Part 2 – The Story

Part 2 – The Story August 19, 2016

CindyFosterby Cindy Foster cross posted from her blog Finding Fundamental


Paul and I began to be much more attracted to the teachings of ‘old-fashioned’ preachers and evangelists who seemed to be having great success in raising ‘Godly’, obedient, adoring children.  We frequented camp meetings where these preachers and evangelists could be heard.  They were loud, passionate and charismatic pulpiteers who knew how to deliver powerful sermons and lure audiences to surrender. 

The atmosphere at those meetings was electrified by talented singers with bass and electric guitars, keyboards, and sound systems amplifying toe-tapping Southern Gospel songs rich with dynamic, spirit-grabbing lyrics.  We made friends easily with the people who regularly came.  Some were kindred spirits who shared our views about separation and home schooling… also an indirect result of compelling arguments made by those same preachers and evangelists.   
It was by the influences that we got ‘convicted about watching television.  Paul eventually decided to ‘make a statement’ by taking it outside, digging a hole in the ground, placing the TV in the hole and shooting it to pieces with a shotgun while all the kids watched in shocked amazement.  
Since there was no TV, I became an avid listener to Christian talk radio shows as I spent many hours nursing babies.  These shows  decried the subtle ‘Satanic‘ messages prevalent in such things as toys, fairy tales, secular music, public schools, Disney movies, politics, Promise Keepers–ad infinitum.  I wanted nothing more than to protect my children from the lures of ‘the World’, so Paul and I bought into just about all of it–hook, line and sinker and began passing these ideas on to The Preacher, his wife and others in the church.
The Preacher was unimpressed by the camp-meeting styled preaching services we enjoyed so much, and even warned against the appetite for excitement and enthusiasm that was generated by all the sensationalism.  But he came across to us as being more jealous of their success in winning our admiration than any real concern that we would over-indulge in camp-meeting sensationalism.
 Nevertheless, between his propensity toward extremes and our naive attraction to the ‘old paths’ message, a potent, toxic mixture was formed.  A preacher who was a driven authoritarian and who soaked up any support for his authoritarian leadership and praise for his preaching, combined with his ‘second man’ who was willing to accommodate those tendencies.   From that mixture arose a toxic camaraderie that was unified and focused towards a successfully controlled, preacher-dominated church.
Then, at some point in all this, The Preacher had become convinced that our church being ‘incorporated‘ by the State was the same as making the State the ‘head‘ of it thus removing Christ’s position of preeminence.  He also came to similar conclusions about marriage licenses, so after some special meetings where representatives from a group called ‘The Ecclesiastical Law Association‘ detailed the specifics, we voted to dissolve the corporation.  Of course, this action led to making policy that couples who plan to marry in our church,  could only do so by covenant.  The Preacher refused to even so much as open or close a wedding service in prayer if the couple had a marriage license!  To our way of thinking, we were really ramping up the church’s level of commitment to ‘truth’.
The Preacher also decided that para-church organizations were unscriptural and anti-local church, so we pulled out of the Baptist Bible Fellowship meetings, youth rallies, and support of the Baptist Bible Fellowship-run Bible college.  Moreover, the practice of sending our young people away to a Bible college to be trained in ministry was likewise deemed to be unscriptural because in the New Testament churches, it was the pastors‘ responsibility to train their young for ministry.  So, we eventually started our own institute.
Additionally, the youth camp we had attended for 10 years or so allowed too much ‘liberal’ music and since we no longer permitted our ladies and girls to wear pants, it seemed contradictory to continue to attend that camp.  We even stopped fellowshipping with other churches who did not share our standards and beliefs.  Instead, we searched out and found a camp that practiced the same level of separation that we did. 
Around this time, we also became involved with a very militant church and Bible college in Oklahoma City.  This group seemed to share the same beliefs and practices of our growing ‘taliban-istic’ church. In addition to summer youth camp, we took our teens to their week-long youth conferences, which led to our first three ‘preacher boys’ surrendering to enroll in the Bible college under this church’s ministry.  
The ‘truth be known’ it was at the youth conference we took our teens to directly following the week at the new youth camp we took them to, that the teens made decisions to sell-out to God.  Though it could be claimed that it was the Church that chose the events, that got ‘the job done’, it was still those teens who yielded to the teachings.  As soon as we completed those two weeks, they came home and jumped head-first into applying all that they had learned and committed to by getting fully involved in the scheduled vacation Bible school immediately following.  
The teens themselves made the decisions to change their already conservative dress, to what I can best describe as a more ‘Pentecostal-holiness’ style of dress.  It was only later, when The Preacher began to notice slight changes back toward the more up-dated styles (though still very modest by all reasonable standards) that as a knee-jerk, reaction, he began to claim and own their standards as his and the church’s– regulating lengths, looseness and eliminating even the slightest slit. 
He also insisted that boys hair had to be cut military-short and parted. Ties had to be worn to every service (if their parents were in leadership, if they were in any kind of leadership themselves or students in the Institute).   The Preacher’s only contribution to the change in dress standards before, was to disallow pants and shorts on women and shorts on men.
For every perceived problem presented, a new rule and accompanying belief was added until it seemed that there was no end to them.  But, all these efforts towards regulating our church away from the ways of the world and its liberalizing effects on other churches, seemed to be working.  Nowhere was this more apparent than in our young people.  
Imagine 50 some odd teens and single young adults actively, willingly attending every service, every youth activity, teaching Sunday school, working bus routes, discipling children and other young people, singing and accompanying specials in church.  Sweet-faced girls wearing long, flowing dresses, guys sharply dressed in shirts and ties–sporting military short hair cuts, all cleaning church, working in the Bible publishing ministry, working in the Nursing Home ministry, studying in the church Institute, witnessing to and bringing their friends,  yielding to the altar calls, surrendering to be pastors, church planters, evangelists and ministry wives, submitting to a host of unnecessary and oppressive beliefs and surrendering their futures to the religious dictates of their pastor and parents.  Who wouldn’t enjoy such ‘fruits’; who wouldn’t enjoy ‘glorying‘ just a bit in such splendid advertisement of efforts?  It was intoxicating…….while it lasted.
One would think that the pastor of an ‘on fire‘ group as this would be humbled and gratified to shepherd such a hard-working bunch.  One would think that the pastor of such a group would want to commend, encourage and enjoy them.  Not so with The Preacher.  He preached that easing up on them or the rest of the church, would cause them to “slip”, so instead of preaching sermons praising God for loving and strengthening our young people enough for them to do the work they were doing, he found more to criticize and condemn.  Every sermon was full of warnings and rebuke.  Every sermon was loud, long and angry.  It was as if he was solely responsible for not only the church’s appearance of spirituality but of the actual spirituality of every member in it.  
He spent an inordinate amount of time on Moses and the stubborn, rebellious Children of Israel.  He identified himself with the character of Moses, while identifying the character of the church with the rebellious, idolatrous Children of Israel.  
After about two solid years, three or four hour-long sermons per week,  the spirit of the young people began to change in ways ranging from zealous to rebellious.  Discouragement led to despair which turned in to cynicism, apathy, frustration and disillusionment.  
There had always been a competitive undercurrent particularly between the women, since he continually defined certain behaviors and attitudes such as humility, respect for and unquestioning obedience to authority, submissiveness, contentment, disdain for ‘worldly’ clothes, entertainment and ambitions as well as loyalty to him and the church. These qualities became identifiers for ones truly dedicated to God.  
Naturally many of the women secretly desired their children to live up to his definitions.  They may not have revealed those desires overtly, but they were manifested as jealousy and contention towards each other and intense pressure on their kids to perform well.  There were bickerings and squabblings among the women, particularly the ones in leadership, that trickled down to the daughters causing contention among them.  All this was going on while on the surface, the church appeared to be full of love and unity.  All that ‘glittered’ there, certainly was not gold.
As the disillusionment of many of the young people mounted, so did The Preacher’s anger.  It seemed he saw a demon behind every neutral expression.  If he didn’t see eager, smiling, submitted, unquestioning countenances, he suspected pride and rebellion.  He even said it to my husband, after suspending almost all the young people (for reasons I will explain later) from participating in music specials.  My husband questioned whether this might make them more discouraged, The Preacher said, “They have pride.  I can see it.” This was his rationalization for punishing them thusly. 
While I am certain he thought he was purging the church of the “leaven” so that his church could passionately pursue the ‘cause of Christ‘ unhindered and unencumbered by the weight of the contentious ones, I have to wonder if had he known how messy and how far-reaching the effects would be, if secretly he regrets what he did.  It is now obvious he and the rest of the church have paid a heavy price.
moreRead more by Cindy Foster:

Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network member, Cindy Foster blogs at Finding Fundamental

Cindy Foster is “Mom” to eight gorgeous, talented, temperamental, noisy, opinionated, alike-but very different kids. She has been married to their daddy, Paul, for 36 years.

Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!