I finished reading the blog that inspired the submission poll.........

[squirtymomma]

Then, what do you do with the scripture? That's what I mean, do you think those scriptures are 'false' or do you have a completely different understanding of them?

 

If your understanding is different, then could you walk me through it? I'm trying to understand :)

 

You didn't ask me, but...

 

A book that has challenged my thinking on these things is Sarah Sumner's Men and Women in the Church. I didn't realize that there was a large group of Bible-believing Christians who are egalitarians. I always thought those were the people who picked and chose from the Bible. BUT, it's interesting to note, that even Complementarians (which is the dominant belief in evangelical thought) are trying to distance themselves from the church's traditional view. Traditionally, the church taught that women are inferior. Sumner's book demonstrated how the Complementarians are trying to hold on to the traditional roles, while asserting that men and women are equal before God. Plus, she gives a pretty convincing explanation of the passages involved. They're not as cut and dried as everyone tend to think.

 

What made me began to question these things was, first, learning about the Patriarchy people, whose views completely repulsed me. Then, I began to really think about the marriages that I respected. Even those who would say they're complementarians (or believe in submission), typically behave like egalitarians.

 

Some food for thought...

[asta]

You didn't ask me, but...

 

A book that has challenged my thinking on these things is Sarah Sumner's Men and Women in the Church. I didn't realize that there was a large group of Bible-believing Christians who are egalitarians. I always thought those were the people who picked and chose from the Bible. BUT, it's interesting to note, that even Complementarians (which is the dominant belief in evangelical thought) are trying to distance themselves from the church's traditional view. Traditionally, the church taught that women are inferior. Sumner's book demonstrated how the Complementarians are trying to hold on to the traditional roles, while asserting that men and women are equal before God. Plus, she gives a pretty convincing explanation of the passages involved. They're not as cut and dried as everyone tend to think.

 

What made me began to question these things was, first, learning about the Patriarchy people, whose views completely repulsed me. Then, I began to really think about the marriages that I respected. Even those who would say they're complementarians (or believe in submission), typically behave like egalitarians.

 

Some food for thought...

 

I found this interesting - From the Vatican's website:

 

The Book of Genesis speaks of creation in summary fashion, in language which is poetic and symbolic, yet profoundly true: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). The creative act of God takes place according to a precise plan. First of all, we are told that the human being is created "in the image and likeness of God" (cf. Gen 1:26). This expression immediately makes clear what is distinct about the human being with regard to the rest of creation.

 

We are then told that, from the very beginning, man has been created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Scripture itself provides the interpretation of this fact: even though man is surrounded by the innumerable creatures of the created world, he realizes that he is alone (cf. Gen 2:20). God intervenes in order to help him escape from this situation of solitude: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). The creation of woman is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the "human" as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.

 

When the Book of Genesis speaks of "help", it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being. Womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. It is only through the duality of the "masculine" and the "feminine" that the "human" finds full realization.

 

8. After creating man male and female, God says to both: "Fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). Not only does he give them the power to procreate as a means of perpetuating the human species throughout time, he also gives them the earth, charging them with the responsible use of its resources. As a rational and free being, man is called to transform the face of the earth. In this task, which is essentially that of culture, man and woman alike share equal responsibility from the start. In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference. Their most natural relationship, which corresponds to the plan of God, is the "unity of the two", a relational "uni-duality", which enables each to experience their interpersonal and reciprocal relationship as a gift which enriches and which confers responsibility.

( italics his )

 

 

a

 

(who finds that website fascinating)

[Sasha]

Aah, but I never did say I would do this. I never even said anyone must. I did say that I recognized and found scriptural backing for the Pearl's notions about forgiveness and parenting/marital relationships. Yep, there does seem to be scriptural reasons given by Jesus for divorce. So if the person wanted to chose divorce I am not saying they are wrong to do so (Pearls would!). But I also believe you should not be so cursed judgemental of someone who does accept them back. That is how they believe they are to live out forgiveness. Not my cup of tea. But if they have grown children who hate them for it, they need to work it all out between them and their God as adults, if possible. It might not be, and that is for them to decide. I think there could be scriptural backing for their actions, is all I said...

 

I guess I was more responding in shock at how cruel some posters were being with their feelings that some people don't deserve forgiveness. That callousness is Un-Christian. No less Un-Christian than "betraying" your children by standing by their molester. There isn't really such a thing as degrees of Un-Christian like behavior, is there? I don't think you get to pick and choose like that.

 

So don't start jumping all over me as if I am suddenly the Anti-Christ for finding some kernel of truth in what the Pearls have written. And don't assume I am some Pearl-lovin' doormat with a ridiculously low IQ, either. Just trying to inject some balance and food for thought.

 

Lakota

 

I will stand in proud judgement against a woman who would stay with someone who sexually molested their child. In fact, the very idea is so revolting to me that I'm struggling to type it.

 

Any G-d who would suggest such a thing is not a G-d I would want to acknowledge anyway.

[Renee in NC]

I found this interesting - From the Vatican's website:

 

( italics his )

 

 

a

 

(who finds that website fascinating)

 

I read something recently that was very profound for me. In the book, The Catholic Family Handbook, the author says that (loosely paraphrased here) that the husband is the head of the home, but the women is the heart and holds the chief place in love.

[TXMomof4]

Then, what do you do with the scripture? That's what I mean, do you think those scriptures are 'false' or do you have a completely different understanding of them?

 

If your understanding is different, then could you walk me through it? I'm trying to understand :)

 

The idea of women submit, man as head of household may be completely scriptural - but the definition of submission is what's in question in my mind. Can you imagine Jesus thinking for a minute that a woman should be used as a punching bag because, after all, she's under her husband's command? Can you imagine Jesus doing that? The husband is supposed to behave like Jesus - as Christ loved the church is the direction for husbands. Can you imagine Jesus behaving in any of these overbearing, harmful, hurtful ways? Did he stop Mary and Martha from living and being independant women? Did he tell the woman at the well that if she'd just let her husband(s) have his way all would be fine. Can you imagine the wrath of Jesus is someone harmed a child?

 

We also get the picture of the Proverbs woman from scripture. That is a woman I'll emulate any day. A successful business woman, a successful provider, a woman whose children call her blessed. Shoot - sounds like a lot of women I know. And they love and support their husbands. Equally importantly, they HAVE the love and support of their husbands.

 

These discussions always blow my mind because I can't imagine that any of these authors actually think about the example set by Jesus. And even if that is what works for their family they have no business condemning others who don't follow their logic. Selling a book telling others how to live has always irritated me and this is just another example of that.

[OnTheBrink]

The church (however that's defined) may say women are lesser than men, but the Bible doesn't. Different roles, but equal in value in God's sight.

 

My church doesn't believe women are lesser than men, at all.

[Scarlett]

The church (however that's defined) may say women are lesser than men, but the Bible doesn't. Different roles, but equal in value in God's sight.

 

My church doesn't believe women are lesser than men, at all.

 

Mine either.

[katemary63]

I will stand in proud judgement against a woman who would stay with someone who sexually molested their child. In fact, the very idea is so revolting to me that I'm struggling to type it.

 

:iagree:

[lionfamily1999]

The idea of women submit, man as head of household may be completely scriptural - but the definition of submission is what's in question in my mind. Can you imagine Jesus thinking for a minute that a woman should be used as a punching bag because, after all, she's under her husband's command? Can you imagine Jesus doing that? The husband is supposed to behave like Jesus - as Christ loved the church is the direction for husbands. Can you imagine Jesus behaving in any of these overbearing, harmful, hurtful ways? Did he stop Mary and Martha from living and being independant women? Did he tell the woman at the well that if she'd just let her husband(s) have his way all would be fine. Can you imagine the wrath of Jesus is someone harmed a child?

 

We also get the picture of the Proverbs woman from scripture. That is a woman I'll emulate any day. A successful business woman, a successful provider, a woman whose children call her blessed. Shoot - sounds like a lot of women I know. And they love and support their husbands. Equally importantly, they HAVE the love and support of their husbands.

 

These discussions always blow my mind because I can't imagine that any of these authors actually think about the example set by Jesus. And even if that is what works for their family they have no business condemning others who don't follow their logic. Selling a book telling others how to live has always irritated me and this is just another example of that.

I think the description you provided IS a perversion of scripture. Just as a multiple of pps wrote, men and women are equally important and our first duty, our first submission MUST be to God. I don't think submission is so far different that man is not given headship over his household, iow, I do see two extremes, both that ignore the middle ground.

 

As for self-help books, eh, they're a dime a dozen. I don't normally read them, but I have bought a few from Titus2.com, because their family is, imo, a godly family and an example that I would like to draw from.

[Quad Shot Academy]

I used to think that Christian Domestic Discipline (if you're not familiar, you'll have to Google. I shouldn't link it) was some very elaborate satire. After reading about some of these belief systems, I'm starting to think it might actually be real.

 

Is CDD that bizarro S&M thing? I've never heard of anybody I know IRL seriously promoting it, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that some folks do...

 

I do know a "denomination" that teaches this, not from the pulpit, but it is a well known tactic to control our sin natures in leadership. I always wondered if it was just the wackadoo church I got messed up with, until another WTM poster, living in another state than me, in the same "denomination", posted about her pastor spanking their teens. I found out about our head pastors spanking their teens/ young adults, after we left that church.

 

It is very sad to see so many new denominations and independent churches popping up that are embracing legalism in many ways. In my experience, legalism is one of the greatest threats to any Christian and to the Kingdom of God. If my struggles with this church have taught me anything, it is that balance is the most important thing. I was always taught that the gate was narrow and the more legalistic/perfect you were, the greatest chances of getting into that gate. But now I firmly believe that the gate is narrow and to one side is licentiousness and to the other side is legalism and only those in the middle will make it through. (I am not saying those that are legalistic will not go to heaven, but those that get into legalisim and then stray so far as certain people mentioned in this thread are in my opinon, too far gone.)

[melmichigan]

Just a little thank you to all, this thread has given my DH and I a lot to talk about in the last few days.

[coffeefreak]

As for self-help books, eh, they're a dime a dozen. I don't normally read them, but I have bought a few from Titus2.com, because their family is, imo, a godly family and an example that I would like to draw from.

 

Isn't that the Maxwells? I like them too, though I don't always agree with everything they write. They are definitely a family that you can throw out what you don't agree with without it tainting the rest.

[coffeefreak]

It is very sad to see so many new denominations and independent churches popping up that are embracing legalism in many ways. In my experience, legalism is one of the greatest threats to any Christian and to the Kingdom of God. If my struggles with this church have taught me anything, it is that balance is the most important thing. I was always taught that the gate was narrow and the more legalistic/perfect you were, the greatest chances of getting into that gate. But now I firmly believe that the gate is narrow and to one side is licentiousness and to the other side is legalism and only those in the middle will make it through. (I am not saying those that are legalistic will not go to heaven, but those that get into legalisim and then stray so far as certain people mentioned in this thread are in my opinon, too far gone.)

 

I love the way you put this! Thank you!

Dorinda

[Sputterduck]

:( I think the biggest problem is that it leads the victim to question God's approval of themself.

 

Exactly! How does a woman leave when she thinks it's all her fault. She tries day in and day out to win over her husband's heart, and deeply tied in to that in the approval of God. She is told that if she is a good enough wife, she can win over her husband without a word. No matter how hard she tries, he doesn't get better, and therefore she must not be trying hard enough. If only she can squeeze something more out of herself, then maybe God and her spouse will finally approve. Then maybe she can have the happy family she needs so badly. She is told that to give up and leave would be to sin terribly against the God she loves so dearly.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Sputterduck

[lionfamily1999]

Isn't that the Maxwells? I like them too, though I don't always agree with everything they write. They are definitely a family that you can throw out what you don't agree with without it tainting the rest.

They don't claim to know all the answers and are very upfront with their faults :) Add to that, their adult children are very upstanding and doing well (hey, it's the fruit :p) and it's a source I trust.

 

Really, I read more junk coming from non-religious quarters that makes my head explode. than garbage coming from "religious" people, iykwIm.

[lionfamily1999]

Exactly! How does a woman leave when she thinks it's all her fault. She tries day in and day out to win over her husband's heart, and deeply tied in to that in the approval of God. She is told that if she is a good enough wife, she can win over her husband without a word. No matter how hard she tries, he doesn't get better, and therefore she must not be trying hard enough. If only she can squeeze something more out of herself, then maybe God and her spouse will finally approve. Then maybe she can have the happy family she needs so badly. She is told that to give up and leave would be sin terribly against the God she loves so dearly.

See and there's little to nothing that ANY family (congregational or blood) can do to combat that. Once those blinders are on, even God has trouble being seen :(

[Impish]

Regarding child molestors:

 

I don't need to forgive anyone, as (thank GOD) none of my children have ever been harmed in that way.

 

So its not a forgiveness issue for me.

 

As far as Wolf's uncle goes...To me, someone that would molest a child, molest his OWN children, is rather like a human barrel of toxic waste. Not something I am going to ever knowingly expose my children to. Why take any known risks to their safety? If a man can prey upon his own children in that manner, I can't imagine any other child would be safe around him.

 

I've never met the man, never been harmed by him, so there's nothing I need to forgive him for. I don't see needlessly risking my children's safety by having him in my home, however.

[Joanne]

Isn't that the Maxwells? I like them too, though I don't always agree with everything they write. They are definitely a family that you can throw out what you don't agree with without it tainting the rest.

 

Here, I agree. I don't agree with the parenting, particular "baby" advice, but I find aspects of their materials helpful. I used MOH successfully many years ago, using what worked and disregarding the rest.

 

I've heard (but not determined for myself) that her work on anger is very good.

[Crimson Wife]

Can you imagine the wrath of Jesus is someone harmed a child?

 

There is NO sin so bad that Christ could not forgive the sinner IF that person was truly repentant. Jesus is all-merciful to those who repent of their sins. He knows what is hidden, even when the person is in self-denial. Christ can tell whom to forgive and who is just faking repentance. We can pray for discernment to help us figure out whether to believe the sinner's apparent repentance. But God may or may not choose to reveal that information to us.

[Sputterduck]

It is very sad to see so many new denominations and independent churches popping up that are embracing legalism in many ways. In my experience, legalism is one of the greatest threats to any Christian and to the Kingdom of God. If my struggles with this church have taught me anything, it is that balance is the most important thing. I was always taught that the gate was narrow and the more legalistic/perfect you were, the greatest chances of getting into that gate. But now I firmly believe that the gate is narrow and to one side is licentiousness and to the other side is legalism and only those in the middle will make it through. (I am not saying those that are legalistic will not go to heaven, but those that get into legalisim and then stray so far as certain people mentioned in this thread are in my opinon, too far gone.)

 

I could not agree with you more. Legalism is harmful and scary. Grace and justice must be in balance. Grace to the point of throwing out justice is not God's way. We are saved, but He still wants us to follow his rules. Justice without Grace is just as bad. That is what the pharisees got into and Jesus reacted more strongly to them than anyone else. They were obsessed with their rules and forgot love. We have the same brand of broods of vipers today.

[Sputterduck]

See and there's little to nothing that ANY family (congregational or blood) can do to combat that. Once those blinders are on, even God has trouble being seen :(

 

 

Yes, but often times it is her church telling her that.

[TXMomof4]

There is NO sin so bad that Christ could not forgive the sinner IF that person was truly repentant. Jesus is all-merciful to those who repent of their sins. He knows what is hidden, even when the person is in self-denial. Christ can tell whom to forgive and who is just faking repentance. We can pray for discernment to help us figure out whether to believe the sinner's apparent repentance. But God may or may not choose to reveal that information to us.

 

And I would rather err on the side of caution than to ever have a molester around my children. I would be the one to blame if I put my children back into that situation.

[squirtymomma]

The church (however that's defined) may say women are lesser than men, but the Bible doesn't. Different roles, but equal in value in God's sight.

 

My church doesn't believe women are lesser than men, at all.

 

I don't know if this is in response to what I said or not, but that was precisely my point. When I said church tradition, I meant the church over the centuries until recent times. I have come to believe that the Bible doesn't necessarily even dictate roles. But even those who are more traditional in their thinking of roles are at least distancing themselves from the idea that women are inferior (many Patriarchy folks claim church tradition backs up their belief... and it does). An interesting question, but maybe completely off the topic of this thread, is how men and women are indeed equal, and yet women somehow aren't capable of leading, teaching, pastoring, etc. What does it really mean that they're equal? I know what people say in response to that, but somehow it's not quite satisfying.

[lionfamily1999]

Yes, but often times it is her church telling her that.

That can go round and round. On one hand, you have a victim that is scared to tell on the other you have people that aren't discerning the truth.

 

Many of the pps mentioned how the abuse was only aluded to, or else concealed outright. It's sort of like asking how Christians know someone is repentant. Well, only God knows that, we just have to pray for discernment. The ball is dropped all over the place. I'm not trying to blame the victim, but I can't see blaming their families (cong. or blood) either. Many times the families are either trying to help, and then cut off, or completely decieved as to the situation.

[Crimson Wife]

And I would rather err on the side of caution than to ever have a molester around my children. I would be the one to blame if I put my children back into that situation.

 

I wouldn't put my kids in that situation either. The dilemma posed was whether to take back a supposedly repentant man after the children were grown up and out of the house. I think the chances that I would personally be able to do that are extremely slim to none but do we as Christians really want to say a blanket "never under any circumstances"? Never have him around children including grandchildren absolutely I would agree. But if the wife prayed for discernment and God told her that the husband had truly turned over a new leaf, is she always wrong to give him another chance?

[katemary63]

I wouldn't put my kids in that situation either. The dilemma posed was whether to take back a supposedly repentant man after the children were grown up and out of the house. I think the chances that I would personally be able to do that are extremely slim to none but do we as Christians really want to say a blanket "never under any circumstances"? Never have him around children including grandchildren absolutely I would agree. But if the wife prayed for discernment and God told her that the husband had truly turned over a new leaf, is she always wrong to give him another chance?

 

This is what I was talking about in my first post when I said the children (however grown they may be) would, in this circumstance, be left virtual orphans. Can you picture Christmas? Birthdays? You can never go to your parents home? Your mother would be mostly off limits to you. She would be one more precious thing stolen from you by his selfish, hideous act. It's the gift that keeps on taking. No victim of child sexual abuse needs their mother taken from them to boot. ( This is all assuming she was totally innocent and unknowning in the original abuse.)

 

If HE has turned over a new leaf - GREAT! Move on, start a new life, go and sin no more. But let the family he destroyed put itself back together the best way they can without him. Let the kids and grandkids have a place they can call "home" - mom's house. That is what's best for the victims and their children. Child sexual abuse is insideous, hideous, vile and heinous. I don't believe there is anything a parent could do that would be worse other then murder. And a mother returning to a relationship with the perpetrator would indeed be multipying that betayal even further. It would be....unthinkable.....more abuse.....unmotherly.

 

 

Just take it a little farther and you will see. Do you remember the young boy, (maybe age 4?), many years ago, whose biological father threw gasoline on him and lit the match, ON PURPOSE, burning him beyond recognition? He survived but is an unimaginable mass of scars and pain. Let's say his father serves 10 years in prison, gets out, calls the mom and says he is now a Christian, has changed, is sorry, still loves her and wants to come back to her. Let's say over time, she forgives him and takes him back. What do you think that would FEEL like to the boy???? Are you ready to throw up yet? Could a mother EVER love (as in romantically) the man who threw gasoline on her child and lit him on fire?? OF COURSE NOT. Why do some of you think child sexual abuse is any different? The emotional pain experienced by the victim of child sexual abuse is violent. It should be no less violent in the heart of their mother.

 

I rest my case. The answer is no. No mother should ever, under any circumstances ever consider returning to a relationship with the man who sexually abused her children. It would be inhumane.

[BMW]

Reconciling Pearl/Maxwell... my thoughts...

 

The Pearls go farther than just teaching good common sense parenting and encourage abuse. They also teach concepts that are putting women in bondage and in subjection to abusive men and when a woman asks for help IF they reply, it is that the woman needs to be more submissive. Personally, I waited EAGERLY for a response from Mr. Pearl because I was in an abusive home and was TRYING my darndest to submit and honor God and the Bible and he has NO response for me. Why would I look at anything written by someone who would be this person??? If this was your story and I was the listener, I would not ever consider taking any teaching from that person...

 

The Maxwells, however, HAVE responded. I spoke directly to Mrs. Maxwell years ago when I was struggling with submission and was having a health crisis. She listened and warmly replied. She shared graciously. She encouraged me to take care of myself! And if I disagree with girls in dresses... that's a FAR cry from justifying abuse. I can absolutely learn from the Maxwells and wear a pair of jeans... or choose a different style of homeschool curriculum.

 

Regarding submission... perhaps this is in the wording of it... I believe a husband should be the head of the home. I believe in gender roles. But, I believe a woman should be completely able to provide an income for her family if necessary and I believe a woman's voice IS to be heard and her opinions are very important for the family. And I believe in mutual submission... it starts with the man. He is to lead the home with love and understanding and a wise wife will follow... honoring his lead and speaking up as necessary (with respect)... And both the man and the wife will fail at times and forgiveness and love covers it all. That is not degrading to the woman and not enabling the man.

[Crimson Wife]

The answer is no. No mother should ever, under any circumstances ever consider returning to a relationship with the man who sexually abused her children.

 

Is that a Christian attitude, though? I don't believe that anyone's sin is so heinous as to be unforgivable through Christ. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus forgives certain sins but not others? And if it's true that a pedophile can find forgiveness through Jesus then why is it impossible for God to bring the wife discernment that the husband indeed has repented?

 

Wouldn't that go against Luke 1:37? "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

[Greta]

Let me make sure I'm understanding this...

 

It's NOT okay to take what you like of the Pearls and discard the rest, but it IS okay to take what you like of the Maxwells and discard the rest?

 

How do you reconcile the apparent hypocrisy here? :confused:

 

There is nothing at all hypocritical about saying that one person has some ideas that I can accept, some that I discard, while another person holds ideas so morally repugnant, so contrary to what I know is good and right, so vile and repulsive, that I feel I cannot trust anything they say, because much if not all of it is probably tainted by their warped perspective. That's not hypocrisy. That's discernment.

 

I know your question wasn't addressed to me, and I'm sorry for butting in. But that's what public message boards are all about. I just don't feel that Joanne is being hypocritical. I think we all do things much like this, commonly. You give people chances, but when they cross a certain line, you are simply DONE with them.

[QueenCat]

No mother should ever, under any circumstances ever consider returning to a relationship with the man who sexually abused her children. It would be inhumane.

 

:iagree: It is one thing to forgive, it is another to force your children to be around someone hurt in them is a heinous way (I consider all abuse heinous).

[Sputterduck]

Is that a Christian attitude, though? I don't believe that anyone's sin is so heinous as to be unforgivable through Christ. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus forgives certain sins but not others? And if it's true that a pedophile can find forgiveness through Jesus then why is it impossible for God to bring the wife discernment that the husband indeed has repented?

 

Wouldn't that go against Luke 1:37? "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

 

 

Perhaps that's the answer to the age old debate about what the unforgiveable sin is. Heh.

[clarkacademy]

I have been reading everyones replies and WOW!!!! I am suprised WW3 has not broke out. I had to say something though. IF my husband ever sexually assaulted my children and he served his time, turned a new leaf etc, I still don't care. How in the world can any woman let a man in her bed in her body who molested a child??? No I don't care it is unacceptable. I can't see any mother ever allowing that. Not only would your child be harmed but in another way your husband betrayed your vows. I just can't see any mother greeting with open arms a man who raped her child and commited adultery as well. There is no question in my mind these people are not fit for society at all.

[Crimson Wife]

:iagree: It is one thing to forgive, it is another to force your children to be around someone hurt in them is a heinous way (I consider all abuse heinous).

 

How is the wife taking her husband back forcing her children to be around him? Couldn't she go to visit them by herself?

[Mrs Mungo]

Is that a Christian attitude, though? I don't believe that anyone's sin is so heinous as to be unforgivable through Christ. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus forgives certain sins but not others? And if it's true that a pedophile can find forgiveness through Jesus then why is it impossible for God to bring the wife discernment that the husband indeed has repented?

 

It's not impossible but does it matter? We are commanded to forgive, we're not commanded to pretend nothing happened. Forcing your child to maintain contact with a person who grievously harmed them is furthering the abuse, imo.

[Mrs Mungo]

How is the wife taking her husband back forcing her children to be around him? Couldn't she go to visit them by herself?

 

I was thinking of the children as still *children*, not adults. Unless you're suggesting a woman should give up her children to someone else to raise in order to stay with her husband?:confused:

[Crimson Wife]

It's not impossible but does it matter? We are commanded to forgive, we're not commanded to pretend nothing happened. Forcing your child to maintain contact with a person who grievously harmed them is furthering the abuse, imo.

 

Again, why does what the mom chooses to do force the adult child to maintain contact with the abuser?

[katemary63]

Is that a Christian attitude, though? I don't believe that anyone's sin is so heinous as to be unforgivable through Christ.

 

Like I have said many times, this has nothing to do with forgivenss. I think they all should forgive him, mother and victims. But what has that got to do with the mother re-entering a relationship with this guy? Ack! You think it would be okay for the mother of the burned boy to get back into a romantic relationship with the father who set him on fire? Ack! again. Can't you see that that would show some kind of sickness on her part? It's NOT forgiveness. It's just consequences. Umm.....don't know what else to say.

[Crimson Wife]

I was thinking of the children as still *children*, not adults. Unless you're suggesting a woman should give up her children to someone else to raise in order to stay with her husband?:confused:

 

Absolutely not. The hypothetical situation was of the wife taking the supposedly repentant husband back after the children were grown up and out of the home. I don't think it's Christian to say an absolute never, ever under any circumstances. Those who do seem to be basing their argument on emotion rather than Scripture.

[katemary63]

Again, why does what the mom chooses to do force the adult child to maintain contact with the abuser?

 

Are you kidding? Can't you visualize the situation? Mom LIVES with and is married to your abuser! The victim would have to choose between not interacting in a normal way with her or seeing him. Never going to her house. Never calling her or he might answer. What about Christmas? She leaves him home alone and goes to the kid's houses? It's just sick. I can't believe you don't see that. Sorry, I just can't.

 

It's more then that, though. If my mother told me she "loved" my father in a romantic way, I would be physically ill. It would be HER betraying the fact that she is my MOTHER. If you don't understand that, then I just can't think of a way to explain it. Do you have kids????

[Crimson Wife]

Like I have said many times, this has nothing to do with forgivenss. I think they all should forgive him, mother and victims. But what has that got to do with the mother re-entering a relationship with this guy? Ack! You think it would be okay for the mother of the burned boy to get back into a romantic relationship with the father who set him on fire? Ack! again. Can't you see that that would show some kind of sickness on her part? It's NOT forgiveness. It's just consequences. Umm.....don't know what else to say.

 

Why do you believe it's impossible for God to answer the mom's prayer for discernment by showing her that the father is truly repentant IF that's the case? Please point to something in the Bible to support this assertion...

[Mrs Mungo]

Like I have said many times, this has nothing to do with forgivenss. I think they all should forgive him, mother and victims. But what has that got to do with the mother re-entering a relationship with this guy? Ack! You think it would be okay for the mother of the burned boy to get back into a romantic relationship with the father who set him on fire? Ack! again. Can't you see that that would show some kind of sickness on her part? It's NOT forgiveness. It's just consequences. Umm.....don't know what else to say.

 

I agree.

 

Absolutely not. The hypothetical situation was of the wife taking the supposedly repentant husband back after the children were grown up and out of the home. I don't think it's Christian to say an absolute never, ever under any circumstances. Those who do seem to be basing their argument on emotion rather than Scripture.

 

The original situation (from the Pearls' book) was about them encouraging women to stay with a man who had sexually abused her kids. That didn't necessarily mean grown kids, from what I read. What would be your stance on that? Should she stay with him? Yes or no? What if she was given this same "discernment"? What makes it different?

 

As far as grown kids-I still would never be with a man who did that to my kids. It's not an emotional response, it's a logical response. It would further hurt my kids to not have a full relationship with me and my spouse. Why would I want to do that to them?

 

How about Christ saying that sexually immorality is a reason for divorce? I'd say molesting your children is the height of sexual immorality.

[Impish]

How is the wife taking her husband back forcing her children to be around him? Couldn't she go to visit them by herself?

Situation with Wolf's cousins, they refuse to have anything to do with their mother, who stood by their father who molested him, and indeed, welcomed him into her home after his brief stint in jail was through.

 

You're assuming that Mom would have the OPTION of contact with her children and grandchildren. I know for a stone cold fact that it didn't happen in this family. She chose her husband, who molested their daughters, over her daughters and grandchildren. Period.

 

That he has pictures of MY children is something that angers both my dh and I.

[Mrs Mungo]

Why do you believe it's impossible for God to answer the mom's prayer for discernment by showing her that the father is truly repentant IF that's the case?

 

Again, how is this relevant to the discussion? Forgiving someone isn't the same as continuing a relationship with them. *You* point to The Bible where it is made the same.

[Crimson Wife]

It's more then that, though. If my mother told me she "loved" my father in a romantic way, I would be physically ill. It would be HER betraying the fact that she is my MOTHER. If you don't understand that, then I just can't think of a way to explain it. Do you have kids????

 

Again, you're making an argument based on emotion rather than Scripture. I can understand why, I truly do! :grouphug: But looking at it from the standpoint of a purely theological argument, I'm just not seeing the Biblical justification for saying an absolute "never".

[katemary63]

Why do you believe it's impossible for God to answer the mom's prayer for discernment by showing her that the father is truly repentant IF that's the case? Please point to something in the Bible to support this assertion...

 

 

It has nothing to do with repentance. It has everything to do with the fact that she is THEIR MOTHER. Where is your scripture that encourages a mother to do such a thing? I do let scripture rule over my emotions. But I don't completly deny the emotions I feel for my kids. I'm not going to force myself to do what feels like betrayal to me AND THEM, unless there is a scripture that would demand it of me. There is no such thing. And again, this is NOT ABOUT forgiveness or repentance. Oh man....I know people disagree about things, see things differently, but come on. Do you have kids??? Seriously?

[Crimson Wife]

How about Christ saying that sexually immorality is a reason for divorce?

 

Did Jesus say that the wronged spouse HAD to get a divorce? Or that if they did divorce, they could never, ever reconcile?

[katemary63]

Again, you're making an argument based on emotion rather than Scripture. I can understand why, I truly do! :grouphug: But looking at it from the standpoint of a purely theological argument, I'm just not seeing the Biblical justification for saying an absolute "never".

 

It's in the Biblical definition of "mother." There are many beautiful verses that describe a mother's love. My favorite:

 

"As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you." Isaiah 66:13

 

Do you see how important a mother's "comfort" is to a child? God compares his comfort to hers. Wow! And I will argue that that child could be of any age. It's in the fact that if she chooses to do what you suggest, she can no longer be a mother in any real sense, but especially emotionally, to her child. Do you have kids???

[Daisy]

Sigh, it isn't a black and white issue.

 

There are so many emotions I imagine my Mom deals with and so many lies my Dad has told her. She probably doesn't know which way is up. I know our family NEVER talks about it. It is taboo. Generations worth. My grandfather, aunts, Dad, sister...silence.

 

The fact is that this is no different than any other woman who stays with an abuser. They simply are not strong enough to leave.

 

She has told me she stayed with him to basically make sure he never does anything like that again. I think she almost believes that.

 

I don't hate my mother.

 

I love her. I hope she is happy.

 

Yes, I see my father for her sake. I pace the hallways all night long when he visits because I want to see HER.

 

All I know is I'm never going to understand it.

 

That is why I seriously do not like marriage and parenting books or movements. Rarely can they take into account all the unknowns in people's lives.

[Crimson Wife]

Katemary63, what about Genesis 2:24? That would seem to privilege the husband/wife relationship over a parent/child one.

 

Again, this is all purely a theological argument. IRL I certainly would strongly DIScourage a wife from taking back her husband because I think it extremely likely that what she feels is discernment from God is really just wishful thinking on her part. :sad:

[Sputterduck]

Katemary63, what about Genesis 2:24? That would seem to privilege the husband/wife relationship over a parent/child one.

 

Again, this is all purely a theological argument. IRL I certainly would strongly DIScourage a wife from taking back her husband because I think it extremely likely that what she feels is discernment from God is really just wishful thinking on her part. :sad:

 

Well, the husband/wife relationship is null and void because he committed adultery. Adultery in the worst form, no less.