This is an amazingly brazen piece detailing the justification for a woman’s wanton destruction of her family and blasphemy against God. The piece entitled How Playing Good Christian Wife Almost Killed Me, by former Christian wife turned apostate Vyckie Garrison is finding wide appeal on the internet, being carried on charisma.com. Charisma.com is the unofficial site of the Christian apostasy, and many are using this feminist betrayal to strike a blow against biblical patriarchy.
One such attack against Biblical patirarcy is the The Aquila report. It featured a 4 part piece against patriarchy, featuring a response to Vyckie Garrisons apostasy entitled The Soul-numbing Dangers of Patriarchy by Rachel Miller. Rachel dedicates some ink to the lack of Vyckie’s true spiritual conversion, but in her view it is patriarchy not feminism is to blame for provoking Vyckie’s bad feelings. Patriarchy for Rachel is not God’s design that has produced the modern world’s technical innovation, protected women and children for millenia and provided the best environment for raising children, but abuse and the repression of females. From where I sit that slander is meant to portray Biblical patriarchy as something it is not, but rather what it is imagined to be by it opponents or at least something that feminists imagine they can use to successfully liable and stir up opposition to Biblical patriarchy. Much like the article by Mz Garrison, reality is but a technicality; it is imaginations and feelings that guide the decisions and opinions of the discontented feminists.
Now I must begin with a disclaimer, lest I be defamed as condoning real violence against women. I do not condone physical abuse for even a wayward wife, although I do enjoy watching John Wayne in McLintock from time to time. I view the role of the husband in part as the provider of physical subsistence and safety; as one who spiritually leads his wife even correcting her by the application God’s Word. So when a man fails to protect his wife from physical violence and even is a threat to her I get a little rankled. However when a man fails to use the Word to reprove, correct and admonish his wife, but enables her error, I also get a little chaffed, but that discussion is for another time.
In today’s blue pill world where the feminist directive is operationally and in force, abuse has been redefined to be just about anything that may cause discontent. I wish I was overstating the case but as many men find out, they are between a rock and hard place, if they do not correct their wives they fail as spiritual protectors and are disobedient to God, but if they do correct their wives they might be on their way to divorce court where a wife is incentivized to call her husband abusive. Such atrocities are unappetizing when seen in plain light, thus for the discontented wife it is expedient to paint her own rebellion as a reaction to the even greater problem of abuse.
This tail of Apostasy is taken largely from a speech given by Vyckie Garrison at the American Atheist Convention in Salt Lake City. As I read the article I was looking carefully for the abuse that would support her charge enough to make the destruction of the family so urgent. If she was truly harmed, my protective and chivalrous side was ready to condemn her husband. But, as I read the article, I could not find abuse by her husband; I found examples of her narcissistic discontent, I found her rebellion against God and I found in her the hubris of someone who thinks they know better than God and thinks they are morally better than God. Spousal abuse by her husband – Not found.
I at first took notice of the title, How Playing Good Christian Wife Almost Killed Me. If indeed her husband was threatening murder this was serious indeed, if she was attempting suicide, but incompetent this too might be significant. Was the title hyperbole ? “…almost killed me”. How so? It is evident from the article that Vyckie’s physical life was not in danger, so how was she almost killed? Was it her spirit, or maybe her flesh (the rebelliousness in the fallen creature) that was dying? If it was her spirit how does denying the atonement and rule of Christ keep her from this death? The truth is that what was dying was sinful flesh, but what will die is her eternal spirit, barring the work of the Holy Spirit to bring Vyckie to faith.
I searched the article to find what was the source of suffering that almost killed her and the abuse that she endured. At the beginning of the piece Vyckie is at a woman’s shelter, filling for a restraining order against her husband, but why? Is he threatening her? No? She is having in her words a “complete mental and physical breakdown”. What does this mean? Was she hospitalized for her “complete” physical breakdown, what were the symptoms? What was the nature of her complete mental breakdown, was she insane or a danger to those around her, could she do math, think rationally, was she psychotic, did she loose moral restraint? We are not told and it is becoming apparent to me that she is simply making a scene, pinning for attention. She is a drama queen who plays the victim and needs to have the spot light shine on her to feed her super enlarged ego. The anti-family feminists are all too happy to cheer her on to the destruction.
But, she did have an axe to grind, her complaint against her husband is “He had taken 6 of our 7 children to a town three hours from our home and was preventing me from having any contact with them unless I agreed to his terms for our “reconciliation.” If she was having a complete mental and physical break down, isn’t providing her a break a good thing? Isn’t protecting the children against a sociopath a good thing? If it had been a woman that had taken her children from a man in the midst of a “mental breakdown” the world would be applauding her bravery, but men do not earn the accolades of the world when they protect their children especially from their psychotic mothers. His demand for reconciliation is also a noble christian act. Reconciliation used to be a good thing, it was what Christ did for the church and he did it according to His terms not ours. The charge of insisting on reconciliation is on its face the farthest thing from abuse and instead love. But as you will discover for this twisted and perverted mind love is abuse when it is not according to Vyckie’s terms.
At the woman’s shelter where she is seeking a restraining order against her loving husband she is informed by the worker there, “The judge will not grant you a protection order unless you actually accuse your husband of abuse.” But there is a problem, what abuse? As Vyckie tells there is no “technical abuse” : I didn’t really think my husband was “technically” abusive, and in fact, I had no doubt that he truly loved me and the kids. He always put us first … he basically centered his entire life around us!
No technical abuse, but who wants to get technical there is a discontent woman and a family to destroy. Even if there is not “technical abuse” certainly there is imagined abuse and the counselor is just the person to help discover or create that imagined abuse. What she needs is some values clarification to help Vyckie recognize the abuse that is present, but technically is not present.
“So,” the woman at the domestic violence shelter asked me, “if he’s such a great, loving husband and father, what are you doing here? Why do you need a protection order?”
I tried to explain that, for some reason, despite how hard we were both trying to live according to Christian principles, our home had become an oppressive, miserable place in which none of us were happy, and it felt like we were all losing our minds.
Wait Vyckie is losing her mind i.e. going crazy, so its abuse? Does mental illness ever happen without abuse? She also claims both (husband and wife) were losing their minds, but would the hubby say he was losing his mind, was his sanity on a hiatus, was mental illness causing him to have a complete mental breakdown? If so would he like Vyckie say it was the result of being abused by Vyckie? Is Vyckie an abuser? Heavens no, she is not a man.
Mental instability is not necessarily the result of abuse, there are other causes, so this case has no merit and Vyckie will not get the restraining order she feels she deserves if she cannot escalate the charge. So the worker at the woman’s shelter heroically steps in to help put this case against the husband who is not “technically abusive”. The shelter worker helps her to weave a fiction of abuse using the “power and control wheel”, a device to help those who are not technically victims claim their birthright, join the sisterhood of the subjugated and embrace their inner victimhood.
The first stop on the wheel: Love is control. Vyckie responds with “…we had chapter and verse to teach us that power and control is actually good and godly. We called it “Agape Love” . You may want to re-read that last quote because she says agape is about power and control. This is hamster rationalization at it very most absurd. Try to follow the hamster running on the wheel of rationalization as she justifies her claim of abuse: her husband loved her, love is control, control is abuse therefore he abused her and she needs to break her vow and shatter her family. As she recounts her tale of so called abuse; Vyckie often confuses God with her husband; ultimately rationalizing (irrationally) that God is abusing her and her husband is also because he is the servant of God.
The next stop on the wheel is emotional abuse which “include(s) put downs, shaming, and guilt-tripping. “Well, this is something my husband would never do …” But he is still guilty just don’t ask me how. It might be the theology that God is God and we are not that is so controlling and abusive. She finds the reality of her sin and sinful nature a put down and not as uplifting as she feels she wants. At this point the hamster is running harder than even I would have thought possible, she denies that her husband does this and yet will find that he is guilty. The distinction between “technical abuse” and “felt” or imagined abuse that does not technically take place except in the mind of those who are losing their mind is irrelevant to Vyckie. Her feelings must be validated and given primacy if she is to rationalize her actions against her husband and God. She felt inferior so she must be abused; she felt the guilt of her sin so God must be shaming her. This detachment from reality and into self is part of the existential journey to pure narcissism.
The third stop on the wheel is technically intimidation, but our drama queen finds respect or phobos in the Greek to be close enough: … but how can fear be a bad thing when, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom?” Was I afraid of my husband? Not in a physical sense, but I was always hesitant to contradict or “disrespect” him because God had placed him in authority over me, and God-given authorities can be considered “umbrellas of protection.”
Got it giving respect and honor are forms of being intimidated and intimidation is abuse. This is a key to understanding her blasphemy against God as an abuser; His sovereignty, love, power and authority are defined at the woman’s shelter as the traits of abuse. It is an irrational emotion. Similar feelings about gravity could be observed. It is controlling, one cannot innately fly, it is intimidating when standing on the precipice, it is guilt invoking to those who exert a force on the scale greater than they feel like they want. The reality of God infers that we are finite and His creatures, but for Vyckie that is so controlling, intimidating and controlling. Her counselor with words of wormwood and gall is provoking the charge against God, her husband and any that would dethrone Vyckie as potentate of Vyckie.
The next stop on the power and control wheel of abuse is isolation which she writes.. My husband didn’t intentionally isolate me and the children … it just kind of happened as a logical progression of our decision to live radically for Jesus. That whole be holy is such a downer. This is the whine of a child who can’t play with all the cool kids, her own family is too boring and nobody wants to play with such a malcontent. Isolation from God is what she wants; isolation from her husband is what she seeks.
Next on the wheel comes Minimizing, denying, and blaming …Not hers of course don’t be silly. Hers is on display for the world to see, the counselor means to accuse the husband of this. I must confess I cannot keep up with the hamster rationalization here, I simply cannot follow her train of thought because it is one continuous stream of non-sequiter . Having children and lots of them is her evidence for the, abuse of something or another. Oh and taking dominion in politics by raising political minded children is also an idea she apparently finds abusive. I wonder which of her children she wishes to kill or at least wishes were not with the living having never been born? Why does she want custody of all those children she wishes she did not have to give birth to and raise? Wait I’m being rational and technical with an emotional drama queen, there can be no answer to such questions only feelings. She is using her children to illicit feelings, they are supporting actors in the drama queen’s tragedy.
Next she engages is some feminist speak: I wouldn’t say that my husband used male privilege to control and dominate me and the kids. Male privilege was his rightful position. Yep, all that working by the sweat of your brow, dying for the defense and servant leadership is really just male privilege. She understands this as she writes…”We believed that while men were “privileged” with greater authority, they also were burdened with ultimate responsibility … so a woman’s absolute dependence was really more of a hardship for the man than for the ones over whom he held God-ordained dominion.” But why split hairs, she was an abused woman who lacked make privilege that her own husband had but did not use for control more as a burden to him.
Further along the wheel of power and control we come to Economic abuse? To which she writes “Well sure, money was always tight, but hey, finances were no picnic for my husband either, and besides, we had these promises …My God will supply all my needs,” and “I have never seen a righteous man forsaken or his children begging for bread” … It was really just a matter of trust, plus careful money management….. God always provided for us financially…” So you see she was abused because she was provided for and God was faithful.
Back to the power and control wheel we come to Coercion and threats … “No,” I told Deb, “he never threatened me.”
So follow along, he did not “technically abuse” her, no physical violence, in fact he was loving, he lived his life with his family at the center, he did not threaten her, never put her down, did not fail to meet her physical needs for sex, food, clothes and shelter, he did not try to isolate her, he did not force male privilege on her as a means to get her to obey but saw his leadership as a burden. It is a testament to the new feminist-speak that such things constitutes abuse, but understand abuse is not an action to a feminist, but a feeling. All that must take place to substantiate the charge of abuse is feelings of discontent or unmet emotional “needs”.
After going through all the points on the Power and Control wheel, I was ready to admit that, yes, I was in an abusive relationship. I told my counselor, “I want out!”
But the abuse she imagines does not technically come from the relationship with her husband, but with God. She accuses God of abuse through and through. She finds His ways distasteful and listens to the counsel of the wicked, as her counselor, Deb, said to her,“You have to protect yourself and your children! You need to divorce this man!” So she divorces Christ after listening to the cunning serpent that God’s sovereign power, justice love and providence is abuse.
But Deb meant the other man in her life… She was talking about my husband, and I was thinking, “Well, yeah … him, too.”…for me, the primary break up was with Jesus. You see, being in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a set up for dysfunctional game-playing and crazy-making head trips…. I could not say that my husband’s patriarchal behavior was abusive so long as I was committed to a relationship with “The Big Guy” who exemplifies the abusive bully, and who commands his followers to imitate His very warped and twisted idea of “love.”
This tale illustrates the feminist road to apostasy. Discontentment, disillusionment and a disjointing from reality are the motivators to dishonor, disobedience and divorce, from husbands and God. The cavil of the abuse of patriarchy is stripped of its pretension and revealed for what it is ; defiance of God’s authority.
The naked truth is that egalitarianism is a desire to be as God, equal to him, redesigning reality to suit the feelings and desires of the creature, imaginations of suppressing the sovereignty of God over that reality in favor of one’s choice, and autonomy. Feminism is but one name of many for the rebellion against God; it is the discontent of being a creature and the desire to be as god, to know and be the arbiter of good and evil, to judge the righteousness of God according to an individual’s feelings of right or wrong to think oneself wiser than God.
Vyckie does not dispute the meaning of Biblical passages, to her credit she is not ignorant, she rather accuses the author of the Book of life of abuse. She finds God in His holiness and justice an evil vindictive creature and she is not all that amazed at His grace. I feel sorrow for Vyckie’s husband. Finally Vyckie ought to be applauded for her consistency. She realizes that the Word of God provides a system of ethics and rule that is patriarchal, she must either submit to God and by extension her husband or she must abandon God and her husband for the feminist ethic. There is no middle ground. Vychie understands this truth better than the christo-feminists that dominate the church today.