I'm wearing a t-shirt that says "Free Rifqa." (Today is the rally for Rifqa Bary's rights, here in Columbus OH.) I'm sure that simply because I'm wearing this shirt, I'll be called an anti-Muslim, a bigot, a racist, or any number of terrible names.
After all, real Muslims don't abuse their children for becoming Christians, right?
Real Muslims don't kill their kids for being Christian, or "too western," right?
Well, if "Real Muslims" don't do this...so what? Does that mean it isn't a problem?
Several years ago, my church in Lexington, Kentucky was picketed by the nutjobs from Kansas that call themselves Christians. You know, the ones that wave signs around that say, "God hates F-gs." Our church (Immanuel Baptist) had supported a local gay couple who wanted to have their *quadruplets* baptized in a neighboring Lutheran Church. For that, we were harassed and picketed.
"Real Christians" don't harass gay people! However, that doesn't mean that Real Christians deny the existence of these nutjobs. No one says, "Oh, the Bible says to love your enemies, so this isn't really a problem." Anyone who said that would be a liar. These protesters are a terrible nuisance at funerals of gay people or soldiers. No one would deny that their presence does real psychological harm to anyone in a state of grief. Real Christians don't do this.
No one assumes that saying, "You shouldn't picket gay people's funerals" implies hatred for the entire Christian religion. And last time I checked, the nutjobs in Kansas had not killed anyone. However, any time someone says, "Honor-killing must be stopped," or "threatening/killing Muslim converts to Christianity is wrong," people stumble all over themselves to say, "But waaaaaaaait! There are peeeeeeeeaceful Muslims! You can't say that! They're not all liiiiiiiiiiike that!"
I'm not talking about peaceful Muslims. I'm talking about child abuse, plain and simple. No one is asking, "Did Rifqa's father actually threaten to kill her?" Even the FDLE investigation didn't address this question well! People are just saying, "Real Muslims don't threaten to kill their kids. Rifqa is just a hormonal teenager. She's been brainwashed by other people."
My mother said the exact same thing. My mother physically attacked my sister and her boyfriend, then later claimed the boyfriend attacked *her.* No one would believe my sister--my mom just claimed that my sister was "brainwashed" by the boyfriend!
And my mother was so calm and polite...and such an upstanding member of the community...and a regular church-goer...and a "Real Mother" could NEVER physically harm her kids, right?
Right?
Right?
I will stand up for Rifqa Bary's rights, today and everyday. I will say that child abuse & killing in the name of Islam (or any religion) must be stopped. That does not make me a Muslim-hater. It does not mean that I deny the existence of peaceful Muslims everywhere. It does mean that I will look at the situation, with a rational mind, and say, "This is wrong."
Join in protesting for Rifqa Bary's freedom today, in Columbus OH. Details are here:
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
"But she's your mother!"
This is probably my least-favorite of all the word-bombs that well meaning people consistently throw at me: "But she's your mother!"
The implication or the outright statement is something like this: "This is the woman who gave you birth, who breast-fed you for at least a year, who sacrificed her own dreams and ambitions so that you could be everything you were made to be. She watched you grow, she cheered you on, she loved you unconditionally, and now you're **abandoning her** in her time of need!"
If my mother were like most mothers, this would be true.
However, most people who toss around the statement, "But she's your mother!" rarely even think to ask, "Why would you *choose* to break contact with your mother? What were the circumstances surrounding this?"
The assumption people seem to hold--consciously or unconsciously--is that a mother's maternal instict would not possibly allow her to *hurt* her child. Therefore, they assume that responsibility for the break in the relationship must rest *mostly* on the child's shoulders. People are generally willing to allow that "the mother made some mistakes," however they're quick to point out the difficulties of parenting, and assume (there's that word again) that the mother did the best she could given the circumstances.
Well, what if those assumptions weren't true?
What if she *did* hurt her child? What if she consistently and maliciously tore her child's soul apart? What if she abused her child? What if something in her "maternal instinct" was defective, and allowed her to use her child in favor of her own self-interest?
No one seems to stop and think that this could be possible. Of course, they can imagine a father doing it. In fact, people are so familiar with the concept of an abusive man that they've labled an innocent white tank-top a "wife-beater shirt!"
But a mother couldn't possibly hurt her kids. A wife couldn't possibly be the abuser of her husband, right?
Right?
RIGHT?
I'm sorry, but that's not true. I watched my mother kick my father in the stomach over and over again during a fight. I've watched her slap, punch, elbow, and pull hair. There are police reports that document how she did the same thing to my sister.
If you ask her why she did it, do you know what she says? "He MADE me do it."
Assumptions about maternal instinct are not a valid reason to criticize my decision to break contact with my mother. Think of another one.
The implication or the outright statement is something like this: "This is the woman who gave you birth, who breast-fed you for at least a year, who sacrificed her own dreams and ambitions so that you could be everything you were made to be. She watched you grow, she cheered you on, she loved you unconditionally, and now you're **abandoning her** in her time of need!"
If my mother were like most mothers, this would be true.
However, most people who toss around the statement, "But she's your mother!" rarely even think to ask, "Why would you *choose* to break contact with your mother? What were the circumstances surrounding this?"
The assumption people seem to hold--consciously or unconsciously--is that a mother's maternal instict would not possibly allow her to *hurt* her child. Therefore, they assume that responsibility for the break in the relationship must rest *mostly* on the child's shoulders. People are generally willing to allow that "the mother made some mistakes," however they're quick to point out the difficulties of parenting, and assume (there's that word again) that the mother did the best she could given the circumstances.
Well, what if those assumptions weren't true?
What if she *did* hurt her child? What if she consistently and maliciously tore her child's soul apart? What if she abused her child? What if something in her "maternal instinct" was defective, and allowed her to use her child in favor of her own self-interest?
No one seems to stop and think that this could be possible. Of course, they can imagine a father doing it. In fact, people are so familiar with the concept of an abusive man that they've labled an innocent white tank-top a "wife-beater shirt!"
But a mother couldn't possibly hurt her kids. A wife couldn't possibly be the abuser of her husband, right?
Right?
RIGHT?
I'm sorry, but that's not true. I watched my mother kick my father in the stomach over and over again during a fight. I've watched her slap, punch, elbow, and pull hair. There are police reports that document how she did the same thing to my sister.
If you ask her why she did it, do you know what she says? "He MADE me do it."
Assumptions about maternal instinct are not a valid reason to criticize my decision to break contact with my mother. Think of another one.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
How Jesus Treated His Mother
How Jesus Treated His Mother.
About every six months, I'm greeted with a new wave of guilt-inducing speeches from my family on “Why I should re-connect with a certain family member” Usually, these guilt-inducing speeches involve one or more of the following phrases:
“But she's family, and she's the only one you've got!”
“There's two sides to every story.”
“The Bible says to honor your father and mother.”
“What would Jesus do?”
In light of my commitment to Christ, my desire to follow Him with my whole heart, and my ability to read, I decided to look in the Bible and see exactly how Jesus treated his mother. After posting this, I'll let my family, friends, and other Christian brothers and sisters draw their own conclusions.
What we know from the Bible
In Mark chapter 3, we're given a fascinating glimpse into Jesus' family of origin:
“20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." [emphasis mine]
Wow, they thought he was nuts.
Jesus “spoke to them [those assembled] in parables,” and gave a teaching.
“31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
What? You mean Jesus didn't talk to his own mother and brothers when they called him? I thought the Bible said to honor your father and your mother?
It does.
I'm proposing that this passage gives a model by which we can have a Biblical approach for distancing ourselves from family members, while still upholding the Biblical command to honor our father and mother.
1)Jesus understood that there are not necessarily two sides to every story.
Jesus' mother and brothers clearly thought that he was crazy, that they should “take charge of him”, and that they should interrupt the teaching that he was currently giving in order to “take charge of him.” Were they right? Of course not. No matter what your beliefs on the divinity of Mary, you cannot find any scriptural basis for believing that Mary could be right and Jesus could be wrong, in this or any situation. I understand that in human relationships, this is normally not the case. People are fallible, and no one other than Jesus is perfect. However, sometimes, parents are simply wrong. It's not ok to hit a child, for example. It's not ok for parents to hit each other, especially in front of the child. It's not ok to abuse alcohol or other drugs, to sexually abuse the child, or to subject the child to verbal/mental/emotional abuse as well. If a parent is wrong, as Mary was, what should a child say to “honor” their parents? Can you imagine Jesus saying, “Ok mom, I'm crazy, so I'll come with you and run the carpentry shop and keep my mouth shut.” Of course not.
2)Jesus did not engage his family in a confrontation.
We can see that Jesus specifically was told that his family was waiting for him, and chose not to go outside and meet them. We can see from other scriptural sources that he knew the intentions and thoughts of those around him, (Matthew 9:4, Matthew 12:11, Luke 9:47, and possibly others.) so we can safely assume that he knew his family's thoughts. He could have gone outside, talked to them, and said, “I'm not crazy, I'm the Messiah, I'm the son of God, and I have to do what I'm doing right now.” He chose not to do that.
Why not? Couldn't he have used his Messianic powers of persuasion to win them over? If God was really in Jesus' calling, wouldn't God have convinced Jesus' family that Jesus wasn't out of his mind? We don't know. However, I do know what it's like to consistently set boundaries with family members, and consistently have them run over. Perhaps Jesus knew it would be futile. Perhaps Jesus had already gone over this story...over, and over, and over again. Either way, Jesus did not try to persuade his family that he wasn't nuts. He didn't go and set new boundaries and say, “You tow the line or I'm walking out.” He simply disengaged.
3)Jesus declared a family of choice.
“34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'”
Jesus did not say, “You only have one mother/one sister/one brother, so maintain that relationship at all costs.” He said “Whoever does God's will” is His family. This notion that we are to be intimate relationships with people who are destructive is simply not supported in scripture. What if Jesus had continued in this relationship on their terms? What would have happened to Jesus' ministry?
In my own life, there is an amazing couple who functions as a combination surrogate parent set/big siblings/best friends to me, and I am so blessed to have them. I also have a man and woman who I consider a brother & sister—and we even get on each other's nerves occasionally. I have countless spiritual children, and two natural children, and a husband who loves me unconditionally. I'm not obligated, by scripture or any measure of society, to stay in relationships that are destructive. God promises that as long as we do the will of God, we will have a family.
We see how and why Jesus distanced himself from his family of origin. However, how did he fulfill the Biblical command to honor his mother at the same time?
1)He met her physical needs.
In the book of John, we see the crucified Christ making sure that his mother was provided for: 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
However, notice that he did it through a third party! He did not come off his cross and stop the ministry that God had given him in order to fulfill his scriptural obligations as a son. We know from scripture that John is the only one of the original twelve disciples who died a natural death, so we can infer that Jesus picked the best available care-giver for his mother's earthly needs. With this in mind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable that children who are able to can care for their parents in their old age—regardless of how the parents treated the children—and fulfill the requirements outlined in 1 Timothy 5:16: “If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.” This does not mean we have to sit around playing shuffleboard with them, or bring our kids over to see them, or allow ourselves to be drawn into their never-ending drama or abuse. We simply are ordered to care for their needs.
2)He forgave his mother.
We know from Acts 1:14 that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the brothers of Jesus, were counted among the disciples. We also know from our basic knowledge of the Roman Road that no individual is granted salvation unless they repent. At some point, it's reasonable to infer that Jesus' mother and brothers repented of their sins, and asked Jesus for forgiveness. Therefore, he accepted them as disciples, and as those who “do the will of God.”
However, since we are not perfect, and no one should pray to us for forgiveness, we should be aware of the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. According to Cloud and Townsend in the wonderful book Boundaries, “Forgiveness” only requires one party in a conflict, whereas “Reconciliation” requires both. If one party in a conflict will not admit to wrongdoing, there can be forgiveness, but there can be no reconciliation.
Given the circumstances of my family, and the Bible verses mentioned above, I don't believe it's unreasonable that I've maintained no-contact with my mother for nearly six years, and with my sister for nearly one. I believe it's Biblical, I believe it's reasonable, and I believe it's absolutely necessary for the protection of my current family. If you don't agree with me, I'm sorry, but I've made up my mind. God Himself will have to change it.
If this has helped you or encouraged you, I hope you'll leave me a note to let me know. I'm literally going against the grain of society AND of church-culture, and it's a very lonely place to be.
Thank you.
About every six months, I'm greeted with a new wave of guilt-inducing speeches from my family on “Why I should re-connect with a certain family member” Usually, these guilt-inducing speeches involve one or more of the following phrases:
“But she's family, and she's the only one you've got!”
“There's two sides to every story.”
“The Bible says to honor your father and mother.”
“What would Jesus do?”
In light of my commitment to Christ, my desire to follow Him with my whole heart, and my ability to read, I decided to look in the Bible and see exactly how Jesus treated his mother. After posting this, I'll let my family, friends, and other Christian brothers and sisters draw their own conclusions.
What we know from the Bible
In Mark chapter 3, we're given a fascinating glimpse into Jesus' family of origin:
“20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." [emphasis mine]
Wow, they thought he was nuts.
Jesus “spoke to them [those assembled] in parables,” and gave a teaching.
“31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
What? You mean Jesus didn't talk to his own mother and brothers when they called him? I thought the Bible said to honor your father and your mother?
It does.
I'm proposing that this passage gives a model by which we can have a Biblical approach for distancing ourselves from family members, while still upholding the Biblical command to honor our father and mother.
1)Jesus understood that there are not necessarily two sides to every story.
Jesus' mother and brothers clearly thought that he was crazy, that they should “take charge of him”, and that they should interrupt the teaching that he was currently giving in order to “take charge of him.” Were they right? Of course not. No matter what your beliefs on the divinity of Mary, you cannot find any scriptural basis for believing that Mary could be right and Jesus could be wrong, in this or any situation. I understand that in human relationships, this is normally not the case. People are fallible, and no one other than Jesus is perfect. However, sometimes, parents are simply wrong. It's not ok to hit a child, for example. It's not ok for parents to hit each other, especially in front of the child. It's not ok to abuse alcohol or other drugs, to sexually abuse the child, or to subject the child to verbal/mental/emotional abuse as well. If a parent is wrong, as Mary was, what should a child say to “honor” their parents? Can you imagine Jesus saying, “Ok mom, I'm crazy, so I'll come with you and run the carpentry shop and keep my mouth shut.” Of course not.
2)Jesus did not engage his family in a confrontation.
We can see that Jesus specifically was told that his family was waiting for him, and chose not to go outside and meet them. We can see from other scriptural sources that he knew the intentions and thoughts of those around him, (Matthew 9:4, Matthew 12:11, Luke 9:47, and possibly others.) so we can safely assume that he knew his family's thoughts. He could have gone outside, talked to them, and said, “I'm not crazy, I'm the Messiah, I'm the son of God, and I have to do what I'm doing right now.” He chose not to do that.
Why not? Couldn't he have used his Messianic powers of persuasion to win them over? If God was really in Jesus' calling, wouldn't God have convinced Jesus' family that Jesus wasn't out of his mind? We don't know. However, I do know what it's like to consistently set boundaries with family members, and consistently have them run over. Perhaps Jesus knew it would be futile. Perhaps Jesus had already gone over this story...over, and over, and over again. Either way, Jesus did not try to persuade his family that he wasn't nuts. He didn't go and set new boundaries and say, “You tow the line or I'm walking out.” He simply disengaged.
3)Jesus declared a family of choice.
“34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'”
Jesus did not say, “You only have one mother/one sister/one brother, so maintain that relationship at all costs.” He said “Whoever does God's will” is His family. This notion that we are to be intimate relationships with people who are destructive is simply not supported in scripture. What if Jesus had continued in this relationship on their terms? What would have happened to Jesus' ministry?
In my own life, there is an amazing couple who functions as a combination surrogate parent set/big siblings/best friends to me, and I am so blessed to have them. I also have a man and woman who I consider a brother & sister—and we even get on each other's nerves occasionally. I have countless spiritual children, and two natural children, and a husband who loves me unconditionally. I'm not obligated, by scripture or any measure of society, to stay in relationships that are destructive. God promises that as long as we do the will of God, we will have a family.
We see how and why Jesus distanced himself from his family of origin. However, how did he fulfill the Biblical command to honor his mother at the same time?
1)He met her physical needs.
In the book of John, we see the crucified Christ making sure that his mother was provided for: 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
However, notice that he did it through a third party! He did not come off his cross and stop the ministry that God had given him in order to fulfill his scriptural obligations as a son. We know from scripture that John is the only one of the original twelve disciples who died a natural death, so we can infer that Jesus picked the best available care-giver for his mother's earthly needs. With this in mind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable that children who are able to can care for their parents in their old age—regardless of how the parents treated the children—and fulfill the requirements outlined in 1 Timothy 5:16: “If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.” This does not mean we have to sit around playing shuffleboard with them, or bring our kids over to see them, or allow ourselves to be drawn into their never-ending drama or abuse. We simply are ordered to care for their needs.
2)He forgave his mother.
We know from Acts 1:14 that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the brothers of Jesus, were counted among the disciples. We also know from our basic knowledge of the Roman Road that no individual is granted salvation unless they repent. At some point, it's reasonable to infer that Jesus' mother and brothers repented of their sins, and asked Jesus for forgiveness. Therefore, he accepted them as disciples, and as those who “do the will of God.”
However, since we are not perfect, and no one should pray to us for forgiveness, we should be aware of the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. According to Cloud and Townsend in the wonderful book Boundaries, “Forgiveness” only requires one party in a conflict, whereas “Reconciliation” requires both. If one party in a conflict will not admit to wrongdoing, there can be forgiveness, but there can be no reconciliation.
Given the circumstances of my family, and the Bible verses mentioned above, I don't believe it's unreasonable that I've maintained no-contact with my mother for nearly six years, and with my sister for nearly one. I believe it's Biblical, I believe it's reasonable, and I believe it's absolutely necessary for the protection of my current family. If you don't agree with me, I'm sorry, but I've made up my mind. God Himself will have to change it.
If this has helped you or encouraged you, I hope you'll leave me a note to let me know. I'm literally going against the grain of society AND of church-culture, and it's a very lonely place to be.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)