Unholy Union: Secret Sin and Spiritual Abuse
The harboring of a secret sin is the grand escape clause that many religious people use to explain away difficult issues, ranging from a person becoming apostate, to prayer not being answered regarding a job, to a person not being healed. The argument serves as the bulwark that prevents one from having to question one’s faith in the face of disappointment, or when something does not make sense. It is a bulwark that is subtly taught in a host of Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches, and in some Evangelical churches as well.A perfect example of this took place when a young Christian woman was hit along a roadside by a drunk driver. The injuries left her confined to a wheelchair and relying upon aides to assist her with essential bodily functions for rest of her life.
Several months after the accident, some Christian friends visited her in a convalescent hospital. They announced that they had been praying for her healing and were there to “lay hands” upon her. They prayed with her and for her with sincere, impassioned fervor. They were disappointed that she was not able to rise from her bed, but as they left, they assured themselves that these things may take a few days to happen.
They returned a week later to find no improvement in their friend’s condition. Again, they prayed for her with fervor, but to no avail. Before leaving, they boldly announced to this young lady that she had not been healed because she harbored a shameful secret sin, a sin she would have to acknowledge, confess openly and seek forgiveness for before healing could occur.The so-called friends left, satisfied within themselves that they had done all they could. They were confident that their faith was pure, blameless and sufficient to accomplish mighty works. The reason their prayers had not yielded the results they sought was not due to any fault of theirs, nor to any lack of will or power on the part of their God; surely, the blame for their failed healing attempts lay within the young woman’s own sin-stained soul. Needless to say, the injured woman was devastated by their harsh verdict.
In addition to providing a vaccine that inoculates the faithful from having to question their beliefs, the notion of secret sin is a useful tool for committing spiritual abuse against others. When secret sin is wielded in this mean-spirited manner, the faithful are portraying their god as a vengeful and capricious deity, a god who punishes rather than loves. I ask any Christians who may be reading this to consider this question: do “secret sins” and their consequences reflect the petty nature of your God, or do they reflect the dark edges of your own souls?
– the deacon
DSVA:
Very thought-provoking post, Diss. There’s no pussy-footing around to introduce yourself. You just go bang for the heavy-duty intellectual stuff - with an anger-provoking example from real life. Who else have I met like that? (Hint: She writes a blog you might find quite interesting.)
If one believes in an “omnibenevolent” god, he or she is stuck with two alternatives. The first alternative is the concept of “secret sins.” The implication is that this loving deity not only rewards goodness, but works incessantly to punish evil. And of course, he finds secret sins not only in individuals, but in neighborhoods, towns, cities, or whole countries. When he does, he sends natural or manmade disasters to inflict his wrath upon those who have transgressed.
The only other explanation, for which one needs no dark edges, is to shake one’s head and say, “God works in mysterious ways.” That statement at least recognizes that all misfortunes are not necessarily brought about by an angry being. However, I’ve always wondered about that cop-out. Because if god actually does work in mysterious ways, how does the speaker know anything about what he wants and expects from humans?
By the way, from an atheist’s standpoint, I would restate the question you pose: Doesn’t the petty nature of your god reflect the dark edges of your own mind?
Comment by The Exterminator — December 10, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
How sad.
It’s called rationalization in other quarters — making up a pseudo-logical excuse to explain away unwelcome, contradictory information. Bad old cognitive dissonance generates the need for illogic. The truly sad part is that it is blaming of the victim.
Comment by salient — December 10, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
There may be a third alternative besides the two that Exterminator has proposed. This is very hard to explain and I fear I will not be able to get my point across, but here goes.
If it is the case that there is a God who created us and gave us free will, it is my opinion that he also created the physical world so that we would have a environment in which we could exercise free will, make choices, and experience the consequences of those choices.
If this is true, then it may be that the ultimate purpose of a human soul is to mature spiritually to the point of perfection through the gift of free will - decisions leading to consequences leading to further decisions and so on - and that God doesn’t really interfere with this process very much, as interference would nullify the spirit and purpose of free will.
I believe that each of us existed first in the spiritual realm and that each of us, knowing our own unique imperfections, made a conscious decison to be born into the physical world with full knowledge of where, when, and into what circumstances we would be thrust. Prior to birth, we select a life filled with specific challenges designed to lead us past our imperfections and into a state of greater perfection.
In that way we are born, live, and die, only to repeat the process until we acheive a state of perfection mirroring God. When that occurs, rebirth is no longer necessary.
So you see, if this is the case, we choose our lives and fill them with challenges that must be overcome. In the human experience, there is no real growth without adversity, without challenge. If everything was perfect all the time, we would atrophy and weaken, sliding backwards into nothingness.
So, if this is the case, the young Christian woman chose to be at that roadside for some reason that only her soul knows. The drunk driver chose to be behind the wheel of that car at that time in that condition for a reason that only his soul knows.
This results of such a tragedy may teach lessons in responsibility to a drunk, give a woman time to examine herself introspectively, and give others someone to look after and become more altruistic, I don’t know.
Without consequences there would be no point to free will and without suffering there would no growth, only atrophy and decay. It is a mystery, but there is a reason for everything.
Comment by imabbb — December 11, 2007 @ 12:44 am
imabbb:
I believe that each of us existed first in the spiritual realm and that each of us, knowing our own unique imperfections, made a conscious decison to be born into the physical world with full knowledge of where, when, and into what circumstances we would be thrust. Prior to birth, we select a life filled with specific challenges designed to lead us past our imperfections and into a state of greater perfection.
Did you just make up your own religion? It sounds kinda like a two-bit version of Eastern mysticism to me. If that’s not the case, can you point to some “authority” for what you’ve said? Evidence from nature would be even more convincing, but I don’t want to ask too much.
Now, FYI, in the religion I just made up: FREE CANDY! But only if you’re good in thought, word, and deed all the time. I mean every nanosecond of your life. Anyone who isn’t showered in FREE CANDY each day must be bad. I suppose your religion has no free candy because those in the spiritual realm are worried about their weight.
Comment by The Exterminator — December 11, 2007 @ 1:18 am
I was only suggesting a possible alternative, but it is one that I believe is more plausible than the Christian concept of a vindictive, judgmental deity or the atheist concept that the world and life just popped out of nothingness. Those two theories seem ludicrous to me, probably as ludicrous as my belief structure must sound to you. One difference between us, however, is that I do not ridicule your “religion” of atheism. I don’t know why I would expect anything more from a person who has closed their mind to the extent that you obviously have.
You assume I have made up this religion. Well, aren’t ALL religions made up, including atheism? You cannot prove God exists or doesn’t exist, so who is to say I’m wrong? The idea I suggested has its roots in Eastern thought, something infinitely older than your religion and something that is believed by millions of people around the world. And it is something that I have been thinking about and weighing in my mind for years, which is why I am not reacting defensively in the way that you are.
With all due respect, you seem as closed-minded and fanatical as any fundamentalist Christian, but I would still welcome a reasonable, balanced discussion with you, as long as you can restrain yourself from mindless attack.
Comment by imabbb — December 11, 2007 @ 2:55 am
OK, imabbb, let’s not have mindless attacks.
Let’s discuss your comments and your new religion in a reasoned manner. Remember: you’ve set the rules. Nothing mindless, OK?
Number 1: Atheism is not a religion. There’s no god, no higher power, no belief system, no myths, no legends, no prayer, no past lives or future lives, no leaders, no holy books. There are no spiritual concepts that tie all atheists together. The only idea atheists share is built into the word atheist, the prefix and root of which mean, simply, “no god.” We are god-free. I’ll repeat this, because repetition is good: Atheism is not a religion.
Number 2: Since atheism is not a religion, it is not “made up.” It’s the natural state of humans until they have their heads filled with nonsense.
Number 3: I agree that all religions are made up.
Number 4: You, too, have a right to make up any religion you want. But unless you can defend your ideas, you can expect plenty of people, many of whom will not be atheists, to make fun of them. Since you, apparently, are the only person who practices — for want of a better word, “Imabbbism” — you may find yourself challenged on your religious beliefs quite a bit.
Number 5: Despite your assertion at the beginning of your last comment, Imabbbism is no more plausible than Christianity. You’d have to provide evidence for your theological system in order for anyone to be able to measure it on a plausibility meter. Warning: All religions measure zero on my plausibility meter.
Number 6: Not giving credence to ridiculous claims is not the same thing as “closing one’s mind.” My mind is quite open to learning new things and re-evaluating old ideas. I’m comfortable that the same holds true for most commenters at this blog. So do you have something reasonable to teach us? (I direct your attention, once again, to your own rule: nothing mindless allowed here. Only reason will be accepted.)
Comment by The Exterminator — December 11, 2007 @ 4:29 am
DSVA your experience of the potential for abuse in this area echoes mine. And of course, abuse that is dressed up in theology and apparently sanctioned by god is all the more destructive and confusing for the victim (who is already struggling with her or his affliction anyway).
In addition to the abuse, I find myself becoming more and more angered by the difficulty of trying to engage in a discussion with such people because they always have an escape clause of unanswered prayer. Because their understanding of their god explains everything, it in effect, makes it impossible to reason with them in any rational way.
Comment by athinkingman — December 11, 2007 @ 6:02 am
The issue of how the church explains the suffering of the innocents, or even the guilty, could fill volumes. Imabee is correct that some would look at free will as an explanation. Those who hold to free will would not have done what the visitors did to the young woman.
Suffice it to say that free will, at least for those theological streams in the church that hold to free will, shifts suffering away from blaming the individual and somewhat away from god as well. In the case outlined, the young woman is an innocent victim of the sins of the intoxicated driver. By giving free will the deity allows people, both the guilty and the innocent, to work through the consequences of the driver’s action.
Many free will advocates would argue that her being struck by the driver was not god’s “perfect will” for her, but is allowed under his “permissive will”. The distinction between the two and what this says about such a portrayal of god could fill several postings. Suffice it to say is that such an explanation moves the person toward elements of deism.
In the situation sited, her visitors thought they were spirit filled and were rightly representing a loving god. In actuality they gave the opposite message about their god by their unloving action. Further, it never dawned upon them why such spirit filled and spirit lead believers would be lead by god to pray for healing when the person for whom they were praying was not going to be healed because of her hidden sin. It is unlikely that they would ask themselves why a loving god would draw them down a dead end street? Instead, why did their deity not give them insight enough to know that there was a hidden sin in the first place and even give them insight into the nature of that sin so that they could speak to her about specifics?
At the end of the day, the friends were not guided by any spirit or god. Their own skewed and warped thinking was what motivated them. It is likely that each feed off the other in building their rationale for visiting and praying for her. Thinking they were doing good, they brought harm which speaks volumes either about the character of their god or about their concept of being under the influence of a divine spirit.
Comment by DSVA — December 11, 2007 @ 7:00 am
This is a fascinating posting. I had never heard of such a concept. It fits, though. A great deal of what distinguishes religious morality from real morality is that it is designed to let people feel justified and self-righteous while behaving cruelly and inflicting pain.
A blame-the-victim stance follows inevitably from the concept of a just and omnipotent God. If you believe in a just and omnipotent God, you will inevitably want to think that whatever happens in the world is just and right, and the easiest way to achieve that is to convince yourself that anyone who suffers must somehow have done something to deserve it. Normal people would be bothered by the fact that this attitude is hideously cruel to people who are already suffering, but that religious morality insulates the true believer against the compassion which they would have naturally had.
Comment by Infidel753 — December 11, 2007 @ 7:44 am
It strikes me that when people are willing to cause an awful lot of psychological harm to maintain their belief, they probably take some sort of slightly sick enjoyment in it. And their belief is more than a little dubious.
Comment by plonkee @ the religious atheist — December 11, 2007 @ 8:09 am
Exterminator, I’ve heard imabbb’s thesis before from southern baptists, believe it or not. The part where your “soul” existed before you were born or at least is/was timeless. Many conotations on it that seemed to suit the individual touting it.
Two summers ago I had a blood pressure spike that gave me a stroke and blinded my right eye. I was told that I had a five percent chance of recovery, and all I could do was keep it covered and it might help. I did, in fact, have a complete recovery, my ophthalmologist actually had two colleagues check it out. They had over eighty years of experience and this was the first recovery they’d ever seen. Some people I know claim it was their prayers which caused my recovery. At the same time frame, a woman ran over me with her Jeep, this was considered to be their deity giving me a warning.
As far as I’m concerned, I hadn’t watched my BP and I heal quickly so I was lucky, made it into the five percent that healed. A ditz who was more intent on her phone conversation than driving her Jeep did something stupid and I wound up with a broken leg, among other things. Life happens.
It was very interesting after I got run down, the cops showed up, and the first thing out of her mouth was, “I’m a christian woman…”
Apostate, good hostess, I used to live in Annandale.
Comment by Sarge — December 11, 2007 @ 8:45 am
To try and explain such happenings in the light of the ‘will of God’ is fruitless. It seems people just have to place blame somewhere when it happens, thus the ‘secret sin scenario’. Religion has created a straw man out of God, and rather than beat it up, they try to make it real. What about the option that we don’t understand God? Why must He be ultimately responsible for righting the wrongs we inflict on ourselves?
Everyone dies. Some have really bad things happen to them while they live. It’s just the way things are. You can not rationalize this anymore than you can rationalize any course history has taken. Cause and effect is all you can look to, but then why would God interrupt cause and effect for some or even for all. Wouldn’t that make the whole point of free will void?
Once again, I find religion bankrupt, but I still haven’t heard anything from God, therefore the question remains open. It’s religion that caused those people to say what they did, God didn’t have a thing to do with it because, he might not exist, or he might not be what we think he is.
Comment by DaVinci — December 11, 2007 @ 9:12 am
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the real psychological motivation for the people in the story is to absolve their guilt of not wanting to really make the sacrifices necessary to remain this woman’s friend. The hard reality is if you’re going to continue to be her friend, then you’ve got a lot of hard times ahead. No longer can you do a lot of things together due to her disability, there may be very difficult things you’ll have to do for her not to mention just being there to hear her bemoan her situation, her pains, her lost dreams, or whatever else. Also, even your own happiness and successes you may feel guilty sharing with her knowing that many she may never get to enjoy for herself. No, FAR easier to do a little laying of hands and then wash your hands of her with some pathetic excuse of “secret sin”. I won’t go so far, because I would hope it’s not so, to say they take some sort of sick delight in inflicting this mental pain on the woman. No, I think the motivation is strictly limited to their own sense of wanting to escape the burdens of what a continued friendship would entail.
Hell of a first post, DSVA. Nice to finally meet you in a sense.
That’s because he’s not there
or he’s just not there.
Comment by phillychief — December 11, 2007 @ 10:27 am
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the real psychological motivation for the people in the story is to absolve their guilt of not wanting to really make the sacrifices necessary to remain this woman’s friend. The hard reality is if you’re going to continue to be her friend, then you’ve got a lot of hard times ahead.
That has a rather resounding ring of truth about it.
It’s remarkable how often religion seems to work to convince someone that it’s his right or even his duty to do some morally-dubious thing which he really wanted to do anyway.
Comment by Infidel753 — December 11, 2007 @ 11:36 am
This isn’t as rare as you might think. Brian over at Primordial Blog posted a story like this a few months ago too. And I experienced the same thing in my upbringing. Bad things happen to people and they usually aren’t to blame for it. Just like most poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy or stupid as many more fortunate people claim.
Comment by ordinary girl — December 11, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Philly …. I cannot nor do I desire to evaluate their hearts. I doubt that these teen girls were intending to be mean spirited or use it as a way to absolve themselves of having to support her. To be just, there are many Christians who rise up in anger against such abuse. One of the three continues thirty some years to be a good friend and will help out from time to time when her primary caregiver needs to be away
Rather than judging their motives, which I suspect were sincere, I would prefer to look elsewhere for the cause. This type of situation is more of an indication of the consequence of seriously flawed and narrow thinking. People build small inflexible boxes to simplify maters and help make sense out of a complex world. As others have noted, these bogus answers shield them from questioning their box and the defined set of beliefs therein contained.
Comment by DSVA — December 11, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
People build small inflexible boxes to simplify maters and help make sense out of a complex world.
The problem with those small boxes is that they’re made of cardboard and get soggy every time it rains questions. When there’s enough of a downpour, the boxes become permanently unusable.
However, religious people do not accept that their boxes are unusable. Instead, they try to get other people to join them in their boxes — and to pay for repairs.
I’m not convinced that the teens’ motives were sincere. There’s a self-satisfied smugness (which may also be “secret,” and often is), whenever someone explains god’s punishment of another. The implication, of course, is: I’m better than you. Now, even given that feeling of superiority, this person may continue in the friendship, even be the most loving and helpful of pals. But somewhere in the “dark edges” of her brain, she’s convinced that, because of her “purity,” she’s more beloved of her god than her unfortunate friend is.
I’d go so far as to argue that what I’ve described is condescension, not true friendship.
Comment by The Exterminator — December 11, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Well I don’t think we have to assume that the motivation for the girls was a conscious one and yes, the framing of your world in “small inflexible boxes” can lead to this sort of thing happening as well. Perhaps the answer is, as the immortal Forrest Gump said, “it’s both”.
Comment by phillychief — December 11, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Thank you Exterminator. You wrote:
That depends on your definition of religion. True, since there is no god in atheism then it is not a religion. What I mean when I say that atheism is a religion is that, like Christianity, it requires a dogmatic belief in order to exist. Atheism’s dogma is that it denies the existence of God without proof.
Of course atheism is made up. Someone, somewhere, came up with the theory that God does not exist. Once again, there is no proof that God does not exist. The only spiritual faith that is not a made up religion is agnosticism, or the belief that is it unknownable whether God exists or not.
Yep.
I welcome opposing opinions about Imabbbism, but I do not welcome being made fun of. I guess it is inevitable when my ideas are so out of the mainstream. So be it.
I agree that Imabbbism is no more plausible than Christianity (or atheism for that matter). I am a seeker who does not claim to have all the answers. There is evidence to support the existence of God, and evidence to support non-existence. Just no proof.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. It really doesn’t concern me what you believe, not because I don’t care about you but because my own beliefs continue to evolve. As far as my statement about closed-mindedness, I stick by it. Atheism requires belief that God does not exist which, by definition, “closes one’s mind” to the possiblity that God does exist. Since there is no way to prove either position, I think the term closed minded is quite appropriate.
Comment by imabbb — December 11, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Everyone:
Imabbb has posted some of the very same questions on my blog, which have been answered more than adequately by both Philly and myself. We’ve got a troll here.
I’ll now ignore any further imabbb digressions from DSVA’s post — and I urge you all to do the same.
Thanks.
Comment by The Exterminator — December 11, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Hmmm, I assume that I have violated some rule of blogging and that I am a “troll”. I thought we were both digressing from DSVA’s original post Exterminator. Was I alone in this?
I am new to blogging and would appreciate some explanation of my transgression so I don’t repeat the mistake. I merely went to Exterminator’s blog to see what was there, to better understand, and I did comment on his de-conversion post. Was this wrong? I was not trying to hide my identity. What exactly is a troll?
Comment by imabbb — December 11, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Imabb:
I may be misunderstanding your comments, but you appear to be taking the position that atheism is a definite denial that some deity exists. Some atheists take this “strong” position.
Others, like me, take the “weak” position that we have not seen enough evidence to lead us to believe that a deity exists. This is not a firm denial of the being’s existence. It is a refusal to commit ourselves to god-belief on the basis of the evidence available.
To be as precise as I can, I should probably call myself an “agnostic atheist.” I am agnostic on the general question of a deity’s existence. I do not have enough evidence to convince me that such a being exists, but concede that such evidence could be forthcoming in the future.
I am atheistic regarding the gods that have been posited by various religions. Based on the contradictory and implausible claims made about these beings, and the deeply flawed qualities of the textual and traditional sources of “information” we have about these beings, I am sure that they, as described, don’t exist.
Comment by the chaplain — December 11, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
First off, my apologies to the Chaplain and DSVA for the following post. However, as is often the case in the atheosphere, discussions get sidetracked and I suppose it’s just as well experiencing this your first time out of the gates, DSVA.
imabb, part of the objection Exterminator is having towards you is the flagrant sidetracking of the discussion. Oh true, it happens as discussions evolve but what we see here is an intelligently designed sidetracking. That is commonly referred to as “trolling”. Now be that as it may, and since we’re talking about the role of intentions and what’s in people’s hearts, I’ll take the time to address your questions and assume for now that you’re not a troll.
I see you are using the narrow definition of “dogma” which is the statement of an idea without proof. I ask you again to read the definition I gave you for atheism. Atheists are all certainly willing to accept this god idea IF substantial proof is presented. As of yet there’s not only been little proof, there’s been no proof. Now I ask you to look this. You’re correct, I can’t absolutely, positively say there is no god but I can’t absolutely positively say there isn’t a Santa Clause either; however, we all tend to agree that it’s safe to act as if Santa isn’t real. The same for dragons, unicorns, leprechauns and a cornucopia of gods who’ve come and gone in the minds of men.
I would think that first someone said, “hey, I’ve got this idea for all those things we can’t figure out. It’s called god”. To which someone replied “bollocks”. First, like unicorns, dragons and Santa, someone had to cook the idea up and then someone questioned it. True, technically, before some guy dreamt up Santa, there was no one thinking there was no Santa because you need the idea presented first. Now true, the only absolute answer for unicorns, gods and Santa is agnosticism but seriously, there’s no rational reason for believing those things exist and therefore, we can function as if they don’t.
I find it absurd to both flippantly dismiss all religions yet take offense when your unique little faith is treated likewise. Both this response and your initial description cast serious doubts on your sincerity here and weigh heavily in Ex’s favor for declaring “troll”.
I doubt it, but go ahead and share with the class.
Now this again is troll evidence. Another sign of trolling is clearly ignoring the comments being made and spouting mantras. You’ve been given ample explanations of what atheism means. If you continue to ignore the definition and/or assert that atheists insist there is no god and are closed off to arguments that it does exist or will not examine evidence for it then you’re satisfying more of the definitions of trolling and I’m afraid I nor probably anyone else will be willing to discuss anything further with you.
Comment by phillychief — December 11, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
First, let me say that I looked up “troll” on wiki:
“Someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages … with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.”
Got it. Sorry gang, not my intention. Exterminator, you won’t be hearing from me again.
Chaplain, thank you for clarifying the “strong” versus “weak” positions on atheism. I see what you mean. It was actually I who misunderstood. I hope I am wise enough to know that nothing is black and white.
I was thinking just now that perhaps you could describe my position as one of “agnostic believer”. I believe in a creator but that he is unknowable with any certainty. Doesn’t keep me from trying though.
Comment by imabbb — December 11, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Exterminator, you won’t be hearing from me again.
Well, thank god for that.
Comment by The Exterminator — December 11, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Ordinary Girl (#15) - thanks for the great link. I read Brian’s entire faith healing series (4 parts). It fits perfectly with this post.
Comment by the chaplain — December 11, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Yes, the ol’ secret sin scenerio. I know it well.
Barely home from a hospitalization for a critical Crohn’s episode and down to a mere 103 lbs., virtually wasted away and barely able to move, from weakness and pain, my then best friend, a Christian told me that what was wrong with me was “deep-seeded secret sin in my heart and if I would just confess this sin, I wouldn’ have Crohn’s disease anymore.”
Comment by rebecca shannon — December 12, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
*wouldn’t* oops
Comment by rebecca shannon — December 12, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Rebecca:
Christian tunnel-vision never fails to amaze me. Pardon my French, but it takes balls of steel to visit people who are ill and start preaching at them about their sins. Whatever happened to just providing words of comfort and empathy, or just keeping people company for awhile? Haven’t these people read Ecclesiastes? Can they not see that the hospital room or sick bed may not be the right time and place, or “season” as the ecclesiastic author put it, for heavy-handed preaching?
Oh! (slap myself on the forehead) I just got it. Ecclesiastes is the wrong citation for this situation. Visits with the sick require guidance from the book of Job, as exemplified by his comforters.
Comment by the chaplain — December 12, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Chaplain: I can only shake my head now when I look back. And, to think, in my most vulnerable state, I actually started to believe her. *sigh*
Comment by rebecca — December 12, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Rebecca:
It is unfortunate that your friend functioned like Job’s comforters who the book of Job clearly condemns. Using the language of love such “Job’s comforters” play upon guilt and human gullibility. Congregants would not have this type of thinking without some church leader(s) they respect teaching them to believe this.
What is amusing is that they claim to be “holy spirit” guided. Again they use god-speak to justify their actions that arise from their empty beliefs and misguided hearts.
I regret that you were a victim of spiritual abuse.
Comment by DSVA — December 12, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
DVSA -
This is kind of unrelated to the thrust of your post. You said, host of Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches, and in some Evangelical churches as well.
I certainly don’t know enough about any of this to make a definitive claim, but isn’t “Pentecostal” a Christian sect and “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” just descriptions of Pentecostal (and a number of other religious sects)?
I’ve always thought that (whatever sect you belong to) a fundamentalist simply believes that the texts are the holy, inerrant word, to be treated in absolute literal terms. Similarly, evangelical is simply those who believe in openly proclaiming their faith and prosyltizing to others in a blatant attempt to convert as many as possible.
Comment by John Evo — December 13, 2007 @ 3:19 am
Oh…
WELCOME! Glad to see you participating. This was already a top Atheosphere blog and will be even better with your contributions.
Comment by John Evo — December 13, 2007 @ 3:21 am
Evo …. thank you for the welcome. As for the quality of the chapel, I fear my thoughts will not achieve the desired impact. I cannot hold a candle to the sharp mind of the Chaplain.
As for the questions you raised, not all Pentacostals are fundamentalists. Fundamentalism includes a host of theological streams outside the Pentacostal movement/stream. There are fundamentalists who share their faith openly but many do not. There are some fundamentalists who hold that only a few are saved and that god will draw those who are the elect to the church without the need to evangelize.
While there are evangelicals who are fundamentalists, most evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Though fundamentalism does embrace infallibility and inerrancy, the term is used to describe those who have a literal and narrow interpretation of the Bible. They hold to six literal days for the creation of the earth and the young earth views.
While many evangelicals hold infallibility and inerrancy views, just as many hold less firm views on the extent of inspiration. There are some evangelicals who have strong liberal leanings and views.
As you noted evangelicals is a term to describe those believe in openly sharing their faith, some are very blatant and many are as blatant. There are many evangelical Christians in our offices but who are unknown to us because they are not blatant and in our faces. Evangelicalism does not speak to the intensity of sharing, but the view that faith is to be openly shared and people invited into the church.
Too often evangelical and fundamentalist are used as interchangeable terms.
Comment by DSVA — December 13, 2007 @ 11:22 am
@ DSVA: Thank you.
People who spiritually abuse, have often been abused themselves. Some of them haven’t a clue what they’re doing and parrot the only thing they’ve ever known.
Others are controlling in their behaviour, believing they have a right. They have no idea of the consequences of their behaviour or their words, until one day, their world crashes down on them.
This friend of mine was in an affair. Her efforts to keep my mind on any possible sin of mine was only her way of denying her own sorry mess.
Likely the same could be said for Job’s friends.
From a Christian perspective, the book The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen is a good place to start on the topic of spiritual abuse.
Comment by rebecca shannon — December 13, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
[...] hand, common Christian teachings regarding humility and sacrifice are often used to administer “spiritual discipline” and keep people in their places. Greta Christina wrote a post recently in which she objected to the [...]
Pingback by The Theistic Me vs. the Atheistic Me « An Apostate’s Chapel — April 26, 2008 @ 11:50 am