Spiritual abuse

[ladyinred]

I personally don't like euphemisms to describe what characterizes the radical right: I tend to call a spade what it is ,a spade. An article on spiritual abuse and what characterizes people who are spiritually abusive and their views and tactics and of course how they treat others.

http://www.watchman.org/profile/abusepro.htm

[ladyinred]

Jesus was often referred to as the shepard. He did not mislead people nor did he misuse them, nor was he a blind guide or leader.

[ladyinred]

Referring to above article:Jesus was often referred to as the sheperd. He did not mislead people nor did he misuse them, nor was he a blind guide or leader. He referred to the religious leaders of his day as blind guides leading the blind.Those who tended to" look at the mote in his brother's eye while not perceiving the beam in their own."

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus advocated violence and hatred and the mistreatment of people. You won't find any.

[scott snedeker]

Referring to above article:Jesus was often referred to as the sheperd. He did not mislead people nor did he misuse them, nor was he a blind guide or leader. He referred to the religious leaders of his day as blind guides leading the blind.Those who tended to" look at the mote in his brother's eye while not perceiving the beam in their own."

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus advocated violence and hatred and the mistreatment of people. You won't find any.

simplicity, simplicity, simplicity

[ladyinred]

I hope that is a compliment Scott,LOL:D A quote from the Course in miracles. "Simplicity is something difficult for the confused mind to understand." LOL My ex puts it another way.Keep it simple ,stupid..Not that I would quite phrase things her way though.

[pnggrad79]

Ya'll are all right, Jesus never once advocated hatred of certain groups of people-He embraced them and ate with them, offered them living water, and died for them. We have spent the 2000 years or so, making Jesus into our own creation, assigning him our prejudices and fears and recreating this gentle man, God incarnate, into an ugly representation of our imperfect state. I wish we could really just cut through all the bull *&$! and see who Jesus really is and was, and what He can be for us today.

[Diane Vera]

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus advocated violence and hatred and the mistreatment of people. You won't find any.

Actually there are a few New Testament verses that can easily be construed that way:

First, Matthew 10:34-35

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Second, Matthew 15:22-28

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

In the above passage, it seems to me that Jesus implicitly calls the woman a "dog" due to her ethnic background, but then she convinces him to be more accepting.

I'll leave it to the Christians here to discuss how they think those verses should be properly interpeted.

[TigerXero]

In the above passage, it seems to me that Jesus implicitly calls the woman a "dog" due to her ethnic background, but then she convinces him to be more accepting.

I'll leave it to the Christians here to discuss how they think those verses should be properly interpeted.

This analysis, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html, should answer that questions.

[u-dog]

You need to look at that story in its larger context. before the story of the Canaanite Woman Isthe story of Jesus feeding the Five Thousand. He does that miracle in Judea, a predominantly Jewish area. The number "5" is a number with strong connections to judaism (the 5 books of Moses)

Immediately following the story of the Canaanite woman is the account of the feeding of the 4 thousand in Gallilee a predominantly Gentile region. the number "4" has numerological associations with the "whole world" the four winds, the four corners of the world, the four horsemen of the appocalypse.

So in this larger context Jesus goes from feeding Jews to feeding "the nations" and the lynch pin, the place where the story turns... is Jesus' encounter with the Canaanite woman. He reacts to her request to be "fed" by suggesting that what he has is for the children, not for everyone else. She very humbly but very assertively turns Jesus argument in such a way that he is able to see his mission much more fully than before. He affirms her for her faith (and insight) and grants her request. Then heads off to a situation where he feeds "the nations". This is the moment when it becomes clear to Jesus that his mission is NOT just to his own people, but to ALL people.

I believe that this is an account of how God uses a human being to shape Jesus' understanding of who he is and what he has come to do. I know that some people will have a problem with the idea that Jesus doesn't know everything about himself from day one, but Luke tells us that Jesus "grew in wisdom" and if he is truly a human being as orthodoxy teaches then it is impossible for him to contain ALL divine knowledge in his human head regardless of the fact that he IS divine. The perfection in Jesus lies not in his perfect knowledge, but rather in his perfect obedience to God. In this story that perfection is amply displayed.

[ladyinred]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

I have problems with that particular verse Diane, because it contradicts what Jesus said when he told his disciples , my peace I give unto you ,not as the world giveth..I can't see Jesus as literally trying to create a war within a family.I'd also like to add what Jesus said in the beatitudes, blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God. I would like to point out that the bible has been through numerous translations throughout the centuries and I can't personally explain that particular verse to you. I don't have an answer for it. Some biblical verses to me seem confusing and baffling... and even contradictory in ways. Maybe others here have insights on this I personally do not.

[u-dog]

Jesus is talking about a metaphorical sword. A sword that doesn't necessarily stab but rather "slices" cuts in two, divides. light from dark. truth from falsehood, right from wrong, good from bad.

Gandhi used non-violent methods but he brought the same kind of sword that jesus is talking about. when he was finished the world was utterly changed. India was a sovereign nation. the British were gone. the world was turned on its head. many people were happy about that but many were pissed as hell.

MLKjr. same thing.

The freedom riders in the Civil Rights movement ofthe 60's --same thing

Our own equality riders right now... same thing

Non-violent methods but they are turning the world upside down and inside out. Young people on those campuses are seeing the world differently than before. it is turned upside down and inside out. Non-violent as the tools they are using may be ... the resulting change is "violent" for the people involved (violent in the sense that a thunderstorm is violent).

Does that help?

dave

[kara speltz]

This analysis, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html, should answer that questions.

Oh I used to get so angry when I would hear that particular passage. Then I was in a group of Catholic Lesbians and we took a really different look at that passage. For we came to understand that the woman was teaching Jesus at that moment. She was helping him understand that he was limiting his understanding of his role. Now I really get a positive response to this reading. kara

[andrewlittle]

This analysis, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html, should answer that questions.

Anytime the differences in the gospels are ignored, the results do not tend to be good or authentic. That is how I see the attempt in the link provided above.

Rather, this story in Matthew is to be understand on its own merits, as part of the message the author was conveying. There are a number of things that strike me about this passage.

I can certainly accept that Jesus realized his ministry was now broader than he had understood it before, except for the issue of the Roman centurion in Matthew 8. We can only guess, but we really don't know whether the slave/child/lover of the centurion was Jewish or not. Jesus, however, responded to the concern of the Roman - a non-Jew - and praised his faith.

Looking deeper is the only answer.

This story first appeared in Mark, but Matthew added a few details to it. We don’t know that Matthew made things up. Mark had a habit of giving just the barest details, in the first place, so Matthew’s may be the fuller version.
Let’s look at the details.

Who is this woman? Matthew puts it right up front - she’s a Canaanite. Well, what’s a Canaanite? Canaanites were the original inhabitants of the Promised Land given to the descendents of Abraham. If you remember your Old Testament a little bit, you’ll recall that the Israelites didn’t actually ever possess the land. That was blamed on the Canaanites.

To cut the story short, the Israelites repeatedly worshipped Baal - a Canaanite God. God got a little upset and had foreign armies occupy Israel - Canaanite armies. Eventually, the Israelites got God so upset that their leaders and wealthy people were exiled to Babylon. The poor people stayed and lived among, guess who - you got it, the Canaanites. Some of the Israelites intermarried with the Canaanites and became, in the eyes of the righteous, exiled Jews, contaminated. You remember those people - they were called Samaritans because they settled in the northern part of Israel - Samaria. Jesus used Samaritan characters as heroes and heroines once in a while to get the Jews attention. He kind of rubbed salt in the wound a little when he wanted to teach about righteousness.

Anyway, the Canaanites were used as scapegoats for the Israelites never possessing the land - even though the Israelites were the ones that got God mad and were the ones God punished. I guess they didn’t want to take responsibility for their own actions. Sound familiar?

So what we have a deeply ingrained bias against Canaanites. An irrational bias, yes. But it was a part of the culture, anyway.

So what’s this got to do with Jesus?
Well, if you remember the Nicaean Creed we say periodically - we say that Jesus was fully God and FULLY HUMAN. What does that mean - fully human?
Well, it means that Jesus was tempted in the desert and in life just like humans can be tempted. He overcame those temptations, but he was tempted. It also means that Jesus grew up in Jewish culture and learned Jewish things. I’m guessing that meant he learned pretty standard Jewish biases and prejudices, as well. It was part of Jewish history. He was, after all, fully human and learned this stuff from humans.

It’s the same kind of bias that we picked as we grew up, isn’t it? I mean in this country, first we had the English. When the other Europeans came the English didn’t trust them and developed attitudes about them - usually attitudes that had no basis in fact. People moved west to get away from the prejudice and to be with people like them. In Minnesota, isn’t that why we have so many people of German, Swedish and Norwegian descent?

Now we have new populations coming. Instead of 2/3 European immigrants like in 1900, we have 40% Asian, 24% Hispanic and 13% African. And many people don’t like it. So we have attitudes that have developed about people who are different than us. It’s all very common. It’s all very human. But, it is learned cultural bias.

So I am saying that Jesus initial reaction to this Canaanite woman was based on this same kind of learned, cultural bias against a different - and despised - ethnic group. Now, maybe it’s time for the lightning strike. Well, okay so far. The exchange between the woman and Jesus shows the extent to which that bias was ingrained in the Jesus who was also fully human.
Jesus called her a dog. He said she wasn’t deserving of bread - Matthew’s common term that equates to God’s grace.

And what did the woman do? She said, “Hogwash.” She staked her claim to be a CHILD of GOD. And she said that, even if Jesus thought she was a dog, she was due scraps of bread from the master’s table.

Now, remember, Matthew is writing this Gospel and Matthew uses symbolism a lot. There is imagery here that isn’t readily apparent. Think about scraps of bread and the master’s table. Does an image come to mind? What? How about the communion table? For the community that Matthew wrote the Gospel forty or fifty years after Jesus’ death, the Lord’s Supper was incredibly important - it was part of every gathering. Makes us look decidedly unrighteous doesn’t it? Once a month compared to every service. Oh, well - that’s a different post. The original people reading Matthew would have picked up the imagery instantly - the woman was staking a claim to her place at the communion table with Jesus.

And then Jesus responds, “O Woman, great is your faith!”
He then adds, “Your will be done.” “Your will be done.” That should sound familiar - it’s in the Lord’s Prayer and it’s the only other place in Matthew these words show up. It’s so unusual that even the translators of the Bible changed it to sound different in English. They said, “Let it be done for you as you wish.” But the words used say, “Your will be done.” Remember that, it’s important. “YOUR WILL BE DONE”. It’s taking about God and God’s will for us on earth. “Your will be done.”

So who is Jesus talking to here - the woman or God? Is Jesus saying, “Let it be done for you as you wish.” to the woman. Or has Jesus become aware of his own institutionalized bias and, acknowledging this, saying to God “Your will be done.”

Because Matthew shows a preoccupation with righteousness throughout the Gospel, and understood it in the original Hebrew and Greek sense of “being in right relationship”, “doing justice” and “having mercy”, I think Matthew was using the righteous actions of Jesus to teach his readers a lesson - a very important lesson. In this passage of Matthew, Jesus comes face to face with his own ingrained prejudice and does the righteous thing. He examines it, and when faced with the obvious truth of its invalidity, he relents. He acknowledges to God, and to this woman, that it is not God’s will. Jesus recognizes the woman’s humanity - her being made in the image of God - her equally deserving the grace of God and a presence at the table - and overcame his bias.

Racism, sexism and other biases are ingrained in us - they are part of our heritage and tradition. But that doesn’t make them right. It doesn’t mean there’s a legitimate reason for carrying them into future generations. They need to be examined, when they come up, for what they are - the debris, the rubbish of our cultural upbringing. They need, then, to be set aside as unrighteous, ungodly, thoughts. The sin of prejudice is when it affects our actions, our policies, and our behavior.

Matthew taught his community about overcoming these biases, and turning towards right relations with people who are different than themselves, embracing them in love and inviting them to the communion table.

Can Matthew still teach this lesson to our community? I hope so. Especially if we continue to pray to God, that “your will be done.”

[Daniel]

Andy- Too bad we can't hear JC's tone of voice. That would tell us a lot, would it not? Just like here, it is easy to be misunderstood. And we're writing our own stuff, someone isn't remembering and reporting what we say - as if in a conversation- years later! :lol:

You made me think about the difference in meaning which is indicated clearly by tone of voice.

"You are a dog" could mean "I think you are a dog" or "I know people think you are a dog". The latter would might give the story a different nuance. That said, we only have the verses we have.

Hey...I'm not a bible scholar, and defer to your excellent thoughts. I'm just ruminating on the process one goes through to find meaning.

[andrewlittle]

Too bad we can't hear JC's tone of voice. That would tell us a lot, would it not? Just like here, it is easy to be misunderstood. And we're writing our own stuff, someone isn't remembering and reporting what we say - as if in a conversation- years later! :lol:

You made me think about the difference in meaning which is indicated clearly by tone of voice.

"You are a dog" could mean "I think you are a dog" or "I know people think you are a dog". The latter would might give the story a different nuance. That said, we only have the verses we have.

Hey...I'm not a bible scholar, and defer to your excellent thoughts. I'm just ruminating on the process one goes through to find meaning.

What you point out, Daniel, is so very true. The words on a page are so single dimensional, with much of their meanings by inference and context.

One thing I believe firmly is that we are all interpretors as we read scripture. Some interpretations can be refuted easily, but many cannot and should not be dismissed. The life of the Bible, in my mind, is demonstrated in how it becomes alive again in the mind of the reader - speaking over thousands of years.

Who is the one to say that any one meaning is the one intended by God, or even the original author(s) for that matter.