic church and their vulnerability to spiritual abuse. At this point, the participant lights the black candle. While the candle burns, they tell their story. This is so that the witnesses may understand what is going on and to provide healing for the participant. The facilitator will then read from Matthew 7:15-18. Then the participant places items next to the black candle that represents the toxic church to them. There will then be a pause for reflection on what the items mean. In my case I have chosen an old newsletter bearing my original testimony, a Barbie doll and a picture of Phar Lap. The newsletter is a simple object that represents what I wanted to bring to the church and the time I contributed to editing of the weekly news. The Barbie represents the dress code and physical expectations of the church. Phar Lap represents what-might-have-been, or the lost possibilities; and what that church itself could have represented to the wider community but failed – a beacon of hope at a dark time.
The Facilitator will then read from Ephesians 6:12. They will then ask the participant “Do you reject the distorted images of God that you have been shown? Do you want to know God as he really is?” to which the participant will respond “yes”. The facilitator will then say: “You have left your old fellowship, but somehow you still feel attached to them, as if by an invisible chain?”. They will then hand the participant the end of the paper chain, which has been secured to the table bearing the black candle. The participant answers: “yes”. The participant then steps forward until the chain is taut. This represents the intermediate period, as the participant reflects upon leaving their old church and what that will mean for them. The facilitator will then lead the two prayers taken from the Prayer Book (A Prayer Book for Australia, 1995:209-10). The facilitator will then say: “Today, before these witnesses, we ask that you be released from this crushing slavery. We now cut this chain as a symbol of your new freedom.” They will then hand the scissors to the participant who cuts the chain. The facilitator says: “You are no longer answerable, nor bound to, your old leaders. You are free to join a new church or not as you wish. They will then read: Matthew 11:28-30. The participant lights the new candle. The facilitator says: “Go now to find new fellowship and joy in the Lord.” At this stage we will play some music chosen by the participant that represents God to them in some way. As an example, I have chosen Suddenly, the lyrics of which are included in the outline. At the conclusion, the facilitator says: “May God bless you and guide you” as a form of blessing upon the participant.
Evaluation
While rehearsing this ritual I made few adjustments to the order of service. I had originally intended for the participant to carry something from the dark table to the light table that symbolized their faith. However, in practical terms this proved awkward – trying to hold something and hold and cut the paper chain at the same time proved unwieldy, so I removed that idea from the ritual. The participant could possibly wear a cross pendant instead. Another consideration was the severance of the chain. I had originally intended to tear it but this seemed to ‘violent’ and painful. Instead I opted for a more gentle ‘cutting’ using medical scissors. I also felt it was important to let the participant do the cutting themselves – symbolically giving them the power over their own release. Given that many exiles have suffered authoritarian abuse, great care must be taken by the facilitator not to be pushy and allow the participant to take as much time as they need to complete the ritual. A minor consideration was the candles. The candle that symbolizes new life and freedom should not go out! Quality candles must be used. It is difficult to present this ritual in a way that is relevant to every exile situation, so it would need to be adapted to suit individual circumstance. Some exiles might be too traumatized to even use candles! Careful consultation with the exile/participant is essential to avoid further trauma.
This article has been copied with permission from “Crazy Seraph’s” blog. What thoughts does this evoke for you? Have you ever attended any kind of severance ritual, and did it make a difference?
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=374147273&blogId=538102634#ixzz0wUDcv4Ot
Book Review By Crazy Seraph
“Sometimes you have to suffer as much from the church as you do for it.” Burchett quotes Flannery O’Connor from sincere experience. He relates the sad story of mistreatment by a church to his family because of his severly disabled daughter. He also cites examples of people being rejected by a church because of their appearance.
Hypocrites or Healers?
It is easy to condemn Christians, especially senior Christians, when they fail. But are we not all hypocrites?
‘Today the church condemns those who drink and smoke and live immoral lives while we churchgoers engage in gluttony and gossip and selfishness and bigotry. The unchurched stand by…and they lose respect for our message.’
This is Burchett’s message in a nutshell. How do we look to non-Christians when we point our self-righteous finger of judgement at them (before turning it on ourselves)? Everyone has an excuse for their less-than-Christlike behaviour. The only difference is that Christians should know better. We can be empowered to overcome things like overeating, smoking, drugs, gossip, covetousness and materialism. This is what we should be practicing and this is what we should be telling the unchurched.
What was Jesus’ attitude to sinners? He, of all people, could have condemmned without being a hypocrite. And yet, he did not. He hung out with them instead. He was drawn to the spiritually needy and they to him.
People who were uncomfortable around Jesus were the religious types. He had about as much patience for the pharisees as a modern ER department would have for a hypochondriac. The church should be a place for the spiritually sick to get well. Yet most broken people are afraid that they will be judged. Yes, some wounds are self-inflicted, but the church must consider the idea that we are doing things that actually drive people away from the church. Being around people who are spiritually ill is draining, yet how can we preach Christ’s love and not care about the suffering of others?
Burchett suggests that God will hold us accountable if we ignore problems. I think he may be right. Especially those of us in authority.
We cannot avoid God’s scruitiny.
Country Club Christians
Burchett describes the church that he grew up in as more like a country club, with many rules regarding dress, behaviour and acceptable types of music. As a result, there was no joy, no peace and no assurance of God’s forgiveness (by this Burchett means that people were kept in line by fear and not love). Ironically, things like racism and bigotry were allowed.
No wonder so many people felt alienated by the church!
The church should not be an exclusive country club. The church should welcome outcasts. Yes, some people may embarass us but that is because they are imperfect humans – ie sinners.
The Sinner-Sensitive Church
Burchett proposes a new attitude for all churchgoers – to make everyone feel welcome and loved because it is only by the grace of God that we are not in the same situation. Making sure that everyone is included would be a priority. Occasionally, we all need to feel a little uncomfortable as part of the growing process. Sinner-sensitive was a ministry style of Jesus – he was always available to people who realised their need. Burchett recognises this as an ideal, but believes that it is possible if eveyone wants it enough. Why don’t we commit to such radical fellowship? Because deep down, we are afraid that it might require a lot of work.
Governed by Grace
Burchett describes the attitude of Alcoholics Anonymous. He suggests that the Christian church could learn a lot from their welcoming attitude. This is the attitude that Jesus had to the worst of sinners. Our culture tends to honour looks, money, power and fame. This is just like the pharisees of Jesus’ time. Burchett ends this chapter with:
‘Christians, like physicians, should vow to do no harm. But forgive us, Lord. Because we do.’
Review of When Bad Christians Happen to Good People: Where We Have Failed Each Other and How to Reverse the Damage
By Dave Burchett
More sparring with Costanza
“Costanza” and I are continuing a email dialogue… slowly of late due to my own distractability with other matters. He finds the very idea of God killing an innocent person (Jesus) as punishment for the sins of others a primitive and absurd idea. I responded by noting the resurrection introduced hope into the equation, and that because of Jesus’ resurrection death has lost its sting for all who believe. He responded:
1) That is not how it is continuously presented by the church at all. You hear the argument that to sacrifice his own son is yet another indication of the eternal love of God’s all the time, over and over again from priests of various ranks to newspaper articles to the average Christmas report / sermon / candle light x-mas singalong at the local school ground. Never have I heard the story presented in a way that “look kids, dying ain’t that bad at all, no need to worry. Just look how easy it was for God. He shows us how one does not need to be afraid of death, he even killed his own son – piece of cake.” I agree, I exaggerate a bit, but you are used to that by now I hope (-:
Perhaps you haven’t been to a Christian funeral in a while… or an Easter Sunday service… the hope of resurrection power overcoming death is the reason to celebrate Easter… and to celebrate (as well as mourn) at a Christian funeral. To quote the famous words of I Corinthians 15: 55 – “O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?” John 11: 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” Of course the death of Jesus wasn’t a “nice” or “easy” death… death is not nice. But the bitterness is taken out of death when there is a belief in resurrection to new life through Jesus. The assurance of eternal, resurrected life through Jesus Christ is one of the clear themes of the New Testament, and (I would have thought) one of the more powerful reasons that draw people to faith in the first place. Perhaps you are right that some Christians have a habit of talking about Jesus dying for our sins to the general public at the exclusion of anything else, but eternal life does get a lot of “air time” in church life. Costanza also noted:
2) If it was God’s intent to show us that there is no need to be afraid of death, the surely there are better ways of doing that than this elaborate 30 year plan of virgin birth, then 10 years of nothing, then the temple incident and then 20 years of nothing and then a few sermons and the nasty Romans and then a cruel death. Then write that all up a few decades later in a few weird ambiguous stories that are so convoluted that centuries later (when many of the people who this concerns can actually read), people still struggle to make sense of it all.
I find this very “inefficiency” incredibly life-affirming. Assuming that the incarnation idea is true for a moment… then God in Christ identifies not with the rich and powerful, but instead enters human life as a peasant… indeed, based on the first chapters of Matthew, as a refugee. This tells me the most vulnerable life is of value in God’s eyes. The God-man earns a living by working with his hands as a carpenter in obscurity. This tells me something of the value of ordinary labour. The God-man washes our smelly feet… this affirms for me the value of humble servanthood toward others. Jesus suffers and Jesus dies… this tells me that God cares about, empathises and even totally identifies with those who suffer. The “better” plan of God running in with convincing power and might and success… to me that misses entirely the transcendent and radical nature of the Christian gospel. The God who sets off fireworks does not value faith, humility, work, or care deeply in identification for those who suffer. The “efficient and successful” God wouldn’t inspire Henri Nouwen to work with the disabled, or Ash Barker to dedicate his life to the poor, or Henry Dunant to found the Red Cross. The “better” plan would just confirm our tendency to value might, power, riches, beauty, fame… rather than to value flawed humanity as loved children made in the image of God. Of course, such an “inefficient” God is easy to ignore… it seems He or She is interested in faith. Still, it’s interesting to think about if you were God, what values would you like humans to have, and how would you model them if you had the chance. Next point…
“This one is quite clear cut. God killed his son to forgive us for our sins. And I say it again, there is so much wrong with this entire premise, it is hard for me to comprehend that anyone can even contemplate believing in the love of such a being let alone worshiping it.”
The death and resurrection of Jesus is the central motif of Christianity, and its significance is multi-faceted… or to pick another analogy, like the colours of a rainbow in the Christian scripture. Even if you took out the “colour” of substitutionary atonement (“Forgive us for our sins”) and still have a pretty impressive rainbow to admire IMO. I know you’ll find this all so much gobbley-gook, but as you claim to be interested in how I think, I’ll attempt to paint something of the “theological richness” of the death and resurrection account:
1 The death of Jesus is our example of self-sacrifice to follow
Matthew 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 16: 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? Philippians 2: 1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
I Peter 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. This is such a key idea of Christian theology… that the persons of the trinity are of one mind, and that God willingly chose the path of self-sacrifice, (knowing anyway if people got their hands on God they’d kill him if they could!) Trinitarian theology is not that God the Father punished the unwilling and innocent Son as a terrible deed… it is that the Trinity were perfectly of one mind in chosing the path of self-sacrifice in the incarnation. The logic of “punishing the unwilling innocent” therefore isn’t actually accurate theologically. We are invited to follow his example of willing self-sacrifice.
2. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus we receive new life
Romans 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
I Corinthians 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Ephesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
3 The death and resurrection of Jesus is seen as the sign he is the unique son of God:
Matthew 12: 38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.” 39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
Romans 1:4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
4 The death and resurrection of Jesus breaks down barriers between God and humanity and between people.
Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
5 The Jesus who has suffered can help us when we suffer.
Hebrews 2: 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
(may I note… there are few things more intolerable when we are suffering than advice from those who have not suffered in the same way).
6 The death of Jesus deals with human guilt and shame.
I’m fairly sure that God didn’t really “need” a dead goat nor a scapegoat for the sins of the people of Israel (Leviticus 16)… but in fact, that the people needed this. Human beings have a problem with guilt and shame… unless of course we count the criminally insane, who are kept in secure mental facilities because they are incapable of remorse.
Mild guilt is often dealt with by distractions and addictions, or by justification (”it’s ok under the circumstances”), or rationalisation (”it isn’t really bad”) or at worst innoculated against by a sense of entitlement (”I deserve this, and who cares about anyone else, and it’s their problem anyway”). But what do we do about the “biggies”? What about the person who has wounded or killed an innocent child, or tortured another human being, smashed up a car while drunk and killed someone, participated in genocide, harmed their family in some way, etc etc… who comes to their senses and is overwhelmed by guilt? What do you do with that guilt and shame that can actually deal with it, rather than distract from it or paper over the pain?
Guilt and shame lead us to punishment, and to self-punishment… abuse, self-harm, suicide. What punishment is “bad enough” for the person crippled with guilt? I think that the terrible death of Jesus actually is “punishment enough” for those who are able to accept it by faith… that enough punishment has been meted out to cover the very worst of sins. It is the way of escape for those tormented with guilt and shame… I think we human beings “needed” the punishment of the One without guilt willing to suffer on our behalf to be pretty bad… because for those who embrace Jesus’ death on their behalf are able to resolve their innate need for “justice”, and escape the bondage of self-punishment or guilt avoidance. It was a cruel death, but the death of a volunteer in love wanting to give humans a clean slate and a clear conscience, not the death of an innocent victim. I understand the logic of saying that God killing his son was bad… but another way of looking at the death of Jesus was that God in love “volunteered” to give us what we most needed… a way of finding inner peace and an escape for those plagued by guilt. The conversion experience of some hardened criminals describes this very phenomenon… being washed clean, being released from guilt, receiving inner peace.
My explanations may be inadequate (and probably make little sense)… but it’s hard to respond to a theological question without giving a theological answer. How would you explain the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus to someone who finds the whole idea absurd?
Facebook Support Group
Those who have been victims of spiritual abuse may find some insight (and sympathy) from other survivors of spiritual abuse. I have just become aware of a Facebook Support Group for those facing (or recovering from) spiritual abuse. If this interests you, you can check out:
http://spiritualabuse.org/supportgroup/index.php
House Church Conference in Melbourne
In Melbourne and across the world House Churches (or Simple Churches) are multiplying and bringing many to faith who would never “come to church”. Some local churches are finding new missional life through related house churches. House churches are found in homes, in businesses, football clubs or even on-line. What they have in common are love and expectant prayer with a focus on Jesus – going deeper with Him and sharing Him with others. The result is that they grow as others join and come to faith – and they plant new house churches.
House churches, along with united prayer and making disciples, are identified as key strategies for reaching the 3 million outside the Church. They are the only way to reach out to the people in the sprawling growth corridors.
Increasing numbers of Christians with strong faith no longer “go to church” have drifted, but are now growing in faith as part of a House Church and seeing people come to faith.
“House Church” is not about doing conventional church in a home with a set pattern of singing, Bible study, prayer and supper led by one person. It relates to the way of being church, not where people meet. There are many styles and sizes, but they all reflect gatherings the earliest Christians would recognise, and they seek to be an ‘organism’ not an organization, with a focus on feeding and health and reproducing.
Far from being in opposition to “the Church”, house churches are enriching the life of local churches, and reaching people for Christ that the research identifies as largely outside the Church.
For more information, see: http://www.transformingmelbourne.org.au/ A conference about house churches will be held on the 24th and 25th of August at Mitcham Baptist Church.
Why abuse is covered up
Whether we are talking about sexual, emotional or spiritual abuse, most of us are wondering why, after years of negative publicity about churches, it still happens – and STILL is covered up or not dealt with adequately?
Here are some suggested reasons for this.
1. A reliance in some churches on the power and justification for their rituals of ordination or spiritual appointment. In traditional churches there is a formal hierarchy and long processes of appointment to positions of spiritual authority. In Pentecostal and US-style megachurches there is a culture of believing in the charismatic authority and prophetic gifts of church leaders. Both of these situations are likely to lead to a lack of questioning of spiritual leaders, and the leaders themselves to feel that they must be, and are, without sin. The dangers of this are obvious for the pastors / clergy and congregations.
2. A poor theology of ‘followership’. Vulnerable people who look for others to make personal decisions for them and to guide them concerning their faith journey are too ready to seek out a strong, sometimes narcissistic leader and a church with black-and-white teachings. Unfortunately there is very little teaching in churches about the grace given by the Spirit of God to each person and their responsibility to participate in covenant community to discern the will of God together.
3. Confusion in the minds of many people inside and outside the church, between forgiveness for sin and the consequences of sin. So often a bishop or other church authority, faced with a complaint of sexual misconduct has spoken with the offending priest, hears what seems to be a humble admission of guilt and receives a full confession. The bishop then feels that grace must apply, and either takes no further action or institutes some inconsequential internal discipline which remains confidential. The effect on the victim is generally ignored (maybe God is the one who is supposed to heal and make restitution for victims?) From the point of view of the victims and outsiders, this approach is condoning the sin, and constitutes a double abuse.
No-one can forgive their own or someone else’s wrongdoing committed against a third person. As Christians we can hear one another’s confessions and admissions, but absolution of sin is God’s prerogative. Only the victim of wrongdoing can forgive. But the consequences of the sin must remain and ought to remain, to enable the effective restoration of the sinner. In all countries across the world sexual abuse has legal consequences (even if poorly enacted in many of them). The behaviour must be reported to the police or other authority outside the church who is empowered and trusted to deal with it.
4. There is a view prevalent across religious bodies, and not only Christian ones, that a spiritual organisation need not and should not have to expose itself to the secular state. It’s a ‘private matter’, we say. Church leaders are defensive of their policy that all kinds of issues should be effectively dealt with internally. This comes from a misconception about the insidious nature of individual and corporate sin.
5. The most obvious reason for no action is to ‘protect’ the reputation of the church or its leaders. Again erroneously, church folk and their leaders have assumed that the worst will happen if ‘dirty linen’ is washed in public. They have tried to insist that the witness of the church will be harmed. I hope that this sort of thinking is by now truly dead and buried. The ‘witness’ of the worldwide Church has been harmed, irreparably perhaps, by abuse being denied and hidden, and by victims – whom I prefer to call ‘survivors’ – as they are ignored and exempted from receiving the most basic of Christ’s compassions and care.
Janice Newham
Any additions points? Or comments about any of these 5 points? Editor
More on Women in the Church
Facebook is renowned for its levels of trivia… and I am the chief of sinners in the art of trivial updates. (In my defence, at least I don’t do status updates of Farmville, Bejewelled Blitz, Cafe World, or other game data that could only be of interest to devotees… I’ve worked out enough ways to waste my life without resorting to Facebook games). However, it is occasionally a place of more significant dialogue. There was significant commentary (and copying) after my following status update on Saturday:
“It must be hard to be a Sydney Anglican… based on Romans 13 they have to believe that God has ordained a female queen, governor general, prime minister and NSW state premier, while maintaining the belief that God doesn’t like women to lead anything in the church. Must make one’s head spin.”
Of course, I might have picked on various other Christian churches, but I discovered on Friday that three Sydney Anglican women already are coming to our women’s leadership conference in August in Melbourne… a long way to come for a day and a night… so this was on my mind (For shameless cross-promotion purposes, see here)
This led to some interesting online dialogue. I was especially interested in Nicole Connor’s comments on her own Facebook page. One commentator noted that for Sydney Anglicans (and other “complimentarians”) women’s leadership an issue of hermeneutics, not sexism. (Hermeneutics is the intelligent-sounding word theology students and graduates use… it just means how you interpret the bible. It’s a good word to throw into conversation when you want to sound a bit Kevin Rudd-ish… but I digress). She noted:
“If you lived in South Africa a couple of decades ago you could walk into many churches and hear the praise of apartheid based on their theological framework. The result? Racism and prejudice beyond imagination. However, many of these ministers were “genuinely trying to be true to their theological framework” – were they racists through this? …. Their hermeneutic fed a social ideal that oppressed a people group. In their defence – many of these ministers were kind and God-fearing people who genuinely believed that their interpretation of the Scripture was correct. Your theology and hermeneutic will outwork itself in community and have a wider impact – and that impact will be noticed and labelled.”
I find this a sobering issue… that humans have a strong tendency to interpret (and cherry-pick from) the bible to defend their own prejudices. It’s very easy to see this as we look back in history… the scriptures were used to defend slavery even into the 19th century in the United States of America. The scriptures were used to defend apartheid far more recently. Even today biblical language is used in defence of “pre-emptive” war, despite some pretty emphatic commands from Jesus on the topic of violence. One wonders what issues we are defending today from scripture that future generations will find abhorrent.
Narrowing in on the issue of women’s leadership, I have a strong suspicion the “real” driver of “complementarianism” is something quite primal. I have never yet heard an explanation of why God chose Deborah, Miriam, Ester, Junias, Prisca, Lydia, Phoebe, the “elder” woman to whom John wrote an epistle, the “Marys” as the first witnesses of the resurrection, female disciples (Matthew 27:55) etc… in a way that doesn’t sound completely lame. (The poor Almighty God couldn’t find a man to do the job so He had to resort to Deborah in desperation… Prisca didn’t really teach Apollos, she poured the tea while Aquila did the real work… instructions to cover hair while praying or prophesying in church must have been a scribal error… etc.) By contrast, I find the explanations of the “problem” passages for egalitarians to me sound scholarly and utterly convincing.
How does all this relate to church exile? As noted in the previous post, women in the UK are deserting the church at twice the rate of men.
Although women have for many years outnumbered men in the church, the proportions are changing. My colleague at the Baptist Union rang many churches to ask for ministers to identify female emerging leaders, with sobering results… many reported that younger women were deserting the church in droves, more so than younger men. (This is from a denomination that supports women in ministry, but can have patriarchal systems at the local church level). Anecdotally, women whose energy for service seems stymied in traditional churches opt to utilize their talents in caring professions or in the not-for-profit sector.
There are of course voices out there bewailing the lack of men in churches, and calling for the Australian church to be “blokeified”. Perhaps a better call is how to shape church life so that diversity is encouraged, difference is celebrated, character and giftedness rather than gender, appearance or personality type are the issues for church leadership, and where all manner of gifts are channelled in encouraging and productive ways.
I’d be interested in your feedback on the following questions:
• How do you think gender issues impact church life? Have you experienced this personally?
• How might the church better embrace and encourage diversity… in regard to ethnicity, personality, gender, economic standing, etc, etc.?
• How might the church be relevant for both men and women, not only within the church but within the wider community?
• And if you happen to believe women cannot exercise ministry in the church, and if you’re game, please explain why God chose so many women in the bible. Try not to be too lame.
Janet Woodlock
Women, the church, and sheer stupidity
I’ve just read a link that has been sent to me by one of “Exiles” readers. It’s almost unbelievable in its callousness, sexism and sheer stupidity… if you have a strong stomach, have a look here:
One of the laments one sometimes hears from church leaders is the lack of men in the church. It is interesting to note that women tend to participate more strongly in religious life, regardless of which religion we’re looking at, so this is not simply a “Christian” phenomenon. However, it appears that the tide is turning. Most women (thankfully) have learned not to accept treatment as second-class citizens, and are treated with equality in most workplaces. Churches that are patriarchal in their approach to leadership or demeaning of women cannot expect to enjoy support in the 21st century in my not particularly humble opinion on this matter! Recent research in the UK suggests that women are leaving the church at twice the rate of men, and that patriarchal church structures are a significant reason for this exodus. See this article from the Church Times in the UK.
I would be interested to hear of your perceptions of the treatment of women in church life, and your thoughts on how sexism might be contributing to church “exile”.
God is in the house
One of the interesting trends going on in the global church is the shift toward house/organic/micro church. The numbers of people invovled in “micro church” appears to be rising rapidly, at the same time as more institutional expressions of the Western church are in decline.
Barna’s research in the US in 2005 gave the following results:
• The action is shifting to newer forms of corporate religious commitment.
• In a typical week, 9% of all adults participate in a house church.
• An even greater proportion—22%—engages in spiritual encounters that take place in the marketplace (e.g., with groups of people while they are at their place of work or play, or in other typical daily contexts).
See this link for further details:
Barna’s 2009 research was even more dramatic, finding that one-third of US adults claim to have “experienced God or expressed (their) faith in God in a house church or simple church meeting in the past month.” (The majority of these people are also attending more conventional congregations, but this reflects a massive groundswell of interest in “simple church”). See here for more information.
The exponential growth of the church is China has been driven almost entirely by the house church movement. (It is also worth noting that the context of persecution means that “spiritual passion” levels are high; a small group structure can assist exponential growth but does not guarantee spiritual passion!)
It is also interesting to note that the early church was almost entirely a house church based movement (with some famous catacomb meetings also!) This was a time when the church grew from a handful of people to twenty million adherents over 3 centuries (fairly impressive church growth statistics). Only after Constantine converted to Christianity did dedicated church buildings become the norm rather than the exception.
So an interesting question is whether the house/simple church phenomenon is the best way to create Christian community? Is the ideal a conventional looking church with a strong small group structure? Or is the house church movement not the main game? What are your thoughts on the pros and cons of house churches?