- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys I just recently posted a new blog post on Wheat and Tares if you’re interested feel free to take a look and let me know what your thoughts are http://www.wheatandtares.org/17936/does-the-church-need-an-intervention/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/17936/does-the-church-need-an-intervention/ Bill – your Gottman post and this post are SO spot on. They both line up with the way I feel. And this last one makes me feel I could extend the analogy of the parent with some issues. I really want to have a break for a while from the church. I think the probability of me staying long term might very well increase if I would take a bit of a break. Just like in a family with some issues it can be good to get some distance for a while and then re-engage after thinking about it a bit more. The family and social ramifications are keeping me from doing so. I am expecting an engagement of one of my kids within the next 6 months.
Good post, Bill. I do like the parent-child analogy with the church to a certain point, but do not think that is entirely true…but this is part of what I have worked through to determine what the church role is for me. Because they aren’t really my parent that I depended on to take care of me in my childhood days…in other words, I didn’t need them the way children need parents.
But…when I grow up and go through a phase of maturation that I see things differently…do I see my parents differently than I did when I was a child…yes, I do. Do I see the church differently then when I was a child. Yes, I do. I think many go through those stages of faith.
I will say this…I think there is a difference between a parent being emotionally damaging by not being perfect, and physical or sexual abuse. THere is a line that is crossed that some actions become illegal and wrong on any scale. Those need to be stopped, retribution paid, and if they can’t be stopped…an intervention to stop it.
But a well intention father, who does things less than ideal…perhaps places guilt or emotional pressure on children and even alienates them…that is the flaws of an imperfect person. It does not require an intervention to get that father to admit his ways are wrong or not ideal. He never has to admit his ways are not ideal. They are just the best that person can do, and as kids grow to adulthood and see the flaws…you accept it and live with it, and choose to make your adult relationship because of it.
Because the church is less than ideal…it does not owe us an apology for us trusting it in the past, and seeing the truth of it now. That is OUR deal to work through. And when we’re adults to face that issue, we choose how we’ll continue the relationship. Work with it still, and accept it for what it is in our lives, or choose we don’t need it. But we don’t need an intervention to change it because we misunderstood it or didn’t see it’s flaws in the past. Because no crime was committed…no line was crossed.
Your friend’s response that it is like a marriage relationship where you come to know the other person’s flaws but love them anyway I think applies. And if the other person’s flaws bug you so bad, and you didn’t know about them while dating, only after marriage…you don’t make that person apologize or have an intervention. You just figure out what you can do going forward. Can you work through the marriage with flaws and all, or is it so bad you need a divorce? I had to get a divorce. I do not think all couples will need that when they learn the problems, because not all couples have the problems I did in my marriage.
There is also a complex situation because the church has individual bishops that make mistakes, or apostles or prophets or whoever…but direct impact to my relationship to the church is bigger than any one individual leader representing the church. So it is more complicated. Maybe more like the idea that I believe in marriage, even if I couldn’t make the marriage work with one individual.
I have moved away from the analogy of the church is like my marriage. Because I don’t think I should place the commitment and loyalty to it like I do a marriage. And I’ve been divorced.
Perhaps the analogy I am currently holding is that the church is like an employer to me. I need a paycheck…I want this job. Other employers can give me a paycheck too, but I have my current one that is the best to meet my needs. When I find out later my employer has a ton of organizational problems…I do not require an intervention or an apology they didnt explain it all to me during my interview process. I simply decide if I will do my job, perhaps try to make improvements in my area of influence, and accept the flaws…or I go find another way to get a paycheck. But I don’t have the same relationship with my employer I do my spouse. Or my mom or dad (God rest his soul).
I understand that others are more committed and invested eternally to the church…and therefore, the spouse relationship fits for them. There are no other options for them to get their eternal salvation…so an employer analogy would not feel right to them, because rarely do people only have one employer their whole life. People switch around jobs. They are disposable or exchangeable. Whereas, the church is the one and only source of truth for them.
Perhaps the takeaway I get is that there is no one model that fits everyone. Fowlers stages, other stage theories, no stage theory, analogy of parent-child, analogy of spouse, analogy of employer….they just help us explain our story to others, but none will apply to everyone.
I have just never equated my new information on church and church history, even the emotional abuse I sometimes see, with a physical or sexual abusive parent that needs an intervention to stop the behavior that is in denial.
The church isn’t in denial, and the church hasn’t committed crimes invalidating it’s authority, in my opinion. I just see it for what it is. And I choose my next steps based on how I see things and how I believe God wants me to do things.
I liked it. I don’t think the comparisons made stand up consistently but it is a metaphor that might work for some. I say “some” because judging from the comments, many individuals took offense at describing the Church as DB Mormon did. One of the blog commenters said that all metaphors emphasize certain aspects and obscure others. Perhaps this is like the blind men describing the elephant. There is a measure of truth to this perspective and it fits some experiences but it only a facet of the truth and completely contradicts other experiences. Both perspectives can be true yet only representing slivers of the whole truth. I knew that it was going to be controversial from this heading:
Quote:The Church as an abusive Father
In the Gottman interview there was a lot of discussion about reasons that are given for why people leave the church. Examples include: “they learned the truth about our history” or “they just wanted to sin” or “they didn’t dig deeply enough” or “they were offended” or “they can leave the church but not leave it alone”. All of these may have some nugget of truth to them and be accurate according to our individual experience and perspective. Unfortunately where all these ideas fail is because they 1) are overly broad characterizations that seem to overly simplify a complex issue. 2) are inherently offensive and likely to shut down any communication taking place between people of opposing views. 3) They are dismissive of people who see things differently.
I liked the post generally and felt that there was much there that I could identify with.
I also felt that the metaphor 1) seemed to simplify a complex issue (both by creating an amalgamation of the entire church body into one individual and also by largely reducing the character traits of this father representation down to some very unflattering traits culminating in the descriptor of “abusive father.”), 2) is likely to be offensive combative and close down communication with individuals with opposing views, and 3) at least implies that people who do not recognize the abuse are either hiding their head in the sand or are becoming unwitting accomplices. This can be seen as dismissive.
I know some of the blog commenters were harsh and the last thing I want to do is to pile one negativity. I offer this feedback in love, believing that you are always acting sincerely.
I suggest looking critically at what your purpose and audience was for this post. Was the purpose accomplished? Was it the correct purpose for the audience?
Just random $0.02 from your friend Roy.
:ugeek: Analogies are almost always imperfect, but I do feel that this one captures a big chunk of how I feel about the church. I am still trying to figure out how much of it is “less than perfect parent” vs “abusive or neglectful”. My dad was very admitting that he made mistakes raising me and my siblings. We could even joke with him about all of it and we all would have a good laugh since it was all water under the bridge and we all loved each other. I sure would feel closer to my church if they would admit (more than 1 statement from DFU) that they made mistakes (and could be making them now). I see that as a CURRENT and on-going failing that does cause member to jump on those with doubts. As I said in the comments on the post, I’m not a fan of the analogy simply because you as the author haven’t experienced domestic abuse (as you say in the OP). Using it as a metaphor for the church (which isn’t a new concept) seems insensitive to those who are actual survivors of domestic abuse. Also, I tend to think the metaphor is strained for several other reasons. Do people feel abused? Some do. Have some been abused? Some (smaller subset) have. It feels like we are mixing up abuse with feeling taken for granted, at least in some cases. One commenter at Wheat and Tares said: Quote:I experienced emotional, psychological and occasionally physical abuse as a child. The OP rings true with me, especially because I grew up in the church, and
church life was intertwined in those negative experiences. This is why I identified with a lot of it, too. (Not actual physical abuse, though.) And I know my sister, who had the worst experience and relationship with our father, has struggled her whole life to untangle the intertwining.
I think if you’re going to use this analogy, it might be good to flesh it out further with the realizations that often come to adult children of abusive parents. When they finally see the parent as a product of his/her environment and parenting, and appreciate that they had their own demons to deal with, some of the difficulties are resolved.
I’d suggest a different picture, truth be told. I think the one you have now is pretty inflammatory. But, more importantly, it’s not personal. If you felt comfortable sharing it, a family photo would would speak to anyone and everyone who has a bittersweet, conflicted relationship with their parents and the church, or both.
Thanks, DB.
Roy wrote:I knew that it was going to be controversial from this heading:
Quote:The Church as an abusive Father
hawkgrrrl wrote:…you as the author haven’t experienced domestic abuse (as you say in the OP). Using it as a metaphor for the church (which isn’t a new concept)
seems insensitive to those who are actual survivors of domestic abuse.Also, I tend to think the metaphor is strained for several other reasons. Do people feel abused?Some do. Have some been abused? Some (smaller subset) have… I guess some people feel queasy about the comparison mostly because they associate the term “abuse” with extreme and obvious examples of abuse such as physical or sexual abuse but the fact is that there are much more subtle forms of abuse such as emotional abuse, manipulation, negligence, etc. So to me it is a simple observation and not outrageous at all to say the Church is abusive in the sense that it quite often mistreats its members in an unfair way and exploits the undeserved trust they have in it and its leaders. In fact, I think this is exactly where some of the cult/mind control accusations are coming from rather than out of nowhere because some former or disaffected members basically feel like they were victims of the Church that were deliberately misled, cheated out of their youth, time, money, etc. and that others they care about are still victims of it even though (or perhaps especially because) they are not aware of it.
And how did Jeffrey R. Holland react when confronted with this general idea in a BBC interview? He became very defensive and dismissed the idea as if there was nothing to it saying, “I’m not a dodo” and something to the effect that he was glad that some people that feel this way already left the Church. That’s one problem I see with being able to confront some of the abuse or questionable aspects of the Church directly very effectively; basically it looks like many Church leaders and members are not aware of it or are in denial about it and don’t really believe the Church is doing anything seriously wrong or unusual I guess because they have already gotten used to so much of it and accepted that this is supposedly already the way it should be or at least it is good enough for them and their families.
On top of that, I think there is a major disconnect between the top leaders and the rank-and-file members where the communication is mostly one way (top-down) and the leaders are largely insulated from seeing and understanding the actual results of the current teachings and policies for many average members and are surrounded by yes-men that typically aren’t going to question the status quo in a meaningful way. So even if some members complain loudly and vote with their feet it seems like they will typically be dismissed by Church leaders as if they were the ones with a problem if Church leaders even pay much attention to them at all. Also, I think some Church leaders are motivated by a mindset along the lines of, “the ends justify the means” (Proverbs 23:13-14) and “we know what’s best for you.” So, for example, my guess is that they adopted the general policies of teaching whitewashed history and doctrines and “milk before meat” not so much out of any deliberate maliciousness as much as overprotective fear that average members can’t handle the truth without being deceived by Satan and losing faith or never gaining a testimony.
Good points, DA. Makes me rethink my initial take a little. I should make sure I don’t sound like I come across as “blame the victim for feeling abused”.
Perhaps I am somewhat jaded by my personal experience. I won’t go into detail…but I was wrongly accused of abuse during my divorce. Just because a “victim” feels abused doesn’t make me as a man/father/husband guilty of abuse. And it is just as wrong to accuse someone falsely of abuse as it is to abuse others.
Could the church feel like a father who tried to do all it could as best it can…but is being falsely accused of abuse? If so…how should it handle it? Can’t sweep it under the rug. If it is an issue…it needs to see the light of day and truth established on who did wrong and what was misunderstood.
All analogies resonate to whatever degree a person has experienced or not experienced what is being compared – in each situation. I really dislike the analogy, but that is because I have not experienced what I would call abuse as I tend to define that word – and because I see it as extremely divisive and inflammatory. I think it is better to discuss degrees and types of abuse and how all of us, including religious leaders at all levels can foster an environment that allows some kinds of abuse than to label the Church an abusive parent right from the start. Abuse of power? Absolutely, at times. Emotional abuse? Absolutely, by some individuals. Egregious, blatant abuse? No.
I know people who have experienced what I would call that sort of abuse (especially, for example, our sexually different members) – but not to any degree or extent greater than other people in other religions, denominations, organizations, companies, fraternities, etc.
DH and I were talking last week about family relationships and how those affect our relationships with the church. This lovely and insightful essay succinctly captures it. My DH came from a much more functional family dynamic than I did. His parents were consistent. He knew to expect goodness from his parents. He is also more trusting of church and church leaders. We were discussing the possibility of a correlation between that relationship and his relationship with church.
My father was in the bishopric for 7 1/2 years. He was a closet alcoholic the entire time. He is a narcissist. He has a really tough time seeing anything from another person’s point of view. If he isn’t cold, how can anyone else be cold? They cannot be cold. They are not allowed to feel cold.
My father came home and had nightly rages. We heard dad arrive, and our job as children was to not do anything to upset him. There was no rhyme or reason to what would put him into a rage. Anything could set him off. He was not rational.
In my relationship with the church, I see so many correlations to the parental relationship. Enough that therapy is probably warranted. I am slower to trust. I am always looking for the “crazy” to show up. I do not trust church leaders as easily as my husband does.
We deal with the same church, but we all deal with different leaders who represent the organization, and we all bring our own histories with us. We interpret the actions of leadership thorough the lens of our past experiences. We can experience the same situation and interpret it very differently because of our personal life experiences.
This wonderful essay works well for someone like me. I think my DH would be appalled.
Thank you, ap. You said what I was trying to say much more beautifully than I was able to do so. I thought about the analogy in a way to help someone like my wife understand why I have issues with the church. I assume she could understand the feelings that would come from being in the situation described and if I feel that is the situation with me and the church she might have some empathy – even if she disagrees with this being her lived experience. Quote:LookingHard wrote: “I thought about the analogy in a way to help someone like my wife understand why I have issues with the church. I assume she could understand the feelings”
Did it work?
I ask because often people hold onto world views that are comfortable. They don’t want to gain insight or understanding that would make them feel discomfort, remorse, or relationship changes. They cling to the familiar.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.