My kids and I recently rediscovered the old Disney classic movie Hook. The movie begins with the middle-aged workaholic Peter Pan who is so deeply preoccupied with his all-consuming legal work that he has virtually no time or energy left to invest in his relationships with his wife and children. He spends the entirety of his daughter’s school play distracted by a call from work. He misses every one of his son’s baseball games. He’s never around to offer encouragement or guidance, let alone good, old-fashioned fun.
I am a 75 year old grandmother of ten. While I have not "deconstructed" my faith, living and losing and loving has caused me to evaluate some of the things I have been taught (like emotions,.....can't trust them. and other confusing things that didn't work in the crucible of life.) I read a lot and am tired of seeing yet another person get "brave and talk about hard things - one recently said she had deconstructed and now is a "spiritual independent." whatever that is. Most of the time I end up feeling "old," which of course I am, but along with that comes the feeling that I would be likely viewed as hopelessly out of touch with those I read. So finding you and reading your writing is refreshing. Don't even know where I found you or how i stumbled on you, but I appreciate much of what I read here. I've been meaning to tell you this and it seemed as good a time as any.
Hi Kaeley, I agree with your assessment and critique of Rachel Held Evans. But i don’t agree with some other things you said in this post.
I will submit another comment when I’m on my laptop not my phone. My second comment will explain where I disagree with you, and why.
I just wanted to do this initial reply to your article because I want to thank you for raising the topic of how advocates can often go off the rails and lead their followers into dangerous waters. It’s an important topic, that needs to be raised, and few are willing to do it.
Kayley you named four women who have been advocating against abuse and exposing abuse in the church — Julie Roys, Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rachael Denhollander and Aimee Byrd.
Let me offer you my observations about three of those women. (I have talked about Sheila in a different comment).
JULIE ROYS
I think that Julie Roys is doing great work. I think she and her team are doing excellent journalism, They cite their sources. Before they publish an article they invite comment from the abusers, their allies and henchmen who they are exposing.This is proper journalistic practise. And if the abusers and their allies give no comment, Julie tells her readers that.
However, I am hoping that one day Julie Roys will expose the more egregious evils in the church — ritual abuse, satanist ritual abuse, Freemasons in high positions, trauma-based mind control, and the prominent leaders in churches who have been complicit with or perpetrating those abominable sins. As yet, to my knowledge, Julie Roys has not touched on those things. I have given Julie info about those things but she has not acknowledged my attempts to inform her. I don't necessarily infer that she is stone-walling me on this. I think it's more likely that she is just overloaded with the stuff she is already addressing. So I pray for her.
AIMEE BYRD
I think Aimee Byrd's work has been valuable. I know she has made good contributions to the discourse about abuse in the church. However, I don't think she shows much evidence of understanding the extreme trauma that Christian victims of domestic abuse suffer. And she does not prioritise those victims. She focuses on the dangers of complementarianism, but that focus can all too easily end up only landing on the question of whether women can lead in churches. Whether women lead or do not lead in churches, domestic abusers still get away with perpetrating their abuse. Proponents of egalitarianism are often unable to discern the men who are using coercive control to predate on and abuse their female intimate partners. I've seen this time after time.
In my view, Aimee, like most other advocates, is yet to " remember the poor". The poor are the afflicted, the ones who have suffered the most horrendous oppression and abuse are the ones who are most poor. It's wooden to think that "the poor" are always and only the people who are most impoverished financially.
In "remembering he poor" we must be remembering and prioritising the needs of the ones most afflicted by interpersonal abuse. Their trauma. Their pain. Their need for the church to build moral communities rather than fostering amoral communities. Their need for the community to stand WITH them AGAINST the abusers. Their need to not be pathologised and stigmatised by the church. Their need to not be pathologised and slandered and shunned and blocked by advocates who disrespect victims. Victims need to be vindicated and protected. Vindication is not vengeance — read Judith Lewis Herman's latest book if you want to understand that more.
It is my contention that the most afflicted in the church are the women and children who have suffered domestic abuse (which often co-occurs with or overlaps with child sexual abuse).
In my observation, victims of domestic abuse are the victims who most well-known advocates are only giving lip service to.
RACHAEL DEN HOLLANDER
I think Rachael den Hollander does excellent work in talking about child sexual abuse and how the church leaders are often responding very badly when allegations of child sexual abuse are made.
i know that Rachael and Jacob are homeschooling their children and I think that Rachael is probably doing a great job with that so I don't hold any grudges that she does not engage with me when I have given her feedback that might help her improve her work. But I do have concerns that in her focus on childhood sexual abuse, she skims over the needs of victims of domestic abuse.
Andrea Alexandrova is a survivor of domestic abuse and and an advocate for other survivors. Andrea challenges Sheila's claim that her Great Sex Rescue research is peer reviewed. Read Andrea's challenge here:
Once you get to Andrea's FB post, look into the comments on that post to find the comment by Kate Palmer Bowles where Kate gives lots of evidence that Sheila is making a deceptive and misleading claim.
I am a 75 year old grandmother of ten. While I have not "deconstructed" my faith, living and losing and loving has caused me to evaluate some of the things I have been taught (like emotions,.....can't trust them. and other confusing things that didn't work in the crucible of life.) I read a lot and am tired of seeing yet another person get "brave and talk about hard things - one recently said she had deconstructed and now is a "spiritual independent." whatever that is. Most of the time I end up feeling "old," which of course I am, but along with that comes the feeling that I would be likely viewed as hopelessly out of touch with those I read. So finding you and reading your writing is refreshing. Don't even know where I found you or how i stumbled on you, but I appreciate much of what I read here. I've been meaning to tell you this and it seemed as good a time as any.
Hi Kaeley, I agree with your assessment and critique of Rachel Held Evans. But i don’t agree with some other things you said in this post.
I will submit another comment when I’m on my laptop not my phone. My second comment will explain where I disagree with you, and why.
I just wanted to do this initial reply to your article because I want to thank you for raising the topic of how advocates can often go off the rails and lead their followers into dangerous waters. It’s an important topic, that needs to be raised, and few are willing to do it.
Bless you dear sister. Iron sharpens iron.
Kayley you named four women who have been advocating against abuse and exposing abuse in the church — Julie Roys, Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rachael Denhollander and Aimee Byrd.
Let me offer you my observations about three of those women. (I have talked about Sheila in a different comment).
JULIE ROYS
I think that Julie Roys is doing great work. I think she and her team are doing excellent journalism, They cite their sources. Before they publish an article they invite comment from the abusers, their allies and henchmen who they are exposing.This is proper journalistic practise. And if the abusers and their allies give no comment, Julie tells her readers that.
However, I am hoping that one day Julie Roys will expose the more egregious evils in the church — ritual abuse, satanist ritual abuse, Freemasons in high positions, trauma-based mind control, and the prominent leaders in churches who have been complicit with or perpetrating those abominable sins. As yet, to my knowledge, Julie Roys has not touched on those things. I have given Julie info about those things but she has not acknowledged my attempts to inform her. I don't necessarily infer that she is stone-walling me on this. I think it's more likely that she is just overloaded with the stuff she is already addressing. So I pray for her.
AIMEE BYRD
I think Aimee Byrd's work has been valuable. I know she has made good contributions to the discourse about abuse in the church. However, I don't think she shows much evidence of understanding the extreme trauma that Christian victims of domestic abuse suffer. And she does not prioritise those victims. She focuses on the dangers of complementarianism, but that focus can all too easily end up only landing on the question of whether women can lead in churches. Whether women lead or do not lead in churches, domestic abusers still get away with perpetrating their abuse. Proponents of egalitarianism are often unable to discern the men who are using coercive control to predate on and abuse their female intimate partners. I've seen this time after time.
In my view, Aimee, like most other advocates, is yet to " remember the poor". The poor are the afflicted, the ones who have suffered the most horrendous oppression and abuse are the ones who are most poor. It's wooden to think that "the poor" are always and only the people who are most impoverished financially.
In "remembering he poor" we must be remembering and prioritising the needs of the ones most afflicted by interpersonal abuse. Their trauma. Their pain. Their need for the church to build moral communities rather than fostering amoral communities. Their need for the community to stand WITH them AGAINST the abusers. Their need to not be pathologised and stigmatised by the church. Their need to not be pathologised and slandered and shunned and blocked by advocates who disrespect victims. Victims need to be vindicated and protected. Vindication is not vengeance — read Judith Lewis Herman's latest book if you want to understand that more.
It is my contention that the most afflicted in the church are the women and children who have suffered domestic abuse (which often co-occurs with or overlaps with child sexual abuse).
In my observation, victims of domestic abuse are the victims who most well-known advocates are only giving lip service to.
RACHAEL DEN HOLLANDER
I think Rachael den Hollander does excellent work in talking about child sexual abuse and how the church leaders are often responding very badly when allegations of child sexual abuse are made.
i know that Rachael and Jacob are homeschooling their children and I think that Rachael is probably doing a great job with that so I don't hold any grudges that she does not engage with me when I have given her feedback that might help her improve her work. But I do have concerns that in her focus on childhood sexual abuse, she skims over the needs of victims of domestic abuse.
Andrea Alexandrova is a survivor of domestic abuse and and an advocate for other survivors. Andrea challenges Sheila's claim that her Great Sex Rescue research is peer reviewed. Read Andrea's challenge here:
https://www.facebook.com/AndreaAleksandrovaAdvocate/posts/pfbid02fwBcmVMHBsE4taAj7r9QbTSmt1KzNErJirVmNmDkftfp1ZP818GYNq1Qa8ZPWkNkl
Once you get to Andrea's FB post, look into the comments on that post to find the comment by Kate Palmer Bowles where Kate gives lots of evidence that Sheila is making a deceptive and misleading claim.