Mphamvu is the Chichewa word for power.  It is used as the equivalent of our English word "strength," as well.  It usually speaks of a positive quality.  Like having the ability to do something because one is strong.

Power is a paradox.  It is possessed by politicians, but also by prophets.  At times, prophets are politicians, as well.  And politicians can have a strong prophetic voice. 

Either political or prophetic power is a strength that can be used for good.  To have power is to have an advantage.  Parents, care-givers, ministers and teachers all possess this.  Those who are trying to be the exceptional voice need our encouragement.

Next time you are talking with someone who isn't versed in concepts of power or a person who may be threatened by that word, perhaps you'll remember to talk about advantage, status, privilege, or responsibility or duty that is held because of a position that one holds.

Helping people see that they do have the strength to stand up and be counted--that's what will turn the tide so that the mis-use of power is arrested or challenged.  When you can do this, you too show strength and a creative power, no matter how small you are. 

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Before I get to the topic, have an important media announcement, happening TODAY: 

 Now, on with the topic of power: 

If you logged in early yesterday morning for the blog, you found a simplified version.  I was inspired to add to it, rather than just expound on it.  So please go back and re-read anything that you haven't read since yesterday at 11:15 a.m.

Now, that leads me into a new topic that is very much related to what I wrote yesterday.  Power-that's the topic.  The single language that I once understood, when I only knew "one language" didn't accept what my "bilingual" world does today when using the word "power."

It used to be, in my youth, that to put the word "power" in any sentence without the word "God" or "Gospel" was considered total heresy.  Unless you were talking about some evil power.  If it was about people, it couldn't be a positive word.  The old fundamentalist theology of my history didn't allow that.   That theology is still very much around, and it's very important to understand a person's theology when talking about such matters as abuse and violence. 

If a nation, especially a "Christian" nation like the United States, has power of any kind, it is only because "God has blessed us."  The implication, often unspoken, is that we have found favor or have somehow earned that blessing.  Like Noah who "found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

People who were not raised in this theology of conservativism don't even seem to grasp what I mean when I say that using the word "power" can be counter-productive.   Fundamentalists understand "influence" and "authority" and "responsibility" and "obligation" and "duty"--all of these words do not have to be translated like the word "power."  Neither is a person who uses those words likely to have to prove her(him)self in order to not be immediately cast into the outsider role.

If "power" is considered to be a 4-letter word, then how do we talk more fluently with those on more fundamental levels about what we understand, without appearing arrogant, because we have dared to understand the concept more fully ourselves?  That's the challenge to think about as we examine the dynamics in depth.

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Updated: Thu 11/01/2007 8:02 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The second question, as posed last week, reflects new understanding:

So you aren't really out there trying to destroy the church? 

I suspect the person who asked that last week already knew this, but needed me to clarify it for some in the group who might not.  Maybe she already understood what most who ask this question, as more of an accusation, do not understand.

So many honestly believe that those of us who speak against inappropriate behaviors at church, past or present, are out to destroy the church.   Rather than keep it from further self-destruction. 

Or Church as you from Catholic roots may write.   Whether writing about the "Universal Catholic Church," the community of faith, a denomination, or a single autonomous congregation--it's all the same for these purposes.

Truth is the church, like a lot of families, has already self-destructed.  Meeting every Sunday morning presents a facade to the world.   One of the greatest spiritual principles is that we look at the fruits.  Or, in the case of pathology, we look at the symptoms and understand that the symptoms going away for a while is no indication that the disease has.  If the disease is still there, the symptoms will re-surface.  Or to put it another way:  Cancers in remission aren't necessarily cured just because one is symptom-free and things look good. 

I do not have the power to destroy the church and neither do any of you, just in case you are having delusions of grandeur.   There is sometimes enough health that preservation needs to be done, in spite of the problems. Though I certainly believe some churches and/or leaders are doing such harm that they would do better to close their doors and not declare themselves to be a church. 

We do have the power to wake folks up, though.  Even though waking sleeping giants is a hard job. 

It reminds me of a bunch of kids trying to wake up their father who has been sound asleep for hours, with the Sunday comics across his face and some football game blaring on the television.  The guy may be great at his job, but not the least bit interested in the kids or what they have say. 

Folks who use their money and prestige to keep up a facade of being in control and on top of things and the owners of the truth are not going to wake up for long, whether in the church or the family.  They only stir in their sleep long enough to scream:  "Just leave me alone."  After all, as they see it, it's the church that is the victim of the "little ones" trying to wake them up!  Some days the kids would be better off out in the yard just playing.

These sleeping giants "need" to be worshipped, along with the church that they pretend to serve.  Ignoring the patterns that have permeated the institution for so long, contributing to the ignorance and bigotry.

If we are to see where we are headed, we had better sit up and look at where we've been as an institution, whether it's church or family.  This requires that we change our individual ways that would bow and stay silent to the lack of accountability when people commit crimes and continue to act as if nothing has happened, leaving others vulnerable. 

As my husband Ron says:  "Destroy the church of Jesus Christ?  No worry there.  It never got off the ground!"

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Updated: Wed 10/31/2007 11:17 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

I just heard them again last week.  Good questions, though often asked by people who have a limited understanding of the "little ones" or what it means to be standing up as a person speaking to the faith community.

1)  What's going to happen to the church if this continues?

2)  So you aren't really out there trying to destroy the church, then?

It helps to hear those questions voiced from time to time.  Otherwise, I forget just what people are thinking about, when they make obnoxious comments that reflect ignorance and bigotry.

To the first, I say:   "It's already happened.  People outside of the church who are free to talk when they don't think there is an insider around help us see that the church has already lost it's integrity.  Outsiders see the church as incompetent, filled with incompetent leaders.  Much of it because of these issues."

All that can be done now is to confess and make amends in the hopes that someday the church will be in better standing in the eyes of the world.  It's time to stop worrying about what WILL happen and face the fact that it has already happened while people sat back and ignored reality.  That worry needs to be replaced with a new worry, reflected by the question:  "How can we make amends and start leading people to see that we have truly repented?"  That question reflects a deeply spiritual health that the public expects real spiritual leaders to have. 

Let's save the second question until tomorrow.

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 7:23 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

My feelings change when it comes to church.  Sometimes there are other things that just feel a lot more spiritual.  Or I'm fed up and can't even stomach it, like a lot of you are.  I know that some of you are that way fullltime, and I understand.  As always, I support you in whatever decisions are right for you and believe you know in your heart.

Yet when I choose to go to church, I do so because I choose to, as well, knowing that I'm not going to find myself on a great high, no matter where I go.  Those days are gone, though there may some moments.  My spirituality doesn't come from the institutional church anymore, and I do not consider that to be a fault or sign of spiritual depravation, even though some may.  Church often reminds me of Egypt and bondage, more times than not now.

One church I attend reminds me more of Gilgal than any other, though.  It feeds my passion to reach out to the oppressed, even though this church is reaching out to different groups than I do through this work.  The principles are still the same.  They take stands, but not stands like the ones that condemn victims of injustice.

I have never been one who goes to church for much ritual or liturgy.  I didn't grow up valuing either very much.  No doubt that has a lot to do with it.  I was bored stiff, as a kid, with communion, especially since it always made the service longer.   My feelings haven't changed much there even though, in mainline churches, communion takes the place of some of the sermon.  We often just get a sermonette that suffices.

Problem is that I go to church to be intellectually fed--that's a big part of spirituality for a thinker.   I get weary of the emotional stuff unless it has a very practical application for my journey.  While I sometimes appreciate the connections and "fellowship" too, that's not my primary reason for going, as it is for many.

Sometimes I go to church to play a role, as pianist.  On those days, I have to often get lost in the music in order to stomach the theology that irks me, especially if it's heavy fundamentalism, laced with patriarchy.  Since I'm usually getting paid to provide the music, I consider enduring the sermon and other comments as a part of the job.  Even when the songs are full of what I consider faulty theology, I have learned to translate them even as I'm playing.  Like today:  I substituted the word "transformed" for "redeemed" and it seemed to fit my own spiritual journey so much better.  Suddenly, I found myself putting extra feeling into the music even as it seemed to transform my spirit.

Where are you on this spectrum?  Do you equate church with Egypt, Shittam, or Gilgal?  Or does it vary for you, as it does for me? 

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Updated: Sun 10/28/2007 8:42 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Interesting how I laugh at so many things that I didn't laugh at a quarter of a century ago.  Finding my sense of humor has been the silver lining in the dark clouds for me.

I laughed really hard twelve years ago, the day I discovered Micah 6:5, a very funny verse in the Bible, despite it's seriousness.  Read it aloud for the fullest benefit.  No offense intended--the meaning isn't lost in the laughter.  For people who have been through the nonsense of spiritual bondage imposed by people of power in the institutional church, this verse is profound.

"Remember your journey from Shittam to Gilgal," the bold prophet Micah told his listeners.  The first syllable of Shittam is what had me laughing, of course.  I'd skimmed over that verse many times, no doubt, and never seen it before.  I didn't even know exactly what it meant.  Figured there would be no real significance for the survivor's journey in the places of Shittam or Gilgal.  Was I ever wrong!  It was SO significant that I turned it into an article for the Linkup newsletter!!

Shittam was the place where the Israelites camped before they crossed the Jordan River in their final leg of the long journey from Egypt to Canaan.  They were still in the wilderness in Shittam, not sure what might lay ahead.  They'd never seen it. 

Gilgal was the place where they celebrated, when they realized they were no longer going to be wandering in the wilderness.  Nor did they have to ever worry about going back to Egypt.  They didn't need that place anymore.

I don't know just where your Shittam may be on the metaphorical scale.  Perhaps you haven't gotten to it yet.  You may be fortunate enough to have stumbled on this blog, having never experienced Shittam--at least not yet.  If you have been there or if it's yet to come, just remember how close it is to Gilgal, though you may not realize it you are in the vicinity.   Gilgal--a place to celebrate.  One to look forward to.  And not in the "sweet by and by" after death, as so many survivors even make the tragic mistake of believing just before suicide. 

Gilgal is the place of freedom.  Here on this earth.  We may sometimes walk back into the wilderness of confusion, but we know how to get to Gilgal.

If you haven't found it, I trust that you will.   If you have found it, that's something to celebrate.  Either way, I'd love to hear from you.   I want to know how this relates to your personal journey. 

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 2:29 PM CDT

Updated: Sat 11/14/2015 9:33 PM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

Recently I had a conversation with several women who are well-educated women still inside the Southern Baptist Convention.  I very much appreciated their time and interest in my work.  In the course of that conversation, someone suggested that an article was needed that shows how some survivors have managed to transcend the problems of abuse and collusion.

It was a great suggestion.  Truth is--and I said so immediately--that I had already written that article.  It's at  http://takecourage.org/AWArticles/ChurchSecrets.htm  It has sprinklings all through it about people who have done just that, some staying at least somewhat active in the church while others are totally out of it.  The church folks would interpret that to mean they ARE "totally out of it."

The suggestion wasn't that we find churches that have done all the right things.  I've had that one before, too.  This idea was much more in touch with reality.  For there are far more survivors who have managed to transcend the problems and gain insights than there are churches who have done so.  It is a long, difficult road for anyone in either group, of course.

So I went back to the Church Secrets article this morning and lifted out a piece that I believe could be helpful to that group, as well as to some of you:

"The questions I ask sometimes generate answers. At other times, they generate more questions as I look deeper and deeper into the complex issues. Yet Dr. Wilkinson's "Who are they really trying to protect?" continues to ring louder than all others. To it I have added a related question: "What unresolved feelings protect wrong-doers in the institutional church at the expense of the vulnerable?"

I believe the answer is complex, but boils down to two feelings: FEAR and SHAME. Ironically, these same emotions are what keep most survivors in hiding. Once the shame is gone, it is impossible to ignore the healthy anger. For many, overcoming the shame of being angry is yet another step. But once that anger is seen as God-given and useful, it starts to work for healthy change. Gradually the fear pales. The energy takes over, and Romans 8:28 has a new illustration!

Yet victims are under no obligation to take the risk of reporting, possibly inflicting on themselves much more painful abuse in the aftermath. Before doing so, it is essential to have a strong support system.

By contrast, persons in positions of leadership are ethically bound to protect victims from public exposure and to do everything possible to see that offenders are removed from positions of leadership. They, also, need strong support systems, but often fail to find them. They, too, may face double-binds, having to choose between compromising their convictions or enduring intense spiritual abuse from colleagues who shame them for their convictions."

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Updated: Fri 10/26/2007 8:36 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In the Hebrew, the word for "widow" is the same as "silent one" or "one unable to speak."  That's what I learned at church Sunday.   At a church where the minister often reframes the stories in the Bible to provide new understandings that stand in strong contrast, sometimes even opposition, to the traditional interpretations.

So that puts widows of the Mediterranean world in the same camp with the children.  In the Bible, children are referred to by Jesus as "the little ones."  My good friend Dr. Sarah Rieth, a pastoral counselor, is one of several friends who commonly use the "little ones" concept to refer to those without power or voice. 

So that includes survivors who are so often silenced unless they can speak very softly, humbly, and quietly, painting a picture that is much prettier, with a better outcome than many survivors.  This means that those of us who have been able to speak, whether softly or not, can only hope to be welcomed from a far distance.

Try telling most church leaders that little ones are scary people, though.  You'll get a strange look and will be lucky if they can see it that way.  At least, once you start to explain in full.

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink