PSA: Feelings Don’t Lie. Thoughts Do.

Hola! So the other day, I popped a post up about Mental Health Awareness Day – a day I was unaware of. #irony! (It was on my Facebook and Insta pages, so if you haven’t followed them – do that!) But in response to this, I’ve had some lovely contact and it got me thinking – there’s something we need to clear up.

I don’t know about anyone else, but something I’ve heard preached a lot is that you can’t trust your feelings – that they lie. But that’s not exactly true.

Its an important topic, because in my opinion modern Christianity can have a bit of a mixed-up relationship with human emotion. We can try to suppress so-called negative emotions and only focus on the good ones like ‘faith, hope and love’. Feelings like sadness, unease, grief or anger can be swept under the rug with a big broom called “Just trust God and move on.”

But is God really asking that of us? Everything God made was made for a reason. Even things I don’t like (like spiders, for example. They are actually there as an important part of a balanced ecosystem, even if they are a part of the ecosystem that makes me want to KILL IT WITH FIRE. *Sigh*)

Case in point: God made the limbic system and the other structures in the brain that govern human emotion.Therefore its good. It helps us manage life and interact with it. Shutting off emotion can shut off pleasure, stop us from processing pain, and even dull us to things we should feel strongly about. We can’t choose to shut of some emotion and not others. Thats unhealthy…(and maybe a bit weird if our emotional range is either “happy” or “disconnected.”)

All through scripture, we see human emotion. God never shied away from it or tried to shut it down.

• In Ephesians 4, we are told to be angry but sin not. This tells us there are some things we should feel righteous anger towards, and that anger is a completely normal part of a Christian’s range of emotion. Jesus himself showed anger when the temple had been turned into “a den of thieves” in His words.

• Jesus was moved with compassion multiple times in scripture. Compassion comes from sympathy, empathy and the desire to alleviate someone else’s suffering. But before we feel compassion we have to acknowledge suffering. We have to feel something about it.

• King David, prolific Psalmist, felt all the feels – anger, sadness, fear, grief, love, joy, etc etc etc. None of them were wrong. In fact, they got a pretty big chunk of the Bible dedicated to them. David was called “a man after God’s own heart.” That’s something. An emotional guy captured the heart of God in a unique way, a way that endeared him.

• Song of Solomon deals with another emotion – sexual desire, and erotic love. So thats an emotion too – one the church can be scared of, but not one God ever wanted us to shut down – keep in check, sure. But not shut down.

Here’s what I’ve learned from listening to and reading up on psychology and how the brain works: feelings don’t lie. Thoughts can be distorted, but feelings are feelings. They are what they are. They’re not lying. What matters is how (or that) we process them.

What do I mean? If you are feeling sad, then you are feeling sad. That’s not a lie. You aren’t actually feeling happy. That is true. It’s the same for whichever emotion you are feeling: anger, pride, joy, happiness, grief, whatever. Emotions don’t lie. They can look like other emotions within reason (ie. Grief can look like anger, or rather anger is part of grief) but for the most part, emotions are what they are.

The place where things can go awry is in the area of what we think. If we make decisions based on emotions, that is called emotional reasoning. If we see the world through the lens of emotion, that is emotional reasoning and that can be faulty. I.e. “I’m feeling like an outcast, so that person must hate me.” It might not be true. But its not the feeling that’s wrong, its the thought that’s distorted.

The other problem is when we feel an emotion but sweep it under the rug and don’t process it. Emotion is there for a reason, its there to help us interact with life and heal if something happens to us or a loved one that was unpleasant. If you don’t feel it, you can’t process it.

I’m so tired of the narrative that feelings are lying and can’t be trusted. No! Friend! Your feelings are there for a reason. Listen to them. Lean in to them. The only way out of grief/anger/sadness is through it. Avoiding it doesn’t help. It just bottles up and ferments until its ready to explode, or worse, cause you to self-destruct. Just feel the feels, friend.

Our thoughts are where we sometimes need help and there is no shame in that. Faulty thinking (cognitive distortion if you like the technical term) is a thing . But emotions never lie. They are what they are. There’s no harm in giving them the space they need. If you get stuck in a rut of sadness or grief that you can’t move out of, you might need a little help. But that is completely okay. Sometimes life is tough and we need to share that load. Sometimes life is great and we should be able to share that joy. Again – emotion – a good thing.

Here’s my approach these days: feel the feels then think the thoughts and make decisions. Emotions, thoughts and decisions are all part of the process of life and all equally as important. But don’t ignore your gut instinct. Not even if someone tells you to. Your gut instinct is often, so very often, right on the money.

But thats a whole other topic thats a whole lot more scientific than this blog will ever be!

JUUUUST saying.

Anyway! Thats todays thought bubble. If you want to read more on the brain, emotions and limbic system, check this out 

If not, check back in next time to read my next piece that I’m a bit excited about.

Over and out

Kit K

What to Do if You or Someone You Love is in a Cult

Hey there world, This series has been somewhat of a surprise to me – not in terms of content, but in terms of readership. Ordinarily, I would have gone off into other topics again by now, but due to the fact that this has been picked up by another blog, I need to finish it where I said I would.

I’m doing it via video…eeeeek! Sometimes you need to see whether the person on the other end of the article is a friendly face. I hope you see mine as friendly! Click the link to check the vid! The video is the whole blog post so like - go on. Click it. If you are in a safe place to listen to this stuff without someone asking questions. Here for you. xo

https://youtu.be/8B6acd_S66I

I forgot to raise one thing in the video (because – nerves! I like to be behind the camera not in front of it!) And that is that institutional religion can offer the benefit of solid policies, grievance procedures, and that these can/should exist to protect the people inside it. I meant to say that…but completely forgot. Anyway! Go watch the video, and don’t forget this isn’t a tell all – you’ll need to read the rest of the series if you missed it. Thanks for tuning in. I really hope this helps, or at least raises awareness and compassion for what some people may be going through. Cults/high demand groups/toxic groups still happen. They didn’t go out of fashion in the 70’s.Okay! Go watch if you haven’t already. And if you  need more info, don’t be afraid to consult an expert.

Be safe. Be happy. Be free.
Kit K.

Thinking Errors and Thought Stoppers in Cults

Welcome to part 6 of the “Cults and Unhealthy Groups” series. I thought I’d be done by now, but as it turns out there are a few more things that popped up on my radar that made me go “Hmmm. Now that needs a little more awareness.” So we need to talk about cognitive distortions and thought-stopping clichés. A couple of slightly tidier terms for these are “thought-stoppers” and “thinking errors.”

I’m going to try and keep this light, but if you are exiting or have recently exited a cult/unhealthy group, you may find some examples triggering. If you do, make sure you contact one of the helplines listed at the bottom of the article. Look after yourself, friend. You are worth it.

When it comes to cognitive distortions (thinking errors) – anyone can have them. To me, that seems pretty much human. We can be healthy in some areas of our thinking and others can be thoroughly unhelpful. But there are counsellors, journals or wise friends to help us recognise these and get through them. Whether you are in a cult or not, you can have a couple of these going on. No biggie. But there’s a big difference between say, the cognitive distortions of a teenager with an eating disorder and the cognitive distortions of a cult leader and the effect that could have on their followers.

If you are going to pick up a book on this topic, then “Captive Minds: Captive Hearts” by Lalich and Tobias is about as good as it gets. The topic of cognitive distortions in cults is not a newie and all of these terms have come from experts (i.e. not me!) But! When it comes to cults/unhealthy groups, the thing I find interesting is the way that thinking errors can feed into the power and control structures of the group. I’m not an expert and this is a step outside my comfort zone. I’d rather just lay out the research. But I feel like examples will help make this more relatable. So its research writer meets fiction writer today. I hope it helps.

We need to know what these things are before we can be empowered to recognise them. We can’t always help others see their own thinking errors, especially in cults. But we can free our own minds from their negative effects.

Cognitive Distortions/Thinking Errors

There’s a list of 15 at Psych Central, and another list of 50 at Psychology Today but I thought I’d pick out the ones that may be most applicable to cults.  Psychologist Linda Tilgner (and co-writers) flagged the first five of these when they were writing on the topic of institutional abuse.  The last two are added by yours truly based on other reading. If you’ve read the first few pieces in this series, you’ll know by now that cult leaders can wield a whole lot of control over their followers – in every area of life, potentially. What I’m going to jump right into is what these thinking errors are and how they might be used to further entrench the ideas and control structures of the group.

1 – Mental filtering. This occurs when you filter out some of the details of a story or situation and fixate (usually) on the negatives. A person may ignore all the positives in a situation and focus only on the down-sides, thus allowing their thinking to spiral toward a dark or doomy conclusion.

How might a cult leader do this? They may ignore or filter out the good progress society is making in many areas and use a single crime to paint a picture of the world becoming a more depraved or dangerous place. The rumination on this single event could then be linked with unrelated events to create a dark picture of the future. This may then cause followers to fear/distance the outside world more, and further devote themselves to the teachings and lifestyle of the group – which they may believe will be the thing that ‘saves’ them. Their commitment to their group, and the leaders control over them, becomes more entrenched.

2 – Polarised thinking. This one is also called “Black and white” thinking, and basically it removes all grey areas or middle ground. You are either a complete success or an utter failure. People are either for you (team/pseudo-family/covenant) or against you (enemies/people who cannot be trusted).   There is no middle ground like a neutral acquaintance or just steady progress in life with a minor setback here and there.

In a cult/unhealthy group setting, the most obvious way this might play out is the ‘us vs them’ mindset where people are either allies or enemies and nothing in between. This has the potential to create deep divisions between family/friends and the cult member, or even fuel a persecution complex.

But on a more personal level, the demand for purity (that Robert Lifton talks about in his work) means that this polarised thinking could result in the “complete success or utter failure” version of polarised thinking – If I mess up even once, it’s a disaster. I’m a complete failure. (This links with another thinking error called “catastrophisation” but time doesn’t permit me to go there.) Given the control structures within the cult, and the impact of failure on a persons standing in the group, the pressure to conform could be loaded with consequences here.

3 – Overgeneralisation. This is when we come to a general conclusion based on a single incident or a single piece of evidence. In a cult setting, the leader may use this tendency towards overgeneralisation to make sweeping statements based on single events, further entrenching their teachings, labels or view of the world, whilst also filtering out the details that don’t suit their narrative and using polarised thinking to further separate followers from “the rest of the world.” The world is getting darker. This group is a problem. This person has an agenda. This person or thing is a threat. That sort of thing.

4 – Emotional reasoning. Emotional reasoning is when you feel something so therefore you believe it is true. Lalich and Tobias, in “Captive Minds, Captive Hearts” (cited here) explain it this way: “In groups that place emphasis on feeling over thinking, members learn to make choices and judge reality solely based on what they feel.  This is true of all New Age groups and many transformational and psychology cults.  Interpreting reality through feelings is a form of wishful thinking. If it really worked, we would all be wealthy and the world would be a safe and happy place.  When this type of thinking turns negative, it can be a shortcut to depression and withdrawal:  “I feel bad, worthless, and so on, therefore I am bad, worthless, and so on.”

Side note: One of the reasons cult leaders have such power over their people is that their followers believe they have special enlightenment, or a special ability to hear God or be God. So they’re not going to call emotional reasoning what it is. It would take someone pretty darn ballsy (or unconcerned with their reputation or standing in the group) to say “I don’t think that’s based on fact. I think its emotional reasoning.”

What might emotional reasoning look like in a cult or high demand group? Imagine an extended meditation session guided by a guru, or perhaps an extended praying in tongues session, or intense music that leads you into an altered state of consciousness, one where you are emotionally heightened, open-minded and impressionable. Things said at the peak of such an experience may resonate very strongly because of the emotional state you are in. It can be very easy to take them as truth during this time even if the evidence in your life is contradictory. “I must change.” “God will only love me if I change.” “I must become better.” “I must work harder.” Or “A particular thing in my life is about to change. I just know it. I’m going to make life decisions based on this feeling.”

Experiences during such heightened states may not be recognised as emotional reasoning, but this is what it can indeed be.

5 – Labelling. This happens when we take one occurrence or characteristic and apply a label to someone. Its unhealthy when we do it to ourselves or other people, but when a group dynamic is added, and a single person has the power to label someone and have a whole group agree without questioning – that’s powerful. In Scientology, dissenters are branded “Suppressive persons”. In other groups, there are other words. “Jezebel” is one I’ve heard thrown around a bit. Labels can damage a persons self-esteem, but also their relationships and standing within the group.  A person could be labelled anything by a cult leader, and because followers lack the ability to question him/her, it can be difficult or impossible to shift.

The “us vs them” mindset is also an example of labelling in the cult/unhealthy group context. This has the power to make followers disregard the care and input of entire groups of people because they’ve been labelled as an enemy.

6 – Mind reading.“I just knew what they were thinking.” If a guru/central person in a cult tells us this, we may whole-heartedly believe they actually knew what someone was thinking. We may even react pre-emptively based on this assumption. Guess what: We can’t read minds. No one can. So if you are told “they were thinking this,” and it didn’t come straight from the mouth of the person who was thinking it, it’s a cognitive distortion. No one can read minds. Not even your guru/pastor. This links with another cognitive distortion called “fortune telling” where people claim to know what happens next. “They’re thinking this…they’ll do this next.” That sort of thing. No one can know. They can only guess.

How might this look in a cult/unhealthy group setting? “She’s thinking this. She’ll do this next” is said by the guru/central person and the group goes into damage control mode. All over something that may not have been thought, and hasn’t been done.

7 – Cognitive Conformity (also known as) Group Think. Psychology Today explains cognitive conformity (or group-think) as “Seeing things the way people around you view them. Research has shown that this often happens at an unconscious level.”

A cult or unhealthy/high demand group may exhibit this group-think by unquestioning agreement with the central person in the group. This culture of “Don’t question the leader” may result in unconscious agreement with everything he/she says, even if it means suppressing ones own misgivings.

If you are to look in a normal group of say, 20 people, there are likely to be clusters of opinions on a particular issue and not all of them will be in agreement. But if a leader gives a statement and then says “Do you agree?” to a group of 20, and everyone agrees or adds more so-called evidence (which may be based on emotional reasoning or mind-reading) to the leaders statement, you may have yourself a thinking error in action.  This should be especially concerning (in my opinion) if you feel fear about voicing a differing opinion. My belief is that this potentially links with another thinking error, the in-group bias where we tend to trust people in our circle, from our background or from our own experience more than others. If you can only trust people in your group, if you can only listen to opinions from an echo chamber, you may have a problem.

How do these cognitive distortions work together in a cult or unhealthy group setting?

Individually, they look a little different. They may make it difficult for a person to be happy or at peace in life. They may screw with personal relationships. But they don’t have the same controlling or coercive power they have in a cult/unhealthy group. As I mentioned further up, its the interplay that I find interesting. I’m not an expert. But here’s how it could play out.

You’ve been trained not to question the leader. You believe he possesses a level enlightenment you’ve not seen equalled. You’ve gone through the programs and have learned to see things his way, to look through his eyes. So you haven’t even noticed that you are subject to group-think or an in-group bias. You start to filter out uncomfortable details – details that mess with your groups way of seeing the world. People who disagree with you are distanced, disregarded or cut off from your life. If they aren’t for you, they’re against you. You are seeing things through the polarised thinking that is part of the group. No one picks you up on this, because everyone thinks the same way. 

You go to one of those meditation sessions. After hours of pushing yourself to the limits and stilling your mind so you can receive enlightenment, the guru speaks. Its truth. You know it. You feel it. You don’t pick up on the fact that he used overgeneralisation and mental filtering to lead you to the point of unquestioning belief. You start to think about implementing this new truth in to your life. You don’t realise its emotional reasoning, because you don’t check it against anything. What you do know is that you must succeed at it. This is vital. This leader has a unique level of enlightenment. You won’t question it because you don’t want to miss out. Group think, meets emotional reasoning, meets polarised thinking, influenced by overgeneralisation and mental filtering. If anyone challenges you, you know to shut them down. You have something precious, even if it doesn’t make sense to anyone else. Even if you can’t explain it. If there was ever a conflict, you know you would agree with the guru. He has the keys for you life. You feel it. Therefore it is true.

Now for a little more on Thought-Stoppers

I know the “thought-stopping” cliché was mentioned in part two of this series, but I felt it warranted a little more of an example, hence its mention here. Thought-stopping cliches are used in cults and unhealthy groups to kill dialogue or healthy, investigative thought. Nathan Dial (of Medium) wrote, ” It is an essential tool of totalitarians and would-be brainwashers. Be aware of it, and guard against it. A very large amount of both everyday and politically-oriented (and at times, religious oriented as well) rhetoric consists of these.”

Robert Lifton also talks about it in his discussion of “Loading the Language” which you can read here.

Some everyday examples include:

• It is what it is

• S@*t happens

• God works in mysterious ways

• Its all good

• Just choose joy (actually I wrote a whole blog post on that here).

All of these could cause someone to silence their misgivings or questions in order to just accept something and move on without thinking about it. But there are other examples. “Its apples and oranges” may cause someone in a cult/unhealthy group to stop comparing their own groups thoughts/doctrines with others, when in fact they can be compared. Another one is “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” which can reduce tricky situations to a double binds which can’t be solved.

I just wanted to illustrate how thought-stoppers can affect someone in a group. I agonised over what kind of an example to use here. I decided to use one regarding women, because its a story I’ve heard a lot: (Trigger warning: deals with disclosures of abuse)

• Person A discloses abuse to Person B. The story goes around the group and a few people now know about it. The guru/central person needs to shut it down. Guru says to Person B “She’s just not seeing things straight. Her perception is altered. You know, she’s been through so much.”

• Person B doesn’t investigate further. “She’s not seeing straight. She’s been through so much” was enough to make them nod, agree, and not look any further. Person B now assumes Person A is mentally affected, and unable to see things straight. The thought process has been stopped.  This may be repeated through-out the group to discredit the person who disclosed the abuse. (Abhorrent behaviour, in my opinion! All victims should be given the benefit of our compassion and belief. Anyway..!)

Let’s think this through. Follow-on questions could probe beyond the thought-stopper and arrive at the conclusion that the victim is actually seeing things straight and should be believed.

“What has she been through, then?” (Ahhh, so she has faced abuse? So she is seeing things straight).

“And who did that to her?” (And there’s the whole ballgame. Don’t get me wrong, abusive people will dodge, weave, gaslight and lie to avoid getting caught. But eventually the truth comes out, because the more lies that are required to cover the tracks, the more likely it is that one will end up in a “Gotchya” moment.)

Asking questions beyond the thought-stopper is powerful. Whether we are allowed to do it out loud (without putting ourselves at risk) or whether we do it in the silence of our own thoughts until we can get to a place of freedom, it can be liberating. It’s important.

Too often, we stop at “They’ve been through so much” as a means of discrediting someone. Too often, victims end up defending themselves because they have a right and need to be heard but they’re in an establishment that’s not listening. Next time someone tries this on you, ask what they’ve been through. Ask who did it. Don’t fall for the thought stoppers.

If any of these rang a bell for you, and if you feel you need support right now, please call either Lifeline on 13 11 14  (for mental health support) or the Cult Information and Family Support Service. You aren’t alone. You can get through this. There are people here who get it, and are here to help.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Grohol J , Psych Central “15 Common Cognitive Distortions,” https://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/

Boyes A, Psychology Today, “50 Common Cognitive Distortions,” https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/in-practice/201301/50-common-cognitive-distortions

Tilgner L, Dowie T, and Denning N, Integrative Psychology, “Recovery from church, institutional and cult abuse: A review of theory and treatment perspectives,” https://integrativepsychology.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/institutional-abuse.pdf

Tobias M and Lalich J (excerpt cited on International Cultic Studies Association), “The Role of Cognitive Distortion” http://www.icsahome.com/articles/the-role-of-cognitive-distortion-tobias

Dial, M, Medium, “Beware the Thought Stopping Cliche,” https://medium.com/@nathandial/thinking-friends-please-be-informed-about-the-thought-stopping-cliché-ea6b0d9510d8

And the rest of the articles in this series if you missed them

How do I know if I’m in a cult – https://kitkennedy.com/2018/09/06/how-do-i-know-if-im-in-a-cult/

8 Key Characteristics of cults – https://kitkennedy.com/2018/09/06/8-key-characteristics-of-cults/

What cults have in common – https://kitkennedy.com/2018/09/08/cult-commonalities/

What is gaslighting in cults and high demand groups? – https://kitkennedy.com/2018/09/12/what-is-gaslighting/

Whats the difference between a cult and a healthy church: the Kit Kennedy Opinion -https://kitkennedy.com/2018/09/16/difference-between-cult-and-church/

What is the Difference Between a Cult and a Healthy Church?

After an interesting week, to say the least, and more than 2000 hits on a blog series I haven’t advertised at all, I’m taking a short break from the juicy cult stuff to write about an important topic – what to look for in a healthy church. After this, I’ll be writing about cognitive distortions (unhelpful thinking patterns) common in cults, and theological cat-fishing. Can’t wait to bring you those, but in the meantime, lets talk about something positive!

First of all, I have to acknowledge an irony here: my husband and I skipped church today. We just couldn’t bring ourselves to go. We’d had a big week. Our phones have been pinging constantly for two weeks following a couple of Facebook posts which mentioned that we were no longer members of my family’s church (the one they run), a disclosure that lead my Dad (the senior pastor) to comment in the local newspaper about it. Not going to lie: that stung. But the public response to that fiasco lead to yet more support for us, and sadly, more disclosures of peoples own sad stories. I’m seeing that there are a lot of people wounded by church. I mean, I knew there would be a lot of hurt people out there because there are a lot of unhealthy churches out there. But it really hit home this week. It motivates me to write more. Because knowledge is power, and because to me, faith should be empowering not crushing.

I understand that if you’ve been wounded by a church or cult experience, it can be seriously difficult to approach church or faith again. But there is a difference between cults and true christianity, just like there’s a difference between healthy and unhealthy churches. I can’t possibly cover the whole gamete here, but I can give you a few gems on what I believe you should to look for in a healthy (vs. unhealthy) church.

Here’s my list of considerations:

1. The Hebrews 10 test: In Hebrews 10:23-25 it says “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” Some translations say “for the uplifting and edification” of the saints.” But whatever the translation, this is about stirring up hope, love, good works, and leaving us feeling encouraged and edified or empowered. Sure, exhortation can also involve delivering the tough-love truth in order to bring us further along in our walk with God, but it should always leave us feeling more empowered. 

This scripture doesn’t encourage us to hand over control of our walk with God.  It’s about stirring up love and good works. “Assembling together” and “exhorting one another” sound very egalitarian to me – eluding that we are peers, we are together, there is not one whose place is over us to make demands or control us. A healthy church, to me, has a pastor as a leader among peers, not ever on a pedestal to be the one through whom we filter our faith or our relationship with God. There is a mountain of scripture I could go through here, but lets save that for another blog post.

Another quick caveat here – Ephesians 2:8-9 says that “Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works, lest anyone should boast.” So there’s a line. Exhorting each-other towards good works is one thing, demanding it so it qualifies you for salvation is quite another.

What to look for: a church that lifts you up, empowers you, doesn’t avoid preaching truth, but always binds it in love, hope, and exhortation towards good works. A church should make a positive contribution to the families and community that it touches.

2. The Romans 14 test: In Romans 14: 17 it says “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” So look at that last bit.  Righteousness is right standing with God. That is something that can only be attained through Christ. If we think good works is the key here, and if there is no peace or joy, we have legalism – a problem (in my opinion). If we do not have peace, then there’s a problem. If there is no joy, then there is another potential red flag. If this is the metaphorical three legged stool, then we need to look for evidence of all three. Otherwise we have ourselves in a wonky establishment, something we can’t rest our metaphorical tooshes on without risk of a fall. The Bible exhorts us to judge a tree by its fruit. So have a look around and see how this is sitting.

How do you test it? Follow your heart, honestly, as that’s the best barometer of whether or not you’ve found your spiritual home. But be aware. “In their slick advertising, cults present smiling faces and happy families (Aron, Cults, too Good to be True).” So if the smiles are too wide and constant, you might be looking at something with a shiny facade that can’t be trusted.

The other point up for consideration is mental health. In mental health terms, the antithesis of peace is anxiety and the antithesis of joy is depression. Does this mean that depression and anxiety shouldn’t exist in the church? I’m not saying that. One in four people in the modern world will have mental health struggles at some point, that’s ok. That’s life. A healthy church will support them as they find treatment and restoration. But church should build us up. It should support us. If you are looking around and seeing a lot of people diagnosed with mental health issues after becoming involved in a group, you might have to think about why.

What to look for: three legs to the stool – righteousness, peace and joy. But make sure its genuine, not a front. 

3. The Doctrinal Question Test: What happens when a doctrine is questioned? Does the pastor react poorly? Or do they say “Make yourself a cuppa. Let’s kick this around”? Are you allowed to arrive at an “agree to disagree” point after discussion? Cults and high demand groups usually don’t allow questions, even from the inner circle (More on that here). In a healthy church, questions and genuine respectful debate are allowed or even encouraged. The truth is that the Bible is a complicated book. Theologically, there are many different lenses you can apply to it. Choosing one over the other shouldn’t leave you feeling excluded, mocked, shamed or at worst, excommunicated. The other part to the “doctrine” test is this: does your church know what it believes and is this consistent through each layer of the church? If you don’t know what your church believes when it comes to basic doctrines, you could have a problem.

What to look for: a church that encourages healthy discourse when it comes to matters of faith, doctrine, or even the how the church itself runs, and is clear on what it’s key doctrines are.

4. The Friends, Family and Community Test: Does your church encourage healthy engagement with friends, family and community, strengthening them and building them up? Or does it drive a wedge between you and them? Does it encourage legitimate, altruistic engagement with your community, or is there another agenda behind it? A healthy church will never divide you from your family or friends, and it won’t foster and “us and them” mentality. Dividing someone from friends and family is something that is flagged as a concern in domestic-abuse type relationships. If a church exhibits this characteristic, it is no less concerning (read more on that here). I’ll also have to flag here that I’m strongly anti-dominionist in my theology. My belief (based on Philippians 2:5-11 among others) is that Jesus came to serve not to conquer and we should emulate that. Not everyone will agree with that, but I’m strongly skeptical of churches that exhibit dominionist theology and want to take over a community rather than serve it.

What to look for: A church that doesn’t divide families or do harm to communities. It should serve and uplift both.

5. The Discipleship Test: Discipleship programs are common in churches, just as thought-reform programs are common in cults. I like to ask this question: does the discipleship program build up the person so they are more empowered, more discerning, more informed, more able to make their own life choices in accordance with where they believe God is guiding them? Or are they less able to engage in independent thought, becoming more and more dependant on the group? If the latter, watch out. (Because I’m dropping in a reference or scripture in every section here, I’ve linked this article on abusive forms of discipleship, but only read it if you’re in for something heavy!)

What to look for:  Programs that make people more personally empowered and capable of independent thought, rather than more dependant on the group and less capable to think independently.

6. The Clear Structure Test: If you were to have a grievance in your church, would it be clear to you who and how this would be rectified? Or would you feel fear and potential isolation? I’m a little wary of independent churches, especially if there is no board the pastor legitimately answers to. Most cults are ‘self-sealing systems‘ – they are their own power structures which can make grievances difficult to air or resolve. The central person becomes “the voice of God” who can’t be questioned. If your pastor has no one they are accountable to, or if you don’t know who you could take a grievance to, then this risk is wide open.

What to look for: Somewhere where there are clear lines of communication and accountability, clear policies and procedures, and consistency through-out the whole organisation. 

7. The Truth Test: I didn’t know what to call this one, but I guess the thing I’m questioning here is this – does your group have a single guru-type that it gleans all its truth from, or does it recognise truth can and does come from multiple sources? Does it always come back and check “truth” with the Bible and consider the interpretation of it against the nature of God? If your church is only allowed to ‘draw from one well’ so to speak, then you could have a problem. Clean water is clean water wherever you drink it from. Truth is truth, wherever you glean it from. My other little flag here, and it is a personal flag, is this: does your church talk about different types of truth, or suggest that facts and truth may differ. They don’t. Truth is truth. If the facts don’t line up, then there’s an issue.

What to look for: a church that genuinely seeks to grow in its understanding of truth and doctrine, that looks for confirmation from multiple sources and checks back with the Big Guy and His Book (meaning God and the Bible).

8. The “I’ve missed a Sunday” test: I missed this Sunday. I missed it because we had a huge week, one that was incredibly raw emotionally. There was no demand on me to justify why I missed it. I just did. This, to me, is good. Because it means my church trusts me to make my own decisions, and doesn’t treat me as its property. If your church puts unreasonable attendance demands on you, even for midweek meetings or for “volunteering” opportunities (which may be voluntary in name only), then you might consider the possibility that this could be a high demand group. (Read more here)

What to look for: genuine freedom, known by its fruit and not just by its narrative. 

9. The Robert Lifton Test: I’m not going to spell this all out again, but check out my blog post on 8 Key Characteristics of Cults. They’re taken from a well-respected psychiatrist who researched mind-control techniques. Read that and make sure your group doesn’t check too many boxes!

If you want another opinion on this whole issue of finding a healthy church, check out this article here.

As mentioned above, this past week or so has seen us inundated with contact from people with various stories. Some of you will find it impossible to even think about walking back into a church again. I completely get that. So I have three encouragements for you: 1. Allow yourself to heal. That takes time. 2. Feel free to use this post as a checklist if you find yourself able to consider church again. 3. If you can’t ever walk into a church again, know that doesn’t mean you can’t ever approach God again. I’d encourage you to find a friend, even one, that you can share your life and faith with. Even if thats just over a coffee or a beer every now and then, because guess what “Wherever two or more are gathered in My [God’s] name, there I AM in the midst.”

Take the pressure off, friend. Recover. Then revisit this stuff always remembering that your gut instinct is something to be listened to. Once again, I’ve hyperlinked the heck out of this article. Don’t feel like you have to follow every link. Its just so you know I didn’t make up all these opinions myself. There are a mountain of considerations you could make. These are just my top 9.

Cheers and good luck.
Kit K

What is Gaslighting in Cults and Toxic Groups?

What do we do when something upsets our status quo? When it confronts our deepest held ideals, threatens to dethrone our idols, and tarnish our heroes? What do we do when someone comes forward and says “I was a victim of abuse. This person [who you all held in such high regard] took something from me, damaged me profoundly.” And out pours their awful story. 

In my time in evangelicalism, I’ve observed the lengths people will go to in order to protect the way they see the world. Sadly, sometimes, even often times, this does not deal kindly with those who deserve our utmost compassion and care, and whose deep craving to be heard and believed is too often met with scorn and cover-ups.

Long before the abuse victim finds the courage to speak up (if they find it at all), there exists a psychological phenomenon that has a unique ability to keep them silent and make them doubt their own story. This can be true for cults and toxic groups. It can also be very true for domestic violence situations – very often, in fact.

Guys. We need to talk about gaslighting.

“Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s belief. Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim [1].” 

The term has its origins in a pretty messed up movie called “Gaslight” from the 1940’s. In it, an overbearing, abusive husband paints his wife as the crazy one, and makes her believe she is seeing and hearing things, by messing with the gaslights and denying it. That is the super quick version, but the full movie was pretty twisted by 1940’s standards. In recent years, the term has been used in clinical and research literature quite extensively.

It’s just a shame more people don’t know what it looks like, because this little trick is one that can be used by abusive individuals or toxic/unhealthy groups to hold people captive, and make them believe they are crazy or incompetent.

It’s horrible. Insidious. It can heap more damage on people who are nothing like the narrative set up around them, and put the monster inside their own head as the words of the abuser continue to do damage even when they are not around. Let me show you how it can look, but before I do – a hefty trigger warning! The Lifeline phone number will be at the end of this post. Call it if you need it.

Now. Gaslighting is often a term used in domestic violence relationships. But I think it’s fair to say that in cults or toxic groups, it is often individuals in positions of power who abuse other individuals. So the gaslighting example I’m about to give you could be one between guru/pastor/leader and follower:

A victim, lets call her Karen, attempts to confront her abuser over something he said that she didn’t believe to be true. She’s tried before one on one, but he yells at her until she stops and just listens. No one is there to witness it. So this time she asks him about it in front of someone. “I just wanted to clarify something you said to me on Tuesday,” she says, fearful.

“I didn’t speak to you on Tuesday,” he responds, glibly.

“Yes you did. I was at your office. I arrived at five past ten. I texted you because I was going to be late,” Karen says. She starts to feel anxious.
“No you didn’t,” he says. “I wasn’t there Tuesday.”

She knows he was. She goes to check her phone/diary. “See, here’s my appointment. I was there. SO were you.”

He grabs his phone and opens up their text message history, fumbling for a second. “Here. No text message. You weren’t there Tuesday. Your memory is playing tricks on you.”

She panics, but presses on with rising anxiety. “Anyway! We had a discussion where you said (insert damaging statement here).”

He leans across the table, face exuding empathy and care, “Karen, that conversation never happened. You imagined it. Your mind is not reliable.” He then turns to the person sitting next to them. “She clearly needs our support. She’s just not stable.” Karen feels shame, embarrassment and confusion. She is still hurt by the original thing he said, the one she tried to confront him over, but now her mental stability has been called into question in front of a witness, perhaps even a friend who now looks down on her.

The thing is, she was there on Tuesday. She did send the text message. He just deleted it so the evidence was gone, and denied the conversation that would have outed him as having damaged her psychologically. Ask any abuser if they are an abuser. The vast majority will say no. They’ll say no up until a criminal conviction and then sometimes after that. Jails are full of people still claiming innocence. That’s why its important to know gaslighting when you see it – so you know you aren’t the guilty one.

Karen’s guru/pastor/leader may have set himself up as an authority figure or a person with power and control over her life. To anyone else, including the person beside him in the example above, he may seem eloquent, caring, and utterly incapable of abuse.

Karen isn’t crazy. The first time gaslighting happened to her, she may not even have noticed it or second guessed her own mind. But as the behaviour progresses, she may doubt herself more and more. She may experience abuse, be it psychological or otherwise, and yet he may erase evidence and pretend it never happened only to point again to her ‘faulty brain’ and ask her why she is imagining such awful things.

Its insidious. It can be big moments like this, or like in the movie – causing the lights to dim and then denying that they have dimmed – or it can be subtle.

–          An “I forgive you” from the abuser when the victim has done nothing wrong.

–          An “I love you” from someone who causes you physical harm. If you want to know what love looks like, check out 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13. It’s a pretty good checklist on what love is and isn’t.

In an article on Psychology Today, Robyn Stern (PhD) suggests there are three stages to gaslighting. The first is “disbelief.”

“When the first sign of gaslighting occurs,” writes Stern. “You think of the gaslighting interaction as a strange behavior or an anomalous moment. During this first stage, things happen between you and your partner, or your boss, friend, family member, that seem odd to you.”

The second is defense, where you try to defend yourself against the gaslighting type of manipulation. I wasn’t going to lift a big quote from Sterns article, but gee, its good. She explains it this way:

“Think about it—you tell your boss, for example, you are unhappy with the assignments you have been getting; you feel you are being wrongly passed over for the best assignments. You ask him why this is happening. Instead of addressing the issue, he tells you that you are way too sensitive and way too stressed….. well, maybe you are sensitive and stressed, but, that doesn’t answer the question of why you are being passed over for these better assignments. But, rather than leave it at that, or redirect the conversation, you start defending yourself, telling your boss you are not that sensitive or stressed, or, that the stress doesn’t interfere with your ability to work. But, during this stage, you are driven crazy by the conversation…. going over and over, like an endless tape, in your mind.”

The third stage cited by Stern is depression:

“By the time you get to this stage you are experiencing a noticeable lack of joy  and, you hardly recognize yourself anymore. Some of your behavior feels truly alien. You feel more cut off from friends—in fact, you don’t talk to people about your relationship very much—none of them like your guy. People may express concern about how you are and you are feeling—they treat you like you really do have a problem.”

Side note: she is the author of a book called “The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulations Other People Use to Control Your Life.” If you need it, get it.

What are the warning signs?

I’m no psychologist. I’m no expert on gaslighting even though I’ve experienced it. But I can tell you that, no matter how long you’ve faced it for, you can get back to a place where you can spot it and deal with it. It might take therapy. It might take time. But it can be done.

I think we could probably say that the first warning sign is that those three stages listed above rang some bells with you. Gaslighting isn’t always obvious. In fact, it uses subtlety and confusion as weapons. It isn’t always “on purpose” as the abuser may operate this way almost habitually. It is always damaging, I would argue. But again, I’m not an expert.

Who is? Dr. Stephanie Sarkis PhD. She posted these 11 warning signs in an article on Psychology Today. Read it for further detail. Its good. But here’s the scoop. (Thanks Psych Today/Dr Sarkis):

1. They tell blatant lies

2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof

3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition

4. They wear you down over time

5. Their actions do not match their words

6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you

7. They know confusion weakens people

8. They project [ie. accuse you of the thing they are guilty of]

9. They try to align people against you

10. They tell you or others that you are crazy

11. They tell you everyone else is a liar

Seriously, if you’ve got the time to do it, go read the article. The examples might help you understand what is happening to you or someone close to you. I’m not going to try and write some pithy, cutesy article with all the answers here. But I am going to tell you this: you can recover. I’m a huge advocate of therapy here. It might start by calling a domestic violence service. They can help you through it and point you to where you can get some good counselling and reclaim that beautiful brain of yours.

I have experienced this phenomenon. I remember, at the height of my gaslighting (in one scenario), I believed I was dumb, defective and utterly hopeless. I can’t tell you how dark that time was. Imagine my utter horror when I was chosen in a human resources class to do an IQ test (we were studying psychometrics). My result came back, well, okay I’ll say it – high.

So high I had to sit back and think “Well. I’m not dumb then, am I? If I’m not dumb, then maybe there are some other things I am being lied to about here.” That was my trigger for a journey out.  It has taken time, but I’ve reclaimed my brain. It’s a good one. I like it.

I’m telling you that because encouragement helps. But like I said, I’m not going to offer you five steps out of the situation you may be in. I’d strongly suggest:

–          Contacting a domestic violence service. Google one in your local area (Click here if you need to clear your browser history afterwards)

–          Contacting the Cult Information and Family Support Service (or a cult support service in your local area if you have one). www.cifs.org.au

–          Access counselling services through your local GP

–          Calling the police if your immediate safety is at risk

–          Calling Lifeline on 13 11 14 if you are feeling depressed and at risk.

Gaslighting is wrong. It is abusive. It might feel too hard to overcome. I get that. But you can do it. Just don’t feel like you have to do it alone. There is so much help out there. Don’t quit. Please access help. Life can be beautiful again.

8 Characteristics of Cults

Hello again! This is the second in a series on what is and isn’t a cult. Its a hot topic, a hurtful topic for some and one that I’ve only written because of the overwhelming amount of questions I’ve, well, avoided. Look after yourself as you read. Remember this isn’t about me branding a group as a cult. Its about education and understanding. I won’t brand a particular group a cult in this series (except those named in the article that have already been publically scrutinised a lot. Scientology for example). That is not my job, my right, nor my intent. But I hope it helps you understand what you may be concerned about, to form your own thoughts, and know where to go for help if you need it.

Okay people. On with the show. Here are 8 key characteristics of cults

Dr Robert Lifton was a psychologist with a special interest in mind control. His work, “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China” outlined eight criteria for so-called thought reform. This has been quoted in many a cult-related document, but many of them are quite academic (targeted, for example, at counsellors who help exiting or post-exit cult members). They are profound points though, and when you go and watch or read up on cults (such as Scientology, Rajneesh Purim, The Family, The Children of God, Heaven’s Gate, Jonestown etc) you will see many or all of these points in action. Your particular experience may not be as hardcore as some of the cults I just mentioned, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t profoundly damaging and difficult to leave. I’m going to try and paraphrase it so it’s a bit easier to digest, but it all comes from Lifton’s. I’ll pop the deets in the bibliography at the end.

Point 1 from Robert Lifton: Milieu Control

This is a fancy term for control of communication and information within the group. It may involve control of information and communication within the environment and ultimately to the individual. It can result in a significant degree of isolation from society.

What do you look for? On one end of the spectrum, it may involve certain publications being frowned upon. They may be mocked rather than expressly forbidden. On the other end of the spectrum, you may only be allowed to read or watch certain things and others may be explicitly forbidden. Information about people may be another thing that can be strictly controlled or contrived. If you feel isolated from society because of your involvement with a group, then this is a big red flag. If your information isn’t kept confidential, or if it gets twisted, then this may be another sign.

Point 2: Mystical Manipulation.

This is a tricky one. It involves “the manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.”

I say its tricky because, although its incredibly common, it can also be genuine. I don’t know what Lifton says about it, but my thoughts (and they are just my thoughts) on what to watch for include:

–          Extra Biblical revelation, or self-proclaimed apostles or prophets. Who gave them their credentials? Does what they say reinterpret the Bible or line up with it?

–          The belief that your group has a superior truth to other groups or the rest of humanity.

–          Do you feel peaceful about it? Or do you feel controlled by it. The Bible says that “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” If the so-called “Truth” being presented to you causes you to be further within someone else’s control, then it isn’t the kind of truth the Bible was talking about. God’s truth brings freedom, liberty and peace.

Point 3: Demand for Purity

A cult believes that its ideology is superior to that of the rest of the world. You have to stay pure and loyal to that ideology or you are at odds with the group. There’s a certain irony in the fact that every cult believes it is unique and holds a superior truth. When does it become problematic? Ask yourself the following questions:

Does your group take a black and white view of the world? Are your members constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection? Are guilt and shame used to control members? These are your warning signs here.

Its important to note that no one in a cult is going to outright say “I’m using guilt and shame to control you.” This is subliminal. You may believe the cult leader is superior and you are inferior, that you must strive to reach their approval. You may feel shame and guilt when you fail and then ride a constant merry go round of failure, shame/hiding and then re-engagement.

Point 4: Confession 

In Scientology, “audits” are used to extract peoples secrets. In other cults, programs of reform are used to extract confessions and replace old mindsets with new ones. The information given/extracted in these sessions can later be used to control members. Other groups may use confession to various degrees to control. “Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins”, ”attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

Your brain might go straight to Catholic confession. I don’t believe Lifton was referring to that. I think that for two reasons: Sins were defined by the Bible, and not by individual priests and confidentiality is an enshrined rule and value – a highly political topic right now.

Your brain might also go to Romans 12:1-2 – “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you might prove the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” This scripture may be used in a good, kind, uplifting way. It shouldn’t be used in a controlling, coercive, shaming or threatening way. Listen to your heart here.

What do you look for? Stringent accountability structures, information being exchanged without confidentiality, information being used against people, whole groups of people knowing and discussing personal sins, sins being defined by the group.

Decent groups respect people and their confidentiality. They recognise humans are imperfect. If your group doesn’t, then warning, warning.

Point 5: Sacred Science 

This one has been hinted at in previous points. Perhaps that was Robert Lifton. Perhaps that was me seeing the interplay. Either way, sacred science is the belief that the groups doctrine or ideology is the ultimate truth. It is beyond question or dispute. Truth doesn’t exist outside the group. “The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.”

What to look for? Does your group seem so special, so unique that it cannot be found anywhere else in the world? Are you allowed to question or disagree with something? What happens if you do? Would you be punished, shamed or shunned? These are your warning signals.

Now, the office of the prophet can be a dicey one here. It is my belief that prophets do exist and are bona-fide gifts to the body of Christ. But. This comes with caveats. If a prophet demands, even tacitly, unquestioning obedience to their word, then you have a possible problem. If they are self-proclaimed, you may have a problem. If they are unchecked, you may have a problem.

How do you check a prophet? Look at what they’ve said and ask if it has come true. Try to avoid coincidence. If they’ve seen someone playing a musical instrument and prophesied a music ministry, then that’s pretty obvious. That’s not necessarily prophecy. That’s an educated guess about what someone might want to hear.

Point 6: Loading the Language

Are there words or phrases that mean something different to your group than to the rest of the world? Is your groups jargon such that the rest of the world wouldn’t understand what you mean unless you explain it? According to Lifton, “This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the groups way of thinking.”

That might sound tricky. So I’ll break it down. Is there a word you use to describe a person who should be avoided perhaps? Scientologists call them “Suppressive persons.” Other pseudo-Christian cults may brand a person a “jezebel” for example. This is quite a common one actually. Again, not a statement about a particular group. Jezebel was a problematic Biblical character and churches may use this term legitimately. It’s only a problem, in my opinion, if it causes a person to go “oh ok, avoid them. They can’t be trusted” and further thought is terminated.

Are there words you use to describe aspects of your doctrine that a ‘normal’ person or a person outside of your movement wouldn’t understand? When you hear these words used, do you actually think about them, or just think “Yes, I agree/I know what that means” and  move on?

Point 7: Doctrine over person. 

“Members personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.” Okay this one is loaded! Does your group cover up abuse? Does it talk about bad or abusive experiences as being the will of God, or somehow a qualifying factor for promotion? Do you have to look back on abuse or misfortune and feel thankful for it or apologise for it? Do you have to look back on experiences you may otherwise have enjoyed and feel guilty over it? Does the doctrine come before you or other people in terms of value? Does leadership gloss over abuse/poor treatment of people because the “end justifies the means”?

If it does, warning, warning.

Point 8: Dispensing of existence 

Okay this one is one that is scary, but be brave as you read. With Lifton’s final point, he talks about the group deciding who has the right to exist and who doesn’t. “This is usually not literal, but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the groups ideology.” If they don’t they ought to be shunned, excommunicated or rejected by members.

This “convert or reject” mentality can isolate cult members  from their families. It can also make people very scared to leave because they will lose friendships.

This is going to come across harsh: but if your ‘faith’ or ideology isolates you from family or friends, or brings distance between you causing you to distrust them, warning, warning. If you can’t leave a group you are uncomfortable with because you will lose friendships, warning, warning. This is a cult characteristic and those friendships aren’t genuine.

There’s a lot to think about. If you’ve Googled this because you’re in crisis, check out the help resources below. I’ve got another post coming soon on things cults have in common with each-other. In the meantime, know this: unless your personal safety is immediately at risk (in which case get in contact with the police, a cult service or a domestic violence service now to ensure your safety), you have time. You don’t have to change your life today.

If you are in a cult though, your information will be used to control you and your thought processes. This might hurt to hear, but it really isn’t wise to confide in members of the cult. This information will likely filter through to leadership and be used to keep you in the group or excommunicate you before you are ready.

Do your thinking in private. Take your time. Consider your options. Make your plan, then take action. I know the crisis is now. I know it hurts like heck. But a successful plan takes time. I’m not the expert on exiting cults but I have done a little research (ahead of writing this piece) on where you can find help if you need it. I didn’t want anyone to read this post and feel alone and scared. There is help available.

Now! If you are in a cult, and people may be keeping an eye on your communication, here’s how to clear your browser history. https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000510.htm

Good luck. Below is a list of resources that might help, including a couple of experts you can contact if you need to. Give this blog a follow so you don’t miss any of the good stuff, but the next instalment in this series is HERE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Cults: Too Good to Be True – Raphael Aron – https://www.amazon.com/Cults-Too-Good-be-True/dp/1863717609

• Why I left an evangelical cult – Dawn Smith (Ted Talk) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4Cq-dgNnw&t=193s

• Robert Lifton – the Wiki Summary because the book is heavy stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

• A more detailed look at the Lifton themes – http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/mindctrl/lifton.htm

• A handy checklist about dangerous traits of cult leaders https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders

WHERE TO GO FOR HELP

• Cult Consulting Australia – www.cultconsulting.org

• Cult Information and Family Support Service http://www.cifs.org.au/

How Do I Know if I’m in a Cult?

Hey there friend. I hope its morbid curiosity that helped you find this blog piece. I hope its not that you, a friend or family member is questioning whether a group you are involved in is a cult. Because that is hard stuff. If it’s the latter, you have my sympathy. This piece is not written to brand a particular group or church a cult, and it’s really not for me to be labelling individual groups anyway. Often people’s own research can just come up with personal, subjective and heartbreaking stories that don’t offer much in terms of solid, objective thought. But after the veritable inundation of questions I’ve received, I thought it time to put pen to paper (fingers to keyboard?) and answer a few questions about what a cult is and isn’t. It comes from reading, and research. It is not an expose of personal experiences and I’m not an expert.  Read that sentence again. Good? Now…I hope this helps you think through the challenges.

“Cult” is a term I hear thrown around a lot these days. Many, many churches get branded this. As a Christian, and a participating member of a wonderful, healthy church, this saddens me because I see the beautiful reward of participating in healthy spirituality and community. But I also see the damage unhealthy churches and groups do. It can be significant, to say the least.

There are a lot of things that a cult isn’t. But if you Google it, you might find a whole lot of personal stories that don’t bring any real structure to what you are thinking, feeling or fearing. I hope this series can help. I say series, because its not a one-post wonder. It’s a complicated topic and you need space to ponder and possibly plan. The topics will be spaced out a bit, because friend, Mamma’s gotta write this stuff! They’ll be as follows:

1. Risk Factors for Cultism

2. Key characteristics of cults (You’ll get this one today too. Bonus!)

3. Cult Commonalities

4. So I’m in a cult. What next?

5. What to look for in a healthy church – the Kit Kennedy Opinion

At the end of each article, there will be a link showing you how to clear your web browser history as one aspect of cult life may include control of information and access to it. I’ve got your back. Now for topic number one:

Risk Factors for Cultism

We live in an era where non-denominational churches, or independent churches are on the rise. You don’t need a reference for that. It’s obvious. We also live in an era where some pastors are promoted without solid theological credentials. In my opinion, this gives us a few areas wide open for toxic or unhealthy churches to develop. We used to know what a church believed based on its name. Catholic/Anglican/Salvation Army/Baptist/Lutheran/Methodist etc. Now we have churches with increasingly vague names. We don’t know what they believe, although their marketing can be pretty slick. Sadly, in some cases, their own members aren’t clear on the doctrines they do or don’t believe. These things concern me deeply because:

• Many cults exist as independent groups, or groups outside of denominational organisational structures. There is little or no accountability or grievance structure, or they are able to hide their illegitimate activities from the chain of command. Then there are groups like Scientology but that shit’s just next level. (Watch Going Clear if you need more on that sad case)

• Where people do not have strong theological training, credentials or dedication to learning, pseudo-Biblical or extra-Biblical “theologies” can develop. This has the potential to twist the truth of the Bible into something more sinister or damaging – even if it sounds enticing on the surface. My personal fear is that, in an age where we can all have Bibles on our shelves or on our phones, Biblical literacy and solid knowledge of doctrine isn’t necessarily any better than it ever was. “Convenient” does not always equal “informed.”

• Names can be used to camouflage the true nature of groups. Where true allegiances aren’t obvious, members can be left grasping for what the truth actually is.

• Its important to note that not all cults are harmful. Some centre on self-improvement and can help boost someone’s self-esteem or connection. It’s the job of loving family and friends to keep a watchful, caring eye over whether the person is falling more and more under coercive or unhealthy control. Love them. Keep in contact.

(If you want a book that spells this all out, check out “Cults, too good to be true” by Raphael Aron.” Link below.)

It’s important to note, before we get into the guts of this, what doesn’t constitute a cult.

• If you have been to a church and had a negative experience, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are a cult. You have my sympathies, as a negative experience in a church can be a profoundly damaging experience. I’m sorry to say it doesn’t always mean they’re a cult though.

• If their belief system doesn’t sit well with you, or if you’ve had a clash with leadership, that doesn’t mean they’re a cult. Different strokes and all that.

• A church may have toxic or unhealthy aspects, but may not be a cult. There are very specific set of characteristics that makes up a cult. I’d encourage you to read through the  list in the blog post that follows this one (linked below), and have a good think about it. If you are in a toxic/unhealthy church, or a church that isn’t a good fit for you, then I encourage you to move on and find a healthy one that is a good fit for you. We all need to find our spiritual home.

The term “cult” has now been largely superseded in modern literature with the term “high-demand group.” I have issues with this, as it seems altogether too simplistic, but I concede that the term needed to change because of one key issue: not all cults are religious. Self-help groups, multi-level marketing businesses, and even normal businesses can also be cults. If you are looking for good information, you may need to include the term “high demand group” in your search. I’m going to focus on the churchy kind of stuff in this series, because otherwise it all gets too broad.

I’ve heard  it said that Christian groups can’t be cults. This is absolutely untrue. Pseudo-Christian cults exist (Again, I’ll point you to Raphael Aron’s book). Again, it’s a matter of looking at the eight characteristics I’m about to show you (as a starting point!)

These eight points are from an authoritative work by a well-respected psychiatrist, but it is not the exhaustive list on cults. It is the best, most structured list I’ve come across though.

I listened to a Ted Talk recently where the speaker, a cult survivor, offered up a point all pre-exiting cult members should note: a cult will never say it’s a cult. If you think you are in one, then asking a member of leadership if your group is a cult will result in the answer “No.”

Do think carefully before you ask this question of anyone inside your group. This could put you at risk of shunning or of further control measures. If you are questioning, I’d advise against doing it out loud just yet.

Okay! That’s the necessary starting point. Now onto the second topic. Get yourself a cuppa. Breathe and click here to access the next post with the meaty stuff…

(And here’s how to clear your browser history if you need to https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000510.htm )

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Cults: Too Good to Be True – Raphael Aron – https://www.amazon.com/Cults-Too-Good-be-True/dp/1863717609

• Why I left an evangelical cult – Dawn Smith (Ted Talk) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4Cq-dgNnw&t=193s

• Robert Lifton – the Wiki Summary because the book is heavy stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

• A more detailed look at the Lifton themes – http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/mindctrl/lifton.htm

• A handy checklist about dangerous traits of cult leaders https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders

WHERE TO GO FOR HELP

• Cult Consulting Australia – www.cultconsulting.org

• Cult Information and Family Support Service http://www.cifs.org.au/   

Solitude vs. Isolation: Where is the Healthy Place to Land?

I have this lovely friend. She's been through a lot in her life, a lot that could make her bitter, introspective, and a touch soul-destroyed. But she's more than a survivor. Her's is a life that is now devoted to supporting other people who have survived horrendous damage - be it psychological, spiritual, physical, or sexual abuse - and to finding her own way to thrive again. She never claims to be perfect. She's upfront about the ways in which she's not. But she is getting on with life and helping other people while she helps herself. Because "perfection" is not a prerequisite of "contribution." I love that.

Side note, before I get to the main topic: how come there isn't a cosmic quota for how much hardship a person can go through in their life before its all lottery wins and lucky breaks? Because I think that would be an amazing idea.

Anyway. She sent me a picture of Jim Carrey captioned with a quote of his. It said "Solitude is dangerous. It's very addictive. It becomes a habit after you realise how peaceful and calm it is. It's like you don't want to deal with people anymore because they drain your energy." Apparently old Jim -- AKA the mask, Ace Ventura pet detective, the guy with the stretchy, plasticky, comedic face - has undergone a spiritual awakening of sorts and is now all deep-thinking and wise. He just returned from weeks of solitude in the bush or something like that  (I'm not sure here. Don't quote me).

My friend asked me my thoughts on the quote. I have to say, its an interesting one. I like that Jim is so out there with his reinvention, and I'm not sure whether he was being poetic, or sarcastic. But here's what I think about solitude:

There's a difference between solitude and isolation. Loving solitude is a beautiful, healthy, regenerative thing. Needing isolation can be dangerous. 

There was a time where I couldn't do solitude. I didn't feel safe alone with my thoughts. I hid in plain sight - busy running a business, writing a book, being at every event, working crazy hours, maintaining a nuts kind of a social life, and so on. What would happen if I stopped? What would happen if one of the juggling balls dropped? Would I drop them all? Would I be completely out of control? Then I confronted the things I was afraid of. One by one, I took them down out of the "too hard" cloud that was hanging over my head. It was terrifying. It was empowering. It was painful.

It was beautiful.

Life has been reinvented somewhat. It looks barely anything like it did three years ago. Jobs, social circles, expressions of faith, hobbies, houses, daily routines, approaches to wellness - so much has changed. I thought about the things that were too hard to think about. I discarded the things that weren't healthy, even if those unhealthy things had become a crutch for me and it scared me to do so. I grew. I changed.

On the other side of the reinvention, I love solitude. Taking time away from the grind of daily life to sit on my back deck and watch my kids play without checking my phone or working. I love sitting outside and listening to the sounds of breeze and birdsong. I love sitting by the crackling fire with a glass of wine and nothing big on my mind. I've released myself from the evangelical tendency to think there are eternal consequences for my every action or inaction (Because like, God is pretty big. I don't have to be).  I'm not trying to solve the worlds problems or think my way through complex big ideas. There's time for that, but not during my wine and crackling fire time. Coz a girl has to recharge!

Solitude is not something I could ever do before.  But now I love it.

The thing is, its very different from isolation. If solitude is regenerative, isolation is the very opposite. 

Even in my raging workaholic days, I could do isolation. You can be isolated in a pile of work, too busy to connect with people who care about you. You can be too busy to be alone with your thoughts. You can pull away from the world and hope no one notices. That is isolation. It's a form of hiding. Where solitude says "I'm here. I'm me. I don't need to be anything else," isolation says "Don't come near me. Leave me alone. I don't want to be around anyone.. I can't be around anyone."

Isolation doesn't mean you are spending time with yourself and you are happy about it. Isolation can be damaging. Because isolation, to me, is fruit of fear, or of poor mental health. That can make you judge yourself far too harshly.  It can make it very hard to rejoin society when you feel better, because that choice makes you confront the fear what people thought of you during your absence, or what they will think of you when you rejoin. (Side note: I've also found that most people don't think about you nearly as much as you think about yourself!)

Getting out of an isolation loop can be tricky. There are so many reasons you got to that point. Getting back isn't always as easy as just turning up to an event and announcing your return to the land of the living. Isolation doesn't improve silence. It compounds it. The silence of isolation isn't comfortable. Its heavy with all sorts of bad.

Knowing your own personality type, your comfort zone, and your type of "healthy" is an important skill in maintaining the balance between solitude and isolation. 

My friend pointed out that abusive people will often shame you for needing solitude, recharge time or ever saying "no." Their demands take precedence over your own health. It's taken her a while to reclaim her need for solitude.

Now - a need for solitude is different from isolation. If you are an introvert, then quiet time matters. So don't feel pressured to fill every diary spot. A person who knows you and cares about you will either know the difference, or they'll listen when you say "this is what I need."

If it crosses over into isolation, then the friend stays important. They may gently challenge you and say "Hey I don't think this kind of isolation is healthy." An abuser will say the same thing, about solitude or isolation, but they make  it all about them-self or their expectations. If someone comes and presses on your self-protection bubble, then ask yourself which one it is. If its the caring friend, let them in even if you are feeling pretty crappy about life. Their love and care will make it easier to come out of the isolation bubble, even if the conversations that requires aren't easy. If it is the demanding, selfish person who is making it all about them, then you are free to choose solitude, and you should - for the sake of your health.

Because Jim Carrey is right about one thing. Sometimes people drain your energy. Solitude can be a little addictive like that. These days I have an "emotional coinage" budget. I don't spend more than I've got in the bank. Some people will take all you've got. Other's will help you recharge. Sometimes you give when there will be no return on investment, because you love that emotional vampire. Sometimes, the person you've got to spend your emotional coinage on is yourself. Know yourself. Know your needs. Know the difference. Sure, challenge yourself in certain areas. That is healthy. But a healthy person sets their own terms, and recognises their limits.

So there you go! My thoughts on Jim Carrey's quote.

Solitude can be great. Isolation, not so much. Know the difference and revel in the healthy one!

Happy Friday ya'll

Kit K

Like this blog? Make sure you follow it, and jump on my socials -  Facebook, Twitter and Instagram

If you have any blog requests, shoot me a DM and I just might write on it!

Red Letter Christianity

"There's nothing simple about simple" is a quote I read today. It was a quote from a potter named Eric Landon, featured on Instagram making some genius "simple" (AKA clean-lined genius artworks/pottery things I'm not even stylish enough to comment on). He was talking about the pottery, but oh gosh he could be talking about life.

There's nothing simple about simple. In true literature-buff pun-nerd style, I started thinking about the great potter. I started thinking about red-letter Christianity. It's simple but its so not simple.

Red Letter Christianity is a movement in Christianity that seeks to honour Jesus best through living life according to the red letters - the words printed in red in the Bible, direct quotes from Jesus himself. When life gets complicated, that's where I return to.

It was something inspired by an old friend I'd lost contact with. When we reconnected, she said to me "I consider myself a red letter Christian, but I'll never set foot in a church again." I found the statement confronting. Like her, I had been damaged by negative experiences within organised religion. I still held (and hold) my faith as sacred, and still attended church,  but I was putting everything under the microscope again. I was surprised to hear her say that she was a red letter Christian. I knew instantly what that meant, but it was only when I started to read the Bible again, reading only those red letters, what that really meant. It's simple enough to say, but pretty challenging to live.

It made me realise we build a lot of our faith around what people other than Jesus said. A whole chunk of the Christian experience now is built around what Paul said. Paul wasn't even one of the 12. He is often held up as the first great practitioner of the faith, and for sure his conversion experience on the road to Damascus was one heck of a turning point, but I've got questions about Paul. So do a lot of Biblical scholars (who I'm not even trying to compare myself to). How much of his commentary came from his background as a Pharisee? How much of his commentary on women (for example), came from his cultural background and not from God's heart for us girls? My questions on Paul could continue for a while, as could my questions to the role of Old Testament legalism in a New Covenant world.

But those things are all asides. There's one thing I can't fault, and that's the words of Jesus himself, but upon my friends revelation I realised something - my Christianity wasn't placing nearly enough emphasis on this.

Check out these words from www.redletterchristians.org   - That's the first place I landed when I started looking at this stuff, and wow, I couldn't sum it up better than what they did.

According to that website, which boasts advocates such as Tony Campolo (and is totally only ONE take on this important approach to Christianity), the values of Red Letter Christians include:

All people are made in the likeness and image of God.

2. Jesus is the lens through which we understand the Bible… and through which we understand the world in which we live.

3. Doing Jesus’ work leads to personal growth and greater understanding.

4. Freedom comes through serving others—not power, politics or materialism.

5. Diversity and collaboration make us stronger, not weaker.

6. Wherever your power and influence might lie, it is magnified when shared and held by those who are poor, oppressed and looked over by society.

7. Questioning cultural norms is healthy and can lead to wholeness.

8. We respect and fight for the well-being of all people as children of God—especially those with whom we differ.

9. We embrace and work alongside people of different faiths, erasing the lines of ‘us vs. them.

I mean, that's a pretty kick-arse list if I do say so, and a darn good summary of the things that Jesus stood for. But its when you get into the detail of those red letters that you start to understand the words of my potter muse: there's nothing simple about simple.

Let's start with the beatitudes. Here is a passage so beautiful it could be poetry, but to read it for its beauty is to miss its challenge. Blessed are the peacemakers? How nice! But where do we see peacemakers? Right in the middle of conflict, throwing themselves into the fray in order to bring two warring factions to a truce. Their's are lives on the line.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. My daughters middle name is Clementine, which means merciful. We named her that because it is a strong trait, a gift that can only be given from a place of strength and compassion. But it also requires that someone has wronged you, and that you look at them with compassion and forbearance and release them from their penalty. Mercy isn't easy. It requires forgiveness after hurt. It's simple, but its so not simple.

The Beatitudes goes on to talk about persecution, about being meek and pure in heart, and then it moves on to talk about grief. It is then followed by the passage that talks about letting your light shine. I can tell you from experience, this isn't easy. Because to follow Christ is to go on a journey of change, enlightenment, service, and growth. But as you grow and change, you discover a lot of people are invested in the old you. Your change can scare them. Offend them even. So letting your light shine to the world can inadvertently and unintentionally throw you into conflict with people who have been around you for such a long time, people you are loyal to.

If you want to be a red letter Christian, start in Matthew 5.  Want a scripture that shows you how simplicity isn't simple? Try Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."

Following the red letters could indeed be the most difficult form of Christianity there is, even though doctrinally it could be the most simple. I wonder, as an Australian and as a spectator on the American state of affairs, whether we could be red letter Christians and still support the current treatment of refugees. I certainly don't. I read the Matthew 5 and think our role should be right in there advocating for those whose lives have been torn apart. Yet somehow this has become an issue that has divided (particularly Americans) into "Lefties" and "righties." It perplexes me that the Christian crowd is the one wanting to shut the borders. How would our Saviour feel, seeing it all play out?

I think He'd care. I think this because of Matthew 5:41-42 "whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

Its not that these people are asking from us. Its that they are begging. Its that they have no lives to go back to, only conflict and danger that has compelled them, upon penalty of death or detention, to risk it all for a better life. That's just one issue. I. Could. Go. On.

I've noticed, after years in evangelicalism, that with a whole Bible in your hand you could argue any position. You could argue for refugees and against them. You could argue for grace and against it. You could argue for legalism and against it. You could argue for predestination and against it. In fact, I once heard a preacher say "decide your position first and then find the scriptures you need to back it up."

Gag! Say what? What about searching the Bible with an open mind and trying to figure out what God really thinks about it. I wonder if we miss the boat a lot on issues because we read the Bible through the lens of our own culture/fears/norms rather than reading it to just learn.

My thoughts now can be condensed into this: Jesus was the fulfilment of Old Testament law and prophecy. He is one third of the trinity. There is no better example of what the true nature and intent of God is than Jesus Himself. So if you are ever confused, if you are ever conflicted, come back and read the red letters. They might actually be the only ones that matter. You'll find enough challenge in them to keep you on a journey of change and transformation. And though living them out will be far, far from simple, it will be the most rewarding thing in the world because yours will be a conscience that its clear - both in the eyes of God and in the eyes of man.

I'm aiming for this. I'm failing probably on a daily basis, but those same red letters tell me God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn it, but that the world through Him might be saved.

That sure takes the pressure off me. Because He's the one who does all the saving, and He is never here to bring condemnation.

Just some thoughts for the day.
Over and out.

Kit K.

Josh Harris, Purity Culture, and the Power of Saying “I Was Wrong.”

"There is transformational power in admitting you got something wrong." 

I just listened to the most amazing Ted Talk. The speaker talked about how you can't rush the process of transformation, and that process involves owning up to, rather than sweeping aside, the things you were wrong about. He spoke about how admitting you were wrong will tick some people off, because they were invested in the old you. He talked about how, when someone can't admit they were wrong, they are not growing. And this should serve as a warning to those who follow them.

The whole talk had me nodding and murmuring my agreement (somewhat geekily I guess, given I was sitting in a café.)

Honestly, it was an amazing talk. You should give it a listen (I've pasted it below, but don't ruin the suspense by scrolling down to see it just yet). The guy giving the talk only just gave mention to what he was wrong about. It wasn't the true subject of the presentation, but gosh, it was massive. It took a lot of humility to do what he did - stand on the world stage and say "I got something wrong."

If you were anywhere near your teens or twenties at the height of the 90's evangelical purity movement, you know this guy. You were probably handed his book by a youth leader or mentor, and you might have felt a little kick of something like shame when you realised why you were reading it.

The speaker was none other than Joshua Harris, author of the international bestseller "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." This is the book that made him famous. Its the book literally sitting on millions of shelves, that was translated into several languages. At the height of the purity movement, this was the guidepost that urged us to guard our hearts and keep our desires in check. Now, after it's first readers have grown up, Harris is noting that it seems to have had a few not-so-positive effects.

Harris recounts an interaction on Twitter in which a reader told him his book was used against her as a weapon. Harris did an uncommon thing, when it comes to big name Christian celebrities. He apologised. It wasn't tokenistic either. He went on to open his website up to stories of the impact his book had. Some of them were resoundingly positive. Others were heart-wrenching. He is now making a documentary on it, one that is saying, "I was wrong about this." He's not throwing the whole baby out with the bathwater, but there's a lot he is copping as not quite right.

"Wow.  Just wow," I thought. Its the same thing I said to myself when Benny Hinn admitted he was wrong about the prosperity gospel, or rather the extreme he used it for. (Read my take on that here). Its the same thing I thought when I read Billy Graham's take on what he would do differently. (Read that here).

I truly believe that, when people say "I was wrong" about something, especially if they do it on a potentially humiliating public platform like Harris did, we ought to sit up and listen. These are people who are deeply conscientious, who are growing in their faith and the expression of it. These are people who are safe to listen to. (Don't base your entire life on their expression of faith. That's dangerous. Your relationship with God is your business and responsibility. But they've been doing some soul-searching and they've changed because of it.)

Harris's Ted Talk is about the transformational power of admitting you were wrong. Honestly, its liberating!

But I can't really call this a complete review unless I talk about the subject he says he was wrong about: his book.

I can't say honestly that it hurt me. Much. The stories on his website vary a lot in content. The sadder ones include claims that it was legalistic, a flyswatter to whack people who stepped out of line, or that it was used to control people. I can't disagree with those points, whether through reading these accounts or recounting my own observations that spanned multiple churches I encountered over the years.

Many a story on Harris's website came from Christians in their 30's who are still waiting for their life partner. Some stories came from people relationally paralysed either by fear of giving too much of their heart away, or by the strength of their desires. One particularly unsettling story came from a 30 year old guy who simply cannot accept a mate who has had sex, even if it was just a mistake from her past. I read that account with two types of heartbreak - one for him and all that he may have lost by never finding love, and one for the girls he has rejected. Has this book given rise to a pseudo-Biblical form of "slut shaming", even in a time when we understand more about grace and forgiveness than we ever did? Quite possibly.

In hindsight, I remember reading the book and feeling a certain pressure to marry the first guy I "courted." (Spoiler: I did, and he's the best thing that ever happened to me). I am the eldest daughter of Christian ministers. There was a whole church and a whole network of churches that would see my every move. It was like living in a fishbowl. Oh the pressure to get this right!

I remember one lady in the church telling me off for flirting with a guy. She wasn't my mother, and it wasn't her job to police my behaviour. And I wasn't flirting! I had zero feelings for the guy. But the shame I felt over that was huge. It wasn't the only time I was pulled up for flirting. I truly believe this had a big impact on my ability to interact with members of the opposite sex. I tried my utmost to relate out of a stoic, "I have no sexual desires, I don't even want to get married, you know, unless its God's will for me," kind of persona. If even flirting was sinful, then gosh, I was evil! I'd done it more than twice. I have a naturally bubbly personality. I love to connect with people. Part of me died.

University was a particularly interesting time for me. When I was "outed" as saving myself for marriage, and when my fellow students discovered my flirting-disability, bets were laid. I felt so humiliated, and then all the more on guard with my peers. I was just a girl trying to find her way in the world. Now I was a trophy. A scalp to be claimed. A virgin. And that became the thing that everyone knew.

(Side note: Apologies to the guy who asked me out for dinner, and who was greeted not only by me but also the other 11 members of our study group. I totally missed the "its a date" memo. I will never forget the look on your face.)

(Another side note: I don't blame my parents at all for being among hundreds of thousands of church ministers globally who embraced this book and used it! Heck, we were all in the 90's purity movement. And you don't need a shot-gun or baseball bat if your teenagers are afraid of dating to the same degree that they're afraid of hell. My parents were just doing their best! I'm just sharing how I feel about Harris's book and its effect in hindsight.)

For many people, this book was a lightbulb moment. For me, and apparently for a lot of other Christian kids, it was fear-inducing. I was afraid of natural desires God had given me. Guess what: I wanted to get married. I wanted to love and be loved. I wanted the full experience of that and I felt all sorts of guilty about it. Imagine my mortification when an itinerant minister with the boomiest of voices began to call my parents church his home and insisted on loudly "Blessing" me with a husband - Every. Single. Sunday. (I still cringe)

I finally married when I was 29, and I don't regret for an instant that I saved myself for my husband - my soulmate,  best friend and life partner. I guess, in some way, I have "I kissed dating goodbye (IKDG)" to thank for that. I guess in some way we do. Truly, I'm happy about it.

But post-marriage, we had a thing or two to learn about switching-on the desires that we had been told all our lives were bad. Yeah, yeah, you can kiss and hold hands and stuff when you are married. You can even flirt, you know, if you want. But the guilt doesn't go away instantly. (There's a whole lot I could write on that topic, but I won't yet because its a whole lot of disarmed honesty! Haha!)

I have a number of good looking, educated, eloquent, funny, amazing, single Christian friends who are of an age now where they look around at other friends with kids and wonder why its not them. They're still waiting for "the one." I've often ranted to my husband "Why don't guys just ASK HER OUT? I mean, she can even COOK! Wife her already, someone!" I sometimes think this is the legacy of IKDG. We can't go out for dinner with someone unless there's a bloody strong chance they are "the one." It carries a disproportionate feeling of failure if that dinner date doesn't result in a second date, a third, an engagement ring, a white dress, a picket fence, 2.5 kids and an SUV.

I wonder how many others felt guilty for even flirting. I wonder how many others felt bad that they wanted so darn much to get married and have kids. "What if it isn't God's will for me?" and all that.

My thoughts on flirting now - It lets you know what good chemistry feels like. And chemistry matters. If you are dating someone and there's none, then hold up honey! Warning bells.

My thoughts on Christianity and sexuality now - Can we stop pretending that because we are Christians, sexuality doesn't play a central, sensitive part in who we are? Can we take it off the list of things we don't talk about? Sure there is a Biblical approach to sex, and I don't for a second regret saving myself for marriage. But gosh - sex, relationships, sensuality, desire for connection - they're all God-designed. Can we not feel shame over owning something that is God-designed?

I applaud Josh Harris for standing up and saying he was wrong, and for expressing his regret at the legalistic fly-swatter his book became in more than a few instances. I hope he can also see the good it did (and I think he does). But adjusting our stance is a good thing.

My husband and I have two beautiful kids now. I adore them and hope they never face heartbreak. I'd love it if they fell in love with and married the first person they dated. I'd love it if they saved sex for marriage. I really hope they do and I'll raise them to believe that true love waits. But I'll also raise them to believe that flirting isn't bad, and our desire for love is normal and good.

Hopefully they'll marry younger than hubby and I, and I'll get a lot of years with my grandkids! If I have to wait until I'm in my 70's to chase the grandies around the park, I'm gonna be pissed.

If you've read Harris's book, if you love it, if you hate it, if you feel it helped, if you feel it hurt - I urge you to check out his Ted Talk and his website. At the very least it will make you view change and the admission "I was wrong" as a wholly good thing no matter what it applies to. It might even release you from some baggage you have felt over the years. It doesn't have to reframe how you feel about faith, sexuality, relationships or desire.

But you should know me by now! I like to think. I like to challenge thinking. And I have a firm belief that truth will prevail. I hope no one looks back on the 90's purity movement with bitterness. A lot of good came out of it. But one perk of the passage of time is that we build on the generation before us. That doesn't and shouldn't involve taking their word as gospel. It should involve extracting the truth, and discarding that which is harmful, then moving on to a closer, better, more compassionate expression of faith.

Oh and if you want to check out his Ted Talk, its here.

Just some thoughts!
Kit K.

Over and out.

“Just Choose Joy!” Um. No.

This post might be a bit of a rant. I'm okay with that. It might have very few scriptures to back up the stream of consciousness. I'm also okay with that. After all, I'm not a pastor or a theologian. I'm a Christian who is exploring faith, turning it over, turning it inside out, and examining all the different ways the light can refract. 

I have an issue that I want to throw a little light on myself. This week I listened to a new song by a band I just love. And it well and truly pissed me off. The song was titled "Joy." Its catchy. Its not untrue. But it sends a message I think can be a little harmful, because it is so often repeated in churches across the globe and it can create unhealthy pressure.

The opening scene in the video clip showed two news anchors covering a mega-storm that was devastating the nation. One anchor was presenting the negative side of the story. The other was frustrated that she couldn't find the upside. Spoiler alert: the one who was trying to find the brighter note was the 'right' one. Because he was choosing joy.

Fair point. Learning to choose joy is a good thing. Learning to have faith in God when the situation seems dire is wonderful as it can take the lid off the pressure cooker of life. If you can choose joy, then you should. Good for you.

But for heavens sake (pun not intended), if there's a mega-storm coming at you, threatening to level everything around you, you don't have to be happy about it. If you are happy about it, I'm really worried. Or suspicious that you have a dishonestly inflated insurance policy and you're getting a windfall out of hurricane whatever.

Negative emotions are ok. They are fine. God made them. They shouldn't be what we build our lives on, but they are an essential part of the process of life. If we can't embrace the full spectrum of human emotion, if we only allow ourselves to express "Christian" emotions of peace and joy, then we almost guarantee the other God-designed emotions will become bottled, fermented, and explosive. I remember when I was young, my mum used to make non-alcoholic ginger beer. It was relatively uneventful until one batch fermented too far and blew up. You should have seen the mess. Wow. It covered everything in the shed.

It's a decent picture of what can happen when we deny ourselves the honesty of sadness, anger, grief etc. you know, when we just choose joy. Those other emotions become all-encompassing. They then have the potential to derail things.

If you are going through a mega-storm in your life, don't feel pressured to feel joy.

Grieve, if you have faced loss. God made grief. He turned His head away when His son was crucified. He couldn't look. I think He felt grief then.

Be angry, if you have been wronged. Didn't God invent anger too? Didn't Jesus express anger in the temple? Didn't God tell us "be angry but sin not?" The emotion is not the sin, friends. Keying your ex-boyfriends car, or rage-spending on a credit card that doesn't belong to you is the sin. (Insert a million other possible examples)

Be sad, if you are facing sadness. Didn't the Bible give us enough examples of God feeling sadness when he looked at the human race? Why do we lump these emotions in a basket marked "Bad?" They're human. And given the fact that God is no stranger to these emotions, I'd even say they're divine.

I refuse to use the term "negative emotion" any more. Emotions are necessary for us to process life. But if you want a key to peace, and indeed joy, then the trick is to let God in the troughs with you. Don't force yourself to always appear is if you are on the peak. He sees all your grief/anger/sadness already. Why not let Him share it?

I kinda blame the faith movement for this maladaptive approach to human emotion. There were a lot of good things about the faith movement, but this one stinks. You don't have to be up all the time. Gosh! Even God isn't.

I've been a little curious looking around churches and seeing a lot of depressed and anxious people. I don't know what the statistics are for the church globally, but I suspect that in some cases, our statistics on depression and anxiety could actually be worse than the unchurched world. Why?

I have a theory (Okay... a few). One of them is that we think Christianity demands perfection of us, and perfection means faultless emotional "upness". But my goodness that is so inauthentic.

In the last couple of years, I've given up faultless emotional upness. I'm happier than I ever was. I used to think, like a lot of Christians think, that we need to let our light shine constantly so a dark world can see and be drawn to our faith.

But newsflash. Candles flicker. Stars twinkle...in that things get in the way of their light so they are momentarily more dull. Clouds get in the way of the sun. The only light sources that are constant and unwavering are artificial.

Lets not be artificial. It hurts us. It makes us inauthentic. It makes others wary of what we are hiding.

You don't have to choose joy all the time. Sometimes you need to choose a good cry, a session with the punching bag, or a journaling session when you pour out your broken heart. Do this, and joy will be easier the next day, or the day after that. Do whatever helps you process the hurt and then you'll be able to find the sunny side again in time.

Just saying.

I hope joy is always easy for you. If it isn't, you are in good company, friend. Jesus, most of the world, and me are right there with you.

Cheers

Kit K

Regarding Bishop Curry and the Royal Wedding

Has anyone else out there noticed the equal mix of furore and praise that has been thrown out into the social-mediasphere over the sermon Bishop Michael Curry gave at the royal wedding? There seem to be 4 sets of reactions: 1) I love this! 2) This is hilarious, 3) Shut up already and 4) how dare he say that!

The final one seems to come from Christians. I missed the royal wedding thanks to two kids with raging temperatures and a husband who could (kinda understandably) only calm one down at a time. Time heals all wounds they say. I hope it heals my bitterness over leaving my friend's mini-wedding party right after Meghan arrived at the chapel.

BUT! I read the transcript, and I have to say - I agree with every word.

It seems Bishop Curry is a polarising character. He is an LGBTI advocate and a social justice warrior. He has added his voice to many a noble cause. I'm sure he's stepped on the odd toe. But his sermon wasn't about anything racially or equality-charged. In my opinion, it didn't contain anything that should wave a red flag in front of a conservatively theological bull. His sermon was about something that should be entirely unoffensive.

It was about love.

And my, my, how offended people have gotten over that. I have read complaints over why he didn't use his microphone time to give a Billy Grahamesque altar call to the world. Yet, his sermon did talk about the redemptive love that drove Jesus to the cross.

I have also read complaints about the over-emphasis on love. Yet Jesus did talk about love a heck of a lot. John 13:34 tells us "a new commandment I give to you. Just as I have loved you, so also you must love one another." That was right from the mouth of the big guy. 1 Corinthians 13:13 tells us "And now these three remain: faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is love." I'm absolutely committed to keeping this blog entry super short, so I'm not going to go into the countless times the Bible urges us towards the way of love. I'm not going to go into the ways that Jesus, in the New Testament, urges us towards love.

What I want to say is this: Perhaps when Bishop Curry took to the podium, he wasn't just sending a message to the non-Christian world. Perhaps he was sending a message to Christians, and indeed to the head of the Church of England who was sitting in front of him.

The church today is divided. It is political. There are several taboos and passionate points. I tend to think that there are a lot of things the world needs less of, but the world could do with more of kind of thing Bishop Curry was talking about. His sermon was a call to unite. Perhaps if you were given the opportunity to take the microphone in front of the world, you'd say something different. But you weren't. He was. And perhaps his words were inspired by a God who is calling us to love better.

That's always a good idea. Just saying. 

In the past, I've been guilty of something a lot of Christians would probably find themselves guilty of if they thought about it. That is, I listened to sermons with an ear for what the person next to me should get out of it. Let's not do that with this exhortation towards love. Let's not sit there exasperated about what he should have told non-Christians in that moment. Maybe he was only talking to them in part. Maybe he wasn't talking to them at all. We can all love better.

Plus, there was nothing theologically heretical in that transcript. Those scriptures are actually in the Bible, and his interpretation of them is actually reasonable. Also just saying.

Bravo Bishop Curry. Perhaps if you had of made an altar call, some people would have responded. But imagine if every Christian who heard that sermon took on the challenge to show the love of Christ better. The ripple effects would be magnificent.

Over and out, people!

Open Theism - What is it Anyway?

I read a term today I'd never heard of before - upon reading its definition, I should have heard of it. Why? Because as a millennial Christian, its the form of faith presented most often to me. It is Open Theism. Although its a newbie to me, I thought I'd flag it here for a couple of reasons: 1) I believe we ought to know what we believe and 2) we ought to think about the contradictions it presents us with.

By means of a super-short introduction to the term, I once again turn to the font of all well-referenced and researched wisdom - Wikipedia.

"Open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.Thus, the future as well as God's knowledge of it is open (hence "open" theism)." Read more about it here.

Theologians have flagged a few problems with this. One is that classical theism paints us a picture of God fully determining the future. This is the predestination doctrine, if you like.

Other theologians believe that God gives us free choice, but His omniscience means that He already knows the future and what choices we make.

Enter Open Theism. Open theists hold that: "These versions of classical theism are out of sync with: 1. the biblical concept of God and 2. the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom and/or result in incoherence. Open Theists tend to emphasize that God's most fundamental character trait is love, and that this trait is unchangeable. They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it." (Once again. Thanks Wikipedia.)

It seems to be a doctrine I was raised with, which is funny given its relative newness to the theological world. Apparently it was Richard Rice who pioneered the Open Theism train of thought in 1980 with his book "The Openness of God." Since then,  many a modern theologian has published on the matter.

It raises a question or two, and its conclusion seems to be one that both atheists and open theists agree on. That is the traditional characteristics of God don't make sense. If He is omniscient, seeing all whether past present or future, He can't be omnipotent and all-good. If so, He couldn't see evil and still let it happen.

So that's one big ouch for the doctrine, and I have to say its an uncomfortable moment when you read an atheist argument and go "Hmmm. Fair point."

There are three other problems I see with Open Theism. They are the issues of predestination, prayer and what we do with free will if God can just re-write the future.

Super quickly, because this so wasn't going to be a full expose, just a quick post:

1. To decide whether or not Open Theism is a doctrine you subscribe to, you need to decide whether or not you believe in predestination. Now, this isn't a cornerstone doctrine to me, so I've never really examined it. If we believe in predestination, then there is no true free choice. What were the two trees in the garden? Why would God put them there if He already knew the outcome? Now the issue of predestination is one that could easily be argued from both sides. I always thought I agreed with it, but that was until I realised the following.

2. If we believe in predestination, then what is the role of prayer? I *think* it was CS Lewis who said "Prayer doesn't change God. It changes me." So perhaps he was a predestinationalist. I read that quote and I sort of agree with him. But then what of the whole, NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) and Faith Movement's emphasis on spiritual warfare? If we believe that prayer changes things, then we mustn't truly believe in predestination. One has us thinking that the role of prayer is to change us. The other has us thinking that the role of prayer is to change God. If the latter, then what of the immutability of God (that is that He cannot change?)

3. If God can re-write the future, what are the consequences of free will? Open Theism emphasises the love of God above all. It holds that He is very moved by creation and is moved in various ways. Then couldn't we do anything with our free will and then simply turn around and say "Yep. Sorry. Good to go with your best plan now." The modern church, or at least the branch of it that I've been exposed to the most, talks a lot about destiny. "Destiny" seems to imply predestination. Predestination clashes with Open Theism in that Open Theism offers up multiple possible trajectories that ones life can take, thus burning the predestination theme to the ground.

This is one of those rare posts where I'm putting out more questions than answers. I'm not sure where I come down on this whole Open Theism thing. I posted it because, well, I haven't posted for a while and its what I'm thinking about today. Those three points at the end will be things I'm thinking on.

If we put every doctrine that sounds appealing into our proverbial back-pack of beliefs, then we can end up with an inconsistent faith. Perhaps it takes a lifetime and beyond to fully understand God, and perhaps there are no right answers to these things. But perhaps its a good thing to think about. If we are about predestination, then we need to surrender to the will of God and just coast through life taking it all as it comes. I guess there's a peace in that. If we aren't, then we need to delve further into the why and how of prayer, and understand there's a certain responsibility in how we pray.

Anyway! Thats my brain dump for today. Hope ya'll have a fabulous weekend.
Cheers
Kit K.

Church Reformation - The Billy Graham Edition

Its 2018. The year still feels young, even though we have just ticked across into May. This post has taken me a lot longer than I thought it would, but I wanted to write it anyway. Because its been burning in my mind since Billy Graham passed away a few months ago.

I've heard many a preacher stand on the podium and talk about the need for church reformation. It surely is an easy case to argue. I, myself, am not sure that God would look happily on every aspect of His bride at present. I'll spare you the examples. We know that churches are made up of imperfect people. How could we expect perfection of ourselves?

There is one thing I'm sure of though, and that is that the type of reformation the church needs isn't the kind that points at the splinter in a brothers eye without dealing with the plank in ones own. That's why when a giant of the faith passes on some information about what he would do different, it's wise to listen.

In the early moments of this year, one such giant died. Billy Graham left this world bound for the eternal plain and with that, the world got talking. The criticism was as loud as the praise. (So much for not speaking ill of the dead!) Thousands if not millions paid tribute to him as if he was a saint, while members of the LGBTI community detailed their hurt over the harsh words he had directed at them and others railed against his brushes with the law when it came to tax evasion.

Thousands upon thousands spoke of the impact his life had on theirs. It was one heck of a mixed bag. I don't think even Micheal Jackson had so many negative articles written about him when he died - a fact that seems more than a little unjust. I'm grateful for the good stuff, while I also acknowledge the not-so-shiny. My own parents were converted at a crusade they attended on their honeymoon. Mine is a life that has been touched by Billy Graham's shadow, as it were.

I'm absolutely sure the guy was imperfect, and had his not so great aspects. But I'm also sure that the way to reform the church isn't by nitpicking giants like this.

It's by learning from them.

I struggled to find an article in which he reflected on his life and talked about what he would do differently. When I did, I realised why it was so hard to find. It's an area the church in the western world seems to be wading further and further into, and I wonder if it's because of the seductive promise of power and influence. What was the one thing big Billy Graham said he'd stay out of if he had his time again?

It's the area of politics.

In an interview with Christianity Today in 2011, he said: "“I also would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back I know I sometimes cros­sed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”

Graham had in fact been tied up with President Richard Nixon, and his is a legacy that thinned the dividing line between church and state by what some call 'a relentless pursuit of civil religion.'

It's a cautionary note in Billy's story, but it wasn't explained. The interviewer carried right on through to the next question. I couldn't help but dwell on that statement though. Why would he steer clear of politics? What's wrong with that?

I can't pretend to know what Billy was thinking. But I do know this: the church has always been counter-cultural. It gives me great unease when it seeks to be otherwise. Jesus wasn't a populist leader. Quite the contrary. It was him and twelve guys. The movement started from there but it didn't seek power and influence. It served. It served the orphans and the poor. It served the widows. It served those shunned by society. Of course it reached those in high places but that wasn't the emphasis.

The church in the book of Acts was as small number in a big world. My fear is that, in the modern era, the church fears losing its relevance, and thus it seeks out power. But there's a saying that contends "Power is not innocent" and there's the problem.

After thinking about this for months, and letting it challenge my own standpoint, this is the opinion I've come to: The church, and the men and women of God who lead it, should maintain innocence and righteousness, should be a voice for good, and should avoid blurring the line between the State and the sacred.

I could list pages and pages of ministers who have gone off the rails when handed too much power and influence. Its a seductive thing. It allows human leaders to confuse their own ideas with the voice of God, to start believing their own hype, to turn a blind eye to abuses and injustices while saying to themselves "the end justifies the means." It isn't like this because people are bad, but because of the effect of power, and of the people who revolve around those in power, and potentially the way it's easy to ignore counsel when there is no one you answer to. (Hmmm. Big can of worms there! Shutting the lid on that for today!)

When we look at the life of Jesus, we see His approach to power summed up nicely in Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus brought himself low, to the point of death, even death on the cross. He was the ultimate servant, who God then elevated. But that elevation was God's responsibility, not ever that of a human. Politics causes us to seek out the popular vote. It seeks for man to elevate us, whereas a life of service to the church is a calling to servanthood in its purest form.

The church should be a powerful voice for good. But I believe it is best kept separate from the State. Having the two institutions separate creates a healthy tension, in my opinion, and creates potential for the other to stay on track.

There is an example of the church and state becoming completely intertwined. (Okay, theres a few. Henry VIII is one. So is the Vatican. Both of those carry obvious cautionary tales.) I'm referring to Constantine. Many laud his achievements for the advancement of Christianity, but others point out the ways in which he married a pagan state with a Christian God and emerged with a mixed, state-sanctioned faith.

This is our danger.

I'm absolutely not saying Christians don't belong in politics. In a representative democracy, there should be room for all creeds. But I am suggesting that if you are called to the cloth, you mightn't be called to the crown. If you find yourself edging towards the other, do consider the words of Billy Graham and ask yourself if you are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

My considered opinion is that the church should put pressure on government to maintain fairness to all people, and freedom to all religions, whilst the government should ensure that citizens involved in churches don't find themselves at the mercy of organisations who think they are above the law. Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesars." This protects the vulnerable people who often seek out the church to find healing. There, they should find safe harbour, not political agendas.

Being a pastor or minister (the Christian type) is a sacred role. It's there to serve and love God's people, teaching them and discipling them according to the word of God. Its role is not to rule them. Each believer's walk with God is their own responsibility. When the state tells us how we ought live that out, we have problems. If you can't imagine that, go watch the Handmaids Tale. (Yes, I know dominionists will cite Genesis 1:28 when God tells Adam to have dominion - but He was referring to fish, animals, plants and insects. Not people.)

The power and pull of politics might be seductive, but it is a different calling entirely. It is to represent the will of the people, not the Will and word of God.

My fear, yes I use the word fear again, is that many a person who has sought out influence and power has done so because they fear their own vulnerability. But for pastors and ministers, and indeed for Christians, our God is our sword and shield. So what if we stay countercultural and never overpower the culture of the day? That is probably our place - to show a dark world there is a light they can follow.

I'm aware that this post may come across a bit abrasive to some. That is not my intent. It is simply to call our attention to Billy Graham's one regret, and to urge Christians not to fear where the world will go but to have faith in a God that has all the power we will ever need. If you are a Christian in politics, great! Serve with honour and integrity. Be a person of your word. Represent your people. Find good counsel and heed it.

If you are a pastor thinking of crossing over, if urge you to consider the undue influence you may wield over people who may think your word and the word of God never differ. It's a dangerous line to blur.

Just some thoughts! Have a fab weekend, friends.

Kit K

The Prosperity Gospel - Truth or Convenience?

When I started this blog, I started with a list of must-write topics as long as my arm. But when it came to actually writing any of them, the big question became "Which one first?" I had two options: procrastinate forever or rip the bandaid off. I'm choosing the latter, and I'm starting with something that popped up in my Facebook feed: Benny Hinn saying he was guilty of taking the prosperity message outside the realms of what was actually Biblical. 

Before we get too far in, check out the video. You can see it here, and the comments start around the 9 minute mark.

For those new here, what is the prosperity gospel? Wikipedia, the font of all well-researched knowledge (heh, heh), says it's this:

"Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success)[A] is a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.

The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for his people to be happy. It is based on interpretations of the Bible that are mainstream in Judaism (with respect to the Hebrew Bible),[1] though less so in Christianity. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through donations of money, visualization, and positive confession."

Okay, so where do we start here? First of all, I'd like to say I don't think prosperity is wrong. Joshua 1:8 talks about having good success. Some translations of Jeremiah 29:11 say "I know the plans I have for you. Plans to prosper you..." Enter "prosper" or "prosperity" into your search function on your Bible app and you'll come up with all sorts of fun.

But does faith in God mean oodles of money? Does His will for us mean ease in every area as the prosperity gospel indicates? Heck no. Exhibit A: Job. Almost the entire book of Job! The examples cited by Benny Hinn were Jesus and Elijah. Did they walk in abundance, flashing around the best chariots of their day? Nope. Were they outside the will of God? Well, Jesus was God. And Elijah, though he had his moments, was pretty ok! They had no lack. This is what Hinn now believes the truth of prosperity in accordance with the Bible to be.

If prosperity theology was it and a bit, then I reckon Jesus would have chosen something a little more palatial than the side of a hill in the middle of nowhere for the loaves and fishes thing. And he probably could have catered the event properly rather than having to scrounge at the last minute. I'm being overly flippant here, but you get my drift. His was a modest lifestyle.

I read a quote on the Internet the other day. It was someone quoting the message they'd listened to that Sunday. It said "Scarcity is a myth."

I face-palmed pretty hard. Partially because I studied economics and anyone who has knows that scarcity is the cornerstone economic theory is built on - Human wants will always exceed the resources available to fulfill those wants. Partially because the Bible is full of scarcity - famines and such. Yes,God looked after His people but some went without for a time. Their faith didn't erase scarcity.

The other thing that saddened me was this: even in an age of good literacy, we still don't read our Bible enough to know when something is a little bit off. Does it matter if something is only a little bit off? Well yes. If we build our lives on things that are only a little bit off, and those things lead to other things, we can end up facing the wrong direction entirely.

But thats a diversion. I did want to point out that, originally, reading the Bible was reserved for those scribes and teachers who had the ability to do so. We do these days! The majority of us (in the Western world at least) can read! We can access free apps so we don't even need to buy a Bible! It is so readily available. So why aren't we educating ourselves on what it actually says.

It doesn't say scarcity is a myth. It doesn't say we will all be rolling in cash because we love Jesus. It says we will have no lack, that we ought not worry about our needs. He has that all in hand (Matthew 6).

It also warns against greed (1 Timothy 6:10-11, Hebrews 13:5 and Luke 12:15), and it is this that the prosperity gospel is in danger of glossing over. Is success ungodly? Heck no. Are riches? Absolutely not. But are we failing as Christians if the budget is a bit thin? No, no, no.

Are we failing in our faith if we don't get the healing we are praying for? Also, nope. One of the greatest Christian women I've ever known died of cancer. It was a shock to all who were steadfastly believing for her healing. But was she failing in her faith? Absolutely not. I'm my eyes, she was a Hebrews 11:13 person who received her promise after having passed on.

I would hate to be one of those preachers who misleads people by touting this money gospel. Because right there in my Bible is a line about the love of money being the root of all evil (Matthew 6:24).

There was a comment in the video that Benny Hinn made me cringe and then think - "Wow! True." He said that there are many Christians out there who aren't actually Christians, whose Christianity has become deluded.

Wow. Ouch. Wow again. But goodness he is right. This is the danger when we don't become students of our faith. Even Hinn said he had listened to those around him, but as he grew and read the Bible more and more, his Christianity became more balanced.

I've often wondered when I see an ocean of people worshipping at mega-churches, how many of them read their Bible enough to know if a doctrine preached from that stage is on the mark or not? How many of them get swept up in the emotion of the moment, the swell of the crowd, the electricity in the air and let that become the guidepost of their faith instead of the red letters that should be our guidepost. Every preacher is human. Every preacher can have an off day, or even an off doctrine if they aren't surrounded by good counsel that picks up on every little thing. To err is human. But the safeguard is the word of God, and knowing it.

I'm not saying I haven't ever been guilty of following blindly, or of getting swept up in the moment. Eh. Who hasn't? All I'm saying is we need to be students of our faith so we know when something isn't quite right. The prosperity gospel, in my opinion is one of those not quite right things. The Bible shows us that our Heavenly father will look after our needs (Matthew 6:31-33). It says His plans are for our good.

It doesn't say it will all be easy. It doesn't say we will never face hardship. It doesn't guarantee private jets and palatial homes (The book of Job, Hebrews 11:13).

If riches is what God has in store for you. Awesome! I'm thrilled for you. But as Hinn challenges in the video, don't let those riches become the centre point. Jesus needs to hold that territory all for Himself.

Just some thoughts hey! I've never been a big Hinn follower. But I've got to stop and applaud the guy for saying "Hey I got it wrong here." That's big.

Over and out

Kit K

Virtue Signalling Vs. Collective Outcry

Once again, 2020 serves us up a dumpster fire of epic proportions. The death ( *murder*) of George Floyd seems to have been the heartbreaking straw that broke the camels back. Riots, protests, looting, police stations on fire - it sure makes for a bleak Facebook feed. I'm not going to make this a big post today, because someone told me this week that the great rule of ally-ship is to say "Nothing about me without me." But I do want to say this: 

There is a difference between virtue signaling and collective outcry. Now is not the moment to look at someone's Facebook page and accuse them of virtue signaling - of simply wanting to look like they care enough. When this type of systemic racism is called out, when injustice reaches a tipping point, we can feel powerless, angry, and confused. We can try to tune it out, try to be in denial, we can be triggered, we can stick our heads in the sand because it is all too hard and too far out of our control.

So some people fire off a Facebook post. It's the best they can do. It's not virtue signaling. It's just the best we can do given the information we can. Don't attack them. The fact is when we witness trauma, we can be traumatized too. And powerlessness is a common reaction to trauma. It's not a moment to argue with someone about their content, intent, or right to post. They're doing the best they can - processing a moment in history that is hard, so very hard, to witness.

But when injustice reaches a tipping point like it has this week, it is important to raise our voices - to join the collective outcry and call for change. So the big question remains, how can we do this constructively?

"Nothing About Me Without Me"

Like I said, someone told me this week that the great guidepost of allyship is to say "nothing about me without me." So whether it is feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, or in this case systemic and horrific racism, it's a moment to pass the microphone. All week, I've been retweeting or reposting content from People of Color, both in Australia and abroad (because my goodness, Australia has its own atrocities - 400 indigenous deaths in custody in the last 12 years and not one charge laid. A considerable gap between indigenous Australians and other Australians in terms of educational outcomes and other wellbeing measures. We need to do better. Now should be a call to action to improve the situation for our own first people).

I got schooled this week in terms of allyship. And I'm thankful for the lesson. Perhaps it's timely, though, because I now see the importance of finding those voices who speak out against injustice from a place of personal experience. Find those people, and offer them a megaphone. Share their messages.

If it helps, I've been watching these, among others:

• Kevin Garcia  has been featuring a lot of key messages from people of color, and is also a person of color.

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been posting some great content on her twitter feed.

• Bernice King, the daughter of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. has been posting some amazing stuff, and keeping the torch lit up.

I've also been keeping an eye on content from Stan Grant, The Age, and other reputable sources who have been adding to the information by shining light on the Australian situation.

Add Your Voice Where It Counts

It can be hard to do anything from where you sit, and even in the USA it can be hard to do anything if you don't feel safe going to a protest. But there are petitions you can sign, associations you can join, foundations you can donate too. Whenever there is a cause, there is generally a lobby group pushing for the betterment of that cause.

Change.org is generally a good place to start, or you can Google the foundations dedicated to the cause in your country.

We aren't as powerless as we seem. We should hope for, dream of, and push for a better tomorrow. It is certainly, absolutely, a good thing to acknowledge our own white privilege while we stand with those like George Floyd, and every person of color who fears for their safety because of the injustice of racism.

Now is Not The Moment for "All Lives Matter." 

Yes, I've seen that counterclaim float its way around Facebook in response to the "Black Lives Matter" movement. Yes, all lives matter. But we whities - well our house isn't on fire. So let's not get in the way of the fire-engines or steal their resources.  Let's grab our buckets and our hoses, and whatever we can do to help douse this inferno. Precious lives hang in the balance.

Just my two cents. For whatever they're worth.

Racism in Australia - a Lived Experience

As protests circle the globe following the horrific deaths of George Floyd, Tony McDade and Breonna Taylor (the latter two to whom I pay homage because they matter so much, even though it seems to be George's murder that has raised the global pot to boiling point), I've wanted to pass the microphone where I can - so that we can hear voices that matter. I'm about to share a story I saw on Instagram. It was shared by a friend of mine who is educated, intelligent, sophisticated, traffic-stoppingly gorgeous and brown. She is a mother of four mixed-race babies, to whom she gives her heart and soul every day. I am in awe of this woman. 

When she posted her own experience of racism in Australia, a move done with much trepidation as its not usually something she speaks about, I had to reshare it (with permission of course). 

But before I do, I must quote our esteemed PM, Scott Morrison, who said in an interview on Monday that "There's no need to import things happening in other countries here to Australia." He was referring to the Black Lives Matter protests. It is a triggering time for many Australians, as we have had more than 400 indigenous deaths in custody since 1991. One of them," David Dungay, said "I can't breathe" 12 times while being restrained by prison guards in 2015. He died, and the video of Floyd’s killing has been traumatic for his family. [1]" None of the officers have faced consequences.

I raise it to say this isn't an overseas problem.

And now, on to Laura's story - reposted with permission.

Muted posts are easy. Anti-Racism work is not. Do the latter.

"I'm about to talk about racism, and the Black Lives Matter movement. I rarely use this space for anything other than our homeschool journey, but I believe the current situation warrants a conversation. If you'd like to pass over this post, feel free to do so.

I'm brown. I'm equal parts Anglo-Indian, Scottish, Welsh, and Polish, but my skin colour is brown, and when I'm asked what nationality I am, what people mean is "What part of your heritage makes you brown?", so I just say I'm Anglo-Indian. My husband is white. Our children are bi-racial, two are white, two are olive. Racism is no stranger.

I was born and raised in Australia, and I have dealt with racism since childhood. As a kid, there were slurs, outright hostility, and violence. I remember a kid at my school following me on my way home, hitting at my calves with a garden stake. I remember my concerned Dad teaching me how to defend myself physically when I was seven, knowing I would probably face other similar incidents. I remember punch-ons, and teachers who turned a blind eye when I defended myself, as they knew they couldn't always be there to intervene. I remember stories from my parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, of the insane levels of racism they had faced. My grandfather (Scottish) married my grandmother (Indian) and was disowned for it. His own mother refused to help my grandparents care for their starving children, because their kids were mixed race.

As an adult, the racism I have encountered most often is of a more subtle nature; generalisations of my work ethic based on race, on the number of my children I have based on race, of my talents based on race, of intelligence, of hygiene, of parenting... and the occasional bout of outright hostility.

My kids haven't had many of such experience (yay for homeschool!) but the thought that they might both breaks my heart and kindles my anger. The awareness that there are children who are dealing with this... the awareness that George Floyd was someone's son and he cried out for his mum, the injustice of it all... it just makes me burn.

How is it that we are still having to defend a belief that people are people?!?! How is it that a Black Lives Matter movement is being diminished by responses of "all lives matter"? Of course they do! But Black Lives Matter is the burning issue, and pointing out that your life matters too does nothing to extinguish those flames! It is not helpful. Posting a black tile doesn't make you an ally.

Muting yourself doesn't make you an ally - and frankly, how utterly ridiculous to think that you should be silent because you're white. Instead, listen, and then use your voice and your privilege to support change. Share posts from black content creators, and from black platforms. Silence around racism has not saved anyone yet, but it sure as hell has enabled it to continue.

Lovely people, if we want to change, then we need to do the work. Ask questions of yourself and of others. Please don't mute yourself - learn, and listen, and then speak. Being Anti-Racism is not a something that we can achieve, as such; it's an ongoing journey, learning to challenge racism in ourselves and to grow in love as we do. I hope you'll grow with me.

xxx."

Laura Grimmond

@inspired_unschooling 

Thank you beautiful lady for sharing your voice. Thank you for letting me honour it with a reshare.

Kit K

The De-Calvinisation of Kit Kennedy

There we were, my ex-husband and I, walking our two babies along a boardwalk during Covid19 lockdown. The dew was still fresh on the plants that carpeted the wetland floor. Our two-year-old was busy conquering her fear of bridges (because look, a boardwalk is one long bridge, isn't it). I watched her a bit proudly and reflected on my unfaced fears, and whether I had any. (Spoiler: We all do.) Then I said the thing that had been bothering me for a long time, but that I hadn't given voice to yet: "Bae, I just don't think I subscribe to the Evangelical trope of Jesus as my bestie anymore. And I can't think of God as an old white man in the sky who is morbidly curious about my every action, reaction and inaction, and who has a huge "choose your own adventure" style book of punishments and prizes depending on what I do or don't do in any given moment." 

Patrick responded with a sentence almost as wordy as the two I'd just thrown him. And that is perhaps one reason we work so well as friends even after splitting.

But that wasn't the moment I was observing. I was observing another one, a big one where I recognized the seismic shift in my faith. There was no one around. It's not like anyone could hear, and if my theory was correct (which I won't know until eternity), then the only person who would hear was Patrick. After a lifetime of believing that God watched and judged and reacted to every single thing I did or thought, and even wondering whether the "cloud of witnesses" were still creepin' when you were shaving your legs or whatever in the shower, it was almost a relief to get that thought out of my head.

Superstitiously, I've waited for the other shoe to drop and for cosmic judgment to fall upon me because I don't look at Jesus as if He is my best friend.

It hasn't. And that is perhaps the most telling thing of all.

Let's step back a bit: what is this Evangelical Trope of which I speak?

It has long been a trend in Christian worship music for songs to kinda swing in a direction where the word "Jesus" could be subbed out for the word "Baby," a slick beat dropped behind the catchy riff and BOOM: club-worthy song. There was a meme that made its way around the internet not too long ago in which the dorkiest band you've ever seen sang "Jesus is my friend. I have my friend in Jesus. He taught me how to sing, and how to save my soul, He taught me how to love my God and still play rock and roll" blah blah blah. In fact, I have instant regret over typing those lyrics because the song is that catchy. There goes a perfectly good night's sleep.

That song, released soon after the advent of color television, was a very early iteration of the "Jesus is my best friend/lover/brother/" genre. It might have worked for me as a teenager when I needed to feel a sense of connectedness, lofty destiny, and the illusion of a guaranteed rosy life, but it certainly sat a little wonky in later years when I started to wonder whether this was true worship. I'd started to wonder whether worship should instead carry an attitude of reverence and awe, rather than the sort of poetry cooked up by hipsters to make their target market feel good.

Harsh. I know. Heck, I've written some of this stuff so I've certainly been part of the machine. Admittedly nothing as cool as the pop-star worship-leaders of today.

But can I say it out loud? Can I acknowledge it for what it is? I don't think many of us see Jesus as a literal best friend. And that's okay. Perhaps to call Him that is to bring the divine down to a human plain, or worse still, to raise ourselves to god-status by calling ourselves equal to the third part of the trinity.

Jesus is, in my mind, the divine incarnate. To others, He is a prophet or a philosopher. To others, maybe just an invisible buddy they like to chat to. I don't believe its bad to see Him as any of these things. But I certainly don't believe it is bad to admit that we don't see Him as the latter.

But where did this "Jesus is my friend", buddy-buddy attitude come from? 

I'm sure there are better scholars out there, a fact I recount often. But there seem to be only a few instances in scripture and none of them seem to line up with "Jesus is my best buddy."

• John 15:14 - 15 "You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you."

• James 2:23 "Abraham believed in God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and he was called a friend of God."

Jesus was certainly called a friend of sinners, the first-born of many brethren, and he was certainly a friend of the disciples. But none of these instances put him on the same human level as the recipient of his friendship. It's more like having a name in your phone book of someone powerful who you could call on if you needed them. I have a number of MP's on my Facebook friends list. But I don't play pool with them or muse to them about my thoughts on dating post-separation. Having an influential friend is different to having a buddy.

Yes, Peter James and John had a closer relationship with Jesus than anyone else. I'm not denying that. But am I as close as they were? Could I ever be?

If I was ever in a position where I thought I could clearly, accurately, faultlessly and tangibly hear Jesus' voice and "rest my head on Him" as these disciples did, I truly hope one of you would drag me to a psychologist office - stat.

Now, look: the point of this post isn't to change your mind on anything. If you look at Jesus as if He is your best friend - good for you. I guess what I'm writing about here is an honest look at the state of my deconstruction. I'm not scared to call my approach to faith what it is anymore. I've got the podcast which creates a beautiful opportunity for me to explore the more intellectual avenues of deconstruction, theology, faith, and social justice. But who would I be if I didn't say exactly what's on my mind in terms of my own deeply held thoughts?

The truth is, I don't view Jesus as my best friend. Perhaps I never have. Perhaps I did but I'm glossing over history with the kind of paintbrush that makes things all look tidy and consistent in the present. I don't know. But either way, it's okay. I think I've mentioned before that I watched a beautiful series on Netflix called "The Story of God." It was narrated by Morgan Freeman (which was sort of meta, as it sounded like God was narrating his own story. Bravo Netflix). But what I noticed was a rich reverence woven through the exploration of each religion's origins and traditions. The gorgeous sound of the Islamic call to prayer, the deep respect that Native Americans and Indigenous people of other countries had for their spoken traditions, the incredible respect held by the researchers looking into the origins of the Abrahamic religions. The thread woven through was one of reverence, respect, awe, and somehow despite the diversity and difference presented in each faith or tradition, there was a thread of something familiar. It was a story of origin, of connection, of searching for a way of being in the world that was good. 

Then Joel Osteen stepped on screen for the first time. He was there as the standard-bearer for American Evangelicalism - a faith that should be the closest relative to mine. His teeth, impeccably capped and whitened, made me grimace, but none so much as the words that came out of his mouth. I felt like I'd just switched channels to a Tony Robbins thing. I hated it. Where were the reverence and awe? It felt cheap and tacky but dressed up in a suit that undoubtedly cost thousands.

Today, in the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, I saw another cringe-worthy moment. Mega-church pastor Louis Giglio sitting with rapper LeCrae of all people, explaining the "Blessing" of slavery and reframing "white privilege" to "white blessing". My stomach sunk. It is a statement Giglio has since offered up a sincere apology and said he sees no blessing in slavery. Thank God. But still, I see something in the institutions of Evangelicalism as something deeply problematic: something more like Tony Robbins than Jesus. Something more like a fast-food franchise than a slowly-grown, deeply held, intentionally-built ethos that asks "how might I model myself off the life of Jesus? How can I make this world better?"

Jesus isn't my best friend. He is the highest-held model and ethical ideal in my mind. He is my God. Yes. But I won't bring Him down to sibling or bestie level.

My best friend and I (or ex-husband, however you want to phrase it), we sit and binge Netflix shows. We talk trash. I run things by him when I want a second opinion, but I know I can ignore his advice if I want. I don't base my ethical and moral decisions on what he would want me to do. My other best-friends - well at this point in Covid lockdown, we drink a fair bit of prosecco or gin and talk about our love lives a lot.

Again. Not doing that with Jesus. Although praying about what decision is right - that I do.

The Bible calls Jesus the firstborn of many brethren. But let's look at sibling relationships: I'm the eldest in my family. Of the five of us, I really only have semi-regular contact with one (if you don't count the odd snapchat or text). She is a free-spirit and a gifted public speaker. She is generous and a hard-worker. She is fabulous with kids and her wardrobe is phenomenal. There are things I admire about her.  But I don't build my life around her and she certainly doesn't build hers around me.

What am I saying? Jesus isn't my sibling. He isn't my bestie. That's not a role I would ever reduce him to.

This realization has made me understand, for the first time in my life, that there is a jarring misfit between me and the contemporary church.

But why use "de-Calvinisation" in the title of this blog when you weren't even raised Calvinist, Kit?

A few weeks back I blogged on the five pillars of Calvinism. There at the top of the list is the doctrine of "Total Depravity." It's one that Evangelicalism is still very much steeped in; that since the fall of mankind in Eden, we are all born with a sin nature; totally depraved, enslaved to sin, selfish and self-serving, determined to act against God.

We hear it in altar calls. We hear it in the speeches of Billy Graham, who has been held up as the greatest evangelist of the modern era. Over the last few years I've been sitting with this uncomfortable question though: is it possible to follow Jesus without subscribing to a deep and wounding sense of self-loathing. Of inadequacy. Of "I can do nothing without God." I first started to wrestle with this when I was reading my ex-husbands Gay Conversion Therapy manual. I realized my own sense of inadequacy, fear of doing the wrong thing, feeling of being the wrong thing without the approval of the church - it was all internalized shame gifted to me from that Calvinist belief I had marinated in since childhood. It paled in comparison to the internalized sense of homophobia he carried. But that's another story, and another blog post (How I survived gay conversion therapy).

Side note: I wasn't raised Calvinist. It's just a belief that I see deeply steeped in the "Come to Jesus, all ye sinners" narrative."

Then I heard a podcast. The guest was Richard Rohr, and I can't even remember what else he said apart from this sentiment: why do we start our faith in Genesis 3 with the fall of mankind, when we could start it in Genesis 1 where God repeatedly looked at creation and said "It is good. It is good. It is good."?

So perhaps I'm a Franciscan now? Maybe? I don't know. All I know is reading Genesis one and letting those words wash over me felt healing. Because here is what I know about humanity:

1. No loving parent looks at their newborn and sees sin and depravity. They see beauty, even in those first weeks when their kid is funny looking - Let's be honest. We are told God is love, but then told that we are depraved and He hates sin (thus he can't stand us). Furthermore, we are told the Bible never contradicts itself. Well, it just did. If God, whom we are supposed to call Abba Father, is love, then he loves us. Or He is a hateful parent who alienates and estranges his children from the get-go until they can earn their way back. I'm a mother of two children. I know which parent I am. And I am infinitely less good than the divine good.

2. All of us are doing our best. I loved watching Game of Thrones. Because every character had redeeming qualities and also the ability to do awful things. Yet we wouldn't call them awful. (Okay, Joffrey doesn't count. Straight up jerk, that one!). I believe all of us are doing the best we can with what we are given. Can we all do better if given the right resources? Yes. In "Little Fires Everywhere" featuring Reese Witherspoon and Kerry Washington, the latter yelled, "You didn't 'make good choices, you had good choices." And wow, it's true. That's privilege in one sentence.

3. Not many of us believe we are inherently bad people. Why is it that religion steps in, and before accepting us into its exclusive club, makes us admit that we are terrible and hopeless, and sinful without God? Surely, if God is God, and if Jesus is the human incarnation of the divine, then there should be good enough reason to follow him without self-hatred and shame. I believe there is. I don't believe we need to think of ourselves as the scum of the earth before we reach for a more merciful, honest, compassionate, anti-corruption, anti-exclusion, self-sacrificially loving existence. Do you?

So look. This is an intensely personal post I'm just putting out there because I need to get what's on my mind off my mind before I finish crafting a ghostwritten book on infant and pediatric craniopathies!

Here's what I believe about myself now.

I start my faith in Genesis 1. I am good. I am not perfect, but I do not hate myself for that. Jesus is a divine being I approach with reverence, not familiarity. I do not follow Him because I hate myself. I follow Him because I love humanity. I believe that Christianity that builds itself on instilling a sense of self-loathing or shame in its adherents is inferior because it is not built on the immensity, infinitely expansive, compassionate, merciful, intentionally diverse nature of God and the world He/They created.

So yeah. That's me right now. This is the state of the de-calvinisation of Kit Kennedy as at June 17, 2020. Let's see where we are next year!

Peace

Kit K

P.S. Here is the song I referred to. You're welcome.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8[/embed]

Why I don’t seek certainty anymore

For me, faith was always about certainty. Certainty that the world worked a certain way. Certainty that God would always come through for you (if you prayed hard enough, worked hard enough, didn't sin, fasted if the situation warranted it, and were generally the good girl). If you were a good evangelical, you would reach other people for Christ, and this often came through a formulaic approach based on the godlessness and hopelessness of all humankind, and the goodness and all-powerfulness of God. 

Cool. Except for the fact that I prayed hard enough, worked hard enough, behaved well enough, fasted if the situation warranted it and was generally a good girl. A really good girl. If you knew my story, you'd probably know that I've had more things go wrong in my life than many. I firmly believe that there should be a cosmic quota for heartache and misfortune, and I've passed it. Waaayyy passed it. So why am I the happiest I've ever been?

I think its because I've shifted from certainty to uncertainty. And it's beautiful. Do I know all about God? Nope. Not even close. Am I always seeking to understand God, and  connect with the divine? Yep. Do I seek to live out my followership of Christ in the truest, most compassionate, most dedicated way I can? Yep. Does this bring me certainty about the world? Heck no.

Am I okay with that? Absolutely.

You see certainty, for me, brought about a deep sense of unease. If I was so certain that my doctrines were correct, and that everyone else was wrong and needed to convert to the movement I was in in order to be right, then I needed to wrestle with what I saw around me. My perfect God was missing a lot. He was not intervening in a lot of situations despite the endless prayers and supplications of His devout followers. He was turning a blind eye to abuse, a lot. He was making life really hard for the people who followed Him. If I was so certain that this version of God was the right version of God, and this version of philosophy and spirituality was the right version of it, then I had to earnestly want all my friends and family to convert to this extremely difficult way of being in the world.

I...didn't. Couldn't. And a new way of interacting with God began.

Let's be fair: it began with a bit of a shitshow. I catapulted past that cosmic quota on hardship (that doesn't exist). And the final straw came when my marriage transitioned. I say transitioned because it became a friendship that just works. To say it ended would elude to me losing my best friend and confidante. I didn't. He's gay though, and that is a bit of a pivot. So we separated.

In that moment, the vows that I had relied upon were broken. I stared in the face of potential abandonment once again, and guess what: it didn't happen. He stuck by me the best way two separated people could. We share a house, and co-parenting duties. Our relationship has changed, but he did not run for the hills. My friends gathered around me, and I realised for the first time in my life that I didn't want friends who rejected him or whose interactions with me were based on conditional love or the perception of me being weak and hurt. Because although he was my ex-husband, he wasn't the man who wronged me. He loved me enough to give me a chance to find love again while I was young. He loved me enough to plunge us both into uncertainty, knowing that it would force us both to live authentically.

Yes, he needed to live authentically for obvious reasons. But he knew something about me too: I'd been making myself smaller in order to stay in his shadow, like a good, submitted, complementarian wife. He wasn't going to let me do it for the rest of my life. So here we are: two single people parenting two presidents-schoolers, and about to take on the world of dating and its uncertain as heck.

In that moment, when we first separated, I went "huh. Can't control a bloody thing, can you? Best just roll with it."

Then Covid19 hit. And I thought "huh. Can't control a bloody thing, can you? Best just roll with it."

And then we moved to a whole new neighbourhood, in a whole new city, and we aren't giving out our address for the first time in our lives. We waited until after the Melbourne lockdown was over to make the move, knowing making friends in Covid19 is difficult, but then the second lockdown started 48 hours before we arrived. And I thought, you guessed it, "Huh. Can't control a bloody thing, can you? Best just roll with it."

I mean I could have tried to control everything, to line it up with my "certain", "non-negotiable" or "tried and true" ideas about the world. But that would have been fruitless, wouldn't it. It would have taken up a crazy amount of energy, reduced me to frustration, and perhaps given me another walk with the black dog.

Here's the problem I see with seeking certainty: it's very hard to distinguish between certainty and control. In fact, sometimes when we say "certainty" what we mean is "control - fitting everything into a box I can understand and compartmentalise, keeping people and ideas where I want them so I can feel safe." And control, frankly, is a myth. You can't wrap the world up in a neat little bow, claiming you understand all of its in's and out's, its workings, timings and cosmic rhythms.

You can't make people do what you want them to do and have that relationship be one in which both parties are healthy. For one person to have control over anothers actions takes away from the personhood of the second party. It costs part of their individuality, and agency over their choices in order for them to fall in line with what the person-in-control wants them to be.

And it's a lot of work to maintain that inauthenticity, or that control. It breeds distrust, dissatisfaction, and all the disses.

So I'm embracing uncertainty. I know I do not understand God and the universe. It makes seeking those answers fun and fascinating. I know I can't control anything, so I connect with my own integrity and what I deeply feel to be true in any given moment and do the best I can. I embrace the idea that I may be wrong, and that's okay.  When I'm faced with curveballs, I'm learning to go "Okay. Can I control this? No. So how do I respond best? How do I act in this moment that allows me to still be in my integrity, in my boundaries, and in line with what I feel to be my purpose?"

I like it. I like it better than certainty. A God I don't understand is so much easier to seek after than one I think I've got locked down. A person I can't control is so much more freeing to be around because they can be their authentic selves and I can be my authentic self. The energy once spent on good behaviour and fitting in is so much better spent elsewhere, don't you think?

Anyway, that's my thoughts for today. They may be influenced a little bit by Keith Kristich's session on the podcast...but I have to wait until next week to post that. Stay tuned.

I'm currently listening to the sound of children playing, looking out over a city skyline on a sunny winters day. All is not how I thought it would be. But its pretty darn great. And I am happy. And this is a moment worth marking.

I hope you are well in this crazy time. 
xo 
Kit 

Perceptions, Reality and Kindness Under Pressure

"So I've been thinking." Now, that's a dangerous statement, I know. But what else does one do while on lockdown? It seems, as we live through this little Covidian apocalypse, that the catch-cry "We are all in this together" is being thrown around. And its a nice sentiment, don't get me wrong! But really, we need to view this collective difficulty with a bit more of a nuanced lens than that. We might be all in this together if we look at the external factors, but the lived experiences that we carry into this cultural moment are all different. We are all in this together, but reality is a combination of external events and internal dynamics which are made up of past experiences, traumas, values, voids, and much, much more. Hence, even if you find yourself thriving under lockdown, its a time to treat your neighbour with kindness.

The thought popped into my head while I was reading a book on epigenetics - that is a series of options, sort of like on and off switches built into human DNA. A person can have the genetic potential for a whole lot of health catastrophes, but whether or not those genes are triggered and expressed depends a lot on a persons environment. (Read stuff by Dr. Bruce Lipton PhD for more on that, coz this is hardly a science blog!). We used to think that our genes were our locked-in destiny. Now we know the power of environment and stressors on gene expression.

It threw my mind to my marriage. Baby Daddy and I shared a marriage. During this time, we shared experiences. We witnessed things, went through things, processed things, gained things and lost things. We did it all together. But to say that we had the same marriage is far from the truth. We were married to each-other, yes. We shared a beautiful life (and still do, in our own way post-separation), yes. But we did not have the same experience of marriage:

• In my experience of marriage, I was finally able to relax and be myself. I was able to feel and act out of the more feminine ways of being that I had not leant into in the previous decade of living in survival mode. I had literally been diagnosed with PTSD ten months after we got together and the jury is out as to whether I had suffered with the condition for the previous 8 or 15 years before that. He was my safe place. My leaning post. Marriage was uncomplicated for me.

• In his experience of marriage, it was complicated. We shared a beautiful and effortless friendship. We made two beautiful babies. But there was an underlying anxiety, a feeling that he had to play a particular part that was not authentic to him in order for our marriage to be happy. He was dealing with the scars of gay conversion therapy and a lifetime of repressed sexuality and internalised homophobia.

• Our marriage, for both of us was beautiful. Our friendship remains so. We shared an experience, yes. But the internal dynamics we both carried in meant we did not have the same experience of marriage, because we did not have the same internal world.

It is one example of divergent perception, and its an important point to consider as Covid19 wears on for another eternity, er I mean month or something. Dr Jessica Koehler wrote this in an article on Psychology Today, "We do not see things as they are; we see them as we are. This perceptual awareness has spread through human civilization for hundreds of years, but its exact origin is unknown. Remarkably, current evidencefrom the field of neuroscience suggests this conception of human reality is an accurate description of our perceptual processing. Everything we perceive is built upon the knowledge we already have."

What is this knowledge we already have? It is made up of our values and experiences, the meaning we made from those expriences, the stressors, traumas, happy moments, dreams and hopes that we carry along the way. And everyone is different. Two people, who were raised in the same house, who came from the same gene pool, can have very different perceptual realities - and that doesn't make either of them wrong.

I say this to raise a point: our perception has a powerful impact on our lived experience. It is comprised of all the things that build up to a point. Our thoughts, dreams, values, traumas, stressors, genetics, epigenetics, environmental forces, and personality preferences  all factor in to our experience of a moment. It is why two siblings can stand in a lounge room and hear the doorbell ring. For one sibling it can be a matter of "Oh, how nice of that person to drop in!" For the other, it can be a matter of "How threatening for them to ignore my requests to text first, to violate my privacy and my boundaries...to disrespect me like they always have."

For one person it can be nice. For the other, even a relative who grew up in the same house, it can be downright threatening.

I use the example of siblings because its important to see that even those who experienced life alongside us experience it differently. So here we are, at a moment in history where we appear to be sharing an expereince (ie. a global pandemic), and yet people are not all experiencing it the same way.

Don't Bother Keeping Up With The Jones's.

Why is it a thing to raise at this point in time? I see a lot of people using this time of lockdown to get shit done. And hey, maybe I am one of those. I started a podcast, moved house, I'm starting a new arm of my business. I am actually enjoying life. I see other people who are unable to get shit done. These people whose businesses have slowed down (hey, mine is one of them, and thats why I can spend time building up another arm of it). This forseeably causes anxiety. I see people who are doing a lot of TV bingeing.  Or who are sleeping a lot, or exercising a lot, or crafting a lot. We can easily benchmark ourselves against other people and think "Oh thats what I should be doing!"

No no. You are the only person who you need to check in with. Are you well? Are you healthy? Are you getting the support you need? Are you being visited by trauma? Is the isolation too much for you? These are the questions you need to be asking.

Your perception of this historical moment is unique. Because it is made up of all the things that you experienced up until this moment.

What did I experience up until this moment? I think what it was, was surrender. I realised I couldn't control anything. My kids were going to be my kids. My marriage was going to take the course that it was going to take, because I could control my sexuality but no one elses. I realised that I couldn't make other people start acting in a way that made them helpful or healthy for me, or stop them from acting in a way that wasn't. All I could do was create healthy boundaries around me and my space. I had time to stop, take stock of life, surrender to the course that things were going to take and realise my role in them. I had therapy. I learned to breathe in and out and then press on doing the best I can, knowing that I can't always control the outcome.

That was January to March. Then came Covid. I'll admit there have been frustrations and dark moments during this, especially during the few months in which we felt like life had completely ground to a halt and was. not. moving. forward. Who could not feel the frustation of it all? That would be...weird. But perhaps the reason I am coping okay with this is because of all the things I had to wrestle with before. It had all finally come to a point of peace and acceptance. Then came the big cosmic cherry on top - a global pandemic. I rolled my eyes, muttered a swear word and got on with it.

We are all in this together, but we are all in this completely uniquely.

I find the study of human perception and consciousness fascinating. How can two people view the same thing and take completely different perceptions away from that moment? I remember reading Anne of Green Gables as a child. When I read it, I was Anne! I was that fanciful, imaginative heroine who was so misunderstood by the adults in her life. I read it again as an adult and, oh my goodness, Marilla made so much sense to me. I was aghast to find that Anne drove me bonkers.

I took my kids to Bunnings during the week. We had to get some supplies in order to repair something thath was a bit of a hazard around home so it was totally essentials, guys! We even wore masks. Well! Wasn't that an exercise in perception. I was stressed out and snappy because my kids would not stand still and do what they were told. Henry ran off and I lost sight of him. Allegra was walking so slowly that I couldn't get eyes on Henry while keeping eyes on her. I was so stressed by the time we got to the register that I was ready to cry.

Then there was Henry's perception of that same experience: "Oh my gosh! Everything's so BIG! I got to run and when I shout my voice bounces off the walls! Its so cool! I went to the next aisle without my mummy because I'm such a big boy." He had a great time.

Finally, there were the perceptions of the other shoppers, particularly two tradies who stood at either end of the aisle I was shopping on and had to listen to a very loud, very not-appropriate-to-recount-on-a-blog conversation. Because kids will say anything, anywhere. And they will ask repeatedly until you answer them.

I spotted the muffled laughter from metres away.

One experience: a trip to the hardware store. Three different perceptions: frustration/stress, adventure, hilarity.

We can share an experience and have completely different feelings about it. As long as that falls within the boundaries of normal (i.e. there are no issues of delusion or illusion that need to be tended to by a mental health professional), then those perceptions of reality are completely acceptible expressions of the lived experience.

We are all in this together, but we are all in this uniquely. And hence, let us treat ourselves and eachother with kindness. AND MASKS

Just todays thoughts.

Peace

Kit K

P.S. GO SUBSCRIBE TO UNCHURCHABLE on iTunes or Spotify. There are some fab eps coming up! Also props to Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash for the kickin' image