Acting again on my sense of responsibility to women in troubled situations, I am publishing today a post which first appeared on July 22, 2008, as an entry on my other blog, "Finding the Faith Way." Because of its relevance to women in particular, I have moved it to this location.
The other day when shopping, I was helped by a clerk who had a large, very discolored bruise around one eye. Now even though we care when others are hurting, polite folk just don’t say, “Oh, I’m so sorry. What happened?” So maybe she hit her head on the car door when she was buckling one of the children into the safety seat? Maybe she just had some kind of cosmetic surgery near her eye? Or maybe the baby kicked her when she was changing his diaper?
Probably not. Probably somebody hurt her.
I got to wondering why I have never, in all my lifetime of church attendance, seen a woman come to worship with a suspicious-looking black eye. One only has to read statistics to know that churched families aren’t immune to violence in the home. Perhaps it’s because there’s too much shame connected with abuse occurring in a “Christian” family. One or the other of the couple may have said, “I (or You) can’t go to church looking like this.”
More likely, though, the form of abuse these church-going men choose to inflict is something that doesn't show—no bruises, no black eyes, no knocked-out teeth, nothing that would send a woman to the emergency room. But many women in homes connected to the Church are abused repeatedly by verbal assaults, emotional withholding or emotional terrorism, financial vise-grips, or humiliating sexual behavior. "But he never hit me," is no excuse for the equally—or perhaps greater—damaging trauma of this invisible abuse.
The average onlooker might wonder, "Why does she take it? Why doesn't she just get out?" The reasons are many. "I have no money." "I'll stay for the children." "I'm afraid to live alone." "I promised till death do us part." But the underlying reason is often hidden more deeply than that: she does not realize what is happening.
We might question, "How could she not know?" One reason is this: Many women, particularly those who are now middle-aged or older, have been "brain-washed" by the patriarchal society that still exists in many branches of the Church. Abuse, these women believe, is something awful that can happen in homes—always other homes—where an alcoholic beats up his wife and children. Abuse is inflicted by wicked men; it might occur in worldly homes, but certainly not Christian ones. Abuse results in bruises, black eyes, knocked-out teeth, and trips to the ER, doesn’t it?
But this is not true. Abuse is also treatment that damages the other’s personhood: lies, vicious words and mean or dismissive attitudes. There are no visible bruises or cuts, only deep heart wounds caused by pounding blows of anger and scorn that crush the woman's hope for love and understanding, words that slash her fragile belief in herself as a worthwhile person. She takes it silently, shamefully, because it reinforces what she already believes about herself. She may have been taught—or caught on—in her parental home that little girls do not matter. In the effort to teach courtesy and respect, damage may have been done inadvertently by insisting that children be seen and not heard. She may have misunderstood her father's need to teach his sons "manly" sorts of things, and she felt there was favoritism, whether or not that really existed. She may have heard regularly, "Just wait until your father gets home," with the implication that her mother, being a woman, could not adequately handle difficulty. Family members or acquaintances who took indecent liberties with the child and made her keep their "little secret," teachers who always asked the boys to take charge of the playground activities, the rule that said only men got to have the interesting jobs—all these experiences reinforced the idea that girls don't count.
And when the quiet, compliant child grows up? She becomes a silently compliant woman. Try as she might, she cannot please her husband; this is no fault of hers—he simply chooses to be dissatisfied with whatever she does. He can cut her down to size with sharp criticism, bully her with unreasonable demands, and treat her opinions with scorn, but if she objects or tries to explain how hurt she is, he responds with, "Get over it!", "You're just too sensitive," or "Do you know what a godly wife would do?" His rule over her does not come from a true understanding of his place in the home, nor is it authorized by God. His "power" comes from his size, his sheer volume, or the impact of his repeated behavior. She still doesn't matter.
Why would a man, especially a Christian man, abuse the companion he has promised to cherish and protect? In all likelihood, he is addicted, perhaps not to drugs or alcohol, but just as dependent for a "high" as the substance abuser. He may be addicted to rage, convinced that he is a victim of his family or the legal system or the job market or even the Church. Because he is a victim and has been hurt, he has the desire and the "right" to hurt other people. Or he may be addicted to fear: someone, somewhere—maybe even his wife—will take advantage of him, abandon him, or reveal him as a fake so he will get to that dangerous person first, with a display of his authority. He may be addicted to the feeling of power he gets from his selfish control. Whatever the motivating factor, the continuing abuser will almost certainly not quit on his own. Yes, there are miracles; for example, God delivers some alcoholics instantly, and they never touch another drop. But many substance abusers have to get some help on a personal basis. And so, in almost every case, does the domestic abuser. "Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think." (Romans 12:2 NLT) Without this basic change, there is little hope for a change in the behavior at home.
Marjorie
Showing posts with label religious pressure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious pressure. Show all posts
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Serving or Subservience
Sometimes we hear Christian jargon batted about so much that we lose our grasp of what is meant by the terms. Because words like servant and servanthood have been used so much, I've chosen to use different ones.
If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means "under," "beneath," "lower," "further down" or "less important." That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.
My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They "deserve" their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who "under" are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.
Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one's own Spirit-led intentions.
Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver's life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.
Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.
Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.
So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That's why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter's feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.
Marjorie
If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means "under," "beneath," "lower," "further down" or "less important." That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.
My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They "deserve" their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who "under" are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.
Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one's own Spirit-led intentions.
Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver's life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.
Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.
Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.
So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That's why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter's feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.
Marjorie
Saturday, October 31, 2009
After You Say "I Can't"
Every once in awhile, I remind the class of adults that I teach on Sunday morning, that our time together is like a cafeteria. They can help themselves to whatever is good for them and leave the rest, but not to spit on something they don't like, because someone else will want it! I feel that way today as I write this post. Some readers will find it not applicable or perhaps even objectionable, but it is part of my job to "serve" it!
There are plenty of books, videos, and studies on after you say "I do," that is, take marriage vows. Some of these are from a specifically Christian viewpoint; others are written by secular counselors and others who just want to see marriages work.
What to Do After You Say I Do by Yvette Gavin
What to Do After You Say "I Do" by Marcus and Lori Goldman
Before and After You Say "I Do" by Perimeter Church and Randy Pope
After You Say I Do by Wes Roberts
Before (and After) We Say "I Do" by Nomi Whalen
After You Say "I Do" by H. Norman Wright
No one, as far as I can tell, has written a book on "After You Say I Can't." Yet there are many women—committed Christian women too—who are caught in situations that are not merely unhappy but also jeopardous to their wellbeing. They may have to say "I can't"—not because they are tired or disappointed or angry but because they should not continue as they are. Last winter, our church had several weeks of special concentration on prayer for congregational needs. Well over two hundred specific but anonymous requests were "nailed" to a huge wooden cross in front of the altar. Just short of ten percent of these were for troubled or broken marriages or for someone in or recovering from an abusive relationship.
I am not sure this is only a recent phenomenon. All through the years of my early Christian formation, I attended prayer meetings where people gave "unspoken requests." I thought at the time that a woman just didn't want to let everyone know that she had a painful ovarian cyst or that her hair was falling out. Now I understand that she may have been saying, "My husband is drinking too much" or "He slaps me sometimes."
I cannot agree with the idea of a covenant (a marriage) that must be kept regardless of what the other party does. Even God made conditions when He established a covenant relationship with His ancient followers. "If you listen to these regulations [the law given through Moses] and faithfully obey them, the Lord your God will keep his covenant of unfailing love with you, as he promised with an oath to your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:12 NLT) God said "If . . ." and some of the people eliminated themselves from the covenant. God does not look lightly on those who bash His plans. "And if I announce that I will plant and build up a certain nation or kingdom, but then that nation turns to evil and refuses to obey me, I will not bless it as I said I would." (Jeremiah 18:10, 11 NLT)
The new covenant in Christ has the same implications of faithful commitment. "But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan—the old covenant—had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said, Heads up! The days are coming when I'll set up a new plan for dealing with Israel and Judah. I'll throw out the old plan I set up with their ancestors when I led them by the hand out of Egypt. They didn't keep their part of the bargain, so I looked away and let it go. This new plan I'm making with Israel isn't going to be written on paper, isn't going to be chiseled in stone; this time I'm writing out the plan in them, carving it on the lining of their hearts. I'll be their God, they'll be my people . . . They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven, with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean. By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." (Hebrews 8:6-13 MSG) And still, people every day are eliminating themselves from New Covenant blessings by simply choosing not to participate in it. Covenants have conditions.
What about the "sacred vows" we make? When weddings began, back in early Jewish history, they did not contain vows as we think of them today. The wedding contract was read or recited and that constituted the couple's promises to one another. Even before that, men just "took" wives; when they claimed young virgins, the fact was established. The vows with "love, cherish, and obey" (for the bride only!) date back to the 1500s, beginning with the Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglican Church. After nearly four hundred years, the Episcopal Church removed the word "obey" from the bride's part of the vows. "Obey" was often misunderstood anyway; it has no connection with one partner being subservient to the other. Coming from the Latin root word "audire," it means to listen and hear, and is related to our word "audience." The vows as we know them are simply tradition; there is no legal or Biblical requirement that they actually be exchanged in a wedding ceremony. We imply a mutual bond of trust—and wouldn't that include listening deeply?
So let's consider the ideal that many people hold: marriage is a covenant that cannot be broken. Certainly that is the ideal, but realistically we recognize that not everyone attains it. The divorce rate in the general population continues to hover around fifty percent; the rate in the Church is about the same. Many churches define narrowly the acceptable (and Scriptural, they say) reasons for divorce: sexual sin outside the marriage, and the desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving partner. Some would also include abandonment (literal or in spirit) by a partner living in such a state of unrepentant sin as cause him/her to be viewed as an unbeliever in the eyes of the Lord and the Church.
But "God hates divorce!" is the argument from the Scripture itself. Indeed He does, but we have usually failed to read the rest of the passage. "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel, 'and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." (Malachi 2:15, 16 NIV)
Divorce is, of course, not the only option. "Genny's Story," which I shared earlier, addresses the issue. You can read that [here]. Don't say "I can't" too soon if your partner has indeed broken faith. You may very well want to know at some later point, if/when self-doubt arises, that you did everything you could. Feelings change, but what you have done does not. You'll be able to assure yourself, regardless of how you feel at that later time, that you did the best you could in this crisis of decision. Don't say "I can't" too soon, but when it must be said, say it.
Marjorie
Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved. Scripture marked MSG is taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group. Scripture quotation marked NIV is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
There are plenty of books, videos, and studies on after you say "I do," that is, take marriage vows. Some of these are from a specifically Christian viewpoint; others are written by secular counselors and others who just want to see marriages work.
What to Do After You Say I Do by Yvette Gavin
What to Do After You Say "I Do" by Marcus and Lori Goldman
Before and After You Say "I Do" by Perimeter Church and Randy Pope
After You Say I Do by Wes Roberts
Before (and After) We Say "I Do" by Nomi Whalen
After You Say "I Do" by H. Norman Wright
No one, as far as I can tell, has written a book on "After You Say I Can't." Yet there are many women—committed Christian women too—who are caught in situations that are not merely unhappy but also jeopardous to their wellbeing. They may have to say "I can't"—not because they are tired or disappointed or angry but because they should not continue as they are. Last winter, our church had several weeks of special concentration on prayer for congregational needs. Well over two hundred specific but anonymous requests were "nailed" to a huge wooden cross in front of the altar. Just short of ten percent of these were for troubled or broken marriages or for someone in or recovering from an abusive relationship.
I am not sure this is only a recent phenomenon. All through the years of my early Christian formation, I attended prayer meetings where people gave "unspoken requests." I thought at the time that a woman just didn't want to let everyone know that she had a painful ovarian cyst or that her hair was falling out. Now I understand that she may have been saying, "My husband is drinking too much" or "He slaps me sometimes."
I cannot agree with the idea of a covenant (a marriage) that must be kept regardless of what the other party does. Even God made conditions when He established a covenant relationship with His ancient followers. "If you listen to these regulations [the law given through Moses] and faithfully obey them, the Lord your God will keep his covenant of unfailing love with you, as he promised with an oath to your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:12 NLT) God said "If . . ." and some of the people eliminated themselves from the covenant. God does not look lightly on those who bash His plans. "And if I announce that I will plant and build up a certain nation or kingdom, but then that nation turns to evil and refuses to obey me, I will not bless it as I said I would." (Jeremiah 18:10, 11 NLT)
The new covenant in Christ has the same implications of faithful commitment. "But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan—the old covenant—had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said, Heads up! The days are coming when I'll set up a new plan for dealing with Israel and Judah. I'll throw out the old plan I set up with their ancestors when I led them by the hand out of Egypt. They didn't keep their part of the bargain, so I looked away and let it go. This new plan I'm making with Israel isn't going to be written on paper, isn't going to be chiseled in stone; this time I'm writing out the plan in them, carving it on the lining of their hearts. I'll be their God, they'll be my people . . . They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven, with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean. By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." (Hebrews 8:6-13 MSG) And still, people every day are eliminating themselves from New Covenant blessings by simply choosing not to participate in it. Covenants have conditions.
What about the "sacred vows" we make? When weddings began, back in early Jewish history, they did not contain vows as we think of them today. The wedding contract was read or recited and that constituted the couple's promises to one another. Even before that, men just "took" wives; when they claimed young virgins, the fact was established. The vows with "love, cherish, and obey" (for the bride only!) date back to the 1500s, beginning with the Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglican Church. After nearly four hundred years, the Episcopal Church removed the word "obey" from the bride's part of the vows. "Obey" was often misunderstood anyway; it has no connection with one partner being subservient to the other. Coming from the Latin root word "audire," it means to listen and hear, and is related to our word "audience." The vows as we know them are simply tradition; there is no legal or Biblical requirement that they actually be exchanged in a wedding ceremony. We imply a mutual bond of trust—and wouldn't that include listening deeply?
So let's consider the ideal that many people hold: marriage is a covenant that cannot be broken. Certainly that is the ideal, but realistically we recognize that not everyone attains it. The divorce rate in the general population continues to hover around fifty percent; the rate in the Church is about the same. Many churches define narrowly the acceptable (and Scriptural, they say) reasons for divorce: sexual sin outside the marriage, and the desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving partner. Some would also include abandonment (literal or in spirit) by a partner living in such a state of unrepentant sin as cause him/her to be viewed as an unbeliever in the eyes of the Lord and the Church.
But "God hates divorce!" is the argument from the Scripture itself. Indeed He does, but we have usually failed to read the rest of the passage. "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel, 'and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." (Malachi 2:15, 16 NIV)
Divorce is, of course, not the only option. "Genny's Story," which I shared earlier, addresses the issue. You can read that [here]. Don't say "I can't" too soon if your partner has indeed broken faith. You may very well want to know at some later point, if/when self-doubt arises, that you did everything you could. Feelings change, but what you have done does not. You'll be able to assure yourself, regardless of how you feel at that later time, that you did the best you could in this crisis of decision. Don't say "I can't" too soon, but when it must be said, say it.
Marjorie
Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved. Scripture marked MSG is taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group. Scripture quotation marked NIV is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Questions Are Okay
We don't always use balanced examples from Scripture when we are deciding how to order our lives as Christians. Take those Corinthian women who were forbidden to speak in the church . . . Paul writes to the church there, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Those verses are I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 which I quoted from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, because that four-hundred-year-old version is where I first learned the so-called "place of women in the church." And silencing the voice of women is an idea still clung to by many folks today.
But let's look at another example:
I am struck by the fact that this wealthy and wise king—although his personal life was not well-ordered—permitted questioning by a foreign, "heathen" woman. Perhaps she asked about the things that amaze us as well. "Why do plants turn to the sun?" "Why do birds sing while donkeys bray?" "How is life created in a mother's womb?" She opened her heart to him, so she may have asked, "Why does Israel not have a queen?" "How should my kingdom meet the needs of the poor?" "Why do you worship your particular god?" Nothing was too hard for him to answer, and apparently nothing was too incidental either. True, this did not occur in a church setting, but it was, after all, in the court of the wisest of all men; God said there had not been anyone like him before nor would there ever be.
So I'm thinking that a woman's questions are legitimate. The Corinthian women lived in a Greek culture where "public women" were disreputable. For a woman to speak out would indicate she was shamelessly bold. No such prohibition is given for any of the other churches for whom there are letters in the New Testament, but only to Corinth and to Ephesus where Timothy was located. If a woman finds herself in a situation where speaking up would discount her testimony, then maybe she will want to keep her thoughts to herself. But otherwise . . .
Questions are okay.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.
But let's look at another example:
"God gave Solomon wisdom—the deepest of understanding and the largest of hearts. There was nothing beyond him, nothing he couldn't handle. Solomon's wisdom outclassed the vaunted wisdom of wise men of the East, outshone the famous wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than anyone . . . He created 3,000 proverbs; his songs added up to 1,005. He knew all about plants, from the huge cedar that grows in Lebanon to the tiny hyssop that grows in the cracks of a wall. He understood everything about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. Sent by kings from all over the earth who had heard of his reputation, people came from far and near to listen to the wisdom of Solomon." (I Kings 4:29-34)
"The queen of Sheba heard about Solomon and his connection with the Name of God. She came to put his reputation to the test by asking tough questions. She made a grand and showy entrance into Jerusalem—camels loaded with spices, a huge amount of gold, and precious gems. She came to Solomon and talked about all the things that she cared about, emptying her heart to him. Solomon answered everything she put to him—nothing stumped him. When the queen of Sheba experienced for herself Solomon's wisdom and saw with her own eyes the palace he had built, the meals that were served, the impressive array of court officials and sharply dressed waiters, the lavish crystal, and the elaborate worship extravagant with Whole-Burnt-Offerings at the steps leading up to The Temple of God, it took her breath away.
"She said to the king, 'It's all true! Your reputation for accomplishment and wisdom that reached all the way to my country is confirmed. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself; they didn't exaggerate! Such wisdom and elegance—far more than I could ever have imagined. Lucky the men and women who work for you, getting to be around you every day and hear your wise words firsthand! And blessed be God, your God, who took such a liking to you and made you king. Clearly, God's love for Israel is behind this, making you king to keep a just order and nurture a God-pleasing people.' " (I Kings 10:1-9)
I am struck by the fact that this wealthy and wise king—although his personal life was not well-ordered—permitted questioning by a foreign, "heathen" woman. Perhaps she asked about the things that amaze us as well. "Why do plants turn to the sun?" "Why do birds sing while donkeys bray?" "How is life created in a mother's womb?" She opened her heart to him, so she may have asked, "Why does Israel not have a queen?" "How should my kingdom meet the needs of the poor?" "Why do you worship your particular god?" Nothing was too hard for him to answer, and apparently nothing was too incidental either. True, this did not occur in a church setting, but it was, after all, in the court of the wisest of all men; God said there had not been anyone like him before nor would there ever be.
So I'm thinking that a woman's questions are legitimate. The Corinthian women lived in a Greek culture where "public women" were disreputable. For a woman to speak out would indicate she was shamelessly bold. No such prohibition is given for any of the other churches for whom there are letters in the New Testament, but only to Corinth and to Ephesus where Timothy was located. If a woman finds herself in a situation where speaking up would discount her testimony, then maybe she will want to keep her thoughts to herself. But otherwise . . .
Questions are okay.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
"We Are Pro-Body"
I recently saw a billboard ad for a local health center stating, “We are pro-body.” I have to assume that means, “We want to help you make your body the best it can be.”
My growing-up years carried a lot of anti-body messages—no, not antibodies of the kind that help rid us of viruses by attacking them before we become ill, but “anti-you-have-a-body.” My father was physical; his work demanded strength and stamina. My brothers were expected to be physical: doing farm chores, riding bikes, playing softball. While I was not forbidden to participate in these activates, how well could I to do them in a dress? Some activities were forbidden by my parents and/or by the Church: dancing, roller skating (at a rink), and swimming in a group of both boys and girls.
Looking back, and seeking to be charitable, I think my parents and the church may not have intended to teach a dualistic theology of mind versus body. "Mind = good. Body = bad." The Scripture teaches clearly that "flesh" and "spirit" oppose one another and in fact are warring within the individual believer. But flesh, in this instance, does not mean the same as body, but rather is unredeemed human nature with its inborn tendency to be wholly selfish. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God [which is love, remember] for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh [living out their selfish, unloving nature] cannot please God. (Romans 8:7, 8 NASB)
Sadly, I think this teaching was misunderstood to mean that the body is not acceptable—not to God and not to us if we want to please Him. Again, probably none of those who gave me religious instruction would have espoused that teaching. Did I just get it wrong? I don't think so, for it was demonstrated pretty clearly in daily life. Specifically, there seemed to be something basically wrong with being in a female body. My mother hid herself (and me) in clothing which had the chief attribute of shapelessness. My father warned me that girls were responsible for the moral behavior of their dates, and a tent revivalist told us in the crudest of terms that we women, with our irresistible but wicked charms, were responsible for men going to hell. Is it any wonder that I had trouble claiming my body?
Although the physical body is only temporary, God thinks it's important. He could have used any means at all to form the ultimate revelation of Himself to humankind. And what did He choose? A human body. Would God have given Christ a body in which to live on earth if He thought bodies were a bad idea? In spite of the senses and appetites which sometimes get us into difficulty, God used a body to hold Himself. And He still does. He is pro-body.
Marjorie
Scripture is from the New American Standard Bible, used by permission of http://www.lockman.org/
My growing-up years carried a lot of anti-body messages—no, not antibodies of the kind that help rid us of viruses by attacking them before we become ill, but “anti-you-have-a-body.” My father was physical; his work demanded strength and stamina. My brothers were expected to be physical: doing farm chores, riding bikes, playing softball. While I was not forbidden to participate in these activates, how well could I to do them in a dress? Some activities were forbidden by my parents and/or by the Church: dancing, roller skating (at a rink), and swimming in a group of both boys and girls.
Looking back, and seeking to be charitable, I think my parents and the church may not have intended to teach a dualistic theology of mind versus body. "Mind = good. Body = bad." The Scripture teaches clearly that "flesh" and "spirit" oppose one another and in fact are warring within the individual believer. But flesh, in this instance, does not mean the same as body, but rather is unredeemed human nature with its inborn tendency to be wholly selfish. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God [which is love, remember] for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh [living out their selfish, unloving nature] cannot please God. (Romans 8:7, 8 NASB)
Sadly, I think this teaching was misunderstood to mean that the body is not acceptable—not to God and not to us if we want to please Him. Again, probably none of those who gave me religious instruction would have espoused that teaching. Did I just get it wrong? I don't think so, for it was demonstrated pretty clearly in daily life. Specifically, there seemed to be something basically wrong with being in a female body. My mother hid herself (and me) in clothing which had the chief attribute of shapelessness. My father warned me that girls were responsible for the moral behavior of their dates, and a tent revivalist told us in the crudest of terms that we women, with our irresistible but wicked charms, were responsible for men going to hell. Is it any wonder that I had trouble claiming my body?
Although the physical body is only temporary, God thinks it's important. He could have used any means at all to form the ultimate revelation of Himself to humankind. And what did He choose? A human body. Would God have given Christ a body in which to live on earth if He thought bodies were a bad idea? In spite of the senses and appetites which sometimes get us into difficulty, God used a body to hold Himself. And He still does. He is pro-body.
Marjorie
Scripture is from the New American Standard Bible, used by permission of http://www.lockman.org/
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Genny's Story - 6: Staying--or Leaving
To read all previously published parts, click on "Genny's Story" in the labels column at the left. Note that entries appear in reverse order, the most recent on top.
Genny explains why she was so long in dealing with her situation
Marjorie: I know there can be many factors keeping women in traumatic situations—fear of being alone, financial instability, the children, just plain uncertainty. But maybe denial is what keeps a lot of women in their abusive homes.
Genny: Yes, I think so. But giving it up is really hard. The truth can be very difficult to look at.
M: And why is that?
G: Lots of reasons. People's opinion of you, not wanting to expose the person you have loved, feeling like a failure. But for me, the huge obstacle was a whole group of religious issues. I was very active in our church. Jim was less involved, but still much loved and respected. People actually admired our marriage! I just couldn't stand to humiliate us both by admitting that anything was wrong. And even though he was very wrong in his treatment of me, I had no desire to ruin his name among our church friends. I think our pastors would have been understanding and compassionate, and I can see, looking back, that there may have been a couple of other friends I could have turned to. They say to me now, "I wish I had known. I wish I could have been there for you." But many people in our church still have very conservative beliefs about the marriage relationship. I'm not sure they--especially Jim's friends--would have been that openhearted. First of all, some wouldn't have believed it was true, and secondly, some surely would have blamed me. I just wasn't ready for that. So you can see that this was an area of real conflict for me.
M: You know, Genny, I may have some readers who, like you, have strong ties to conservative churches, and these men and women may feel that what you have described in our earlier conversations about submission and servitude is indeed a wife's role. What would you say to them?
G: Throughout Scripture, I believe, women as well as men are invited into relationship with God. Even the creation passages can be understood in ways that do not relegate women to a secondary place. In the New Testament, it is the clear expectation that both men and women will live lives that display the fruit of the Spirit and represent the cause of Christ well. The "woman passages" that seem so troublesome in Paul's letters almost certainly spoke to a particular problem in a specific church. They do not present a view of women that is consistent with his teachings or his relationships as defined in other passages.
The Apostle Paul is very clear that in Christ, there is no male or female, bond or free, and so forth. Nowhere does he teach that submission is one-way, that is, women--and wives in particular--to men. It just is not there. Submission to each other is one of the ways that love and honor are expressed between husband and wife. Before Paul speaks about the responsibilities of women and of men, he says, "Submit to one another, or be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ." Or put another way, "Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another."
M: And now that we've brought up religious beliefs—if and when it becomes clear that a woman, specifically a Christian woman, cannot survive in her abusive situation, what options do you think she has?
G: She has all the options that there are. Let me name some. First of all, there is just leaving, one or the other of the couple decides to move out, or maybe they can even decide together that would be best for everyone. But do not delay if your safety is threatened. Get out of there--now! And use every means, every legal avenue available, to ensure your peace and well-being.
There is just toughing it out, the worst option of all, and any more I don't even consider it a viable one. There is so much more to life than just waiting for your husband to die! Several years ago—and I have forgotten the source—I ran across, in a national news magazine, the personal account of an abused woman whose husband was killed in a highway accident. In the article, she stated that she was glad he was dead. A storm of angry letters was the response. "How dare she say such a thing?" "How can she be so cold-hearted?" "That's the same as murder." And so on. How preposterous is it for us to tell someone how they should feel? She didn't kill him even though she may have wished that he would die; she was just relieved and grateful that he was gone.
M: So waiting and wishing might be an option, but it's not a very good one! What are other possibilities?
G: Well, as Christian women, we don't want to consider murder as an option, but a great many good church folk think divorce is almost that bad. There's always a big laugh when someone says of their marriage, "Oh no, we never ever considered divorce. But murder? Oh yes, many times!" So are we to conclude that murder would be preferable to divorce? It's supposed to be a joke, but it is so not funny, because divorce is, in fact, one of the options. Yes, I am aware of church regulations, and I know many women who say, "Divorce is absolutely not an option." Then for them, it is not an option. But when a woman asks whether divorce can be an option, she probably is thinking, "Yes, I know it is, but what I'm really asking is, Will God be mad at me? Or, Will I go to hell?" I am convinced that God is more concerned about relationship than law. I cannot believe that He is pleased with someone—man or woman—being trapped in a non-marriage where the bond is already irreparably severed.
Some churches take the position that there are only certain "Biblical permissions" for divorce, usually citing adultery and abandonment. Well, how do we define those? Is adultery only an extra-marital affair, or could it also be conscious emotional entanglement, unfaithfulness at the heart level? Is abandonment the term for physically deserting one's spouse, or does it apply also to the person who may be present in the home but has long since forsaken his vows? These questions are something only the woman herself can decide, but she must be aware that if she makes a decision counter to the church "rules," she may then have to form a different church connection.
M: And what if the woman believes divorce is absolutely not an option?
G: There are other alternatives. Even if a woman feels she dare not divorce, she perhaps could consider separation—legally separated so as to make clear the financial and custodial issues. Sometimes that even provokes the husband to file for divorce, which is another possible outcome.
Then there is annulment, which actually does not dissolve the marriage but declares that it never existed. This has been misused sometimes to remedy general unhappiness with one's spouse, but still, it is a valid legal action. Each state has laws governing annulment just as they have for divorce; most generally those deal with fraud, concealment of facts, or the incapacity to enter into marriage. This sounds strange, I know, but it does happen.
M: Options aren't really "solutions," are they? It must be extremely difficult for a woman to sort out all of this alone.
G: Yes, so add to the reasons you gave for why women stay, "paralysis." They just don't know what to do. Regardless of what an abused woman chooses to do, finding her way is likely to be traumatic. Leaving a marriage is not going to be pleasant, easy, quick, or cheap. It can even be dangerous. Some men become vindictive; they threaten, harass, stalk, do damage, or even inflict physical harm. But when staying is no longer possible, she simply has to leave. I cannot emphasize too much: Get wise professional counsel.
To be continued.
Genny explains why she was so long in dealing with her situation
Marjorie: I know there can be many factors keeping women in traumatic situations—fear of being alone, financial instability, the children, just plain uncertainty. But maybe denial is what keeps a lot of women in their abusive homes.
Genny: Yes, I think so. But giving it up is really hard. The truth can be very difficult to look at.
M: And why is that?
G: Lots of reasons. People's opinion of you, not wanting to expose the person you have loved, feeling like a failure. But for me, the huge obstacle was a whole group of religious issues. I was very active in our church. Jim was less involved, but still much loved and respected. People actually admired our marriage! I just couldn't stand to humiliate us both by admitting that anything was wrong. And even though he was very wrong in his treatment of me, I had no desire to ruin his name among our church friends. I think our pastors would have been understanding and compassionate, and I can see, looking back, that there may have been a couple of other friends I could have turned to. They say to me now, "I wish I had known. I wish I could have been there for you." But many people in our church still have very conservative beliefs about the marriage relationship. I'm not sure they--especially Jim's friends--would have been that openhearted. First of all, some wouldn't have believed it was true, and secondly, some surely would have blamed me. I just wasn't ready for that. So you can see that this was an area of real conflict for me.
M: You know, Genny, I may have some readers who, like you, have strong ties to conservative churches, and these men and women may feel that what you have described in our earlier conversations about submission and servitude is indeed a wife's role. What would you say to them?
G: Throughout Scripture, I believe, women as well as men are invited into relationship with God. Even the creation passages can be understood in ways that do not relegate women to a secondary place. In the New Testament, it is the clear expectation that both men and women will live lives that display the fruit of the Spirit and represent the cause of Christ well. The "woman passages" that seem so troublesome in Paul's letters almost certainly spoke to a particular problem in a specific church. They do not present a view of women that is consistent with his teachings or his relationships as defined in other passages.
The Apostle Paul is very clear that in Christ, there is no male or female, bond or free, and so forth. Nowhere does he teach that submission is one-way, that is, women--and wives in particular--to men. It just is not there. Submission to each other is one of the ways that love and honor are expressed between husband and wife. Before Paul speaks about the responsibilities of women and of men, he says, "Submit to one another, or be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ." Or put another way, "Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another."
M: And now that we've brought up religious beliefs—if and when it becomes clear that a woman, specifically a Christian woman, cannot survive in her abusive situation, what options do you think she has?
G: She has all the options that there are. Let me name some. First of all, there is just leaving, one or the other of the couple decides to move out, or maybe they can even decide together that would be best for everyone. But do not delay if your safety is threatened. Get out of there--now! And use every means, every legal avenue available, to ensure your peace and well-being.
There is just toughing it out, the worst option of all, and any more I don't even consider it a viable one. There is so much more to life than just waiting for your husband to die! Several years ago—and I have forgotten the source—I ran across, in a national news magazine, the personal account of an abused woman whose husband was killed in a highway accident. In the article, she stated that she was glad he was dead. A storm of angry letters was the response. "How dare she say such a thing?" "How can she be so cold-hearted?" "That's the same as murder." And so on. How preposterous is it for us to tell someone how they should feel? She didn't kill him even though she may have wished that he would die; she was just relieved and grateful that he was gone.
M: So waiting and wishing might be an option, but it's not a very good one! What are other possibilities?
G: Well, as Christian women, we don't want to consider murder as an option, but a great many good church folk think divorce is almost that bad. There's always a big laugh when someone says of their marriage, "Oh no, we never ever considered divorce. But murder? Oh yes, many times!" So are we to conclude that murder would be preferable to divorce? It's supposed to be a joke, but it is so not funny, because divorce is, in fact, one of the options. Yes, I am aware of church regulations, and I know many women who say, "Divorce is absolutely not an option." Then for them, it is not an option. But when a woman asks whether divorce can be an option, she probably is thinking, "Yes, I know it is, but what I'm really asking is, Will God be mad at me? Or, Will I go to hell?" I am convinced that God is more concerned about relationship than law. I cannot believe that He is pleased with someone—man or woman—being trapped in a non-marriage where the bond is already irreparably severed.
Some churches take the position that there are only certain "Biblical permissions" for divorce, usually citing adultery and abandonment. Well, how do we define those? Is adultery only an extra-marital affair, or could it also be conscious emotional entanglement, unfaithfulness at the heart level? Is abandonment the term for physically deserting one's spouse, or does it apply also to the person who may be present in the home but has long since forsaken his vows? These questions are something only the woman herself can decide, but she must be aware that if she makes a decision counter to the church "rules," she may then have to form a different church connection.
M: And what if the woman believes divorce is absolutely not an option?
G: There are other alternatives. Even if a woman feels she dare not divorce, she perhaps could consider separation—legally separated so as to make clear the financial and custodial issues. Sometimes that even provokes the husband to file for divorce, which is another possible outcome.
Then there is annulment, which actually does not dissolve the marriage but declares that it never existed. This has been misused sometimes to remedy general unhappiness with one's spouse, but still, it is a valid legal action. Each state has laws governing annulment just as they have for divorce; most generally those deal with fraud, concealment of facts, or the incapacity to enter into marriage. This sounds strange, I know, but it does happen.
M: Options aren't really "solutions," are they? It must be extremely difficult for a woman to sort out all of this alone.
G: Yes, so add to the reasons you gave for why women stay, "paralysis." They just don't know what to do. Regardless of what an abused woman chooses to do, finding her way is likely to be traumatic. Leaving a marriage is not going to be pleasant, easy, quick, or cheap. It can even be dangerous. Some men become vindictive; they threaten, harass, stalk, do damage, or even inflict physical harm. But when staying is no longer possible, she simply has to leave. I cannot emphasize too much: Get wise professional counsel.
To be continued.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Genny's Story - 5: "Something Was Very Wrong"
Genny has just described how her abusive home affected her physically and emotionally.
Marjorie: Did you ever wonder if perhaps Jim was mentally ill, that his anger was something he couldn't help?
Genny: There was definitely something wrong, but he avoided any kind of situation where he might be evaluated. But that he couldn't help it? No, I finally had to give that up. He was a Christian gentleman as far as the church and his few select friends could tell. He controlled his angry, scornful words and his selfish actions when he was around them. So he could have done that for me too, if that's what he had wanted to do. But at home he let "the evil twin" out. He knew how to use his anger as a tool; he could turn it on or off to get whatever it was he wanted. He told me that when he was a child or young man, he stood in front of a mirror and practiced saying vicious things, and that through the years he took satisfaction in seeing how he could wither people with his words.
M: Is it possible that he had some kind of personality disorder?
G: I'm sure that's possible, although I don't know a lot about those problems. Sometimes I wish it could have been as simple as saying, "Well, he has this" or "He is such-and-such." I have to remind myself that this is something he carefully controlled. I even told him, "You're nice to everyone but me." He just kept an expressionless mask over his face—no recognition, no denial either—like I had made some ridiculous statement that he could just ignore. I really believe he liked being angry. I think he felt powerful and in control when he was loud and mean. I read somewhere that anger can give a "high" as addictive as a drug. I think he was addicted. Once in a mellow moment, I told him, "If you could give up your inner rage, you would be a different man." "No, no," he answered, "I am a transformed man." (Meaning that because he had accepted Jesus as Savior, his old life simply didn't exist.) I am here to tell you that was not true. Being "saved" did not bring a deep life change in him.
M: So sometimes you did confront him?
G: Sort of. I'm not sure you could even call it confrontation. I walked away a few times, when he was loud and angry. I left the room or the house while he was yelling, "Don't you dare leave me!" But at that time, I didn't think of actually leaving him as an option. Later, after recognizing the extent of the abuse and deciding, "I am not going to live this way," I did have to begin facing what the next step would be. It didn't seem like an immediate decision that I needed to make in a hurry. I knew I could make it on my own, but I couldn't see myself leaving. I was still clinging to that little bit of hope that he would choose to relate to me as a loving husband.
M: What about those "sort-of" confrontations? Why weren't you more assertive in taking care of yourself in the relationship?
G: It took a very long time to sink in that all of this was not going to turn out okay. Then when I did realize it, I did not have the kind of strength and self-respect that would have been required to stop the mistreatment. I'm not sure I ever possessed that confidence, but if so, it had been beaten down and I was just numb. Had I been that stronger and wiser person, I probably wouldn't have been married to Jim at all.. He was attracted to the quiet, compliant woman I was, and might not have even liked me had I been otherwise!
There was something very wrong, that is to say unbalanced. Over and over I have said to myself, "This man, at least while I lived with him, was wicked or very, very sick." Probably some of both. He was very sick in the sense that he did not respond to life in what would be called "normal" ways. But I think he made little choices over and over again that led in the wrong, self-destructive direction—just like a diabetic may choose to disregard nutritional counsel, or a person with lung cancer continues to smoke. I believe Jim's choices shaped his body and his brain until the bent of his life was pretty nearly irreversible, and perhaps then he really couldn't any longer choose; I don't know. And I have to let God judge whether or not he was wicked. From my perspective, I will say that he did not show the spirit of Christ.
M: But God can deliver from such patterns, can't He?
G: Oh, of course! I really believe that. But it doesn't happen if a person is resisting change. Jim preferred not to submit to any of the costly or painful disciplines God might have used in his life. He just admitted that he loved pleasure and ease too much for that. God doesn't force us to undergo training. We have to present ourselves, prepared for whatever it takes to make us into His disciples.
Knowing that Jim was very wrong does not mean that I accept no responsibility. There's a difference between assuming responsibility and accepting blame. I did not cause the abuse; it was not my fault. I am able now to take responsibility for being the kind of person who could not stand up for herself and say, "This is not right." But it's still not helpful or realistic for me to examine the "Jim years" and tell myself, "Why didn't you just say . . ." "If you had just done such-and-such." If I could have said or done differently, I probably wouldn't even have been in that situation in the first place. The timid little steps I did take were all I could manage at the time.
To be continued.
Marjorie: Did you ever wonder if perhaps Jim was mentally ill, that his anger was something he couldn't help?
Genny: There was definitely something wrong, but he avoided any kind of situation where he might be evaluated. But that he couldn't help it? No, I finally had to give that up. He was a Christian gentleman as far as the church and his few select friends could tell. He controlled his angry, scornful words and his selfish actions when he was around them. So he could have done that for me too, if that's what he had wanted to do. But at home he let "the evil twin" out. He knew how to use his anger as a tool; he could turn it on or off to get whatever it was he wanted. He told me that when he was a child or young man, he stood in front of a mirror and practiced saying vicious things, and that through the years he took satisfaction in seeing how he could wither people with his words.
M: Is it possible that he had some kind of personality disorder?
G: I'm sure that's possible, although I don't know a lot about those problems. Sometimes I wish it could have been as simple as saying, "Well, he has this" or "He is such-and-such." I have to remind myself that this is something he carefully controlled. I even told him, "You're nice to everyone but me." He just kept an expressionless mask over his face—no recognition, no denial either—like I had made some ridiculous statement that he could just ignore. I really believe he liked being angry. I think he felt powerful and in control when he was loud and mean. I read somewhere that anger can give a "high" as addictive as a drug. I think he was addicted. Once in a mellow moment, I told him, "If you could give up your inner rage, you would be a different man." "No, no," he answered, "I am a transformed man." (Meaning that because he had accepted Jesus as Savior, his old life simply didn't exist.) I am here to tell you that was not true. Being "saved" did not bring a deep life change in him.
M: So sometimes you did confront him?
G: Sort of. I'm not sure you could even call it confrontation. I walked away a few times, when he was loud and angry. I left the room or the house while he was yelling, "Don't you dare leave me!" But at that time, I didn't think of actually leaving him as an option. Later, after recognizing the extent of the abuse and deciding, "I am not going to live this way," I did have to begin facing what the next step would be. It didn't seem like an immediate decision that I needed to make in a hurry. I knew I could make it on my own, but I couldn't see myself leaving. I was still clinging to that little bit of hope that he would choose to relate to me as a loving husband.
M: What about those "sort-of" confrontations? Why weren't you more assertive in taking care of yourself in the relationship?
G: It took a very long time to sink in that all of this was not going to turn out okay. Then when I did realize it, I did not have the kind of strength and self-respect that would have been required to stop the mistreatment. I'm not sure I ever possessed that confidence, but if so, it had been beaten down and I was just numb. Had I been that stronger and wiser person, I probably wouldn't have been married to Jim at all.. He was attracted to the quiet, compliant woman I was, and might not have even liked me had I been otherwise!
There was something very wrong, that is to say unbalanced. Over and over I have said to myself, "This man, at least while I lived with him, was wicked or very, very sick." Probably some of both. He was very sick in the sense that he did not respond to life in what would be called "normal" ways. But I think he made little choices over and over again that led in the wrong, self-destructive direction—just like a diabetic may choose to disregard nutritional counsel, or a person with lung cancer continues to smoke. I believe Jim's choices shaped his body and his brain until the bent of his life was pretty nearly irreversible, and perhaps then he really couldn't any longer choose; I don't know. And I have to let God judge whether or not he was wicked. From my perspective, I will say that he did not show the spirit of Christ.
M: But God can deliver from such patterns, can't He?
G: Oh, of course! I really believe that. But it doesn't happen if a person is resisting change. Jim preferred not to submit to any of the costly or painful disciplines God might have used in his life. He just admitted that he loved pleasure and ease too much for that. God doesn't force us to undergo training. We have to present ourselves, prepared for whatever it takes to make us into His disciples.
Knowing that Jim was very wrong does not mean that I accept no responsibility. There's a difference between assuming responsibility and accepting blame. I did not cause the abuse; it was not my fault. I am able now to take responsibility for being the kind of person who could not stand up for herself and say, "This is not right." But it's still not helpful or realistic for me to examine the "Jim years" and tell myself, "Why didn't you just say . . ." "If you had just done such-and-such." If I could have said or done differently, I probably wouldn't even have been in that situation in the first place. The timid little steps I did take were all I could manage at the time.
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)