Search the Community

Been reading here lately and in correspondence and thinking a bit. It's all very well having meetings in the home - "home church" - good idea, keeps things intimate. Too intimate. I imagine the original idea was to avoid shelling out $$ for meeting rooms or building places (like church buildings!). But meeting in the home had a dual purpose. Think how lovey-dovey everyone was. Greeted with hugs and kisses, despite not knowing the greeter well and perhaps despite one's own personal reservations. Everyone squished on couches or chairs during fellowship, and again after fellowship when things might be more relaxed. There came also more hugs and the back rubs and shoulder rubs, in sympathy or whatever. All this can be nice, can be friendly. It was a sort of enforced intimacy that could be manipulated by some. Everyone wanted to be round a charismatic leader. But what if that charismatic leader had other ideas? In the "group hug" on the couch, ostensibly putting arms along the couch back, perhaps, then allowing them to stray onto the shoulders of young women? Seeing who shied from that touch and who didn't. The occasional "accidental" brush of the hand in an inappropriate way. A too-long hug when people were leaving. And then, at bigger fellowships, everyone was used to this behavior because it had become the norm. So on coming into contact with the more rapacious type of leader - well, the softening up had already taken place. Rather than "promoting harmony in the home," I'm coming to the conclusion that meeting in the intimate home setting, where people's guard is down somewhat, was the start of the grooming process for the sexual abuse for young women. A lot of this unwanted touching just wouldn't have got started, would have been rejected earlier, if meetings had taken place other than in homes. Who smooches up like this in a church? In a meeting in a public room at the library or town hall or school hall? In a park or beach meeting? Thoughts, anyone?