A Lesson In Power Engineering

This post will begin with an elementary lesson in electrical power engineering. But lest anyone think I am changing the subject of my blog, have no fear. I will use this lesson as an analogy to illustrate the dangers of unhealthy power dynamics in a church environment. If the electric power lesson makes anyone's head hurt, feel free to skip to the end.

The diagram above shows the simplest electrical circuit, consisting of a voltage or current source, a load, and wires to connect the source to the load. When the switch is closed, a voltage difference is created across the load, causing an electrical current to flow through the wires, through the load itself, and back to the source. As the current flows through the load, the electrical energy in the current is converted into other forms of energy, such as light if the load is a light fixture, mechanical energy if the load is a motor, or heat if the load is a simple resistor. Another way of saying this is that power is consumed by the load.

This simple circuit is the basis for understanding most of what takes place in modern electric power systems, from the wiring in your house to the power systems that supply cities. Sources, such as large generators or fuel cells, are connected to loads, such as buildings, by means of wires and transformers which supply the electric current that drives washing machines, refrigerators, air conditioners, etc. But this diagram omits a certain key fact: that the size of the power source must be carefully matched to the characteristics of the load it supplies. Otherwise, there will be damage to the load, the power source, or both. For instance, if a person connects a blow dryer directly to the terminals of a 13,800 volt, 1000 megawatt turbogenerator, the blow dryer won't survive.

Another extreme example of a mismatch between source and load is when a source is shorted out. For instance, if a person took a 9-volt alkaline battery and put a penny or a big copper bolt across both its terminals, the battery would quickly destroy itself. This is because the current supplied by a power source is inversely proportional to the resistance of the load connected across it. Also, the power dissipated in a circuit is directly proportional to the product of the current flowing through it and the square of the resistances through which that current flows. If you short out the battery, the only resistance in the resulting circuit is the internal resistance of the battery. Now that a very, very large current is flowing through this battery, it quickly gets very hot, often exploding in the process. This is also why one can destroy a car battery by placing a wrench across both terminals, and why large modern generators have expensive, computer-controlled switches which open up when the computer detects that the generator has been short-circuited.

There is another danger posed by short circuits in a power system, namely, the danger of arc flash. For instance, if an untrained person works on a panel or switchboard while the panel or switchboard is “energized” (connected to the utility power system), he might accidentally touch two or more of the busbars of the panel or switchboard, or drop a tool onto the busbars. When the busbars are shorted out in this way, a large electric arc is created. This arc is very bright, and the gases in its center are often hotter than the surface of the sun. The arc instantly vaporizes some of the busbar metal, creating an explosion which often has enough force to blow away the front of the panel or switchboard, creating a cloud of hot, molten shrapnel flying in all directions. Unfortunately, there have been many arc flash incidents over the years, incidents in which many electricians have been killed or permanently disabled. Therefore, if an electrician is working on a panel or switchboard while the panel or switchboard is energized, he must now obey codes and regulations which require him to be specially trained and clothed in protective gear. And power systems are now being designed to minimize the likelihood of arc flash incidents.

Now consider a church pastor whose power and authority have been properly matched to the needs of his congregation. When the pastor teaches, his hearers pass judgment, just as it says in 1 Corinthians 14:29, and the pastor and the congregation have a mutual understanding that this is perfectly acceptable. When the pastor makes a suggestion or gives direction to a member, the pastor doesn't feel threatened if the church member says, “Let me think about that.” The congregational structure is such that members can feel free to ask questions, or even to politely disagree (as long as it's not a matter of clear sin), and the pastor is mature enough not to feel threatened by this.

How will a pastor be affected by such an ecclesiastical structure? I'll tell you what I think. First, he will realize that persuasion is his best tool for instilling Christian character in his flock. Seeing how limited is his power to compel people to do anything, he will seek instead to inspire people through wise words and the personal modeling of godly behavior. And a pastor who knows that his flock is discerningly and objectively observing him will conduct himself with humility toward that flock. Such a pastor will be extremely unlikely to try to “pull rank” on a church member in order to force his agenda. And in setting the agenda of the church, the pastor will realize that he can't just get his way unchallenged; he must answer to his congregation, and allow the agenda of the church to be modified by the congregation as they see fit. Such an environment is safe and healthy for both the pastor and the congregation.

But if we consider a church whose pastor has elevated himself above accountability, a church which has been tricked into giving its pastor absolute authority over the church, a very different picture emerges. First, such a church environment is very damaging to the pastor. There is a famous quote by John Dalberg-Acton, a British historian, who said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Interestingly, Acton was a Catholic, and he made this statement in 1870 as a protest against the teaching of papal infallibility by Pope Pius IX. An unrestrained pastor who is able to get whatever he wants in a church environment is like a generator that has been shorted out, whose windings get so hot that they melt and catch fire, ruining the generator. History, and old newspaper records, are full of stories of pastors who thus exalted themselves above their flocks, and were later found guilty of stealing, pornography, adultery, prostitution, and all sorts of other sins related to the abuse of their power. In placing themselves above their flocks, these men removed themselves from the protection of accountability to their flocks, and gave themselves a free range for the indulgence of soul-destroying passions.

The second danger of such a church structure, is, obviously, the danger to the church members. A pastor with unrestrained power and authority over his congregation can use and abuse individual members, waging war unopposed against members he doesn't like, and ruining and ostracizing any member who dares question him. Being exposed to this abusive exercise of power is like being exposed to an electrical arc flash while standing next to a 4,000 amp, 480 volt switchboard without any protective gear, except that in this case, it is the soul of a church member and not his body that is damaged by the “arc flash.”

In my previous posts on evangelicals and ecclesiastical power, I have discussed power dynamics in obvious fringe churches, such as the Geftakys cult, some of the Plymouth Brethren sects, Bill Gothard's “Institute in Basic Life Principles,” and outfits like Doug Phillips' “Vision Forum.” These groups are characterized by very obvious distinctives in church organization and behavior which set them apart from the rest of evangelicalism, and indeed, from the rest of society. Those who observe them for any length of time usually come to the fairly obvious conclusion that “Man, these people are weird!” The structure of these groups is of course the structure of one man or select group of men who have unrestrained, unquestioned authority over all the members of their group. This is deliberate and intentional.

But a refugee from such groups who escapes from such a group and goes out looking for a “healthy church” will find that mainstream evangelical groups are increasingly being structured along this unhealthy pattern. These groups and churches appear quite normal on the outside, trying as hard as possible to project an image of a “relational” place for “seekers.” Their pastors preach in Hawaiian shirts, jeans and sandals, backed by praise bands strumming Taylor guitars whose lead singers often sound like Dan Haseltine clones. (Not that Taylors are evil; I just happen to own a Larrivee or two.) And after the church service, you can find plenty of people to hang out and chill with, while you all sip gourmet coffee. Yet there is a growing movement even among pastors of this sort of church to build an authority structure in which the pastor is elevated above his congregation to a position of absolute authority, above accountability or questioning.

This is as bad as deliberately and intentionally designing an electric power system that is prone to short circuits and arc flash incidents. An engineer who produced such designs would soon find himself in court, his license and stamp stripped away, and even facing jail time. Yet many supposedly mainstream churches are now being set up with a dangerous power structure. I will be examining some of these churches in my next series of posts, as we move away from the fringes and venture out into the mainstream.

Pastors of such churches would say, “You know, you just have to trust the Lord that God put us here in leadership, and that we know what's best.” They would point out the obvious external differences between their churches and the “fringe” groups, and say, “See, we're not like that!” But whenever a church is set up in such a way that one man has absolute, unquestioned authority over his flock, someone's bound to get hurt. Always.

Un-Heavenly Ladders

This post will examine power abuse as it relates to the “ministries” of an unhealthy, fringe church. Once again, I'll tell a personal story.

When I first encountered the Assembly, it was on the campus of a community college. I was almost fresh out of the Army, and had recently turned back to the Lord. I was staying with my family, which was stressful, since we had learned over the years to expertly “push each other's buttons,” thereby frequently getting on each other's nerves. Because I was now trying to live the Christian life, I was convicted by the Holy Spirit regarding my behavior toward my family, and I went to Christian bookstores looking for books which would help me become a more decent person. One such book, Born Again, by Chuck Colson, described how Bible studies were a great help in growing in Christian character.

I was walking around on campus one day shortly after reading that book when I saw a folding table next to the walkway, with a religious banner on its front and a number of Gospel tracts and pocket New Testaments on its top. Around the table were a number of smiling people handing out Gospel tracts and talking to passers-by. Intrigued, I walked up and asked one of these people who they were, and whether they knew of any Bible studies I could attend. His enthusiastic answer to my second question was “Yes! We have a Bible study here on campus on Thursdays in the library. It starts at 11:30. I'll be out in front at 11:15 waiting for you so you can find it, okay?” The rest, as they say, is history.

Of course, once I started attending these studies, I came under the influence of a program of indoctrination to bring me into ever-greater commitment to the group. It began very subtly. Their campus “outreach” consisted of regular weekly activities such as witnessing times, prayer meetings and “chapter summary” Bible studies. The leaders exhorted the “brothers” (us guys, in plain English) to come to the witnessing and prayer times with a “word of encouragement” prepared from the Scriptures, so that we could “strengthen the saints” for prayer or witnessing. Both men and women were encouraged to come to the Bible studies with a “chapter summary” prepared. When new people came to these campus activities and began to share their “words of encouragement” or their “chapter summaries,” they were frequently given much praise by the leaders of the campus group, who would say such things as “Praise the Lord, brother, that was a real blessing to our hearts,” etc. The obvious effect of such praise was to make us want to keep sharing these “words of encouragement.” I have to confess that they were successful in appealing to my vanity (“you know it's just your foolish pride” - Layla, Eric Clapton). I ate up the praise like it was cereal – especially when attractive young “sisters” came up to me after I shared such a “word” and told me how it blessed them.

I crossed another threshold when I began to attend the regular Assembly meetings, the ones that were held in their meeting hall instead of on campus. The first meetings I attended, oddly enough, were the monthly “All-Nights of Prayer” (ANOP's for those who like acronyms). This was because I was working swing shift at a defense electronics plant while I was putting myself through school, and we got off work while the ANOP's were still in session. During these ANOP's, the Assembly leaders, who presided over the giving of prayer requests, would give reports on a number of “special people” laboring “around the world” in charge of various “ministries.” Their descriptions of the seriousness of these labors, and their praise of these “workers,” was designed to make us all want to be like these “special people,” and I have to say that they sold me. Later in my involvement, I got to meet some of these people, during special Assembly gatherings in which the interaction of us common folk with these people was highly constrained, and our leaders kept reminding us of how important these people were.

As I regularly attended the campus ministry activities and the ANOP's, I heard the frequently-repeated teaching that those who wanted to grow in stature as “saints” really needed to “enter in” – as in, “Enter into the labor of this ministry (the activities of the Geftakys assemblies).” As I began to attend their Sunday worship, witnessing and afternoon ministry meetings, I would hear such things as “The Lord is looking for faithful brothers!” and “The Lord is looking for a vessel He can use,” along with stories of great missionaries from the past. When the swing shift at my work closed down and I was transferred to day shift, I began attending the regular Assembly Wednesday night Bible studies and Thursday prayer meetings, as well as the ANOP's and Sunday meetings. I wanted to “enter in!”

Very early in my involvement in the regular meetings, I began to notice a hierarchy of “entering in.” For instance, participation in the Thursday night prayer meetings was tightly regulated. The Thursday meetings began with a time of praise followed by two or three men standing up to preach. Those men relatively new to the group could pray out loud during the prayer time, but they were not allowed to preach at first. They were, however, encouraged and exhorted to “enter in,” that is, become more fully committed to the group, so that they would one day have enough “stature” to “bring a word to God's people.” This was doubly and triply true of Sunday worship times, where the leaders generally did not want anyone to preach unless they had first heard him preach on a Thursday night and had a chance to “vet” his preaching. In all cases, the leaders controlled who preached, and in what order they preached, insuring that no more than two or three men preached at these meetings, with the weightiest or most honorable or ranking brothers preaching last.

Other examples of this hierarchy included the way in which the various ministry activities were structured. New people who wanted to volunteer for a ministry were basically “hired from the shoulders down” at first. They were expected to simply show up and do what they were told. But those who over time demonstrated commitment and seriousness, those who were “entering in,” were promoted to positions of leadership. The leadership at the highest levels, the elders and “leading brothers,” orchestrated who got promoted to a position of responsibility. And because the leaders defined “entering in” as becoming more fully involved in the activities of the Geftakys assemblies, they taught us to look down on Christians who were involved in ministries of other organizations, or Christians who chose to serve God in a more individual way. They accused such Christians of merely “doing their own thing” instead of obeying the Lord's calling. Thus the Assembly leaders became the sole authority by which a man could know whether he was truly “entering in,” whether he was a “vessel whom the Lord could use,” or whether he was merely “doing his own thing.” We were taught to equate being a servant of Christ with having authority over others, with being able to tell others what to do.

I was thus caused to see a vision – behold, a ladder, which was set on the earth with its top reaching to...the highest rungs of the Assembly org chart, with the “serious saints” ascending its rungs as they “entered in” more and more as time passed. There were many rungs. One could move into a “training home” if one was serious about “being trained for the work of the Lord.” Once there, if one was really serious and excellent, one could become “head steward” of the home and be responsible for telling the other residents what to do. This was supposed to be a sign that one had gained “stature and maturity.” Those who were really devoted could become “workers,” members of George Geftakys' inner circle. If you were a guy, there were many rungs you could climb – you could be a doorkeeper (in a sane church, these would be called ushers), responsible for “greeting the saints” and making sure that the meetings were kept in order. You could rise yet further – being asked to lead the singing during the meetings, being asked to give the announcements, being asked to preach the Gospel message during the Sunday meetings, being asked to preach the Sunday “word of encouragement” or “main ministry,” or even being asked to be a leading brother or elder.

I chose to try to climb that ladder. It looked attractive – who wouldn't want to be a “man of stature and maturity”? I volunteered to serve in ministries, making myself so busy that my college education suffered. After all, we kept hearing George say that he wanted to burn out for the Lord, not rust out. I moved into a “training home.” Eventually, I got to be “head steward.” I started preaching on Thursday nights and Sundays. When the Assembly had “open air preaching” outreaches at the beach or in busy public thoroughfares, I coveted being chosen by the leaders to have a chance to yell at people. Because the Assembly defined spiritual maturity in terms of having authority over other people, I tried “pulling rank” on others who had not been involved as long as I had been.

In fact, I tried pulling rank whenever I thought I could get away with it. Climbing this stupid ladder involved stepping on other people, and I learned to do it rather well. In short, I turned myself into a religious jerk. I am not proud of this fact. Looking back now, I can say that I am truly and deeply sorry about the people I offended or injured in my frantic efforts to climb this ladder. And I am deeply sorry about the kind of person I became. I could say as an excuse that I was simply doing as I had been taught, but that isn't much of an excuse, since others were offered a chance to climb the same ladder and refused, seeing it for what it really was. Mea culpa; mea maxima culpa. Eventually I made it to the “doorkeeper” level, where I became stuck, full of a strange mix of my own self-importance on one hand, and a nagging insecurity that some younger brother would pass me up. I learned to determine my self-image, my self-concept, my self-worth, my identity, based on my position on this accursed ladder!

Eventually, the ladder broke, when the facts of the criminal activities of the Geftakys family became widely known. When I left the Assemblies, I decided that I just wanted to be nothing more than a church attender for a while – maybe for the rest of my life. I realized that I had become a toxic person, and that I needed to throw out all the things I had been taught during my two decades in the Geftakys assemblies and start again from scratch. I took time to find people whom I had hurt during my involvement, and to apologize to them. I learned to enjoy sitting on my front porch watching the sun set while kids played in the street, instead of rushing off to some meeting where I would be fighting to climb some ecclesiastical ladder. And I started trying to find a “healthy church.”

But I met a few toxic church people during my search, as has been written in the first few posts of this blog. Two such people, well-meaning but misguided, bear mention. I won't tell their names, but I will mention their church, because I think it's time for some names to be named and I'm tired of beating around the bush. In my post titled, “Leaving, Part 2 – 'Ger Sham',” I described my brief stay at Grace Evangelical Free Church, a modern megachurch in La Mirada. I met a middle-aged couple there who found out that I had come out of an abusive church environment. It turned out that they had also come out of an abusive religious organization, namely, Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles. We decided to get together after church one day to compare notes.

I told them about the Assemblies and they told me about Gothard's rigid, authoritarian rule of his organization, and how he squelched those who dared to think independently. They also told me of how they ran afoul of Mr. Gothard, and were drummed out of his organization. They told me how upon their leaving, Gothard had told them that they would never be fit to serve the Lord again, and how they were finding out at Grace EV Free that they could actually be the Lord's servants. I told them about the twisted, distorted picture of serving Christ that had been presented to us in the Assemblies, and how for the present, I just wanted to be an ordinary average guy, a church attender whose biggest ministry was learning to act like a Christian.

This is the very thing I had said earlier to a couple of the elders at Grace EV Free, and I had gotten some interesting reactions from these elders. One of them had said, “Well, that's okay for now, but if you're still nothing more than a church attender several months from now, I'll have something to say about it.” Now that I was having lunch with the ex-Gothard couple, I heard the husband say the same thing to me - “That's okay for now, but if you're still doing nothing more than showing up for church six months from now, I'll have something to say about it!” Hearing this statement again surprised me, and got me thinking. It seemed that evidently there was a ladder at Grace EV Free also, and people were encouraged to climb it. It seemed also that one evidence that one was climbing that ladder was that one felt the liberty to tell others what to do. This was how being a servant of Christ seemed to be portrayed. Thus this couple felt that they had the liberty to judge whether I was properly involved in the activities of their church.

This seems to be a characteristic of churches with power abuse issues. I have something to say to this couple, and to the elders of Grace EV Free, and to anyone else who wants to try pulling that on me: My service to Christ is, on a certain real level, none of your business. As it says in the Good Book, “Who are you who judge another's servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4, World English Bible.) And while you're at it, read Romans 14:5-11 also. You have no right to pass judgment on me or to pressure me based on your expectations of how much I should be involved in your church. We are called to encourage each other in growth of Christian character, and there are legitimate needs to be met in any legitimate church, but no one has a right to compel his brother or sister to join a church ministry. In the Bible, spiritual maturity and stature are not defined by having power to tell others what to do, but by the display of genuine Christian character. (Of course, because I now live a thousand miles away from La Mirada, you couldn't pressure me even if you wanted to ;)) I'm through with ladder-climbing.

I want to close by mentioning a post at the City Business Church website, titled “The Fattest Carrot of All: Ministry Opportunity.” It neatly sums up the dangers of being hoodwinked into climbing ecclesiastical ladders. Here is the link: http://www.citybusinesschurch.org/blog/2008/04/16/the-fattest-carrot-of-all-ministry-opportunity/

P.S. I'm really glad that this section on fringe churches is almost over. It has been rather hard to write some of these posts, as just remembering some of this garbage has made me almost want to throw my computer against the wall...

Station Break - Mother's Day, 2008

I'll be taking this weekend off from serious blogging (this also includes my other blog, The Well Run Dry), though I will be available for answering reader comments. Just to give you a bit of a roadmap of where we're going, I have one more post on power abuse as practiced in fringe churches. Then there'll be a post on "power engineering", followed by a look at ecclesiastical power abuse as it is now being practiced in the evangelical mainstream. Stay tuned, and thanks for your readership!

You Don't Bring Me Flowers (It's Against Your Religion)

This post will examine that element of power abuse in an unhealthy fringe church which is seen in the treatment of women and marriage. Several Scripture passages come to mind: Proverbs 31:10-31; 1 Corinthians 14:34-37; Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. I will say right up front that I affirm that these passages declare God's will for men and women, and that they are to be obeyed by those who call themselves Christians. But proper obedience depends on proper understanding of what these passages mean. Abusive fringe churches (at least those run by males) tend to screw up the practical application of these passages, just as they distort the rest of Scripture, in order to satisfy the craving of the leaders for hierarchy and domination.

1 Timothy 3 speaks of the qualifications of a church elder, one of which is that he rules his house well. And Ephesians 5 teaches that the marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and His Church, in which the husband is head of the wife even as Christ is Head of the Church. Well and good. But in the Geftakys assemblies, George and his lieutenants used this passage to teach that husbands are to exercise absolute authority and oversight of every aspect of the lives of their women. This included a wife's weight, hairstyle, clothing, diet and daily schedule. Ephesians 5 says that the wife is to submit to her husband, but the husband is to love his wife. The Geftakys assemblies redefined husbandly “love” by twisting Eph. 5:25-27. That passage says that Christ gave Himself up for the Church in order to sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water with the Word, in order to present the Church to Himself without imperfection. Thus the husband's love for his wife was defined as his applying the Word to his wife, as a means of rooting out the imperfection in her. Frequently in meetings, I would hear ambitious “brothers” preach of love to wives exclusively in these terms.

The Geftakys assemblies taught that God's will in the world is expressed through godly men, and that the role of their wives was solely to be a help to the ministry of the men. The ministry of the men was defined as leading out the Church in its mission, and the role of the wife was to order the home in such a way that the man had maximal time and energy to fulfill his ministry. Proverbs 31:10-31 was often cited as a model for women to follow. Now, there are many elements of virtuous womanhood described in Proverbs 31. But the one aspect that was chiefly emphasized in this passage was that a wife should be a hard worker. One man taught that it was wrong for a woman to ask her husband's help in fulfilling her duties, and that such a woman should be rebuked. Another man preached that women should be rebuked for using pregnancy as an excuse for not fulfilling their domestic duties.

Because the role of a woman was supposed to be to support her man in his ministry, the communal “training homes” which were occupied by single women focused on training them in domestic skills and the art of being a “good wife.” This also extended to homes of families with daughters. In some homes, older sisters were forbidden to give any kind of direction to their younger brothers.

As far as the meetings of the Church, women were taught to be silent unless they were praying. Thus, in our times of worship, “midweek prayer meetings,” and “pre-prayer,” women could pray aloud. Otherwise, they were to be completely quiet. If during the request-gathering time of the prayer meetings, a woman had a prayer request, she was to write it down on a card or piece of paper and give it to the “brothers” to read. I must say, however, that the prohibition against women speaking aloud in meetings was suspended when we had our midweek Bible studies, since those were supposed to be “outreaches” to the community.

So how did this work out for a typical woman? First of all, the Assembly was not very romantic, since romance was considered to be “fleshly.” If you were a young woman and you saw a guy (oops, I mean “brother”) that you liked, you just had to hope that both you and he had a similar “calling”, a similar “burden” to “co-labor in the work.” If it turned out that this was so – that you both were involved in the same ministry together – and if it turned out that he took an interest in you, then he would talk to the “leading brothers” about you. They in turn would tell him all about you, including any faults that the leaders had noticed in you, and would determine whether or not it was permissible for him to pursue a relationship with you. If they gave the green light, then you both would move on to “spending time” together.

“Spending time” was Assembly-speak for their system of managed “courtship.” It was supposed to prevent immorality and “broken hearts,” although it did not prevent the latter. During the “spending time” phase, whether you knew it or not, you were often being evaluated by the “brother” in much the same way that people in olden times used to evaluate horses or slaves before buying them. “Is she zealous enough? Is she enough of a servant? Does she complain a lot? How does she respond when I inconvenience her?” Assuming that you passed the test and that you and he continued to receive “promises from the Lord,” you both would move on to the engagement phase, then to marriage.

What did marriage look like? If you had a career, you were expected to end it in order to be a “keeper at home.” Your husband had the unrestricted right to command you in every aspect of your life. Since the men were supposed to be the breadwinners and to “come exercised” and ready to preach or speak at every Assembly meeting, your man usually didn't have a lot of time for you during the week. You were supposed to do everything necessary to run the house smoothly so that he would have maximal time to spend preparing messages to preach. If you had children, your duties extended to making sure that they were ready for every meeting and taking care of them during the meetings. If you were married to one man I know, and a cockroach showed up in the kitchen, you were the one to kill it; he couldn't be bothered. Or (speaking of the same man) if you were pregnant and not feeling good, you were still expected to work hard at running the house. Need help moving something? Don't ask him; that would be telling him what to do!

If the husband decided as part of his ministry to have visitors over for dinner unannounced, it was your job to accommodate them cheerfully without complaint, at a moment's notice, no matter what you had been doing up to that point. Now, hospitality and availability to minister to strangers are both good. Yet when one is in a high-demand, fringe, totalist religious group, the group's demands leave very little energy for dealing with “surprises.” Oh, and if you failed in your responsibilities to your husband, he was free to rebuke you and to give you “consequences” for your failure – whether in private, in front of your children, or even in front of strangers visiting your home. This was part of his duty to “wash you with the water of the Word.”

The heavy and distorted emphasis on the man's “headship” in marriage led to conditions that were ripe for spousal abuse. But headship was taught in this way in order to legitimize the dysfunctional home life of George and Betty Geftakys, and of one of their sons, a wife-beater who was promoted to a position of leadership by George. That family was not the only abusive family, by the way. I know one man (the guy who refused to kill a cockroach for his wife), who also used to say to her, “Come here, woman! Let me wipe my hands off on you.” This was his way of testing her “submission.” Later in their marriage, when they began to host teen girls in their home as part of the yearly “Teen Teams,” he made his twelve-year-old son the “head steward” of these (high school aged!) girls, responsible for telling them what to do, and for giving them “consequences” when they failed to do what they were told. Another guy dumped a handful of cold water in his wife's face because she wouldn't go to bed right when he told her to. Yet another man brought his wife and newborn baby in to work, along with his other school-aged children, to show her and the new baby off to his co-workers – less than a week after she had given birth, and was still not fully recovered!

Yet I must tell you once again that such practices were not unique to the Geftakys assemblies. Indeed, there is a movement toward this sort of unbridled male authority within the more conservative elements of American evangelicalism. I was recently made aware of an outfit called “Vision Forum,” run by a gentleman named Doug Phillips, who advocates a return to what he calls “Biblical patriarchy.” He also pastors a church whose practices are very similar to what was done in the Geftakys assemblies. He teaches that women should not go to college, that women should remain in the houses of their fathers until marriage, that women should not vote, and that women should be silent in the church in the same way that this silence was taught in the Geftakys assemblies – except that I don't believe he even allows women to pray aloud in church. (Sources: http://www.newsweek.com/id/109737/output/print; http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx; http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx)

A quick perusal of the Vision Forum website and of some of their activities shows that they have made large inroads into the homeschooling movement, and offer a complete curriculum which embodies their philosophy. Some of the books sold by them as “children's literature” are quite disturbing, because they are books written by southern white apologists for slavery which actively teach and promote racism – books by authors such as G.A. Henty and Col. John Eidsmoe. (Sources: http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/ga-henty/; http://www.visionforum.com/booksandmedia/; http://jensgems.wordpress.com) One other thing is the way in which Doug Phillips and Vision Forum vehemently attack those who disagree with them, going so far as to call their opponents pagans and idolaters for not agreeing with the rigid, narrow, authoritarian patriarchal family structure taught by Vision Forum.

So what does the Bible really teach about male authority and the marriage relationship? Maybe you're asking the wrong guy, since I don't (yet) have a wedding ring. But here's my take. 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 clearly teach that women are not to be leaders over the church. When the Church lifts its prophetic voice, that voice is to be expressed through the men. That's why I won't go to a church with a woman pastor. But I firmly believe that both men and women have an equal voice in choosing who their church leaders are. Women are free to vote oafs and boors out of office. I believe that women are supposed to submit to their husbands. But I believe that the husband's love to his wife must extend beyond correcting her. Help her out. Help her get the lid off the jar. Help her reach the top bookshelf. Is she pregnant? Help her around the house! How would you like it if you had to do a bunch of housework without help while feeling like you were about to throw up for three months straight? Bring her breakfast in bed! Bring her flowers... 1 Peter 4 says that women are equal heirs with men of the grace of life.

I leave you with three examples of couples that have been good examples to me, albeit in a limited way, since I have never met them personally. There is a band I like, whose name is CAVU, led by a couple named Ken and Peg Balcom. Their music is rather quirky and offbeat, and they will probably never be famous. But they seem to really enjoy what they do, and they seem (at least from the pictures I've seen of them) to really enjoy each other. They both write, and they both sing. Ken hasn't duct-taped his wife's mouth shut! Also, there is the Innocence Mission and Vesper Stamper. The Innocence Mission is a band focused around Karen Peris, whose husband helps her out in her music, as a gift to her, as does Ben Stamper, Vesper Stamper's husband. All three of these couples seem to have a good time, even though I'm sure the husbands are Biblical husbands. All three husbands have released the wives to be true Proverbs 31 women – confident, competent and capable, and not lobotomized slaves of some “patriarch.”