Belief systems of Abusive Individuals

[Sam91]

You know..... I really hope you know Im not criticising you or your views or how you choose to relate to your husband. .. and I really hope Im not offending you.

But for me this whole... you have to submit.... is horrifying and alienating. I hear it and think... whoa where am I.... Yemen?

pm you

 

[Halbhh]

Before verse 22 is verse 21 , after verse 21 are more verses, such as 25 . Ephesians 5 NIV

A person shouldn't even dare to read a few verses in an epistle and preach to anyone, but should be eager to read entirely the epistle.

A believing woman with an abusive husband, who is showing he doesn't believe by being abusive, should obey Christ instead of her abuser.

 

[Sam91]

Before verse 22 is verse 21 , after verse 21 are more verses, such as 25 . Ephesians 5 NIV

A person shouldn't even dare to read a few verses in an epistle and preach to anyone, but should be eager to read entirely the epistle.

A believing woman with an abusive husband, who is showing he doesn't believe by being abusive, should obey Christ instead of her abuser.

Wouldn't it be good though if men see when a fellow brother is seeking a wife but only talking about her responsibilities to have conversations then about how to love their wife before it turns into a situation?

 

[Halbhh]

Well thats fine if you cant make a decision with consideration for consequences. ... but im speaking for the rest of us who can.

And for the record, Im intelligent, likely ro be a successful professional, am a balanced decision maker... why on earth would i need a guy to lead me who may well be less successful than I am

Fortunately the actual text is radically different than some crazy thing like Christian women submit to abusive (thus showing also they are non believer) husbands....

Consider:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

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

See, how we need all the verses. The whole context to begin with is that the husband is actually a believer, which means he can't long be an 'abuser'. If he is an abuser over time, that proves, by Christ's, and Paul's, and John's, and James's words, clearly that he is not a Christian, not a believer.

But verse 22 is for believers, like verse 21 and 25 and such. So verse 21, 22, and continuing -- these are for believers. Non believers need some other message -- they need the real gospel, really.

 

[Sam91]

Fortunately the actual text is radically different than some crazy thing like Christian women submit to abusive (thus showing also they are non believer) husbands....

Consider:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

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

See, how we need all the verses. The whole context to begin with is that the husband is actually a believer, which means he can't long be an 'abuser'. If he is an abuser over time, that proves, by Christ's, and Paul's, and John's, and James's words, clearly that he is not a Christian, not a believer.

But verse 22 is for believers, like verse 21 and 25 and such.

Yes, I understand that. But I feel for the guys who do live a Christian life. Minister, help others but have a misguided belief that they need to subject a wife to submission. They lived for God before marriage.

He the marries. Say this wife is submissive but can't in an area that she feels is wrong to submit to because it is sinful. However, He also has the verse entrenched that a women can't teach and that in Titus it saya that Elders must exercise control over their house. That man is then angry and blames the wife. Eye on the others fault and then there is an incident of abuse. More sin, more anger, more blame. Cycle continues. Then help might or might not get sought. If not secrets, lies, barriers to prayer.

When in the beginning he had good intentions but theological bias was in the wrong place. Expecting served rather than to serve.

Maybe, men should be taught in this area. It specifies that elder women are to teach younger ones in how to love their husband. Maybe more ought to be done for both genders.

 

[Hearingheart]

Perpetrators of Domestic Violence – New Hope, Inc.

The Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness & Action

Types of abuse – spiritual abuse

It strikes me that those insisting that women submit rather than focussing on what their own responsibilities are more likely to be perpetrators of abuse.

Would educating/discipling these individuals in a Church setting help them to change before they met someone or got married?

It's a multi-layered debate. I've found some denominations more prone to emphasizing the submission of women in marriage and I wonder if they would take the man's side is there was abuse taking place. Also, I question if there are women who gravitate towards men who are abusive and men who gravitate towards women who have low confidence. If church leadership doesn't have what it takes to follow through in a biblical manner, the results would probably fizzle out.

There is nothing wrong with the Bible verses saying a wife should submit to her husband. But the premise is that those who are focussed too strongly on that alone are more likely to be perpetrators of abuse. It links in with the types of thinking that turns wonen into victims.

Again, there needs to a balance. Submission is never one sided in a marriage. I'm wondering how many men who are coming from unhealthy backgrounds/examples unwittingly look for women who in turn come from unhealthy background/examples.

I'm not saying it's the women's fault or the men's fault, but there would seems to be a foundation laid that suggests men or women who put themselves in marriages such as this might be replaying what was experienced growing up.

As a church trained people could actually recognise this and prevent a great deal of sin.

There are churches out there who seem to be able to do this. I'm a little jaded, though, and don't see many. Most are too concerned with money, programs or membership rolls to rock the boat.

 

[Zoii]

Fortunately the actual text is radically different than some crazy thing like Christian women submit to abusive (thus showing also they are non believer) husbands....

Consider:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

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

See, how we need all the verses. The whole context to begin with is that the husband is actually a believer, which means he can't long be an 'abuser'. If he is an abuser over time, that proves, by Christ's, and Paul's, and John's, and James's words, clearly that he is not a Christian, not a believer.

But verse 22 is for believers, like verse 21 and 25 and such. So verse 21, 22, and continuing -- these are for believers. Non believers need some other message -- they need the real gospel, really.

Unfortunately that isn't the case with high levels of domestic abuse by protestant ministers and Jewish rabbis

 

[Dave-W]

I disagree. If you believe that then you wouldnt support police, hospitals and public transport operating on the Sabbath. Youd support stoning of adulterers and you wouldnt support your nation bombing another (thou shalt not kill).

Rules for Israel.

Are you Jewish?

 

[Sam91]

Would educating/discipling these individuals in a Church setting help them to change before they met someone or got married?

It's a multi-layered debate. I've found some denominations more prone to emphasizing the submission of women in marriage and I wonder if they would take the man's side is there was abuse taking place. Also, I question if there are women who gravitate towards men who are abusive and men who gravitate towards women who have low confidence. If church leadership doesn't have what it takes to follow through in a biblical manner, the results would probably fizzle out.

There is nothing wrong with the Bible verses saying a wife should submit to her husband. But the premise is that those who are focussed too strongly on that alone are more likely to be perpetrators of abuse. It links in with the types of thinking that turns wonen into victims.

Again, there needs to a balance. Submission is never one sided in a marriage. I'm wondering how many men who are coming from unhealthy backgrounds/examples unwittingly look for women who in turn come from unhealthy background/examples.

I'm not saying it's the women's fault or the men's fault, but there would seems to be a foundation laid that suggests men or women who put themselves in marriages such as this might be replaying what was experienced growing up.

As a church trained people could actually recognise this and prevent a great deal of sin.

There are churches out there who seem to be able to do this. I'm a little jaded, though, and don't see many. Most are too concerned with money, programs or membership rolls to rock the boat.

I think that it won't change much for some, but correcting black and white thinking in the youth and young adults might prevent some from making mistakes when older. Incorporating teaching into mens groups and ladies groups might help. Having discipleship for those thinking of marraige. More training. It is a big part of a Christian's life and support seems to be woefully inadequate.

I did some research last year and that a lot of women in abusive relationships are told by their churches to try submitting more and that it is their own fault. Submitting to abuse does not prevent or change it.

This is not constructive or fair to either party. It enables more sin and more hurt. Surely if preventative measures are in place while no one is in a defensive position, even if it can't prevent all cases, it is a good step forward. I get the parable in my mind about when the lost is brought back and how much rejoicing there is in heaven. Also, where God says that obedience is better than sacrifice. How much better to notice and prevent a situation which can be magnified by incomplete teaching.

 

[Zoii]

Rules for Israel.

Are you Jewish?

Lol Dave you know Im not, and I've made my point and I'm letting it go so that the point of the thread can progress.

 

[Dave-W]

Would educating/discipling these individuals in a Church setting help them to change before they met someone or got married?

By doing what passes for "discipleship" these days, probably not.
But if it was done in the first century model our Lord referenced, then probably yes.
But now that level of invasiveness would be called cultic and controlling.

 

[Hearingheart]

Well thats fine if you cant make a decision with consideration for consequences. ... but im speaking for the rest of us who can.

And for the record, Im intelligent, likely ro be a successful professional, am a balanced decision maker... why on earth would i need a guy to lead me who may well be less successful than I am

Being a women who submits to her husband doesn't mean she gives up her intellect or even her profession.

A marriage is not a competition between two people but bringing two people together, working with unity with a common goal and intention.

A marriage can have many different "seasons" to it. Challenges early in the marriage may be very different than those that come later.

Who works and who doesn't, how the children are raised, what happens when disability or illness enters in, extended family commitments, job changes, church obligations....on and on.

The marriage must have unity, respect and communication and above all have the same view of God as their authority. Marriage is a working out of a person's relationship with another under what God has ordained. Without His love it will falter and stumble along.

A women and man submitting themselves to God and to each other does not demean either one but in fact does lift up each one to greater heights.

 

[Zoii]

Being a women who submits to her husband doesn't mean she gives up her intellect or even her profession.

A marriage is not a competition between two people but bringing two people together, working with unity with a common goal and intention.

A marriage can have many different "seasons" to it. Challenges early in the marriage may be very different than those that come later.

Who works and who doesn't, how the children are raised, what happens when disability or illness enters in, extended family commitments, job changes, church obligations....on and on.

The marriage must have unity, respect and communication and above all have the same view of God as their authority. Marriage is a working out of a person's relationship with another under what God has ordained. Without His love it will falter and stumble along.

A women and man submitting themselves to God and to each other does not demean either one but in fact does lift up each one to greater heights.

I don't support your view but won't debate it so that the intended purpose of the thread can progress

 

[Sam91]

By doing what passes for "discipleship" these days, probably not.
But if it was done in the first century model our Lord referenced, then probably yes.
But now that level of invasiveness would be called cultic and controlling.

How about introducing talks in church conferences? Have separate mens and womens talks so each are focussing on their own responsibilities?

What would you suggest?

 

[Dave-W]

What would you suggest?

My suggestion would be to go back to the first century model. One on one. focusing on and correcting every aspect of life and thought.

Bible classes and conference settings only pass on information. It does nothing for life FORMATION.

 

[Hearingheart]

By doing what passes for "discipleship" these days, probably not.
But if it was done in the first century model our Lord referenced, then probably yes.
But now that level of invasiveness would be called cultic and controlling.

True, discipleship is pretty nonexistent these days. I wonder if it's our cultures obsession with instant gratification. Discipleship takes time and can get messy and inconvenient. But then discipleship goes hand in hand with whether or not the "disciple" is really ready and understands their conversion.

 

[archer75]

Because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He never changes, and neither does His Word. A wife must submit to her husband, but the husband must also submit to Christ. Submission is not a bad word, as long as it is done in God's way and not in our way.

I always wonder what this means in practical terms. Submission, that is.

 

[deusartemlux]

Because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He never changes, and neither does His Word. A wife must submit to her husband, but the husband must also submit to Christ. Submission is not a bad word, as long as it is done in God's way and not in our way.

Well said. Submission is beautiful when the wife submits to the husband, AND the husband submits to Christ which means he will treat his bride like Christ treats us (very gently!). Otherwise, a wife submitting to a loser that disobeys God is a broken model (of course its ugly). Our failures NEVER negate God's Goodness.

 

[deusartemlux]

I disagree. If you believe that then you wouldnt support police, hospitals and public transport operating on the Sabbath. Youd support stoning of adulterers and you wouldnt support your nation bombing another (thou shalt not kill).

No way am I submitting to anyone. Its cave man talk

I can understand your sentiments. Since none of the kind husbands that women submit to ever get any press, it seems like they are all idiots and the idea of submitting to anyone seems idiotic as well. However, just because one cannot follow instructions does not invalidate the instructions. To the contrary, it proves the user in the fault, especially when the instructions do not provide an expiration date.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, I understand that. But I feel for the guys who do live a Christian life. Minister, help others but have a misguided belief that they need to subject a wife to submission. They lived for God before marriage.

He the marries. Say this wife is submissive but can't in an area that she feels is wrong to submit to because it is sinful. However, He also has the verse entrenched that a women can't teach and that in Titus it saya that Elders must exercise control over their house. That man is then angry and blames the wife. Eye on the others fault and then there is an incident of abuse. More sin, more anger, more blame. Cycle continues. Then help might or might not get sought. If not secrets, lies, barriers to prayer.

When in the beginning he had good intentions but theological bias was in the wrong place. Expecting served rather than to serve.

Maybe, men should be taught in this area. It specifies that elder women are to teach younger ones in how to love their husband. Maybe more ought to be done for both genders.

Good points. Really, I could not understand Paul well unless I read fully through his writing, so that for example, I encountered the key chapter 1 Cor 8, and took the general idea from it. From this, it suddenly makes sense why Paul told slaves to be cheerful good servants to their masters! We cannot make any sense out of an instruction like that without knowing the real reason, as laid out powerfully in 1 Cor 8 (read fully through to the end) -- we do this in order to help save even the slaver owners. That is, even the wrong doers, even the sinners. Even these. The "weak" of every kind. Because we are after a far more important ultimate goal, in the end.

But! consider the short epistle (1 page) of Philemon, and suddenly you see the more full picture. Slaves were told to be cheerful servants...but then...in time...a radically new order emerges.

So, the weak (prejudiced) men, who would have been destroyed by women taking even more new liberties, at that time....for their sake, for the sake of the weak, for this reason alone, women were to continue just like in 1 Cor 8, for all of us...to aid the weak. Not indefinitely. But in this particular way, for that time.

Reading fully in Paul's writing, we are better able to distinguish the timeless principles from the at times temporary and practical advice for a specific temporary situation.

So, perhaps I should not even answer at all, unless I attempt to point to that full reading!

I heard the other day that this artificial dividing of books into mere verses -- which we typically on the internet abuse, just like poor preachers -- was only added to the Bible much later in time. And just now I'm seeing that dated to the 16th century.

Isn't that interesting?

So, Paul did not expect us to read a few verses, nor even a 'passage'!

Interesting, eh?