Why I Left an Evangelical Cult

[bekkilyn]

Please clarify something for me.

In Mark 9:33-37, Luke 22:24-30, and John 13:1-20, Jesus taught that these positions are not positions of promoting one's self, but positions of serving others and putting your own comfort and honor last. Since that is the case, how does being denied a position that calls for such self-sacrifice by one's own church qualify as oppression?

Because that church is putting an obstacle in the way of a person attempting to be obedient to God's call. You are assuming here that persons in these positions are there because they are promoting themselves, but many (both male and female) had no intention or even desire to be in those positions, but they trusted God enough to answer his call all the same. It is wrong to attempt to squelch the Spirit in a person.

It is not a matter of what is required in a position that is of note here, but that a church should be filled with brothers and sisters in Christ who support and uplift each other, to encourage them in their faith journey to be whoever and whatever God calls them to be. Not put up snares and obstacles.

So often it seems women must follow God's call on their lives in relative isolation because their brothers refuse to support and encourage them and it's heartbreaking.

 

[Sketcher]

Because that church is putting an obstacle in the way of a person attempting to be obedient to God's call. You are assuming here that persons in these positions are there because they are promoting themselves, but many (both male and female) had no intention or even desire to be in those positions, but they trusted God enough to answer his call all the same. It is wrong to attempt to squelch the Spirit in a person.

It is not a matter of what is required in a position that is of note here, but that a church should be filled with brothers and sisters in Christ who support and uplift each other, to encourage them in their faith journey to be whoever and whatever God calls them to be. Not put up snares and obstacles.

Well, that comes down to a matter of faith, really. Your faith leads you to believe that women would be called to such roles, other churches' faith would lead them to believe that God would never call women to such roles. That seems to be the point of contention. When I watched the video though, I was hearing far more serious issues than that, one of which was the trigger point for her leaving.

So often it seems women must follow God's call on their lives relative in isolation because their brothers refuse to support and encourage them and it's heartbreaking.

Can you explain what you mean by "following God's call on their lives relative in isolation"?

 

[bekkilyn]

Well, that comes down to a matter of faith, really. Your faith leads you to believe that women would be called to such roles, other churches' faith would lead them to believe that God would never call women to such roles. That seems to be the point of contention. When I watched the video though, I was hearing far more serious issues than that, one of which was the trigger point for her leaving.

Probably everyone has a trigger for leaving these types of situations, but it may not be the same for each person.

Can you explain what you mean by "following God's call on their lives relative in isolation"?

It was supposed to be "in relative" but what I mean is that because women's gifts and contributions are rejected by their churches if they are deemed to be the "wrong" ones, then they must either choose to suppress who they are, who God called them to be, or they must choose to follow God's calling regardless in which case they follow without the same support and encouragement that their male peers receive, or they are even rejected or outright cast out as "rebellious". As it is not the experience of most men, there seems to be very little understanding of the real harm that is done, especially spiritually, to these women.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think it's an issue to brush off lightly. Either this sort of abuse is happening a lot and not largely a minority OR the Christian Evangelical movement has a huge PR problem or maybe even both. When inequality and injustice is practically written in to an organization's doctrine, it's going to naturally have these sorts of issues because the human condition encourages abuse of power.

I think it's a question of degree. I came into the church on the more evangelical end of Anglicanism (hardly the most marginal, cult-like group around), and found this kind of teaching there. Not to the extreme degree I've seen elsewhere, but certainly to a degree I would consider profoundly harmful.

Unfortunately, in my experience, evangelicalism as a movement seems to have backed itself into a corner where coming out forcefully for the full equality of women would be seen to be denying some characteristics of what it means to be evangelical (or "Biblical").

Note: that's just my observation based on the communities and people I've known and interactions I've had. If someone can show me a truly healthy, vibrant, completely egalitarian evangelicalism which has no discomfort about that, I will be thrilled to discover that I am wrong!

I'm a firm believer that as rules become more onerous, the more bad fruit you get, both in quality and quantity. Therefore, it's not honest to say a conservative church that has women in certain ministry roles, and that allows women to have any secular job that a man can have, and that has a strong policy in place to protect women from sexual abuse, is in any way comparable with the cult that she described. I'd need to see some actual congruence of belief and practice between the two that directly results in the oppression of women before I would accept what you are saying here.

I have to agree with bekkilyn here. It is comparable. The difference is of degree and not of kind. There is an underlying refusal to treat women as fully human, equally created, gifted and called, with all the dignity and agency of men.

Since that is the case, how does being denied a position that calls for such self-sacrifice by one's own church qualify as oppression?

Each of us is uniquely created, gifted and called by God. For the church to refuse to recognise what God has wrought in his child, to refuse to allow the exercise of those gifts and the fulfilling of that vocation, is oppressive.

I don't know whether it's easy to explain this to someone who doesn't have a strong sense of vocation, but when you know - know in the depths of your being - that God has called you to do something, and you're told that you may not because you're a woman, or even when you have limitations placed on doing that because you're a woman, it's... it's soul destroying.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

"As it is not the experience of most men, there seems to be very little understanding of the real harm that is done, especially spiritually, to these women.”

"or even when you have limitations placed on doing that because you're a woman, it's... it's soul destroying.”

Can’t have a wooden heart for that ...

 

[NBB]

I think women wanting to be 'free' from the 'yoke' of men is something going on spiritually on this times and is harmful, since times forever the family was made with the man leading somehow in certain areas and the woman supporting him, and it worked very well in the past.
Also the same bible that says men are leaders, says men should treat their wifes as christ treated the church, so never say the bible is supporting abuse, clear?.

 

[ForHimbyHim]

Please clarify something for me.

In Mark 9:33-37, Luke 22:24-30, and John 13:1-20, Jesus taught that these positions are not positions of promoting one's self, but positions of serving others and putting your own comfort and honor last. Since that is the case, how does being denied a position that calls for such self-sacrifice by one's own church qualify as oppression?

In this power hungry and desire to rule over world, few people, even Christians know that our service is not a place of dominion, rather a place of undoing one self.

Essentially us women are fighting to serve? Well just do it then. Why do you need a pulpit to preach, just preach, in your home and your sphere of influence.

The problem is that we are not fighting for the church as Jesus had left it, we're fighting for what we have now made the church into, with our titles and buildings, we want significance.

Jesus said go and preach, not set up a church and then be the Pastor, then you can preach.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There was a time when I thought that most Christians shared (more or less) the same values, but I no longer think that's true in many cases. While we *like* to think it's true, and when it comes to very basic beliefs such as the Apostle's Creed, it is true to that extent, but actual practice varies so wildly that it may as well be different religions.

I disagree. I think keeping an orientation that is always open to ecumenical reconciliation is to be the "norm," and for any of us Christians to start pointing fingers too abruptly at other Christians who may inhabit various trends, movements or denominations isn't generally keeping in line with New Testament Christian doctrine. I also think that we need to remember that Jesus, in His Lordship, transcends the political and shouldn't be seen as either conservative or liberal. But, of course it should go without saying that men should treat women as Jesus treated women ...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think women wanting to be 'free' from the 'yoke' of men is something going on spiritually on this times and is harmful, since times forever the family was made with the man leading somehow in certain areas and the woman supporting him, and it worked very well in the past.
Also the same bible that says men are leaders, says men should treat their wifes as christ treated the church, so never say the bible is supporting abuse, clear?.

There is no verse that says men should be leaders. Only God is the leader and those who have rejected Him have placed a king over others. Paul explains the difference quite well when he explained the difference between a child and an adult.

 

[bekkilyn]

I think women wanting to be 'free' from the 'yoke' of men is something going on spiritually on this times and is harmful, since times forever the family was made with the man leading somehow in certain areas and the woman supporting him, and it worked very well in the past.
Also the same bible that says men are leaders, says men should treat their wifes as christ treated the church, so never say the bible is supporting abuse, clear?.

I think you need to remove your rose-colored glasses of the past and realize that it worked very well in the past....for MEN. But even men are spiritually harmed in a culture of oppression, whether the oppressed be of women, people of other races, slavery, etc.

The bible does not at all specify that men are leaders. Yes, *some* men in scripture were leaders, but also women as well. No gender has absolute claim on leadership.

Husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church is just one more way of saying that husbands should serve their wives and put the needs of their wives first, just like wives should do the same for their husband. Both are examples of Ephesians 5:21 which is of MUTUAL submission. It does not in any way say or suggest that men are the masters and women live to serve them, but it is indeed a mindset and a form of injustice that has done great harm to people.

As Christians, we are not on this earth for the purpose of harming each other, but for loving each other. Mutually.

 

[bekkilyn]

In this power hungry and desire to rule over world, few people, even Christians know that our service is not a place of dominion, rather a place of undoing one self.

Essentially us women are fighting to serve? Well just do it then. Why do you need a pulpit to preach, just preach, in your home and your sphere of influence.

The problem is that we are not fighting for the church as Jesus had left it, we're fighting for what we have now made the church into, with our titles and buildings, we want significance.

Jesus said go and preach, not set up a church and then be the Pastor, then you can preach.

Sure, yes, it all sounds well and good the way you say it, but it's quite interesting how these sorts of sanctimonious lectures are NEVER directed toward men.

Only women.

Odd.

(Or not so odd, right?)

What is a woman's sphere of influence? (Or a man's?) As John Wesley said, "The world is my parish."

 

[bekkilyn]

There is no verse that says men should be leaders. Only God is the leader and those who have rejected Him have placed a king over others. Paul explains the difference quite well when he explained the difference between a child and an adult.

Yep, the book of Hebrews states quite plainly that Christ and Christ alone is our mediator and high priest and that all may approach God's throne boldly.

 

[bekkilyn]

I disagree. I think keeping an orientation that is always open to ecumenical reconciliation is to be the "norm" and for any of us Christians to start pointing fingers too abruptly at various trends, movements or denominations in terms that are way too general isn't generally keeping in line with New Testament Christian doctrine. I also think that we need to remember that Jesus, in His Lordship, transcends the political and shouldn't be seen as either conservative or liberal. But, of course it should go without saying that men should treat women as Jesus treated women ...

My view is that the only real ecumenical reconciliation between ALL who truly follow Christ will occur only upon Christ's return. I'm not suggesting it's not a worthy ideal to pursue whenever possible, but I simply don't see it happening on a widescale basis. The values of all people who claim to be Christians wildly vary and are often in complete opposition. Could there be *some* common ground? Sure. But one could say the same about, for example, Christianity and Buddhism.

 

[ForHimbyHim]

Sure, yes, it all sounds well and good the way you say it, but it's quite interesting how these sorts of sanctimonious lectures are NEVER directed toward men.

Only women.

Odd.

(Or not so odd, right?)

What is a woman's sphere of influence? (Or a man's?) As John Wesley said, "The world is my parish."

It was a woman speaking, so I was directing toward women. At the end of the day, that modern view of church leadership that both men and women desire had nothing to do with the church that Christ had in mind.

Men in leadership ought to serve, women in leadership, ought to serve.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My view is that the only real ecumenical reconciliation between ALL who truly follow Christ will occur only upon Christ's return. I'm not suggesting it's not a worthy ideal to pursue whenever possible, but I simply don't see it happening on a widescale basis. The values of all people who claim to be Christians wildly vary and are often in complete opposition. Could there be *some* common ground? Sure. But one could say the same about, for example, Christianity and Buddhism.

Yep, the book of Hebrews states quite plainly that Christ and Christ alone is our mediator and high priest and that all may approach God's throne boldly.

It’s like Jesus’ inner circle of friends, which seemed to include Peter, John, James, Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Some enjoy the intimacy now, but the bible doesn’t explain what was in Christ’s choosing, only speculation there.

 

[bekkilyn]

It was a woman speaking, so I was directing toward women. At the end of the day, that modern view of church leadership that both men and women desire had nothing to do with the church that Christ had in mind.

Men in leadership ought to serve, women in leadership, ought to serve.

Oh I agree, but that wasn't my point. Certainly, someone can go up to the nearest streetcorner and start preaching the gospel even if it is without the love, encouragement, and care of their brothers and sisters in Christ who have rejected them for being a woman, for being black, the wrong social class, etc., and that's what many women who have been called by God to preach have done, but the treatment that they have experienced from those who claim to follow Christ was still harmful, still hurtful, still crushing to their spirit, and unloving and wrong and unjust.

People do what they need to do under oppression, but it does not mean that we cannot ALSO act to end the oppression.

 

[bèlla]

If someone can show me a truly healthy, vibrant, completely egalitarian evangelicalism which has no discomfort about that, I will be thrilled to discover that I am wrong!

Willow Creek came very close to it and they were admittedly complementarian. They were very good about nurturing and recognizing gifts. Women weren't restrained.

I don't know whether it's easy to explain this to someone who doesn't have a strong sense of vocation, but when you know - know in the depths of your being - that God has called you to do something, and you're told that you may not because you're a woman, or even when you have limitations placed on doing that because you're a woman, it's... it's soul destroying.

I haven't experienced it in a religious setting. But I've encountered it elsewhere. The expectation of forsaking my calling to become a housewife was unfathomable. I wasn't married but I put him away.

~Bella

 

[NBB]

I think you need to remove your rose-colored glasses of the past and realize that it worked very well in the past....for MEN. But even men are spiritually harmed in a culture of oppression, whether the oppressed be of women, people of other races, slavery, etc.

The bible does not at all specify that men are leaders. Yes, *some* men in scripture were leaders, but also women as well. No gender has absolute claim on leadership.

Husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church is just one more way of saying that husbands should serve their wives and put the needs of their wives first, just like wives should do the same for their husband. Both are examples of Ephesians 5:21 which is of MUTUAL submission. It does not in any way say or suggest that men are the masters and women live to serve them, but it is indeed a mindset and a form of injustice that has done great harm to people.

As Christians, we are not on this earth for the purpose of harming each other, but for loving each other. Mutually.

I don't believe in husbands being in a 'masters' kind of relationship with their wifes, anyway this world is going to get worse the more time we are in it, and this is something that got worse, nobody is supporting men mistreating their wifes, and yes husbands need to make sure their wifes are treated well and they need to take care of them.

The bible says tho that men are leaders in the family. Very clear also.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't believe in husbands being in a 'masters' kind of relationship with their wifes, anyway this world is going to get worse the more time we are in it, and this is something that got worse, nobody is supporting men mistreating their wifes, and yes husbands need to make sure their wifes are treated well and they need to take care of them.

The bible says tho that men are leaders in the family. Very clear also.

The examples from a society that was fighting it’s way up from being considered by satan as just fed animals that would only be participants by privilege, yes. That would be where might is right and the devil smiles in satisfaction. "See I told you” said satan. But Job, even his own integrity needed replacing to be of God’s righteousness. His integrity wasn’t what God approved of.
So what changed in the story of Job? His sons and daughters shared the inheritance rather than the daughters relying on the brothers to feed them.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't believe in husbands being in a 'masters' kind of relationship with their wifes, anyway this world is going to get worse the more time we are in it, and this is something that got worse, nobody is supporting men mistreating their wifes, and yes husbands need to make sure their wifes are treated well and they need to take care of them.

The bible says tho that men are leaders in the family. Very clear also.

The bible says no such thing, but does of course address men who were already, according to the ancient culture of their times, lord and masters of their extended family structures. In ancient Rome, only certain men were legal citizens and had rights as such, and the legal rights of everyone else was much more limited. These sorts of harmful social structures are of the world and not of God. Fortunately, we do not live under such a governmental system and our more egalitarian ways are much closer to the intention of how we are to live as citizens of God's kingdom.