Former fundys, some of who post here.....ouchie.

[The Rogue Tomato]

I am glad to see you Alayman. You are so much more interesting than RevBob. 

Wouldn't it be funny if he WAS RevBob? 

 

[subllibrm]

I am glad to see you Alayman. You are so much more interesting than RevBob. 

Wouldn't it be funny if he WAS RevBob? 

It would but I honestly don't think Aman is that creative. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There are many good traits about you SC, and I'd never suspect you of snarkiness.  A very sincere dude you are.  I amended my post prior to your response to add a little clarity.  What I simply meant was that the abuse that people suffer(ed) at the hands of authoritarian cult-like hyper-fundies shouldn't serve as an excuse to run to the POMO squishy folk, or worse, the agnostics and atheist's arms.

Glad you see my sincerity there. Thanks.

Damaged people tend to run away from those who hurt them, unless they feel threatened or entrapped. That is a part of human nature. So who is at the other end ready to welcome them as they are, flaws, disagreements and all? 

Yes, the Rob Bells and Brian McClarens certainly can be enemies of the gospel.

I don't know if I've ever read anything by McClaren or Driscoll and if I have, I certainly don't consider their writings as having influence on my personal thinking. If I happen to agree with them on a point, it would be completely coincidental.

All that aside, when you dismiss large chunks of the New Testament aside on the whim of following essentially only the gospel accounts it is difficult to have a theological discussion.

Fair point.

This is a true story about my wife's friend but the name has been changed.

"Cindy" as a mother, is very budget-conscious. Her family still has dial-up Internet (Yep. Really.), an old TV that isn't hi-def and drives 20-year old cars. She did her grocery shopping at Aldi because it was the least expensive grocery store in the area.

One morning after eating a bowl of cereal, she began to feel ill. It wasn't but a couple hours until her kids started complaining also. She figured it to be the flu. Sure enough, the kids also had fevers, couldn't keep their food down, etc. She took them all to the doctor and discovered it was food poisoning. The local paper the next day had an article that several people had gotten food poisoning from Aldi generic cereal. Cindy and her kids eventually got feeling better and recuperated but she told herself she would not buy their cereal again.

Several months later, no more issues had popped up about the food poisoning incident. Tired of paying the higher prices for cereal at another store, Cindy decided to try it again. This time, only she tried one box as a test before letting her kids eat it. Sure enough, she started feeling sick, got sick again and it was worse this time. She ended up being hospitalized. Why? Food poisoning yet again. Local paper listed several people were sick and some hospitalized because of the bad cereal yet again.

Cindy recuperated and though this happened over 15 years ago, she still refuses to shop at Aldi for anything, even though the cereal was the only thing that was noted as being contaminated those two times. When she meets with the 'moms groups', she is encouraged to shop there to save money. She refuses despite the potential cost savings. Her friends don't understand why she won't go back now that those incidents happened so long ago and she doesn't understand (at times) why people would want to shop there considering she feels it dangerous to their health.

In essence, this is a metaphor for the "Nones" and "Dones"who have "been poisoned" by the church, time and again. They are looking for deeper community, acceptance of their flaws, non-traditional viewpoints and liberal politics; looking for an openness instead of hypocrisy and authentic demonstrations of humility and love on the part of church leadership. Most of all, they want Jesus as He is, not as He is portrayed. Evangelical churches in particular tried the appeal with "cool music", coffee bars, etc. Traditional churches didn't even try and gave off the vibe of 'take our tradition as is or get out'. They want Jesus but not the crap the churches demand put on top of Him.

So where are the "Nones" and "Dones" to go? They (generally) aren't fleeing out of rebellion but rather hurt. Instead of finding church to be the place of healing, they even get attacked by clerical voices in their echo chambers because they can't find authenticity. Some wonder why people stay while those who stay wonder why they go. The article you posted was well-meaning, to be sure, but it totally missed the topic and would be perceived as another barb from a 'clerical voice' to those in the echo chamber.

In the end, I personally haven't been able to leave the church. I feel like Augustine who said, "The church is a whore; and she's my mother."

 

[Mathew Ward]

Been awhile since I've posted, and hope all is doing well.  Came across an article while doing some sermon research and it reminded me too much of some of the folks on here, so I figured I'd share:

The Christian equivalents are the autobiographies of those who have grown up in fundamentalist/evangelical households and have later gone on to repudiate the faith of their childhood, some by loosening up or rejecting various traditional doctrines, some by becoming Catholics, some by abandoning any profession of Christianity whatsoever.  The tale is often told as a subplot of a more direct piece of scholarship where a bad experience of evangelicalism/fundamentalism is the launch pad for a more serious intellectual critique of aspects of the movement as a whole.  Sometimes, however, the critique is part of a direct piece of autobiography.  Frank Schaeffer's brilliant Crazy for God and its disappointing sequel would fit into this category.  Published authors represent the merest tip of the icebergs: countless blogs and (pardon the expression) conversations would seem to indicate that the dynamic of reaction against an evangelical/fundamentalist upbringing is powerful in the religious development of many.  To repeat a phrase I have used before: one big advantage of not growing up in a Christian home is that, whatever else has screwed you up, it is not the religion of your parents

.....

Thus, the emergent leaders hang out and have 'conversations' with those who like having conversations and dislike settling on any truth claim as exclusive; all others who do not share this position they dismiss as nutty, distasteful or wicked.  The conversation is the imposed norm; all else is deviant. Meanwhile, those who were brought up in evangelical or fundamentalist homes, for some reason (whether moral, intellectual or simply personal) decide that they can no longer believe what their parents or schoolteachers told them; and they then assume that all those who do not see the problems they see with the faith are stupid or in denial or, once again, wicked and in it just for the power it brings.

....

I am sorry that your Christian parents or schoolteachers screwed you up with their bad teaching; I am sorry that you can no longer believe the simple catechetical faith that you were once taught; I am sorry that the Bible seems like little more than a confused mish-mash of contradictory myths and endlessly deferred meaning.  But that you struggle with doubts does not mean that those who do not struggle in the same way are simply weak-minded, in denial or bare-faced liars.  Nor, more importantly, does the mere fact that you have doubts mean that those doubts are necessarily legitimate and well-grounded.  Doubting on your part does not constitute a crisis of faith on mine.

http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/doubting-on-your-part-does-not-constitute-a-crisis-of-faith-on-mine.php

Well,  that sure was a refreshing repudiation of the squishiness that often pervades GenX ,  Millenial, and sometimes Former Fundy  Flipflop thinking promoted amongst websites we all know and love.

I think his brush is a little big.

However I have watched those that were far right swing to a far left position. But few come to a middle position.

Are there those who have been hurt and abused by church leaders in fundamentalism that have left church? Absolutely. They haven't necessarily left the faith (although some have) but have left the church. I think the reason they leave the church is that they can't find one that will love and help them where they are at.

 

[subllibrm]

I think his brush is a little big.

However I have watched those that were far right swing to a far left position. But few come to a middle position.

Are there those who have been hurt and abused by church leaders in fundamentalism that have left church? Absolutely. They haven't necessarily left the faith (although some have) but have left the church. I think the reason they leave the church is that they can't find one that will love and help them where they are at.

I believe that you are spot on as to the bolded. Once the pendulum starts to swing it is near impossible for it to stop at the bottom of the swing. This is, in my opinion, the source of most of the "freebirds". Upon finally finding grace (which was absent in the IFBx MoG model) they now find it cathartic to flaunt that grace.

Those who haven't experienced abuse or neglect will seek to minimize it's damage or deny it's existence altogether.  Worse still are those who are responsible for the abuse and claim that they are doing God's will.

So to Smellin's point, what are we to do with those who have been battered and damaged by the church? How do they relearn trust? How do we gently put down their rebellion?
(yes, much of the freebird rhetoric is less about biblical freedom than it is  exercising an opportunity to poke someone in the eye. Even though they often miss the eye they would really like to poke and hit an innocent bystander)
But pooh pooing their hurt and telling them to grow up and get over it is not grace either.

I will return to the sexual abuse analogy because I believe that the intimacy of our faith and how that is shared among the brethren can leave lifelong damage when trust is abused.

So for those who want all the freebirds to just put on their big boy pants an get over it, I posit this question. If your wife or daughter is raped will you take that same approach to her as you would someone who has been betrayed or abused by a church authority figure? And if you think that I am talking in hyperbole then you really don't understand how deep faith is rooted into a person's heart and soul.

I have never been raped but I can understand that sensitivity is in order. Even if your faith has never been torn out by the roots, you should still be able to understand that a very real pain has occurred and sensitivity is in order.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

...hit dogs do howl when a rock is thrown in their pack...

Yup, the author of the article you posted did that quite well.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Just my musings on a Monday morning...

Welcome back Chief.

Always good to read your musings Deputy, and thanks for the welcome.  Few things that I've ever read on the forum have hit me in the gut/heart hard enough to stun my senses, but the revelation about your son is one of them.  Don't know what to say, but prayin' for you and yours bro.

 

[ALAYMAN]

FWIW I can understand Smellin's point. If you have be abused, misused, misled by someone with authority and you want to figure out truth from crumbs, finding someone that you can trust to help is a huge part of the puzzle. Your interaction is regarding doctrinal teachings but move the framework over to the realm of sexual abuse (no I am not making a equation, only a comparison). How does the abused find one who can be trusted to not abuse them further?

Inherent in the question, like SCs "cereal" analogy, is the assumption that most churches are abusive.  I've only been a member of 2 churches in my 27 years as a Christian, and haven't found abuse in either one, neither for myself nor any hint of scandal towards others.  It's true that the depth of relationships ("community") is not always what it should be, but that is far from abuse, and just like my biological family, I don't abandon them because they disappoint me.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think his brush is a little big.

However I have watched those that were far right swing to a far left position. But few come to a middle position.

Are there those who have been hurt and abused by church leaders in fundamentalism that have left church? Absolutely. They haven't necessarily left the faith (although some have) but have left the church. I think the reason they leave the church is that they can't find one that will love and help them where they are at.

I believe that you are spot on as to the bolded. Once the pendulum starts to swing it is near impossible for it to stop at the bottom of the swing. This is, in my opinion, the source of most of the "freebirds". Upon finally finding grace (which was absent in the IFBx MoG model) they now find it cathartic to flaunt that grace.

Those who haven't experienced abuse or neglect will seek to minimize it's damage or deny it's existence altogether.  Worse still are those who are responsible for the abuse and claim that they are doing God's will.

So to Smellin's point, what are we to do with those who have been battered and damaged by the church? How do they relearn trust? How do we gently put down their rebellion?
(yes, much of the freebird rhetoric is less about biblical freedom than it is  exercising an opportunity to poke someone in the eye. Even though they often miss the eye they would really like to poke and hit an innocent bystander)
But pooh pooing their hurt and telling them to grow up and get over it is not grace either.

I will return to the sexual abuse analogy because I believe that the intimacy of our faith and how that is shared among the brethren can leave lifelong damage when trust is abused.

So for those who want all the freebirds to just put on their big boy pants an get over it, I posit this question. If your wife or daughter is raped will you take that same approach to her as you would someone who has been betrayed or abused by a church authority figure? And if you think that I am talking in hyperbole then you really don't understand how deep faith is rooted into a person's heart and soul.

I have never been raped but I can understand that sensitivity is in order. Even if your faith has never been torn out by the roots, you should still be able to understand that a very real pain has occurred and sensitivity is in order.

I don't have time to go into much detail, and I'm not a fan of Dr Phil, but at the end of the day I have to use his famous question for a response here....."how's that workin' out for ya"?  I could cite some fairly serious incidents of trauma in my life, but I'll spare ya the gory details.  There's no point in living in the past, especially if it is holdin' you back from pressing towards the prize, the high calling in Christ.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

FWIW I can understand Smellin's point. If you have be abused, misused, misled by someone with authority and you want to figure out truth from crumbs, finding someone that you can trust to help is a huge part of the puzzle. Your interaction is regarding doctrinal teachings but move the framework over to the realm of sexual abuse (no I am not making a equation, only a comparison). How does the abused find one who can be trusted to not abuse them further?

Inherent in the question, like SCs "cereal" analogy, is the assumption that most churches are abusive.  I've only been a member of 2 churches in my 27 years as a Christian, and haven't found abuse in either one, neither for myself nor any hint of scandal towards others.  It's true that the depth of relationships ("community") is not always what it should be, but that is far from abuse, and just like my biological family, I don't abandon them because they disappoint me.

Not all Aldi stores had contaminated cereal. But when you view the entire chain of Aldi stores from the perspective of one who became violently ill more than once, you should be able to at least understand why that person would never again want to shop in any of the stores in that chain.

Taking pot shots at them, preaching at them, gossiping about them and being critical of their decision to leave is not the way to encourage them and eventually try to win them back. Loving them where they are, allowing them to express their past experiences, helping them and allowing them to progress through in their timing is what they need. Remember, most people who leave churches like this aren't being rebellious and most DO go through a period of grieving over lost relationships. And like one who is grieving a personal loss, we have to realize the time and stages of the grief process vary from individual to individual.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I think his brush is a little big.

However I have watched those that were far right swing to a far left position. But few come to a middle position.

Are there those who have been hurt and abused by church leaders in fundamentalism that have left church? Absolutely. They haven't necessarily left the faith (although some have) but have left the church. I think the reason they leave the church is that they can't find one that will love and help them where they are at.

I believe that you are spot on as to the bolded. Once the pendulum starts to swing it is near impossible for it to stop at the bottom of the swing. This is, in my opinion, the source of most of the "freebirds". Upon finally finding grace (which was absent in the IFBx MoG model) they now find it cathartic to flaunt that grace.

Those who haven't experienced abuse or neglect will seek to minimize it's damage or deny it's existence altogether.  Worse still are those who are responsible for the abuse and claim that they are doing God's will.

So to Smellin's point, what are we to do with those who have been battered and damaged by the church? How do they relearn trust? How do we gently put down their rebellion?
(yes, much of the freebird rhetoric is less about biblical freedom than it is  exercising an opportunity to poke someone in the eye. Even though they often miss the eye they would really like to poke and hit an innocent bystander)
But pooh pooing their hurt and telling them to grow up and get over it is not grace either.

I will return to the sexual abuse analogy because I believe that the intimacy of our faith and how that is shared among the brethren can leave lifelong damage when trust is abused.

So for those who want all the freebirds to just put on their big boy pants an get over it, I posit this question. If your wife or daughter is raped will you take that same approach to her as you would someone who has been betrayed or abused by a church authority figure? And if you think that I am talking in hyperbole then you really don't understand how deep faith is rooted into a person's heart and soul.

I have never been raped but I can understand that sensitivity is in order. Even if your faith has never been torn out by the roots, you should still be able to understand that a very real pain has occurred and sensitivity is in order.

I don't have time to go into much detail, and I'm not a fan of Dr Phil, but at the end of the day I have to use his famous question for a response here....."how's that workin' out for ya"?  I could cite some fairly serious incidents of trauma in my life, but I'll spare ya the gory details.  There's no point in living in the past, especially if it is holdin' you back from pressing towards the prize, the high calling in Christ.

I have watched couples lose a spouse. Some get over it and remarry in 6 months or less. Others never get over the loss and don't remarry.

It seems the same is true for those hurt & abused in the church. Some get over it and others don't. Maybe the emphasis should be how we treat others in the church (my responsibility) and not those that have left?

I know a young man who was hurt by 2 different IFB MOG's. He presently wants nothing to do with church. I can understand that. How do I respond when I see him?

I figure if God can be patient with him and love him unconditionally, so can I.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I think his brush is a little big.

However I have watched those that were far right swing to a far left position. But few come to a middle position.

Are there those who have been hurt and abused by church leaders in fundamentalism that have left church? Absolutely. They haven't necessarily left the faith (although some have) but have left the church. I think the reason they leave the church is that they can't find one that will love and help them where they are at.

I believe that you are spot on as to the bolded. Once the pendulum starts to swing it is near impossible for it to stop at the bottom of the swing. This is, in my opinion, the source of most of the "freebirds". Upon finally finding grace (which was absent in the IFBx MoG model) they now find it cathartic to flaunt that grace.

Those who haven't experienced abuse or neglect will seek to minimize it's damage or deny it's existence altogether.  Worse still are those who are responsible for the abuse and claim that they are doing God's will.

So to Smellin's point, what are we to do with those who have been battered and damaged by the church? How do they relearn trust? How do we gently put down their rebellion?
(yes, much of the freebird rhetoric is less about biblical freedom than it is  exercising an opportunity to poke someone in the eye. Even though they often miss the eye they would really like to poke and hit an innocent bystander)
But pooh pooing their hurt and telling them to grow up and get over it is not grace either.

I will return to the sexual abuse analogy because I believe that the intimacy of our faith and how that is shared among the brethren can leave lifelong damage when trust is abused.

So for those who want all the freebirds to just put on their big boy pants an get over it, I posit this question. If your wife or daughter is raped will you take that same approach to her as you would someone who has been betrayed or abused by a church authority figure? And if you think that I am talking in hyperbole then you really don't understand how deep faith is rooted into a person's heart and soul.

I have never been raped but I can understand that sensitivity is in order. Even if your faith has never been torn out by the roots, you should still be able to understand that a very real pain has occurred and sensitivity is in order.

I don't have time to go into much detail, and I'm not a fan of Dr Phil, but at the end of the day I have to use his famous question for a response here....."how's that workin' out for ya"?  I could cite some fairly serious incidents of trauma in my life, but I'll spare ya the gory details.  There's no point in living in the past, especially if it is holdin' you back from pressing towards the prize, the high calling in Christ.

Unlike Dr. Phil, look at it like a good coach. A good coach knows his players, knows who is motivated by encouragement, knows who is motivated by a kick in the pants. The only way to effectively spur the "Nones" and "Dones" back into church is to know them on a relatively close enough level so the right is earned to either coax them back or give them a swift kick. Like with kids, people are motivated differently so the "just get over it" isn't a real cure all, specifically toward those who need to feel loved.

 

[Recovering IFB]

And there are former fundies who see some doctrinal differences and leave....... No hurts, or if there are, they get over.

 

[samspade]

And there are former fundies who see some doctrinal differences and leave....... No hurts, or if there are, they get over.

Yes. The huge assumption in the OP is that leaving a fundamentalist church is wrong. That is a premise that is very much open for debate.

 

[subllibrm]

At the risk of being further misunderstood I will add a few thoughts.

First when I talk of abuse I do not suggest that there are churches that are totally abusive to all of their members. If there are they are not a church it is a cult.

What I am referring to are the situations where someone in authority mishandles things and then refuses to deal with the fallout of their error in a gracious manner. These are the things that spin out of control and eventually no one (including the offended) can find a middle ground place of peace. I shared one such event recently about the pastor who cut a young man's hair at summer camp in front of all the other kids. Was he an abusive pastor who ran his church as a gulag? No. I knew him well in later years and he made a terrible mistake. But the prevailing mindset that the MoG never show weakness played against his ever reconciling with the boy.

I can think of many times even in my church (which I would not call abusive) where the leadership made no effort to understand how their actions hurt individuals. I can vouch for this  because I have been that individual more than once. Even though I chose to stay and learn to exercise grace in those instances, I still have sympathy for those who were not able to endure such storms.

Human nature and the pride that goes with it lead us to many nasty situations. I suspect in  many situations there is room for confession and contrition on both sides but wouldn't it be marvelous if the leaders actually led? A pastor or other leader who will step into the storm and say "I was wrong". That is putting on your big boy pants. And it is the advice that is never given tot he one who did the hurting only to the one who was hurt.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Not all Aldi stores had contaminated cereal. But when you view the entire chain of Aldi stores from the perspective of one who became violently ill more than once, you should be able to at least understand why that person would never again want to shop in any of the stores in that chain.

I had the same kind of experience with a candy bar known as a Smoothie as a kid, never to eat another.  I also had a scenario as a teenager where I was out doin' stuff that I shouldn't have been doin', only to suffer the hangover consequences the next morning.  I was at my best friend's house, and his step-dad woke me up with an offer of breakfast cereal, which was weird, because he wasn't the type to make us breakfast, ever.  Well, he insisted I eat it, and I felt like crap.  It made me hurl.  I've never eaten Cinnamon Toast Crunchies since.   The irony in that particular story is that I did continue to eat actual cinnamon toast in milk (an old family favorite) without any of the negative baggage.  I say all that to say this, getting burnt can leave a person apprehensive, but it ain't healthy to irrationally apply such baggage.  If a particular denom has a legitimate bad rap (such as many Indy-Fundy churches) then do your homework and avoid them, but they're only a small fraction of the cereals out there.   In the Aldi analogy the lady could have went to other thrift stores and almost assuredly purchased similar brands without ill effects.  Church is much the same, as is life, it's often what you put into it.  Put another way, character is often measured by seeing what it takes to stop somebody from doing the right thing.  Christ is worth perservering, and His church is where His saints find nurturing and fellowship.  Last cliché, I promise, but the adage of not throwing the baby out with the bath applies in various realms of life.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have watched couples lose a spouse. Some get over it and remarry in 6 months or less. Others never get over the loss and don't remarry.

It seems the same is true for those hurt & abused in the church. Some get over it and others don't. Maybe the emphasis should be how we treat others in the church (my responsibility) and not those that have left?

I know a young man who was hurt by 2 different IFB MOG's. He presently wants nothing to do with church. I can understand that. How do I respond when I see him?

I figure if God can be patient with him and love him unconditionally, so can I.

Lots of truth in loving folk, but as Smellin aptly pointed out with the "coach" illustration, some forms of love are tough love, and rightly applied those are fitting for some.  There isn't a one-size fits all remedy in dealing with people who've over-reacted and ran into the other side of the ditch, but I'm a proponent of the "get some thicker skin" theory, as it tends to leave less victims for its' adherents, resulting in people who get in the trenches and are more ready to take some damage while plowing forward for Christ.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes. The huge assumption in the OP is that leaving a fundamentalist church is wrong. That is a premise that is very much open for debate.

I didn't take the OP to be saying that leaving fundamentalist churches is wrong, because he particularly included conservative evangelicals in that same pot.  I took it that he was saying that leaving for immature reasons, then throwing out all vestiges of conservative application in everyday living is wrong headed.

 

[ALAYMAN]

At the risk of being further misunderstood I will add a few thoughts.

First when I talk of abuse I do not suggest that there are churches that are totally abusive to all of their members. If there are they are not a church it is a cult.

What I am referring to are the situations where someone in authority mishandles things and then refuses to deal with the fallout of their error in a gracious manner. These are the things that spin out of control and eventually no one (including the offended) can find a middle ground place of peace. I shared one such event recently about the pastor who cut a young man's hair at summer camp in front of all the other kids. Was he an abusive pastor who ran his church as a gulag? No. I knew him well in later years and he made a terrible mistake. But the prevailing mindset that the MoG never show weakness played against his ever reconciling with the boy.

I can think of many times even in my church (which I would not call abusive) where the leadership made no effort to understand how their actions hurt individuals. I can vouch for this  because I have been that individual more than once. Even though I chose to stay and learn to exercise grace in those instances, I still have sympathy for those who were not able to endure such storms.

Human nature and the pride that goes with it lead us to many nasty situations. I suspect in  many situations there is room for confession and contrition on both sides but wouldn't it be marvelous if the leaders actually led? A pastor or other leader who will step into the storm and say "I was wrong". That is putting on your big boy pants. And it is the advice that is never given tot he one who did the hurting only to the one who was hurt.

Never admitting you're (especially a spiritual leader who is supposed to be an example to the flock) wrong, in the event that a person is clearly in the wrong, is clearly foolish.  And people are wise to see through such shenanigans and pride if their spiritual gurus are like that, but to assume that all folk in conservative Christian leadership are like that is just foolish.  Sometimes the person who licks their wounds (perpetually )does so out of immaturity.  I've seen people on this very forum point to the Pharisee who likes to impose his scruples on everybody else and say effectively "I don't have to be held captive to that weaker brother's conscience, and he needs to mature".  They're right in calling such weak sin-sniffers to grow into the liberty that Christ affords, and it is right to not allow the cloak of "injury" to disguise licentious living.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I had the same kind of experience with a candy bar known as a Smoothie as a kid, never to eat another. 

I earned some money as a kid (I think shoveling snow) and spent it on a ton of Lik M Aid (flavored powdered sugar, which also came in straws called Pixy Stix).  I ate enough to make me sick and I could never look at anything resembling flavored powdered sugar again.