Jump to content

Menu

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


Recommended Posts

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

 

:iagree: She is totally justified in leaving.

 

Further more, I'd suggest that to some degree Mark 9:42 might apply.

 

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

 

It goes on to talk about if your eye sins, cut it out. If you leg sins, cut it off. Now a marital relationship is very much a joining of two bodies into one. Personally, if my husband abused my children, I would consider it a part of my body that needed to be cut off in order to save my children from someone who deserves to have a millstone hung around their neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It goes on to talk about if your eye sins, cut it out. If you leg sins, cut it off. Now a marital relationship is very much a joining of two bodies into one. Personally, if my husband abused my children, I would consider it a part of my body that needed to be cut off in order to save my children from someone who deserves to have a millstone hung around their neck.

 

Bravo! I like the way you put that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

To be honest, I don't remember which post prompted me to say that. LOL

 

In regard to different roles, to say that women are less than men because they don't pastor, lead men, etc is saying the roles they do have are held in lesser regard by God and I personally don't see it that way. The hand is as important as the spleen in the body of God. Now PEOPLE may say that, but I don't think that's biblical and I don't think it's true. In my church, there is no hierarchy of duties. They all work together to keep the church running. The woman who cleans the potties is just as important and respected as the head elder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:iagree: Thank you for saying so eloquently what I was trying to say in a way that obviously did not do my thoughts justice.

 

This whole thread is giving me bad dreams (literally.) I think it mostly will lead to misunderstandings and judgemental attitudes and categorization of people (Pearl followers or quiverfull adherents.) No good can come of that.

 

Maybe the only good would be for people who have been molested to receive more support and freedom to express their feelings. But sometimes that exercise is also more harmful than good (expressing anger and dredging up hurts.)

 

Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree and rest the thread?

 

And my apologies for coming off too snippy in my last post. It really hurt my feelings-I felt I had been misunderstood as actually supporting child molesters or women staying with them. Sometimes I just don't communicate well. I try to play "the devil's advocate" and then people assume I am truly the devil's advocate. Bad move, I guess.:tongue_smilie:

 

Lakota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

Genesis 2:24-25 (New International Version)

 

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

 

This scripture isn't about a married couple and their minor *child*. It's about the role and structure of an adult children when they marry.

 

It's not meant to be child rearing advice. :confused::confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link I posted earlier in this thread is FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE.

 

It's not like they were misquoted. They stand by their dangerous advice. I DO NOT.

 

ETA: The fact that they do not see how psychologically damaging it would be forced to go visit your molesterdad in prison is beyond belief! This fact alone says, to me, that they should not be giving advice.

Edited by ThatCyndiGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people are attributing ideas and attitudes to the Pearls that aren't there. At least, I don't see it in the C2BHHM book, which I have been looking over for the last day or so. Out of 300 pages of text, there is ONE paragraph regarding the husband-molester situation. It is in the chapter titled, "To Love Their Husbands", and it is the very last paragraph of the chapter, under a heading of "EXCEPTION: Sexual Perversions". This is what it says verbatim:

 

 

 

How is this keeping the children in danger? If anything, it allows the wife to continue to minister to her husband, even in his fallen state. (Oh wait, I thought we all are fallen, aren't we?) It shows in action the love and forgiveness of Christ. It demonstrates unconditional love, which is how Christ loves us. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that a woman has to leave her husband, ever, if she doesn't want to.

 

I would also like to point out that wife-beating is not mentioned in the book, as some have asserted. Of course, the book is written by a woman for other women, so it wouldn't quite say it that way. But it also does not suggest that a woman should endure such a thing. On the contrary, Debi Pearl asserts that whenever the husband has overstepped his sphere of authority, it is the wife's moral obligation to seek safety for herself and her children.

 

I can understand that some people won't agree with the theology or doctrine that the Pearls espouse. That's to be expected, especially from people who are staunch feminists or non-Christians. But please don't project what you think they are saying as compared to what the words of their book actually say. And please realize that there are people who do agree with this line of thinking. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean those people are plain wrong. Open-mindedness doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you.

 

The ideas discussed about the Pearls in this thread are directly from their books, or on their site, written and offered and endorsed by them.

 

People don't object to the Pearls because of feminisim (the horrors) or being non Christian. I am *reading* (again) TTUAC. People object because it's abuse. Not "spanking"; abuse.

 

 

Quote:

If your husband ever sexually handles your children, call the authorities. Testify against him in court, and pray that he gets at least twenty years in prison, so that the children will be grown when he gets out. Visit him there, and be an encouragement to him. Get him books and tapes on good Bible teaching, and let him see the chidlren three or four times a year in the prison visiting area. Children heal better from sexual assaults when they know the perpetrators (even their fathers) are punished for it. They're also less likely to follow in his steps. "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." (Luke 17:2)

 

Let me tell you that ANY continuing contact and support and "visiting" of a mom for man who SEXUALLY MOLESTS A CHILD = more abuse of that victim.

 

It also shows a dangerously and intentional disregard of the psychological realities of sexual abuse and sexual abusers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people are attributing ideas and attitudes to the Pearls that aren't there. At least, I don't see it in the C2BHHM book, which I have been looking over for the last day or so. Out of 300 pages of text, there is ONE paragraph regarding the husband-molester situation. It is in the chapter titled, "To Love Their Husbands", and it is the very last paragraph of the chapter, under a heading of "EXCEPTION: Sexual Perversions". This is what it says verbatim:

 

 

 

How is this keeping the children in danger? If anything, it allows the wife to continue to minister to her husband, even in his fallen state. (Oh wait, I thought we all are fallen, aren't we?) It shows in action the love and forgiveness of Christ. It demonstrates unconditional love, which is how Christ loves us. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that a woman has to leave her husband, ever, if she doesn't want to.

 

I would also like to point out that wife-beating is not mentioned in the book, as some have asserted. Of course, the book is written by a woman for other women, so it wouldn't quite say it that way. But it also does not suggest that a woman should endure such a thing. On the contrary, Debi Pearl asserts that whenever the husband has overstepped his sphere of authority, it is the wife's moral obligation to seek safety for herself and her children.

 

I can understand that some people won't agree with the theology or doctrine that the Pearls espouse. That's to be expected, especially from people who are staunch feminists or non-Christians. But please don't project what you think they are saying as compared to what the words of their book actually say. And please realize that there are people who do agree with this line of thinking. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean those people are plain wrong. Open-mindedness doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you.

 

But when you are a Christian, the bible is what you use to determine if teachers are false or not. Their teachings, as I have posted previously, go against biblical teaching. Not all of it but enough. We are to warn against false teachers. Their teachings include deceit, lack of mercy ( except for husbands), put stumbling blocks in front of children etc. That is why I am completely against their teachings and find them dangerous! If a wife wants to go back to an abusive husband, sure that`s her decision, but to say that she MUST biblically is wrong because that is NOT what scripture teaches!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

suggesting that any woman maintain a relationship with a child molester is vile.

 

My mom's father(I refuse to refer to him as my grandfather) abused her growing up. She told her mother who didn't believe her. My mom's "parents" were together until that man died when my mom was 16 or 17. So my mom grew up with no parents. My mom married at 18 to guy she barely knew just to get away from that house. She finally found the right guy in her 3rd marriage. She visited her mother often and took care of her when she was really old. But my mom is still damaged from her childhood. She will always be a caring yet very closed off person. She was very damaged by what her father did to her. But I think it wounded her more deeply that her own mother didn't protect her and in fact allowed the abuse to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand that they are not suggesting for children to live with their abusive fathers. They are saying that 1. the children should visit their abuser in a controlled environment. 2. The wife should stay married to the person who molested her children.

 

As for #1 - what an awful thing to subject a child to!!! Would you really take a child to visit their abuser if he was anyone but their father? How does contributing sperm give him a by to have any kind of relationship to his victim?

 

It's not just about their physical safety. It's about their emotional health and security. Visiting an abuser only adds to the abuse.

 

As for #2 - If a mother stays with her husband who has molested her children she is taking away their mother as well. No matter how old you are, you need your parents. This vial creature has severed his marriage bonds. It doesn't matter if he repents or not. If the mother takes him back she is saying that the abuser is more important than her own child who was abused. That is the worst kind of betrayal. I do not see this in the same realm as being child-centered and ignoring your marriage. This is simply valuing your child's emotional health over a relationship that has been defiled. It is the abuser who severed his marriage and some things can't be fixed even if you are sorry. This is one of them.

 

I don't mind disagreeing on points of theology but suggesting that any woman maintain a relationship with a child molester is vile.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Debi Pearl fancy themselves to be teaching Biblical wisdom. People read their stuff because they (like so many) have chosen to take the path of trusting in man's wisdom instead of God's.

 

I for one bought their books used so as to be armed against people who came to La Leche League (where I was a leader) with their information. It's offensive, truly offensive.

 

I for one prefer to take the whole council of God--read the Word directly for myself, as the Holy Spirit to instruct me in his Wisdom, and park myself under "trees" that are bearing good fruit so as to catch some of the stuff that falls from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen - you know that I care about you, but yes, they are plain wrong.

 

I understand that they are not suggesting for children to live with their abusive fathers. They are saying that 1. the children should visit their abuser in a controlled environment. 2. The wife should stay married to the person who molested her children.

 

As for #1 - what an awful thing to subject a child to!!! Would you really take a child to visit their abuser if he was anyone but their father? How does contributing sperm give him a by to have any kind of relationship to his victim?

 

It's not just about their physical safety. It's about their emotional health and security. Visiting an abuser only adds to the abuse.

 

As for #2 - If a mother stays with her husband who has molested her children she is taking away their mother as well. No matter how old you are, you need your parents. This vial creature has severed his marriage bonds. It doesn't matter if he repents or not. If the mother takes him back she is saying that the abuser is more important than her own child who was abused. That is the worst kind of betrayal. I do not see this in the same realm as being child-centered and ignoring your marriage. This is simply valuing your child's emotional health over a relationship that has been defiled. It is the abuser who severed his marriage and some things can't be fixed even if you are sorry. This is one of them.

 

So yep, they are just wrong. Wrong.

 

I don't mind disagreeing on points of theology but suggesting that any woman maintain a relationship with a child molester is vile.

 

 

ftr - I am a conservative Christian and not a feminist at all so those things have nothing to do with this.

 

Thank you! And I agree, conservative Christianity and feminism have nothing to do with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

 

How is this keeping the children in danger?

 

Michael Pearl: "But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesn’t repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception."

 

This quote was taken directly from the Pearl's website TODAY. Do you see that the wife is directed to call the law only if her husband is not repentent? What??? Listen up ladies. You have read this for yourselves now. If you don't think there is something terribly wrong with the thinking of these people - the people who wrote this quote and to this day maintain it on their website, then something is seriously wrong with YOUR perspective. Please be willing to investigate your own reasons for defending this kind of thinking. They are decidedly NOT Biblical. You are now responsible for what you know. This will be my last post on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Pearl: "But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesn’t repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception."

 

This quote was taken directly from the Pearl's website TODAY. Do you see that the wife is directed to call the law only if her husband is not repentent? What??? Listen up ladies. You have read this for yourselves now. If you don't think there is something terribly wrong with the thinking of these people - the people who wrote this quote and to this day maintain it on their website, then something is seriously wrong with YOUR perspective. Please be willing to investigate your own reasons for defending this kind of thinking. They are decidedly NOT Biblical. You are now responsible for what you know. This will be my last post on this thread.

 

I've been following along with this post and I have to say, AMEN TO THAT, SISTER!! I totally agree with you, 100%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link I posted earlier in this thread is FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE.

 

It's not like they were misquoted. They stand by their dangerous advice. I DO NOT.

 

ETA: The fact that they do not see how psychologically damaging it would be forced to go visit your molesterdad in prison is beyond belief! This fact alone says, to me, that they should not be giving advice.

 

Absolutely! There is no way a child should be forced to visit his or her molester in prison. This is some of the sickest stuff I have ever seen and I truly feel ashamed that they claim the name of Christ.

 

All this will lead to is years of therapy later for these kids.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely! There is no way a child should be forced to visit his or her molester in prison. This is some of the sickest stuff I have ever seen and I truly feel ashamed that they claim the name of Christ.

 

All this will lead to is years of therapy later for these kids.:(

 

Usually people/Christians who believe the Pearls tend to be very anti-psychology. Notice there is no advice to get everyone in for group and/or individual counseling?:confused::001_huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Pearl: "But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesn’t repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception."

 

There are so many things to say YUCK about. Why would you give a child molester another chance? If you didn't know it was happening the first time how would you think you could prevent it from happening again? Kick him out and call the cops and lawyers. Stick by him and wait for him with open arms? The abused child would be further damaged by this. I find the thought of getting back together with your child's abuser really disgusting. I read another quote where it said to take the abused child to jail to see the parent?!? I have no doubt the child suffers from enough guilt and shame. Let's add more by taking the child to see where he/she sent him when the child told what happened. That parent has lost all rights as far as I'm concerned. If when the child grew up and he/she forgave their dad--that's the child's decision. But the child should never feel any obligation towards that parent. He caused enormous pain and stole enough from the child already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually people/Christians who believe the Pearls tend to be very anti-psychology. Notice there is no advice to get everyone in for group and/or individual counseling?

 

:iagree: Don't you know that is because if you will only forgive your abuser, all your pain miraculously disappears. You won't need a counselor. As a matter of fact the victim is the one to blame if the abuser can't move beyond the event. How dare the victim continue to wallow in their pain when everyone is ready to move on. So just forget about it. AGHGHGHGH. That mentality is what had my sister cutting on herself.

 

Look, we don't NEED books written telling people to stay with their abusers. They already DO THAT. That is the default setting in the most conservative circles of the church. They need to be told that it is okay to be FREE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't think there is something terribly wrong with the thinking of these people - the people who wrote this quote and to this day maintain it on their website, then something is seriously wrong with YOUR perspective. Please be willing to investigate your own reasons for defending this kind of thinking. They are decidedly NOT Biblical. You are now responsible for what you know. This will be my last post on this thread.

 

I DO think there is something horrendously wrong with telling a wife that she MUST take back her husband and that divorce is always wrong. I think a woman in that situation would absolutely be justified in seeking a divorce and I would heavily DIScourage her from ever reconciling.

 

I do, however, have difficulty with the theological argument that some things can't ever be fixed. Just think back to the story of Paul's conversion in Acts. Here was an evil man who committed heinous acts. Just think about how extremely difficult it must have been for the early Christians to forgive him for what he had done. But the Lord helped them to overcome their anger and to give Paul a 2nd chance. He truly DID repent of his evil ways, and God helped the community whom Paul had persecuted to accept him as a changed man.

 

That's why I don't think we can say with absolute certainty a wife should never, ever reconcile. Is a repentance like Paul's an exceptional case? Yes, but it shows that it IS possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I DO think there is something horrendously wrong with telling a wife that she MUST take back her husband and that divorce is always wrong. I think a woman in that situation would absolutely be justified in seeking a divorce and I would heavily DIScourage her from ever reconciling.

 

I do, however, have difficulty with the theological argument that some things can't ever be fixed. Just think back to the story of Paul's conversion in Acts. Here was an evil man who committed heinous acts. Just think about how extremely difficult it must have been for the early Christians to forgive him for what he had done. But the Lord helped them to overcome their anger and to give Paul a 2nd chance. He truly DID repent of his evil ways, and God helped the community whom Paul had persecuted to accept him as a changed man.

 

That's why I don't think we can say with absolute certainty a wife should never, ever reconcile. Is a repentance like Paul's an exceptional case? Yes, but it shows that it IS possible.

 

So, you disregard and disbelieve all the research, evidence, experience and anecdotal stories of pedophiles?

 

Reconcile with the man who molested MY CHILDREN? No. Never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something about this whole thread/topic, just leaves me shaking my head in disgust.

 

Abuse of any kind is *so* damaging and confusing to children. It's awful.

 

So help me, if anyone ever hurt our kids in any way (physically, sexually, emotionally, spiritually), I would have a hard time even forgiving them. By the grace of God, I would try. But as far as ever letting that person around my children again. NO WAY! Never!

 

And I do believe that the first part of Matthew 18 applies to those who harm children in any way. Because, frankly, abusing a child is soul-injuring, not just physically harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, however, have difficulty with the theological argument that some things can't ever be fixed. Just think back to the story of Paul's conversion in Acts. Here was an evil man who committed heinous acts. Just think about how extremely difficult it must have been for the early Christians to forgive him for what he had done. But the Lord helped them to overcome their anger and to give Paul a 2nd chance. He truly DID repent of his evil ways, and God helped the community whom Paul had persecuted to accept him as a changed man.

 

 

He did not rape their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, however, have difficulty with the theological argument that some things can't ever be fixed. Just think back to the story of Paul's conversion in Acts. Here was an evil man who committed heinous acts. Just think about how extremely difficult it must have been for the early Christians to forgive him for what he had done. But the Lord helped them to overcome their anger and to give Paul a 2nd chance. He truly DID repent of his evil ways, and God helped the community whom Paul had persecuted to accept him as a changed man.

 

That's why I don't think we can say with absolute certainty a wife should never, ever reconcile. Is a repentance like Paul's an exceptional case? Yes, but it shows that it IS possible.

 

Actually, I am going to theologically agree. God can do anything. Paul was KILLING people. It took a direct word of God for Ananias to open his home to Paul/Saul. It took 2+ years for the Christian church to accept Paul as having truly been changed.

 

My point is that I'm not going to take the Pearl's word for it. If God wants to perform a divine intervention in my life and literally speak in an audible voice and knock me on my butt with a blinding ray of sunlight...okay, He's got my attention. But no way am I am going to believe the Pearls are speaking for God.

 

And just as in Paul's case, I'm going to say that would be the divine exception and not by any means the rule. I'm willing to concede though that God can indeed work miracles in people's lives, though I have yet to see it in the above type situations. Hopefully this particular conversation is simply an exercise in theology.

 

Man, I want to erase this so bad. Okay, theologically I agree but everything else inside me screams, "NO FLIPPIN' WAY".

Edited by Daisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reconcile with the man who molested MY CHILDREN? No. Never.

 

For you personally and 99.99999999999999999999999999999+% of the other women out there, I would agree. Reconciliation is typically an extremely bad idea. I am appalled that the Pearls promote it.:thumbdown:

 

Theologically, however, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that it is impossible. God works in very mysterious ways. Who are we to say with absolute certainty it cannot happen for anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you personally and 99.99999999999999999999999999999+% of the other women out there, I would agree. Reconciliation is typically an extremely bad idea. I am appalled that the Pearls promote it.:thumbdown:

 

Theologically, however, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that it is impossible. God works in very mysterious ways. Who are we to say with absolute certainty it cannot happen for anyone?

 

SPIRITUALLY, I can't and won't and will never worship a God that would expect, encourage or want me to reconcile with a human that destroyed my child's emotional well being, sexual health, and safety.

 

I do not believe pedophiles or even sexual offenders rehabilitate. Even if they did, I do not believe my Father in Heaven would expect or encourage me to reconcile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This probably doesn't have much to do with this thread specifically, but it does have to do with abuse, forgiveness, psychology, etc.

 

First, I don't put much stock in secular psychology, or psychology of any kind. And, I have a LOT of experience with it. We're talking decades. This is a broad, sweeping statement, but I think psychology gives people an excuse for their sinful behavior. I realize there are exceptions to that broad, sweeping statement, so don't bother inundating me with "Yeah, but what about..." because I won't address it.

 

Secondly, about forgiveness and reconciliation with an abuser: My ex was abusive (not a molester, though). Horribly. I won't bore you with the details (because many here know them already and it's redundant now), but when EX decided to go to a counselor (not a psychologist) who specialized in his specific issues, the counselor asked to see me, separately. This was after I'd filed for divorce and had made it abundantly clear that reconciliation in this specific situation was not an option. The counselor told me that I needed to forgive. Then he told me that he would not even suggest reconciling with EX for at least 18 months and that was ONLY if EX truly faced his own situations, past, abuses and worked through those issues and was repentant. If not, I had no reason, biblically, or otherwise, to reconcile. He had counseled other couples in the same situation and had seen many come to a point where they could reconcile, but took years of work, complete repentance, and the bulk of the work was on the abuser.

 

It took time, but I did come to the place where I forgave EX for what he did to me and to our family. The fallout still affects us today, but for the sake of my daughter, especially, I needed to forgive him and find a way to work with him as we co-parent dd. I don't approve of the life he's chosen for himself. I believe it to be abhorrent to God, but I leave God's judgment on EX to God. That has been the most freeing thing that I've done.

 

I believe anyone can be forgiven. I don't believe forgiveness necessarily leads to reconciliation in every situation, or that it should. Forgiveness doesn't let the other person off the hook, it lets ME out of the clutches of bitterness. It allows my dd to have a relationship with her father that isn't tainted by my offense at his abusive behavior. It allows her to have as stable and normal a childhood as she can, given the circumstances. And again, molestation wasn't the issue. If it were, I'd have pressed every charge against him I could, and I wouldn't have looked back. And my church would have supported me every step of the way, as it did during my divorce.

 

So, no, I don't buy into psychology, and I don't buy into what the Pearls are peddling, either. I believe in submission, just as the Bible teaches; I also believe in a husband's sacrificial love and HIS submission to God, as the Bible also teaches. I believe in forgiveness, because if I don't, how can I accept God's forgiveness of ME?

 

Anyway, I don't know if all this fits into this thread or not, just thought I'd toss my .02 in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

I want to puke.

 

We actually had an elder who said something like, "I don't follow husbands spanking wives, but I'm not positive it's not biblical." We left soon after that because overall we thought the guy was a joke.

 

We later found out he molested his own children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually people/Christians who believe the Pearls tend to be very anti-psychology. Notice there is no advice to get everyone in for group and/or individual counseling?:confused::001_huh:

 

Sounds almost like... Scientology!

 

 

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

 

Wow. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

 

There they would be, all alone, together. She would be all gussied up in her Victoria's Secret matching lingere. And he would tell her he prefers something a wee bit more... princess-y.

 

After all - the kids aren't around to hear it.

 

Wrap it up anyway you like. Say people are using "emotion instead of scripture" until you're blue in the face - the reality is that there are some sick ****s in the world and the only response to them is to let them rot. Far away from children.

 

 

a

Edited by asta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are we to say with absolute certainty it cannot happen for anyone?

 

Whether or not it's theologically possible matters not a whit to me. I think any woman who reconciles with her child's molester needs to lose custody of said children. And I'm not one to advocate such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPIRITUALLY, I can't and won't and will never worship a God that would expect, encourage or want me to reconcile with a human that destroyed my child's emotional well being, sexual health, and safety.

 

This. The idea of Christian forgiveness is one of the parts of Christianity that I find the most baffling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgiveness doesn't let the other person off the hook, it lets ME out of the clutches of bitterness.

 

Exactly. I know your story and I can only imagine how you felt when you first found out. I too don't want to be bitter at anyone. It is poison. And I totally agree that doesn't equal reconciliation in many cases.

 

I am thinking of my aunt....I wrote her a forgivness letter recently. She did not even respond, but it matters not. I've let it go. I will probably never have a relationship with her beyond a polite hello at once a year family reunions.....but I don't hate her the way I did before I decided it was unhealthy for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I DO think there is something horrendously wrong with telling a wife that she MUST take back her husband and that divorce is always wrong. I think a woman in that situation would absolutely be justified in seeking a divorce and I would heavily DIScourage her from ever reconciling.

 

I do, however, have difficulty with the theological argument that some things can't ever be fixed. Just think back to the story of Paul's conversion in Acts. Here was an evil man who committed heinous acts. Just think about how extremely difficult it must have been for the early Christians to forgive him for what he had done. But the Lord helped them to overcome their anger and to give Paul a 2nd chance. He truly DID repent of his evil ways, and God helped the community whom Paul had persecuted to accept him as a changed man.

 

That's why I don't think we can say with absolute certainty a wife should never, ever reconcile. Is a repentance like Paul's an exceptional case? Yes, but it shows that it IS possible.

Never say never, because nevers have a tendancy to bite you in the hiney. I totally understand what you're saying.

SPIRITUALLY, I can't and won't and will never worship a God that would expect, encourage or want me to reconcile with a human that destroyed my child's emotional well being, sexual health, and safety.

 

I do not believe pedophiles or even sexual offenders rehabilitate. Even if they did, I do not believe my Father in Heaven would expect or encourage me to reconcile.

:(

 

:grouphug:

 

Joanne, please be careful, for your OWN sake. Maybe it's the lingering superstition in me, but statements like that seem like you're just begging to be proven either wrong, or terribly horribly correct. In which case, I would opt for trusting God over my instincts any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never say never, because nevers have a tendancy to bite you in the hiney. I totally understand what you're saying.

 

:(

 

:grouphug:

 

Joanne, please be careful, for your OWN sake. Maybe it's the lingering superstition in me, but statements like that seem like you're just begging to be proven either wrong, or terribly horribly correct. In which case, I would opt for trusting God over my instincts any day.

 

Julie,

 

Please note I am not addressing the forgiveness portion of the subthread. I am addressing the reconcile suggestion. I stand, unabashedly and without fear, by the fact that the God I worship would not expect, demand, suggest or encourage a mother to reconcile with a man who ABUSED or SEXUALLY abused their children.

 

I also stand by the reality of rehabilitation in sexual offenders/pedophiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't confuse forgiveness with reconciliation. Just because God forgives, doesn't mean that I have to or should reconcile with someone, even if they are repentant.

 

:iagree:

 

A lot of times this idea that forgiveness & reconciliation are connected is taught by the church. It's like the burden of proof is on the victim. That some how some way the victim has to PROVE through reconciliation that they've forgiven the abuser. That is just wrong, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie,

 

Please note I am not addressing the forgiveness portion of the subthread. I am addressing the reconcile suggestion. I stand, unabashedly and without fear, by the fact that the God I worship would not expect, demand, suggest or encourage a mother to reconcile with a man who ABUSED or SEXUALLY abused their children.

 

I also stand by the reality of rehabilitation in sexual offenders/pedophiles.

Okay. GOOD! I guess you could understand my concern then (I hope so, anyway). :grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosie, do you really believe that a person who advocates continuing in marriage with an abuser and/or CHILD MOLESTER has anything of value, origniality, uniqueness or that can't be gotten elsewhere? Would you support a person like that with money, time, etc?

 

Really?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Joanne, it can be done. It requires the ability to think through what one is reading, and the ability to sort the good from the bad. It also requires the ability to put aside intense emotional reaction and replace it with objectivity.

 

Rosie's post was an excellent one, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.

 

ETA: For the record - I don't like the Pearls, and I am venturing a pretty good guess that Rosie doesn't, either.

Edited by LisaNY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My real life experience tells me sometimes they are willing and sometimes they do repent.

 

Now I still wouldn't trust them. I think that rehabilitation can happen but it's not CURE it's rehabilitation. There's a big difference. It's like an alcoholic. They may learn to live without alcohol but they should still avoid it. You'd have to be monumentally stupid to ever trust a person like that with your children but that's for the protection of both parties.

 

There is no way in hell I'd ever stay married to a man who did that.... the mere thought of laying beside a man like that in the bed makes me want to hurl. But I do believe that they SOMETIMES do understand the hurt they have caused and repent it.

 

Now I realise that some will vehemently disagree with me because of their own personal experience. But that's personal experience isn't it; everyone's is different.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It requires the ability to think through what one is reading, and the ability to sort the good from the bad. It also requires the ability to put aside intense emotional reaction and replace it with objectivity.

 

I think that once someone fondles a child's penis or vagina they lose the right to be looked at objectively. Nor do I believe that they can possess ANY good that is worth the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You already know the answer to that. I imagine you'd already know *my* answer to that. There is not a chance in Hades that I'd spend my money on those guys, and if I had enough time to waste on them I'd spend it doing something better for my soul, like watching grass grow. I don't believe they would have something useful (to me) to say that I couldn't find elsewhere. I did, in my previous post, say I thought they were nutters.

 

Now we have confirmed all that, shall we look again at the point I was making?

 

 

 

The point being, as you said, you can read information you overall disagree with and take out any tidbits that seem useful. If the Pearls had something useful in their book, you would be capable of finding it, since you have reading comprehension skills. Presumably you would be capable of acting on it, because it is a good idea, even if you think the author is a dangerous nut-job. Presumably you wouldn't think "This guy is a freak so I'm going to ignore that one good idea, simply because it is his." Taking his one good idea is not going to hurt you, because you are thinking about what you are doing. You are not, to use the word Katemary used, *trust*ing him because he is saying it, you are trusting that hypothetical sensible thing because you trust yourself. I said what I said because I thought she was looking at it from a faith perspective, an "all or nothing" scenario, which I don't think it is. I was answering the question as she wrote it, in case it was a question and not "they are psychos and should never have been published" written in question form. I also wanted to put in a defense of those who said they like the books. "I like those books" doesn't necessarily translate to "I'm a poor sap without critical thinking skills who wants to live a life of down trodden suffering and I think the Pearls are so great I have a portrait of them on my wall so I can stare adoringly at them for at least an hour twice each day." "I like those books!" might just mean "I don't agree with everything they say, but I really appreciate certain points that were expressed in a way I hadn't heard before." As we are learning here, if we did not know before, wording makes all the difference.

 

Rosie

 

Well said. Again. :iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that once someone fondles a child's penis or vagina they lose the right to be looked at objectively. Nor do I believe that they can possess ANY good that is worth the bad.

I don't believe the authors (of which she was speaking) molested anyone. It was advice they were giving, not (I believe) from personal experience, but from their reading of the scripture and their opinion of marraige vs parenthood, forgiveness vs consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...