WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[Mark C.]

Mark,

I'll be honest with you here since you have asked for criticism and evaluation.

I believe we have 2 problems re. BB discussions.

1.  We expect that what has 'worked' for each us should work for any of the others.  or what does not 'work' for each of us will not work for the other.

2.  We label anything that has any remote 'looks like' our assembly days as the same as our assembly days.  e.g. we throw the whole confrontation aspect out the window because it reminds us of those hypocrites and pharisees of our assemby days.  A strong personality reminds us of George, so the motivation behind the strong personaliy's remark must be the same as George's was.  I am having a problem with all this labelling:  "Christ-like"  "intolerance"  "strong"  "weak ones" etc.

That's all for now.
God bless,
Marcia

 Thank you Marcia!

  I did invite a critical evaluation of my views because this delivers us from boring monologues and also gives me an opportunity to learn.

  You have discerned a problem with the BB, as have others, and want to see an improved kind of posting.  You mentioned the use of labels as being a drag on helpful discussion and of reactions against those on the BB who remind some of GG abuse.

  How do you fix that? 

  BB's are like CB radios, where people will say things they never would say face-to-face, and come and go as they please.  We can't make a poster sincere, thoughtful, caring, reasonable, etc. by adminstrative fiat.  Neither can we expect that all will be clear in their communication, even if they come with the right attitude.

  I bring my own bias, perceptions, etc. to the Bb, and hope that these views are Spirit inspired, though I do not claim any special access to God's views.  This is all I have, and if this is sending the BB in the wrong direction, then it is up to those who have better insight to enlighten me, and others as to a better path.

  Complaining about the nature of the BB is not like complaining about the weather, because we can change what we post--- we are responsible for the direction of the Bb and it's content.

  If there are those who post that we wish would not, we could just delete them, but this would probably mean we would all be gone at one point or another .   Think about this and see if you can come up with an answer to the conundrum.

                                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

 

 

[vernecarty]

  If you don't see the value in the discussion then feel free to talk about other things.  The BB is made up of many different contributions and it will be what these posters make of it. 

                                     God Bless,  Mark C.

   

That is really the long and short of it, The BB is a very dynamic forum...ebbing, flowing, serious, funny, cavalier, solicitous, heated, and sometimes boring. We are wasting our time agonizing about what it ought to be. IT JUST IS!
People who come here and do not enjoy the company leave. It is that simple. I like all you guys so I stick around.
Not only are you not perfect, just like yours truly, none of you seem to think you are...I like that. 
I hope Tom gets back sometime soon...
Verne

[Mark C.]

Verne,

  Yes, the BB is the sum total of what we write and efforts to try and "moderate" offerings can only make those being pressured to conform to a proper etiquette more rude than before.

  I could quote verses about "love is not rude", "be gentle and tenderhearted, etc." until the cows come home and it will run off the back of some like water on a duck's back.

  We can delete any post that we consider offensive and turn the BB into an insipid community of apple polishers and glad-hands.  Passionate debate is the most interesting, if not always very informative, as these kind of conversations always draw the most interest.

  This still is the best forum that I have ever been on for discussing cults/abusive churches and has lasted longer than most of these kind of forums.

   The best way to deal with individuals we feel are being rude, or have a "tone" we don't like is to ignore them.  As a truck driver I experience this via the CB radio.  People get on and say things to get a rise out of someone and when they do we are treated to a bunch of tough guy trash-talk.  These are brave on the radio, but in person are meek and mild.  If I try and "make peace", via the radio then I become the target.

  You would think on a BB made up of mostly Christians appeals to just normal human kindness would be received easily.  Why is this not often the case?  Could it be we are not "normal" Christians here and still bear the effects of our Assembly past?  Or can Christians be just as jerky as any CB radio trash-talker?

  I believe that Marcia may have latched onto something when she said that some of us may react to certain individuals because their attitudes remind of us of GG's bully like ways.  She saw this as an error on the part of those thus offended, and I assume an attitude that the offended needed to correct.

  This is very true for me, as I now have a tendency to stronly react against those I perceive as pushing me, or others around, even if they say it is for my own good (read here: boss, govt., aggresive drivers, pushy salespeople, etc.).  I am a very hard-sell these days and extremely cynical re. the sincerity of mankind in general.

   When I visit church I bring this same cynicism with me: Nobody is going to control me ever again!!!!

   It's worth considering, whether or not I may still be reacting to my Assembly past in my relationships here on the BB.  How can we know?

1.) If I'm "easily offended" and not "easily entreated":

      Yep, I'm guilty of this.  I tend to wear my feelings on my sleeve (ol' GG maxim).  One thing that has helped me is not to assume the motives of the one posting.  Paul says we are not to judge the motives of one another, because we are often wrong.  We are to judge behavior and clear expressions of attitude, but when it comes to "tone" assume the best and try to post using a "tone" that assumes the best as well.

2.) Attempts to shame, ridicule, or otherwise use sarcasm to make a personal attack:

   Yes, I have done this as well.   When we are hurt we want to hurt others back; it is a natural and usually automatic response.  Sarcasm can be a very useful means of communication if it is general, like Joe's very humorous "Little Georgie And The Giant Hand", and can provide a wonderful benefit for a healing soul.  When we try to use personal humiliation as a means of argument we not only will not win the argument we can harm those we should be helping.

3.) It stands to reason that we should be thinking about the benefit of others when we post:

   One can answer this by saying that, "this is my intention" and that "I'm just being blunt with the truth and if you can't take it it's your problem", but then we not only sound like a "clanging symbol" we take that cymbal and hit them over the head with it.

  I don't know why this is not obvious to some posters, or how to appeal to those who can't see this.  It is not hypocritical religosity to consider the feelings of those we are communicating with, because without such a consideration no effective help can be ministered.

  I agree, that we will say things that bring disagreement and possibly heated debate.  It is false religosity to answer such disagreement via Bible quotations to "act nicer, be more spiritual, etc." and thus avoid answering the actual argument. 

   Some will answer every discussion with something like, "Jesus is the answer", and of course he is, but what direct bearing does that have on the subject?

  However, to suggest that every appeal to loving behavior/attitudes must be false religiosity could put one outside of the reach of God's own appeal to our hearts.

   These comments are not intended to single out anyone, but apply to all of us.  As you can see, I have discovered these negative attitudes in my own life, and I only ask that you reflect on whether any of this applies to you.

                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

[M2]

Hi Mark et al,

Just commenting in general.

If there's anything I benefitted from my assembly days is to be at peace with all men (and women) as much as I am able to.  I had many opportunities to apply this.

So the brash and the soft and the sensitive and the weak and the strong, I make no difference.  Hence I can read the message being communicated, though I can sometimes misunderstand it, without being focussed on the tone/method of communication.  It is so easy to get distracted by 'motives' when the BB is primarily to discuss doctrines and topics of interest.

Mark's gracious communication of truth, and Brent's straightforward communication of truth, and Tom's blunt approach, and Verne's don't-know-what-to-call-it approach still gives me truth in the end.  Or Marks' gracious, Brent's straightforward ... of something I disagree with them on, still gives me a disagreement in the end.

I think that coming from a far/mid-east background I can have an animated discussion which may look like a big fight to a mild-mannered Canadian, but in actual fact I have just enjoyed a good discussion.  Jewish and Italian people have similar tendencies.  Attempting to label my animation as un-Christlike would be quite far-fetched IMO.  What would make my animation un-Christlike is if I got raving mad and out of control and tried to impose my POV upon another, and then justified it as zeal (a la GG).

Marcia

[Mark C.]

Marcia,

  We are all filled with predjudices, our own opinions, and these are expressed through our particular personalities.  To label any of these automatically as "un-Christlike" is a mistake and this kind of labelling can also be used to attempt to silence an argument we don't want to hear.

  I understand this, but this is not what I'm talking about in regard to rudeness on the BB.  Someone may be "blunt" or "aggresive" in speech and be exhibiting the Spirit of Christ, because both Jesus and Paul were sometimes blunt and aggressive.

  I guess the best word to use is "discernment" which means to make a difference in what approach you take by considering who you are talking to and what the subject matter is.

  An arrogant unrepentant former Assembly leader may need some tough confrontational talk, while a despondent and confused former Assembly member will not be helped by the same tough talk.

  We all make mistakes, and often offend when we do not intend to do so, but we need to learn from these mistakes, and even if we don't understand what peturbed the individual we need to be sensitive to this fact.

  Maybe the problem is that the person is too sensitive and gets offended at anything.  It is true that people can get into a "woe-is-me" attitude, and lash out in immaturity against the perceived attacker.  They were "hurt" by the comment and respond by trying to hurt the one that addressed their situation.

  The more mature response, and probably more Jesus like, would be to stop pressing the buttons of the more immature one.  This is not "labelling" an individual as "weak" but simply recognizes for the time being this person is not responding well to my style of conversation.  They are not an inferior person because they are immature, they just need to grow-up.

  We understand this with children, and many of us from the Assembly were on hold in regard to our maturity for decades---- Paul tells fathers "not to discourage their children" when in the process of raising them up.

  Biblical styled discernment calls for us to "make a difference" between one person and another, whatever our personal style of communication, and to use "fear" on one and "compassion" on another.

 For a heretical teacher and those living in unrepentant sin we need to be very tough, for others we are to "weep with those that weep and rejoice with those that are rejoicing."  This basically means to have empathy for those who share our same weak humanity. 

                                                       God Bless,  Mark C.

[M2]

Thank you for clarifying that Mark C.

Here's another thing that came up.  I was having some private communication with someone who is quite knowledgeable about various conditions.  That knowledge biased the person such that I was getting analyzed with the possibility of suffering from some condition or another, and we could not really just discuss the matter at hand.

I feel that we can be that way on the BB re. our former assembly experience.  Maybe I am going round in circles here and you've already addressed this.

If we read the tone of responses very recently on another thread, we can see that BB posters can be quite sensitive towards the assembly wounded, and encouraging and supportive as well.

God bless,
Marcia

[Mark C.]

Hi Marcia!

  I am very impressed with the quality of people on this BB and this is why I continue to be involved with it.  My comments are general ones that come from my attempts to have a moderating influence in the present roughness.  It is a small swell, and not a tsunami, in the sea of our community here.

  I am not clear re. your situation with the private discussion that you are having.  Some people think I'm trying to provide an analyst's perspective here, but as you know I'm just a Christian who cares about those who shared experiences with me in the Assembly.

  I would say that "trying to analyze" one another on the BB would have the same effect as trying to judge one another's motives, in that we most likely would get things wrong.  This "analysis" can be used as a method to put down another in order to win an argument.

  I was listening to a talk show on the radio where the host was interviewing a so-called psychologist who claimed that George Bush suffered from a condition called, "a dry drunk."  This psychologist decided this was the case because Bush was a "war monger".  It was obvious that this clown was just against Bush and connocted this "dry drunk" thing to advance his political goals.

  When I talk about inner life it is not an effort to seek within for a psychological answer to spiritual questions.  I believe there is a value to psychology, and the honest reflection that it should bring, but this is not my contribution here. 

  I see my emphasis as being a recovery of faith in a God who sees me as a real person: a saved human. 

    The bible talks about emotion, conscience, mind. behavior, attitudes, desires, affections, etc.  These are to work in harmony as a single unified expression in my life. 

   These can get out of whack from being involved in a cult or abusive church, indeed it is almost assured that they will be.  This is so even if I retain an orthodox faith in Christ and am able to function in life in an otherwise normal fashion.

  Many will benefit from learning that it is alright to be just a regular old person and that they don't have to act like a "super-spiritual" individual anymore.  We don't have greater insight than the next believer, are not loved by God any more than the simple Sunday go to meeting Christian, or have special inner powers that cause us to walk a higher path than the lowly Christian minions below us.

   Yes, and it's alright to discover that we can be just as sinful as the guy in the pew next to us; what he struggles with we are probably wrestling with as well.  Welcome to the club of normal humanity.

  It is recovery of our humanity that will unmake us from the monster we were, or on the other side the beaten down door mat individual that the assembly made of us.

 Yes, we allowed this to happen, and there are reasons for this too, but the question is how can we move on to a whole person of faith.   There is a place for ministry that addresses these concerns and this can be provided by people just like us.  True, there are those who need a doctor, and this should not bring shame.  It's a wonder any of us were able to leave that group with our minds and faith intact!

  Some feel that they have resolved all of these issues and are ready to move on.  Others feel that rehashing all these things is a negative that only keeps us in a state of continual victimhood.  This may be true for some, and if that is the case it probably is best if they move on.

  I feel like I've made significant progress in my life, but I stay on to try and help others who may be having the same kinds of difficulty that I had.  I also find that I learn a great deal from listening to others and trying to write out my thoughts.

 Maybe it's just that I'm an old sentimentalist, but I have an affection for my old friends from the Assembly as well.  I never hated or had bitterness toward the little people entrapped in the group, but for the unrepentant leaders and the machine they created I must admit I have had great anger.

   I admit my views are biased due to my life in the group, but in some degree I believe I share God's attitude about our former group: He loves the meek and hates the proud!

                                       God Bless, Mark C.

[M2]

Mark,

Looks like I'm beating a dead horse eh?? but I want to maximize the weekend opportunity to discuss this with you.

You said, "Biblical styled discernment calls for us to "make a difference" between one person and another, whatever our personal style of communication, and to use "fear" on one and "compassion" on another."

I agree with your statement.  To extend it, I feel that discernment also calls for us to "make a difference" between one occasion and another with the same person.

Marcia

[Mark C.]

Hi Marcia,

  I do not think you are "beating a dead horse" as discernment is a consideration that is very much a living issue on this BB.

  Of course you are right in re. to knowing how to respond to the same person in a different situation.

   If someone comes up to me and tries to take a swing at me the situation calls for me to try and stop him from hurting me and that may mean more than just ducking his punch!

  If this same person, instead of physically attacking me, sends me a scathing personal attack via email I probably would choose to just ignore it and block their address from my computer.

  The above comparison is an easy one, but you probably are relating your query in regard to the present situation on the BB.  I have offered my views in the past re. how Christians should try to conduct themselves when posting, but sometimes "the child within " gets the better of us.

  One result of missing growing-up, character wise, in our Assembly past is becoming very defensive when we feel our boundaries are being crossed.  Victims of abuse can react like wild animals that have been backed into a corner, if they feel that their personal esteem is threatened.

  We may be very correct about the defect we see in these wounded souls, and think that it is a small matter to address this with them, yet get a big surprise when they come out trying to scratch our eyes out!

 This is a desperate and defensive reaction of an individual trying to hold on to what little dignity they might still feel like they possess. A dignity they perceive that you are trying to take away from them.

  Discernment, in this situation, calls for us to recognize that trying to corner this "frightened animal" via forcing them to agree with us will not be effective.  If we don't see this we are the one with the log in our own eyes, and thus will not be able to remove the speck in theirs.

  Again, confrontation is not the only way to relate to those who are struggling with their lives; and this includes those that are having a problem with certain kinds of sin.

  The unrepentant sinner who scoffs at entreaty needs a heavy hand.  The individual struggling with a bad habit they quickly admit that it is wrong need a compassionate hand to lift them (the operative word here is admit)

  But what of the defensive person above who is wrong, but for whatever reason can't seem to agree(unwillingness to admit) with our attempts to reach them?

   Sometimes these individuals are using their victim status to avoid taking responsibility for bad choices, or sometimes they have been so beaten up emotionally they just can't take it anymore.  This is very hard to discern, even if we have a close relationship with that person, much less via occasional email communication.

   I must admit that I have responded sometimes like both of the above individuals.  Sometimes it is just because I have been working too long and hard without sleep, becoming very irriatable, and not up to being corrected again.

   It is human to sometimes be defensive, and due to some of our past circumstances many of us are very defensive--- almost child like in our immaturity in this regard.  To be discerning re. those who are in this condition is to not only be wise, but also to be able to really bring meaningful encouragement to them.

  You will find that such an approach will cause the wounded soul to drop their defensive stance and give them the ability to receive what you have to say; even if it involves correction.

   Having suffered from this same kind of immaturity and having trying to reach those in the same conditon I can say that it works for me.

 We are to help one another "grow in Christ" this is much more than just instruction in theology and exhortations to correct behavior/attitudes.  There is ministry that "shows mercy, befriends the sinner (us), cries with the sorrowful, supports the despondent,etc,).

 When Jesus gave an example for us to "wash one another's feet" there was a lesson of loving care being shown to one another.  Some of us greatly fear other Christians who approach us wanting to "minister" to us.  In our Assembly past the "minister" did not come with a towel and water but with a "hammer and anvil" to beat us into a "holy life."

   When dealing with former members of groups like ours one has to have the discernment to understand that there are many people like I have described.  Yes, there are those who were on the fringes, or who did not get so deeply entrenched in the poisonous envioronment, but let me assure you that these kind of wounded souls are more the norm than the exception.

   I hope this helps explain my views in this area and heals some difficult relationships on this BB.

                                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

 

  Som

[M2]

Hi Mark,

Regardless of any occurrences on this BB or not, this topic is of interest to me in general.

I posted this on 3 May, 2005.  It is a quote from Beth Moore's Breaking Free seminar:

"I believe each of us who have been victimized in childhood can testify that the tendencies toward certain sins dramatically increase as a result.  As part of my healing, I had to take responsibility for my own sin, whether or not another person's actions escorted me to those sins. .... I don't think confessing sin that resulted from victimization is primarily about fault.  It is about freedom!

Yes, my sins were my own fault.  But more important to God, I believe, was my willingness to confess how badly I hated those sins and how I wanted to be free from the power the abuse held over my decisions.  Confession allowed me to bring sinful behaviors to the table for open discussion with God.  He instantly forgave me and completely cleansed me, then He began to teach me day-to-day how to change my responses."

I feel that while it is necessary to look into the past and see our woundedness, it is also necessary to recognize the sinful tendencies that we inherited as a result of that woundedness.  Recognize, acknowledge, accept, own our baby, and confess and go on to freedom.
The healing process involves recognizing that from our past which has victimized us and kept us in bondage.  Having done that, there is then a need to own those sinful tendencies by confession in order to then find immediate forgiveness from God and daily renewal.  This does not get the victimizer/abuser off the hook in that he/she is still worthy of the millstone treatment, but it does help the victim find healing.

I understand that you have been focussing on the way we communicate with the victim.  I think that I am coming at it from the other angle, to help the "victim" learn to deal with the stress that arises from the communication.  Each day has enough stress of its own, so the victim will be having relapses all day that I do not know anything about if I am not there on hand.  If I can be of any help in that which I do know about then it may be of benefit to the other stesses.

Often the victim has a pre-conceived notion, that may not be in accordance with reality, about what and how people should talk to them.

The evil of the Geftakys regime is that it was done in sincerity yet for the purpose of conforming to the program.  Tough love is viewed as being the very same evil.  In a tough love situation it costs me but in the future there is benefit for the other.

God bless,
Marcia

[Mark C.]

Hi Marcia!

  Unusal mid-week posting for me, and it will have to be quick.

 I think Beth Moore is talking about a specific kind of abuse: that being "child abuse" and probably it is sexual in nature.

  I would need to understand more about what she understands the correlation between this kind of abuse and sin is to make a good comparison between that and spiritual abuse and our sin.

  No doubt, an individual deceived into accepting a spiritually abusive relationship is enticed by some kind of sinful tendency; such as an appeal to their pride ( as in, we are the one true church)

  Most who leave are a mass of confusion re. what exactly did go on, and this needs to be sorted out first if they are going to go on to a healthy confidence in Christ.

  Also, there is a good deal of sincerity and innocence that we took with us into the group, and it is this that was primarily taken advantage of---- first and foremost, most of us committed to the group on the basis that this is what "God wanted." 

  Healing is advanced when I understand that:

1.) God is not like the former group, nor does he "want" what the group deceived us into believing.

2.) God is quite the opposite of what I was taught there and a blessed new life is available to me.

    I don't think it is very helpful for the innocent and sincere victim to spend a lot of time "confessing sins", nor do I believe that we need to learn to "forgive our abuser" as a means of personal release.  This only continues to put the onus on the abused, vs. the abuser where it belongs.

  I do not believe that "God has a forgiving attitude" toward unrepentant abusers, on the contrary, he is very angry with them.

  I understand that harboring bitterness and anger against those that have done me wrong can be very unhealthy and that Beth Moore is probably trying to help victims of child abuse get beyond this.

  However, I think that an emphasis on personal contrition will not provide the release from the former abusers control that we seek.

  For a former leader still in denial it is very important to acknowledge the part their personal sinful choices had in this process, and to make it right.  For them sin is the upfront and center issue for recovery.

  Jesus put all the burden for confession and repentance on the abuser, and I cannot discover any instance in the NT where we are supposed to find recovery from abuse by "learning to forgive our abuser", or " searching our souls for our sinful part in being abused."

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.

   

[vernecarty]

Hi Marcia!

  Unusal mid-week posting for me, and it will have to be quick.

 I think Beth Moore is talking about a specific kind of abuse: that being "child abuse" and probably it is sexual in nature.

  I would need to understand more about what she understands the correlation between this kind of abuse and sin is to make a good comparison between that and spiritual abuse and our sin.

  No doubt, an individual deceived into accepting a spiritually abusive relationship is enticed by some kind of sinful tendency; such as an appeal to their pride ( as in, we are the one true church)

 
                                         God Bless,  Mark C.
   

This is one of the dirty little secrets about things going on in the assemblies. I had heard some rumours but it now turns out there were some frightful things going on right here in the Midwest. May God forgive us for our folly.
I feel so sorry for those precious young lives that were ruined...so sorry...
Verne

btw Sondra did you know about what was going on in Champaign?
Did you hear about how George brutalized the young lady who brought the matter to light, telling the brothers that she had a "lying spirit"? I know you are close to one of the parties and I have to say that any woman with a child molester living in her house and not knowing it presents a big problem for me. Very big problem.

[M2]

Yes Mark, certainly I agree with you.

Re. Beth Moore, it is a seminar for any and all regardless if they have suffered terrible child abuse or not.  Child abuse was mentioned only in that it was what ties us to our past and our ancestry.  When I did the excercise I found more from my assembly past that had affected me possibly because it is more recent, than from my childhood past possibly because I had already left some of it behind when I was saved.

The real emphasis was that there are attitudes that we acquire that are sinful but we tend to label as "that's who I am".  An example might be a husband who has a diffcult time with the correct expression of "I am the head of the house" attitude because of his years of assembly indoctrination.  Or the parent who has a difficult time knowing the balances of parenthood because of an assembly perspective on parenting.  The emphasis in the seminar is that I can know freedom from that in my past that held me in bondage.  The victimizer is still worthy of the millstone-around-the-neck treatment.

A healthy perspective of God and who He is is also embodied in the Moore seminar and I believe, as you do, that that is key in the healing process.

There are a number of similarities between Moore's seminar and what you have been posting on this thread, hence I posted the comments here.
1.  A healthy perspective of God
2.  The need to identify the wrong doctrine and to learn the perspective of grace.
3.  That wrong doctrine has affected me, and I need to recognize that.
4.  I need to confess and repent from the wrong choices I made.  Note that most assembly victimizers were also victims of another higher up the chain of command.
5.  Other.

God bless,
Marcia

[M2]

Here's an interesting consideration from Breaking Free by Beth Moore about stringholds in our lives based on 2 Cor 10:3-5.

-  Every stronghold is related to something we have exalted to a higher position than God in our lives.
-  Every stronghold pretends to bring something we feel we must have: aid, comfort, the relief of stress, or protection.
-  Every stronghold in the life of a believer is tremendous source of pride for the enemy.

Marcia

[vernecarty]

Here's an interesting consideration from Breaking Free by Beth Moore about stringholds in our lives based on 2 Cor 10:3-5.

-  Every stronghold is related to something we have exalted to a higher position than God in our lives.
-  Every stronghold pretends to bring something we feel we must have: aid, comfort, the relief of stress, or protection.
-  Every stronghold in the life of a believer is tremendous source of pride for the enemy.

Marcia

Words of wisdom.
Something has to occupy the higest place.
Something will.
Something must.
That is the way were were designed...
It is the secret to victory...
Overcoming sin is a matter of not so much of the will, as it is of the heart.
The only force in this universe powerful enough to completely deliver us from sin's power is love - love for Christ...one of these days if I ever get back in the mood I want to talk with some of you about this...taking a break...
Verne