Note to Christian Culture Warriors:  It's your war, not mine.  This rambling treatise is just to say that I'm not in a war with my culture, so I'm dodging your draft.  No offense, but I'd rather Hillary Clinton be elected for president than your theocratic candidate.  Waaay less scary.  I mean, she's not pro-stoning, right?  See.  I'd vote for her. 

In my opinion, fighting against my "culture" doesn't do anything.  I did it for awhile. It just made me operate on high-alert, suspecting everything from the newspaper to the kiddie-playland at the grocery store.  Being in a Culture War made me suspicious of everyone, even those possibly in my own camp, from the friend who was a "Christian" and an artist (But, come on.  How can you be a true Christian if you aren't inserting Bible verses into your paintings?), to the sweet grandparents who would let the kids watch Sesame Street (Ack!  Bastion of liberaldom!) or a Disney (owned by new-agers and humanists) film when they babysat.  Being in a Culture War had me convinced that practically everyone and everything was out to get me and my family, put me on the defensive, made me shrill, quick to fight and slow to hear. 

Now bringing love, joy, peace, gentleness into the earth?  Absolutely.  Loving the unlovely?  Absolutely.  Releasing the captives, the trodden-down, the unwanted?  Absolutely.  But fighting my culture?  It's a lesson in missing the point of the Incarnation of Christ, for one thing.  He was born into a culture---on purpose.  Cultures, all cultures, have elements of good and elements of evil.  It's not the enemy anymore than it's the savior.  It's just the backdrop of the scene in which I play my small part of bringing Christ into the earth through my own humble hands and feet and smile.    

Besides, what happens if you win your war?  What "new culture" are you going to impose that will somehow be better than the one we're in?  Would, say, "modesty codes" fix all of our problems?  Okay, but how do you plan on enforcing them?  Are we going to get all Amish-ish and hold meetings over whether printed or plain cloth? 

Are you going to have police officers wear measuring tape next to their gun holsters, so that they can make sure my skirts are the appropriate length?  Required suspenders and an immediate ban on all saggy gangsta jeans?  Would you prefer a Taliban-like public beating for women who show their ankles, or would you like a quieter, though not necessarily cleaner, "modesty ticket" inserted into any and all exposed cracks? 

How about television?  Maybe a return to family values would be a positive thing, but who's "family values?"  Who decides, and how is it enforced? 

What are "family values," anyway?  Seems like for some people it's often a fancy way of talking about a much idealized 1950's era status quo.  Remember the 50's, right?  Unlike today's monsters, that was the era where children were obedient.  Like, if Daddy was "visiting" with you at night, you didn't say anything.  (Besides, if you did say anything, which is assuming you knew he was wrong and you were worth being protected, which is assuming a lot, no one would believe you).  Good old fashioned authority still existed then.  People knew their place.  Like women, blacks, children, and the underclass.   

Ah, the 1950's.  That was the era where stay-home mom's weren't odd---and neither was their deep and undefinable depression.  For some strange reason, these women weren't content staying home with their shiney kitchen appliances all day, dislocated from community, from challenge, from thinking.  Yes, the lovely fifty's, the era where a host of nice well-mannered grade-school children grew up to be the fire for a raging rebellion of young adults demanding the right to not accept the world only in terms of textbook/workbook questions and answers.   Funny, how they didn't seem to appreciate the decade of their childhood.  This is where stoning would come in handy. 

So if the fifties weren't perfect, maybe we should go back the the late 18th, early 19th centuriesto help us define Family Values.  Yeah, that time period was a real beauty.  Little boys chained to their factory stools for twelve hours without a bathroom break, upperclass women wearing corsets that deformed their bodies, no such thing as a "union" or "workman's comp" to protect the father when a cave-in at the ol' coal mine forever buried his left arm.  That's assuming he was able to survive getting it hacked off with no anesthesia or antibiotics. 

Okay, maybe not.  But some folks have an easy answer---they don't want to "return" to any era, persay, they just want to get into power and get laws passed that will reflect their values.  Though one problem with reflecting their values may include the fact that other people's values then aren't acceptable.  And let's just admit it: allowing freedom of expression means that your enemies get to freely express themselves just as much as you do.   

Which brings up some big questions.  Don't want anyone curtailing your right to preach your faith on the street corner?  Then you'd better stick up for the rights of the gay man who wants to hold his boyfriend's hand on that same street.  Because once you set precedent for restricting some people their freedom of expression, get ready to kiss your own freedoms goodbye. 

You might look with disdain at that kid with the multiple piercings and want pass a law curtailing his right to use his body as a vehicle for expression, fine.  But know that whoever looks at you with disdain will use that same logic to deny you the right to wear your cross necklace and your Christian t-shirts, just as soon as they get into power.   

"Oh, but this is different," you say.  "We're Christians.  We don't have to give those people equal rights just so that we can keep ours, because the humanistic satan-worshiping liberals aren't going to get into power!  We're going to get "back to the Bible," and rule this country God's way." 

Yeah, well, pardon me, but anyone who promotes a theocracy and wants to rule the nation "by the Bible," makes me want to move to another country.  Going "by the Bible" means a different thing to every person, and depending on who's doing the interpreting will decide everything.  Shall we be like the Taliban leader, no, wait, he wasn't a fundamentalist Muslims, he was a fundamentalist Christian Rushdoony and his Christian reconstructionist band (like homeschool peddlers, Vision Forum, etc) and advocate stoning sinners? 

Not just adulterers, but anyone who blasphemes God, is considered an "apostate," curses their parents or has sex before marriage.  That's just for starters.  Sorry if most of you fit that profile, but we're going back to the good ol' Old Testament law, baby, and cleaning up house is the first step.  Because Family is important.  Because Morality is important.  Don't you know, we're in a Culture War?  And the biggest thing that's caused all of these problems in the first place is that we made the mistake of letting people have the right to think what they want to think.  Thankfully, Andrew Sandlin of Chaldecon reminds us, 

  Reason itself is not an objective `given' but is itself a divinely created instrument employed by the unregenerate to further their attack on God." The "appeal to reason as final arbiter" must be rejected; "if man is permitted autonomy in one sphere he will soon claim autonomy in all spheres....We therefore deny every expression of human autonomy--liberal, conservative or libertarian."

Exactly.  So what is the real crux of the Culture War?  That if the culture warriors win, you and I aren't allowed to think in any way other than what the "new" State says is appropriate. 

Oh, sure, at first take it all sounds nice, especially because it's usually framed in sweet words and delightful images.  Who doesn't get warm and fuzzy (and have visions of Little House dance through their head) when someone talks about returning to the family---focusing on family.  And aren't the pictures sweet, showing us "just what life will be like" if we submit to their paradigm.  What could go wrong?  Gee, it's kind of like when you read the stories of how communism was introduced to the Russian school children.  Boy, it was exciting to be a member of the Young Pioneers and wear that pretty red scarf...   

Oh, don't worry.  We're not talking about evil Communism, we're talking about a good thing.  We're talking about upholding the fine Biblical vision of the family.  We're talking about valuing it as sacred, protecting it, putting it up on the pedastal it rightly deserves.  You don't mess with family.  As Reconstructionist Gary North once said,

"The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death."

"Family Values," anyone?

I had a similar pit tighten in my stomach this morning when I met a lady who knows a lady who I once gave a parenting book to---along with a glowing recommendation.  Somehow we got to talking about the mutual friends we had and whaddya know, up pops the name of this parenting book.  It went from me to the first lady and now she gave it to the lady I met today, soon to be a first-time mom, who was gushing about it. 

The book was the infamous/beloved (depending on your circle), "On Becoming Babywise," and is all about scheduling feedings and giving advice to let newborns cry themselves to sleep and reminding parents to watch out for that selfish new baby who will want ridiculous things like, say, cuddling too much, or wanting to nurse in order to be soothed.  

Can you imagine?  What dangerous little vipers babies must be.  I did my best to gently mention that the book was something I liked as a new mom but really had reservations about now, as the good advice was mixed up with some problematic instructions.  I could tell by the way the lady's eyes changed that not liking the book's message was not a valid option.  So I smiled nicely and changed the subject.  Okay.  Whatever.  It's not the first time a book I've passed out has come back to bite me in the butt.  There's at least twenty of the Pearl's parenting books circulating in my community-at-large, maybe more, thanks to my zealous little new mom hands.  Toilets.  I want to flush them all down toilets.  But I can't.  They're on people's bookshelves and they hand them to other people and the spread if it goes on, the idea that life is a tidy little world and it'll all go well if you just do a, b, and c. 

No one wants to acknowlege that this thing called life is complex!  If you suggest that reality is actually messy, that sometimes the path is knee-deep covered in mud and the only way to get to the next visible place is to just WADE, that sometimes there are more colors on the page than only jet-black and snow-white, they point long fingers your direction and holler the worst names they can think of at you.  That would be things like, "feminist/humanist/marxist/liberal Democrat/postmodernist/etc, all of which mean a variation of Satan's Evil Sidekick. 

In circles like some I wander in and once frequented as a member, if you wonder why Jesus somehow neglected to write out a handy dandy list detailing the "Four Hundred and Thirty Two Things You Have to do to be a Christian," you're told you must not be one because He certainly did, and if you're interpreting the Bible's "clear teaching" correctly you'd already know that, and besides, there's waaay more than 432 things you should be doing, honey.

 My friend, E, from Water and Spirit---a Jew-met-Jesus type of guy who studies Biblical Greek for fun---and I have been talking about this very thing (the idea that it's complex, not simple, and that sometimes it feels like the more we study, the less we know).   E, by the way, is someone I first met on a "hip hang-out" type of street corner where he'd set up a table with self-written tracts set on it, along with a few sticks of Nag Champa burning.  He had great discussions with passersby, and I do mean actual REAL discussions as opposed to stuffing his opinions down people's throats, and one day, one of those people was me.  E helped me take some of my first formative steps into following Christ as a messed-up 19 year old, and my husband and I have been friends with him ever since. 

He me an email lately that really hits the nail on the head.  My stomach is sick with good reason.  It's not all in my head.  Something's rotten.  Something needs flushed.  Why aren't we using our brains?  Why do we think that complexity is evil?  Why are we who come from the evangelical/fundie-hood so afraid of everything that's not white-wonder-bread flavored.  Who told us that wanting to eat anything but pre-digested little bits of flavorless dogma is to sin against God? 

But E says it better, not surprisingly, so I'll let his email take it from here: 

So I'm now about halfway through Vol. 4 of Jaroslav Pelikan's series on THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION. One thing reading this series (5 volumes in all) has done for me is make me realize (I think correctly) how many unacknowledged assimilations of theological assumptions I and pastors I've heard and known seem to have operated from.

I read about the development and setting forth of doctrines, etc., from the various figures who came up with them and I think:

"Oh, okay, that's where the three ways the church's use of the Law in relation to the Gospel came from" (i.e., 1. for inducing repentance; 2. for maintaining discipline in society; 3. as moral standards for Christians)

or

"Oh, so that's how/why/when the Protestants first argued against the 'Real Presence' by saying that since Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, He can't also be present in the bread and wine"

or

"So that's where the idea was first put forth that the church is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel," etc.

I guess if you're in an old church tradition (e.g., Reformed or Lutheran, or even Catholic or Orthodox) where the pastor/priest makes a point of teaching you the history and cardinal doctrines and distinctives of the denomination, you learn how the founder(s) came up with them, argued for them, and formed a church based on them.

But if you're in Biblechurchville or Non-Denominationaland, you probably mainly assimilate these things indirectly as the pastor teaches and preaches while operating from theological assumptions/conclusions/teachings that he, too, picked up un-analytically by reading lots of Christian books whose authors also just pass them along as if that's how Christians have always believed, etc.

(He could have gone to seminary and learned them formally, but since many seminaries are connected with particular denominations, there is probably not a lot of value in getting a broad and deep understanding of church history and the history of the development of doctrine, since there is only one history and line of doctrine that really matters to the people and places he is going to after he graduates. When I took my Greek classes at a Baptist seminary, I overheard ignorant comments about "Charismatics" that students would make in the dining hall, indicating their lack of familiarity with or understanding of things that were not Baptist. With an increased interest in "the early church," IVP and other Evangelical publishing companies have been putting out books on the subject, yet some I've seen/skimmed seem to be ignore things that would cause cognitive dissonance in their Evangelical readers, so the reader gets a highly-filtered and selective understanding of the early church from reading them.)

No, Christians have NOT always believed in the substitutionary atonement and/or believed in it as being THE reason Christ died. It's not "clearly" what the Bible teaches, even though it does teach that.

No, the communion elements have not always been regarded as being representational with no spiritual effect on the one communicating. That idea didn't become widespread until just a few hundred years ago. It wasn't what "the Bible clearly teaches." It may be what the Bible teaches, but it's not how most of the early Christians, and most Christians for hundreds of years afterwards, understood the Scriptures about those things.

Your typical newly-evangelized Evangelical Christian is given a systematic theology that is assumed by him and the ones who led him to the Lord, as well as by the pastor of the church he attends, to be what has always been believed everywhere and by all, and is what "the Bible says."

But it's not that simple.

And I suspect the messiness and complexity of the history of the development of Christian beliefs is not well known by your average Joe or Jill Christian. And it's probably because most of the stuff that's on the shelves of your typical Christian bookstore also repeats and promotes and operates from many of these unquestioned assumptions without knowing or stating how and why and where they came to be.

Or so it seems to me, as I think deep thoughts while being deprived of deep sleep.

The slow and steady marketing of a law-centric "good news" is happening, or, more likely, continuing (just changing it's look).  Where did the God go whose mercies are new every morning?  If we gave the Father of the Prodigal Son story a letter-grade based on how well He followed our slickly-marketed "Biblical Family" paradigm, He'd get an F.  That should tell you something right there.       

On the post, The Law Leads to Grace, Christian parents are told that parenting God's way means to hold your children to an unkeepable standard.  That means we are to set a behavioural standard that is impossible to keep and punish them via spanking when they fail to keep it, in order that they will understand God's mercy.  Long story short, I read, I commented, they responded, and further comments from me were not invited.  But, even though I make it my life policy NOT to do this, I can't get that post out of my mind (even though thinking about it hurts).  So I will share my moderated-out comments here:  

I  agree that we may only agree on disagreeing. :) Thanks for your gracious tone. But I must say that the picture I see the NT presenting in regards to what the Law does, does not fit well with it being a beneficial tutor.

I’m not sure that because God used the Law, it’s supposed to be replecated in the Christian home. That would be a concept we would extrapolate from the Bible, not find clearly presented there. Because the NT says that the Law is a “ministration of condemnation,” a “ministry of death,” etc.

There is enough law written on our own hearts to let us know we aren’t perfect. Galatians makes clear that nothing but the Spirit is going to enable us to walk in love. Parental discipline is great and has it’s purpose, but it will not give our children love, joy, peace, or anything of that sort.

The Pharisees walked in holy ways and not carnal ways, meaning that their outward behaviour was righteous. But out of everyone that Jesus dealt with, they were the ones He regularly yelled out.

I guess what concerns me is the thought that righteousness can be spanked into a child, and the thought that by making the home a microcosm of the OT unkeepable Law, we will bless our kids. The NT makes it clear: the Law brought death. The Law made sin abound. The Gentiles were receptive to the Gospel WITHOUT having a Law background. So why would we want to bring in a “ministration of death” into homes that should be growing up green shoots of life? Long story short, The problem isn’t the concept of discipline being necessary, so don’t get me wrong. I’m just seeing a lot of theology here that is troubling to me.
I know this won’t be published, but wanted to share these with you. Please know that I am a mother who used to share your same feelings and practices to a great degree. I am not here to “debate” or just to be a pain in the rear. Your posts hurt to read, because I hear my self in them, and I know that you have the very best of intentions at heart. I also believe that what you are doing and teaching is truly not the best thing for children, and not supported by the *whole* of Scripture.

Our job as parents is to reflect God, the Parent. How He parents His children is not by Law. The Prodigal Son’s father, who represents God, did not parent the way you are describing. You and I as new Christians were not parented by an unkeepable standard from God.

Christ made it very clear that He did not come to condemn but to save. Paul tells us in Romans 8 that there is no condemnation in Christ. Neither should we foster condemnation in our homes. The NT tells us that the Law is the ministration of condemnation. It has no place in our parenting. We operate on a wholly different paradigm.

When I was coming out of my former parenting paradigm, I did a study on the words “law” and on the word “grace” in the NT and came away deeply deeply deeply repentant for my former parenting practices. Grieved is not a strong enough word. In my desire to shine God’s heart, I completely misunderstood it and put His name on something that He came to abolish.

I realize that we may agree to disagree. But I wanted to write you one more time, just to share my own heart with you. I’m just one mom talking to another. Please take it for whatever it’s worth.

Some links I wanted to share:
http://lutherama.blogspot.com/2007/09/rod-is-means-of-grace.html

http://lutherama.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-on-tripp-and-spanking.html

http://aholyexperience.com/2006/04/perfectionism.html
(This is written by a dear friend of mine…and my own parenting story is so sadly similar).

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/moodyfamily/disciplineconclusions.html
This is written by a mom of many who was a Lactation Consultant on an Ezzo email loop I was a part of (I tried Ezzo scheduling with my second child…though I quit after 2-3 months of failing at it). I really liked her and was shocked to find that she’d left the Ezzo camp in both scheduling and disciplinary areas! It really surprised me, as she seemed so warm and level-headed (ha–meaning, I felt level-headed people would never leave our mutual concept of the rod and law and all of that–sheesh!)….

Again, I really am all for teaching our kids to obey (which does not necessarily require spanking, interestingly enough, though I didn’t know that before), and I find that spanking is something I still use sometimes with my toddler/preschooler when other things don’t seem to get through and I really need to make a point. So I’m NOT saying that I’m anti-spanking and I’m NOT saying that we shouldn’t teach our children to obey. Not at all. Though I sure look at things differently now than I did then.

In general, I have moved out (and am moving out) of a punishment/performance mode (which took some doing—it was all I’d ever known, both in my own childhood and than as a parent!) and am LOVING life on the other side. I was so wrapped up in performance, both on my kids and on my part (though I didn’t see that, then). “Perform for your approval…perform to be righteous, etc…” How *not* the way God works with us, you know?

I can’t tell you how great it is to put that to one side and concentrate on relationship. It’s messy, it’s WAY more work, but it’s REAL. It mirrors what Jesus did when He walked with His disciples SO MUCH MORE than my previous parenting paradigm did, that’s for sure. And it’s really good. :)

Also applicable to this topic is this, a compilation of posts I and some fantastic guest-bloggers put together not so very long ago, mainly centering on why and how many of us came out of punitive parenting philosophies.  I thought Tripp was fabulous.  I was wrong. 

[Edit to add]: Another excellent post about child-training is right here.  For those of you "trained" by the Pearls as to what training means, you will enjoy this wise successful mom's opinion.

"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

...You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."     --Galatians 5:1,4

Surely, I can't be the only one.  Tell us all when you discovered you'd been living the "Christian life" by law instead of by grace, and tell us how our star-flinging-yet-gentle-handed Yahweh set you free.   

It would have really helped if I'd not been online, co-owning and co-running a big website, blog, and forum for conservative complementarian/patriarchal women. And even better, it would have been nice had I some clue what was happening to me, instead of being a big weeping frothing disaster of bones and flesh. All I knew for sure was that my whole world was coming crashing down---whether right or wrong, it was unstoppable. And when the dust and smoke began to clear, I discovered that my whole world consisted 99.9% of wood, hay, and stubble.

I'd thought it was built on solid bedrock, built on Christ. That's why I taught those things, that's why I lived those things. I thought they were Him. But after the shaking, only He was left. And I hardly recognized Him at all. There was just this big gaping hole of nothing---the place where all my neat little conclusions used to be. I realized that my whole world was gone. I'd thought it was built on Christ, but What I thought He was, Who I thought He was, had all burned away.

I say all of that to try and explain that which I cannot seem to explain. I didn't know what I thought or what I should think, then. I was shell-shocked. But now I've admittedly changed many of my strongly held views. Some people are very angry that I am now egalitarian in my views on gender. (It doesn't matter if I explain that both my personal experience and my Scriptural experience began telling me that I was very wrong--that I cannot support patriarchy and still be consistant with who I see God to be). Some are very angry that I am no longer conservative in my political views. (It doesn't matter if I explain that I'm not really in any party: I'm just no longer a knee-jerk conservative Republican and I rebel against the false idea that "good Christians" have to be one).

Some people assume all sorts of things about what I think or mean---sort of a, "when in doubt, assume the worst" approach. I admit that I find it painful to be viewed as an enemy instead of a person. And some are very angry that I am anything at all. Once I left their camp, their affection for me evaporated on the spot.

Sometimes love is real, and sometimes it's just a performance contest---something to the effect of, "You do things my way, and then I'll grant you my affection." Conditional love: a love based primarily on outward performance. Not the kind of love that the prodigal son's father had. You find out if love is real when you stop dancing to the tune.

And my heart is tested in this same way. I really can't say that I spend a lot of time at the end of the road, waiting in hope, hurting because my love runs deep. Most of the time I find myself identifying with the elder brother in the parable, scowling, grumbling, or happiest when the "bad kid" in the family isn't doing so hot.

And while it really bothers me that I'm like that, usually I don't even realize I am. It's only in retrospect, during the hours when sleep won't come and I replay events in my mind, realizing just how grace-less I was in my interactions. My friends and aquaintances who continue to hold my former beliefs: do they have the right to continue to hold things dear that I now reject? Do I treat them with grace and honor despite our (now) differences, or do I make them endure the thing I so hate? "Ahem. Perform properly so that I can love you."

I hate group-think in theory, but group-think is a lot easier to be around. Hey, if everybody does things my way, it sure makes life easier. It sure makes relating easier. Not nearly so messy. We can all just be "like-minded." I think "like-minded" is just a lace-draped way of saying, "I like myself." Because if I only want to be around people who think just like I do, then its obvious what I really want to be around. Me.

But I don't want to be around group-think, not really. It provides a false sense of community, a pretend version of love, but there's no teeth in it. And besides, there was no group-think when the Star-Flinger left it all and was born disguised in wobbly baby arms and legs. No unanimous consent, no Orthopedic mattresses at night, no adoring throngs that fanned Him with palm branches lest His precious wittle face get sun-burnt. The reason John notes that they spread palms before Him is because it wasn't a normal event.

Shepherds lead the way---that's what they do best. So I want to follow, and in so doing I choose this messy complex muddy world, where we must slog through muck in order to love, with no guarantees of being loved in return.

It's hard to try to explain the daily schedule at Hephzibah House.  Daily life was about so much more than just school and chores.  Each day was like a journey; you never knew which way the wind was going to blow.  It might be your lucky day, and the staff ladies would all be in good spirits, chores would be done successfully, and we would get a decent meal.  But on the other hand, the staff could be in a bad mood, none of your chores would pass inspection, and it would be the same dinner yet again (not that you would even get to eat it if your chores didn't pass).  [Click here for full article]. 

In 1974, Ron Williams began Hephzibah House as a home that would provide "live-in rehabilitation and discipleship for women and girls."     Being an independant fundamental seperatist Baptist means that Williams probably has vastly different ideas than you do about what constitutes rehabilitation and discipleship. 

The dictionary defines rehabilitate as, "to restore to a former state."  One must wonder what "former state" is Williams and his staff discipling girls into?  For example, former Student, Susan Grotte, writes:

 My name is Susan Grotte. I am writing to state officially that I was abused at Hephzibah House from February, 1981, to July, 1983. I realize that this is far in the past, and nothing can be done. However it has come to my attention that girls are suffering under the same cruel conditions right now.

The state of Indiana investigated while I was a student at Hephzibah House, but we were hidden in a dark church while they came through. A few girls who were coached and intimidated were allowed to stay and speak to the investigators.

 I was beaten with a paddle until I was black and blue. My skirt was pulled up, and I was laid out on the flour. One adult sat on my back and tightly held my arms, while another sat on my feet to keep me from kicking... A third wielded a paddle and beat me. I was beaten nearly every day for the first three to four months when I was there. After that time, I was sufficiently broken and docile, thus only receiving two to three per month. These beating were so severe that they left blisters, hurt my back and twice I fainted. I still smell that carpet and feel it against my face.

 I was so hungry all the time. The Williams ate very well, while they denied the girls sufficient, healthy food especially considering the energy we expended. I lost nearly 40 lbs in four months-- dropping from a normal 128 pounds to a mere 88. This in spite of the fact that we were not allowed to turn down any food offered.

I was menstruating normally before arriving at Hephzibah House, but ceased until I left in 1983.

 I did heavy, back breaking labor. There was emotional abuse in the form of humiliation and isolation. Hephzibah House denied any form of contact with the outside world including media and notice of my grandmother’s death, as well as censoring letters from my parents. The rare phone calls from home were tightly monitored. Communication with other students was supervised and very limited.The saddest part is that the Hephzibah House staff managed to convince me that they loved me. They taught us that we would go to hell if we ever would betray them, or "rise up against God's man."

 Williams recently contacted me. I was shaking when I heard his voice. He asked me to write a letter to his lawyer stating that I was never abused, nor had witnessed any abuse while I was a resident. He was asking me to lie for him. I step forward now to defend these poor girls who cannot defend themselves.Hundreds of girls have suffered because I did not have the courage to speak up then. This clear violation of normal human rights should not still be happening, 25 years later, in America.

 

It is important to point out that I had never shown any aggressive or violent behavior, had never experimented with drugs or alcohol, never been with a boy. My crime was never disclosed to me. I never had a trial, I never had a voice. I was 15.

 In Christ alone,
--Susan Grotte

 

Many parents in using the rod of correction on their child do so with an obvious lack of vigor and often stop short of the child's will being completely broken. Manifestation of this error is illustrated in countless homes as a child gets up from his session of correction still spouting rebellious words and giving willful looks at his discouraged parent. The parent has no one to blame but himself for this problem since he did not completely break the will of the child during the session of correction. A child who is still willing to resist the authority of his parent after having received the rod of correction is still in need of more of that same rod.

Both my wife and I have often remarked that it is good that one of our children was not our firstborn. This particular child who came along later in our family was extremely willful and rebellious toward our authority and would often require sessions of correction lasting from one to two hours in length before the will would finally be broken! Had this child been our first, we may well have been tempted to despair of the grace of God.

...To put it another way, the one who does not Biblically beat his child, in a loving and consistent way, in a very real sense predisposes that child for hell and even has a direct part in sending him there!   

...  When should a parent start using the rod of correction on a child that the Lord has brought into the family? There is no clear and specific answer to this very good question. However, it is my opinion that the correction of children should start as soon as the need for that correction is made manifest. Every discerning parent who has been blessed with a little child in his home realizes that his initial impression of the sweetness and the innocence of the child is in reality an illusion. A child very quickly demonstrates his fallen, depraved nature and reveals  himself to be a selfish little beast in manifold ways. As soon as the child begins to express his own self-will (and this occurs early in life) that child needs to receive correction.

My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will broken by the time he reaches the age of one year. To do this, a child must receive correction when he is a small infant. Every parent recognizes that this self-will begins early as he has witnessed his child stiffen his back and boldly demonstrate his rebellion and self-will even though he has been fed, diapered, and cared for in every other physical way.      [Click here for article in full]

 It's hard to believe that the Hepzibah House is alive and kicking after years of abusing young women, but it is and has been since 1974, despite an investigation here and there.   As you read this blog post, there are girls at the House at this very moment, experiencing "rehabilitation" treatment like Susan's.  After reading story upon story from girls who survived this hellish "home," I want to do my small part to see it's doors shut for good.  If you would care to join me, here is some contact information provided by Gabby, a former Hepzibah prisoner. 

Randy Bowman and Paul Schmitt
Winona Lake Police Department
http://www.winonalake.net (574) 267-8622
***they are currently our contact people, but i don’t have much confidence in either of these two men.***

http://www.guidestar.org
copies of HH tax returns
(i found the last 5 years of HH returns on this site)!!! you can see the millions they make each year in donations (which is separate from the monies that the parents send monthly).

Mayor Ernie Wiggins (Warsaw, Indiana)
ewiggins@kconline.com (his direct e mail)
(574) 372-9595 (you will initially get his assistant Michelle)

State Rep. David Wolkins
Statehouse: (800) 382-9841 In District: (574) 269-2639
***He is from Winona Lake, Indiana***

Governor Mitch Daniels
Phone: 317-232-4567
http://www.in.gov/apps/afss/afss2
the web address is the contact page if you want to send the governor an e mail

Hepzibah House has 2 addresses that they use, so it is kind of confusing b/c all the officials seem to want to pass the buck and say HH is not in their jurisdiction.
508 school street…winona lake, indiana
is the addy that they advertise with; however, this is a residence that they own and it is the office for Hepzibah House.   2277 E. Pierceton Rd. Warsaw, Indiana
is the actual address of where the girls are held. These 2 addresses are literally 5 minutes apart, but they are in different towns.  The church is on the same property as where the girls are kept.

Gabby recently sent this email to State lawmakers, and attached this article of Ron Williams to her email.  I am planning on contacting these people as well, but think it would be helpful to get ahold of some media, too.  Since I'm in Alaska, far from Indiana (obviously), I am not sure which direction to go in regards to media.  Anyone have any ideas and/or numbers and addresses?     

Hat Tips: I would like to thank True Womanhood blog and the post, Parenting Models in the Church, that allowed a conversation about Hepzibah House to take place, and Cynthia Gee, of Common Sense blog, for bringing it up in the first place.  But even more than that, I would like to applaud former Hepzibah House inmates for having the guts to step forward and tell their stories, and to encourage them to keep on speaking out.     

I suppose that all natural human loves can be images of and partakers in Divine Love. It's only just come to me how a parents' love really does so.

In a happy marriage there is no need of a child to bring any completion or fulfil any lack within the relationship. The the man and the woman - diverse in sex, one in nature - have found unity and completion in one another, and they make a little world of themselves. Yet that same relationship will ordinarily flow out into living offspring. In fact, when parents bring a child into the world voluntarily and out of no obligation or sense of need, but just out of the desire to share their love with their own image, to allow their love to expand, as it were, and flow out, not only to an existing object, but to an object that exists because of the love that flows out to it - that is the when the phrase "Our Father, You Who are in Heaven" has the most meaning to us.

In case someone does not understand the comparison, I am talking about the truth that God is Himself a Realm and World that needs no other world to contain or give context. In diversity of Persons, Unity of Nature, His existance is named Love. Yet he pours out love even beyond himself, as impossible as this seems, which results in the existance of creatures and the bestowing of all good upon them. This is done freely and that is the beauty of it and the Honor of the Creator.

I believe that parental love is an image of this Divine Creative Love, and I think that the more freely parents bestow this 'creating love' upon the child whose existence they desire, the clearer the image becomes.

On the other hand, when the bearing of children becomes an obligation, as in so many corners of Christianity, the image is forbidden this, its most essential aspect.

Obligation is what ruins so many spiritual joys and godly virtues. I'm sure that is why, no matter how much the Jewish Christians of the Apostle Paul's day were in need, no matter how good it was for the Gentiles to contribute largely to that need, he forbore to give them any command concerning the amount (or percentage) that each was to give. For "God loves a cheerful giver" and no one was to give "under compulsion."

In fact, although the Kingdom of God is a place of order, of God's rule, of Law of a sort, that Law is Love, and Love is free and is freedom. The whole tenor of true Christianity is one of goodness that is not under compulsion. Whenever I percieve the urge to codify and legislate what ought to be free and the springing up of grace, I feel that I am looking at something unhealthy and not fully Christian.

DEAR Bro. WHITE,

I would be glad to say a few words to the dear "brethren and sisters, who have not, as yet, embraced present truth. In my intercourse with them, I am often met with the following objections.

"If I have Christ formed within, it is enough." "It is Christ that saves, not the Sabbath. Outward observances avail not; it must be an inward work. The Spirit guides into all truth, and you Sabbath folks require an assent to your faith and practices, making the commandments a test of salvation."

I wish to inquire of these dear brethren, if they did not meet with the very same in 1843 and '44? When you felt the truth of God like fire shut up in your bones, and you must speak, were not your hearts pained by such reasonings? As though to love and obey the truth, was making the merits of Christ of none effect. Getting up another Saviour; lessening the importance of vital piety; giving heed to strange guidances, and necessarily begetting a dogmatical, proselyting spirit.

O how far from the reality. How different from the true effect of God's word upon the heart. But to make the subject clear, and-shew the importance of searching for truth, I would mention a personal acquaintance who "walked with God," and had long enjoyed close communion with Him. When the "Advent near " was proclaimed, she loved it, but rested, having the witness that "Christ is mine now," and looking for the "Spirit to guide into all truth" without the act of "hearing " and examination on her part. She neglected to search diligently to see whether these things were so, and consequently suffered not the deep disappointment and reproach of God's people. But, she lost, and knew not why or how, as she afterwards expressed, the power she formerly had with God. Alas! she had not embraced what was then "present truth," had failed of its sanctifying influences, and was not prepared for that which followed.

O my dear brethren and sisters, next to the "Gift of His dear Son," I praise God that he has led me along step by step in his trying, saving truths of these last days, until I am now found under the third angel's cry, striving with my whole heart to keep the commandments of God, and the faith, or teachings of Jesus Christ.

Not 'till the Midnight Cry (Summer of 1844) did I so fully realize the importance of the preceding messages. But O, than I felt how improbable it was, that those who rejected them would receive this. I saw that one only prepared the way for another, and thus it appears to me quite through the perfect chain. But I do rejoice that some have been enabled to embrace these truths as a great whole. May the Lord enable them, with those who have known this way, to stand, and enter into his rest.

We hail with gladness the "Advent Review and Sabbath Herald," believing it just adapted to the wants of the household; and most sincerely hope each will contribute a "mite" by writing, that it may be known whether the commandments are to them "grievious" or not. Praise the Lord, my soul witnesseth, they are a delight.

And here may I ask, does not holy writ (not we) make the keeping of them a condition of life? Yea, even the love of God itself? See John's Epistles. And are not those that do them (all of them) blessed, "that they may enter in through the gates into the city," &c.? But it is argued, you thus make the righteous dead enter without having kept them. We answer, they lived up to the best light they had. Now the temple of God has been opened in heaven, and the clear light shineth. O let us come to the light, that our deeds may be reproved, and we henceforth walk as children of the light.

In hope.

F. M. SHIMPER.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1851-V01-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6

 Hi Molly!  I have recently discovered your blog.  I can’t even remember how I got there, probably through some older posts of Lindsey’s at Enjoy the Journey. I know you probably get a lot of email from blog readers but, just the same, I wanted to let you know how much your writing has meant to me.  You say all the things I am thinking but am afraid to say aloud.  I am coming out of a lifetime in the fundie church.  I was raised in a fundamentalist Pentecostal home.   After the birth of my first child, I dove even deeper into the ultra-conservative, patriarchal sect of the religion I was raised in.  I stopped cutting my hair, wearing jumpers etc.  You know the scoop!   What is so amazing to me now (and I have noticed this to be true of many on this path) is how could I, with a high IQ and an intense academic background, been sucked into this mess.  I hate to sound conceited but it seems that many bright, articulate, intelligent women are pulled down this path.  I wonder why that is?  I suppose the important thing is that I have now left that life behind in the physical.  In the emotional and psychological?  Well, that is a little trickier, isn’t it?   

 My husband is a lifelong Lutheran.  I pulled him into the Fundie hood with me where he was subsequently baptized 2 more times to make us worthy of various churches  First, the Pentecostals baptized him and then the Independent Baptists insisted he be baptized their way as well.  All the while, he had been baptized as an infant and was feeling a little disconcerted by the whole thing.  Fear was driving us.  We hopped from church to church and from denomination to denomination.  We felt condemned, overwhelmed, unworthy and as if we had this long lists of dos and don’ts that we couldn’t possibly keep up with.  We were scared to reveal to one another that we thought maybe something was seriously wrong with all of it.   

 We are now in the membership of a very tiny Missouri Synod Lutheran Church where we are shepherded by a lovely Pastor who is helping me deconstruct and debrief.  It is difficult and frustrating.  At every turn there is some new issue that I run into and have to overcome.  I am certainly not advocating the LCMS church.  I am also not sure that it is our final destination.  We have been parked in that spot for over 2 years.  Recently, we have gone through a teaching series on Revelation with our Pastor and the help of Dr. Bruce Metzger’s book on the subject.  When the idea of ammillenialism began to unfold in front of me I was appalled.  I am so confused on the issues there but this new viewpoint sure is appealing and reassuring and so much less scary than the fire and brimstone I have known my whole life.  I am just not sure yet as this is very much a process for me.   

 My dear Pastor speaks grace into my heart each week, reminding me that I can do nothing, absolutely nothing and that it is all Him.  How many times will I have to be told?  A million more? 

 I have found great comfort in the rhythm of the church year and the liturgy and the idea that communion means something in my spiritual life.  I have always been fascinated by Catholicism but I was taught that it was the ‘Great Whore.’ I have allowed myself to read literature from the Saints and explore that pull I have always had to Catholic spirituality.  Do I think we will end up in the Roman church eventually?  I don’t know, as there is so much with which we disagree.  However, I am trying to remember that it is the journey not the destination. I know it is cliché but it is true.  And the destination isn’t a denomination anyway!  It is eternal life with the Father.  

 The point of all of this was just to say thank you for being so raw and honest.  As a homeschool mom, most of my homeschooling comrades think I am a defector and a heathen.  I am so lonely.  We are an Air Force family which is hard to begin with but add homeschooling AND not fundamentalists on top of that and you end up with one lonely mommy.  I was also curious if you had any books and/or blogs that would be encouraging and/or informative.  What are your favorite reads?   Again, thank you! 

Canaan Herkamp

www.livingincanaan.typepad.com

After the "unsafeness" of the whacko church of my young-adult-met-Jesus days (that is, my Bible College, where I learned so much and yet also learned that the leader was getting cozy with some of the female staff, but with a doctrine of authority similar to the Shepherding Movement's, we were taught it was more important to the Lord that we not speak against "God's annointed" than it was to confront him for sexual sin!), the safety and the promises of the Cult-of-"Biblical"-Family were oxygen to my starving lungs.  I gripped this apparent life-raft, guaranteeing myself a secure and godly future, and held on tight.  This would be my salvation.  I just knew that these people would pull me into safety. 

Unfortunately this Cult-of-"Biblical"-Family group is thriving, becoming more and more mainstream among conservative Christian families.  It can be found in groups like Vision Forum and books like “Passionate Housewives,” and “So Much More.”  I feasted on writings by Douglas Wilson, Michael Pearl, and Mary Pride---teaching tapes from Denny Keneston and Jonathan Lindvall and from websites like Ladies Against Feminism.   These groups all made bold statements about who goes where, who does what, who thinks what, who says what.  They painted thick black lines, making borders easy and clear, and slung God’s name around all over the place, making their claims wear halos and appear deeply supported by Scripture. 

I praised God and I set my eyes sternly on the road ahead.  We would be a holy people.  We would have a great marriage.  We would raise good and godly children.  We would find the one true theological camp that was without error.  We would, we would, we would, all because there were simple formulas to follow, simple clearcut paths to walk.  The road might be a narrow one, but it was God's, so it was worth taking.  I took a deep breath and plunged in.  

Thus began my bondage to legalism, pride, and theological certainty that would become my undoing.  I am now, truly, gratefully disallusioned.  But that didn't and doesn't make disallusionment easy or painless.  Walking out of my tidy world of boxes has come at great cost.  But, more importantly, this time (instead of coming out only to jump into a new pit), I've been trying to disentangle slowly, carefully, looking closely at each insidious octupus arm I pry and cut off of my heart. 

I am human, therefore I will always be vulnerable to deception, but if and/or when I ever walk into a pit again, at least it won't be the same one. 

 One of the biggest things I (have and) am learning is to beware the formulas for perfection.  Parenting advice, for example.  These formulas can come from the ultra-conservatives ("If your child is whining, swat him.  Soon, your children will all have happy hearts.") and these formulas can also come from the other sides ("Your child is whining because you aren't co-sleeping with him!").  Both ways, a formula is promised to "fix" a person.  If you follow a, b, and c, you will get the outcome you want.        

But the fact is, people are, uh, people.  They are not Ford trucks that come out of factory assembly lines.  So how did I get off treating people as if they were inanimate objects?  How did I get off dumping the Holy Spirit for formulas?  Why was the formulaic approach so seductively appealing to me?   

I know exactly how.  Because formulas, even the demanding kind, take a LOT less work.  People, on the other hand are messy, complicated, and complex.  It's a lot easier to shove a formula at them then actually relate, then actually hear, then actually step into their shoes.  Sheesh, it's a lot easier to shove a formula at my own heart than it is to delve in there and slog through the murky waters with who-knows-what-God-awful creatures are swimming around in there.  I'd rather just paste a smile on my face and move on. 

Don't ask me why I thought God approved of pasty-smiles more than He did me looking into the deep of my heart, but I really truly thought He did.  When I first began finally dealing with what was in there, instead of slapping on the "righteous cheer" (which was actually, despite it's spiritual sounding veneer, just a coping mechanism for avoiding VALID glaring problems), I thought I was going to be struck dead. 

What a SHALLOW view of God I had.  What a WRONG view of God I had.   I mean, good grief, what kind of "God" just wants a smile instead of a heart? 

But since that was the version of God I served, it flowed down.  That's what I wanted from all the people around me.  Don't make me have to connect with your heart (because that would be messy, bloody, and besides: I might have to actually engage); just give me a cheerful looking smile. 

"I don't care if being a stay home mom feels like death, friend.  What your real problem is is that you are whining and thus rebelling against God.  You just need to paste on a smile and it will all work out fine."  "I don't care if you are freaking out upset that your dolly's dress just fell in the mud, kid.  What you need to do is politely ask Mommy to help you, or I'm going to swat you for that sinful whining that will cause you to go to hell." 

"I don't care if you are struggling with your marriage and it hurts like hell, woman.  What you should do is read this excellent book by ____, start constantly submitting and smiling at all times, and then all your problems will be solved."  "I don't care if you think homeschooling is hard and you hate it, mother.  You just have to ___ [fill in blank with whatever curriculum or philosophy is in vogue] and you'll love it!"   

Anyone note the ever-constant theme?  It's there, always, in everything they do: Formula over relationship.  It comes from hyper-conservative and hyper-liberal and all sorts of other places, but it doesn't matter where it comes from: it's NOT God's Way, period.  Yet it's aaaalways been a draw, right from the get-go, right from Eden and the first temptation of the snake.  Paul wrote Galatians for this very reason, because the Early Church, even with their apostles that had actually walked with Christ, was still completely human and therefore ever-vulnerable to being sucked into the path of least resistance. 

Formula over relationship is numblingly mind-blowingly attractive, no matter how hard the formula is to follow, because even the difficult ones STILL demand SO MUCH less of us than real heart-to-heart relating does. 

This is why Paul says in Corinthians that we can be burned at the stake or give all we have to the poor, and yet still be without the one thing God wants us to have: Love.  Love is never a formula.  Love is what living breathing things can do, and what you can do with living breathing things.  (Try showing 1 Corinthians 13 Love to a rock, if you think I'm lying). 

You can be burned for the truth, you can give all your possessions away, and yet still never walk in another's shoes, never turn your heart towards Yahweh and bask in His smile, never ever LOVE.  All the formula requires is my will-power, my behaviour, my emotions.  Boring.  Easy.  Anyone can do that.  But what God wants is to love me.  And He wants the deep down parts of me, even my ugly slimey heart-waters, my naked thoughts, my screwed up head---all of me---turned His way and smiling at Him in love.  

He always smiles back.  And that's all He wants.  Two plain-Jane booooring old commandments: Love God and Love Others.  So simple.  So unbelievably demanding.  It is so much easier to turn back to the Law and find soothing comfort there.  The Law gives us clear boundaries.  The Law lets us rest in the formula, lets us keep our feet clean, lets us remain detached.  

The Law is gives me that rubber bottle nipple and lets me suck my way into peaceful slumber.  I don't have to engage.  All I have to do is follow the formula.  Good God, we make salvation itself into a formula instead of a relationship.  No wonder we can so easily get it wrong every where else.     

A billboard sign high above a prominently-located business near my home says,

"Some People Mistake Easter for Decoration Day."

I saw it, took a few seconds to get the pun (Decoration Day vs. Resurrection Day...some of us are slow on the uptake), then rolled my eyes, then experienced a rise in blood pressure as fumes started poofing out of my skull.  What is wrong with us, for God's sake!?  I mean, leave it to us to go make-up a "Holy Day," inform others that if they love Jesus they must celebrate that day our way, and then go shame those who are at least trying to respect the "rule," even if their hearts aren't in it.  Not-so-Secret Message: We don't just want control over your smiling faces: we want your heart, soul, and body!    

The sad thing is that the business probably intended the sign as an "outreach."  Funny thing is, all stuff like that does is further puff up the self-righteous frequent attender but serve to piss off the "unchurched" guy who was thinking he might just go to a service this Sunday for the first time in a long time.  

Gee, nothing like shaming someone to get them to either feel like dirt or wash their hands of you altogether.  But so many of my evangelical homies are so enculturated in American-Christianese that we all can't even see that we did it in the first place.  Gar.     

The general approach of Paul in his writings were to take the practice of following God as a matter of changing our character. This was not a new concept as David did say this in Psalm 51:16-17 that what God really want is for us to have a good heart and be sincere.

Paul also wrote a very good piece in 1 Corinthians 13 where he outlines that love is the most important thing in our religious journey. Many religious persons are dedicated to follow the laws and whatever code of conduct for the religion but fail to change their ways of thinking and attitudes. This concept of love is fully in line with the law, it means moving from just the ritual to practical execution of the true intent.

Romans 12:1-2 shows that we need to change the way we think approaching Christ. There are a lot of wrong views that we have in the world as the Jews had in the time of Paul.

Another conflicting view that the Jews had with Paul was the concept of the universal religion of God trying to save mankind not just Israel. The Jews suffer from this disease today and thats why Israel is considered a fortress since they are not depending on God but themselves for security. The goal is to bring the blessing that God promise to Abraham by living as examples to all mankind.

Paul's theology fits 100% with the famous sermon on the mount in Matthew 5. One key point before closing is that when Christ mentioned about fulfilling the law, one way to look at it is that he really showed men how to keep the law in its truest way.

When you look at all these scriptures and you think of the whole issue of friendship, it seem a basic requirement is that we should treat everyone as friends. That does not mean all of us will have intimate or close relationships with each other, but it means we should care to a deeper level than the world would do normally. This is irrespective of which social group you attach yourself with.

This is a long topic, so I am sure there will be more areas to cover in future postings.

Shabbat Shalom

And if behaviour can be reformed that way, then why didn't the Law work for God?  

Did God just not apply it correctly?  Did we just not give it enough time?  If reward/punishment systems are so amazing, why would the Law need to "fade away," why would it need to be called the "ministration of death," or the "letter that killeth (2 Corinthians 3)?"

We tend to “flock up” whenever we get the chance, and maybe that’s partly why “love your brothers as I have loved you,” and “love your neighbor as yourself,” and all other varieties of that same commandment are all SOOO incredibly difficult. We tend to dehumanize everyone who isn’t in our camp—or at least to put them on levels *under* or *over* us, instead of loving them as we love ourselves and/or as God has loved us.

One of my best friends, who’s more emergent than anything else, can’t stand the emergent movement on many levels because of it’s “ghetto-ness,” in that, in her experience, you have to be cool and look hip in order to be loved there. Interestingly enough, she is "cool" and does look hip, but it really bothers her to see the preferential treatment and the unwritten dress code there… That’s not all emergent groups, but that does describe some. Just as my experience in the fundie-hood doesn’t describe all of them, just some, and particularly, ME.

*I* was the one who got off track. I know some precious fundamentalists who LOVE my Lord with abandon. It’s in their eyes and it’s in their actions. I also know some Catholics who are the same way…and some Methodists…and some Charismatics…

I think Leigh Ann is right that I’m reacting, in that for me, a lot of the things within fundamentalism make me sick to my stomach—-a rather violent reaction, I’d say! My husband recently unpacked a few boxes and hung up a couple jumpers in my closet (that he likes me in) and I walked into the room, felt like throwing up, and hurridly shoved the jumpers back into the box.

They made me feel *controlled* in the negative sense of the word…oppressed…   I’m not saying that in the sense that I can’t follow authority (because actually, I can, all too well), and I’m a fan of following when it’s *right* to follow.  I’m saying “controlled” in a bad sort of way, because I had this idea that a certain dress code made God smile and a different dress code meant His acceptance of me would go away.  THAT is what I’m saying when I say, “controlled.”

The jumpers are NOTHING, in and of themselves, and, yes, it's really stupid that a piece of denim made my intestines lurch.  But, how do I say it?   I saw them and it was like needles digging into a wound that has yet to be fully healed (though it *is* healing).  Finding righteousness outside of Christ is a horrible world to live in. To me, the jumpers remind me of when I walked outside of Him as my safe place. I’m not pretending my reaction is rational.  I’m just saying it is what it is. I can’t help it. I can only wait for God to heal it.

I say all of that just to express that I TRULY do not mean to say that fundamentalism is the only place that can happen. I think forgetting one’s First Love can happen anywhere. For me, it happened in fundie-hood. Since this is my blog where I process out my own personal journey, obviously I’m going to talk about my own personal experiences.

And, for me, while I don’t *blame* fundamentalism persay, I do feel that it has aspects that make “ghetto-izing” way easier to do than it should be.  So much emphasis on outward rules and outward conformity makes it awful easy to forget that the fruit of the Spirit is the goal, not dress code, schooling choices, voting choices, etc.  I mean, you don’t *do* fruit—-you bear it. It comes from a Life inside of you, not human effort, you know? You can’t produce it, I mean.

Yet I feel that fundamentalism often forgets that, preaching all the things we should and shouldn’t do and forgetting that we find our righteousness in HIM, forgetting grace. I know that I didn’t even know what grace meant (though I could define it and right a paper on it, mind you).

So I don’t want to pretend I don’t see areas in the fundie-hood that I think need to be brought strongly under the reign of Christ, and yet at the same time, I am well aware that the reign of Christ first and foremost takes place in our HEARTS, and that’s something that ultimately no system or lack thereof can fix or destroy. Ultimately, it comes down to me, down to the direction I choose to point the eyes of my heart (this is where I tick off the Calvinists)…

When I first began this personal blog as I exited conservativism (which I didn't yet know I was doing), some leaders in my "Biblical Womanhood" world told me, in no uncertain terms, to shut it down, which is decidedly different from warmly dissenting, as Leigh Ann has always done an excellent job of doing.  (Examples of the lovely technique for squelching discussion can be found in the comments thread here, for example). 

Wondering about things aloud was decisively not allowed.  Neither was questioning established norms.  Neither was questioning what they said was God's way, period.  I remember the pain those comments caused me---not the pain at their negative or concerned opinions for me, because I'm pretty thick skinned.  The reason it hurt so badly was because I still thought that way, still thought that there was probably only one right way of looking at everything (and that it was probably the way our little Christian subculture held) and that God would crush whoever deviated from it.  

I can hear someone crying, "She's just denied absolute truth," but be reassured: No, I didn't.  I merely deny that one little Christian sub-culture has a handle on all absolute truth, that's all. 

The reason I good-naturedly call my previous paradigm the "fundie hood" is because it cultivated a ghetto-like mentality: our way vs. everyone else.  Casual thoughts/statements like, "Oh, that person claims they are Christian, but I'm not sure if they're a real one or not yet," sort of give it away, you know?  Everything outside the ghetto was to be feared, whereas everything taught inside the ghetto was to be accepted without question or risk the label of heretic (or relativist, or feminist, or socialist, or...).  Lest you think I'm whining at being taught in ways that did not encourage discussion, let me remind you that in my most wincing memories, I was the teacher, teaching "God's Truth" in exactly that way.  The only questions I liked were the sort that you find in a workbook----the ones looking for a very obvious answer, one that fit perfectly in our little paradigm.     

I met Jesus as a person who struck bottom, a young adult striving for success (in the alternative world of the early 90's) on the outside, but on the inside was riddled by fear and eaten by insecurity and excelling in the fine art of hyper-self-focus.  I met Jesus and, long story short, the next thing I knew, I was walking on a narrow but well trod path, and I was smiling with this big goofy grin, knowing that no matter what happened, everything would always be okay from here on out.  My robes were washed clean, my heart was light.  He did that. 

And I left it, all in the name of pursuing Him wholly.  It looked good.  It looked great.  It felt good too, those first tantalizing years of finding my righteousness in Things, my identity in how I schooled my kids, in the way I dressed, in the doctrinal position we held on this or that, on the programs or events I was involved with. 

Somewhere, in the midst of it all, as my proud identity began to crumble in the face of my own imperfection, I discovered I wasn't on that little path anymore, my robes were in tatters, and that it had been a long time since a big goofy grin raised my cheeks.  With my stomach in my throat, I opened my eyes for the first time in years and found that I was following law-----a thief masquerading only as shepherd (having had thousands of years to perfect the fine art of devouring and destroying). 

Escaping him was costly.  My health is still in tatters, and it has taken and is taking a long time to untangle the web.  For example, when those comments came telling me to shut down my blog (until I could become a godly Titus 2 older woman, ad nauseum), to stop wondering anything aloud and daring to question the sweeping authority of Ghetto Home Rules, I could hardly breath reading them because I was still so shaky, still wondering if I'd gotten it all wrong---if God was the destroyer (well, the false shepherd said he was God, and that rather authoritatively), still wondering if I was going to be struck dead for wondering what was outside the ghetto walls.

I guess I write this tonight to say that I believe questioning a (and any) Christian ghetto is perfectly acceptable.  But I also write to say that I'm very much in process, and I think Leigh Ann brings up a valid warning here.  Though I'm sure she didn't mean it as an actual warning, I wanted to mention it in the name of full disclosure---maybe you should be warned. 

This blog doesn't exist to show everybody the "right way" to do things or to think about things.  Of course I enjoy readers, in the same way that I enjoy large groups of people in real life, but I don't think of myself as a teacher when I sit down at the computer and type out a ramble.  When I write, I actually picture myself chattering away in a circle of friends at a loud and happy party---knowing that when I wake up in the morning and check the internet, some of you will have flapped your jaws back at me---all of us together thinking, searching, enjoying the fellowship and the wondering on the greatness and the bigness of Yahweh.   If you're looking for The Super Christian behind a pulpit, go somewhere else.          

excerpt from Hebrews 13:9

Cynthia's Story:

The year was 2000.  Once again, I was on my annual retreat to a local statewide homeschooling conference.  That year, as I stood in line to register, was already different and I had no idea what God had in store for me later.  I was there not as an eager participant anticipating a weekend of encouragement but as a heartbroken parent.  Just the weekend before, my husband and I were slammed with the reality of some things going on in my oldest daughter's life.  All that we had worked for, all that we had prayed for, all that we had strived to produce in our children seemed shattered.  With tears in my eyes, I gazed at the perfect homeschooling families with their pasted on smiles and matching clothes.  That is what we used to be and at that point, I felt lost and confused.

I started out my parenting journey in 1984 as a single mother but not for long.  My husband met and fell in love with me when I was seven months pregnant.  The next year we would marry and begin to build a Godly family.  We were young and had no idea of how to raise children.  Oh but there were plenty of Christian experts willing to guide us along the way.  It was my deepest desire to be a good mom, to love my children and protect them from the heartache that my own rebellion and mistakes had brought.  It was as if I set out to redeem my own life through the lives of my children.  I was looking for results and the parenting formulas made sense to me then.

There were promises that if I just did A, B, C and D then my children would be cheerful, obedient, godly children.  Coupled with the mandate that this was my calling, my duty to produce children for the Lord who would grow up to serve him, the rules of parenting became my guiding force.  The children were young, compliant and our family looked picture perfect.  Compliments were plenty and I thought all was well.  We were being obedient to God; we were following the recipe.  There were if and then charts, punishments were handed out for any infraction.  If you broke the rule, you paid the consequence.  God was an angry God who required cheerful obedience and holiness; nothing less was acceptable.

When it all came crashing in that spring of 2000, I felt like I was being spun in a hurricane.  I had no bearings, no idea where we had gone wrong, no plan for the next step.  God had me right where he wanted me.  Only when all I had held onto, all that I had replaced Him with, all the parenting books and charts … only when all that was gone could I hear that still small voice speak to me.  It came through the voice of Mark Hamby who was speaking at the conference that year.  I stood in the back of that room, tears of sorrow streaming down my face and Mark made a statement, not even directed to parenting, but absolutely what I needed to hear.  He said, "Wives, you need to let your husbands fail so that God can do the work He needs to do in their lives."  My heart was split open by the finger of God at that moment and my true motives were revealed.  My spirit was broken and I turned to the One who should have been guiding me all along.  He picked me up, turned me around and set me on a 180 degree turn around.  I have never looked back.

Three things God revealed to me that day.  Our home was controlled by fear.  The children obeyed in fear and I parented in fear.  It was that failure that Mark Hamby spoke to that I feared.  I feared failing as a parent.  I believed that my children were a reflection of me, of my success.  They had to be good so that I could be good.  It was up to me to produce Godly children and if I could do that, then I was a good mother.  The key element that was missing was assurance of Love.  God taught me that perfect love drives away fear.  I had not known His perfect love yet and certainly was not demonstrating that toward my own children.  As I began to know and trust the Love of the Father and as my children began to be assured of my love, fear left our home.  Love is the driving force now.

The second thing God revealed to me that day was my pride.  It was an ugly monster that consumed my life.  As my parenting methods seemed to show results and as people recognized my efforts, the pride swelled inside me.  It's a heady thing to be complimented about your children, to be asked for advice and teach others how to accomplish the same things.  It become all the more important that my children perform well so that the pride monster could continue being fed which led me to be more controlling, more strict, more harsh.  I look back in complete gratefulness to the fall of our idyllic family.  With that break, I finally began to understand that God gives grace to the humble.  He began to teach me how to walk in humility with my children and grace became the most beautiful thing to me.

The fear and the pride all settled into the third thing that God revealed in me.  Selfishness.  My motivations were centered on me.  It was all about my being a good mother, my self esteem as a parent, my accomplishments.  The very opposite of what people thought of me.  Being the mother of nine children, I was never accused of being selfish.  But I was.  God led me to Colossians and a verse I used against the children so many times.  "Consider others as more important than yourself", He told me.  It went counter to all that I had been taught about parenting and my need to establish authority over my children.  God asked me to place myself beneath them. 

Seven years have passed since my epiphany into the grace of God and how to live that out toward my children.  God had an immediate paradigm shift for me and the learning process has been constant.  My trust in God has increased exponentially.  These years have not been absent of some very difficult times.  At first, I believed if I just parented differently, then the results would be better.  God had to get my eyes off of striving for results.  Grace filled positive parenting is not just another method to produce Godly children.  It is a life filled with God's love and perspective.  I am so thankful for the journey that started with heart break but led us into a life of trusting God. 

--
You can read more from Cynthia at her blog, A Life Profound. 

Chewy Mom: Vipers in Diapers

When Molly asked if I would write a piece about my parenting journey, I really wasn't sure what I would say.  A couple of years ago, I did an entire series on my parenting journey away from Growing Kids God's Way (which can be found here). 

What more could I add? But there's always more!  Of course I have learned much in the last two years as a parent since I wrote that series.... 

Before my husband and I had children, a pastor-friend of ours was blessed with his first child.  He would brag about how beautiful, perfect, tender, sweet was this little son of his.  And then he would laugh and say, “Vipers in diapers!”  We would laugh along with him.  Yep, those babies—they look so sweet, but we all know that they have inherited our sinful nature, and all it takes is one middle-of-the-night scream-fest to let any new parent know that they have a selfish sinner on their hands.  Right? 

That was our mentality and world-view going into parenting.  I think my husband and I were suspicious about the intentions of our children, even as newborns.  And we knew we had a monumental task before us—to train those sinful ways right out of them.  Better not wait until those ways were ingrained and became habits.  Nosireebob.  Start from day ONE, letting them know who was in charge.  And so when we came across Preparation for Parenting by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, it fit our world view, and we were thrilled.  I devoured the book and tape series as soon as it landed in a brown package on my doorstep.  Even though my first-born son has Down syndrome, I knew that he still had a sinful nature, and I still had a job to do. 

My husband and I used every technique suggested by the Ezzos with great success.  Except for couch time.  That never quite made it off the ground in our home.  We fed by the clock, we kept our newborns awake after a feeding so the routine of eat-wake-sleep would be intact.  We popped hands and spanked bottoms.  We even purchased an unofficial-but-sanctioned spanking instrument.  We dutifully taught the interrupt rule and made sure that our children were a sheer delight to be around.  And I rose in the ranks to become a contact mom for the Ezzos, and even helped run their online forum. 

Fast forward a few years or ten, and my marriage began to struggle and nearly fall apart.  It was through that time in my life that I really began to understand grace.  Until that point, I think secretly I was trying to save my family—my husband, my children, myself—through my outward appearance and behavior.  My children behaved well in church and school, they said, “Yes, ma'am” and “No, sir,” and they were relatively kind to one another (in public).  We were godly.  Externally.  But our hearts and the inner workings of our family were tombs. 

When I was perfect, and when my family was perfect, why did I need Jesus?  I mean, really.  I would have said then that I was relying upon him and all, that I needed him to save me from my sins.  But was I truly needy? 

I was not.  And my children weren't either.  I never allowed them the freedom to mess up.  And if they did, I was right there to punish them for it.  Never did I say, “You screwed up?  Guess what.  Me, too.  THAT'S why we need Jesus—because we mess up all the time.  Not only that, we're going to mess up just as much tomorrow.  And the next day.  And the next.”  My “gospel preaching” was more along the lines of, “You hit your brother.   That's sin.  I'm going to spank you. [ironically]  When you finish crying, go ask your brother to forgive you.  And don't hit any more.  Got it?” 

My own behavior toward my children aside, the biggest shift in my parenting lately has been my understanding of exactly who they are.  Are they truly those vipers-in-diapers?  Or now, in very large clothing?  Or are they image-bearers of God himself?  If I start out with the paradigm that my children are evil and wicked, I will always view them and their actions with my radar up and with suspicion.  I will expect bad things and evil intentions from them.  But how different would life be if I saw them as children of a loving heavenly Father who are actually the image of Him??  Oh wow!  That really changes things, doesn't it? 

I can expect the best from and for them!  I can praise them, knowing that they will do good things because good is in them and emanates from their very soul!  I can look upon their actions with praise, because they are reflecting God himself.  Sure, they'll fail.  They do have my sinful nature, after all.  But their very core is GOOD! This attitude is not often reflected in the Christian, reformed circles of which I have been a part since the day I married.  But I am convinced it is the truth. 

It is a lie to view one another only as fellow sinners.  We are that, to be sure.  But the core of our being is good.  It is how we were made—in God's own image.  We can't help but reflect that.  Otherwise, how could pagans and little children do anything good at all?  And yet they can and they do, because God has made them to be like Himself. 

If I can wrap my mind around that truth, day in and day out, imagine how grace-filled and God-honoring my home could truly be!  Not because my children are behaving perfectly lest I punish them, but because I am expecting and looking for good at every turn!  And I am compassionate and understanding in their sin and weakness, not as someone who is better, more pure, smarter, or more godly, but as a sister in Christ who is also a daughter of a King and an image-bearer, and who also falls down and needs to be picked up, dusted off, tenderly held, and lovingly forgiven by my Father in heaven.

~ Bertrand Russell, "Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind," Unpopular Essays, 1951

Now I assume my Saturday Night Live pose and say, with my best Jewish mama voice, "Discuss." 

I want to explore the Performance Mentality when it comes to child-rearing.  (It's applicable in matters of faith, too, in the way that everything tends to be rather inter-connected, life only being categorized with terms and charts when it is pulled out of the 3-D context and stretched, kicking and screaming, onto a piece of paper or screen).  I've been mulling over the Performance Mentality embedded in popular Christian parenting paradigms, contrasting it with what was taught by Christ.  It's interesting, to say the least.

Performance Mentality: 

Do these things right, and receive my approval and/or rewards. 

Do these things wrong, and receive my disapproval and/or punishment.

Performance is the name of the game in so many areas of life, often with good reason: if I want a winning basketball team, I'm going to pick the players who perform the best.  You can pick the rejects, if you're a bleeding heart...and we'll come kick your butt, next game!  HA!  

The question is, is the Godward life something that belongs in the Performance category?  Is a relationship with a child (or spouse) something that belongs in the Performance catagory?  While we would all agree that there are certain behaviours that are acceptable and others that aren't (ie, if you try to murder me, that will probably affect the quality of our relationship), is how you Perform the most important aspect of our relationship, the one upon which my love and respect for you pivots?  Is the way I treat my child supposed to be dependant upon their Performance?  Is it "earn or burn," baby?  

Who wants to be around a person who says, "If you Perform, I will treat you nicely.  If you do not Perform, I will shame or punish you until you Peform properly."        

When it comes to Yahweh, can I Perform my way to heaven?  Do lists of measurable things make me righteous or unrighteous (in His eyes or yours)?  This is not to say that one can find half-decent indicators in lists of measurable things, but rather asking whether or not obedience to said lists equals righteousness.  Most of us would quickly say, "Heck no.  We lean on the grace of God for our acceptance---we find our righteousness in Christ!"  That's probably a good thing to say, considering it resonates with,

 "That no flesh should glory in His presence.  But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."  ---I Cor. 1:29-31 KJV

Or, another way to put it is, 

"...None of you can get by with blowing  your own horn before God.  Everything we have---right thinking and right living, a clean slate and a fresh start---comes from God by way of Jesus Christ.  That's why we have the saying, 'If you're you're going to blow a horn, blow a trumpet for God."  ---1 Corinthians 1:29-31 Message Bible  

Seems like many of us understand this grace thing when it comes to salvation, but we flunk out a lot when it comes to living and loving.  I comprehend that by grace, I will be seen as righteous when I stand before the Throne, but I often struggle to comprehend that by grace, I am learning to walk in righeousness now, and that I am seen as righteous in Him, now. 

Hyperventilating about avoiding sin isn't walking in grace.  Being extremely aware of the opinions of others and working to have them approve of us isn't walking in grace.  Measuring others by outward standards and using skirt length, church attendance or theological preferences to determine righteousness isn't walking in grace. 

I could quickly blurt out memorized verses like, "Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us, " and really mean to believe it, but then go turn around and work, work, work to try and keep God (and/or our church family) smiling at me. 

And I think that parenting is a major area that some of us miss grace, helped (if not completely, than in part) by a lot of the popular Christian parenting books in conservative Christian circles.  Many talk about believing that we all need Christ, rejoicing in the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 who took on our sufferings and our shame, but then shelf all of that when it comes to parenting our kids. 

While we sing about a God who came and bent down low to save us by suffering and dying for us, for the rest of the week we believe the parenting books, which are prone to wax eloquent on how children need to learn to pay the price for their misdeeds, that through punishment comes right living and spiritual awareness. 

In raising our children, is the name of the game Performance?  Not only is that troublesome when we apply it to our theology, but also it means that some kids get a really sucky deal.

Meet my second child, Anna.  She is a natural sweetheart, born to hug and cuddle.  She excels in academics (started reading at 3, on her own), shares bright comments and thoughtful musings, nurtures those around her and consistently thinks of the needs and feelings of others.  Seriously, Anna is just sweet.  

My fourth kid, Israel, lives to dominate (anything and anyone) and can't stand being with age-mates because, "Don't they know I'm better than them, Mom?  I should be with the big kids!"  I picked this picture especially because he has the look on his face.  Trust me, the genius-ticker between his eyeballs is thinking something, and it's off the wall, whatever it is!  Israel struggles to realize anyone exists but him and can't understand why things on the planet don't work just the way he wants them to. 

Last time he was showing off his muscles (a frequent occasion), I raised my eyebrows and bragged, "Man, those are big!"  He shrugged and replied, a little sadly, "Yeah, but I'm not the biggest."  I asked him who was, thinking he'd say his Daddy, whereupon he matter of factly said, "Well, God, of course, Mom!  But I'm next." 

Israel's the kind of kid that people write "How to Survive Your Strong-Willed Child" books about.  If it's about Performance, then let's face it: Anna was born the perfect kid and Israel was born to be a reject. 

Either that, or I need to step on Israel until he learns to have Anna's personality instead of his own.  Some authors say that's exactly what needs to happen, that I need to be firm with Israel, that we're in a "spiritual battle" and that I need to "win."  They say I need to consistantly demand that he do things my way, spank him until his cry changes and his will breaks, spank him every time he doesn't obey my will instantly, and that I need to not let up until Israel stops acting and thinking and being the way he is.  Because under the Performance Mentality, Israel doesn't just do "bad things," but his personality itself is wrong.       

Jesus doesn't believe that.

Jesus is the one who made Israel so strong. And, as Israel's primary shepherd, my job isn't to "break him," but to bless him---to nurture that strength and to fine-tune it, to show Israel how his strong will is a gift God gave him for a reason.  Likewise, my Anna was made by God, equally a treasure, not because her personality gives me a lot less hassle than Israel's (ha!), but because she, too, is a uniquely made being. Her heart is what God is after, not her natural personality traits. Kind and mellow people still need God, just as much as those of us who are loud and annoying.

That's the point of Christ coming: we all need Him.    

~ 

This is part of a series of posts on Parenting by Grace.   Previous posts are:

 FAS Teenagers, Adopting Special Needs, and Loving in the Face of Unloveliness