(If you’re at this post, you might want to scroll down and read the one below it first. In a nearly unprecedented move, I’ve posted twice in one day and they are part of the same story. So scroll … or not.)
All right. I’ll hit the salient points of my meeting with Joey, as I understand them. I write this for myself. I’m not “writing a post,” per se. I’m just copying from my post-meeting, scribbled-out notes here, really. Your basic, raw notes. Nothing embellished. These notes will likely be the basis for some future (hopefully better-thought-out ;-)) posts on certain spiritual issues this whole thing has raised.
You may come along for the read, if you’d like, but I don’t expect you to. Writing it here automatically constrains some of the, ah, “freedom” I’d likely take in a private journal and forces me to analyze more carefully what really happened. There was a certain elated relief when it was over, that is, until I sat down and replayed the conversation in my head.
Again, I don’t expect anyone else to be that interested. And I do apologize for any raw edges — of my writing, of my personality — sticking out here. I know they’re there.
1) She was unapologetic for several instances over the last year where she involved third parties in this situation, without my permission or foreknowledge. Specifically, in the instance where she involved My Beloved — which set this whole thing in motion — our conversation went like this:
“I’m sorry that I ruined Beloved’s trip to Thailand.”
“Wait. I need to recharacterize something for you. You’ve said this twice, at our previous meeting and again now. He himself has told you that you did not ruin his trip. Rather, by telling him what you should have told me, you placed an unnecessary burden on him and created a “triangle” of communication, rather than a straight line. You did not ruin his trip. Speaking to him in the first place was the problem. So are you apologizing for ruining his trip — which I’m telling you you did not do — or are you apologizing for involving him in the first place?”
She was mad.
“No. No. I’m not apologizing for that.”
“Well, hmm, it was rather inappropriate.”
Her exact words:
“I don’t care. I’d do it again. I was willing to be inappropriate.”
Really, that told me so much. I should have allowed myself to leave at that very moment. I should have said: Thank you. That tells me everything I need to know.
But somehow, in these situations, something in me always makes me stay til the bitter end. I think it’s rank stupidity.
Later, another third-party incident came up. Her response was:
“Yeah? Well, I’m not sorry about that.”
(sigh …)
All right.
2) A word that’s become very big for her — and others who believe in deliverance ministries — is “freedom.” However, I believe they have a different definition of freedom than the Bible does. As believers, we are positionally free in Christ — “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” But deliverance proponents believe that freedom only comes in an ultimate, all-encompassing, superior way when one is freed from all those nasty demons. So we touched on this “freedom” issue. At one point, I said:
“Joey, you keep asking whether I’m ‘more free’. More free than what? One thing I know I’m free of — because I’ve really studied the Word on this in the months since you brought it up — is the notion that I have demons.”
She just stared at me. She’s quite an animated person, but her face was utterly blank.
I started giving her Scripture to back up my point. No reaction. Not anger, not surprise, not happiness, not relief. Just nothing.
3) She’s sold on the notion of generational curses and that I have these, too, along with the demons. Apparently, the two go hand in hand, you see. And if you’re a generational curser, this is your life verse:
” ….. for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me ….”
Never mind that the whole verse and the surrounding context actually says this:
4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
That’s Exodus 20: 4, 5, and 6, peeps, not just a part of verse 5, which is the entire basis for the GC philosophy. The passage is, obviously, the Ten Commandments. It’s talking about idols.
So we got to talkin’ about this. I pointed out the entire passage was about idols. Nothing. I pointed out that the people punished were those who hate God. Nothing. I pointed out that love was shown to those who love God. Nothing. I pointed out that I love God. Nothing. Finally, I pointed out something basic that GCers never seem to notice about this verse: GOD does the punishing.
NOTHING.
There was no reaction. Finally, I just started talking as if the only person listening was the little old lady who had plopped herself down at the table two feet away from my chair — because she obviously WAS the only person listening! I felt like I was teaching Middle School again. Lord.
I mentioned the story of Balaam, how he could not curse what God had blessed. Then I mentioned Ephesians 1:3, how as a believer I am blessed:
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
NUH-
THING.
I truly hope Little Ol’ Lady was listening. Joey wasn’t. Or rather, she didn’t seem to be. Maybe she was stunned. Quietly enraged. I just don’t know.
More points to follow.
No blogging this weekend as our lives are about to be invaded by sunshine and giggles and toddling in the form of our 18-month-old niece, Kylie.
Her older cousin Piper (she who used to call me “Fece”) has already instructed the child to give up the ghost and call me “Tee Tee,” so she does. Adorable.
I’m proud of you, tracey. You did your part. You couldn’t do Joey’s part. But you were faithful to teach her the truth, even though she didn’t want to hear you. (She did hear you, even if she didn’t want to.) You did your homework and that will always stop someone involved in such a shallow faith. Good comparison to teaching Middle School. You might even use the example of preaching from a pulpit…
So, does the Mad Organist have any CDs available? 😉
i admit that i am intrigued by your interest in pursuing this situation with joey. i understand that she called the meeting, but why would you give her the satisfaction of going?
she seems to be a stumbling block, because she has obviously caused you grief and distress. old friends are not always good friends – it seems time to move on.
(i hope this does not seem harsh! i enjoy reading about it, but i worry about the state of your HEART when you dwell on this negative situation!)
The Bible calls us to try to be “at peace with all men.” Not meeting with her would be disobedient to that, as I see it. I have an obligation before the Lord to try. And I feel an obligation because of the longstanding, deep friendship we’ve had. So I guess I don’t see it as giving her the satisfaction as much as I see it as the obedient thing to do. (Not to make myself out as some saint here — Noooo. I’ll admit I dragged my feet about this meeting, but it seems God wouldn’t let me get away with that. Drat.) It’s a Golden Rule thing, too, I think. Had I asked for a meeting, I’d want her to show up. (And in the past, I have and she has.)
I know some would disagree, write her off, not meet, but I believe that’s the wrong approach. How many truly deep or meaningful relationships are we given in our lifetime that we could afford to write someone off?
I also have an obligation, I believe, to try to stop her on this spiritual path she’s going down, not in some superior or judgmental way, hopefully, but in a way that guides her to seek “true” Truth.
My heart is not ‘dwelling’ so much as it’s learning — more than I would have wanted. Isn’t that always the way? 😉
“Really, that told me so much. I should have allowed myself to leave at that very moment. I should have said: Thank you. That tells me everything I need to know.
But somehow, in these situations, something in me always makes me stay til the bitter end. I think it’s rank stupidity.”
Literally, this made me laugh out loud. Been *there*… *deep, head-shaking exhale*
Love the fact that you called out brass tacks and bulleted the *points* NOT the person — an approach I am a huge proponent of.
The “blank stare” is generally a sign of stubborn, unmoving disdain OR a rattle in the cerebellum that is wont to go unnoticed for fear of giving the pointer-outer the upper hand. I wouldn’t worry ’bout it much.
1) Jesus didn’t *move* the Pharisees a whole lot either.
2) What raw edges?
3) Why do you keep apologizing for being so very cool and so very human?
Hmmm… 😉
Tracey, you handled this very well.
Joey has issues. The big one is that she wants control. Talk about idolatry.
I suspect the Anchoress nailed it, keeping in mind that it’s not our place to judge Joey’s motives.
In any case Tracey, I think you’ve done your part. As long as Joey refuses to deal with reality, there’s nothing you can do for her but pray. Sometimes that’s the situation we’re handed: it hurts and it’s not fair. I think Jesus encountered that too, but “he kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously”.
Actually the blank stare or “deer in the headlights” look is the “freezeup” that comes when a person’s cultic or in-group teachings are contradicted and they not only don’t know what to think, but they have been manipulated into forgetting how to think (at least in that area). Read up on the mind control or thought reform techniques employed by religious and other leaders that turn active, willful beliefers into passive, parroting followers (start with Twisted Scriptures by Mary Alice Chrnalogar or Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steve Hassan, they’re on Amazon).
Hey, Twerpette, thanks for the comment and the information. I appreciate it!
Thanks Tracey for the reply on Twerpette. I’m new to interblog comments (I don’t know if you’re told I responded on Twerpette) so here is what I said to the gentleman:
That is the technical definition of fundamentalism, however since it always arises (in Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, Muslim or any other faith) in reaction to modernism, it basically ends up defining every moral and social issue in extremist terms of black and white (no grays much less colors).
One generally quotes a source for accuracy and readers’ convenience; it’s common journalistic, professional, ethical and bloggish practice. Belittling same as intellectual dishonesty or the presumption of stupidity suggests a brutish pettiness in the accuser. (Snark attack.)