Disqus - Latest Comments for rachwolf

Re: Can I be a Christian and an evolutionist?

rachwolf — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:20:37 -0000

(Sorry if this is a duplicate--had trouble with posting process)
Shout out to Daniel McCarthy (of RTB?)! Nice to see you on this site! Small world!

Cate: You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but you can't really believe in the Bible and also adhere to a strict Darwinian model based on naturalism (see other posts) which understands biological forms as arising strictly from chance and random processes (even from the origin of life). But one can believe in the Bible and what is known as "guided evolution" -- a process of evolution that God has guided. This is how Francis Collins (the Genome guy) believes.

However, there is another choice, and one that is (in my view) more faithful both to the scriptures and to the current scientific evidence. This is old earth creationism. You can read about this on reasons.org. It is basically the belief that God has revealed Himself both in nature and in the Bible and we can believe both accounts of creation when we understand them correctly. This view does not discount findings of science (such as the billions of years of the earth), yet is also critical of so-called science that is skewed, either because of a fundamentalist reading of the scriptures, or because of a naturalistic worldview that, a priori, rules out forces other than natural processes that are measurable. This view (old earth creationism) is wholly amenable both to the latest scientific discoveries and to a literal (not fundamentalist) reading of the Bible.

Re: What do atheists and fundamentalists have in common?

rachwolf — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:55:44 -0000

Sorry-- not ALL atheists could be categorized as fundamentalists, but certainly most of those who specifically argue against the Bible.

Re: What do atheists and fundamentalists have in common?

rachwolf — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:53:56 -0000

You are right. I have known this for years. Atheists are unconvinced fundamentalists. I think some think that fundamentalism really defines faith or religion. Others use the simplistic matrix of fundamentalism because it makes a much easier straw man to knock down.

Re: Trapped within the Bible

rachwolf — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:50:45 -0000

Never heard of presup before. I checked your WIki link. There is some truth that believing that the Bible is the revealed word of God is a philosophical "presupposition," though based on historic evidence. Since that evidence is not absolute, one has to decide to believe it. Same thing with just believing in God. Evidence? Yes. Absolute certainty? No. But it seems that the presups go beyond this philosophical understanding to a fear-based doctrine that precludes using valid forms of reasoning along with the knowledge that faith is to some degree an act of will. Why so protective? Why so fearful?

Re: What is Spiritual Abuse?

rachwolf — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:08:15 -0000

Funny you should hail introverts! I was about to write almost the same thing but held back! Do you know the book "Quiet..."?

Re: What is Spiritual Abuse?

rachwolf — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:05:42 -0000

In my experience, the most common (and pervasive) form of spiritual abuse is doctrine, not people. Ex.: the doctrine noted by Savannah, that we are worthless worms. People promote bad doctrine but the abuse often happens, not from the force of personality or manipulative power, but from the conceptual issues that, in and of themselves, create a negative view of God. Is this abuse? I'm not sure if that's the word for it. And doctrine is a difficult map to navigate. The Bible does present God in a judge's role and is clear that He cannot abide sin. It is not hard to find an abusive God in the Bible. Ask any atheist.

I have known a few really spiritually abusive people, and also known some who have been spiritually abusive because of thinking that anything that comes into their mind was from the Spirit -- not agressive, just trying to be helpful. But this causes confusion. The charismatic movement (though I believe in the evidential working of the Spirit) is very susceptible to spiritual abuse because some of the highest values of this movement are spiritual power and authority -- and inside knowledge. These values lend themselves easily to narcissistic and power-seeking personalities. It is harder, though not impossible, to become abusive within a system that values quietude and meditation.

Re: Huckleberry Finn and Spiritual Abuse

rachwolf — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:41:20 -0000

Dale, these are dangerous waters. You have more courage than I -- or maybe simply more clarity. I look forward to reading your experiences. To me, the most difficult thing to come to terms with is to understand how the reality of God and the particularity of the revelation in Jesus can be Truth (with a capital T) among the mayhem of strangeness we call the Church. How does excellent worship, say, exist in an environment that may be otherwise abusive? How can amazing prophetic vision sit in the same soul as arrogance and lust for power. The lack of spiritual fruit seems to nullify the reality of the spirit.

In addition, confusing but hopeful hints of spiritual reality and God's direction seem to be nullified by the narrowness of the message that in itself seems to condemn all those outside the sheepfold (or pick another scriptural metaphor).

My favorite line above (and an extremely insightful one) is: "Yet every generation must face doing the right thing and not always knowing it was the right thing."

Often we do not know the right thing, and we are shooting in the dark. When is it right to trust one's personal instinct against a long received tradition? This is a big question and not at all obvious. How far do we go with this? To say that God didn't really give the Torah at Sinai? To say that we are more comfortable with a Jesus who accepts every lifestyle as equally holy? We only have the scriptures and reports about Jesus (i.e. Gospels) because of received tradition. All canon is received tradition. I don't know where to draw the line and I have been holding the stylus for decades now.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:36:47 -0000

Sorry, I can't find it. I can't even find the search box. But I did see your
excellent and really helpful post (that I must have missed - or maybe
skimmed quickly; I think it said 5 days ago) in which you define the various
forms of epistomology that relate to religious views. I found this
exceedingly helpful and explanatory of many things I have experienced. A
real Wow for me.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:01:57 -0000

these sound good. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization by Cahill and
liked that.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:03:18 -0000

Deb, I'm wondering whom you know in the Messianic movement. My guess is you are misinterpreting some of what you experience, though there are a lot of weird groups who have glommed onto the "Messianic" label, and even a lot of varied groups within the movement.

In any case I don;t really know what "the impassibility question" is. I have not really studied much standard Christian theology and don't necessarily intend to. I like Wyschogrod (a Jewish theologian). I think he has some important and original insights. I like Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel), Oskar Skarsaune (In the Shadow of the Temple) and some others. Kendall Soulen's book The God of Israel and Christian Theology is seminal. If you've studied academic theology you may like it. It's a dense read, but highly worthwhile.

If Dale knows you personally, maybe he would have an idea of which book it may be good for you to look into. I am not sure where you should start.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:09:50 -0000

Dale,
Thanks for explaining me to Deb. I get so weary trying to explain these things. It seems so impossible to package such big ideas in so few words. I certainly couldn't have done it as clearly (and efficiently) as you did. (I am hearing pleasant echoes of Kendall Soulen in more recent things you've written here and elsewhere.) Thanks! :)

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:56:22 -0000

dale, could you define presuppositionalism for me? I have an idea that it has to do with presuppositions (um, yeah), but would like to understand more clearly since you say it "is the thing that is choking many souls (on my view)." No rush.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:44:25 -0000

Hi Deb,
Yeah, well, I specialize in questions. Answers? Well, I'm a little spooked
at the idea -- but still want them.

I see you've mainly responded to my first point about the percentage of
Christian movements and theologies that fall into the "worm" or
"worm-susceptible" categories. Did you have any thoughts on the why? I
guess you did say something about fear -- and I would agree there.

My thoughts on the "why" are fuzzy but also too long and complex. In short,
I think it's a combination of the two causes I noted in my previous post --
(1) human (corrupted) nature that wants to make the rules, and enforce them
too; and (2) the intentional chopping off of the root of Jesus-faith, so as
to make much of Christian theology a complex (and eerie to me) mimicry of
scriptural truth. (I'm sure there are other factors.)

On point 1: Everybody wants to control things. There's something in all of
us that wants to tame the world in our image. That's the part of our nature
that needs to be submitted to the God who is God.

On point 2: The gentile nations have always been bent on taking the
firstborn status from the Jewish people. God set it up so that the nations
of the world (the natural firstborn) would have to receive their bread from
the unnatural, chosen (out-of-turn) firstborn, contrary to nature. The
"chosen" firstborn, punier and despised (like Jesus-- "he was despised and
rejected of men") have to, in turn, bless and feed the nations. It's the
set-up. A set-up that will only work with humility on both sides. This
firstborn switcheroo is prophetically lived out in the lives of all of the
patriarchs up through Ephraim and Manasseh. Psalm 2 also gives many clues
about this problem-- though not using "firstborn" language specifically.

This is a very inadequate answer, especially since I'm bringing up some
radical ideas that are not familiar to most people. But I can't do any
better at the moment. I am reduced to forcing more confusing questions upon
innocent people.

I wonder if there are any of them left reading this blog, besides you and me
(not that I am so innocent). I fear even Dale has become weary and has moved
on to bigger and better blogs.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:56:04 -0000

deb, dale,
Ok so we have effectively placed 80% or more of Christian movements and theology in the category of spiritually abusive (to greater or lesser degree). So, if that's true, what is the cause of the worminess? I'm not talking about all of the historic categories I'm not interested in like Arminian or Pelagian or Calvin (though Calvin and Hobbes is one of my all-time favorites). I'm talking about root causes. Why the worminess? The only two things I can come up with is (1) human nature (sin, desire to control) or being cut off from the root-- the Jewish foundation of everything-- or likely a combination of both. What do you think? And how are we to respond without falling into the same worminess of having our camp that is in the right while everyone else is wrong?

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:45:22 -0000

I was a brand new believer and some of the people who brought my
husband-to-be to the faith recommended the Gothard seminar as a way to "get
grounded" and also because we were planning to be married. The whole thing,
and other influences at the time, caused me to shrink further into myself.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:55:48 -0000

Dale, could you rewrite this phrase with corrections so I can get it? ("my
wife experience spiritual from those teachings as well") It's kind of a
shock (a bit) to think about Gothard as being abusive. But freeing, if also
rueful. (Why did I go???)

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:35:40 -0000

Deb,
Thanks for the reply and the reference to your own experience. I don't have time right now to read the article on Pearl (I checked it out quickly) but will get to it. You reminded me about Bill Gothard whom I guess you were referring to. I was encouraged to attend his workshop the first year I was a believer (I went). I didn't like it but felt somehow compelled to think it was right-- or at least not to question it openly. Well maybe spiritual abuse is the right or only term for what Dale is talking about. I guess it helps to distinguish between a spiritually abusive PERSON and a spiritually abusive CULTURE or set of beliefs. Thanks
Rachel

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:51:30 -0000

Deb,
What's Pelagian?
Rachel

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:40:09 -0000

Dale (and Deb),
i wonder if "spiritual abuse" is the right term here.

It has sort of bugged me from the beginning because, first, the word "abuse" itself has unfortunately become such a buzz word. But beyond that, as I explore my feelings about this term, I wonder if it should be reserved for more extreme and malicious cases so as not to lose its meaning. I have known truly spiritually abusive people who because of personality disorders or other major character flaws keep people in a cult-like strangle-hold. To me, this is classic spiritual abuse. It is person to person and very malignant.

Now, it's true, Dale, that you are specifically pointing to a *theology* of spiritual abuse, IOW the philosophical underpinnings (and justification for) spiritual abuse. But the "spiritual abuse" that derives from this theology is so widespread and pervasive, and so "normal" that I wonder if it describes it accurately to call it spiritual abuse.

We are talking here, not so much about abusive relationships, but about doctrines and whole religious structures that are harmful to people's souls.

My question is, does using the term "spiritual abuse" to more or less point to a whole way of "doing church" (to refer to your prior blog (please add your link) ) muddy the waters? I mean does it blur the seriousness of real spiritual abuse by really abusive people to use the term with such wide application -- and at the same time make the term almost meaningless for how you are trying to use it?

(Or else, it could be the perfect hyperbole -- jarring enough and distasteful enough to get people to look at their world from a new perspective.)

But what else could we say? What would communicate this crucial critique? How can one get across the idea (without sounding like a lunatic) that much of Christianity today (pun acknowledged), even when purveyed by nice loving people, is just not good for people. It serves up spiritual food that, after digested, makes us fearful of and alienated from our humanity--from our very own souls. While offering up life, it, inadvertently in most cases, brings death of a sort.

This is bigger and far more insidious, though not as immediately traumatic, as classic spiritual abuse. I would rather not confuse the two, though, as I said, sometimes using terms in a hyperbolic way can wake people up. But I'm afraid it also might sooth some people by comparison. "My pastor is not abusive; he's really loving and cares a lot about me."

Do you get what I'm driving at? This is a problem that is at the root of so much culture. I know this is what you are saying. I am just voicing my own questions about the efficacy of using the term "spiritual abuse" for this interpretive failure of a large portion of Christianity. But if I am going to criticize your term I should come up with another. Let me think on it.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:13:49 -0000

You don't sound reactive here! :) You sound just flat out honest. I have also been stigmatized by those who demand a bible verse to justify everything. Now (to echo you) you've got me curious about how my story is a good example of the complexity of the human soul. I can certainly relate to the complexity part-- it's my specialty. But I first owe you an explanation about what I "heard" in your old "Slices."

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:41:53 -0000

Dale, this reply of yours wasn't yet posted when I wrote my reply to Tom about different ways of knowing, or I may have referenced it.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:57:54 -0000

Tom,
Thanks for your reply.
Without rereading Dale's article to verify, I think perhaps he is making a distinction between different kinds of knowing, in knowing God's love.

You call "God's love and why he loves us" "clearly theological issues." I can "know" theologically, or in a propositional way -- for theology is a type of philosophy -- that God loves me and, perhaps, why he loves me. Known in this way, this knowledge is conceptual, within the category of "mind." I can know that God loves me in my mind, but I can still feel that God is very distant, or that God is very angry with me and always on the verge of sending me to Hell. I "know" in my mind that God loves me (because I read it in the Bible and other people tell me this). But I don't "know" in my heart -- in my deepest sense of knowing -- that God loves me because my life experience has prevented me from being able to experience a loving father who is able to take care of me.

Because I don't know in this way that God loves me, I do all sorts of things to gain love and attention in other ways that take me away from the path of knowing God. Psychotherapy (and not just Bible verses) can help me to bring my heart into the reality of the knowledge that began in my head. In exploring my soul and its wounds, and finding expression and then healing for my pain, I become a more integral person that can more easily follow the path of knowing God even more.

It is somewhat like the outworking of Paul's teaching in Romans. My mind (the law or Torah) says that God loves me, but I behave as if God did not love me. Law (or knowledge in my mind) is God-given and can lead me to the conclusion that I need God's grace to live according to the law. Psychotherapy can help me remove the barriers that keep me from experiencing God's grace. I can them live in accordance with God's law, not from compulsion, but from the heart.

We can know about God through received knowledge, but we can only truly know God by opening our hearts and our wounds to his mercy. It takes a journey through suffering.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:53:22 -0000

Dale, I especially appreciated your parsing out the philosophy embedded in this article. In fact, I think I will find your fine clarifications very useful on into the future. I sometimes have trouble articulating what i find wrong about this doctrinal stance, and you have helped a whole lot by pulling out the ambiguities, e.g. the difference between worth, worthy, value and merit; the understanding of love and grace; reason and love, etc.

This is where philosophy really finds its usefulness! I am grateful for your gifting in pulling apart finely woven threads of ideas so that we can see their true individual colors and then your ability to weave them back together in a simpler truer and more helpful form. It is pragmatic philosophy, or philosophy with heart. And thanks for taking the time to do this while caring for little Finn, and on less than adequate sleep.

I'm still thinking about the art question.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:35:56 -0000

I am addressing both Tom and Dale.
Dale, sometimes your comments come across as reactive--reacting to very negative influences both in your own life as well as in the lives of many that you meet on the road. And so, you too sometimes make use of hyperbole to get your point across.

I think Tom is reacting to this hyperbole and brings up some good points -- mainly that each counselor must be assessed on his or her own merits. Also, that there is some advantages to seeing a counselor that shares a biblical worldview. (I am interpreting Tom into my own language.)

May I suggest that the issue at hand is more about inflexibility and labeling. If as a "Christian" (though I don't wear that label myself) I will not respect or consider anything that is not labeled "Christian" or "biblical" then I am being narrow and doing myself and others a disservice.

The problem (I think) comes from many Christians and Christian movements taking a militant or antagonistic stand against "the world" without investigating and judging things on their own merit. There is much wisdom to be found outside of labeled "Christian" boundaries.

These boundaries, by the way, began to be developed in the second century (and continued through medieval times) by those in authority that wanted to control who was part of the "in group." The preferred method of doing this was to write what scholars call "heresiologies" -- catalogs of various heresies. Much of the writings of church fathers that is extant are these heresiologies. This method continued and developed until everyone was bounding off their little group over and against the other groups. At first this had to do with separating Christianity from Judaism, but later of course went into parsing off various Christian sects and denominations. Narrower and narrower we go.

I have also been personally hurt by the narrow understandings of traditional evangelical teachings. However, I want to be aware not to make a straw man of the other side (what Dale is terming neo-Reformers, et al) while pointing out its deficiencies and problems.

Given the choice my preference is to see a counselor who makes use of all the tools of psychotherapy who shares my biblical worldview. This allows dynamic interaction with my personal past, with the therapist, and with God. It is hard to bring conflicts about relating to God into a session with a counselor who does not believe in God.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:43 -0000

Dale, I'm not sure I understand the question about supersessionism and art. I feel like the question is presupposing some belief about "Christian art" that I am not familiar with. It doesn't make sense to me yet.