Christians: Should We Dump the Whole Concept of "Strong"?

(Here's one of those five posts that have been funded to appear in January...written in response to a church's Tweets, stored long enough to blur the identity of the church, and revised to be a response to a publisher's promotion for a new book as well. I'd actually like to read John Van Pay's thoughts on running, but I'm tired, tired, tired of dead churches where a little sign pops up going "Be strong--all by yourself" whenever there's any call for the concept of Christian brotherhood to be taken seriously.)

Churches don't like to have too many women members, especially when those women are single, widowed, or divorced. A charitable way to explain this is that churches really aren't meant to be “families,” and shouldn't blather about being them. A church that is simply a place where people worship God is low-maintenance, once a building is found, and low-cost. A church that tries to replace people's families tends to attract a lot of people from very dysfunctional families that make maintaining this church a full-time headache.

Of course, the bottom line is that those women without husbands are likely not to be rich...most churches really don't want to attract low-income believers.

So, recently Twitter  revealed that a church I've been following has launched its “Lose Those Ladies” program, sneakily marketed, of course, under a feel-good name—in this case “I Am Strong.” There's always a weaselly (and vappy) quality about these feel-good names.They all try to sound like something Jesus might have said in the same breath as “Come unto Me, all ye that are heavy laden,” when they actually mean “If you're not wealthy, go away.”

The “I Am Strong” program is yet another version of the “We Must Never Actually Help People” agenda, which basically presupposes that if people want anything they wouldn't get from the Welfare State, what they want (or, in smarmier language, “need”) must be strictly emotional. If these people are going to continue attending or supporting a church, the emotional feeling they'd get would be a sense that they're loved and welcomed. Since the goal is to push them away, however, “We Must Never Actually Help People” trains church members to tell undesirables, i.e. older women who have less, “Ooohhh, your hardships are making you sooo strooonnnnggg, you don't really neeed our help, you can solve aaaaalll your own problems aaaalll by yourself...or, if you can't, it's no skin off my nose...in any case, go away.”

It is noteworthy that there's no record of Jesus ever telling people anything like this. Churches using “We Must Never Actually Help People” take their inspiration, such as it is, from Co-Dependent No More, although recent editions of the book clearly state that it violates Melody Beattie's intention to treat people as if a relationship were “co-dependent” unless it really is.

As a Christian, I can only apologize to all the people who could, and should, genuinely benefit from being members of the Living Body of Christ, who have been emotionally abused by “We Must Never Actually Help People.” They can be low-income men as well as women, teens as well as elders,although when churches overtly launch “I Am Strong” programs they usually target single women. What the targets of these programs have in common is that they're not putting money in the preacher's pocket. Thus we observe striking contrasts between what Jesus actually did and what the churches do, when people say things like:

* “We have no food. If we'd known how interesting this meeting was going to be, we would have brought lunches, but we didn't.”

Jesus: “None of you? You, over there? Five flatbreads and two fishes? Pass'em forward.” There is some dispute about whether Jesus miraculously multiplied the kid's lunch and kept serving dry fish sandwiches to all those thousands of people (on two different occasions), or the sight of His breaking those flatbreads miraculously reminded people that they'd brought some sort of snacks, such that the crowds ate rich and varied potluck dinners. Anyway, the people asked for literal, physical food, and they got literal, physical food. (Mark 6:38)

Abusive Churchians: “If you were really hungry you'd sign up for food stamps! You're only expecting us to feed you because you have emotional needs for mothering. Well, grow up! You're strong...you don't really need lunch. Or if you do, you should have to beg for that lunch as a handout rather than accept it as partial wages for the work you do.”

* “My loved one is dying—no, dead...”

Jesus: “Not yet. Young lady, stand up! Lazarus, come out! You may go home, Sir; your hired man is better now.” (Mark 5:41; John 11:43; Matthew 8:13)

Abusive Churchians: “Well, here is yet another rehash of our official doctrine about the afterlife, if any. Now go away! You're only hoping people will offer to drive, cook, mow, etc., for you because you're hoping to enmesh us in relationships of co-dependency! Well, snap out of it! You're strong...you can take care of your own driving, mowing, cleaning...”

* “I've had this strange medical condition for years.”

Jesus: “Be healed.” (Matthew 9:20 et seq.)

Abusive Churchians: “If you were really sick, a doctor could help you. You're only bringing all these psychosomatic problems on yourself because you don't want to get a job! Oh well, you may have had a job in the past, done it well, and liked it, but you just couldn't hide your emotional problems any longer, could you? You need psychiatric help! Some sort of job you could do for us? You think we would want to deal with your problems? Go away.”

We likewise observe a great disparity between the abusive modern churches and the apostolic church, when people say things like:

* “Please, Sir, any spare change to help a poor cripple?”

Apostles: “We have no money, but we'll pray that your legs be healed. Thank God, they are healed! That was fast! Now, what sort of work have you done, if any, or what do you think you could learn to do? Those who work with us, eat with us.” (Acts 3:6)

Abusive Churchians: “If you were really in any kind of material need the Welfare State would take care of you! Go away! You disgust us! We want you and anyone who resembles you in any way banned from this entire neighborhood.”

* “These penniless widows, all 357 of them, have been denied benefits from the Greek and Jewish temple organizations because they became Christians.” (Acts 6:1)

Apostles: “Mercy...feeding the old dears is going to be a regular job. You had better appoint some qualified people to run the church kitchen. By the way some of them look young enough to work. All of you young widows should start looking for jobs and/or second husbands now. Nobody who's able to walk and talk should be living on handouts, because people who do that become gossips and busybodies.” 

Abusive Churchians: “By all means the Welfare State needs to set up another billion-dollar program and see whether that helps any of them. Meanwhile, ladies, let's talk about how you can take full responsibility for your circumstances, and be 'strong' enough to walk out of this church and never come back!”

* “Can you teach me to do what your church group does, for this amount of money?”

Apostles: “Miracles are not sleight-of-hand tricks, Simon Magus. The powers of God cannot be bought.” (Acts 8:20)

Abusive Churchians: “Squeee! We'll be sooo glad to! We borrowed the 'Tell people how “strong” they are, or ought to be, instead of helping them' routine from the twelve-step recovery groups (which are 'anonymous' and unfunded), the sermon recording and broadcasting system from the TV corporations, the mode of presentation from blockbuster Hollywood movies, the text of this sermon from the Bible, the quote we use to illuminate it from an Ozzy Osbourne video...”

Jesus would definitely not be welcome in these churches. Neither would Paul—admitted postsexuals tend to scare these people. One of my teachers used to say that the Apostle most likely to have been encouraged to join any of these churches was probably Judas.

We're not told that Jesus had a problem with people “thinking like victims,” complaining, and expecting sympathy or empathy from others. In fact, the book of Job consists mostly of affirmation that bad things do happen to good people and that other people who observe this phenomenon should be extremely respectful of the afflicted people's grief. The four very good friends, all wise men and gifted poets, who dared to suggest that Job should “take responsibility for his circumstances” were told to make sacrifices, after which Job's material wealth was restored! And they were real friends who genuinely believed Job had offended God, and wanted Job to come to peace with God and be blessed—not greedy money hoarders who were afraid to let someone in need of money carry a bucket of water to earn a sandwich.

We're not told that any of the first generation of Christians proclaimed that they were “strong.” Nor did they proclaim that they were weak. They seem to have been more interested in proclaiming that God is strong. In the context of worship, Paul even said that his weakness was strength. Of course, for their purposes other than worship, “strong” still had a factual meaning. In the first century Roman Empire people either were able to do heavy labor, or were not. No moral virtue attached to being able to walk thirty miles a day; there's no hint that the older men and the women disciples were blamed for not keeping up with Jesus and the Twelve on their longer journeys. But what the apostolic Christians were told to do was “Bear one another's burdens.” (Galatians 6:2)

Yes. Take risks. Get their hands dirty. Put their money where their mouths were. Your problem is my problem. “And so fulfill the law” of how Christians should behave.

“We have no food.”

“Please, Sir, I have these five flatbreads and two fishes.”

By dividing his lunch, the good little boy just might have been enabling a co-dependent type. Jesus couldn't have cared less if he were! One thing that's even worse than a co-dependent relationship is being paralyzed by the fear of a co-dependent relationship. Those who let an actuarial approach dictate their lives become “the one(s) who won't be taken, who cannot seem to give, and the soul(s) afraid of dying, that never learns to live.”

Jesus did not say that anyone would be admitted to the joys of Heaven “because I was hungry/thirsty/cold, and you told Me about welfare programs; I was a stranger, and you pretended not to see Me; I was sick, and you never let that distract you from your solemn duty to have a good time and feel good about yourself...”

Admittedly, Jesus was not a whiner, not did he say that anyone would be saved “because I wanted to whine, and you let Me whine on your shoulder” either. Still, in the New Testament there's a very clear picture of Jesus and the Apostles dealing with co-dependency problems, if they did, after dealing with people's real concerns. And there's a reason why they addressed those concerns in an individual way, rather than setting up “programs”: big clunky “programs” promote dependency and gaming the system; individual relationships should promote interdependency and responsibility.

Some people who've taken advantage of one co-dependent or exploitive relationship consciously plan to steer other relationships in that direction, so all co-dependents are not solely to blame for their co-dependent relationships. However, in my observation most co-dependents deliberately set up their relationships in that way. They do not do this consciously. They do it by grabbing for the emotional satisfaction of feeling in control, early in the acquaintance. The co-dependency does not begin with the simple exchange, “I want a job, an apartment, a car pool, etc.” -- “I can use a helper, a renter, a passenger, etc.” No, it begins at the point of:

“I shouldn't just take this from you. Let me do or give something in return...”

“No no no, I don't want your presents, your money, your help, anything you could possibly ever be able to give to me!”

Lady Bountiful so obviously feels so good about expressing her sense of superiority in this way that the beneficiary of her benevolence realizes that she was made to be exploited, that she wants to be exploited. Lady Bountiful probably doesn't notice that she's losing all respect from the beneficiary. People flatter Lady Bountiful as much as they find necessary in order to take her for all they can take. There are Nice Takers who use Lady Bountiful occasionally, perhaps as one of several people they cultivate for several purposes, and Mean Takers who take a positive, vicious pleasure in slick-talking her out of her last dime and throwing that back at her face. If Lady Bountiful is foolish enough to say anything that can possibly be heard as “Oh, that poor little thing, she's not really my friend, I'm only trying to help her,” the day is sure to come when she hears, “Oh, that poor old fool, I only put up with her because I can get whatever I want out of her.” But, just as there are men who are respectful, sincere, long-term friends to confident women (even if those women look “sexy”) and predators when they get close to more vulnerable women (even if those women look “mousy”), there are Takers who would have conscientiously repaid any favors or benefits they got from Lady Bountiful if she'd only had enough sense to appreciate what they offered her at first.

When this kind of relationship has been set up, the way to restore balance and common sense is not for Lady Bountiful to blame and reject the Takers—that will produce ill will. And no, hiding the rejection under a layer of bogus “You're so strong” babble won't work. The solution is for Lady Bountiful to climb down off her “high horse” and start talking honestly—not blurting out her emotions, but speaking from the deep truth beneath her emotions.

“I need to confess and repent. I've been trying to boost my self-esteem by patronizing you, denying that I needed or wanted anything from you, trying to feel superior to you. You've been trying to earn a living by selling me ten or twenty dollars' worth of Avon or whatever you've had to sell, and I've been shoving money at you and saying I didn't need your wares. You've offered to rent a room or buy gas for the car pool, and I've been trying to feel good about myself by letting you use the room or ride in the car free of charge. You've returned my first invitation to dinner within that first week, and I thought I was too grand to share your dinner, and you've been eating my food, slick-talking me out of money, and probably not offering me so much as a sincere smile or inquiry about my health ever since. My disrespect was an insult to you. I deserve the contempt you feel for me now. If you've all but legally moved into my house all winter, doubled my utility bills, let me clean up and pick up after you and wait on you at table while you've never offered to wash a single dish—I asked for that, and if you've not been stealing and selling my silverware as well, I am most humbly grateful. I am starting to learn the high cost of inflating my ego by looking down on you now. I can't afford to go on playing Lady Bountiful, and I'd like to ask you either to move in and pay rent on that room, start putting gas in the car, do something that's more useful to me than a box of Avon or Herbalife or magazines or whatever you've been selling, or to move out, quit the car pool, find other customers...your choice. I'm not blaming or rejecting you; I know I'm the one who invited you to take advantage of me. I just can't afford to go on the way I've been going, with you.”

Quite a few people my age are finding it necessary to make some version of that speech to their own children; often it surprises both the middle-aged person and the child that they love and respect each other more afterward. Any hint of blaming or rejecting the child, or the moocher friend, will turn the speech into an ugly scene that's likely to leave Lady Bountiful feeling so guilty that the moocher can hit her up for more of a handout next week—knowing Lady Bountiful can't afford this “gift,” and relishing the thought of Lady Bountiful having to give up something she wants for herself, as a punishment for her bad behavior. But if Lady Bountiful takes full responsibility for herself and makes it clear that she wants to mend rather than end the relationship, the speech works.

Church groups collect money from a range of people, usually including some affluent types, supposedly for humanitarian purposes. They invite people who may be or feel poor to share in a “fellowship” of people who may address one another as “Brother” and “Sister.” Sooner or later some of these Brothers and Sisters will inevitably think, “If these people really were my brothers and sisters, surely they'd agree with me that I need my leaky roof mended more than the church needs a new piano!” The church group will inevitably start to seem very similar to Lady Bountiful unless the church has an active ministry of believers supporting one another's work.

A church that recognizes organizing exchanges of goods and services as a ministry is, first of all, like the apostolic church; if people refuse to work, they don't need to be invited to eat. It's also recognizably unlike Lady Bountiful from the very beginning; there's no invitation to mooch that must later be hurtfully, hatefully rescinded. It's also a church that has something new to say to a world that's burning out fast on the ideal of altruism nobody believes, a church for fully weaned, mature adults who, whether rich or poor, have something to give to their country and the world.

A church that recognizes that its members have something to give is also a church where honest conversations about money can take place. There may be times when the church fund runs short. There are no times, however, when this fact needs to be covered up by specious blame-the-victim arguments to suggest that people aren't doing their part. If people are in fact not working (when they could be working), they are not eating. If people are working, but their investments are not (yet) turning much profit, the person in charge of accounting can report that fact. Somebody may feel bad because her idea is not generating revenue, but at least that's an indisputable fact that can't be ascribed to other believers' malice or envy.

In contrast, the church that merely blats at people that they need to replace “victim thinking” with a hollow boast, “I am strong!” ends up blaming victims for being victims—something Jesus never did. “Was your home destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake? Were you forced to leave your native country after watching soldiers kill your parents to 'nationalize' their property? Were you robbed, cheated, raped, beaten unconscious and left for dead? Whatever horrors you may have survived, whatever disability or chronic disease you may have, you need to take responsibility for it! Because you're strong! What are you going to do?”

When the “It's all about feelings, and you are 'responsible' for the earthquake or the rape or the multiple sclerosis because you had the wrong feelings” gaslighting game is really working in aid of the Evil Principle, the former believers the church has alienated may not even realize that a local business's collapse, and the resulting reduction in donations to the church fund, have anything to do with the emotional abuse they're now receiving. “That church helped Jane Doe loll around nursing her seventh fatherless baby last year, but they're not helping me send my little half-orphan child to school this year. Because favoritism...because racism...because that sorry excuse for a women's minister they've got must not think Jane Doe is all that much prettier than she is!”

There may be some argument about this, but I have never seen anybody tell people to say “I am strong” without its being painfully obvious that the person was lying, and knew he or she was lying. People who are strong are not told to say that they're strong! It may be possible to believe that someone else has some form of “strength” of which he or she is unaware, perhaps in the case of growing children: “You couldn't do that last year, but you're four inches taller this year. You're probably stronger, too...you can take fewer and longer steps to run the same distance in less time, you don't have as far to pull yourself up off the ground to climb the tree, you're lifting a much smaller percentage of your own weight when you lift that object...” When we believe this, unless we happen to be teaching children about math or physics, we do not tell people how to talk about themselves or how to feel. We usually speak more respectfully than that, and more honestly. We say, “Please, you look young and healthy and strong; could you reach/lift/move that for me?”

There are, I believe, rare occasions when people's “victim thinking” is erroneous. Often these occasions involve perceptions of prejudice, “They're rejecting my poem because I'm” whatever when the contest judges do not, in fact, know the age, gender, race, etc., of the competitors. It might be appropriate to point out the error, when we know that an error is being made. If so it will probably be useful to avoid judgmental remarks like “You need to stop thinking like a victim.” You have so much more credibility if you can limit yourself to specific facts that you can prove, if there are any, and avoid arguing if there aren't. “Victim” is one of those terms of objective fact that either do or do not apply to a specific person in a specific relationship. There are times when it may be helpful to address, e.g., victims and successful resistors together as “survivors” of a particular incident, and there are times when information can usefully be presented in terms of “how not to be a victim of” a particular danger, but breaking the habit of “thinking like a victim” requires changes in the objective facts of the situation.

For example...how not to be a victim of emotional abuse in a Toxic Church: Step One: If someone in the church announces, “Our women's program is going to be called 'I Am Strong,'” have the strength and the courage to know that that program has nothing good to offer you. Ignore that program. Avoid the church when the leader of that program is speaking. And consider, seriously and frequently, whether there's anyone in that church you'll miss after severing all ties with that Toxic Church. “Strength Training through Exercise,” or Martial Arts or Building Maintenance or Debate or Language Skills  or Basic Accounting or Bible Memorization, are programs that have potential, but “I Am Strong” guarantees emotional abuse. I, personally, don't want to become a victim, so I emulate the Bible prophet, when I hear a phrase like that, and go directly to the land of “Shun'em”!

Without much hope, I continue to search for the church that builds its biblical response strength by practicing modern-day biblical responses:

* “We don't have food.”

“Well, we do!”

* “My loved one is dying, or dead.”

“If unable to prevent or postpone the death, we can at least provide respite care while he or she is dying.”

* “I've had this medical condition for years.”

“If unable to cure it, we can at least help you work around it.”

* “Please, any spare change to help a poor cripple?”

“Let's have lunch and talk about what you might be able to do, without legs, in the church office, the sewing ministry, our mini-factory...”

* “These penniless disabled people, all 357 of them, male and female, have just been ruled ineligible for benefits as the Welfare State collapses.”

“Clearly we'll have to start with a meal program immediately, then work on handcrafts programs, tutoring and day care programs, and a mini-factory...”

* “Can you teach me to do what your church does, for this amount of money?”

“For money, no. For diligent practice, maybe. Why don't you begin with changing the geriatric male patients' diapers, Simon?”