Topic: Religion and Government
Christian Funamentalist Evangelism as Spiritual Rape Forget Scientology, What About the Baptist Next Door?by John Wingspread Howell
(libertarian)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Note: The overkill of columns about Scientology's abuses has prompted me to write, in this foum, an adaptation of what I have published in various forms and media in the past. Christian Fundamentalist Evangelicals are guilty of spiritual rape. Usually it is gang rape.
Why is it relevant to this site? If the ongoing Scientology debate is relevant to this site, so is this discussion becasue unlike Scientology, Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity is considered mainstream by most people, and its victims are more numerous by a factor of hundreds or thousands.
Second, these spiritual rapists continue to be active in United States politics and can be very moralistic and arrogant about their superior ability to discern right from wrong compared to secular society. They attempt to spread their politics the same way they attempt to spread their faith, forcefully, invasively.
In the book CHRISTIANITY, PATRIARCHY AND ABUSE (Pilgrim Press, 1989) Lutheran Theologian Elizabeth Bettenhausen wrote an essay citing an assignment she gave to one of her seminary classes. She asked them to write the story of the Crucifixion, as it might have happened, if Jesus had been a woman. She asked them not to collaborate at all on the assignment. The results were somewhat expected but still shocking to her in their uniformity, given the lack of collaboration. Every student-- to a person-- turned in a rape story. In other words, in their perception, if Jesus had been a woman, instead of being nailed to the cross, she would have been raped.Reading that article back in 1990 when I was still employed as a theologian, made me think about my own experience. It rather quickly compelled me to leave the Church and change careers.
I reacted the way I did because it helped me realize that in the name of the crucified Christ, spiritual rape occurs all the time, perpetrated primarily by Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelical Christians.
So what is spiritual rape and how are the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians guilty of it? To answer that question, lets review the definition of rape in general.
Spiritual: A combination of psycho-emotional experience of life, of the world, and philosophical perspective on life, the world, the universe, that encompases a whole of reality that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is a an individual person's and/or a collective community's experience of the metapysical, of things that defy explanation or tangible proof. It is a person's choice of a viewpoint and/or a discipline, tradition, ritual, belief or body of beliefs and/or code of behavior related to beliefs, or choice not to do so.
Rape: Unwelcome intimate contact, normally invasive and involving penetration-- an act of violence, conquest, for the gratification of the perpetrator with little or no regard for the rights, boundaries or wellbeing of the victim.
Now lets look at what I call predatory evangelism, which is the modus operandi of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. This is frequently and typically performed by laypeople on friends, neighbors, family, coworkers, acquaintances, and strangers they may encounter randomly or by intentional outreach.
Predatory Evangelism: Unwelcome spiritual contact, normally invasive and involving penetration-- an act of violence, conquest, for the gratification of the perpetrator with little or no regard for the rights or boundaries of the victim.
"Penetration" in the context of spiritual rape: Forced entry to one's soul, unwelcome insertion of one's beliefs practices and conversion rituals into one's private thoughts, feelings, sensitivity, sensibilities, forced emotional, religious intimacy.
What is the difference between the definition of rape and predatory evangelism? The last point. Whether or not the perpetrator has any concern for the wellbeing of the victim. I will not argue that the perpetrator has NO regard for the wellbeing of the victim. The perpetrator has convinced him or herself that the whole point is to "save" the victim from hell. I venture, however that it is unlikely the perpetrator would go to these lenghts unless the primary subconscious motivator was self-gratification. More on this later.
First, lets see what an actual spiritual rape looks like. The two primary forms are gang rape and date rape.
SPIRITUAL GANG RAPE (Evangelistic Meetings): This takes place in churches, or in revival meetings and crusades that are held in larger public venues. In this case the role of the accomplice is to bring someone who is vulnerable or curious with them to an evangelistic meeting. The rape occurs much like scenes of gang rape in the movies. The crowd serves to hold the victim down, keep him or her from moving or leaving, while the evangelist unfastens his spiritual belt and inserts Jesus forcefully into the soul.
The language of evangelistic music and preaching is extremely similar to language associated with sexual rape. Things such as "put your all on the altar," "let Jesus have his way with you," "open up and let him in," "let Jesus come into your heart," "die to self, rise with Christ."
And how does the evangelist often break the victim down to submit? By breaking down self-confidence, self-esteem, a sense of one's ability to know what is right intuitively and trust one's own instincts. Common preaching on this matter will tell you that the inner voice you hear that you may think is your own instinct, your own intuition, your own unconscious self-knowledge is the Devil in you trying to deceive you. The preacher will tell you not to trust the whisperings in your own head or heart. Trust the preacher, the Word of God as the preacher interprets.
The preacher, and his weapon the Bible, tells the victim s/he is a sinner, unable to avaoid the fires of hell by trying to be a good person. You could die tonight. Would you go to heaven or hell? There's only one way to avoid the fire of hell, one way to find salvation-- you MUST let Jesus have his way with you. Do it now, before it's too late.
So the preacher pounds away at one's self-esteem, one's confidence, one's worldview, to create doubt, one's sense of spiritual wellbeing to create the fear of premature death, or death before surrendering to Jesus. The preacher pounds on those themes. You are unworthy. You are a sinner. You were born that way. You can't save yourself just by being a good person, just by belonging to a church or being baptised. If you havne't let Jesus have his way with you, come into your soul, nothing else counts. You are lost.
The accomplices in the crowd lay their hands on the victim and begin to push hard on the head, bowing the neck forcefully, pray loudly, using the victim's name. They coax the victim to relax the life and death grasp of the back of the pew, peel the fingers away, step into the aisle, walk down to the "altar" and kneel there, ready to let Jesus come into their heart and soul. When the victim finally submits, spiritual orgasm for the rapists occurs. (Spiritual orgasm defined below)
SPIRITUAL DATE RAPE (One on one evangelism or "Witnessing"): Essentially what I call spiritual date rape is simply a less violent more subtle version of the above, in the same way that the sexual version of date rape is less violent and more subtle than the sexual version of gang rape. Sexual rape, however, there are more similiarities than differences.
First, the similarities. The spiritual date-rapist uses the same basic script the same basic language of the preacher or professional evangelist to break down on'e sense of confidence, wellbeing, and ability to trust one's own instincts. The same sense of urgency is created. (Don't wait, it could be too late.)
The differences are in the kinder, gentler, more subtle approach. For Christians who are "witnessing" to alleged non-Christians or "unsaved" persons one on one, the strategy is to befriend, break down social and emotional defenses, then strike. When the victim is least expecting it, ask them if they know Jesus as their personal savior. The victim doesn't see what's coming until the (spiritual) clothing starts coming off. The victim may be somewhat intrigued, may be willing to ride this ride for a while, may be willing to engage in a spiritual conversation for a while, may likely be at least considering the possibility of doing what is requested, but at some point the perpetrator begins pressing harder and the victim starts to push back. But now, it's too late. The "witnessing" "friend" has already become fully aroused. Gratification must be achieved. No turning back. There is no taking "no" for an answer. At some point the victim breaks down, decides to just yield to get it over with and get the perpetrator to leave.
Now, what is the gratification of a spiritual rapist? FIrst, the leaders of the Fundamentalist Evangelical community preach that God holds each "Christian" repsonsible for the salvation of anyone they enounter in this life. They can be held accountable on the Judgment Day for failing to move heaven and earth in an attempt to save every soul that crosses their path.I do not believe that is the true subconscious motivation. I believe that makes a great pretext for more cynical motivations.
I submit tha the primary motivation is the gratification of emotional ecstasy-- a spiritual orgasm. Anyone who has been a part of this movement is aware of the amount of physical touching and catharsis that occurs when "one lost sinner comes home." It is a well know fact that more babies were conceived out of wedlock under the platforms of the old Tent (Revival) Meetings during the Great Awakening in the late 19th Century than in the "lover's lanes" of the same place and time.
I was a victim of this myself. And after I was a victim, I was a clergyperson, theologian, and eventually a psychotherapist who treated it. Spiritual rape is a real form of abuse, as horrific, traumatic and devastating as any other form of rape. Its victims suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as if they had been gang-raped physically at an early age. They suffer the same psychological damage, develop the same pathology, and are prone to the same methods of "self-medication" and "addiction" to treat their wounds, to cope with life, as those who have experienced literal rape.
Often there is a very close correlation between sexual abuse and spiritual abuse in the sense that victims of spiritual abuse are as likely to become sex-addicts or sexual offenders as victims of sexual abuse because there is such a close connection in the psyche between the soul and the genitals. The soul is one's spiritual genitals. Genitals are the physical receptors of the spiritual. And what about Holy Communion. As you eat this bread and drink this blood are you not simulating sexual intercourse? (And before you start screaming, I'm now a devout Catholic but we have to face facts-- why is there so much sexual abuse in the Church?)
Think about the point just made. Think about the Catholic clergy scandals, think about Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and many more. The wiring of the soul is the wiring of the sensual. They run on the same circuit. There is a reason for that. It is our ability to experience sexuality at a form beyond mere biology that makes us human, and that makes us spiritual beings, capable of reaching out to God and communing with God. But like sexuality, spirituality is extremely personal, private, and must be absolutely voluntary, consenting, or whatever happens is a gross distortion of the way God intended it. The irony is that the more predatory and evangelistic Christians become, the more they distort, mock and violate the faith they claim to posses.
When this is applied to politics similar results occur. Just as faith must be voluntary, so must one's political beliefs, affiliations and activity. And in that absolute voluntary, personal decision about what to believe, how to act, how to engage in the pursuit of life, and happiness is the triple strand hard-wiring of one's inner self: the spiritual, the sexual and the political.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Wingspread Howell only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Wingspread Howell is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Errrrr ... What do you mean by "spiritual", exactly? Unfortunately the article uses the term many times in ways that parallel physical universe actions and objects, but your meaning remains ethereal. For example: "Unwelcome spiritual contact" -- might mean an unwelcome but physically enforced emotional closeness. While your fuller sentence:
"Unwelcome spiritual contact, normally invasive and involving penetration" suggests a sexual act beyond simple physical closeness.
Do you use "spiritual" to mean "mental as divorced from physical but including emotion", or do mean something else entirely? My confusion arises as you combine spiritual "acts" with physical acts. Are you saying that any attention, discussion or article about spirituality is akin to practicing voodoo, that we can not discuss the subject without vicimizing someone, some distant someone?
Fromthe author: I revised the article to address the confusion expressed in the comment above. If anyone is still confused, please leave a comment with additional questions to be clarified. Thanks.
I'm still confused as to how two wrongs would make a right. Lying is a dogmatic part of Scientology, part of their beliefs, pedophilia is not a dogmatic part of Catholicism, apples and oranges, maybe you
More from the author. The second commenter doesn't get the point. I'm not saying there is a direct correlation to Scientology. I'm saying this type of abuse is more widespread than Scientology and for the most part is not recognized as occurring, except by a very few in the mental health community who have been treating the results.
I am also not primarily addressing the abuses in the Catholic Church. I am discussing abuses in Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelical circles, most commonly experienced by some Baptists, Holiness Churches (Nazarene, Free Methodist, Wesleyan), Pentecostals, and Independent "Bible" Churches. I used the example of the Catholic mess to illustrate that our emotional and sensual wiring is run on the same circuit as our spiritual wiring so that not only does sexuality and sexual rape provide a good metaphor for the kind of abuse perpetrated by these religious groups, but it also affects the same biological circuitry.
Okay, can I get you to admit the fact that lying to people is part of Scientology's dogma, but pedophilia in Catholicism or tv evangelist chicanery in Protestentism are not dogmatic parts of those forms of Christiantity? They are institutional abuses.
Ok. I get it. Yes, Scientology practices and promotes lying. It is part of their dogma. The abuses I cite are not based on lies, but on abuses of the truth. I'm not sure one is worse than the other. I would also emphasize that even if Scientology practiced ritual human sacrifice and ate their victims, the scope social impact of their abuses is no where near those of the established Chrsitian denominations.
That doesn't make the abuse any one suffers from Scientology less. It doesn't make those who have died as a result of Scientology and less dead. I am simply saying that while we're at it, we might as well cite even more pervasive abuses of more mainstream organizations.
Intentional lying by a church is aggregious. So is intentional lying by politicians. You may not find it written in the Republican or Democrats' playbook but you know they do this all the time.
Posted By: General Public AYS
Date: 2008-09-15 00:55:10
"Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity is considered mainstream by most people, and its victims are more numerous by a factor of hundreds or thousands."
Only the second part of this statement is correct. In the first part I'd replace 'mainstream' with 'tolerated'. One could also say: these people are allowed to get away with it. But this strain of faith, though loud, has not swayed the majority. Our systems and institutions work well enough without it.
However, it is especially shocking that 'predatory evangelism' is ignored, that is: left to the crazy. This is to also ignore the victims or to suggest they are not our responsibility.
"..the overkill of columns about Scientology's abuses has prompted me to write..."
You appear to have your own agenda which you are fighting a space for. Someone might say: "Forget the Christian Fundamentalists - what about the faiths of the suicide bombers?" There is no overkill. We are fighting the same shit. Scientology may be considered a special case because of the money it pours into stopping legitimate critisism. One of it's written policies includes the incitement to murder: the 'Fair Game' policy. To accomplish it's aggressive ambition to 'clear the planet' it attempts to infiltrate the governments of the world. This is a clear and verifiable fact because critics and opponents have the written orders of Hubbard and Miscavige before them.
Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians create untold damage to be sure, but they do not have a stronger political ambition than scientology: the replacement of democratic institutions by totalitarian ones, nor the desire to back this ambition up with all their wealth. Perhaps too, the black magic origins of scientology cause a particlar feeling of disgust is us. However the leaders of both fundamentalist Christian groups and scientologists share the same motivations: the desire for power over their respective adherents for their own fame and gain. All examples must be resisted.
And now we have a potential vice president with evangelical credentials able to act as a conduit for the fundamentalists.
It has been reported that Palin would like to have creationist views taught together with the information science has given us about the beginning of the world. This she calls a balanced approach!
The comedian Lewis Black said that Christians always misinterpret the old testament "....but it's not their fault -it's not their book. If you want to understand it - ask a Jew."
This sounds to me like a good idea. Fundi's have gone off the rails with ridiculous assumptions about what the Bible means. They have the cheek to use and interprete whatever they want the way they want it. But their needs are suspicious ones. And I doubt very much if they have anything in common with the historical Jesus, who seemed a decent, compassionate fellow.
One of the difficulties of combatting the fundamentalists is that we don't know enough about theology; how it develops in time, how it is influenced by differing circumstances. Their arguments on creation can be discredited by science. Their interpretations can be knocked down by studying the form, style and theology within the books of the Bible.
Unfortunately that sounds like hard work. It's understandable that we skip thinking a bit. The other bunch headed by Hubbard have a much easier form, style and 'theology' to understand. The numorous writings of Hubbard help us to form an idea of his character. This study helps us to see the motivations behind his scribble.
Not long dead, there are contempories of his we can share our thoughts about him with -and video and audio recordings to see his sociopathic character. In the end we have no problem with him. He was evil, and the structure he built has his evil intentions.
This makes it far easier to fight against than other groups. Maybe this is also a reason why the Baptists don't have monthly demonstrations against them.
It seems unfortunate to me that commenters have mis-commented on this article. The article was written with some care and rewritten for clarity, and isn't about Scientology. It hardly mentions Scientology except to note current debate and note that Scientology is not "mainstream". While that might be contested, it is not a major point in the article.
Bob Dobbs used his opportunity to comment, to bring up another subject entirely. That prompted John Howell to state his opinion, about the subject Dobbs brought up, although neither opinion has foundation or documentation. Then General Public AYS likewise commented untrue opinion in the same area. It is offensive, those opinions are untrue This sort of rumor-mongering gave rise to anonymous.
Posted By: General Public AYS
Date: 2008-09-17 03:06:22
Which opinion was untrue terryeo? It is no mistake that you are here, and if you are here I will be too. Answer the question.
Louanne writes:"Lying is not part of any Scientology doctrine or dogma. Please give "evidence" or apologize."
First there is the TR level with the basic training to lie. Then there is the most famous 'Fair Game' doctrine. To those who are not familiar with it;
....ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
Just in case you dare waste our time with saying this was cancelled here's another bit:
HCOPL 21 Oct 68 Cancellation of Fair Game
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
This cannot be read in any other way than straight. It is completely consistant with Hubbards other sociopathic scribblings. It is one of the most important doctrines of your so called 'church' and you perpetuate it's criminal intentions by lying to us that it does not exist. If you want an apology you should get one from Miscavige who had the chance once Hubbard was dead to remove this doctrine altogether. He didn't, he continues to use it and this along with 'disconnection' and other abuses will bring your organisation to it's knees.
My thanks to TerryEo for that very nice comment on the care and thought that went into the article and my attempts to clarify questons that arose from it. He is also correct that I simply referenced the high volume and seemingly endless flow of commentary on scientology, which had a tangential effect on me that inspired my posting of my own axe to grind re religious abuse.
It is not my intent to get into a "which victim is most wounded" pissing match with victims of scientology, nor is it my desire to carelessly repeat assertions that opponents of scientology state in reference to my article and have them attributed back to me. To be honest I don't know enough about Scientology to have a strong opinion, and in my many years of treating victims of religous abuse, never encountered one (although I have seen a few veterans of EST-- now renamed as the Landmark Forum) so I have no dog in that fight whatsoever.
Therefore let me be clear that I was not agreeing with the statement that lying is institutional with Scientology. I was simply acknowledging the other writer's assertion that it is and saying, ok, if that is true, if you believe that to be true, for sake of argument I will yield on that point and then tell you what I'm trying to say about something very different.
Okay, everyone!
What I'd really like is to hear from someone who has had the experience of spiritual rape at the hands of Baptists or Nazarenes or Pentecostals. Anybody out there?
Also, if anyone wants to communicate with me directly, go to www.libertarianplace.com and use the contact us link to go straight to my email. Thanks.
I am suprised that the concept of "love bombing" did not come up. There was a lot of info a while ago by Rick Ross who is/was a professional deprogrammer from all types of socioeconomic or philosophical/faith organizations.
One aspect you might have pursued is the idea of "Getting Saved" over and over again because you changed churches and now they want to baptize you and call you their own in membership and tithe. Sometimes it is less forcefully called "recommitting your life to Christ"
But I thought that once I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and asked Him into my life, as the scripture teaches, that I was saved, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. At that point, I am a member, if you will, of the Body of Christ, ie The Church (as opposed to whatever building I just walked into) and this was accomplished for all time, because Jesus is fully God, stands athwart time and space, and has died for all my sins, past, present, and future. He is risen, for we do not worship a dead prophet. If not, how many times must He die again to pay for my future sins?
It is because I believe I am in the Body (Corpus Christi) that I have not felt the need to get re-baptized in different churches, take membership classes, etc.
Where I really feel raped in some ways is when I hear George Bush or Barack Obama coming out of the mouth of my local pastor- or when I see political registrations in foyers, or when I hear pro-war teachings, or that Romans 13 means we must all bend over and take it wirh or without vasoline from our government- because the Bible supposedly says so- I disagree. Thank you Lawrence Vance for clarity on this and also Anti-war.com, LewRockwell.com
My issue right now though- is finding a church that is not steeped in psychology. It seems to pass in modern evangelicalism that the pastor is just a counselor with a 12 step program just waiting to heal your codependence with the latest christian book from Larry Crabb.
If I want counseling I will pay for the hour and go see one. When I go to church I expect or wish to encounter sound Biblical teaching as faithful to the original manuscripts as I can get.
Does anyone else know what I am talking about.
By the way, thanks for the article. The words are provacative and strong, but maybe we just need to wake up from what is passing for christianity today and re-discover what Jesus taught, the way He taught it.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
