Authoritarianism is Religious Narcissism

I reconnected with an old friend recently who had similar experiences with spiritual abuse. It led me to find a YouTube producer I had listened to before, who has, perhaps the clearest view of narcissism I've found, Richard Grannon. [Disclaimer, he is quite uncensored!] It led me to this breakthrough.

His clear description of narcissistic abuse is (paraphrased), "They scoop out everything that makes you 'you' and replace it with what they want you to do for them."

Narcissists have a goal of making you an extension of themselves - a person who will get them what they want, when they want it - and they accomplish that by various shaming and guilting techniques when you don't fit the mold they've chosen for you. It could be physical or emotional violence, guilt trips, gaslighting. As Richard says, this is all done in a context of "I'm doing this because I LOVE you."

Now, I'm Reformed and Evangelical, but I stand against what has become culturally Reformed and culturally Evangelical, and that is centered around Authoritarianism. I'm not a psychologist or therapist, but I've read a lot about understanding these dynamics.

In psychology, there is this thing called our "affect", it's a bit hard to understand, but I would say in Christianity, it's roughly parallel to our "heart" or "will". We are born completely driven by emotions and instinct, and as we develop, we start building a higher-order consciousness to understand who we are, why we fell this way or that, and what we want to do with it. So, the "affect" starts out immature and unbridled, and over time is supposed to develop into what Christians call "the fruits of the Spirit", even though those fruits are what we desire to see in everyone. 

Now, the issue of authoritarianism is the relationship between the affect of the authority and the affect of the subordinate. I've mentioned Dead Poets' Society before, and not being able to understand what the point of the movie was. The abusive dynamic shows up in a father/son relationship. The father clawed his way to prosperity and wants his son to be a doctor. The son discovers joy in acting, and wants to become an actor. This leads to a clash where the father (whose narcissism is evidenced by the fact that he always buys an impersonal desk set for his son every year - indicating that he has no desire to know his son other than as an extension of his own affect) asserts his authority to guide his son, and the son seeing no alternative, commits suicide. I could never understand the point of this movie because I was living in an authoritarian, abusive system.

So, narcissism, authoritarianism and even positive parenting center around the proper approach to the immature affect. The idea that "strong-willed children must have their wills broken" - makes a statement. Total Depravity (not the Reformation doctrine, but the modern twisting) makes a statement. Highlighting stories about people who "never wanted to be a missionary, but God made them missionaries" makes a statement. Ultimately, the authoritarian perspective is that our natural will is evil (depraved), and God/authority needs to scoop out that will and replace it with the desires of the authority. Sound familiar? That is the core lie of authoritarian doctrine, cherry-picked from a few passages, to give the leaders false authority and narcissistic control.

Instead, understand that the affect is depraved, not in the modern "100% evil" sense, but an immature mixture of good intentions, natural fallibility and selfish desires. The true "you", without sin, isn't foreign, but is your own desires polished and refined through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. What is removed is the false "you" - the sinful and selfish desires that do no one any good. So, the job of parents isn't to make children obedient robot slaves. That is not a reflection of God. It is narcissistic abuse. Instead, the job of parents is to nurture what is good and right in your children, and discourage what is selfish and evil, even if what they desire for themselves is foreign to what you hoped and dreamed. In the case of Dead Poets' Society, recognizing the joy and desire to act versus the hopes and dreams of having a successful doctor as a son.

Understanding this dynamic, authoritarian or spiritual abuse is the church forcing members into leader-approved molds, using various techniques. Those techniques could be what the pastor says from the pulpit, the written and unwritten rules of the church culture, what behaviors are approved or disapproved. Ultimately, authoritarianism is an abusive system where members are depersonalized and squeezed into what the leaders desire. In the RPCNA of my youth, this happened through an almost militaristic system of breaking the wills of children and making them narcissistic extensions of the parents, with the theory that it would be easy to transfer a narcissistic extension of a parent to be a narcissistic extension of the church or God. This was all done with the underlying claim that this is "LOVING" parenting.

The RPCNA has raised generation after generation of narcissistic, authoritarian leaders, and it attracts narcissistic authoritarians from the world and other churches with the pervasive culture. The cycle of abuse needs to stop. The RPCNA is not a "safe" church, and it cannot become a "safe" church merely by adopting child protection policies, because children are being groomed to be complacent victims of abuse. They are groomed to be instant, unquestioningly obedient slaves to whatever "authority" asserts itself over them, and not even have enough affect to recognize the violation. When their existence is to be an extension of the authority, what is there to violate? Everything that makes them lovable, worthy, unique, gifted, desirable or anything that would give them the emotional energy to resist abusive authority has been systematically identified and destroyed, so that they can be molded into what "God" (or the caricature of God that idolatrously looks like the church leaders) desires for them.

Immanuel verdicts and appeals

The drama unfolded in the past month. Jared was tried in absentia and convicted, leading to his deposition from the office of teaching elder and suspension. The elders received a slap on the wrist - a one year suspension from office.

IndyStar has some writeups, but they are currently subscriber-only.

The appeal to the Synod Judicial Commission, written by political heavyweight and more bully than intellectual James Faris, revolves around a few key points, which I'll examine briefly:

1) "Irregularity" of the proceedings:

Olivetti (and Faris) regret not bringing in independent, professional investigators at Immanuel to assist them. I completely concur, but they then use their regret to insist that not hiring professionals is somehow "irregular". In other words, something that the RPCNA church, to my knowledge, has never in its history done, is "irregular". The complaint then cherry-picks from the Book of Discipline, and when that fails, stretches Matthew 18 like silly putty to fill in the gaps. So, according to the complaint, step 2 occurred on Nov 30, 2021. However, what about the meeting between Olivetti and the family of a victim with Faith Church West pastor Joshua Greiner? (Letter dated July 28, 2020). Why does only an RPCNA pre-trial hearing qualify as step two? Matthew 18 says the people are witnesses, not the court. The pre-trial hearing is part of step 3, presumably. There should be charges and an opportunity to negotiate or repent - many criminal trials are settled before the actual trial.

More delusion. "The accusers admitted in their investigation report that they formed conclusions about he facts at issue before speaking with any of the witnesses in these matters, relying only upon the evidence previously obtained by the GLG Immanuel Judicial Commission and supplemental documentation. By any professional standards, this manner of forming conclusions about facts is fundamentally flawed and reflects gross incompetence" To explain this fully, Faris is saying that the entire appeal process in the United States "reflects gross incompetence". The courts recognize that the best source of independent, factual information is the decision of the lower court. This is even in the RPCNA Constitution, that courts review the documents of the lower court. So, why is it "irregular" that the accusers sought out the most likely unbiased account first. But, if this is all irregular, why is it standard practice in the GLG that a committee or commission investigating a complaint against a court FIRST meets with the court.

2) "Bias" of the investigators:

This one is rich with delusion. In the complaint we enter the fantasy world requirement of complete independence and lack of bias. There are two sides to every story, but in the case of abuse, it's often a victim telling the truth and an abuser lying. There is ample evidence of many specific infractions, but also a general pattern of coverup and emotional/spiritual abuse prevalent in the sequence of events. So, perhaps a day of weighing facts, the investigators have a pretty good idea what happened. That's bias? 

The police and DA are not the courts and they do not have a requirement for lack of bias. It is the judge's responsibility to provide the level playing field for the trial, and much of the complaint simply ignores that. An investigator discussing punishment is not gah! INJUSTICE!!!

I think it's obvious here that "biased" = "doesn't agree with James Faris." The media called it a coverup, a local pastor called it a coverup, the GLG judicial commission called it a coverup, and now the SJC called it a coverup. So, Faris is right and the church is wrong? Possibly, but highly "irregular".

3) "Bias" of the court:

This one is also delusional. I agree that the court must provide a level playing field. However, if the defendant writes an official letter to the court and says "The SJC's process is fundamentally unfair" can they be expected to be unbiased? So, the defendant rails against the judge and then wants to hold the judge in contempt for admitting that they're not really happy with the defendant at that moment?

[Edit: I don't feel like I explained this thoroughly. If I write a letter to a judge and say, "you're an awful and biased human being," it's not a mechanism to force the judge to recuse himself. If it were so, wouldn't that happen all the time with lawyers seeking a new venue? No, if you send a petition to the court that is unprofessional, accusatory and dare I say, contemptuous, you are just plain stupid. The level playing field has tipped because of the petition. I don't find it out of order at all for Keith Wing to explain the obvious to James Faris, he did something stupid and stupidity has its consequences.

4) Focus on "character defects" instead of transgressions:

I do agree that the Book of Discipline (and the RPCNA documents in general) legalistically focus on behaviors, but I don't see a problem with focusing on character defects. Abuse is a pattern of behavior. The character qualifications for elder are a pattern of behavior. Passing the Presbytery exams on godly character is a point in time, and a brief one at that.

So, an inordinate focus on transgressions misses the point of even the gospel. Jesus says "for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, acts of adultery, other immoral sexual acts, thefts, false testimonies, and slanderous statements." The problem with character defects is a heart problem. So, if someone has a a wicked heart, and I come up with ten times that person has slandered me, is everything A-OK if he repents of stealing those ten times? What if he has stolen from me 100 times and repents for 10 and now the church thinks we're reconciled?

The fundamental problem here is that these men FAILED TO PROTECT THE SHEEP. That is the job description for elder. Jared can repent of failing to recuse himself, and directing the response to the congregation. He can repent of a few infractions here and there, but the ultimate problem is that the behavior that came from his heart was not in line with the qualifications of elder.

But, Faris wants us to pity Jared because he's checked every box, and then he doesn't forget to throw the victims under the bus for "lack of reconciliation" Abuse is the RPCNA kryptonite. I'm thankful that the SJC recognized, at least in some form, that the combined weight of Jared's actions was proof of something greater. I'm upset that they did not see the actions of the Session in a similar light. They circled the wagons around their abusive pastor and hid the truth from victims.

I guess the point here is that if you disagree with James Faris, you must be wrong. If he attacks your character you must recuse yourself from the court. If he twists scripture to make his case, his logic must be impeccable, and if he has learned his error, you must start from where he left off. In the US court system, a lawyer like this would be held in contempt of court.

Manifest Destiny, Discovery Doctrine and institutionalized racism

Someone recommended a podcast about "Discovery Doctrine" - Preston Sprinkle interviewing Mark Charles, who is, I think, half Native American and half Dutch. Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK-D1euc3pY I should say, watch at your own risk here.

I knew NOTHING about Discovery Doctrine. You can research it online, but essentially, the doctrine was the church giving the green light to Old World conquest of anything that wasn't the Old World. Mark traces the roots of Discovery Doctrine to the beginning of Christendom - the conversion of Constantine and the use of physical force to expand the Christian church to establish a Christian empire.

The gist of Discovery Doctrine was that European Christians were GOOD and any other nationalities or religions were "savages" - deserving of destruction. Therefore, a European Christian who "discovered" a land full of savages could claim the land for their European homeland and kill or enslave the savages. Using that mechanism, the GOOD of European Christianity could spread throughout the world, which led to the massive colonization efforts in the Americas, Africa and East Asia, and likewise a strong disdain for indigenous people.

Mark covers the history, but I think it is very important to understand where we are today. The USA is a racist society. Perhaps not individually racist, but systemically racist. Other sources point this out, but our institutions are biased against any non-white or non-male. We build interstates through colored neighborhoods, we build pipelines through native land.

Even politics has not escaped. "Make America Great Again" was a Republican slogan, and in response, the Democrats said "America is Great Already". For whom? and when? Mark says, "The only people who can look back in the past with nostalgia is white male landowners." This country was founded by, and for, white male landowners. Both parties fight to maintain the status quo: Republicans by suppressing votes from poor minorities, and Democrats by suppressing any third parties.

But the point of all this is that the moral support for the destruction of native people, and systemic racism came from the church, and is perpetuated by the church.

Since I decided to write this article, I found an interesting article on the invasion of Ukraine by Russia that highlighted the church's involvement: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-pope-the-patriarchs-and-the-battle-to-save-ukraine not sure if it's the specific article I read, but it expresses the same sentiment.

Kirill’s support for the invasion was no surprise. The Russian Orthodox Church is an arm of the state, and Kirill is one of Putin’s trusted advisers. The surprise was the way that he expressed it. Earlier this month, in a homily at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, in Moscow, he made the bizarre and alarming claim that the invasion was about stemming the spread of “gay parades” from the West, and celebrated it as “a struggle that has not a physical but a metaphysical significance,” explaining that “we are talking about something different and much more important than politics. We are talking about human salvation.” In his telling, the invasion is not about territory, or national identity, or wounded post-Soviet pride, or religious identity in any strict sense. Rather, it is a culture war—a holy war—between religious traditionalism and liberalism.

The article also points out that the Russian Orthodox Church lost membership over past invasions and churches leaving over the militarism and, in a sense, Christian Nationalism inherent in Russia's national philosophy.

Another point Mark made was that the front lines of this racist war experience trauma. He noticed that white Evangelical military officers or policemen were the most likely to object to his claims. At first he thought it was racist or fragile, but he realized that it was a trauma response. When these men come face to face with the conflict between their enforcement against minorities, and what they thought was the truth of American Exceptionalism, they have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Another subtle point he brings out is that Eusebius, whom he credits with the seed of Christian Nationalism, had to replace the voice of Christ, through martyrs that died for Jesus, with the voice of Constantine, a leader who was going to bring about Christendom through conquest. I've found this, both in the lack of teaching of who Jesus the person was in Evangelical churches, and the focus on Old Testament physical conquest and destruction as a root of Christian Nationalism (aka Theonomy). The more I've sought to hear Jesus's voice, one who actively refused an earthly throne and spoke against any use of authority or force to oppress or achieve greatness, the more I've been disenchanted with the constant quest for political power. We need to figure out how to lift the voices of the oppressed, not just in the US, but beyond. First in the US, though, through coming to terms with our past and working to break down systemic oppression of minorities.

Presbytery report reveals much...

Source

Hopefully the link works out. I want to comment on a few paragraphs.

The Bloomington session asked the presbytery to appeal to synod to “critically review” the work of the current Synod Judicial Commission (SJC) that is overseeing the trials of their former pastor and ruling elders. After much debate, the presbytery decided that such a request would be premature as complaints are against “actions” of a court and the SJC has yet to rule on what is before them. The paper also called for the elders of the presbytery to “join together in repentance for the spirit with which [the GLG has] conducted the work of the church.”

Okay, I don't know who is at Bloomington, but this completely unacceptable, and should have been returned to the authors at best. At worst, this is insubordination and an attempt to hypocritically meddle with church courts. But, when you remove the fluff, I think it's simply a bunch of entitled babies who upset the world has seen their soiled diapers. Oh, and not only is the Synod Judicial Committee prejudiced against presumptive superhero Jared Olivetti, but apparently any elder who took part in anything negative towards Jared should be repenting.

Please, if you are a member of a GLG church leave NOW! This isn't Saturday Night Live. This is a serious GLG Presbytery discussion. If your pastor covers up multiple sexual molestations and rapes in your congregation and you think he's not God's ordained servant, enough GLG elders/pastors to have a debate think you should be repenting. You can't make this stuff up!

Since the court cannot know the hearts of all presbyters and the spirit of each pastor or elder, the court decided to ask the moderator to appoint a day of fasting “calling each elder to self-examination and repentance for personal sins that may have pre-empted our divisions.”

"Divisions". Interesting that the RP Church which rails against weaponizing unity is, wait for it, going to weaponize unity. The divisions exist because there are many presbyters who want to whitewash a session's actions that are so far removed from anything remotely resembling spiritual leadership and pastoring that they've made the RPCNA a public spectacle. Also, of note, the highfalutin word "pre-empted" means "take action in order to prevent (an anticipated event) from happening; forestall." So, we want unity, but we want those who were trying to prevent division to repent?? Hmmm.

Also related to Immanuel, a motion carried that asked the moderator to establish a three man committee to investigate and bring recommendations concerning alleged slander and libel in the media against Immanuel and its elders by RPCNA members.

At this point, we can only pray that Synod has a clue. The presbytery obviously does not. Indiana has Anti-SLAPP legislation, meaning that people who go to the media to protest mistreatment cannot be sued in an attempt to silence them. This is clearly meant to silence those who have bravely come forward. But, if you still are holding onto the fantasy that the RPCNA is a church... THIS MOTION PASSED. A majority of pastors/elders in the GLG Presbytery believe that the Immanuel church was slandered by the IndyStar article and specifically those RPs who came forward. This is scary stuff. A majority of the GLG leadership is circling the wagons around Immanuel's handling of this abuse situation. And, lesson to those who came forward, your church cannot protect you from Presbytery. You are brave! You are strong! But, please, have your lawyer on speed dial and at least read this to understand your rights: http://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/ 

and another paper by Rev. James Faris (and endorsed by the session of Second Indianapolis), asked for the dividing of the presbytery into two, as early as June 2022. This division sought to “intentionally align to promote healing.” Most of Indiana (except for Lafayette, Marion, and Sycamore) would be in one presbytery, and according to Rev. Faris this proposal “facilitates peaceable co-laboring.” A committee to investigate realignment was established.

To be clear, this is the proposal, split Indiana into two groups based on "healing". The one group is the people who want to support abuse (every RP church in Indiana except three) and the other group is the people that stand in the way of us supporting abuse (the three). So, if you are in an Indiana RP church and not in Lafayette, Marion or Sycamore, your church leadership supports abusers. I don't see how this can promote healing unless the Faris squad subsequently names their presbytery the "Synagogue of Satan" Presbytery. Then, at least people will understand the root of the problem.

I don't know whether to laugh, scream or cry. The enormity and weight of this is... unprecedented in the RP church, and even if Synod does the right thing, it will take years to restore any semblance of the sanctity of the office of pastor or elder in the GLG. The majority of pastors and elders in the GLG, based on their majority votes, need to resign, and if not, they need to be helped out of their so-called offices.

Why RP marriage advice is unhelpful...

 This came across my desk today: https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2022/02/why-is-marriage-advice-aimed-at-healthy-couples/

The last straw for me in the RP church was a video series by Tedd Tripp based on his book What Did You Expect? Tripp created analogy after analogy to explain marital principles. Most of the analogies were dishonest at best and destructive at worst. This specific Sunday was about our idolatrous nature, and the object lesson was a bagel. He explained that he walked into the kitchen one evening and spotted a bagel. He decided that would be his breakfast the next day and proceeded to picture himself devouring the bagel. He has ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIM TO THIS BAGEL. He didn't buy it, he didn't even put a note on it saying it was for his breakfast the next morning. He just imagined it would be waiting for him the next day.

So, what happens? The bagel is gone the next day, and he is angry. He turns this into a discussion of idolatry and selfishness - his selfish claim on the bagel. That then turns into a claim that "marital anger = selfishness."

This is when I flipped out.

At the end of the class, I explained how harmful this teaching was to couples who were not in perfect marriages. That anger itself was a signal, and sometimes the anger is righteous, but if church members and church leaders assume that anger always comes from idolatrous selfishness, then what will they do when a battered wife has had enough and walks into the church? So, we turn a bagel into a culture of victim blaming, because, obviously, the person who goes to the Session for help is going to be the one who is idolatrous and selfish, wanting the Session to manipulate and control the other.

I was silenced by the pastor during the class, and then the pastor and an elder came up to me after the class to tell me that Tripp is right. The elder chipped in that "obviously you need this teaching because your marriage isn't good". An elder who barely knows my name is telling me about my marriage. Great!

My marriage WASN'T good, but that was long before I started attending that church. What made my marriage not good was a message of idolatry and selfishness. I was taught that, like Jesus, I needed to place my wife and my marriage above myself and that just like Jesus gave up everything for us, there should be essentially no boundaries for me in my marriage. I came to a place where there were essentially two choices, divorce or boundaries. I decided that I had nothing to lose trying to establish boundaries. Thankfully, my wife was healthy and I was able to set boundaries and find a voice in my marriage.

But, I recognized that Tripp's teaching is destructive. The idea that any anger or boundaries are by definition idolatrous and selfish left me with really no options for a healthy marriage.

There's much more to say about this, but it's not just that RP teaching is only designed for healthy marriages, but that RP teaching is designed to destroy healthy marriages, and then blame the destruction on everything but the teaching itself.

Someone who gets the RP church...

Source

Hannah Anderson tweeted this a while back and I thought it mirrored my experiences:

A little advice from someone who grew up in religious separatism: In certain spaces & with certain people, the only shared conviction that really matters is who you condemn & separate from.

You can talk yourself blue in the face trying to convince them that you share the same convictions on a question, but the only thing that will satisfy them is whether you condemn the same people they do. 

They *need* you to condemn these folks because they've based their righteousness on certain folks being WRONG & their being RIGHT. If you don't agree to that inherent calculus, it gets very, very personal very, very quickly. That's why it's never enough to share their position on a question if you also see that question as a secondary issue. The whole point is that the issue MUST be a primary-level issue b/c its primacy is what grants moral high ground. 

In this sense, the real divide isn't what you think about a given question. It's the weight you give that question. It's whether that question has become a means of establishing the boundaries of the group. 

So my advice is don't waste your breath trying to defend your credentials. For certain people in certain spaces, they don't really care what you think. They only care about who you condemn.

I remember this coming up specifically at Geneva with fellow students who were OPC. I didn't know the "RPCNA-correct" way to deal with them. On one hand, they were NAPARC, shared pretty much every doctrine we did, yet they did not practice Exclusive Psalmody, which was taught as a critical doctrine. A lens through which all so-called Christians were to be judged. On the other hand, they were kind and respectful people who obviously loved God.

On another note, the flip side of the same coin is that RPs will read a paper. A certain paper on gender identity comes to mind. The theology and doctrine can be laughably poor and inconsistent, but because it condemns the right people, the denomination unanimously passes it.

objectification (part 2)

In part 1, we see how our worldly culture has pervaded the church and led to objectification [rule and desire]. This becomes the narrative the church proclaims, through worm theology, of our relationship with God.

It's no wonder that Millennials find the church harmful and irrelevant. The church has, at least in the last 100 or so years, proclaimed an objectification gospel that has harmed the sheep. In the last article, I showed that cheerleaders get deluded into thinking that cheering for men on the sidelines is a worthy calling, and this is part-and-parcel of a culture that devalues women societally at the same time it claims to value them.

In the same way, the church devalues members at the same time they claim to be valued. This is done by turning God into the supreme objectifier. I want to be careful about this because the best lies are half truths. YES! It is our chief end to glorify God and enjoy him forever! However, that is not done by grinding ourselves to nothing. I think many verses can be twisted, especially dealing with God being our Lord, master, and we being his slaves and servants. We twist domineering into "servant leadership". But read some verses:

No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. (John 15:15)

Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees me” (Gen 16:13a)

Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ (Matt 25:40)

This is just a sampling, but the point is that God isn't a distant taskmaster who thinks nothing of us. God calls us "friends", he pours grace and love into us and desires us to overflow into others. He is compassionate, not because he wants to torch us and Jesus jumps in the way. He doesn't see us as worms. His desire is to convict of us of our guilt so that we can repent and return to his arms. He doesn't want us to be shamed repeatedly and told we are worthless. Before the prodigal son could even say a word, the father was telling the servants to throw a party!

Is that the god of the RP church? I don't think so. I remember a story told by an RP woman. She had a child when she was single. She felt convicted of her sin and went to her session. What did they do? They suspended her because she had to be punished. I wonder if she is RP today or even a Christian. What about the Christian school in the same situation. She chose life instead of abortion, but the father of the child got to walk at graduation and she was forbidden.

Ask yourself? Is the RP church a place where you come each week to be encouraged with the love of God, uplifted and proud to be his beloved child and filled with purpose as you pursue the next step in that friendship? Instead, is the RP church a place where you come each week to be challenged (i.e. reminded over and over of your sins and unworthiness in new and theologically sophisticated ways), to be told God can barely stand to be around you because you are a sinner, and being given more and more things you have to do to "prove" to him that you love him (without which he will be disappointed and offended).

Is our only value to God the things we will do for him? Was the father of the prodigal son welcoming only in anticipation of the extra hand on the farm? Was Jesus's lament over Jerusalem that they weren't working hard enough for him?

The objectification I learned in the RPCNA has continued to be a thorn in my flesh. I didn't learn to value people for who they were. I only learned to value people for what they could provide to my purposes. In the same way, I learned to internalize the objectifying voice I heard from church leaders. My lack of value, my lack of righteousness. That became what I assumed God was telling me, and I have to spend so much time rejecting that inner voice that it is still foreign to thing that he delights in me and sings over me.