A Cry For Justice

Awakening the Evangelical Church to Domestic Violence and Abuse in its Midst

The second test Joseph gave his brothers

Joseph, as Governor of Egypt, had begun testing his brothers by falsely accusing them of being spies. He had retained Simeon in custody and instructed the other nine brothers to return home and come again to Egypt bringing their youngest brother Benjamin with them. (see part 1 of this series)

Their father Jacob was very reluctant to let Benjamin go to Egypt with the older brothers. But the famine intensified. By promising on his life to bring Benjamin back after the expedition, Judah persuaded Jacob to let Benjamin accompany his brothers to Egypt on another grain buying expedition.

Judah was the fourth oldest brother. It was Judah who, twenty years before, had proposed selling Joseph into slavery rather than killing him. He justified his proposal with covetous and pseudo mercy —

Judah said to his brothers, “What do we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come on, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay a hand on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh,” and his brothers agreed. (Gen 37:26-27 CSB)

Now, years later, Judah was promising to lay his life on the line to protect Benjamin:

Then Judah said to his father Israel, “Send the boy with me. We will be on our way so that we may live and not die—neither we, nor you, nor our dependents. I will be responsible for him. You can hold me personally accountable! (Literally: you can seek him from my hand.) If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, I will be guilty before you forever. If we had not delayed, we could have come back twice by now.” (43:8-10)

Judah’s offer was good, but promises are only words — it is action that counts. And what about the other older brothers? Were they showing evidence of genuine reformation?

The older brothers and Benjamin set off for Egypt. They took gifts for the Governor, the money that had mysteriously been returned in their sacks, and double money for new grain (thinking that probably the price had increased).

When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to his steward, “Take the men to my house. Slaughter an animal and prepare it, for they will eat with me at noon.” (Gen 43:16)

Joseph assessed the evidence. The fact that Jacob had allowed Benjamin to go with his older brothers suggested that Jacob’s trust in his elder sons must have increased in the years since Joseph had disappeared. What was more, Benjamin seemed to be in good shape and displayed no fear of his brothers.

Joseph was satisfied that his brothers had passed the first test satisfactorily. He was confident that his brothers had not become more wicked. Therefore it was time to examine them more closely.

The brothers were aghast that the spotlight was on them again! By instructing them all to dine with him, Joseph was shrewdly intensifying their anxiety without actually hurting them.

As soon as they had opportunity, the older brothers explained to Joseph’s steward about the mysterious money they’d found in their sacks. The steward reassured them that he had received their money the first time. He released Simeon from prison to join his brothers. Their relief must have been great, but it would have been counteracted by further doubts: what could the Governor want with them if he didn’t want to accuse them of theft or deception? Joseph was keeping their fear at full stretch.

Since the men had heard that they were going to eat a meal there, they prepared their gift for Joseph’s arrival at noon. When Joseph came home, they brought him the gift they had carried into the house, and they bowed to the ground before him.

 He asked if they were well, and he said, “How is your elderly father that you told me about? Is he still alive?”

They answered, “Your servant our father is well. He is still alive.” And they knelt low and paid homage to him.

When he looked up and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, he asked, “Is this your youngest brother that you told me about?” Then he said, “May God be gracious to you, my son.” Joseph hurried out because he was overcome with emotion for his brother, and he was about to weep. He went into an inner room and wept there. Then he washed his face and came out. Regaining his composure, he said, “Serve the meal.” (Genesis 43:26-31)

Joseph’s courtesies for his brothers and solicitous inquiries after their father showed how genuinely he forgave them and still cared for them.

His self-command in containing his tears until he was in a separate room is remarkable and instructive for all victims of abuse. Emotions may sometimes overcome us, but we need to be careful where we let them out. When we are shrewdly assessing abusers who appear to be reforming, we need to contain and regulate our emotions so they do not derail us. Emotions may overtake us, but we should not let them affect the careful course of step-by-step examination.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven
… a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing
(Ecc 3:1, 5b KJV)

Engineers must examine and test a bridge after an earthquake, before traffic is allowed to resume across it. In addition to visual inspections they can do magnetic particle testing, X-ray testing, ultrasonic testing, phased-array ultrasonic testing, and liquid dye penetration to verify suspected cracking in metalwork.

An abuser must be examined and tested after he has caused a relationship earthquake, before tender and intimate emotions are allowed to flow back and forth between the parties.

Joseph sat the brothers at the table in order of their birth, which would have set their minds spinning again. Henry Morris has noted that there are 39,917,000 ways in which eleven people could have been seated. For Joseph to have done it this way was incredible! The brothers must have been at a loss to explain it. Either the Governor knew more about their family than they could conceive, or it was supernatural. Was the Governor personally instructed by God? Did the Governor have supernatural powers?

During their first visit to Egypt, Joseph had heard them speaking among themselves about how they had sold Joseph into slavery. .

 …they said to each other, “Obviously, we are being punished for what we did to our brother. We saw his deep distress when he pleaded with us, but we would not listen. That is why this trouble has come to us.”

But Reuben replied, “Didn’t I tell you not to harm the boy? But you wouldn’t listen. Now we must account for his blood!”

They did not realize that Joseph understood them, since there was an interpreter between them. (42:21-23)

The brothers did not know it, but Joseph had overheard an admission (a confession of sorts) from his former abusers.

Having already overheard their admission, having found them to be now basically responsible towards the person (Benjamin) who was most at risk of being their second victim, Joseph continued testing them.

Testing them for envy

Would they revert to envy and selfishness if Benjamin was singled out for special honor? This was an excellent test. When Joseph was young, he had been especially honored by his father. His father had given him the coat of many colours and entrusted him to report on his older brothers’ activities. The dreams Joseph had indicated that his brothers and father would highly honor him — they would bow down before him. The brothers had envied and hated Joseph and unjustly abused him for all this. Would they resent and abuse Benjamin if they saw him being extraordinarily honored?

Joseph sent five times more food to Benjamin than to any of the other brothers.

Portions were taken to them from Joseph’s table, but Benjamin’s portion was five times as much as any of theirs. And they drank and were merry with him. (43:34 ESV)

It would seem that the older brothers did not show resentment that Benjamin had been favoured by the Governor.

Two more false accusations

Joseph commanded his steward to fill the brothers’ sacks with food, to put every man’s money in his sack’s mouth and to put his special silver cup into Benjamin’s sack.

By having their money put back into their sacks a second time, Joseph was setting them up for another false accusation, thus keeping alive their sense of guilt. And by putting the cup in Benjamin’s sack, Benjamin was being set up the worst — not because Joseph wanted to test Benjamin, but because he wanted to test the ten older brothers. How would they handle a situation where they could easily escape punishment by letting Benjamin take the rap?

At morning light, the men were sent off with their donkeys. They had not gone very far from the city when Joseph said to his steward, “Get up. Pursue the men, and when you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid evil for good? Isn’t this the cup that my master drinks from and uses for divination? What you have done is wrong!’” When he overtook them, he said these words to them. (Gen 44:3-6 CSB)

Joseph instructed the steward to accuse the brothers of gross ingratitude and theft. He also had the steward say that the Governor practised divination. We need not think that Joseph actually practised divination; he most likely told the steward to give out that lie because he knew it would heighten the brothers’ anxiety. A Governor who had powers of supernatural discernment might see into what they had kept hidden: namely, that they had sold Joseph into slavery and lied about him being killed by wild animals!

The brothers’ sense that ‘God was onto their case’ must have been exquisitely painful. The accusations of ingratitude and theft were false accusations, but each accusation had its parallel in the brothers’ wickedness of long ago. The teenage Joseph had treated his older brothers well, but they had repaid him with evil. They had stolen young Joseph’s liberty and dignity and they had robbed Jacob of his beloved son.

The brothers pleaded to the steward, ‘We did not steal the money last time; we have proved ourselves honest; why should we have stolen this time!’ They then rashly offered the life of the principal thief and all of the rest of themselves as servants if the cup should be found. (Did Judah recall promising on his life to bring Benjamin home after the expedition?)

The steward replied, “What you have said is right, but only the one who is found to have it will be my slave, and the rest of you will be blameless.” (44:10)

The steward modified the brothers’ offer to make it a less strict penalty. He said that the one who stole the cup would be enslaved, and the others could go free. The steward knew what a search of the sacks would produce. And by this time he must have realised (or been let in on the picture) that his master’s feelings for these men were not motivated by straight-out cruelty, nor was his master gleefully playing cat and mouse just for the sake of it.

The Bible does not tell us that this was exactly the moral dilemma which Joseph had instructed the steward to place before the brothers. Perhaps Joseph had given these guidelines, or perhaps he left it for providence to sort out. But this dilemma was ideal as the culmination of the whole testing program.

So each one quickly lowered his sack to the ground and opened it. The steward searched, beginning with the oldest and ending with the youngest, and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack. (44:11-12)  

This put the ten brothers on their mettle. Would they let Benjamin suffer in order to preserve their own liberty? The opportunity was available, easy, tempting. It was the steward who said that only the cup thief would be enslaved. They weren’t responsible for setting the terms of the penalty. The penalty would enslave Benjamin and allow them to go free! They could go back to Jacob and say,“The Governor’s steward set the penalty before he even looked in the bags! We couldn’t do anything about it!” Plus, if any of them were covetous there was an additional temptation: should they return to Jacob with the news of Benjamin’s enslavement, Jacob may well have died from grief and the ten of them would have received larger inheritances than if Benjamin had been there to take his share.

Then they tore their clothes, and each one loaded his donkey and returned to the city. (44:13)

The brothers did not show a flicker of moral weakness. They tore their clothes in grief for Benjamin, for they considered his problem their own problem. (Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it… So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. Eph. 5:25,28)

Rather than abandon Benjamin, the brothers turned round and went straight back to the Governor to plead Benjamin’s case. They wanted to behave differently from how they behaved years ago to Joseph. They didn’t want to sacrifice Benjamin for their own self-interest. They chose to do right instead of wrong.

Why? What were their motives? They did not want to carry news to their father that Benjamin had suffered mischief. They wanted to protect their father from more grief. But if those were their only motives, they would probably have been muttering accusations or indulging in whispered blame-shifting while following the steward back. The plain fact was, their characters had grown under Joseph’s testing, assisted by the testing of famine and the stringency of their father. They wanted to protect Benjamin. They put their younger brother before themselves.

Come what may, they were ready to face the Governor. They set their teeth to face the Governor’s wrath, in order to plead for Benjamin’s liberty.

They remembered their past wickedness. Perhaps we can infer that they were ready to face God and were prepared to take whatever consequences God might providentially deal out to them.

Coming soon — part 3 in this series.


Related posts

Part 1 of this Joseph series: Joseph tested his brothers by falsely accusing them

Contriving a test to probe whether a hardened heart has repented

Is it always sinful to tell an untruth?

When is it okay to not tell the truth?

Did Abraham order Sarah to be dishonest?

Joseph tested his brothers by falsely accusing them

In order to probe whether his older brothers had repented, Joseph falsely accused his brothers, raised a false report and uttered a lie. Yes — that’s the same saintly Joseph, eleventh son of Jacob, whose humility in suffering is held up as a model for how we ought to respond when we are mistreated.

The famine in the Middle East was widespread and people from other countries were coming to Egypt to buy grain. Joseph had doubtless been expecting his family to come on a food-buying mission sooner or later. He must have often wondered about them. Ever since his elevation to governorship, he would have been planning what he would do if he encountered them.

Joseph knew that reconciliation with his brothers would be disappointing unless they had really reformed. For reconciliation to be more than superficial, the brothers needed to have admitted their evil deeds, told the truth, humbled themselves and learnt to put their own egos second.

Joseph knew that character change of such dimensions could not be verified unless it was put to the test — not just the lukewarm test of verbally professed reformation, but a stringent test of conduct under pressure. If the brothers’ comforts, privileges, reputations or liberties were threatened, would they again be abusive? They had been corrupt in the past — would they behave selflessly now? Had they or would they allow God to convict them of their sinfulness and change their hearts and minds?

Joseph was in charge of the country; he sold grain to all its people. His brothers came and bowed down before him with their faces to the ground. When Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized them, but he treated them like strangers and spoke harshly to them. (Genesis 42:6-7a CSB)

Joseph had been seventeen when they had sold him into slavery; he was now about thirty-eight. In all likelihood they wouldn’t recognise him, but to make sure he spoke to them roughly and through an interpreter. He didn’t reveal his identity: he wanted to ascertain the state of their hearts first.

The first false accusation

“Where do you come from?” he asked.

“From the land of Canaan to buy food,” they replied.

Although Joseph recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him. Joseph remembered his dreams about them and said to them, “You are spies. You have come to see the weakness of the land.” (7b-9)

Joseph intentionally spoke what was not true. He knew that accusation that the brothers were spies was a false charge. He deliberately misconstrued his brothers’ intentions. “The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment [include] …speaking what is not true, laying a false charge, misconstructing intentions, words, and actions.”  (Westminster Larger Catechism Qn 145)

You shall not spread a false report.  (Ex. 23:1a)
Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD  (Prov. 12:22a)
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Ex. 20:16)

The Bible doesn’t depict Joseph’s conduct here as sinful. On the contrary, the story shows that Joseph responded to his brothers with integrity, wisdom, shrewdness, temperance and benevolence. 

The false charge was a clever ploy on Joseph’s part. In that political situation, the charge was not unreasonable; foreign kings might have been sending spies to reconnoiter Egypt before they invaded the country to plunder its grain stores. The false charge was a pretext for Joseph to waylay the brothers, subject them to examination and flush out the state of their hearts without their being aware of his real motives.

It was an ingenious charge because it had parallels with the way the brothers had reviled Joseph years before. “He spied on us and sent back a bad report to our father,” had been one of their bitter accusations. The parallel meant it was an ideal goad with which to prick their guilty consciences.

Unlike victims of domestic abuse in relation to their abusers, Joseph had every advantage in this encounter with his brothers. They couldn’t recognise him. He’d had ample time to prepare a game-plan. And he was able to call the shots in the meeting. He used these advantages to trigger their memory of their buried sin.

Then Joseph said to them, “I have spoken: ‘You are spies!’ This is how you will be tested: As surely as Pharaoh lives, you will not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here.  Send one from among you to get your brother. The rest of you will be imprisoned so that your words can be tested to see if they are true. If they are not, then as surely as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!” So Joseph imprisoned them together for three days. (14-17 )

To see how his brothers would react under pressure, Joseph put them in a position of having to choose which brother they would send to bring Benjamin while the rest of them remained in custody. Would they fight each other for the privilege of being released from jail? In the past they had ignored his pleas and sold him into slavery. Now they had lost their liberty. No doubt Joseph reasoned that holding their feet to the fire might do them some good. They would have had no idea that he was intending to release them after three days. Perhaps they might start pondering how divine justice had turned full circle — as you sow, so shall ye reap.

After three days, Joseph announced that only one brother need remain in prison. The other nine could go back, with grain, on the condition that they returned with their young brother. This proves that Joseph hadn’t been vindictive in imprisoning his brothers. If revenge had been his motive, he would have kept them in jail far longer. Rather, he had been using tough love, causing them pain in order to flush out their guilt and provoke them to reformation.

Then they said to each other, “Obviously, we are being punished for what we did to our brother. We saw his deep distress when he pleaded with us, but we would not listen. That is why this trouble has come to us.”

But Reuben replied, “Didn’t I tell you not to harm the boy? But you wouldn’t listen. Now we must account for his blood!”

They did not realize that Joseph understood them, since there was an interpreter between them. He turned away from them and wept. When he turned back and spoke to them, he took Simeon from them and had him bound before their eyes. (21-24)

In this passage, the brothers admitted their sin. Their suffering in prison had begun a good work in their hearts. Unbeknownst to them, Joseph not only heard them confess their sin to each other, he was also apprised of how, on that fateful day so long ago, Reuben the eldest brother had managed to restrain the worst of their evildoing.

But Joseph did not declare his identity merely on the strength of their confession to each other. If his only purpose had been retribution, he could have announced his identity at this point, pounced on their confession, made them grovel, and then haughtily ‘reconciled’ with them. Instead, he wept in secret: tears of joy and relief at the prospect of a future reconciliation of equals (for which he could now hold out hope, given their confession to each other). Love rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). He must have prayed for years that a moment like this would come. And he knew that the unity of his family was probably of especial importance, given God’s covenantal promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He did not waver for a moment in his program of continuing to test his brothers. He knew that the correct moment for reconciliation had not yet arrived.

Joseph’s next step was to set the brothers up for further embarrassment, anxiety and fear — emotions which are likely to stimulate a guilty conscience to examine itself further. He got his steward to place the money they’d paid for the grain back into their sacks. His benevolence for his family meant he wanted to give them the grain, rather than take payment for it. But he also intended that the unexpected return of their money would cause them consternation.

A wicked person often interprets the acts of others with suspicion and wariness, because he reasons that other people also operate underhandedly from evil motives. When the brothers got back to Canaan and discovered money in each of their sacks, they reasoned that the money in their sacks meant they had been set up for being charged with theft or fraud. They were afraid. Joseph had instructed them to return to Egypt with their youngest brother. Simeon would not be released from the Egyptian jail unless they came back with Benjamin! But now, if they returned to Egypt, they would most likely be thrown into prison for theft or fraud — and they were not guilty of those crimes! Such a fear was perfectly tailored to quicken their guilt about Joseph whom they had punished although he had committed no crime. Joseph had nicely pinched them in a dilemma. And he called all the shots!


Their father Jacob was made fearful too. Reuben offered to give his own two sons to be slain if he did not bring back Benjamin from a second trip. Jacob wisely refused this rather silly offer. If Benjamin suffered mischief on the trip to Egypt, how would Jacob’s grief have been assuaged by loosing his two grandsons as well as Benjamin? Thus, a stalemate ensued which was only broken when the famine pressed so sorely upon Jacob’s family that the vexed question of taking Benjamin down to Egypt became impossible to ignore.

Eventually, Judah persuaded Jacob to let Benjamin go back with them, by offering himself as surety for Benjamin. Carrying gifts to the Governor, the money that had mysteriously been returned in their sacks, and double money for new grain (they reasoned that probably the price had increased), the nine brothers and Benjamin took off for Egypt.

In Part 2 we will see how Joseph put his brothers through more tests.


Related posts

Is it always sinful to tell an untruth?

When is it okay to not tell the truth?

Contriving a test to probe whether a hardened heart has repented

Did Abraham order Sarah to be dishonest?

Dignity compared to Pride; Forgive and Remember – by Jane Bartelmes

Is Your Dignity at Stake, or Just Your Pride?

Forgive and Remember.

To read these two excellent articles by Jane Bartlemas, click here.

Jane is the author of My Path from Doormat To Dignity, a book which I (Barb Roberts) am going to read. Jane’s website is doormattodignity.com

The worst mistranslations in English Bibles relating to women

Andrew Bartlett has asked a good question: What is the worst mistranslation in our English Bibles relating to women?

Worst Translations: All in One is Andrew Bartlett’s answer to this question.

He discusses the question in four ways:

  1. Which mistranslation gets the prize for having the least shred of justification?
  2. Which mistranslation gives the most negative description of women?
  3. Which mistranslation is the most misleading?
  4. Which mistranslation has the greatest impact on women?

His article begins:

I started thinking about this question after I wrote “Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts” (IVP, 2019), where I reviewed the debates between complementarians and egalitarians. Trying to decide between competing interpretations, I kept finding that there were doubtful translations in past and even present English versions. Translations were sometimes distorted by unwarranted assumptions that were not in the text. I wasn’t surprised that there were some examples of this; what I hadn’t expected was that there were so many.

You may think that before my question can be answered I need to say what I mean by ‘the worst’. It could mean the mistranslation with the least shred of justification, or the one with the most negative description of women, or the one that is the most misleading, or the one with the greatest impact on women.

Instead of choosing between these categories, I’ll look at each in turn…

In his article he discusses:

  • the idea that a woman must dress her head or hair in a certain way as a sign or symbol that she is under man’s authority (1 Corinthians 11:10)
  • Junia being mistranslated as Junias in Romans 16:17
  • “little women” being mistranslated as “silly women” in 2 Timothy 3:6
  • translations of 1 Corinthians 7:4 that obscure the wife’s mutual authority over the husband
  • women being called “gossips” and “busybodies” in 1 Timothy 5:13
  • women being forbidden to teach men — the word authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12 being translated as “exercise authority” or “usurp authority” over a man.

Read Andrew Bartlett’s article Worst Translations: All in One

Or, if you don’t want to read the “All in One” article because it is rather long, click here to find the four parts as separate articles.

Andrew Bartlett is the author of Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts (IVP, 2019). [*affiliate link]

*Amazon affiliate link — ACFJ gets a small percentage if you purchase via this link.


Related posts at this blog

God’s view of women who get targeted by abusive men (2 Timothy 3:6-7)

“Little women” have been called “silly women” which now contributes to misogyny in the church

Why did Paul call abused women ‘little-women’?

The false accusation of gossip

If I tell people about my husband’s abusive behavior, am I gossiping? (one of our FAQ pages)

Saying no to sex with one’s spouse (1 Corinthians 7:4)


Still here — emerging from a slough of despond

Last year I promised to revise my book Not Under Bondage and publish the revised version in paperback, e-book and audio-book formats. I have made substantial progress but am still some way from publishing the revised version. I apologise for the delay. I got sidetracked and slowed down by Covid (didn’t we all?) and I put too much time last year into sharing Covid-related content on my personal social media accounts.

Another reason the book revision has gone slower than I expected is that I realised I needed to revise the chapter on Malachi. That led to me writing an academic article Malachi 2:16, ancient versions and English translations, and how they apply to domestic abuse. I have had feedback from a few academics about that article; their feedback was helpful but they were not persuaded by my argument that Coverdale’s translation is consistent with the Hebrew text of Malachi 2:16. I will take their feedback into account when I revise the chapter of Malachi for my book.

For several weeks I have been despondent and almost burnt out. I am getting better slowly. I’ve just returned from a short holiday visiting some relatives who live in the country. My brain went to mush while I was there, but at least I stopped feeling so guilty for not doing much in the way of reading or writing for weeks.

My mind is slowly picking up the pieces of the jobs I left hanging in the last several weeks. I am trying not to resume doing all the things I was doing before. I’m trying to only do the things I like doing and the things that will add to my blogs and the revised version of my book.

I have grieved a lot about how other Christian advocates disrespect me and ignore me. I can’t promise that grief is over and done with, but I’m wanting to not dwell in it anymore. I hope I am right in sensing that God has humbled and chastised me as needed and is helping me put the grief aside and get back to writing. It was probably inevitable that I would get the cold shoulder from advocates because of my incisive critiques of some well known advocates.

In my slough of despond, I almost decided to never write again. But when asking myself “What will I do with the rest of my life if I never write anything else?” I couldn’t come up with a satisfactory answer. I enjoy gardening, but I don’t think I could fill out the rest of my days by devoting myself only to gardening. And the truth is, once I get into a solid writing task, I enjoy writing. So I am going to continue writing, but I will write for me.

When I say I will write for me, I don’t mean I will just publicly diarise my own petty life and my angst.  My writing will still set forth my understanding of God’s word and his precepts and how those things are mistaught to the detriment of abuse victims. Therefore, I believe that what I write for myself will still be the kind of thing that will set people free of their abusers. But if it does set people free of abuse, I want to view that as an incidental spin off, not my primary goal. I have to make my primary goal looking after myself, or I will fall into another slough of despond.

From years of observation, I know that my writing effects very little to no change in church leadership and church attitudes. I also believe it effects very little eternally-lasting-change in victims of abuse. Many victims find my writing too academic, too deep, too theological. Many church leaders find my writing unimpressive, not sufficiently academic, and they perceive it as personally insulting because it firmly and doggedly confronts their long-held beliefs. I make little impact anywhere. Too bad. God made me the way I am and I can’t help it. He made me with an incisive logical mind and strong emotions with high empathy. I can’t change myself to better fit the audiences. When I persistently try to change my writing to fit those audiences I want to give up and die. I wept writing that last sentence. The victims that want to feed on memes and milk and have their feelings boosted without doing much work — they don’t like my writing.  Most church leaders don’t know about or don’t like my writing enough to endorse it publicly. I am easily wounded by both of those audiences and I don’t recover quickly.

I know for a fact that some people have gained benefit from my writing because it helped them get free of their abusers, but then they’ve gone back into the world to follow their own lusts. I’m not writing for them: they grieve me.

Other people benefit from my work but never publicly recommend my work to others or share links to my work. I am discouraged by my readers & followers who are not at risk of abuse but who are simply lazy or play it safe, who sit on the fence, who don’t stick their head above the parapet to expose falsehood, who don’t point Christians leaders and advocates to my work, who don’t show any public appreciation for my work.

“Pay it forward” has long been one of my principles for living … I’ve done it for everyone else for so long, it’s about time I “paid it forward” to myself for a change. So I will write in my way, for me. If my voice reverberates to nothing down empty corridors, so be it. That’s the way you made me, God.

Have there been any “Biblical Patriarchy” homes that have been healthy?

Rebecca Davis asked a good question: Do you know anyone who grew up in a home that claimed to be a “Biblical patriarchal” home that was happy and healthy, with parents who loved and respected each other and in which the children grew up to be whole and well-functioning adults?

Rebecca asked this question on Facebook. Some readers of the ACFJ blog do not use Facebook, so I’m repeating the question here, in case you want to reply to Rebecca’s question.