Council for Bibl. Manhood & Womanhood, Owen Strachan, Troubling Tweets

Confusing Tweets by Owen Strachan about the War Against Satan

Julie Anne

 ***

A reader sent me the following tweets by Owen Strachan, president of Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Which one is it –  is Satan defeated or not?

***

***

Extra credit question:  Why is this important enough for a blog post?

96 thoughts on “Confusing Tweets by Owen Strachan about the War Against Satan”

  1. Because evangelicalism is just making stuff up as it goes along? Who knows?

    And since when do evangelicals wear prayer shawls? Thought the Jews claimed those.

    Like

  2. Maybe Owen is hanging around the Hebrew Roots Movement cult? If so, please, refer him to Chris Rosebough ( Fighting For The Faith). Otherwise, Owen appears to have mocked the Jews. Classy, really classy.

    Like

  3. Maybe it;s like those Japanese soldiers who were found years after WW2 hiding on islands who didn’t know the war was over. Defeated but still fighting…

    Like

  4. I guess whatever they “feel” on any given day they dole out to their readers, maybe? Good day = throw off the prayer shawl. Bad day = we are in a great war. It seems to me those two tweets are pretty opposite.

    I don’t have a prayer shawl. Does Owen? Is it manly and authorized by the CBMW for men to tweet about/own a prayer shawl?

    theshofarman online store has shawls…manly looking ones to boot.
    http://www.theshofarman.com/tallit-prayershawlfactsandhistory.htm

    Like

  6. Roman Catholics use them, Carmen. So do some Pentecostal groups…I think. Or perhaps it is a prayer cloth they use…or both.

    Like

  7. These guys want so bad to be “profound”. The last thing they need is a twitter account to give us insight into how they think.

    Like

  9. Their moms really need to tell them they are watching every tweet they tweet…just like I do with my 15 year old son. If I see something even remotely questionable, his phone is gone for a period of time. That will cure these guys!!!

    Like

  10. I’m not sure what he means by crying in our prayer shawls. But as far as I understand it, the defeat of Satan is accomplished, but the full realization of that is not yet, as it awaits the day he is finally thrown into the lake of fire. In the mean time, though a technically defeated foe, he prowls around as a lion seeking whom he may devour and continues to appear as an angle of light, and still does real damage.

    I have no idea what Strachen’s doctrine on Satan is. I’d like to know the context of these statements and what he’d like us to take away from them. Frankly, he sounds dominionist here.

    Like

  12. I’m glad you said that Beth, I was thinking the same thing while wondering what planet this guy hails from. From my all experience in “growing up baptist”, 10 years in the Assemblies of God and 5 in a mainline denomination, I have never seen a more bizarre statement. All this war talk, ” we need to fight” bla bla bla and worse the war marching songs during worship. It’s just so weird. It’s like some have forgotten that Christ finished it on the cross.

    Maybe this guy is a cross dresser and wears shawls ? It wouldn’t surprise me. When I was in christian school one of the youth directors was fired after getting caught in bed with another “man” dressed in women’s clothes. He was always preaching to us about homosexuality and sexual sin. Sometimes these guys that are so obsessed with these topics are total perverts. It would explain this guy’s obsession with men & women’s roles. Maybe he just wants to be the woman.

    Like

  13. Prayer shawls–What? Satan is defeated–When Jesus returns. He is still keeping a lot of souls on his side.

    Like

  14. Scott – I was just wondering the same thing. I think he is certainly causing gender confusion by telling us all to wear our prayer shawls. He is the one who is so adamant about men acting like men, dressing like men, etc.

    Like

  15. Um, because if you can’t figure out theology 101, then you shouldn’t teach on the less obvious stuff? I agree with Lydia; they just want to sound profound.

    Like

  17. So, which is it? Is God still fighting Satan by attacking him (offense) or has God already won? (satan defeated)? Maybe it’s a typo and God is fighting a feminist or transgender named Satin! Because we know that feminists and LGBT people are more evil and harder to defeat than the devil. Satan has been defeated, but feminists-they are a little bit trickier! 🙂

    Like

  20. I’m a knitter – – -well, I was a knitter pre-blog – – but I liked the idea of a prayer shawl by knitters. The idea I heard was to use the time praying while knitting a shawl for someone who was in need of prayer (life-threatening disease, etc), and then gift them the shawl when it was done. That kind of gift would likely be very comforting to the recipient – knowing that every stitch was knit with prayer on their behalf.

    Like

  22. I do not believe Strachan has charismatic leanings. Even though CBMW’s founders, Grudem and Piper have some charismatic leanings, that issue is played down from what I have seen.

    Like

  23. Many Messianic Jewish congregations that I’ve worshiped with encourage women to wear feminine talitinas, and they are beautiful. I used to have one, in my Zionist days, and I kept my olive wood tambourine, too. I used to wear a purple one to Beth Messiah in Rockville, MD, and sometimes at Immanuel’s Church, too.

    What I think about these tweets? They were directed only at men. And women are not Satan, but we non-comp ones are potent instruments of Satan. As John MacArthur has stated it, it is marriage that is the war. Good men need to stand in the authority of the Father who defeated Satan for them, and then men get to tame their unruly women to submit. Marriage is the real battle ground. So forget crying over Satan and get busy, ruling and reigning over your women.

    Like

  24. To clarify, BIT said dominionist, and I’m just connecting the dots to NAR. Piper was responsible for introducing NAR’s Jesus Culture to the youth through Passion Conferences.

    Like

  25. “What I think about these tweets? They were directed only at men.”

    What men does he know that wears prayer shaws, do you think?

    Like

  27. I was thinking dominionist in general. Not necessarily the charismatic brand. I have no idea where Strachan stands on the NAR.

    Like

  28. Barnabasintraining said, JULY 14, 2014 @ 2:21 PM
    I’m not sure what he means by crying in our prayer shawls. But as far as I understand it, the defeat of Satan is accomplished, but the full realization of that is not yet, as it awaits the day he is finally thrown into the lake of fire. In the mean time, though a technically defeated foe, he prowls around as a lion seeking whom he may devour and continues to appear as an angle of light, and still does real damage. That is my understanding as well.

    About prayer shawls. (Talith / Tallit)

    Some of the TV preachers who lean towards Charismatic sell prayer shawls on their shows. They say they pray over them, and if you want one, send them $X.00, and they will mail one to you.

    In the past few years, I’ve heard various preachers explain more about the prayer shawl, which did illuminate certain New Testament stories, like the women with the issue of blood.

    I found a page that explains it:
    Healing Hem (Re Prayer Shawl)

    Like

  29. JA, That is a wonderful idea. I have seen a lot of patterns for prayer shawls. I crochet. I know someone that I would like to do this for.

    Like

  30. I can’t quite tell what the larger meaning of Owen’s Satan tweets are.

    I am so hoping that Cindy K’s “JULY 14, 2014 @ 2:55 PM” comment is not correct, because if it is, Owen and these other CBMW people are even more warped and messed up in their attitudes towards women and marriage than I previously thought!

    Not too long before of after he made the Tweets you reference, he tweeted a link to this page,
    “Stand against the tide: An Opportunity to Partner with CBMW”
    (which was a link in his Tweet to a page on the CBMW site)

    Greetings—my name is Owen Strachan. As CBMW President, it’s my pleasure to introduce the summer 2014 “Stand Against the Tide” campaign. I’m delighted to announce that we have a $25,000 matching offer on the table and, on this invigorating occasion, are inaugurating our brand-new partnership program, which includes the opportunity to join CBMW for a leadership retreat in a coastal locale (see below).To give to CBMW, please send your contribution to:

    From July 11th:

    Owen Strachan @ostrachan · Jul 11
    We’re like the Texans at the Alamo, sneering at the devil: “You want my life, Satan? Come and take it.”

    And:
    Owen Strachan @ostrachan · Jul 11
    We’re not shell-shocked soldiers hiding in trenches. We’re fearless conquerors who laugh at Satan and his schemes.

    He has a lot of “war like” rhetoric going on, mixed in with comments about Satan. Is all of this tied in to the fund raising appeal for CBMW?

    Like

  32. Julie Anne, there may have been even more, I don’t know. I stopped skimming his Twitter page around that point.

    I also find it funny and nauseating that CBMW is trying to hit people up for $25,000 in donations.

    Like

  33. “He has a lot of “war like” rhetoric going on, mixed in with comments about Satan. Is all of this tied in to the fund raising appeal for CBMW?”

    It reminds me of NAR gotta get/bind/declare victory over that devil before he gets you speak. Whether or not Owen believes in the NAR, who knows. Seven mountains of arts, education, business, govt, etc. and claiming these entities for Jesus and fighting the devil for them is NAR in a nutshell.

    “In 1975, Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, and Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With a Mission, had lunch together in Colorado. God simultaneously gave each of these change agents a message to give to the other. During that same time frame Francis Schaeffer was given a similar message. That message was that if we are to impact any nation for Jesus Christ, then we would have to affect the seven spheres, or mountains of society that are the pillars of any society.

    These seven mountains are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion. There are many subgroups under these main categories. About a month later the Lord showed Francis Schaeffer the same thing. In essence, God was telling these three change agents where the battlefield was. It was here where culture would be won or lost. Their assignment was to raise up change agents to scale the mountains and to help a new generation of change agents understand the larger story.”
    seven cultural mountains dot org

    Like

  34. “We’re like the Texans at the Alamo.” This dishonors the memory of true heroes, heroes who faced insurmountable odds in the face of certain death.

    Actually, I find it offensive that the soldiers of Santa Anna’s army are impliedly associated with the satan, They may have been on the wrong side of history from the norte americano point of view, but they fought, and many died, bravely. They do not deserve to be associated with the enemy of our souls.

    Like

  35. CBMW is now located in Al Mohler territory, correct? If there ever was a change agent, it’s Mohler.

    Like

  36. Having looked back through some of his tweets from last week, I think these are political commentary and this is about the culture war, broadly speaking. I think it probably is a dominionist take. I’m not sure that the prayer shawl thing has to do with charismatics or NAR at all. (I suppose it could. I think that would depend on whether the charismatic contingent that uses prayer shawls has been overcome by discouragement lately. I suspect that is an overly narrow reference, though.) It could be aimed at Jews (?) either by identifying Evangelicals with Israel and their task to conquer the promised land, or else a direct dig on actual Jews, such as we see at the Wailing Wall. I’m betting the former. I don’t know anything about Strachan, really, but he strikes me as the type to be more of a Reconstructionist type who thinks we are supposed to be under the Mosaic Law code. In which case he might make a Jewish reference like that.

    I’m guessing his view is that Satan is defeated but active, and therefore, we should expect to win the culture war in conquering American culture for Jesus. Which would be dominionist.

    Like

  37. I think if anything, this reveals the limitations of Twitter.

    If the Church had never gone on offense, it might no longer be in existence. The Crusades would never have happened, and we’d all be Muslim.

    Like

  38. He has a lot of “war like” rhetoric going on, mixed in with comments about Satan. Is all of this tied in to the fund raising appeal for CBMW?

    Either that or somebody should have turned him on to Warhammer 40K instead of a Bible.
    In the GrimDark Future, There Will Always Be WAR!
    “WAAAAAUGH! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!”

    Like

  39. I’m guessing his view is that Satan is defeated but active, and therefore, we should expect to win the culture war in conquering American culture for Jesus. Which would be dominionist.

    With Strachan as one of the Supreme Commanders of Holy Gilead, of course.

    Like

  40. I just got a note from someone who said the “Satan” references may have something to do with Strachan’s new book, Risky Gospel. I did a search on those key words and did come up with references to Satan.

    Like

  41. Maybe another 10 or 15 years will mellow him out or hand him a passel of life’s little reality checks. Creator has a way of doing stuff like that.

    Like

  42. I didn’t catch the potential gender infused “crying into our prayer-shawl” comment at first. Does this subtly refer to emotional women?

    Interesting note about knitting prayer shawls Julie Anne. I assumed that one would knit a prayer shawl to use as a prayer shawl. I never thought about praying for someone while making it and then gifting it. I like that idea.

    Like

  43. Ah, the doublethink of the average evangelical. Amazing, isn’t it? My oldest sister goes around praying the blood of Jesus against Satan, then in the next breath talks about what she’s “worried sick” about.

    Like

  45. “He has a lot of “war like” rhetoric going on, mixed in with comments about Satan. Is all of this tied in to the fund raising appeal for CBMW?”

    Perhaps using culture war talk to fundraise? I bet he is insufferable. The more media they get the worse they are.

    Like

  46. If he is talking about our relationship with God, he’s ignoring Romans 8:31-39 where we are told that Jesus conquered anyone else’s ability to separate us from him, and that his victory is ours through Jesus as well. Similar in 1 Corinthians 15:56-57, we read that Jesus has already achieved the victory for us over sin and death.

    Of course, he might be thinking of the armor of God in Ephesians 6:10-18, but all those pieces of armor are defensive in nature except for one, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” this passage and many others make clear that when it comes to any battles we do it through the word of God, which is sharper than any double-edged sword. (Hebrews 4:12.) Any other call to fight for the church is unbiblical and should be rejected out of hand.

    So as to what he is trying to get at, I don’t know. All I know is that it doesn’t seem to square up with Scripture.

    Like

  49. NAR? National Association of Realtors? Please explain the lingo to the dumb outsider. Thanks!!

    Like

  53. Probably one of the worst things about the NAR is that their apostles words and prophesies have the same reliability and credence as the Bible. All their dates set by the head apostles have come and gone so, I guess that is all we need to know about their prophesies.
    Jim

    Like

  55. “dianeski July 15, 2014 @ 9:26 AM

    Oh…maybe you mean mantillas? They’re head-coverings, not shawls.”

    Nope. I meant prayer shawls. They are made with the idea that the shawl, infused with the maker’s prayers and intercessions, gives the recipient a feeling of God’s love and care.
    It can be viewed as a spiritual practice by some RC groups. The shawls would be blessed by the priest prior to giving them out.

    Since Tallit (prayer shawl) means little tent. By wrapping oneself in it, the purpose appears to be to close oneself off with God to pray (in the little tent/shawl). Why would Owen Strachan find that a less than desirable thing to do? He is actually saying…stop praying.

    Like

  57. Sheila,

    I thought your previous comment about your sister was hilarious!!!!  But, sadly, I think many people are like that.

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  66. Just so you know, the Part 2 Addenda to the Wife’s Catechism is up over at Reformed Baptist Fellowship.

    Like

  67. For those who knit, there have been quite a few books on knitting prayer shawls published in the last 10 years for various levels of ability. Also I think the amazing Ravelty site offers some free prayer shawl patterns! Some churches have a ministry where knitters meet to pray and knit shawls for various charities and hospitals in their areas. Some local yarn stores offer discounts on yarn for these groups.

    Like

  70. I say don’t waste your precious time and don’t comment on it at all. Just leave them to their blindness, shake the dust and move on. That is just one camp we can cross off our list of wanting to know truth. They closed the comments at the Wife’s Catechism.

    Like

  71. Tim
    JULY 15, 2014 @ 12:38 PM
    The moderators at Reformed Baptist fellowship have also closed comments.

    That’s brave of them.

    Like

  72. Actually, the moderators there allowed hundreds of comments on the catechism posts. I don’t blame them for wanting to move to new topics now.

    Like

  73. IAm.
    I did read it. It was not what I expected in any way. It was definitely a mix of thoughts. Mr. Meadows admits being fallible. Angela reblogged the post on her site with comment of course. I will not be reading her comments. I have heard enough of what she has to say.

    Like

  74. I do think that the comments are still open on the other posts, but I could be mistaking – I will not be commenting there anymore either. I just don’t see any real answers, more just shoving it back at us. Indecisive, I guess may be the word, I don’t know. Sometimes people want to remain ignorant, so they can think they won’t have to give an answer to God. These men seem to draw a confidence in not addressing abuse and divorce, because they think they will not have to answer to God for giving a wrong answer. But perhaps they should really fear God asking them, “Why oh why did you ever tell that woman to stay?” They will still be held accountable, either way.

    Like

  75. IAm, Completely true. It was exhausting dealing with them. I caved long before you did. Barb Roberts made me feel much better though when she told me how many other blogs had picked up the story and word was getting out there. That made everything else worthwhile, even the words from AW.

    Like

  76. They honestly, just exposed themselves for who they really are. You can pick the word-

    Like

  77. Just one more note on that. Power and control are obviously what is being sought by those men over there and one way to note that, is by their closing the comments and not allowing anyone to share an opinion on this final catastrophe that was published. There is truly an enormous amount of arrogance in the writing. I was not personally intending to comment, but others may have wanted to.

    Like

  78. On the recent, no-comments-allowed post by preacher Meadows, he states, “Male chauvinism and egalitarian feminism alike pervert the plain sense of Scripture.” Well which is it? If a male is not egalitarian, doesn’t that make him, by definition, a chauvinist? One can either be chauvinist or egalitarian. Both cannot pervert the plain sense of Scripture. Although he would not admit it, Meadows’ catechism for wives embraces an interpretation of Scripture that makes the Bible chauvinistic.

    Like

  79. Gary W,
    That’s why no comments attached to this final saga. They didn’t want thinkers to get things like that and get everyone else speaking out anymore than they wanted anyone disagreeing with them in the first place. They will now go quietly on their way and destroy as many lives as they can. I am thankful not to be a member or even an attender of this church.

    Like

  80. It’s instructive that Meadows starts his no-comments-allowed post with this:

    “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.” Proverbs 10.19.

    This comes across to me as an attempt at moral coercion, as an attempt to manipulate his critics into silence with guilt and shame. It makes me suspect that he may “pastor” a church in which a do-not-talk rule is strictly enforced on congregants who might have questions or concerns. It must be very disconcerting to him to be held accountable by people who have access to platforms he does not control.

    Like

  81. It cannot be doubted that Meadow’s catechism for wives will encourage his male congregants to establish and enforce their supposed authority. A list of women’s shelters near Exeter, New Hampshire, where Meadows is a “Pastor” can be found at http://www.womenshelters.org/cit/nh-exeter. Maybe somebody should notify them.

    Like

  82. My family was part of a high-control church for several years awhile back, in the vein of Mars Hill (our pastor was a HUGE MD fanboy, and used to travel to Seattle regularly to sit at his feet).

    Anyhoo, when I confronted my husband about his problem drinking one day while he was having coffee with this pastor, I got nothing but, “How much do you feel comfortable allowing him to drink?” (Um, none.) “Husband, do you agree with none?” (Nod. Being a fanboy himself, husband was not about to argue)…then nothing. No follow up, no accountability for husband, no moral support. I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when husband started the drinking back up a month or few later.

    There were, however, no lack of sermons on appropriate femininity (respond, look hot) and masculinity (initiate, get your own way). I can’t even read stuff like that manifesto out of New Hampshire. Too triggery.

    Like

  83. Gary W. – Well, I would share here, (that I took this opening line to mean that because we had left so many comments on his post, there HAD to be sin in there, because of the word count and I felt he was praising himself for refraining from answering anyone), but I don’t want to be accused of presuming false motives to him, as we have been accused of doing. ; )

    Like

  84. “I don’t want to be accused of presuming false motives.” Well, I say if Meadows would deign to actually respond to legitimate concerns, rather than making himself look guilty by trying to justify his failure to engage, there wouldn’t be any need for anybody to assume anything. And really, I don’t think Meadows’ detractors are assuming anything. They’re discerning the obvious. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. . .

    Like

  85. “On the recent, no-comments-allowed post by preacher Meadows, he states, “Male chauvinism and egalitarian feminism alike pervert the plain sense of Scripture.” Well which is it? If a male is not egalitarian, doesn’t that make him, by definition, a chauvinist? One can either be chauvinist or egalitarian. Both cannot pervert the plain sense of Scripture”

    Their view does not sell as well after the internet became so prolific. They used to be able to convince most that egalitarian meant matriarchal/radical feminism. They basically redefined words for an entire generation that is now not buying into it as much because it is exhausting to keep up with the rules, roles and formulas in every day life application.

    “It cannot be doubted that Meadow’s catechism for wives will encourage his male congregants to establish and enforce their supposed authority. A list of women’s shelters near Exeter, New Hampshire, where Meadows is a “Pastor” can be found at http://www.womenshelters.org/cit/nh-exeter. Maybe somebody should notify them.”

    Yes! Gary this is exactly the way to approach this. We all should know from history that power corrupts even in the smallest venue.

    Like

  86. “– I will not be commenting there anymore either. ”

    I don’t like for those types to have my IP addy. I have had threats in the past. And IP anony software is slow.

    Like

  87. I’ve heard gender complementarians argue that women should not be allowed to be in combat positions. It looks like some women in some parts of the world already are (and Deborah and Jael in the Old Testament did).

    Iraq crisis: Kurdistan’s female fighters take on Isis

    15 July 2014
    Kurdish Peshmerga fighters have moved into parts of northern Iraq abandoned by the army in the face of an advance by jihadist-led rebels. The BBC’s Shaimaa Khalil met members of an elite female unit as they prepared to go to the frontline.

    … The unit commander, Col Nahida Ahmed Rashid, says the unit was formed in 1996 to fight loyalists of former President Saddam Hussein.

    It is made up of several hundred fighters, all volunteers. Few have seen combat, but many have been telling their commander they want to fight since Isis captured large swathes of northern and western Iraq last month.

    Like

  88. Lydia quoting someone else,
    “Male chauvinism and egalitarian feminism alike pervert the plain sense of Scripture….”

    I’ve never heard the term “egalitarianism feminism.”

    Most Christian egalitarians I’ve come across online (and I’ve read a book or two by them) take great pains to differentiate what they believe from what left wing, secular feminists typically believe.

    It’s intellectually dishonest to conflate “egalitarian” with “feminist” to poison the well.

    (And, btw, I don’t mean any insult to anyone here who identifies as a secular feminist and/or left wing. I’m a right winger, but I am willing to “agree to disagree” on a lot of issues.)

    One of my points in mentioning this at all is that Christian men and women who identify as “egalitarian” quite often have very conservative, ordinary views on the faith, they believe that the Bible is the word of God without error, they believe the Bible is to be taken literally, and many of them are socially conservative.

    Gender complementarians either conflate secular feminism with egalitarianism to smear egalitarianism, or, they argue it’s a slippery slope, that if a Christian accepts gender egalitarianism, that he or she will become a full scale left wing, atheistic, pro-choice, pro homosexual marriage liberal type of person, or a total man-hating, bra-burning feminist.

    (Gender comps muddying the water between Christian gender egalitarianism and secular feminism is a way of scaring other conservative Christians away from even considering the egalitarian perspective and giving it a fair shake.)

    Like

  89. Gary W,
    His coercion goes beyond attempts to stop responses that are contrary to his writings. They are not permitted. I suppose he can’t stop us from writing letters.

    Like

  90. “And really, I don’t think Meadows’ detractors are assuming anything. They’re discerning the obvious. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.”

    I wholeheartedly agree. Remaining silent, simply let us all know, that he either could not address the questions and comments, or simply was going to remain in power over the situation and retain his unbiblical stance.

    Like

  91. I.A.M. Beloved’s,

    Back to the question of discerning motives. In his no-comments-allowed post Meadows appeals to the Golden Rule as recorded in Matthew. One possibility is that Meadows picked up on and is rather obliquely recognizing the legitimacy of the comment I left on his prior post to the effect that the Golden Rule precludes men from writing a catechism for women unless it is their desire that a woman write a catechism for men. Maybe he is acknowledging my comment where I said “it would please me greatly to see others applying the Golden Rule to the pronouncements of those who would read Paul as making women/wives subordinate to the authority of males/husbands.”

    The other possibility I can think of is that Meadows is indicting his critics for inappropriately challenging him, inasmuch as we surely would not wish to be so challenged by him. Well, this doesn’t work since we would like nothing more than for Meadows to come down off his pedestal, to “condescend” to engage us, to challenge our thinking, to participate in a process of iron sharpening iron.

    My own suspicion is that Meadows didn’t even read my comments since he would then be able to see that his own appeal to the Golden Rule makes him a hypocrite. Whether or not he read my comments, Meadows’ appeal to the Golden Rule makes him out to be a hypocrite–unless, of course, it is his desire that a woman write a catechism for men and that he, personally, be submitted to the authority of his wife.

    Like

  92. Gary W. – “The abuse of truth is no reason for rejecting it.” I felt what Meadows was saying here, was that he had brought us the truth, we had abused it and rejected his truth. But, who can figure these guys out.

    I agree, that they love women like Angela, who eat up their words like they were the words of Christ Himself. What women like that don’t know, is that the words of spiritual abusers go down like honey but turn bitter and poisonous, once they get into the depths of who you are.

    “They hold on to their traditions because it is too challenging and frightening to abandon old beliefs and adopt new ones.”

    OR it is because they have put themselves in the place of God, presume to know all truth, have become unteachable, and are quite content to remain in the place of their presumed power over the people. Anyone who will not bow to them or questions them and their teachings, they call names and belittle to try to shut them up and keep them in their small place in life. You can read all about it in the book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson & Van Vonderen.

    I just keep picturing that final frame in Les Mis.

    Like

  93. I’m catching up on comments here. I celebrated my birthday yesterday and went tubing with my kids for 3-1/2 hours down a nearby river, It was so fun. Yesterday, I found a cool floating cooler, so we had salami/cheese/crackers and cherries (from WA state ::::humble brag:::::) and drinks. This was the life.

    Anyway, I find my dander worked up about Meadows’ 2nd addendum. If I could make a separate post and move all of the above comments into it, I would. You know what? Maybe I will because then it will show up in search engines. Otherwise, these comments will be lost forever. And if any of you want to copy and paste your comment to the new thread, please do so. Ok, I will make a post right now.

    Like

  95. So, back on the Owen Strachan front: I think I have the answer. It’s all in the timing of his two tweets.
    On the 7th of July, he is encouraging us all to run on out and do battle with satan.
    Four days later, on the 11th of July, he announces that we all can stop crying, stop fighting, and relax, because satan has been defeated in the four-day interim.
    I, for one, am not planning on taking his advice. There’s that bit in Scripture about “a roaring lion”, & the last I knew shawls, mantillas, & other such items of apparel have never stopped a feline yet. (Not even my little 5-pound one, who could scare OS into fits with one paw tied to her wee grey back).

    Like

  96. Wouldn’t Strachan be much happier in Iran as a powerful Mullah? I mean they’re always fretting and fussing over the Great Satan or some such right?

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)