If I can find the time, I'd like to write about the application of critiques of carceral feminism* to the over-reliance on church courts/processes to reckon w/ abusers. #ChurchToo
*“law-and-order responses to sexual and gendered
violence"
Carceral feminism ofc has a history in Christian thought, esp evangelical (ex. anti-trafficking laws of the late 90s)
This ties into radical libertarianism, w/its emphasis on the state as judge. Elizabeth Bernstein calls this "a drift from the welfare state to the carceral state"
So many times, I've seen church courts -as manifestations of status quo power structures - operate as mechanisms to distract from/neglect a critique of the theology/practices that fuel injustice & render women & minorities so vulnerable to racism, sexism, exploitation and abuse
Ann Terwiel writes that "most powerful community justice initiatives both affirm the injury of sexual [and other forms of] violence and refuse to depict the state [or church] as [white] masculine protector."
Truly, if we are to see a genuine reckoning of #ChurchToo, we will need to: 1. confront the widespread understanding of faith-based violence in individualist rather than structural terms.
AND ...
2. "see a vision of abolition that strategically enlists [adapted court] systems to address immediate concerns while engaging in a longer-term project of transforming communities to decrease both the prevalence of ... violence & the perceived need for [punitive action]."
I'm thinking esp of a NAPARC woman who told me she needed a "champion man" w/procedural knowledge to take up her abuse case.
This cuts deep as an example of how certain parts of the Christian church depict women as powerless, in need of punitive courts as a masculine protector.
Also thinking of the times I've seen court officers (& other stake-holding men/women) bristle at any woman who offers anything but undying gratitude.
We have so much work to do.
We must be willing to look forward, beyond punitive response, to reform, to what lies next.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the legacies of Christian reconstructionism is radical libertarianism.
"Since ethics is the foundational paradigm in that worldview, and ethics is inescapably personal and individual, then a society can only be maintained when it is personal and individualistic."
1/
From Reconstructionist Radio (20 Feb 2022):
"within the limits of acceptable personal behavior, libertarianism denies any collective or any government the moral ground to control or regulate the life of the individual."
2/
"what the individual will put in his body, where he will live, what arbitrary geographical border he will cross, who he will be hired by/hire, ... what he will do with the money he earns & at what price, etc., all these should remain entirely within the sphere of self-government"
I'm incredibly disturbed to learn of the existence of a Christian worldview "test" called PEERS.
Currently used in some USA Christian schools "In order to help Christian educators determine the degree to which Biblical worldview was being understood and adopted by students."
The test designer used certain individuals to measure the "accuracy" of the test's standards.
Not surprisingly, these individuals are far-right extremists/Christian reconstructionists.
I came across this test b/c someone alerted me to a new university prep "Bible college," led by Kevin Clauson, whose "mandate is to subdue all the earth to the dominion of our Lord"
Teaching faculty come from places like OPC, PCA & Hanover Presbytery.
On abuses of texts about forgive/forget, like 1 Cor 13:5
Trauma victims sometimes tell same stories of deep-running hurt over & over, may ask same questions many times over, not because they lack answers, not bc they're unforgiving but bc it's complex & unresolved in some way.
Study of trauma have revealed that "the imprints of traumatic experiences are organized not as coherent logical narrative but as fragmented sensory and emotional traces." - The Body Keeps the Score
"verbalizations of traumatic experience can be seen as located somewhere along a continuum between fully contextualized, structured narratives & fragmented accounts characterized by gaps, hesitations, and disruptions ...
I'm still reading about PCA Central Indiana. "additional accusations against the accused date back to 2017. These accusations have been made by multiple individuals (at least 10) and include: sexual harassment, intimidation, apiritual abuse ...exposing himself to a female member"
The details given by those multiple individuals are horrifying. And then there are the blatantly misogynist comments made in interview by men in support of the accused. Women are not safe that is abundantly clear.
One man named several "Dangerous women", commenting in detail about one's clothing & another's "supposed.." history of being abused. Mocked idea of believing women. Praised pastor accused of sexual harassment, saying he's "been devastated by this whole thing, cried in [my] arms"
Another day of reading PCA SJC docs re a case of sexual harassment w/multiple witnesses
Flagging this excerpt up b/c of the war of words, in a quote from the accused sexual predator's defense letter
Noting the sexist dogwhistle: "personal feelings arising from their experience"
distorted personal feelings, personal "experience" [scare quotes] there, personal feelings arising from their experience - WHEW
accusers' "feelings" [more scare quotes], They are not communicating facts, but their feelings, years of stewing, hold me hostage to their feelings - WHEW AGAIN
1/ I am fascinated (and disturbed) by @ChurchSociety's recent 45-page public response to a complex case involving Michael & Kate Andreyev & various leaders embedded in #FletcherCulture
@ChurchSociety 2/ I'm immediately struck by the emphasis on "full" in the introductory blog post (linked above).
"full report"
"full account"
"full account"
"full report"
To what extent is it "full"?
What does being "full" actually mean?
3/ In the report, I learn that "full" means 1 man's "understanding, based on testimony of those concerned, emails, documents, & online material"
So "full" is already signif narrowed, not least by the author's bias but also by focus on a subset of people, "those concerned"