Sunday, February 04, 2007

"Spiritual Abuse" and the UPC

I recently stumbled across a thread discussing my site (actseighteen.com), Lois Gibson's site (spiritualabuse.org) and the concept of "spiritual abuse." It was on the New Faith Child Forum, but the site appears to now be defunct. It was originally at www.newfaithchildforum.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-3921.html. Long story short, in the thread the discussion appeared to center on the the association of my site with spritualabuse.org, a site they were less than fond of. For the record, there is no formal association, though I know Lois Gibson and support her work.

All that's well and good, but what bothered me is they apparently misunderstand Lois' site. They seemed to have the impression that Lois believes that UPC churches are inherently abusive (and thus their disappointment with my "association" with her). I don't mean to speak for Lois (Lois, if you read this, feel free to post your own response), but that is not what her site is about. It has been pointed out time and time again in her forum (http://www.spiritualabuse.org/phpBB2/index.php) that spiritual abuse exists in many organizations (Baptist, Church of Christ, Independent, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc) and not all UPC churches are abusive. I would submit that most UPC church are not abusive.

Lois' site exists to help anyone who has been spiritually abused in a "Christian" church, UPC or otherwise. It just so happens that Lois is a former UPC member, and thus her site deals with a lot of UPC related topics as that is her area of expertise. The membership of her forum, however, consist of those from a wide-array of Christian denominations. In short, the site stands against spiritual abuse, whether in a UPC church or a Catholic church.

Jason

3 Comments:

At 5:42 PM, Anonymous JMG said...

Hi, if you get this, i'm very sorry this is off subject.. You have so many good points and I'm sure you can answer this fairly nicely... In his article about Deut 22:5 about the clothing of men and women, there's just one thing that I can't look passed. I don't support the idea that women can't wear pants, all I'm looking for is more clarification on the (abomination) part.
Why does Moses call that an abomination and nothing else in that chapter, but elsewhere in Lev. 4, I think, he uses the same hebrew word for sexual sins being an abomination as he used in deut. 22:5....
Why should we look passed this. I need fact, not just a hunch as to why it's okay even though it may be an abomination....
can this be answered?

 
At 6:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’d passion to ascertain that too!

 
At 2:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice post.

rH3uYcBX

 

Post a Comment

<< Home