The documentary makers of #ShinyHappyPeople did NOT have a responsibility to say, "not all Christians are like this."
That was not their responsibility.
That is OUR responsibility, to show by our actions and by the way we respond to the victims in this docuseries.
I'm hearing so many criticize, saying, "They didn't do a good job of distinguishing IBLP from the rest of evangelicalism."
But that wasn't their job.
We didn't ask the movie Spotlight to explain "not all Catholics."
No, we watched Spotlight, and then we asked the Catholic church to do the right thing.
In the same way, the proper response by Christians to Shiny Happy People should be to disavow the teachings that enable abuse that are rampant in evangelicalism, and to support victims.
Complaining that we're not being treated well is not going to fly.
Besides, I don't see a lot of difference between IBLP teachings and much of the mainstream evangelical teaching about sex and lust and modesty, or the way we handle victims.
If we want a better witness to the world, let's stop complaining about documentaries, and let's start cleaning up our own act.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few years ago a young woman raised in Gothard visited us with her little ones. She put them on a blanket while we talked and they stayed there.
I was amazed! Now I'm horrified.
For those who don't know: Blanket training was when you'd put a baby on a blanket, and put something they want just out of reach off of the blanket. When they went for it, you hit them until they would stop trying.
This way babies/toddlers will stay put & not in your way.
On further thought, blanket training is really anti-parenting.
Parenting is supposed to be about guiding your kids; responding to their curiosity, teaching them about the world, being involved with them.
This lets parents abdicate having to spend time with kids.
Please don't get defensive about how Christianity is portrayed in Shiny, Happy People.
I have heard people get upset about the documentary, or stress that we need to discern what is Truth from God's Word, and hold on to that.
That is exactly what IBLP would say.
It is not that I don't believe discernment is important; but at this juncture, we need to do this right.
When our response to toxic theology being exposed for enabling abuse is to try to defend Christianity, we are equating toxic theology with Christianity.
This is on thing that makes people who grew up in toxic circles and who experienced trauma leave the faith entirely (which is completely understandable).
Instead, let's acknowledge it was all wrong. Let's acknowledge that victims need to be supported.
"I don't like her, & I've heard she's done terrible things (and I've seen some of them myself), but I'm going to take the high road and not gossip about her."
This isn't the high road.
When you make a vague accusation, you leave the person with no ability to defend themselves.
I've had this happen to me, but I've also seen this tactic used against other people.
"I've seen her act terribly towards other people, but I don't want to cause more harm, so I'll leave it at that."
It sounds like you're trying to be kind.
It's actually the opposite.
People often do this when their case is actually quite weak, and wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny. They don't like someone, and want to cast aspersions--but to say exactly what they don't like would actually reflect baldy on them.
Is my critique of evangelical marriage & sex books merely outrage?
Or could it be better classified as a public health initiative?
Let me tell you about the drug Thalidomide.
Thalidomide was on sale between 1957-1963, largely as a miracle cure for morning sickness. It was developed as a sedative, but people found it helped with nausea--as well as the cold and flu. They tested it on mice and found no side effects, so it was declared completely safe.
The German manufacturer licensed it to be used by many different companies, and so the ingredient was marketed under 37 different brand names.
When doctors started to see problems, there was no central regulating body to report to.
I have been accused this week of "performative outrage", where I'm using outrage as a weapon.
I'm curious, then: If outrage is inappropriate, what IS the appropriate emotion for things like these?
Is outrage appropriate when Dannah Gresh, in Secret Keeper Girl, tells 8-year-old girls their intoxicating bellies make grown men out of control?
If not, what's a more appropriate emotion?
Is outrage appropriate when Steve Arterburn and Fred Stoeker, in Every Man's Battle, called women the "methadone" for their husbands' sex addictions, and told women to "give him release" so their husbands don't watch porn?
When people say that they disagree with our research from The Great Sex Rescue, I'm always curious as to what, exactly, they disagree with.
We had 6 huge big picture findings. Which ones do they not like?
1. We found a 47 point orgasm gap between evangelical men and women, with 95% of men almost always/always reaching orgasm in a given encounter, compared with just 48% of women, in line with other studies.
Do they think the orgasm gap is okay?
2. We found an incidence rate of vaginismus, or sexual pain, of 22.7% among evangelical women, with 7% finding penetration impossible.
This, too, is in line with other research of the effects of religiosity on vaginismus.