Friday, January 29, 2010

Misogyny in Religion


Misogyny is hatred or strong prejudice against women. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος (misos, "hatred") + γυνη (gunê, "woman"). Compared with anti-woman sexism or misandry (hatred, strong prejudice against men), misogyny is termed by most feminist theories as a political ideology like racism and antisemitism that justifies and maintains the subordination of women to men.

Contents [hide]
1 Usage
2 Misogyny in Greek literature
3 Misogyny in feminist theory
3.1 Mythology
3.2 Religion
3.3 Philosophy
4 See also
5 See also

[edit]Usage
Misogyny is sometimes confused with the similar looking word — misogamy — which means a hatred of marriage, hence the following error.

Any doubt he may have ever cherished in his misogamic breast concerning a woman's creative capacity. — Pall Mall Gazette, 7 January 1889
An example of correct use, from the same period is:

He ... walked the banks apart, a thing of misogyny, in a suit of flannel. — Herman Charles Merivale, Faucit of Balliol, 1882
A clearer example of the sense, also from the same era but using the related word misogynist, is provided by Thackeray.

Confound all women, I say, muttered the young misogynist. — William Makepeace Thackeray, The Virginians, 1878
Occasionally writers play on the similarity of sound between misogyny and miscegeny (mixed-race marriage).

This psychosocial analysis of the murder of a white civil rights activist by her mulatto lover (Joe Christmas) is replete with themes of fate, free will, sociopathy, family violence, misogyny, miscegeny, and isolation versus community.
An example used in current context is:

Among the concerns some of Hillary Clinton female backers have with Barack Obama is the perception that he can slide into misogynist comments at the blink of an eye.
In the play The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde humorously has Miss Prism referring to Dr Chasuble as a womanthrope, but intending misogynist or misogamist:

You should get married. A misanthrope I can understand - a womanthrope, never! (Act 2)
[edit]Misogyny in Greek literature
Misogyny in Greek literature
Misogyny comes into English from the ancient Greek word, misogunia, which survives in two passages. The earlier, longer and more complete passage comes from a stoic philosopher called Antipater of Tarsus in a moral tract known as On Marriage (c. 150 BC).

[edit]Misogyny in feminist theory
misogyny in feminist theory
Traditional feminist theorists propose many different forms of misogyny. In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Other forms of misogyny may be less overt. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, not giving pregnant women jobs, or beating a woman. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity(Abrahamic) are considered "whores".

Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself "a great lover of women," therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women. Misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist's attitude towards each individual woman. The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent them from having positive relationships with some women. Conversely, simply having negative relationships with some women does not necessarily mean someone holds misogynistic views. The term, like most negative descriptions of attitudes, is used as an epithet and applied to a wide variety of behaviors and attitudes. As with other terms, the more antipathetic one's position is in regards to misogyny, the larger the number of misogynists and the greater variety of attitudes and behaviors who fall into one's perception of "misogynist". This is, of course, the subject of much controversy and debate with opinions ranging widely as to the extent and breadth of misogyny in society.

[edit]Mythology
J Holland sees evidence of misogyny in the mythology of the ancient world. In Greek mythology, the human race had already existed before the creation of women — a peaceful, autonomous existence as a companion to the gods. When Prometheus decides to steal the secret of fire from the gods, Zeus becomes infuriated and decides to punish humankind with an "evil thing for their delight" — Pandora, the first woman, who carried a jar (usually described — incorrectly — as a box) she was told to never open. Epimetheus (the brother of Prometheus) is overwhelmed by her beauty, disregards Prometheus' warnings about her, and marries her. Pandora cannot resist peeking into the jar, and by opening it unveils all evil into the world — labour, sickness, old age, and death.

J Holland also sees evidence of misogyny in the Christian view on the Fall of Man based on the Book Genesis, which according to Christian interpretation brought tragedy and death into the world by a woman. (See also Original Sin.)

[edit]Religion
The religion of islam is in itself mysogynistic. The Quran specifies both that "women are inferior to men" and that any women who are found to disagree with this should be beaten (Qur'an 4:34). In the book "Women and the Glorious Qur'an: An Analytical Study of Women-related Verses" the author claims that the relation between men and women specified in the "men are the guardians of women" verse, does not simply apply within a family, or within marriage. The book specifies that men are superior to all women, both in general and in specific cases, not just their wives or daughters. The book mentions that this is a "progressive" opinion within islam, and that there are many islamic scholars with much worse opinions on women, such as the very authoritative at-Tabari, who claims that men are superior to women, not just in the case of a woman being financially dependent on a man, but always, and due to Allah's statement on the physical and intellectual superiority of men above women.

[edit]Philosophy
Strindberg's misogyny
Arthur Schopenhauer is famous for his essay "On Women" (Über die Weiber), in which he expressed his opposition to what he called "Teutonico-Christian stupidity" on female affairs. He claimed that "woman is by nature meant to obey." The essay does give two compliments however: that "women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than men are" and are more sympathetic to the suffering of others. However, the latter was discounted as weakness rather than humanitarian virtue.

Nietzsche is known for arguing that every higher form of civilization implied stricter controls on women (Beyond Good and Evil, 7:238); he frequently insulted women, but is best known for phrases such as "Women are less than shallow," and "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" Nietzsche's reputation as a misogynist is disputed by some, pointing out that he also made unflattering statements about men. Nietzsche can easily be interpreted as anti-feminist, believing that women were primarily mothers and opposing the modern notion of women's liberation on the grounds that he considered it a form of slave morality. Whether or not this amounts to misogyny, whether his polemic statements against women are meant to be taken literally, and the exact nature of his opinions of women, are more controversial.

The philosopher Otto Weininger, in his 1903 book Sex and Character, characterized the "woman" part of each individual as being essentially "nothing," and having no real existence, having no effective consciousness or rationality. Weininger says, "No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them." The author August Strindberg praised Weininger for probably having solved the hardest of all problems, the "woman problem."

[edit]See also
Chauvinism
Misandry - male counterpart
Honor killing
Marriage strike
Object relations theory
Violence against women
[edit]See also
Cette mâle assurance

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Bible Abuse-Self Quiz


Self Quiz


A group starts with two people. And two individuals can find themselves embroiled in many of the same fundamental destructive group dynamics that large organizations fall prey to.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you "UNDER THE INFLUENCE"
of a destructive group or belief system?
Find out with this
SELF QUIZ:

Does your group discourage doubts, criticism or ideas that differ from their belief system?
Yes____No____
Do you tend to rationalize whatever the group does even when it goes against your sense of right and wrong?
Yes___ No___
Do you often feel exhausted from lengthy group activities, meetings and projects?
Yes___ No___
Does your group have its own unique words, cliches, slogans, chants, prayers and doctrinal phrases that reinforce the group viewpoint?
Yes___ No___
Are doubts viewed as a lack of faith, dedication, commitment or disloyalty?
Yes___ No___
Have "your thoughts" become "the enemy?"
Yes___ No___
Do you often find yourself doing more and more things in the group or because of group peer pressure that you would not have done on your own?
Yes___ No___
Does your group publicly humiliate or criticize members?
Yes___ No___
Does your group have a system of punishments and rewards for behavior?
Yes___ No___
Group paranoia: Does your group obsessively think other groups or people with different beliefs are out to get them?
Yes___ No___
Does the prospect of leaving your group seem scary, difficult?
Yes___ No___
Do you feel the need to leave in secret?
Yes___ No___
Have you been told something bad might happen if you leave?
Yes___ No___
Does your group/belief system think they have/are the only or highest truth, or have the solution for the world’s problems?
Yes___ No___
Are your leader’s ideas or belief system considered beyond reproach or sacred?
Yes___ No___
Do you follow a particular individual or belief system that requires unquestioning obedience and loyalty?
Yes___ No___
) Do members of your group feel specially chosen, superior, exclusive, elite?
Yes___ No___
Do you feel the need to save or convert others to your belief system or ideology?
Yes___ No___
Is your group secretive to outsiders about its inner workings, teachings, activities or beliefs?
Yes___ No___
Does your group equate purity and goodness to being in your group, and impurity or evil to those outside your group?
Yes___ No___
Do you place your group’s mission or agenda above your own goals and ideals? Do group interests come before your own interest
Yes___ No___
Do you find yourself thinking in a we-they, us-versus-them mind set?
Yes___ No___
Does your group/system have a clear outside enemy?
Yes___ No___
Do you see less and less of your family and friends who do not belong to your group or who do not subscribe to your group’s belief system?
Yes___ No___
Does your group use frequent public testimonials, confessions, or sharings that reinforce the group’s mission or agenda?
Yes___ No___
Is communication within, into and out of your group controlled or censored in any manner?
Yes___ No___
Does your group criticize, shun, abandon or demean individuals who leave the group?
Yes___ No___
Do members seek approval or get permission from group leader(s) for personal life choices?
Yes___ No___
Do you feel pressured to attend meetings, events, lectures, seminars? And do you feel guilty if you don’t attend?
Yes___ No___
Do you feel pressured to give a portion of your income to the group, or spend money on courses, books or special projects?
Yes___ No___
Are the group’s financial needs more important than your own economic well-being?
Yes___ No___
Does your group discriminate against anyone regarding race, gender, belief, or sexual orientation?
Yes___ No___
Does your group have a totalitarian structure: a strict, top-down centralized control?
Yes___ No___
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you wonder if you have been in a destructive group?
Do you...
...have difficulty forming new friendships and intimate relationships?
Yes___ No___

...have low self-esteem, poor self-image or loss of identity?
Yes___ No___

...have difficulty making simple decisions and choices?
Yes___ No___

...often feel depressed, anxious and nervous?
Yes___ No___

...feel isolated, lonely, guilty, cynical?
Yes___ No___

...feel like you are just now growing up, becoming a mature adult?
Yes___ No___

...have short-term memory difficulties?
Yes___ No___

...feel you have nothing to believe in?
Yes___ No___

...often feel anger and rage towards the group?
Yes___ No___

...have nightmares or unpleasant dreams?
Yes___ No___

...find it difficult or impossible to stop mental or other group ritualistic practices?
Yes___ No___


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This quiz has no scientifically predetermined number of "yes" answers to indicate a distructive group. However, answering "yes" to any of the above questions means you may need to examine your group and its influence in your life in those areas.

All the documents on this site are copyright 1998 by John D. Goldhammer and Prometheus Books. You may freely save, distribute or re-post this information with full credit given to this site's URL.

Legal Notice: The administration of this website was taken over about September, 2004 by Med Trans 1, Inc.. The content on this site was the work of the late Jan Groenveld, and as such, Med Trans 1, Inc. is not knowledgeable about the specific content presented on this website, nor is responsible for any inaccuracies that may be discovered.

We wish to be fair to all parties involved, and there is no intent whatsoever to present inaccurate in formation. Therefore, if any group or individual feels that information presented on this site is inaccurate, please contact us. If the information is proven to be inaccurate, it will be either changed or removed upon receipt of verifiable proof being supplied to us. Verifiable proof is defined as a disinterested source independent of your group such as newspaper, encyclopedia, public records and similar sources.

Any group or individual who wishes to supply a rebuttal to any information presented on this site may do so at any time. The length of the rebuttal is to be no more in length (number of words) than the article or material being rebutted. The rebuttal is to be within an e-mail and not as an attachment. E-Mails with attachments are automatically deleted unread due to the large number of virus attacks we received in the past.

Literature, books etc. mailed to us will be discarded unread unless we specifically requested the materials. Those who send mail that is abusive in nature or combative, will not receive a response from us. Nor will any article be debated or extensive discussions be engaged in regarding an article published.

Any problems with the website, please contact the webmaster

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Are high-profile evangelical leaders endangering victims of domestic violence"



Bill Berkowitz
July 23, 2007


"Dr. James Dobson and Dr. John MacArthur, two influential evangelical family counselors, 'blame' battered women for their plight, says Christian evangelical author Jocelyn Andersen.
While domestic violence -- also known as intimate partner violence -- is in no way limited to any particular race, religion, ethnic group, class or sexual preference, author Jocelyn Andersen maintains that for far too long too many evangelical pastors have tried to sweep the problem under the rug. According to Andersen, the problem of physical, as well as emotional and spiritual abuse, is being exacerbated by the outdated teachings of several high-profile conservative Christian pastors.

In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence" (One Way Cafe Press, 2007), Andersen points out that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower."

Andersen maintains that domestic violence in Christian families "often creates a cruel Catch-22 as many Christians and church leaders view recommending separation or divorce as unscriptural, but then silently view the battered woman, who chooses not to leave, with contempt for staying and tolerating the abuse. Victims quickly pick up on this hypocritical attitude and either leave the church altogether -- or begin hiding the abuse. Either way they are giving up the spiritual guidance, and emotional support, they desperately need."

"The secular medical world has had to reach in to advise and help women from the church see the truth of their situations, get shelter, and inform religious leaders about the need to accept medical and clinical facts about physical and mental abuse," OneNewsNow.com -- a news service of the American Family Association -- reported in late June.

"Secular organizations are constantly addressing the religious aspects of domestic violence," Andersen told the news service. "Christian women struggle with it and the secular organizations see what Christian women go through and religious women go through. They have set it up as their goal to educate spiritual leaders on the spiritual aspects, and the different aspects of domestic violence so they can give good counsel to the women coming to them. It's a big issue."

Andersen's book discusses why women who are victims of domestic abuse stay with their abusers: "The third chapter of [the Book of] Genesis give us a clue, when the woman is told, 'your desire will be to your husband' -- and he will 'rule over' you. The clue right there is no matter how he acts, her desire is often still toward him. She loves him. She responds to the abuse with an even greater determination to try to resolve the situation ... and make it better."

According to OneNewsNow, "Andersen never advocates divorce -- yet she says after domestic violence enters the marriage picture, there must eventually come a point where a Christian woman decides what the will of God is for her in the face of the dangers of abuse. And that is where Andersen says the woman will likely conflict with pressure from the church to stay, no matter what."


High-profile evangelical leaders blaming the victim
Andersen, whose account of physical abuse by her husband makes for a harrowing first chapter, says that the problem is exacerbated by misguided advice and use of outdated information in the writing of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Dr. John MacArthur, a pastor-teacher at the Sun Valley, California-based Grace Community Church. "We do see some very big-name evangelical leaders blaming the battered woman for the abuse," Andersen explained. "You know, talking about how she may provoke her husband into doing it; or that her poor, non-communicative husband can't handle maybe what she's trying to communicate to him and he lashes out and hits her -- [that] shifts the blame right off him and to her."
Via several emails, Anderson told Media Transparency that the work of Dobson and MacArthur perpetuate the problem of domestic violence among evangelical Christians.

She chose to look closely at their work because of the "scope of influence" they wield "within the Christian Community." Both men are "prolific writers with best-selling books," and the both "have large listening audiences for their radio broadcasts," which "have been staples of Moody Christian Radio for years." Millions of people listen to the broadcasts weekly, she said.
"Both Dobson and MacArthur are high-profile evangelical leaders with enough influence and ability to make a positive contribution to the plight of battered women which would result in lives being saved." Instead, "their words are often used to send Christian women back into the danger zone with counsel that encourages them to try and change violent husbands or return to violent homes as soon as the 'heat is off.' The last time I looked, assault was a crime, but Christian women are generally not encouraged to report that crime."

In her book, Andersen cites an incident in which a battered wife wrote to Dobson telling him that "the violence within her marriage was escalating in both frequency and intensity and that she feared for her life." Dobson "replied that her goal should be to change her husband's behavior--not to get a divorce ('Love Must Be Tough,' (1996) [this is the edition that was being sold as of March 2007])."


"He did suggest leaving as a temporary solution, but only as a way of manipulating the husband's behavior. I found it inexcusable that not one note of real concern for this woman's immediate physical safety was sounded in his response--in spite of the fact that she clearly stated she was in fear for her life."
"Dobson counseled her to precipitate a crisis in her marriage by choosing the most absurd demand her husband made, then refusing to consent to it. This was not only absurd advice in a domestic violence situation, but life-threateningly dangerous as well, and very telling of the fact that, in spite of over 1,000 deaths per year due to wife-beating, the wife beater is not generally viewed as a real threat to his wife's life or safety. "


Andersen also takes on MacArthur: According to a tape titled Bible Questions and Answers Part 16, a member of Grace Community Church asked MacArthur how a Christian woman should react "and deal with being a battered wife."

MacArthur's answer contained "some very dangerous advice to battered wives. He said divorce is not an option to a battered wife, because the Bible doesn't permit it." While saying that it was okay "for the wife to get away while the pressure was on" it was with the understanding that she would return. "He warned wives to be very careful that they were not provoking the abusive situations. Because, he said, that was very often the problem."
"Three years later, MacArthur said essentially the same thing (softened with a few disclaimers) in a booklet he still distributes today titled 'Answering Key Questions About the Family.'"

"How many thousands of pastors, leaders and lay Christians have been and are still being influenced through the writing of James Dobson, John MacArthur and others who share their views?" Andersen asked.
Andersen says that both of these pastors "admit they believe a large percentage of battering cases are instigated and provoked by the wife." While Dobson "described the issue of domestic violence as a problem of 'epidemic proportions,' in 'Love Must Be Tough,' only five-plus pages are devoted to the subject. And he used over half those pages to highlight a case in which a wife deliberately provoked her husband into hitting her so she could gain her 'trophy' of bruises which she could then parade around with in order to gain sympathy."

While those incidents happen, Andersen points out that "the bulk of the research about domestic violence refutes the myth that battered wives enjoy being battered or deliberately provoke the violence in order to gain some moral advantage. That unfair example in no way typifies the face of domestic violence."

"If a Christian Leader blames a woman for the violence in her marriage and neglects to encourage a battered wife to use the legal resources available to her in order to preserve her physical safety, that leader is not only sanctioning the abuse but perpetuating it as well," Andersen maintains.
"Many wife-beaters who are church-goers, professing Christians, even pastors and leaders of churches are getting the message loud and clear that their spiritual leadership is not so concerned with the fact that they beat their wives as they are concerned that wives should be submitting to their husbands and not seeking legal protection or divorce."

"Telling a woman to leave while the heat is on with the intention of returning is not uncommon advice among evangelicals. It amounts to no less than sending a battered woman back into a violent home. With a violent spouse when is the heat ever really off? This is sin and, in my opinion, it is criminal."
Thus far, Andersen hasn't received any grief for the charges in her book. She said that she received a request for a review copy of her book and a media kit from a news correspondent at Family News in Focus -- a Focus on the Family news service -- which she mailed several weeks ago, but hadn't yet heard from them again."

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Christian Men Who Hate Women


Healing Hurting Relationships
Margaret J. Rinck
Zondervan Publishing House, 1990

Rinck acknowledges that some men misuse Christianity to dominate or abuse their wives and/ or other women around them. Frequently these men exhibit their misogyny only in private or only to a few women. These men appear to many as the epitome of propriety to those outside this "intimate" circle. Rinck tells us how to recognize these men, suggests how to deal with these men, and tells us that we women are fully human and that no one, man or woman, has God's blessing to treat us as any less than fully human.


1) "Any challenge or objection by his wife is met with rage, temper tantrums, or stony silence. The Christian misogynist (yes, there are such people) often uses distortion of scriptural teaching to keep his partner "in her place." " page 16

2) "The reason is that once the woman changes a particular behavior to please him, another behavior becomes the target. The definition of what is pleasing constantly changes, so that she is kept off balance." page 17

3) "A woman should examine whether her marriage relationship has most of these characteristics:


1. The man assumes he has the "God-given" right to control how she lives and behaves. Her needs or thoughts are not even considered.
2. He uses God, the Bible, and church doctrine to support his "right to tell her what to do," and demands that she "submit" unquestioningly to his desires, whims, decisions, or plans. There is no sense of mutuality or loving consideration. It is always his way or nothing.

3. She finds that she no longer associates with certain friends, groups, or even family members because of her need to keep him happy. Even though these activities or people are important to her, she finds herself preferring to avoid them in order to "keep the peace."

4. He believes and acts like her opinions, views, feelings, or thoughts have no real value. He may discredit them on principle or specifically because "she is a woman and easily deceived like Eve was." Or, he may give lip-service to respecting her thoughts, but later shoot them down one by one because they "are not logical."

5. He acts charming and sweet at church and is well-liked at work, yet at home the family has to "walk on eggs" to prevent setting him off. People who do not see him at home find it hard to believe that she is really suffering emotional abuse. He reinforces this feeling whenever she points out the differences between home and church by saying something such as , "Oh, quit exaggerating. I'm not like that!"

6. When she displeases him and he does not get his way, he yells, threatens, or sulks in angry silence.

7. She feels confused by his behavior because one day he can be loving, kind, charming, and gentle; the next day he is cruel and full of rage. The switch seems to come without warning.

8. No matter how much she tries to improve, change, or "grow in the Word," in her relationship with him, she still feels confused, inadequate, guilty, and somehow off balance. She never knows what will set him off next, and no matter how much she prays, he never changes. She almost feels she must be "crazy" and she is sure it is her fault.

9. He acts possessive and jealous, even of her time with the children. He may even try to restrict her normal church activities because "a woman's place is in the home." If other people, especially other men, notice her or talk to her, he becomes very angry or jealous.

10. When anything goes wrong in the home or in their relationship, the problem is always her. If she would just be "more submissive" or "more filled with the spirit" or "obey me like a good Christian wife," everything would be fine. He seems blind to any cruelty or misbehavior on his part. He actually sees himself virtuous for "putting up" with a woman like her." pages 20-23


4) "The unique feature of misogynists is that their abusive, nonempathetic grandiosity is directed toward the women in their lives. Misogynists may occasionally exhibit these characteristics toward other people, but the brunt of their disorder is aimed at their wives or girlfriends." page 43
5) "The misogynist is extremely control-oriented; he needs to control and dominate his wife." page 46

6) "He may make sex mechanical (when and where he wants it), refuse to be concerned about her sexual satisfaction, becomes less and less physically affectionate after the wedding, express repulsion or disgust at the idea of romantically touching, or use blame or punishment when her sexual needs differ from his own." page 47

7) "The goal of his emotional and psychological battering is to wear down his wife, to keep her under his control at all costs.

Some of the tools of abuse and control are yelling, bullying, threatening, temper tantrums, name calling, constant criticism, verbal attacks, ridiculing the woman's pain, subtle attempts to confuse her and make her doubt her sanity, forgetting things that happened between them, accusations, blaming, and rewriting history. The misogynist uses all these tactics with the overt aim to "teach you a lesson" or "make you a better person." In Christian homes the justification for abuse becomes even more powerful. Often God or the Bible is used to justify the verbal attack as "correction." "If you were a really good Christian wife you'd . . . ," or "I only do this because God gave me the authority to lead you and be your spiritual head." These become stereotyped defenses. If the wife shows anger, fear, or weakness, she is "rebellious," "untrusting," or "immature in the Lord." If she questions her husband's decisions or opinions, she must be disciplined for her own good." page 53

8) "Codependent women are usually deceived by the occasional "nice" behaviors that their mates exhibit." page 60 - see Dee Graham's Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men's Violence, and Women's Lives (New York University Press, 1994) for a way of explaining women's submissive behavior that does not degrade women by calling us co-dependent. In Loving to Survive, Graham attributes this behavior to "the Societal Stockholm Syndrome," an adaptive behavior that allows women to survive in an hostile environment. She adamantly refuses to acknowledge that such women are codependents. Good book and I agree with her. Although the behavioral responses/ intellectual conclusions that people reach are the same where they are codependents or suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, women who are suffering from the Societal Stockholm Syndrome can be "reprogrammed" to reject a culture that condones abuse and to reject their abusers.

9) ". . . Elaine was a people pleaser and tried desperately to "correct" her behavior so as to please her spouse. Yet each time she tried, it seemed as if the rules had changed." page 60

10) "Learned helplessness is observed in victims of chronic abuse or trauma; these people feel that they have no ability to make choices or influence their destiny." page 61

11) "A child growing up in the kind of environment Ruth Ellen or Mary did or in other dysfunctional families where codependency develops learns some rules:


1. Your feelings do not matter. Pleasing others and soothing their feelings becomes all-important. Peace is to be maintained at any price.
2. No one is there to protect you. "If Mom can't protect herself from Dad's abuse, she obviously isn't going to take care of me."

3. The only way to handle a man's aggression is to give in to it. "Mom stayed married to Dad for thirty years, and he belittled her and treated her mean, so I guess I have to do it too."

4. The most important thing in life, yet the most painful thing, is to have a man. . .

5. The way to keep people from abandoning you is to try to be perfect, meet all their needs, ignore your own thoughts and feelings, and, above all, never act as if their mistreatment is that bad." page 69


12) "They end up feeling constantly condemned by their spouses, by Scripture and by God. It never occurs to them to question their husbands' interpretation of Scripture or to decide for themselves whether it is being used appropriately. All too aware of their faults, they see these biblical injunctions as proof that they have failed and that if they would just "do it right," everything would be fine.
As we all know, Scripture can and has been used to justify everything from slavery to the Holocaust." page 72

13) "Example: Phillip was separated from his wife for three years, but not divorced, and had an affair with a needy, codependent Christian woman. A Christian himself, he told her that "it was God's will" for them to have sex because "in God's eyes we are already married." She begged him not to do it, but Phillip pressured her and forced himself upon her. Afterward he said he had "no guilt" because "God had created sex and their love was beautiful." "page 74

14) "Many men use this notion of their sanctioned "authority" to commit atrocities against women and children. . . .At a national seminar I attended, one well-known Bible teacher said that even if a woman's husband beat her, she would be better off to "obey God," submit to the beatings, and even die than to leave him to seek relief!" page 75

15) "Even victims of such abuse find it difficult to conceive [that the abuse is real]." page 76

16) "Sexism permeates our evangelical culture. In some churches, it is intrinsic to certain doctrinal positions. The problem is both cultural and religious." page 79-80

17) "Another root problem in the evangelical church is misuse of the biblical ideal of submission." page 81

18) "However, for the woman who has no idea of what a healthy relationship of mutual submission looks like, let me outline a few characteristics:


1. Both partners live in a daily, personal voluntary submission to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. . .
2. Love is based on a deep, mutual respect as the guiding principle behind all decisions, actions, and plans. . .

3. Both partners are aware of their status as "heirs together" in Christ . . .Both recognize that the purpose of those gifts is to build up, through mutual submission, the body of Christ as well as their own relationship.

4. Natural abilities and talents of each individual. . . are a practical basis for delegating various roles and responsibilities in the home.

5. The emphasis is on a mature relationship between two adults, not on prescribed, arbitrary roles or functions into which each personality is forced to fit. The marriage is seen as a relationship rather than as a career or an organization.

6. Each person maintains their own God-given personal identity and personality. . .

7. The sexual relationship is not only procreative but it is one of joy, fun, fulfillment, and refreshment for both partners.

8. Intimacy and deep emotional closeness replaces game playing and role playing.

9. Honesty and fidelity are the cornerstones of healthy communication patterns, based on a deep, abiding trust in the other person and in Christ.

10. Decision-making is based on a process where both partners have a willingness to come to a mutually satisfying outcome. " pages 83-85


19) "He believes that the best way to keep his woman from leaving him is to cripple her emotionally, to limit her activities, and to keep her guessing psychologically." page 89
20) "He is incapable of seeing her as a separate human being." page 103

21) "This woman lets his personality overwhelm her and gives way to the force of his persona." page 103

22) "Recovery is a life-long process, so I urge you to let go of any perfectionist expectations you may have about accomplishing this in a few weeks." page 111

23) "The misogynist is happy with things as they are; he likes having the balance of power in his favor and sees no need for help." page 115-116

24) "The feelings that normally motivate change - sadness, guilt, remorse, anxiety - are not a significant part of his emotional experience." page 138

25) "Thus, even in a Christian context, the prognosis for repairing a misogynistic marriage is not very good." page 140

26) "The primary thing that the Christian community can do to change the misogynistic system is to break the silence about it." page 159

27) "Often those most vocally opposed to change regarding sexism are women who are afraid of change and of losing their martyr's role in society." page 161

28) "I am aware of two cases in which a misogynist, through charm and manipulation, deceived court-appointed psychologists and/or psychiatrists and persuaded them to grant him custody of the minor children." page 164

"Appendix E : What is Misogyny?

You may photocopy this appendix and Figure 1 for the purpose of sharing information about misogyny with a prospective counselor.

What is misogyny? The word is unfamiliar to most people. It comes for the Greek words misein, meaning to hate, and gune, meaning women. Literally, misogyny means the hatred of women. Misogyny entails a pattern of mental and emotional abuse in marital and male/female relationships. While misogynistic behavior can include physical abuse, it is usually much more subtle. Unlike the usual stereotype of men who hate women, such as wife beaters and rapists, the usual misogynistic male primarily uses emotional and mental weapons against his partner.

The partner of the misogynist is usually very bewildered. What happened to the man with whom she fell in love? After the honeymoon had ended, she realizes that she married not Romeo, but Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

The fact is that women in misogynistic relationships are constantly dealing with a double-minded man. Her partner at times is charming, adoring, affable, and loving; the next moment he is likely to be controlling, mean-spirited, and cruel. The wife is likely to be so confused by the mixed messages of her relationship that she wonders if she is going crazy. She thinks that because he can behave so lovingly at times, that it must be her fault that he is not always that way. Women in these dysfunctional relationships are usually very codependent. When they are scapegoated by their spouses as being the cause of the problems in the relations - they tend to accept the blame.

Christian men who hate women (religious misogynists) are in some ways more dangerous and destructive in their behavior than their non-Christian counterparts. Secular misogynists do not have the powerful, additional arsenal of church doctrines, God-talk, and the sanctioning of male authority, which comes with the idea of Christian marriage. Christian women are often taught in the church or at home that they should "submit" to men "no matter what" because men are the "spiritual head" over women.

What is confusing to the woman is the double-sided nature of the man's behavior. He frequently acts one way at home and then presents a different face to the outside world. When he is at church or work, he is witty, kind, considerate. Often his wife finds that her pastor and friends at church do not believe her confessions of abuse because they never see his misogynistic side. This double-life factor keeps the wife and others off balance. She becomes convinced that if she would "just do what he says" or "try harder" or "be more loving" then he would be consistently kind and caring to her.

I have seen cases where psychologists, psychiatrists, and pastors have been totally fooled by the good-looking facade of these men. Misogynists are usually quite bright and quite capable of doing a snow-job to escape detection by a professional therapist. Even when a misogynist is confronted with evidence of his abusive behavior, he may respond saying, "I know I did that - but it's only because I needed to teach her a lesson. If she would just do as I say, everything would be fine."

Misogynists are unable to empathize with their wives' pain and distress. In fact, the pain of their partner seems to enrage them and feed their hatred. Here are some telltale signs of a misogynistic relationship:


1. The man assumes that it is his "God-given right" to control how his wife lives and behaves. Her needs, thoughts, feelings are not considered.
2. He uses God, the Bible, and church teachings to support his right to "tell her what to do," and demands that she "submit" to his desires, whims, decisions, or plans without question. There is no sense of mutuality or loving consideration. It's always his way, or no way.

3. He believes that a woman's beliefs, opinions, views, feelings, and thoughts are of no real value. He may discredit her opinions in general or specifically because she is a "daughter of Eve and easily deceived." Therefore, her opinions are of little consequence. Or alternatively, he may give lip service to the idea that his wife's opinions count for something, but then discount them one by one because they are not "logical."

4. The woman reports that her husband's behavior at home is strikingly different from his behavior at work or church. At home everyone "walks on eggs" out of fear of displeasing him or setting him off. When the wife points out the difference between his behavior at home and other places, he is likely to respond, "Oh, quit exaggerating! I'm not like that!"

5. The woman reports that when he is displeased and/or does not get his way, he yells and threatens, or sulks in angry silence. Yet the next day he acts as if "nothing" had happened, and is charming and sweet. No one can predict when he is going to switch from nice to nasty.

6. The woman finds that in her relationship with him, no matter how much she may try to improve, change, "grow in the Word," etc., she still feels inadequate, guilty, and somehow off-balance. She never knows what is going to set him off next, and no matter how much she prays, he never changes. She almost feels as if she must be "crazy," and she is sure it is her fault. Even when other relationships at work or school give her positive feedback and encouragement, she loses all her confidence and self-esteem when she returns home. No matter what she does to change and adapt to his demands, it is never enough. His demands always change and become unreasonable.

7. The husband remains blind to any fault or cruelty on his part. When anything goes wrong in the home or in the marital relationship, the problem is always the woman. If she would just be "more submissive" or "be filled with the Spirit" or "obey me like a good Christian wife," everything would be fine. He actually sees himself as virtuous for "putting up" with a woman like her. On the other hand, he can become unreasonably jealous if other people, particularly men, pay too much attention to his wife. Thus, the wife no longer feels free to associate with certain friends, groups, or family members because of her need to keep him happy. Even though these activities or people are important to her, she prefers avoiding them so that she can "keep the peace."


If you see a relationship that has most of these characteristics, you are dealing with a misogynist. If a pastor or counselor, you meet a woman who comes in for counseling and she describes a relationship that sounds like this, there is misogyny involved." pages 185-189
Figure 1: The Rinck Misogyny Continuum

Unconscious Foundation of Misogynistic Behavior: Shame and Fear of Abandonment

This produces a pattern of disrespect and hatred toward women. Misogyny lies on a continuum and is manifested at various levels of intensity, in various types of behaviors and attitudes. To one degree or another, all the types (I through IV) of Christian men who hate women use the Bible, church doctrine, and theological arguments to support their right to control women. He demands "submission" to his viewpoint: He discounts his wife's feelings, opinions, and thoughts. He acts charming one moment, then hostile and cruel the next. He frequently points out his wife's faults. He is unable to perceive his own shortcomings in the relationship.

Type 1 Misogynist (Mild):

No physical abuse of his partner. He uses indirect criticism; denies that he is abusive, protestations of love when confronted with his disrespectful behavior; extremely subtle, may use flattery to keep woman at his side. Uses logic to control situations. Outargues spouse, totally discounts woman's feelings and thoughts. He rarely loses his temper. He always looks as if he is in control, very reasonable. Out of touch with his own feelings.

Type II Misogynist:

Includes Type I behaviors plus more overt verbal tactics such as teasing, bullying, belittling, namecalling, obvious criticism, unfavorable comparison of partner with other woman. Uses nonverbal tactics such as pouting, the "silent treatment," dirty looks to show displeasure. May demand special attention. May be jealous of wife's attention to children or other relatives. May use temper tantrums to get his own way. Increase in intensity and frequency of behaviors over Type I.

Type III Misogynist:

Uses any of Type I and Type II behaviors plus the threat of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. More extreme in controlling social life, religious practices, finances, sexual interactions, and matters of daily living. Increase in intensity and frequency of behaviors over Types I and II.

Type IV Misogynist (Extreme):

Uses of any of Type I through type III behaviors plus physical and/or sexual abuse toward wife and possibly children. Level of intensity of abusive behavior is very high and poses a significant danger to the woman. Abusive style has become a deeply ingrained behavior. More extreme in controlling various areas of family life." page 22

Note: It took me probably 10 years of verbal/emotional abuse by a "true Christian" followed by reading probably 20 books on (feminist) theology to accept that there are committed "Christian" men who truly believe that they are given the moral right by God to "chastise" (read that "punish" ) any woman who comes into their path.

Return to Booknotes Menu


Thanks for visiting Sunshine for Women at http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html



e-mail sunshine@pinn.net
Sunshine for Women encourages you to support our feminist sisters by purchasing their books, reading them, disseminating the ideas they contain, but most especially, by making their book available to our sisters, our daughters, and the community at large by requesting your school library, your public library, and area bookstores to carry their books. Remember it is not enough to write literature, history, and theology, we must pass these works on to future generations. Help us to preserve these works for a new generation by putting them on library bookshelves.


last updated

Monday, January 25, 2010

Elizabeth Packard-Victim of a Christian Misogynist Husband


Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard (28 December 1816 – 25 July 1897) was an advocate for the rights of women and people accused of insanity.
(Click on the Title to read more)

[edit] Life
At the insistence of her parents, Elizabeth Parsons Ware married the Reverend Theophilus Packard on 21 May 1839. The couple had six children. The family resided in Kankakee County, Illinois and, for many years, appeared to have a peaceful marriage.

But Theophilus Packard held quite decisive religious beliefs. After many years of marriage, Elizabeth Packard outwardly questioned her husband's beliefs and began expressing opinions that were contrary to his. While the main subject of their dispute was religion, the couple also disagreed on child rearing, family finances, and the issue of slavery.

When Illinois opened its first hospital for the mentally ill in 1851, the State Legislature passed a law that required a public hearing before a person could be committed against their will. There was one exception, however; a husband could have his wife committed without either a public hearing or her consent. In 1860, Theophilus Packard judged that his wife was "slightly insane" and arranged for a doctor, J.W. Brown, to speak with her. The doctor pretended to be a sewing machine salesman. During their conversation, Elizabeth complained of her husband's domination and his accusations to others that she was insane. Dr Brown reported this conversation to Theophilus (along with the observation that Mrs Packard "exhibited a great dislike to me"). Theophilus decided to have Elizabeth committed. She learned of this decision on June 18, 1860, when the county sheriff arrived at the Packard home to take her into custody.

Elizabeth Packard spent the next three years at the Illinois State Hospital at Jacksonville, IL. She was regularly questioned by the doctors but refused to agree that she was insane or to change her religious views. In 1863, in part due to pressure from her children who wished her released, the doctors declared that she was incurable and discharged her.

Theophilus still believed that his wife was insane. When she was returned to the family home, he took her clothes away and had her boarded up inside her room. However, while the law allowed a husband to have his wife committed to an asylum, it was illegal for a husband to keep his wife locked up in her own home. Elizabeth was able to throw a letter out a window to a friend. A writ of habeas corpus was filed on her behalf.

[edit] Packard v. Packard
At the subsequent trial of Packard v. Packard[1], Theophilus' lawyers produced witnesses from his family who testified that Elizabeth had argued with her husband and tried to withdraw from his congregation. These witnesses concurred with the Reverend that this was a sign of insanity. The record from the Illinois State Hospital stating that Mrs Packard's condition was incurable was also entered into the court record.

Elizabeth's lawyers, Stephen Moore and John W. Orr, responded by calling witnesses from the neighbourhood that knew the Packards but were not members of the Reverend's church. These witnesses testified they never saw Elizabeth exhibit any signs of insanity, while discussing religion or otherwise. The final witness was Dr. Duncanson, who was both a physician and a theologian. Dr. Duncanson had interviewed Elizabeth Packard and he testified that while not necessarily in agreement with all her religious beliefs..."I do not call people insane because they differ with me. I pronounce her a sane woman and wish we had a nation of such women."

The jury took only seven minutes to find in Elizabeth Packard's favor. She was legally declared sane, and Judge Charles Starr issued an order that she should not be confined.

[edit] Life after the trail
Elizabeth did not return to her home. While the Packards never formally divorced, they remained separated for the rest of their lives. Elizabeth did stay close to her children and retained their support.

Elizabeth realized how narrow her legal victory had been. While she had escaped confinement, it was largely a measure of luck. The underlying social principles which had led to her confinement still existed. She founded the Anti-Insane Asylum Society and published several books, including Marital Power Exemplified, or Three Years Imprisonment for Religious Belief (1864), Great Disclosure of Spiritual Wickedness in High Places (1865), The Mystic Key or the Asylum Secret Unlocked (1866), and The Prisoners' Hidden Life, Or Insane Asylums Unveiled (1868).[2] In 1867, the State of Illinois passed a "Bill for the Protection of Personal Liberty" which guaranteed all people accused of insanity, including wives, had the right to a public hearing. She also saw similar laws passed in three other states.

[edit] References
^ http://www.enotes.com/american-court-cases/packard-v-packard
^ The prisoners' hidden life, or, Insane asylums unveiled: as demonstrated by the report of the Investigating committee of the legislature of Illinois, together with Mrs. Packard's coadjutors' testimony (1868), digitized copy on the Internet Archive site, contributed by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[edit] Literary uses
Barbara Hambly refers to Mrs. Packard in some detail in her novel on the insanity of Mary Todd Lincoln. Emily Mann wrote a play on Mrs Packard, which premiered in May 2007.

[edit] References



[edit] Further reading
Levison, Jennifer Rebecca (2003), "Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard: An Advocate for Cultural, Religious, and Legal Change", Alabama Law Review 54 (3), doi:10.2139/ssrn.406821, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=406821 .
Packard, Elizabeth,The Prisoners' Hidden Life Or Insane Asylums Unveiled (1868) Kessinger Publishing, LLC (February 21, 2008) ISBN 978-0548837412.
Packard, Elizabeth, Marital Power Exemplified in Mrs. Packard's Trial Fred B Rothman & Co (October 1994) ISBN 978-0837725529
Sapinsley, Barbara (1991), The Private War of Mrs. Packard, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pp. 220, ISBN 978-1557783301, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nQXbAAAAMAAJ&q
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Packard"
Categories: 1816 births | 1897 deaths | American women's rights activists | American memoirists | American non-fiction writers | History of mental health | People from Kankakee County, Illinois | American health activists
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August 2007 | All articles needing additional references

Saturday, January 23, 2010

How Can I Discern Whether I'm in a Healthy or Abusive Fellowship?



Abusive fellowships are often the most exciting Christian gatherings around -- filled with dedicated, committed, enthusiastic leaders and members. Do not let enthusiasm and sincerity be the basis for approval. More often than not, abusive fellowships cannot be recognized by mere outward appearance. By discrediting facts, the leaders of such gatherings control information. Leaders may deny these practices -- or marginalize them in some way. It is important to investigate any fellowship thoroughly.

Abusive fellowships often change the meaning of words. In these fellowships, "unity" commonly means agreement with the leaders opinions. Members are often told that they are "out of unity" when they disagree with the leaders' opinions. Healthy fellowships understand that true unity means that

There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called to one hope when you were called -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4)

Every healthy fellowship will have disagreements, and yet be in unity in the Biblical sense as brothers and sisters in Christ.

In healthy fellowships members commonly maintain friendships when friends leave the group. Abusive fellowships tend to view almost everyone who leaves as a backslider and they view most other Christians as not committed or saved. Healthy fellowships do not consistently tell derogatory stories about those who leave.

In healthy fellowships the leaders prove themselves to be trustworthy in order to be trusted. In abusive fellowships the leaders must be trusted because they are the leaders. To not trust them is to sin.

In healthy fellowships we are admonished to imitate the Christ-like virtues seen in others. In abusive fellowships the leaders are imitated in many more ways than just their virtues. In fact, members take on many of the personal characteristics (personality) of the leaders in a manner that appears unseemly. This is particularly true of those being groomed for "ministry."

In healthy fellowships commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to Apostolic teaching, is absolutely necessary. In abusive fellowships members must be equally committed to the group and to its practices and peculiar beliefs. Some even have members sign "covenant" documents, much like marriage vows.

In healthy fellowships we are exhorted to obey clear Biblical mandates. In abusive fellowships we are exhorted (or pressured) to obey the leaders' opinions --even when our conscience says "no."

In healthy fellowships the confession of sins and "bearing of one another's burdens" is a personal matter that takes place in the context of a larger "family" relationship with other Christians. In abusive fellowships sins are exposed by (or to) leaders and pressure is often applied to confess to the group.

In healthy fellowships secrecy and independence in personal matters -- before God -- are acceptable as long as sins are confessed in private. In abusive fellowships secrecy or independence in personal affairs are scorned, and all areas of life are to be exposed -- even those that do not touch moral issues.

In healthy fellowships we are encouraged to love and bless our enemies. In abusive fellowships showing hatred for our enemies and speaking defamatory of them is acceptable. And often the occasion for "rallying the troops."

Abusive leaders seldom practice this scripture:

...when ridiculed, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered we respond gently... (1 Cor 4:12, 13)

Matt. 18:15
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.

1 Timothy 5:19, 20
Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.



In healthy fellowships Matthew 18:15 applies to every member without distinction -- you are to go to your brother or sister alone -- while 1st Timothy 5:19-20 (a stricter standard) applies to leaders. In abusive fellowships Matthew 18:15 applies to leaders -- you are to deal with them alone -- instead of 1st Timothy 5:19-20. These latter verses are often ignored, thus preventing two or three from EVER bringing an accusation against a leader in error.

Non-abusive leaders rebuke members only for grave public sins, as a last resort (Matthew 18:17). Abusive leaders often publicly rebuke or ostracize members who simply disagree with leaders' opinions. Usually vis-à-vis sermon illustrations or applications, etc.

Non-abusive leaders do not encourage people to leave the fellowships because of differences of opinion. Abusive leaders often assume the right -- unilaterally -- to tell or encourage members who do not agree with leaders' opinions to leave the fellowship.

Non-abusive leaders do not view members as "lacking spiritually" simply because they do not participate in numerous fellowship activities. Abusive leaders view as "spiritually lacking" those who fail to attend most all their fellowship activities. Some even mandate the number of meetings members MUST attend.

Non-abusive leaders do not discourage members from reading information critical about the group. Abusive leaders often control negative information about the group by either discrediting it or by dissuading members not to read it.

Non-abusive leaders do not judge your hearts, but they leave that to God. Abusive leaders constantly judge hearts, motives, and intents. They basically assume -- rather, usurp -- the place of God.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note: This has been adapted from the pamphlet Discerning A Healthy Church, ©1998 Control Techniques, Inc. For more information, or to obtain a copy of the original, unedited version, they can be reached at:

Control Techniques, Inc.
P. O. Box 8021
Chattanooga, TN 37141-8021

Voice: 423.698.9343
Fax: 423.629.0082
e-mail: twistedscriptures@mindless.com

Join the support team to set captives free. Call 423.698.9343



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright © 2001-2004 Battered Sheep Ministry.
Permission is granted for non-commercial distribution provided this notice appears.
Contact us | Subscribe

Friday, January 22, 2010

Terry Hornbuckle-The Reverend Freak


The Terry Hornbuckle case should be a warning to both men and women of any church congregation that begins holding a pastor/mentor in such high regard that they begin listening to what he says, and not keeping an eye on what he does. Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits",ie;their character, nature, and what spiritual fruits they exhibit in their life and lifestyle.


Terry Hornbuckle's ostentatious lifestyle itself testified against him, that he and his wife were living lives of luxury at the expense of the flock who were encouraged to tithe dutifully into the Hornbuckle 'ministry', if one could call it that.


But there was more, that for quite some time escaped the adoring eyes of his flock. As often happens when power, money and adulation take over a leader, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Unfortunately, this sort of spiritual abuse is becoming altogether too frequent in some of today's churches.


In spite of Hornbuckle's conviction on rape charges, many of his adoring flock continue to support him on the basis that all should "forgive" him for what was his deliberate misuse of the gospel, the money that flowed into his lifestyle, and his rape and abuse of women in the church, not to mention his drug use. Forgiving may be one thing, but to continue to support such a ministry should be out of the question to any bible believing, obedient Christian.

Beware of such abuses, and beware of "pastor's" and ministries that live beyond their means, as well as pastors that make advances toward female members of the congregation. Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves". No matter how charming, or charismatic a church leader seems on the surface, pray and look deeper to discern whether that leaders life, and "fruits" line up with the Word of God.

~~~~~~~
Inside the Terry Hornbuckle case
Share By Andrea Grimes, Stephanie Morris
Published on September 21, 2006
Terry Hornbuckle, who calls himself "Bishop," was convicted of drugging and raping three women, two of them former members of his Arlington megachurch.

It was here--on Mayfield Road in Arlington--that two of Terry Hornbuckle's victims came to worship God and give their all to "Bishop."
Subject(s):
Bishop Terry Hornbuckle, Agape Christian FellowshipOn judgment day, the bishop's women have all come together in one exquisitely cold place: the 372nd District Court in Fort Worth, where a jury has just agreed on a sentence for the Reverend Terry Hornbuckle.

The 44-year-old pastor has been convicted of drugging and raping three women, two of them former members of his Arlington megachurch. And while a hyperactive air conditioner generates a frigid breeze in the courtroom, a capacity crowd awaits the jury's decision.

The bishop's women are arrayed in various places in state District Judge Scott Wisch's courtroom. There is the wife, Renee Hornbuckle, cocoa-skinned and immaculately finished in a brown pantsuit, who stares an empty stare at her husband, a man known to many of his congregants simply as Bishop.

The bishop wears a tailored suit with a thigh-length jacket, the sort he'd choose for any occasion in the spotlight. For 20 years, he sat beside his wife on a church stage, enthroned like a king with his queen. She was the delicate ornament on display, he was the dark-skinned, street-talking black preacher of humble southern Dallas origins whose charisma landed him in a world of money, minor celebrity and access to the occasional Dallas Cowboy.

To this world he later added the ingredients of sex--with scores of women, judging by the accounts of former church members--and drugs. Today it is about to come crashing down.

Renee sits literally at the bishop's right hand, two rows back. She brings a little purple pillow to cushion her on the wooden bench reserved for the defendant's family. She has sat in precisely the same spot every day through the five-week trial, expressionless behind mirrored glasses. In her hands is a small, green leather-bound Bible with an inscription in tiny gold italics: "Pastor Renee Hornbuckle." She makes no statements to the gathered media; all she's been heard to say is an occasional under-the-breath comment--"I'm gonna need some No-Doz to stay awake through this thing." Mirrored glasses and the Word: These are her shields against an outside world that desperately wants to know why she continues to stand by her man.

Beside her are her "armor-bearers." In black church tradition, these are the men and women who faithfully attend to a minister's personal needs. They include her bodyguard, a man who never takes out his Bluetooth earpiece, and two plus-sized fashion plates who've spent every day of this trial at her side.

Then there is the girlfriend. There is no guaranteed seat for her behind the bishop; she sits in the back row of the courtroom, with her own posse of fashion-conscious female friends standing by in support. With coffee-colored skin and a voluminous head of spiral curls, the girlfriend is not welcome on the family bench. She exchanges the occasional icy look with Renee.

Then there are the women Hornbuckle raped. The little red "Reserved" sign on the victims' bench doesn't specify who's supposed to sit there, but it is easy to see that Kate Jones--her pseudonym for this trial--sees not a man of God at the defense table, but a devil. The dishwater blonde, a former drug user, wears a plain, cream-colored sweater and carries a cheap purse. She stares intently at the back of Hornbuckle's head as if she is trying to force this man to bear her rage. She is the only one of the three rape victims at this trial who was not a member of Agape Christian Fellowship, Hornbuckle's church. The preacher picked her up at a gym in the Mid-Cities, smoked meth with her, drugged her and then raped her. Hornbuckle's defense attorney derided her as a "meth ho."

The defense can't come up with any such label for Krystal Buchanan, who never knew Hornbuckle as anything but her pastor. Sitting next to Kate Jones in a smart black jacket, Buchanan's mother, Loretta Sheppard, takes her daughter's place on the victims' bench while Krystal is away coaching a community college basketball team.

Hornbuckle lured Krystal to a Euless apartment in the summer of 2003 with the promise of a birthday present. He gave her $120. He also drugged and raped her. Before that night, she told the court, she was a virgin. Why did she accompany him in the first place? Her plaintive answer: "He was my bishop."

Last, there are current and former Agape parishioners, mostly women, both supporters and detractors of the bishop, who've scrambled for open seats every day in this courtroom.

The loyal wife, the sexy girlfriend, the meth user, the former virgin and the divided congregation were never meant to come together in one place. It is a surreal tableau on sentencing day in the Terry Hornbuckle case, August 28. Newspapers and television have covered each day of this seamy trial, though a significant chunk of the material presented to the jury is not fit to print in a family newspaper. What is missing from the blanket coverage is any sense of why: Why Bishop Terry Hornbuckle made this descent from man of God to meth-smoking rapist. Why many of his congregation members stood by him. Why his wife put up with him when his indiscretions were widely known within the church.
(To read more, click on title link)