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

[smrtmama]

See, I find this very disturbing.

 

I believe children should be the prime focus of both the mother and the father. That relationship should trump all others. The children's well being and health - physical, intellectual, emotional should be of prime consideration for both of the parents. It is not a matter of child worship. It is a matter of investing in our species. Our children should take primacy over the whims, or even needs, of an adult. Just as you say, the adults are inviduals, responsible for themselves. They can take care of their own needs, or defer the gratification of their needs until the needs of their children have been taken care of.

 

I think it was in an Elizabeth George novel (not a parenting author, a mystery author; I think it was in Playing for the Ashes) where a woman says that she committed one othe most awful crimes a mother can commit - she loved her husband more than her child. I think that was a profound statement and has stuck with me for years now.

 

But then I also don't think marriage is necessarily permanent. And I suspect that early church teachings were not about permanence. I think the early church was concerned about men running off and not supporting their wives and offspring and so the church sought to put some responsibility on men to do this. It wasn't about permanence so much as about staying & recognizing his duties to women & children who are vulnerable.

 

:iagree:

[lionfamily1999]

See, I find this very disturbing.

 

I believe children should be the prime focus of both the mother and the father. That relationship should trump all others. The children's well being and health - physical, intellectual, emotional should be of prime consideration for both of the parents. It is not a matter of child worship. It is a matter of investing in our species. Our children should take primacy over the whims, or even needs, of an adult. Just as you say, the adults are inviduals, responsible for themselves. They can take care of their own needs, or defer the gratification of their needs until the needs of their children have been taken care of.

 

I think it was in an Elizabeth George novel (not a parenting author, a mystery author; I think it was in Playing for the Ashes) where a woman says that she committed one othe most awful crimes a mother can commit - she loved her husband more than her child. I think that was a profound statement and has stuck with me for years now.

 

But then I also don't think marriage is necessarily permanent. And I suspect that early church teachings were not about permanence. I think the early church was concerned about men running off and not supporting their wives and offspring and so the church sought to put some responsibility on men to do this. It wasn't about permanence so much as about staying & recognizing his duties to women & children who are vulnerable.

Husband and wife are supposed to be one flesh. It's a different dynamic than parent/child. As one flesh, one person, you are connected in a way that is very different from any other relationship that could arise. As one flesh, you have a duty to put your children on the right path.

 

I believe, the issues arise much further back (in the h/w relationship) than at the birth of their children. If the marraige isn't founded on God to begin with, then the foundation will need work, iykwIm.

 

As for marraige being permanent, it would seem the scriptures are quite clear. If you're speaking of a Biblical marraige, then 'let no man tear asunder what God has joined' (loosely quoted). Marraige is meant to be permanent.

 

I know you aren't coming from a Biblical viewpoint. I'm not trying to 'school' you or anything :p Just trying to clarify from my little knowledge of the scriptures. I don't believe that having a 'godly' marraige, without God is possible. I am sure that women can submit without it and men can be the head of their homes. I know folks can raise their kids without it, but I do think that for a marraige to be 'godly' it needs to be so completely for it to work at all. IOW, you can't half a** it, it's all or nothing. The problems pop up when you only do whatever is easy, without the study, prayer, and submission to God.

[Crimson Wife]

People who hold the extreme patricarchical view take a few verses to an unbiblical extreme, failing to balance them against the rest of Scripture.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Joanne]

Just one I haven't heard mentioned - a Biblical church would not enable a man to abuse a woman or children. God has set up protection for the flock by giving numerous instructions for church discipline and in certain cases that would even involve civil authorities.

 

It is sickening that such perversion goes on under the cloak of so called "Christianity". In a Biblical church the pastors God has placed over the flock protect them with sound teaching and church discipline. A man who is emotionally, verbally, or physically abusing his family is in disobedience to God and his pastors would care enough about his family AND his own soul to step in, either leading that man to true repentance or getting him out of there and either way, at all times, ensuring his family was safe and provided for.

 

This would be ideal, indeed it IS the ideal. But it doesn't happen. It (wrongly) assumes a lot of things about abuse and the abusers.

 

1) Many men who abuse (and it is mostly, by far, men) are charming, charismatic, likeable. You do not know they abuse. The wives, changed over years of the abuse dynamic, begin to feel THEY are the ones that are wrong because people, churches, employers, etc all seem to think he is just fine.

 

2) Abusers do not wear signs that say "I called my wife a _*$*ing *u*t yesterday in front of the kids".

 

3) In many systems, Christian Churches among them, abuse is institutionalized. The rhetoric around divorce, for example, and the way churches have responded to the divorce rate when it climbed has made it less likely that a woman will recognize, let alone, report abuse and less likely an institution will respond in helpful ways. This is true in even mainline, more "liberal" churches.

 

4) The quoted paragraphs completely ignores or is unaware of the abuse dynamic.

 

5) The quote also assumes certain type of abuse such as obvious physical. This quickly becomes a problem when women (and family systems in general) don't recognize the more subtle but equally damaging abuse of control, power, verbal, manipulation, sexual.

[JenniferB]

Exactly. Biblical submission is not extreme, nor does the wife's responsibility to submit exist in a vacuum of morality and common sense. The exhortation to submit is coupled with the man's exhortation to love sacrificially. Submitting doesn't mean never questioning your husband's sin or holding him accountable for it. It doesn't mean having no voice and making no decisions.

 

People who hold the extreme patricarchical view take a few verses to an unbiblical extreme, failing to balance them against the rest of Scripture...including the parts that talk about what to do if a brother is in sin. A husband is also a brother in Christ.

 

I do empathize with Vyckie, though. Suffering such extreme abuse from childhood is bound to create this unhealthy understanding of men. I hope she finds healing.

 

:iagree: Yes, exactly. Rosy & I are on the same page. "us vs. them" Just kidding. :lol:

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

This would be ideal, indeed it IS the ideal. But it doesn't happen. It (wrongly) assumes a lot of things about abuse and the abusers.

 

1) Many men who abuse (and it is mostly, by far, men) are charming, charismatic, likeable. You do not know they abuse. The wives, changed over years of the abuse dynamic, begin to feel THEY are the ones that are wrong because people, churches, employers, etc all seem to think he is just fine.

 

2) Abusers do not wear signs that say "I called my wife a _*$*ing *u*t yesterday in front of the kids".

 

3) In many systems, Christian Churches among them, abuse is institutionalized. The rhetoric around divorce, for example, and the way churches have responded to the divorce rate when it climbed has made it less likely that a woman will recognize, let alone, report abuse and less likely an institution will respond in helpful ways. This is true in even mainline, more "liberal" churches.

 

4) The quoted paragraphs completely ignores or is unaware of the abuse dynamic.

 

5) The quote also assumes certain type of abuse such as obvious physical. This quickly becomes a problem when women (and family systems in general) don't recognize the more subtle but equally damaging abuse of control, power, verbal, manipulation, sexual.

 

What you are not aware of is that I have been in a non-physically abusive relationship (ex husband) and a physically abusive one (father) and am currently in a church that has in fact dealt, Biblically, with multiple abusive situations which were predominantly, if not solely, non-physical (the ones I know about).

 

What you seem to also be unaware of is that not every building or group of people called a 'church' is, in fact, part of the body of Christ and what this is also not taking into account is that in the real body of Christ there is the real God really working in the lives of His people. I understand that most people are in fact not aware of this because the whole country is flooded with man centered and perverted religion. No wonder people walk away from it. I did too.

[Laurie4b]

OK, now, I have read some of the Pearl's stuff and like 2/3 of it. I am only 1/3 of the way through Created to be His Helpmeet. I haven't yet read this supposed quote, but here are my thoughts on it. (This is coming from someone whose stepfather used to paddle harshly, leaving marks that sometimes lasted more than 2 hours-not a fond remembrance.)

 

They are presupposing two primary truths about family and forgiveness:

 

Wives are to put their relationship with their husband above the relationship with their children because it is designed to be permanent and she is merely the guidance and support for the formative years of her children, at which point, they are then individuals, responsible for themselves; separate. We tend to be child worshipers in our culture.

 

What was the conversation Jesus had with Peter (I think it was he?) about forgiveness? How many times do we forgive? Did Jesus then qualify his answer with-"except if he has molested a child?" Or "except if he has hit his wife?" Or we might as well inject our favorite cause for hate and stubborn refusal to forgive. Ever stop to think about what life must be like for the human being (and yes they are still a human being, loved by God) who commits such horrible crimes and who is then truly repentant and turns towards God, but has no one willing to help guide him, believe him, shelter him, employ him, etc. because we are Sunday Christians who like to claim we follow the Bible but when it gets difficult, forget it!

 

Notice Mr. Pearl did say that he first expects the wife to insure her children's safety-maybe by sending them to live with grandparents? (This one is a little iffy-I think the man is the one who should move out-go to the Rescue Mission to live.) Notice too, that if he serves time, (he figures 10-20 years, though that is unlikely) Mr. Pearl presumes the children would be grown and out of the home when the wife then welcomes her husband back. Would the children feel betrayed? Yes. Is it really their call? No. Again, her primary job requirements have been fulfilled as far as they are concerned. If she is trying to fulfill the commandments of the Bible regarding forgiveness, then I would at least respect that. At least she is trying to do the right thing according to her beliefs. Now, I would not let any grandkids visit, but that's another story. You can be forgiving, but there's no requirement to tempt the man to sin again and put your kids in harms way.

 

Now I don't agree with some of the hitting notions that the Pearl's seem to advocate-the marks that fade..it's still a mark. What is a Christian doing leaving marks? I know?! But forgiveness? Yes. Have I ever left a mark on my child (a handprint, perhaps, on a butt cheek-faded within 2 hours)? Yes. Was I sorry? Yes. Did I receive God's forgiveness? Yes.

Should I not have? You all have left me thinking that you get to be the judges of who gets forgiven and who doesn't.

 

Now, if my husband molested my kids, his a** would be gone. But I would definitely make it a goal to try to find it within my heart, at some time before I left this earth, to forgive him.

 

My very long two cents.

 

Lakota

 

Forgiveness is about letting go of your right to "collect" what you're owed.(Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors). When someone sins against you, they truly owe you: they failed in their responsibility to love, etc. I believe Christian forgiveness is turning that "They owe me" note over to Christ to collect as he sees fit. Because I am his debtor, every bit of "accounts owed" to me, rightfully belong to him. It's then up to him to write "Forgiven" in his blood as he has done on my accounts, or to collect what is due on the Day of Judgment. That leaves him as the judge, not me.

 

Continuing in a relationship is different. You can forgive while remaining separated from a person who has harmed you or your children.

 

Incest is a very heinous form of adultery. Adultery was taken care of by stoning in the OT. Thus, there would have been no question of women welcoming back child molesters with open arms.

 

I totally agree with you--it's the man who should be moving out--not the kids. Only he should be moving into the penitentiary. And the Bible speaks to the spouse who would fail to protect her children: those who put a stumbling block in the lives of a little child--it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea.

 

I see nothing in the Bible about a hierarchy of whether one is to love spouse or children more--all those relationships are designed to be permanent, though roles change for the kids as they move into adulthood. The parent-child relationship is used as a metaphor for God the father and his people; the husband wife relationship is used as a metaphor for the love of Christ and the church. I don't see one as more important than the other.

[OnTheBrink]

What you are not aware of is that I have been in a non-physically abusive relationship (ex husband) and a physically abusive one (father) and am currently in a church that has in fact dealt, Biblically, with multiple abusive situations which were predominantly, if not solely, non-physical (the ones I know about).

 

What you seem to also be unaware of is that not every building or group of people called a 'church' is, in fact, part of the body of Christ and what this is also not taking into account is that in the real body of Christ there is the real God really working in the lives of His people. I understand that most people are in fact not aware of this because the whole country is flooded with man centered and perverted religion. No wonder people walk away from it. I did too.

 

Excellent post.

[CAMom]

I've spent the last few days reading Vyckie's story. It is a sad and dysfunctional story to be sure. My heart aches for her and the abuse she has suffered over the course of her life.

 

But, as I've really pondered this, I've wondered where the real issue lies. Is the teaching of wives being submissive to their husbands dangerous? I don't think that is the problem. What has been coming into focus for me is that the truly dangerous teaching in Christendom at large is this: Christians shouldn't sin and they all need to be perfect.

 

This isn't a teaching that is verbalized plainly in the Christian community for sure. Although, there are a few outspoken proponents and I believe Michael Pearl is one of them.

 

However, it is a definite undercurrent and an unspoken rule. As a result, Christians from all walks of life put on their "happy face" and deny the opportunity to be transparent with one another. As a result, the discipling and the advice they receive is not truly applicable to their given situations.

 

Let's take Vyckie as an example. When she was first introduced to the concept of submission and guided in that direction by the women in that first Bible study, she had not been honest with them about the reality of her marriage. It's my understanding that those women knew nothing of the severity of the perversion to which she was subjected. It wasn't until she spilled all about the weekend her husband tortured her for hours and hours on her phone call with Sami and confessed her suicidal thoughts that she was removed from her situation.

 

In addition, she never seemed to be honest about what was going on with Warren either. She gave hints as to their issues while she and the home church women were doing that book study. At that time, she only had a hint that one of the other lady's marriage was not perfect either. She finally let it out when she e-mailed the one husband with the truth about what was going on in their family dynamic. At that point, she was not just told to submit (at least she didn't say that she was) but that man offered to get involved and help Warren.

 

I think we see this erroneous teaching of Christian perfection spilling over into many other areas of Christian life-not just the submission sphere. Look at the pastors who fall in such public ways with their sexual immorality. These are things they've hidden for years and years because they get the message that righteous Christians don't struggle with sin.

 

So, I don't think the answer is to throw out biblical principles. The answer is to remind believers that they are sinners and, as such, they are not capable of living perfect lives. The encouragement needs to be to be transparent and honest, not perfect and sinless. We need to build relationships based on truth not on a fabrication that we present so as not to be judged.

 

Sinners are going to populate the church until the end. If we are honest about that, then we can begin to support one another and hold one another accountable for what is true.

[Laurie4b]

This would be ideal, indeed it IS the ideal. But it doesn't happen. It (wrongly) assumes a lot of things about abuse and the abusers.

 

1) Many men who abuse (and it is mostly, by far, men) are charming, charismatic, likeable. You do not know they abuse. The wives, changed over years of the abuse dynamic, begin to feel THEY are the ones that are wrong because people, churches, employers, etc all seem to think he is just fine.

 

2) Abusers do not wear signs that say "I called my wife a _*$*ing *u*t yesterday in front of the kids".

 

3) In many systems, Christian Churches among them, abuse is institutionalized. The rhetoric around divorce, for example, and the way churches have responded to the divorce rate when it climbed has made it less likely that a woman will recognize, let alone, report abuse and less likely an institution will respond in helpful ways. This is true in even mainline, more "liberal" churches.

 

4) The quoted paragraphs completely ignores or is unaware of the abuse dynamic.

 

5) The quote also assumes certain type of abuse such as obvious physical. This quickly becomes a problem when women (and family systems in general) don't recognize the more subtle but equally damaging abuse of control, power, verbal, manipulation, sexual.

 

To say "it doesn't happen" is to have knowledge of how things work in all churches, which of course none of us have. It's more reasonable to say x,y, z is often the way it is handled.

 

I'm sure our church would and has made mistakes, and yet I would say they very much approach the ideal, and would admit their mistakes when made. It would be very safe for a women in a relationship in which she was being controlled/etc to talk to any of our staff. She would get help and support. We're conservative theologically, but separation is seen as necessary because of safety in some cases; abuse is one example. Divorce is not the ideal, but Christ said it was allowed in the OT because of "hardness of hearts." An abuser has a hard heart. Our church also has a recovery group for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. So not all churches handle things poorly. None handle things perfectly.

[Sputterduck]

Let's take Vyckie as an example. When she was first introduced to the concept of submission and guided in that direction by the women in that first Bible study, she had not been honest with them about the reality of her marriage. It's my understanding that those women knew nothing of the severity of the perversion to which she was subjected. It wasn't until she spilled all about the weekend her husband tortured her for hours and hours on her phone call with Sami and confessed her suicidal thoughts that she was removed from her situation.

 

 

Of course she didn't tell anyone the truth. Have you ever been in a very abusive situation? There is a reason women don't talk about it. Often the consequences of reaching out are the escalation of abuse.

 

I did try to call someone once. That resulted in the phone cord being ripped out of the wall and then ripped into pieces. Of course, by the end of the night I was on my knees begging him to forgive me for causing him to act that way. Once I did leave for the sake of my child and I was finally honest with people, they told me to go back and pray, as if I hadn't spent countless nights in fear praying and begging God for help.

[CAMom]

Of course she didn't tell anyone the truth. Have you ever been in a very abusive situation? There is a reason women don't talk about it. Often the consequences of reaching out are the escalation of abuse.

 

I did try to call someone once. That resulted in the phone cord being ripped out of the wall and then ripped into pieces. Of course, by the end of the night I was on my knees begging him to forgive me for causing him to act that way. Once I did leave for the sake of my child and I was finally honest with people, they told me to go back and pray, as if I hadn't spent countless nights in fear praying and begging God for help.

 

:grouphug: I'm so sorry for what you've endured. I cannot even imagine.:grouphug:

 

I do not deny that abuse exists at all. I know it does. My point, though, is that the biblical principle of submission is not at fault for abuse. Sinful people (the abusers not the abused) are at fault for abuse.

 

But, I do believe that the unspoken teaching that Christians are to be perfect opens the door to all sorts of perversions because it causes people to hide who they really are.

[Sputterduck]

:grouphug: I'm so sorry for what you've endured. I cannot even imagine.:grouphug:

 

I do not deny that abuse exists at all. I know it does. My point, though, is that the biblical principle of submission is not at fault for abuse. Sinful people (the abusers not the abused) are at fault for abuse.

 

But, I do believe that the unspoken teaching that Christians are to be perfect opens the door to all sorts of perversions because it causes people to hide who they really are.

 

Yes, abusers are at fault. I just worry about the door left open for abuse with submission and that it can take away what little strength a woman has to get out when she needs to. There is always the nagging thought that if one just submitted more (even though many women are already submitting everything in these circumstance) then it would be okay, and therefore it must be her fault. It can end up in her being more of a doormat, and the philosophy is often taken by abusive men to mean that their abuse is justified.

[lionfamily1999]

Yes, abusers are at fault. I just worry about the door left open for abuse with submission and that it can take away what little strength a woman has to get out when she needs to. There is always the nagging thought that if one just submitted more (even though many women are already submitting everything in these circumstance) then it would be okay, and therefore it must be her fault. It can end up in her being more of a doormat, and the philosophy is often taken by abusive men to mean that their abuse is justified.

:( I think the biggest problem is that it leads the victim to question God's approval of themself. That box isn't made by submission, or God, or scripture, it's made by the abuser. They are, from what I've heard, generally skilled at using anything to create a cage for their victims.

 

:grouphug:

[Pajama Mama]

In my heart, my marriage is for life. I do put my husband above the kids in some ways. He and I are a team. I do not allowed the kids to divide and conquer us although they try. But as a team, dh and I put the children first. We scrimp and save for things that they want and need. We put our plans aside to take them to where they need to go(most of the time).

 

However, if I had a spouse that harmed my children in a sexual way that would not be the case. First, I'd turn him into a eunuch(unick). Then I would turn him into the police and never allow him around his kids again. I would never get back together with him. I would support my child that tried to forgive him. But forgiveness wouldn't be mine to give. I suppose forgiveness could be given to him trashing our family and forever hurting our child. But if the child in question did not want to forgive, I would have no right to do so. The thought of being romantic with a person who did that to your child is really disgusting. It would feel like a type of abuse to that child to be intimate with that person again.

[Laurie4b]

I understand that you didn't say a teen couldn't abuse someone. I'm just not sure why a teen can't be a pedophile. Here are the definitions I found and I don't see any reason why pre teen can't fit this description especially if the victim is younger and if it is ongoing.

 

pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

 

pedophile: one affected with pedophilia

 

Teens can be pedophiles, but many teens who sexually abuse children are not pedophiles ( they are not sexually attracted to children), but they experiment on young children because it's a safer way to explore their sexuality than with peers. To the child being exploited, yes, the experience is the same (though many preteen/teen explorers don't go as far or have the same frequency as a pedophile, so do less damage) but the issue of what motivates the behavior is different. Most teens who sexually abused a child in experimentation actually do repent and don't have sexual contact with children again. Many continue to feel deep remorse all their lives. It's one reason that teens are not allowed to take kids to the bathroom in our church; 20% of the sexual abuse in churches is by teens. Few of those are pedophiles.

[momtoboys]

As far as the whole abuse issue. . .unfortunately churches/groups of thought that tend to lean towards cultishness (is that a word?) foster this type of abuse.

 

It ends up leaving not only physical damage on the individual (if they were physically abused), but worse. . emotional trauma because they have been trained to accept false guilt and responsibility for the abuser's actions. These types of situations can be extremely screwed up and difficult to navigate.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Here is the link where he talks about "leaving marks after two hours" as well as the molester quote. They are NOT taken out of context.

 

The more I read of him the more I think that maybe he isn't xian at all, maybe he is an non-xian who is writing all this garbage just to make xians look bad?? It just CAN'T be real!

 

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=75&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=81&tx_ttnews[backPid]=71&tx_ttnews[sViewPointer]=5&cHash=83d53eb1eb

 

 

I can't seem to make the whole link work, but if you copy it and paste it, it links.

Edited November 23, 2009 by ThatCyndiGirl

[Sputterduck]

The more I read of him the more I think that maybe he isn't xian at all, maybe he is an non-xian who is writing all this garbage just to make xians look bad?? It just CAN'T be real!

 

 

But it Is real and he has a ton of followers who think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm scared for people following him.

[Joanne]

I'm sure our church would and has made mistakes, and yet I would say they very much approach the ideal, and would admit their mistakes when made. It would be very safe for a women in a relationship in which she was being controlled/etc to talk to any of our staff. She would get help and support. We're conservative theologically, but separation is seen as necessary because of safety in some cases; abuse is one example. Divorce is not the ideal, but Christ said it was allowed in the OT because of "hardness of hearts." An abuser has a hard heart. Our church also has a recovery group for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. So not all churches handle things poorly. None handle things perfectly.

 

What I posted about - the institionalized sanction of abuse - can and still does happen in churches like yours. I'm not saying it happens in yours; I'm saying it happens even with abuse programs in place.

 

The above quote also lacks information about the abuse dynamic. Even if it's safe for an abused women to talk to your staff and she would get help and support HER REALITY is that such an action is NEVER safe. Ever. And she's in much more danger after she's taken steps to get protected than she was in the home.

 

What I've gone through 3 years post divorce is ongoing abuse dynamic; sanctioned by the Family Law Institution and perpetuated by his (mainline, liberal, progressive church).

[lionfamily1999]

What I posted about - the institionalized sanction of abuse - can and still does happen in churches like yours. I'm not saying it happens in yours; I'm saying it happens even with abuse programs in place.

 

The above quote also lacks information about the abuse dynamic. Even if it's safe for an abused women to talk to your staff and she would get help and support HER REALITY is that such an action is NEVER safe. Ever. And she's in much more danger after she's taken steps to get protected than she was in the home.

 

What I've gone through 3 years post divorce is ongoing abuse dynamic; sanctioned by the Family Law Institution and perpetuated by his (mainline, liberal, progressive church).

So, what are you recommending? No church?

 

Just curious.

[Joanne]

 

But, as I've really pondered this, I've wondered where the real issue lies. Is the teaching of wives being submissive to their husbands dangerous? I don't think that is the problem. What has been coming into focus for me is that the truly dangerous teaching in Christendom at large is this: Christians shouldn't sin and they all need to be perfect.

 

 

 

So, I don't think the answer is to throw out biblical principles. The answer is to remind believers that they are sinners and, as such, they are not capable of living perfect lives. The encouragement needs to be to be transparent and honest, not perfect and sinless. We need to build relationships based on truth not on a fabrication that we present so as not to be judged.

 

.

 

While I don't find wife-only or wifely submission Biblical, I do agree with your second paragraph.

 

I *do* believe, as a foundation, wife only submission is unhealthy but dangerous? Not necessarily.

 

However, it's not the reason Vyckie's life went so wonky. It was just a place for dysfunction and abuse to accelerate. Abusers will find and *use* situations - the cultishness and dogma around extreme QF and Patriarchy provides a place for abuse.

 

 

I think what I see under-responded to (and often fueled on) is the cultishness instead of discernment. There are a lot of Christian bandwagons, lots of platitudes accepted as Biblical, lots of ritual, routine and unspoken rules that harm people.

[Scarlett]

So, what are you recommending? No church?

 

Just curious.

 

I'm curious too. Because although I do agree that even when a woman has support she often is so deep in that she can't see it AND/OR there is not enough support in the world to stop some forms of abuse (such as Joanne's ongoing battles with her X).

 

Just FTR, I belong to a conservative non main stream religion that believes a scriptural divorce (meaning allowing for remarriage) is only allowable on the grounds of adultery. However, NEVER, not one time in my horrible 26 year marriage was I told to stay and accept my husband's abuse. I was comforted, I was prayed for, I was given practical help at the times I did leave. I was assured that no one had the right to tell me how much was too much to take of his abuse. And if someone had said that I would thought they were wacked out and go over their head. :tongue_smilie:

[CAMom]

However, it's not the reason Vyckie's life went so wonky. It was just a place for dysfunction and abuse to accelerate. Abusers will find and *use* situations - the cultishness and dogma around extreme QF and Patriarchy provides a place for abuse.

 

 

I think what I see under-responded to (and often fueled on) is the cultishness instead of discernment. There are a lot of Christian bandwagons, lots of platitudes accepted as Biblical, lots of ritual, routine and unspoken rules that harm people.

 

And, with this, :iagree: 100%!!

[Joanne]

So, what are you recommending? No church?

 

Just curious.

 

My family attends church.

[OH_Homeschooler]

The more I read of him the more I think that maybe he isn't xian at all, maybe he is an non-xian who is writing all this garbage just to make xians look bad?? It just CAN'T be real!

 

 

Thank you for posting that link. I just wanted to say that while I agree with you that this is horrific, I must say I am sick of hearing Christians dismiss incidents like these by saying someone they disagree with isn't really a Christian. There are in fact some Christians who believe in God AND do bad things. I'm just sick of people trying to distance themselves from the basic truth of the matter. These people believe in the same God that all Christians do, they just have a different interpretation of the same book you read.

 

Which is just one of the million reasons I am now an atheist. Because when you look at the religion from an outside perspective, it really is full of hypocrisy.

[Joanne]

Thank you for posting that link. I just wanted to say that while I agree with you that this is horrific, I must say I am sick of hearing Christians talk about incidents like these by saying someone they disagree with isn't really a Christian. There are in fact some Christians who believe in God AND do bad things. I'm just sick of people trying to distance themselves from the basic truth of the matter. These people believe in the same God that all Christians do, they just have a different interpretation of the same book you read.

 

Which is just one of the million reasons I am now an atheist. Because when you look at the religion from an outside perspective, it really is full of hypocrisy.

 

I know what you are saying, but I don't think THAT is what she was getting at. I think she was saying that he must be deliberately a farce because his recommendations and advice are so clearly extreme, exaggerated, over the top that they seem suspect because any reasonable analysis of them speaks to crazyness.

 

So, I think she posted the Christian "question" not questioning his Christianity but wondering if it's some sick experiment or action on his part because it.can't.be.real that people believe in and buy into that stuff.

[lionfamily1999]

I'm curious too. Because although I do agree that even when a woman has support she often is so deep in that she can't see it AND/OR there is not enough support in the world to stop some forms of abuse (such as Joanne's ongoing battles with her X).

 

Just FTR, I belong to a conservative non main stream religion that believes a scriptural divorce (meaning allowing for remarriage) is only allowable on the grounds of adultery. However, NEVER, not one time in my horrible 26 year marriage was I told to stay and accept my husband's abuse. I was comforted, I was prayed for, I was given practical help at the times I did leave. I was assured that no one had the right to tell me how much was too much to take of his abuse. And if someone had said that I would thought they were wacked out and go over their head. :tongue_smilie:

I think a pp was trying to say much the same thing. It's not so much a particular church's "fault" if someone can't come outside the abuse to get help. You could have all the support in the world and open arms to run to (and you do, in God), but a manipulative abuser can make it invisible to their victims (and they do).

 

However, you can't chuck it all out, because an abuser can use it to manipulate. I remember reading about a child that was terrified of books. Not because they couldn't or had difficulty reading, but because their parent beat them with it. You can't ban books, because an abuser uses them to manipulate. You can't throw out the Bible, or God for those reasons either.

 

 

 

Joanne - just saw your response. I'm just wondering, based on your posts, what you recommend? It seems like no church is good enough, no teaching is sound. Where do you go from there?

Edited November 23, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

Thank you for posting that link. I just wanted to say that while I agree with you that this is horrific, I must say I am sick of hearing Christians dismiss incidents like these by saying someone they disagree with isn't really a Christian. There are in fact some Christians who believe in God AND do bad things. I'm just sick of people trying to distance themselves from the basic truth of the matter. These people believe in the same God that all Christians do, they just have a different interpretation of the same book you read.

 

 

The fundamentals are not open for interpretation and the fact of the matter is that a tree is known by it's fruit. No one is saying that God's people don't sin but they do not abide in sin as a way of life. The Bible repeated makes a distinction and mentions repeatedly that there are those who call themselves followers of Christ that are not and they will be made known by their fruit. It even describes clearly what that fruit is.

 

God's people are born by one Spirit, bearing witness to one Truth, who bears the same fruit (although in different quantities according to our different stages of growth) regardless of our peripheral disagreements of things not clearly put forth by Scripture while anyone teaching what is contrary to Scripture has no business naming themselves by the God they're opposing.

[Laurie4b]

Yes, I noticed that too about the extremes. And I've noticed that a lot of women who get into the patriarchal ideas seem to have a severe view of God (which is probably why they choose severe men) and believe it is right to "follow the narrow path"....which most people are too worldly to find. I hope, too, that she comes to a right understanding of God and the freedom of life in Christ.

 

I think these are very good points. Severe view of God/marrying a severe husband--the two feed into each other.

 

Spiritual superiority is frequently the bait for these false teaching traps.

[Sputterduck]

while anyone teaching what is contrary to Scripture has no business naming themselves by the God they're opposing.

 

You mean like Mr. Pearl?

[Crimson Wife]

The fundamentals are not open for interpretation and the fact of the matter is that a tree is known by it's fruit. No one is saying that God's people don't sin but they do not abide in sin as a way of life. The Bible repeated makes a distinction and mentions repeatedly that there are those who call themselves followers of Christ that are not and they will be made known by their fruit.

:hurray:

[Rosy]

 

I think what I see under-responded to (and often fueled on) is the cultishness instead of discernment. There are a lot of Christian bandwagons, lots of platitudes accepted as Biblical, lots of ritual, routine and unspoken rules that harm people.

 

This is a good reminder that I as a Christian need to cling to God and His Word all the more. We do have a lot of sacred cows....I will agree that following those blindly can lead to sickness in all areas of life.

[Laurie4b]

I've spent the last few days reading Vyckie's story. It is a sad and dysfunctional story to be sure. My heart aches for her and the abuse she has suffered over the course of her life.

 

But, as I've really pondered this, I've wondered where the real issue lies. Is the teaching of wives being submissive to their husbands dangerous? I don't think that is the problem. What has been coming into focus for me is that the truly dangerous teaching in Christendom at large is this: Christians shouldn't sin and they all need to be perfect.

 

This isn't a teaching that is verbalized plainly in the Christian community for sure. Although, there are a few outspoken proponents and I believe Michael Pearl is one of them.

 

However, it is a definite undercurrent and an unspoken rule. As a result, Christians from all walks of life put on their "happy face" and deny the opportunity to be transparent with one another. As a result, the discipling and the advice they receive is not truly applicable to their given situations.

 

Let's take Vyckie as an example. When she was first introduced to the concept of submission and guided in that direction by the women in that first Bible study, she had not been honest with them about the reality of her marriage. It's my understanding that those women knew nothing of the severity of the perversion to which she was subjected. It wasn't until she spilled all about the weekend her husband tortured her for hours and hours on her phone call with Sami and confessed her suicidal thoughts that she was removed from her situation.

 

In addition, she never seemed to be honest about what was going on with Warren either. She gave hints as to their issues while she and the home church women were doing that book study. At that time, she only had a hint that one of the other lady's marriage was not perfect either. She finally let it out when she e-mailed the one husband with the truth about what was going on in their family dynamic. At that point, she was not just told to submit (at least she didn't say that she was) but that man offered to get involved and help Warren.

 

I think we see this erroneous teaching of Christian perfection spilling over into many other areas of Christian life-not just the submission sphere. Look at the pastors who fall in such public ways with their sexual immorality. These are things they've hidden for years and years because they get the message that righteous Christians don't struggle with sin.

 

So, I don't think the answer is to throw out biblical principles. The answer is to remind believers that they are sinners and, as such, they are not capable of living perfect lives. The encouragement needs to be to be transparent and honest, not perfect and sinless. We need to build relationships based on truth not on a fabrication that we present so as not to be judged.

 

Sinners are going to populate the church until the end. If we are honest about that, then we can begin to support one another and hold one another accountable for what is true.

 

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head .(I haven't read all of Vycki's story but what I've read is incredibly sad and I don't want to be responding directly to her). What I've seen of people in general who get caught up in spiritual extremes is that not just perfection but spiritual superiority is the bait in the trap. That's what keeps them immune from input that might be corrective (eg I did read the part of V's story where they stopped at one of his old Christian professor's homes and this and the wife expressed opinions, but they "pitied" the man. There was not a mind to question "Hmmm. Wonder why that happens. Could we be wrong?" ) The spiritual superiority part is what keeps people going deeper and keeps them immune from corrective feedback from less "enlightened" members of the body of Christ.

[Tangerine]

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.

[Sputterduck]

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.

 

:blink: is all I have to say...

[lionfamily1999]

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.

:001_huh: The site I got... (christiandd) sounds more like b&d than Christianity. I mean, they even mention how gay couples can use it and how it can be female led... Sounds like an excuse to exercise sexual perversion :blink:

 

I'm sure some practice it, I mean they have a web site... but I'd say that most would disagree. I could not imagine dh attempting to spank me :lol: Once I got done laughing, I might have to hurt him, and not in such a fun way :p

[Crimson Wife]

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...

[Joanne]

Joanne - just saw your response. I'm just wondering, based on your posts, what you recommend? It seems like no church is good enough, no teaching is sound. Where do you go from there?

 

This may surprise you, but I don't think the problem is "the church" or "churches" or Christians. It's a place for the problem to manifest, and certainly characteristics of Christian culture exacerbate the problem, but I certainly don't think the church is the host or spawn.

 

The problem is one of patriarchy, power, control and the abuse cycle itself. And I wish the answer to that were simple, but it's a multi-layered, multi-faceted issue.

[mrsrevmeg]

Ephesians 5:22-33 22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

30because we are members of His body.

31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

 

 

 

My husband recently taught on this subject. The youth at our church all come from dysfunctional families. While it does say that wives are supposed to submit their husbands, if you keep reading you will notice that the charge given to men is much more stern and challenging. Wives are told to RESPECT their husbands, husbands are told to LOVE their wives. Men are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. They are told to lead her spiritually so that she may be presented blameless. That is is a big responsibility-if a man takes it seriously. He is told to love and cherish his wife. Unfortunately there are men who stop reading at verse 24. They want their women to live by the Bible, but they want no responsibility themselves. That is not a Godly man. Am I submissive to my husband? Yes. He is the man who takes his charge very seriously and is always puts my needs before his. He would love to be in a full time ministry and write in his spare time. However, in order for me to stay home and homeschool our children, he works 12 hour shifts in a paper plate factory. In addition to being a youth pastor. The way that he loves me (and counsels other men to do to their wives) is enough to make me follow his lead, in any situation.

[Tangerine]

:001_huh: The site I got... (christiandd) sounds more like b&d than Christianity. I mean, they even mention how gay couples can use it and how it can be female led... Sounds like an excuse to exercise sexual perversion :blink:

 

I'm sure some practice it, I mean they have a web site... but I'd say that most would disagree. I could not imagine dh attempting to spank me :lol: Once I got done laughing, I might have to hurt him, and not in such a fun way :p

 

Not the site I'm referring to. They're quite clear about it being between a man and wife. The site is "the full name of the practice as I referred to it" .com. I'm trying to be slightly obtuse...:)

[Joanne]

My husband recently taught on this subject. The youth at our church all come from dysfunctional families. While it does say that wives are supposed to submit their husbands, if you keep reading you will notice that the charge given to men is much more stern and challenging. Wives are told to RESPECT their husbands, husbands are told to LOVE their wives. Men are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. They are told to lead her spiritually so that she may be presented blameless. That is is a big responsibility-if a man takes it seriously. He is told to love and cherish his wife. Unfortunately there are men who stop reading at verse 24. They want their women to live by the Bible, but they want no responsibility themselves. That is not a Godly man. Am I submissive to my husband? Yes. He is the man who takes his charge very seriously and is always puts my needs before his. He would love to be in a full time ministry and write in his spare time. However, in order for me to stay home and homeschool our children, he works 12 hour shifts in a paper plate factory. In addition to being a youth pastor. The way that he loves me (and counsels other men to do to their wives) is enough to make me follow his lead, in any situation.

 

In my reading, that part is about Christ and the church "her", not a wife "her". No human shall be presented blameless.

 

Your husband sounds like an incredible man, but I disagree Biblically with your perspective.

[mominbc]

I think a lot of the reasons why many like teachings like the Pearls stems from perfectionism. The Pearls claim that if you follow their teachings you will have perfect kids who will grow up to be perfect adults and at the same time you will have a perfect marriage. So many people want a formula to follow, and the Pearls have taken PORTIONS of scripture and used that to back up what they do. Women then fear that if they don't follow their way they will have the latter, wayward kids, a terrible marriage etc. If you look at the Pearl's teaching and examine it through the bible it is completely twisted. That's where so many heresies come from, twisting scripture. When you read the Pearls stuff you see lying, deceit, provoking children, putting stumbling blocks in front of children, withholding mercy..... and so much more completely contrary to the bible. And it is sad to see Christians fall into this trap because it doesn't produce the PERFECT family like they so wanted. JMO

[lionfamily1999]

This may surprise you, but I don't think the problem is "the church" or "churches" or Christians. It's a place for the problem to manifest, and certainly characteristics of Christian culture exacerbate the problem, but I certainly don't think the church is the host or spawn.

 

The problem is one of patriarchy, power, control and the abuse cycle itself. And I wish the answer to that were simple, but it's a multi-layered, multi-faceted issue.

So, then, what do you think about the submission scripture? Should a wife submit? Should a husband have headship over his home?

Not the site I'm referring to. They're quite clear about it being between a man and wife. The site is "the full name of the practice as I referred to it" .com. I'm trying to be slightly obtuse...:)

That site is down, or was, when I tried it. You should check out the other one, wowie cazowie.

[OnTheBrink]

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.

 

Good heavens. Talk about a misapplication of scripture! Hebrews 12:11 is NOT about a husband physically chastising a wife. Simply reading Hebrews 12:10 would indicate that.

 

I'm at a loss for words, othewise. :001_huh:

[Joanne]

So, then, what do you think about the submission scripture? Should a wife submit? Should a husband have headship over his home?

 

.

 

I don't believe in wifely or wife only submission or the husband as Leader or head.

 

I believe in mutual submission and I believe that to be Biblical.

 

An emphatic NO on your last question. I do not believe in a marriage hierarchy.

[lionfamily1999]

I don't believe in wifely or wife only submission or the husband as Leader or head.

 

I believe in mutual submission and I believe that to be Biblical.

 

An emphatic NO on your last question. I do not believe in a marriage hierarchy.

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 :)

[Joanne]

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 :)

 

Julie,

 

With loving respect, I have answered this many times. And most of my answers will be set aside, disregarded or otherwise reponded to as invalid.

 

I believe that the "wife only submit" and "husband as head" verses emerge from Christian culture rather than scripture.

 

Some of my perspective can be found here.

 

But the problem with even posting that is that those who already feel differently and believe in a literal, "fundamental", conservative viewpoint will click, maybe read and then come back with predictable words and perspective.

 

I do not expect to change anyone reading, however I also don't feel the need to subject my perspective (and I am by far not alone in that perspective) to variations of "you don't believe the Bible" or being called in essence, a nominal or selective Christian.

 

I do not believe that the authority of time with authors and tenacity of interpretation = valid.

 

And I do not believe that God's design for marriages would EVER include a hierarchy. Related to that, I don't think God would ever put one family relationship above another. Asking which relationship is more important, is "prime", or should get more attention is to limit God and love and miss the mark. Through God, we have enough love for all family during each season of life. God designed developmental stages with kids that change over time as the marriage also matures; so do the kids. To suggest that either relationship is more (and therefore the other "less") is an awful perspective.

 

Julie: I came back to add that your questions and questioning in this thread is not the total of what I am responding to. You are getting some of my residual weariness from years of this and related debates. And I added in a part of the thread that you did not ask about. :)

[lionfamily1999]

Julie,

 

With loving respect, I have answered this many times. And most of my answers will be set aside, disregarded or otherwise reponded to as invalid.

 

I believe that the "wife only submit" and "husband as head" verses emerge from Christian culture rather than scripture.

 

Some of my perspective can be found here.

 

But the problem with even posting that is that those who already feel differently and believe in a literal, "fundamental", conservative viewpoint will click, maybe read and then come back with predictable words and perspective.

 

I do not expect to change anyone reading, however I also don't feel the need to subject my perspective (and I am by far not alone in that perspective) to variations of "you don't believe the Bible" or being called in essence, a nominal or selective Christian.

 

I do not believe that the authority of time with authors and tenacity of interpretation = valid.

 

And I do not believe that God's design for marriages would EVER include a hierarchy. Related to that, I don't think God would ever put one family relationship above another. Asking which relationship is more important, is "prime", or should get more attention is to limit God and love and miss the mark. Through God, we have enough love for all family during each season of life. God designed developmental stages with kids that change over time as the marriage also matures; so do the kids. To suggest that either relationship is more (and therefore the other "less") is an awful perspective.

 

Julie: I came back to add that your questions and questioning in this thread is not the total of what I am responding to. You are getting some of my residual weariness from years of this and related debates. And I added in a part of the thread that you did not ask about. :)

First bolded statement... I am really trying to understand YOUR pov (no one else's :p). Could you pm me with links to your responses (so I don't have to wade through all this mess and try to piece your pov together)?

 

I tried the link, but it's just a site... did you want me to peruse the whole site? Not trying to be snarky, just want to know.

 

Last bolded statement... that's to be expected. No worries, no hard feelings :)

 

ETA: Perused the site enough that I believe I have a general idea of your stance regarding those scriptures. Thanks for the link. No real need for you to respond now, lol, since I think I know what you would say.

Edited November 24, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[lakotajm]

:iagree::iagree: Yes, stunned. I'm sorry lakotahm, but you are just not seeing things clearly IMO. A mother, returning to a romantic relationship with that child's sexual abuser would be nothing short of aditional emotional abuse to the child - EVEN IF THAT CHILD IS GROWN. A MOTHER could never do such a thing....NEVER. If she can, she is something else entirely. If you don't understand this.....ah....I'm sorry, hopefully, some day you will.

 

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