Last January, I got up one morning and wrote a post for this site in all of about 10 minutes. It was one of those pieces that almost seemed to write itself. I got to thinking about it the other night, and I decided that in light of the recent activity around here, it might be good to re-post that article. So here it is:
THINGS I DON’T GET
I have to say, this blog has been a wild ride.
I began it with basically no “purpose” whatsoever, beyond providing a place to share my impressions of our Sovereign Grace experience. And since our experience had not involved anything particularly negative – or more importantly, anything definitively unscriptural – I had (as I’ve repeated ad infinitum) no ax to grind. I just thought there ought to be SOME place online where curious folks could read perhaps another perspective on what I thought of as Sovereign Grace’s “cultural oddities.”
But then a very surprising thing happened. This site began getting quite a few hits, and people began leaving comments about their own experiences with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Although these stories were all different as to details, most of them contained very similar trends. These trends were as follows:
- A person has a difference of opinion, a question, or a problem.
-
As he’s been trained to do, he approaches leadership with this issue.
-
Leadership is, for whatever reason, not receptive to this person’s point of view, or not equipped (in the professional sense) to deal with the person’s problem. (Here, actually, is where this process hangs on one rusty nail, like my dad would say. As satisfied SGM-ers have pointed out, oftentimes leadership IS approachable and happy to take a seemingly “negative” observation under advisement…or offers up approaches to the member’s problem that the member finds useful and acceptable. When this happens, all is well, and the rest of the steps do not occur. But when the observation is NOT well-received, or the member is NOT helped, we move on to step 4.)
-
Since leadership did not receive the question or negative observation well, or since “indwelling sin” is essentially the only counseling tool in leadership’s toolbox, leadership turns things around and offers up “observations” of its own, directed at the questioning member’s motives, heart, and eventually, sinfulness.
-
At this point, the member is left with two choices. Either he “receives” what leadership says and accepts leadership’s assessment of his sinful motives, or he holds out for his original point. Again, the SGM folks who are satisfied with their church’s structure have found themselves ending the process at this stage, if they weren’t already finished at step #3. However, if the member does NOT accept leadership’s assessment of his sinful motives, and if he does NOT choose to “repent” and give the issue a rest, then he moves on to step #6.
-
Leadership gives the member something of an ultimatum. Either the member submits to what leadership says, or the member is placed on some sort of discipline plan. Failure to submit to the discipline plan will result in step #7.
-
The member is disfellowshipped until he chooses to submit to leadership’s “restoration plan.”
After reading so many stories (stories either posted on the site or shared with me via email) that follow this same pattern, I’ve grown quite concerned that Sovereign Grace Ministries has what amounts to a “fatal design flaw” in how it handles conflicts between its members and its leadership. While I’ve sought to remain fair to SGM in everything I’ve written, I now have reached a point where I’m concerned enough to think that SGM members ought to share my alarm about their church’s discipline process and its potential to turn into a tool of spiritual abuse – since THEY (and not I) are still part of the system and could have a voice.
What’s been so interesting has been this site’s pro-SGM readers’ responses to my observations.
While I want to clearly state that many pro-SGM folks have been polite and kind and have engaged with the issues raised here, the majority have eventually turned the focus back around to either MY sinfulness or the sinfulness of the ex-SGM people who have shared their stories.
This is something that I don’t understand.
I particularly don’t understand those readers who find the site, read a few articles, and then barrel in to declare what a bad person I am, and how idiotic and sinful I must be for having a different view of their church organization than they have.
I mean, I don’t go around to pro-SGM blogs (and there are thousands out there) and leave comments about what fools they are for suffering a church structure that is so heavy on submitting to authority that it’s like a spiritual abuse train wreck waiting to happen. I don’t go looking for fights.
(But if I did…well, would I express my shock and dismay if other commenters on these “SGM Happy” sites would take exception to what I said? Would I post comments where I publicly licked my wounds and talked about what big, bad, mean people they were for daring to “fight back” and answer my accusations? No, I would not. And if I did, those pro-SGM folks would laugh me off the internet. As they rightfully should.)
Another thing that I don’t get is why the pro-SGM folks think that it is their right and their duty to offer me (and the other posters) spiritual guidance…especially when most of them barely bother to say “Hello” or “Nice to ‘meet’ you” before launching into their sermons. Again, I don’t go poking around THEIR blogs, spewing Scripture that discusses discernment, or Pharisaical tendencies, or legalism…and then expressing shocked dismay that they aren’t properly “loving their enemy” when they reject my abrupt rebukes.
I think what puzzles me most of all is, WHY is it such a big deal to these people that one tiny little blog – nestled among the thousands of pro-SGM blogs and sites out there – has been set up to provide a different view of SGM? Why is such vitriol and angst (always cloaked in “concern,” of course) directed my way? Why do I get the sense from these folks that it’s so vital that ZERO negative information be posted about Sovereign Grace? Why do these people think that their denomination – er, “family of churches” – is somehow deserving of total and unquestioning approval, with no dissent allowed?
I really don’t have the answers to these questions…except to say that possibly, the answer lies in what they’ve been taught to think the Christian life is supposed to look like. If the answer to every conflict is for the person beneath to submit and accept the point of view of the person in authority above them, and if the answer to every problem is to first of all obsess over one’s own contributing sinfulness, then I suppose I can understand the “advice” and “concern” various SGM folks have “shared” with me.
(I can’t help but wonder, though, if these people even realize how closely their responses to this blog follow the pattern that their leadership follows – as outlined through steps 1-7 above. Do they understand how their reactions and words here have served to validate and authenticate what people have described in their stories of spiritual abuse?)
Of course, according to Mahaney’s own teachings, SGM’s bottom-line answer to everything is that we’re supposed to submit to our authorities and offer them unquestioning allegiance, because this is simply our duty to make them successful in their role as leaders.
Since, following Mahaney’s logic, even Martin Luther and the other Reformers would have been “in sinful rebellion,” I guess I can understand why this blog bugs so many folks.
But it still doesn’t make much sense. Not in the real world.
I never got the "meeting" thing, either. 
December 27th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
(Taken from Mary Alice Chrnalogar’s “Twisted Scriptures”)
“Why don’t they just leave?” That is one of the questions most commonly asked by people who have never experienced a systematically controlled environment. It is difficult to believe that a healthy, thinking person cannot just pack up and walk out. It is easier to conclude that people who are involved in groups like these are weak willed persons who are easily entrapped. This is similar to the way in which many people still have a difficult time understanding why a battered woman doesn’t just leave the man who abuses her. I still hear people say, “If someone hit me, I’d leave.”
“Of course, if someone came up to you and started beating you, you would do your best to get away. But the web that entangles battered victims is woven in stages, a strand at a time, gradually compelling the victim to remain. In the same way, disciples caught in the web of abusive discipleship groups are hemmed in by powerful motivating forces, both positive and negative. Part of the effect of abusive discipleship is to create a world where these motivations are so powerful that followers will conform to the exploitive expectations of the leaders. …”
How do they do it? Read more…
http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/abuse/abuse1.htm
December 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
That’s some pretty interesting stuff Kindred. Hmmm
December 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Kindred – wow, good stuff. Some interesting quotes from the article:
In abusive discipleships, sin is expanded to mean almost anything that the leaders do not like (e.g., challenging leaders’ actions, not obeying leaders’ advice, disagreeing with leaders, questioning leaders, or openly criticizing leaders).
The most common non-Biblical idea that is planted in members’ minds by abusive groups is that they are rebellious, hardhearted, or prideful when they decide not to follow the group’s rules. Breaking a rule is usually taken to mean sinning against God. This is coercion because these dedicated Christians will force themselves to follow agendas they would otherwise refuse to accept.
And:
DISCIPLESHIP MEMBERSHIP CARD
As a member I agree to:
Give up nearly all my personal time to the program…
Open up completely & share everything about myself; not just my sins…
Relinquish my privacy of thoughts, sinful or not…
Be willing to give up my opinion if it conflicts with my discipler, and accept his opinion as right…
Believe that it is a sin not to trust my discipler’s judgment…
Obey all requests of my discipler…
…even if the request affects a decision such as not being allowed to announce my engagement until my discipler wants me to, not pick a wedding date until my discipler approves, to put off my wedding date until my discipler has peace about it. I will obey my discipler in matters of dating, changing jobs, going to college, moving, or whatever is requested of me. If I do not obey, then I accept whatever punishment my discipler believes appropriate. I will accept being called “rebellious,” “hardhearted,” “not trusting,” “uncommitted,” prideful or whatever else my discipler thinks that I should be labeled. I will accept my discipler’s opinions as the truth and feel terribly guilty for not obeying.
That describes alot of what goes on in SGM – if you don’t “submit” you are being prideful. That article mentioned being told to “pray about it” – I have heard that said to so many people (myself included) in SGM when a member has decided to do something the care group leader, pastor, etc doesn’t want them to do. It’s a passive/agressive tactic – a way to get you to do what they want without beating you physically into submission. Instead, it’s emotion abuse that is so passive the person receiving it doesn’t even realize that it is happening! The damage is done withouot ther person even realizing it.
And what a better way to get what they want than by calling what a person does “sin” – so much of what has been called “sin” at SGM is NOT sin – it’s a control tactic.
No wonder the sgm defenders have no idea of what is happening to them…..
December 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
It’s all really quite sad.
I truly believe the majority of SGM leaders think they have the best interest of their flock in mind, and the sheep believe and trust their leaders.
More quotes from “Twisted Scriptures”…
“Touch not my anointed and do my prophets no harm! (Psalms 105:15 KJV)
Some discipleship groups interpret this verse to mean that we shouldn’t question or say anything negative against our leaders. This interpretation squelches legitimate questions or complaints that might stop errors.
Leaders who adopt this slant on scripture become almost immune from accountability to their people. This is only one example of the ways in which abusive discipleship groups may use Bible verses. Passages are often taken out of context and their true meanings distorted; BUT THESE GROUPS ALSO CORRECTLY INTERPRET MANY VERSES. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING.”
“When a group influences its congregation to trust in the leaders and discourages criticism of the leadership, the group creates a lethal combination! They encourage errors to be overlooked and leaders can get away with almost anything.”
“Trust is an important word for believers. Our Christian life is built on trust. The Christian fellowship is a community of those who trust God. We should trust one another, especially our leaders. A lot is made of trust of the leadership in some discipleships and most controlling groups. Some programs indicate that if we are not totally trusting in our discipler we are hard hearted and rebellious; that we are in sin.”
We’ll NEVER be able to convince folks like Skeptical and Stacey that anything is wrong with their beloved SGM as long as they believe in “apostolic leadership”, trusting and obeying every word spoken as if it comes from God Himself.
More quotes…
“…John tells us that in the body of Christ we each have the anointing of God. (1 John 2:20-27) This anointing does not apply only to the man behind the pulpit; we each have the anointing of God. The Holy Spirit is available to every one of us. We can be filled as we open ourselves and yield to God. It’s not just one man, or some church leaders on earth who God has set apart anointed. “Touch not my anointed” refers to all of us who are in the body of Christ.
Many times people forget that this scripture could never be used to mean that sheep should not question their leaders. A good leader should be honored and respected; but we are instructed (1 Thes. 5:21) to prove all things. First Tim 3:10 says that deacons must be proved. According to Revelations 2:2, even those who call themselves apostles should be tried. Jesus commends them because they tried those who called themselves apostles and found they were false. In abusive discipleship the mere fact that someone is a leader means that I should never say anything critical about that leader.
What a nice position! To be a leader when your flock feels that they can’t be critical of you without going against God! But this is very dangerous for the flock.”
December 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Back to our discussion on “women & bible studies, etc.”…
Wayne Grudem says: “God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to the rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, in general, a disposition that inclines more toward a relational, nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church (v14)” (72)
So…I guess that means women can babysit, bake casseroles, and give bridal & baby showers, but they better not study the bible together.
December 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Honestly, the things SGM does actually encourages “feminism” rather than deter it.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Kindred wrote: Wayne Grudem says: “God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to the rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, in general, a disposition that inclines more toward a relational, nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church (v14)” (72)
Me: Kindred, you can also read into this that he believes that God made men more rational and logical, he must think women are irrational and illogical. I don’t like what wayne grudem teaches.
Never met the guy, so I can’t say I don’t like him but I find his statements dangerous – his “biblical view of manhood and woman” is dangerous and leads to women being treated as second class citizens. I’m not suprised that SGM subscribes to it.
The guy has credentials up the wazoo (unlike, say, CJ or Steve Shank), but I disagree with his findings and writings.
And, I am of the opinion that if women want to get together and have a bible study, GO FOR IT!!!!! You do not need a church leader or your husband to lead it!
December 28th, 2008 at 6:55 am
“God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to the rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, in general, a disposition that inclines more toward a relational, nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church”
And he bases this on what?
December 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Hmmm…I know some women who are pretty darn good doctors and lawyers, and (shock), they’re pretty darn good mothers and wives, as well. Their families appear to be doing just as well as the SGM families I know…in some cases, BETTER!!
I’m SO IMPRESSED with the children of one female doctor I know, she’s such a good mommy and wife. Of course it helps when you make enough money to have someone help with cleaning your house, cooking, etc. I guess it’s that Proverbs 31 stuff.
I was a stay-at-home mom and LOVED IT!! This gal is enjoying EVERYTHING I enjoyed due to the fact that she can schedule her hours around her children and has help around the house.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
And let me add something here…
In this economy MANY women are feeling like they should go to work to help out their husbands, but they feel guilty (even sinful) for considering such. This is when the “gender role teaching” gets you in trouble.
Ladies, if any of you find yourselves in this situation, don’t feel you’re committing a sin if you get a job to help out! Until we acquired the luxuries of washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, department stores, grocery stores, etc., women throughout history WORKED THEIR BUTTS OFF just “keeping the home”!! I can ASSURE you it took them away from their children at times (at least mentally), and there were times they were so exhausted they felt they had nothing left to give. Trust me, this is the way the MAJORITY of women lived up until modernism!
(And an observation of mine has been that some of these moms could stand to be away from their children a little. Their kids are spoiled rotten and self-centered! Mom hovers over them constantly, ready to meet their EVERY demand.)
Learn to not only filter EVERYTHING biblically, but “historically”, as well. I was TERRIFIED to have my first baby, but I knew women had been doing it ever since Eve delivered the “first”, so I was confident I would get through it just fine.
December 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Sorry, I didn’t answer your question #34 immediately Kris. I was surprised at all the comments when I finally got back on the computer. You were asking how I knew that my church was discouraging bible studies for women. I have been in the church for many years, even prior to it being SGM, so I have watched a very gradual change unfold, almost like the proverbial water being heated up on live frogs. Believe it or not, I was a small-group worship leader, at one time. Over time, women who had roles that were more along the “leadership” or administrative lines, were removed from those positions under the guys of “encouraging men to step up and lead”. Carolyn Mahaney has a phrase she likes to use (I don’t know if she originated it) that “men are oriented to the task, while women are oriented to the men”. Women are encouraged to “orient their lives around their husbands; but I’ve also found single women being encouraged in their “biblical role” of “helping men”. I once heard a young woman pray, “Lord, help the men fulfill what you’ve called them to, and give us the strength to help them in those things.” I find that this phraseology really is the root of how you see these churches walking out what they would call “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. Along with this, although my church is quite large, we have no formal women’s ministry. This strikes many people as odd when they come, but I wonder how many women would have actually joined had they been there the day my pastor announced that “he” was the head of our women’s ministry. He said that his wife had been called to her home, and to free her up for the call that God had put on her life, he would be heading up our women’s ministry. Our women’s ministry, he said, was to follow a Titus 2 mandate of older women teaching the younger. What would they teach, might you ask? Not theology, but to “be busy at home…love their husbands and children…to be sober”, etc. It is interesting, however, that the actual older women in our church are sort of neglected as great sources for accountability and instruction, but that’s another story. Anyway, after this, many “free-thinking” women that I know, have their bible study needs met by going to other churches in the area. Several friends of mine who have gone through the new members classes have remarked to the pastors in their interviews that they would like to be involved in bible studies. It was told to them, and I quote, “we don’t really encourage that because we don’t want the women to be more equipped than the men.” Another friend who is close to leadership warned me that I might have trouble if I tried to start a bible study. Well, all this is/was heresay, until…the infamous women’s retreat of 2007. There, my pastor, the leader of the women’s ministry, spoke (he was the only many there except the sound engineer). He said basically that the “teaching” described in Titus 2 did not mean that we should go out and start a bible study, and in fact that our job was not to answer the theological questions of our women friends, but to point them to their husbands and Care Group leaders.
So, there it was. I heard it with my own ears. Some other time I’ll explain why I’m still in the church–why God has me in the church. I do believe this, by the way.
Let me say one more thing to those that have mentioned the “c” word. I am not sure I believe that it is a cult, but rather it is pharasiacle (spelling?) in it’s operation. It is strange, for a group that holds “grace” so highly, to be so legalistic; however, I believe this to be the case. We say we don’t want to “add to the gospel” (more SGM rhetoric), however our practices show that we are doing just that, writing book upon book, just as the Talmudic writers did. Sorry this was so long.
December 28th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
And I always thought the boys doing interesting stuff while the girls’ activities revolved around looking good for the boys was problematic.
I guess Carolyn Mahaney never read Reviving Ophelia. Pity, actually.
December 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Buzzinbee,
you wrote: Women are encouraged to “orient their lives around their husbands; but I’ve also found single women being encouraged in their “biblical role” of “helping men
I was at that same conference in 2007 and heard that man in question (you didn’t mention his name so I won’t even though I know who he is) say the same thing – and I also heard Carolyn Mahaney telling single women that single men need help in learning to lead, so we should encourage them to lead and offer ourselves as “guinea pigs for submission” so to speak. SHe didn’t of course say guinea pigs, but that is how I took it to mean – and like an idiot,I went back to my church and began doing so. DANGEROUS. Single women – the Word clearly teaches we are to submit to our own husbands, we are not to submit to all men randomly, and married women are not to submit to other husbands not their own…it really is a twisting of Scripture.
anyway, my church also discouraged anything in a group setting for women, and even the prayer meeting for women that I was part of starting up and then hosting in my home was HIGHLY controlled by the pastor and his wife…
there was no freedom for the SPirit to move or work, even during prayer as a result. It was very sad, since the sister who felt led to begin it and then came to me shared with me her heart was to cultivate intimacy with Christ – well, that was squashed in a heartbeat after the pastor’s wife went on and on about previous women’s meetings where things got out of control and gossip began.
I remember asking my pastor point balnk one time why there weren’t women’s bible studies and he said because one woman started bad-mouthing the church, and the meetings were cancelled and they had just began again at the home of a deacon in the church who was “overseeing” things. Hmm. At the time my stupid self thought “Oh, that is so comforting! TO be part of a church where the men look after things and protect the church! I feel so safe to be part of this” How naive and foolish I was. It was blatant control and manipulation but I didn’t recognize it.
So the women’s prayer meeting still happens to my knowledge, after I left the church in April, I emailed the other sister who was the leader of the group and told her even though I had left the church I was still willing and would want to host the prayer meeting, since I never thought it was just a meeting for our church alone.
I was told later that the prayer meeting was started as a means of praying for the church and was not really open to others, and that for convenience it was being moved to the church instead of my home. They wanted it to remain focused on serving the Body of Christ there..
BAM! Thus began my official shunning, (from my perspective anyway) word was sent out from the pastor to this woman who consulted him on the matter and because I left the church, they could not pray in my home anymore.
It’s sad. We should be able to meet any pray together no matter where we attend church, and NOBODY should feel like they have to get permission to meet and pray (as we did!)..insane.
December 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I’m sorry I meant Carolyn McCulley, not Carolyn Mahaney in my last post – Mahaney nor his wife were at that conference…
December 28th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Buzzing -
Thanks for coming back and answering. I think it helps our discussion, to understand that you actually heard a Sovereign Grace pastor DECLARE, outright, that women should defer to men in their Bible studies.
Some of what goes on in SGM is much more subtle and “under the radar” than that…which makes it easier for leaders to deny, or say that it never happens, or that it was merely misunderstood. We’ve had that here before, when the subject of SGM’s restrictions on Bible studies has been discussed. SGM defenders have come along and said that we were twisting things around and that SGM has no policy about small-group Bible studies.
I believe that your (and Juli’s) statements prove otherwise.
December 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I noticed that I misspelled “guise” of Biblical manhood as “guys” of Biblical manhood. Was this a Freudian slip, or what?
:-)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
““men are oriented to the task, while women are oriented to the men”.
who makes up these things?! I thought we were to be oriented to Jesus.
December 28th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Buzzing -
I noticed your Freudian slip and thought the same thing! That was great! :-)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Stunned, I feel the same way – if I as a woman only oriented to men (or “man”) then I’d be as lost as I was before Christ – talk about the Moses Model at work – putting themselves in the place of Christ, but in the home setting.
December 28th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Stunned,
I agree with you – statements like, “Men are oriented to the task, while women are oriented to the men” are really off the wall, when you stop and think about them.
We never hear these sorts of things stated in Scripture. Yet they have infiltrated SGM’s thinking in such a way that I’d be willing to bet a lot of SGM defenders would believe that these principles actually WERE clearly stated in Scripture.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
As a man, I find the way women are treated at sgm disgusting. The things that are said to women, they way they are treated is just wrong. I, for one, am GLAD and THANKFUL that my wife has her own mind and can make her own decisions. We don’t always agree on everything, but that is where we have to compromise and work out what is best for us.
As a man, I can see how easy it for the male to just say “well, I am the head, this is what we are doing, period” and that’s it – no discussion about what is best, man makes the decision, sgm woman has no choice to but SUPPORT the decision and BE HAPPY ABOUT IT and not have a “bad attitude” about the decision. It’s EASY for the man. The whole attitude really turns the wife into a unpaid servent. In my time at SGM, I NEVER saw the husband help clean up after dinner or a party, give the kids a bath, clean the house, etc, etc. Speaking of clean the house, the wives where EXPECTED to keep the house spotless at all times. I have a 6 year old boy and a 4 year old girl – that is not an easy task!
Juli – I remember when some of the singles would be over for a get together at another singles place, the hard core SGM single females would clean up (snacks, food, etc). Now it all makes sense – they were “encouraged” to do that!
Buzzingbee wrote: Our women’s ministry, he said, was to follow a Titus 2 mandate of older women teaching the younger. What would they teach, might you ask? Not theology, but to “be busy at home…love their husbands and children…to be sober”, etc.
Me: Some of those wives probably need a drink after what thay have to do!
The whole thing is that the “teaching” makes it EASY for a man – the men want that, that want someone to basically wait on them hand and foot. And now, that have a “biblical” backing to get what they want – as I’ve mentioned before, you can’t even have a discussion with someone that says “well, if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with God”
I have a huge issue with the treatment of women at SGM – it’s not right. God created men and women equal – this is not equal, this is subservant.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Freedom,
You said,
I think SGM – and by extention, the larger Reformed/CBMW/complementarian world – would calmly and boldly assert that your statement is simply not true. According to their understanding of Scripture, God created women and men with equal VALUE in His site, but different ROLES.
Kinda that whole “separate but equal” thing that never worked when it came to segregation.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Kris – good point on the separate but equal – I am sure they would not agree with my beliefs of being created equal….
December 29th, 2008 at 2:52 am
““we don’t really encourage that because we don’t want the women to be more equipped than the men.”
I heard that SAME kind of malarky! “More equipped”? For what?
I am amazed at that as the purpose of all teaching should be to make one more intimate with Christ. But we don’t want that kind of thing happenin’ ’round here…
December 29th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Freedom, it’s good to hear from the other side of the coin, that it IS actually easier in many respects for the men at SGM. Yes, I know for those with good consciences it may be harder because a heavy burden is placed on their shoulders to be God for their wives so to speak. But it’s good to hear that some men can see how much it can suck for the woman/slave and how happy of a life it can be for the husband/master.
I remember once mentioing to my master how much I would love to have a homemaker of my own. He was blown away and perplexed. Though not angry. He may have tried to reprove me slightly but I just wasn’t smart enough to catch on. I actually had a great relationship with that one (still love him though I think he is caught in a very unhealthy place) and had no problem defining for him why I yearned to have a housewife of my own. (Sort of like having a loving mom all over again!)
December 29th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“Sort of like having a loving mom all over again!”
Wow…you nailed it with that one, Stunned!! These men don’t want to be in a relationship with their wives (where it takes “two”), they want a “mommy” to baby them and take care of all their needs! (Only “this” mommy is to NEVER “discipline” them or hold them accountable.)
Basically…a slave with benefits!
December 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“I remember once mentioing to my master how much I would love to have a homemaker of my own. He was blown away and perplexed”
My Master? Talk about a slip up!!!!!!! I had meant to write pastor. Wow, I didn’t even see that until I just reread it now. WOW!!!!!!! As the M is no where near the P and as one ends with an er and one with an or, this has GOT to be telling some how!
December 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Stunned,
When I read “my master,” I just figured you were speaking sarcastically about a former husband or something. That is really funny!