Month: May 2017 | Page 8 | Spiritual Abuse Blogs

Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney

(This was written for the Facebook group, Breaking Out, which is why there are references the reader may not be familiar with.)

Here is some more on women being an abomination unto God and contributing to homosexuality in society if women wear pants, this time by the well known author, Joy Haney.

In her book A Call to Holiness, Joy Haney tells a lot of stories to create the groundwork that she lays for why women should wear skirts and dresses. They are stories on personal experiences and discussions she has had with people about modesty and the behavior of a strict Jewish group who also teaches against pants on women. What this means is that the stories she tells are subjective. They are her experiences and personal opinions about why women should wear skirts. She talks about identification such as policemen wearing police uniforms, etc. She asks us “Who is going to clothe us, God or self?” (pg 121)

In this, she uses reasoning to lead the reader into coming to her same conclusions. The implication is that if you don’t agree with her, you probably are not allowing God to clothe you.

She says “Modesty of dress is carried over into the New Testament and commanded in the New Testament church, which is under the new dispensation of grace. God still instructs the women how to dress.” (pg 123) She then says “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”…”I say, God teach me how to dress, because I want your approval.” (pg 124) She talks about an attitude of rebellion….the “power suit,” the world being caught up in fashion. (pg 126).

Many of the things she says here are Christian principles, mostly. The snag here is that the majority of Christians agree with these principles-it is the application she makes with her reasoning that we disagree on. She gets you shaking your head, yes, yes, yes. Modesty is needed…we want to submit ourselves to God in the area of how we dress….we want God’s approval….we don’t want to be caught up in fashion etc. etc.

To these things, we presumably agree but she ties it into wearing skirts specifically. If you disagree with her opinions the implications are that….you are not allowing God to clothe you, you are not modest, you are in rebellion which is as the sin of witchcraft!! Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion…if you disagree with the idea that pants are not for women…and if believing that is being in rebellion….and if rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…and practicing witchcraft sends you into hell, guess where you are going if you wear pants! She doesn’t say this, but it is implied.

She goes on “In the New Testament, Paul, who was moved on by the Holy Ghost, explained that sins and immorality of people would lead to further sins of homosexuality and lesbianism.” She goes on to quote Romans 1:21, 24-28. (pg 134)

See here, just as DK Bernard did, that she links women wearing pants with homosexuality and lesbianism!

She goes on “These sinners received recompense for their own ways….they chose not to listen to God’s Word, so he gave them up to their own sin.” (Pg 134)

This is some pretty heavy stuff! Keep in mind that the reader may agree with all the principles taught here. The reader may even agree with Joy Haney’s thought that if all women started butch cutting their hair and living like men that it may cause gender confusion. The reader may only disagree with one thing: that women wearing pants isn’t disobeying Deut 22:5 because there are many feminine styled pants out there that women can wear and yet easily stay within this principle!

Joy Haney does not come right out and say “Pants are men’s apparel for western society” like DK Bernard does. However, she uses a lot of reasoning, such as the word katasole in 1 Tim 2:9 is translated “long robe” and then says “A robe is not pants.” (pg 133) (And of course, since all people wore robes in that day, it would make sense that they were talking about robes.) She also quotes Proverbs 31 and says the word covered in that verse means “to place or spread something over” or to “conceal, screen or shield.” (pg 139) To this, she then gives her opinion that women should wear skirts by asking the questions “How could a woman spread pants over the body?” Keep in mind, this is her opinion and that the biblical text doesn’t actually say anything about skirts or pants.

Here is where so many in the United Pentecostal Church get caught up in so much fear. It is really and truly okay if Joy Haney wants to wear skirts for the reasons she outlines. But it is really and truly also okay for you to have a different opinion. The Bible doesn’t say women must wear skirts. People take this scripture and have an opinion about it’s application. That’s all. That doesn’t mean if you wear pants as a woman you are an abomination to God. It doesn’t mean you are a rebel. It doesn’t mean you are practicing any form of witchcraft. It certainly doesn’t mean you are going to hell. It means you have a different opinion about how to apply this scripture to your life. And that’s okay. And all the people who want to practice it as wearing skirts….that’s okay too!

The problem doesn’t lie with having an opinion one way or the other. We are all free to have our opinions and apply them as we wish. What is not okay is having an opinion one way or another and accusing someone of not listening to “God’s Word” because they have a different opinion. Or accusing them of being rebellious or promoting homosexuality or lesbianism because they don’t apply the verse in the same way.

I am including photos of the excerpts if you want to take the time to read all of it for yourself: Page 119, page 120, page 121, page 122, page 123, page 124, page 125, page 126, page 132, page 133, page 134, page 135, page 136, page 137, page 138, page 139, page 140.

Getting Out the Old Books: The Literal Word by M.D. Treece
Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed
Getting Out the Old Books: David F. Gray
Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney
Getting Out The Old Books: Larry L. Booker
Getting Out the Old Books: Power Before the Throne
Getting Out the Newer Books: Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion
Search For Truth On Holiness

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Marriage Trouble Part 3

Some of the things I remember that were negative about all the power I was giving my husband was I was busy trying to be so perfect. If my husband was less than happy it would really break my heart. One time he was unhappy for a whole week. I can’t even tell you what that did to me but I will say this. I got so desperate I asked God for help.

I gave up trying to make my husband happy by being a good wife. It wasn’t working. Debi Pearl was wrong! But after I prayed my husband called me on the phone on his way home from work and I was really raw with my emotions. I think God helped me by being able to get really honest with what I was feeling like. My husband had a long talk with me that night and it seemed he was a changed man. It was supernatural. Debi didn’t save us, God did. Debi put me in bondage to my husband.

We were having some financial problems and my husband wanted me to go to work. I told him I would learn to be frugal but that I couldn’t go to work. We had 3 children at the time. It wasn’t only because I was indoctrinated not to go to work. I also had some personal traumas about working with men coworkers. I also did not want to leave my children with strangers because of traumatic things I experienced as a child. I’ve always been very adamant about staying home. I don’t care what anybody says. That’s deeply ingrained into me. Yes, mommy issues again.

So for years I lived on change and a small allowance bi-weekly on payday. If I needed to use the bank card I asked permission. This wasn’t only because of my husband. It was also partly because I didn’t trust myself with money.

I think this came from the book too because I didn’t trust myself. Like I said my husband was very whimsical and I had to adapt. It was all on me to make everything work or rather, seem to work.

I felt so small and dependent, like a little kid. I didn’t have as much passion for God anymore. God thought I was inferior according to the Pearls. They never said it that way but that’s what happened in my experience as a result of their teachings.

I think what saved me is listening to my Bible CDs. I was coming across a lot of stuff that the book didn’t mention. It became clear that I needed to not pick up that book anymore and only read my Bible.

To be continued.

Marriage Trouble Part 1
Marriage Trouble Part 2
Marriage Trouble Part 3
Marriage Trouble Part 4
Marriage Trouble Part 5

Dear Christians: things I wish people could understand

Prov 18:14 A man’s spirit can sustain him during his illness, but who can bear a crushed spirit?

In the eight years since leaving the spiritually abusive group I was in, there is one thing I have never been asked by religious people: “What can we do?” Unfortunately, too often what I have seen is Christianity pulling away from those who are hurting, walking by on the other side of the road as they see us wounded in the ditch, so to speak. And as in the parable, it is often those who would be deemed ungodly or unChristian who get us out of the ditch, carry us to shelter, and bandage our wounds.

I’ve come to wonder if this is in part because no one in the church is trained in triage.

Have you ever hurt your foot, gone to the ER, and had the nurse start by taking your pulse and BP? There is a reason. Unless the patient is in immediate danger, it’s better to gently, slowly work toward the injury, rather than jumping right to it, watching for reactions and assessing the patient’s comfort while working. When a person is scared or nervous, it’s best to set the person at ease–jumping right in can make the situation worse, not better.

We’re not trained to do this unless we have some medical background. We may even pride ourselves on being direct. But that’s not always wisest. So what would spiritual triage look like for a wounded spirit? It would be different for each person. But the list might include:

Listen.
Be there.
Invite me to be with you.
Ask if there’s anything you can do.
Look for little ways to help.
Don’t be shocked.
Don’t apologize for what happened and do NOT excuse it.
Don’t offer pat answers… maybe don’t offer any answers.
Ask good questions.
Be sincere.
Accept me.
Care.

What else might fit on a list like this? What do you wish people had done for you or would do, or what are you glad someone did to help you in your woundedness?

Marriage Trouble Part 2

Continued from part 1

Some positive things I gleaned from ‘Created to be His Help Meet’ was learning to be thankful and cheerful. I was probably stuck on living opposite most of the time. So this convicted me and I really appreciated it because I knew she had to have a real point there. Besides, I remembered my mother was often discontent and how that affected my parents marriage which ended in divorce.

I learned to be more organized with meals and keep things simple. I learned to ask my husband what are some simple things I can do to keep the house tidy enough. What were his main peeves? This really helped me a lot not to be overwhelmed and feel like a failure.

Positive to negative: I learned to be extremely flexible with my whimsical husband who was also a bit of a ‘Command Man.’ Well, he had some blind spots. He seemed to love the change in me. But I made a big mistake. I told him I wanted to submit better and almost perfectly. By this I meant that even for things I had qualms about. I would defer to him for concerns of conscience regarding some gray areas. I got the idea that I shouldn’t trust myself. Now my husband was to be the spiritual leader regardless of spiritual maturity and that God would ultimately be correcting and convicting him.

Debi Pearl used a lot of scripture and I didn’t look into the ways she used them. I started realizing later that some of the verses she cited were used in a highly questionable way. During Bible reading I would come across verses of scripture that seemed like it could clash with some things she was teaching women.

Another problem is I would be really bewildered about the way she treated the women in her letters. It was downright knife twisting mean! I felt sorry for these women. I wanted to write a letter to Debi Pearl but I was just too busy with raising the children and besides, I was afraid I might receive a verbally abusive letter. So I shrugged figuring she was just over passionate and she was wrong to be so mean but I’d just chew the meat and spit out the bones. I still had it in my mind that this book was an answer to prayer, so Debi’s zeal, while I felt it was wrong, I thought it might be there for a reason. Maybe she’d seen too many marriages die just like my mother’s.

To be continued.

Marriage Trouble Part 1
Marriage Trouble Part 2
Marriage Trouble Part 3
Marriage Trouble Part 4
Marriage Trouble Part 5

A conversation with a pastor

I emailed the pastor of the church I’ve been attending:

I know Refuge is complimentarian, but what to what degree? On a continuum, there might be “men and women are fairly equal, but women don’t preach” on one side, and on the other might be “women should remain silent, submissive, barefoot, and pregnant” on the other. That’s a very broad spectrum. I know you don’t fall on either side, but where in the middle of that does Refuge fall?

Regarding Ephesians 5, could you please define ‘submission’ as you understand it?

Yes, I’ve known they are complementarian, but the subject had never come up and women are very involved in the church, so it was easy to ignore. His response was interesting:

Mary, those are great questions!

For complementarian, we do believe that men and women are created equal (Gen 1:26-28) but they are created different (Gen 2). We were given different roles, but we are all gifted in different and unique ways. In Genesis 3 we see the abuse of those roles, especially in the curse – “Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.” Those are abuses of the way God designed us to be…working together and in harmony. So, how that all plays out in our world is tricky, but it is a posture of our hearts. So, we believe that the role of “elder” is reserved for men, not at the top of the food chain, but the bottom. To carry weight, to stand in the gates and protect the sheep from wolves. As elders, we believe that if we are doing our roles well, that every person in the church (male and female) ought to feel the freedom to serve in every other capacity. We don’t want to lord it over people, we want to serve and guide and protect.

As for “submission,” we are all called to submit, but it’s more invitational and not coercive. That means we see submission as a willful act, not a forced act…if that makes sense. In a marriage situation, that means that husband and wife work together, but the husband takes on the accountability to lead well and his wife helps him lead well – encouraging him when he leads well and opposing him (not in rebellion, but in encouragement) when he is doing things that are destructive to himself, to her or to their marriage. We see that playing out very similar in the role of elder.

Paul, in Ephesians 5 says that the church is to “submit” to one another. Wives are to submit – willfully trust and/or fight to trust her own husband (not all men), but also, that is balanced by the call to men to “give up their lives” for their wife. We do not believe that means women are to be silent, but are to be “helpers” as God called Eve in Genesis. I hope that makes sense. There are a lot of loaded words in there 🙂 so please ask for further clarity if needed.

The first sentence feels a bit condescending… and a lot fake. Women are “equal but different”… to a degree this might be OK. There are physical differences between men and women, and every person is different. I’d never realized that some translations say that the woman will desire to control her husband, and never thought of the verse as a warning before. It is these sorts of things that make me enjoy being there, even if I don’t agree with them on many things. That he adds that men are to be elders “to carry weight, to stand in the gates and protect the sheep from wolves…” is very triggering to me, since that was taught in the unhealthy group I came out of. Pastors in my experience are undershepherds who tend to run at the first sign of a wolf. And sometimes people need to be protected from them. And people aren’t sheep. The Lord is my shepherd….

Yes, there are a lot of loaded words there… and a number that are triggering to me. My background includes a LOT of misuse of the words and verses surrounding “submission”, “shepherd”, “accountability”, and even “protect”, to the hurt of those who had trusted the leaders using them.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this statement: ‘In Genesis 3 we see the abuse of those roles, especially in the curse – “Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.”‘ I thought this was a statement of fact, a consequence of sin, rather than abuse of roles or part of the curse. (It’s my understanding that the ground was cursed and the serpent was cursed, but not Adam and Eve. Though sin did carry consequences, God didn’t curse them.) Or do you understand the passage more as the NLT puts it: “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” (I was a little surprised to find that as a translation, having understood it to mean her focus would be on her husband, on gaining his attention and affection, and that he would have the authority and sole decision making ability in the marriage. It wasn’t a verse I’d looked up or consider I might need to “untangle” from possibly poor teaching.) Could you explain?

Notice he doesn’t respond fully:

Yeah, I know those words are loaded and I would rather help redeem them than just dump them, but I am so very sorry that you’ve experienced the dark side of those words. That is, unfortunately, way too common.

The statement from Genesis 3, the relationship between Adam and Eve was also broken in the rebellion. In Genesis 2 we see them work together in harmony. Adam did not “rule over” her and Eve’s desire was not “for her husbands position.” They were secure, they worked together, they thrived in their relationship with God and with each other. I think we see the redemption of that in Ephesians 5. Part of that brokenness was each of them abusing or abandoning the way God designed them to work together. So, instead of working in harmony, their relationship became contentious. Adam (man) would be tempted to abuse his authority/headship, to use it for personal gain or self-protection. I think we have all (I hope) experienced some good practices of authority, but we usually don’t recognize it as authority. If you’ve ever had a good teacher or boss or someone who you knew would support you and you felt a sense of freedom with them. A good boss, for example, doesn’t threaten or govern with fear, but helps to push or encourage you to be your best. That’s good authority.

On the other side, Eve is tempted to “desire her husband’s position.” I think the temptation there kind of carries an “undermining” tone.

These discussions might be better over coffee or something so we can give a gentler tone to some of these words, because my fear is that you might hear these words wrong, and I really don’t want you to. I want you to feel confident and cared for and it sounds like you’ve experienced a lot of the opposite of that.

I am sorry for your past experiences. I really am. I appreciate you asking questions and I want you to feel a freedom to do that. We try as hard as we can to not have any “back rooms” or “hidden agendas” or anything that we hide up front. So consider that an invitation to keep asking and clarifying.

Hmmm… dump them? I’m not sure where he came up with that. The idea that Genesis was redeemed in Eph 5 is something I don’t understand. The sudden turn to “good” authority irritates me, too, mostly because I don’t see the point within the conversation unless it is to draw a parallel: there are good bosses and teachers so therefore there must be good authoritarian husbands. Hopefully I’m wrong, but to then move to Eve and parallel to a negative reinforces my distrust. Then comes the invitation to discuss in person… and again a condescending tone, followed by a statement out of the blue that they try not to have any hidden agendas. Once again, this raises red flags.

I responded, and have not received a response in nearly 24 hours:

Thanks for the responses. I don’t think most ‘authorities’ who support and encourage us to do our best see themselves as authorities. They lead, but they are just as apt to follow because they don’t see their leadership as a position and don’t view it with any permanence. Because of that, they are free from the fears and insecurities of authoritarians and freer still to do all things well, as are those around them. At least that’s been my observation.

I have learned good things [while at this church]… some things taught and some that drove me to study things out on my own or piqued my interest in a topic that I hadn’t already untangled. There is quite a bit that is believed that I don’t agree with, but I’m used to agreeing to disagree as long as I’m learning and don’t feel threatened or shunned for coming to different conclusions. My past experience is what it is. However, because of it, and because of what I learned from it, I am more cautious… and wiser, I hope.

I am available for coffee or whatever… But fair warning that any discussion of these things will not end or even slow my questions.

I may be too hard on him. He may have triggers from what I said as well. I’ve learned at this church, which is good. I’ve begun to want to study and pray. Those are good things. And there is no church in existence where I wouldn’t see red flags. What do you see? What do you think of my questions and his responses?

A Conversation With A Pastor, Part 2

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.