 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Link |
About the hypothetical pastor accused of sodomizing a boy in the bathroom...man we are talking about lots of disturbing issues... if the accusation is brought to one of the elders, I think he should actively seek for evidence. I don't think the only witnesses that should be allowed would have to be the one in the bathroom either. If there is any suspicion of an issue like this, there shouldn't be a situation where this pastor is alone in the bathroom with anyone, except maybe his wife at home.
The state will take DNA evidence and lock a man away if it shows positive, after a trial. But the state in our country, whatever state it is, does follow it's own laws and evidence has to meet a certain criteria according to the law. Personally, I don't believe it is right for the state to put a man to death for this type of crime unless their are human witnesses, not just DNA.
Just my opinion here, but in the pastor scenario, I think one witness watching the pastor enjoying kiddie porn and the child in the bathroom as another witness should be enough to bring a pastor to trial in front of his own church. The trial in front of the church is a theoretical and hypothetical thing to a lot of churches and denominations including Pentecostal people, because a lot of denominations have invented their own ways of dealing with charges against leaders among the leaders (which IMO doesn't follow what Jesus or Paul taught in a lot of cases.) Based on my limited experience with knowing of people accused of sexual misconduct, leaders don't proceed unless they have witnesses and a solid case. This wasn't rape or child molestation.
Steps can be put in place to protect children without 'prosecuting' someone in church if there isn't enough evidence.
Someone mentioned a hypothetical scenario of a female being raped and bringing it up three months later. I wonder how old she's supposed to be in this scenario. It would be different, IMO, if she's 30 as opposed to 13. Did she date the guy after? Is it an accusation about the first day of a three-month relationship after dating for three months.
I don't think we should always believe the victim. If we did, anyone could put anyone else in jail at any time. Really think about that. If someone didn't like you, they could accuse you of rape, murder, or abuse with no evidence and have you locked away, or in the context of the church, turn your name into mud or have your ministry credential stripped. The Law God gave in the Old Testament does offer some protections for the accused. In the case of rape, if the girl was in the city, it was expected that she would have screamed. I supposed that was one of the ways they determined it wasn't rape or fornication, and they may have had a society where people would not have ignored the screams, either.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 9:42 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
I don't know if it is based on a refusal to grapple with the practical outworkings of one's beliefs, which was a major concern of Ruth Tucker's as stated in the OP '....But I do want them to reassess their position and how it plays out in practical terms.' Link seems very concerned that Ruth Tucker has made the suggestion that her ex-husband's view of headship was somehow connected to the way the relationship eroded to the point of threats and violence.
As Patrick said, whenever the issue of women being abused comes up, Link wants to change the subject to men also being abused or that what is called abuse is not really abuse.
This tangent about believing the victim is also predictable. The caution about not believing someone until you've heard both sides hardly seems relevant in this case because one must still ask if the complementarian view of headship means that a husband could, for example, isolate a woman from her support system by taking away her keys and phone. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 9:50 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
Are you indeed saying that a woman can avoid physical abuse by being submissive?
Great, that sounds like typical Piper (the guy who concerns himself with making sure a woman doesn't instruct a man, that woman aren't muscular because men are turned on by a woman pumping iron, the guy that suggests rather than calling the police if she is physically abused, she should wait till the next morning and tell elders--elders who have been given the example of St. Augustine's mother???!!!!!!!). Instead of being struck by the reality that abuse was prevalent and accepted as normal and condemning the men for being abusive, he insinuates that if the women were just as submissive as Augustine's mother, they could have avoided the abuse as well.
How in the world is this something to be held up as exemplary? |
Sure, there are probably some cases where a woman married to an abusive man could avoid being abused by being submissive. That seems to be so logically true, I don't see how anyone could deny that. Realizing that this is probably true in some relationships is NOT endorsing abusing women. It's not the same thing as saying it's okay for a man to abuse his wife.
Of course it is a good thing if a woman has such a fear of the Lord that she is submissive to her husband. It is exemplary that a woman living in a culture like that where wife-beating may have been acceptable was so submissive to her husband that, even if she were married to a hothead, he wouldn't abuse her. Wives being submissive to their husbands is a good thing. Men being hotheads or abusive is a bad thing.
There are probably abusive prison guards in the prison system who beat up prisoners from time to time. The submissive prisoners who follow the rules may not be the ones who get beat up. If one prisoner tells a new guy not to defy the guards, that doesn't mean he's endorsing the guards abuse. He's just telling him how things operate. The advice isn't a moral judgment in favor of guards beating prisoners with a nightstick. It's just stating the way things are.
Of course, I believe a lot of things that are considered 'politically incorrect.' I know there are some people (esp. feminists) who think it's immoral to tell a young woman "If you go around dressed like that, you might get raped" because they think it takes the blame off rapists. But I think if a young woman does dress in really, really skimpy clothes and walks down the street in a dangerous neighborhood drunk that she might increase her chances of getting raped compared to walking down the street modestly dressed while sober. That doesn't mean I endorse rape or think that her choice of clothing or beverages excuses the hypothetical rapist.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 9:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Dave, I don't deny it would be a difficult situation, but my point is that in the situation here, the interview with Ruth Tucker about her book, there seems to me to be no reason to doubt her story. |
Thanks for clarifying for me. I agree. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
3/12/16 10:02 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Sure, there are probably some cases where a woman married to an abusive man could avoid being abused by being submissive. |
The onus should be on the man to stop being abusive, not the woman to try to make him stop being abusive!
A woman should not be advised to stay with an abuser and be more submissive in hopes that will save her from additional abuse! That is dangerous and has led to death!
Ruth Tucker said she went to counseling with her husband after she had separated from him (and incidentally, she did not file for divorce--he did) and was told she should try being more submissive. Her response was that she had been too submissive by not calling the police when her husband molested their foster daughter. She also cited one more area where she felt she had been too submissive in the marriage, but I can't find the quote right now.
Last edited by bonnie knox on 3/12/16 10:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 10:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
Link,
Yes that was me that said get out if they are being abused. For the record, mental abuse is just as powerful and damaging as physical abuse.
Your view of submission is black and white, which I find very scary. Mostly because it leads to the inevitable solution that to stay and bear the abuse is commendable. You may find that in scripture, however, in my view it certainly violates the spirit of a Christian life and what the Word says.
My views are not academic either; I have seen abuse in my family and in close friends and I can tell you first hand the church was zero help and even a hinderance at times.
If I'm counseling an abused women I'm giving the her the following advice:
1. Get a restraining order
2. Get out!!!!
If in your believe this violates scripture, then I'm ok with that. I'll stand by my judgment. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
3/12/16 10:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
It is despicable to suggest a woman who is being abused has any responsibility to attempt to lessen the abuse by working harder to not "set off" her tormentor. It is at times a necessary coping mechanism for a woman who is so psychologically brutalized that she is not ready to escape, but it is about abominable that anyone would suggest it as counsel.
Patrick provides the ONLY counsel that should be given. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
3/12/16 10:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
As Patrick said, whenever the issue of women being abused comes up, Link wants to change the subject to men also being abused or that what is called abuse is not really abuse. |
I didn't say, 'not really abuse.' But there are a lot of pastors on the forum who deal with issues like this or may have to. It's good to be reminded that when some people say 'abuse' then include things like verbal abuse and that some models of 'abuse' include behaviors that aren't abusive.
As far as men being abused go, the author of the article cited in the OP brought up the topic and downplayed it. I do think it is important for people to realize that there is a wide variety of scenarios that can occur in homes that have domestic violence. Some men habitually abuse their wives. For some it is a one-off thing. And some are married to physically abusive women and one day hit back and get labeled as abusers. There isn't much stigma attached to women hitting their husbands in our society. It has long been treated as comedy. In this thread we've had a poster tell story of women hitting their husbands in the head. I doubt anyone on here would suggest scenarios where a man hits a woman in the head as a scenario if the situation were reversed.
| Quote: | | This tangent about believing the victim is also predictable. The caution about not believing someone until you've heard both sides hardly seems relevant in this case because one must still ask if the complementarian view of headship means that a husband could, for example, isolate a woman from her support system by taking away her keys and phone. |
That's what I started out addressing-- can a husband take the keys, and other posters took what I was saying as if it were about physical abuse.
Realistically, I don't think a man who beats his wife black and blue is going to think, "It's okay to beat her up, but it would be immoral to take the keys and cell phone, because that would cut her off from her support network."
But there are scenarios where a man is not abusive where he might hide or ask his wife for her keys or cell phone. Junior goes missing and momma is crying and emotional and seems like she's going crazy and stays up all night. Papa asks her for the keys, takes them, or hides them because he doesn't think she's in a right state of mind to go out driving looking for Junior with no leads.
The wife isn't herself and threatens suicide. She wants to go off driving to clear her head. The husband talks her out of the keys or takes them out of her hand because he doesn't want her driving in that state of mind, or just hides the keys somewhere. If the wife believes in submitting to her husband, she may give him the keys if he asks or insists. It doesn't have to be a wrestling match.
I don't suppose it should surprise me given some of your past posts, but I'm surprised the forum hasn't chipped in. How can someone say they believe the Bible, which says that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands in everything, and then think that if a husband asks for the phone or keys, the wife shouldn't give them to him?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 10:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Link seems very concerned that Ruth Tucker has made the suggestion that her ex-husband's view of headship was somehow connected to the way the relationship eroded to the point of threats and violence. |
I haven't read the woman's book. I've just read about a page worth of material online. You are misrepresenting my view here. If she was beaten by her husband and he had a view of headship that allowed him to beat up his wife, clearly that type of view of 'headship' is way off. Paul wrote about Christ laying down His life for the church and loving as Christ loved the church.
But I have seen a lot from egalitarians trying to associate complementarian views with wife-beating in general. A few years ago, I saw a video on YouTube that showed pictures of bruised women while arguing against the complementarian view. The vast majority of complementarians are against spousal abuse. I'm sure there are plenty of abusive men with a religious bent who know the verse about wives submitting to their husband even if they can't quote another verse. But that doesn't mean that this is typical of complementarian beliefs or that holding to historical, traditional, biblical views of marriage leads to abuse.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 11:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | How can someone say they believe the Bible, which says that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands in everything, and then think that if a husband asks for the phone or keys, the wife shouldn't give them to him? |
Link, let's try to stick to the scenarios where a husband is being domineering and vindictive. In those cases, are you saying that the Bible means for the woman to hand over her keys and phone?
I have to take it you mean, yes. I also take it that you mean to tell women that's what they should be advised to do and that anyone who sees that as wrong does not believe the Bible.
I don't believe you've ever been able to fit 1 Peter 5:5 in your paradigm, and I don't believe you answered Ole Timer about how many times you would let him punch you in the face before punching back.
Your question appears to be rhetorical, but the simple answer seems to be that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are actually weightier than tithing on dill, mint, and cumin. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 11:13 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | You are misrepresenting my view here. |
Not my intentions. Please clarify.
If Tucker says:
| Quote: | | During some twenty years of marriage his domineering demands, supported by the doctrine of male headship, spiraled into terrorizing threats and violent attacks. |
Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 11:19 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Bonnie Knox wrote,
| Quote: |
The onus should be on the man to stop being abusive, not the woman to try to make him stop being abusive! |
In any Christian marriage, the onus is on the wife to submit to her husband. That's true in non-abusive marriages. It's true in any marriage. A wife submitting to her husband is a good thing.
In our country, police will investigate domestic violence claims. Sometimes relatives will get involved and in some cases churches may help as well.
There are other societies in the world. There are believers from Mus|im backgrounds, a small percentage, on the Arabian penninsula. How should a Christian woman married to an abusive man in this scenario act? If by being submissive, her husband is not abusive, what should she do? If her alternative is to complain to the police who might rape her before turning her back over to her husband, how should she respond?
A Christian wife should be submissive. I don't get this idea that if the hypothetical husband is abusive or has been in the past, that she is somehow free of God's obligations for her as an individual. If a wife is abusive or has been, does that mean a man never has to love his wife again?
A wife is supposed to submit to her husband out of reverence for Christ, not because it keeps a man from being abusive.
I don't agree with the mindset that it is normal for a man to be abusive if his wife isn't submissive, or that her unsubmissiveness makes it okay. But it doesn't make any sense to me if people expect a wife to stay with her husband, but because he's abusive, not be submissive to him, and that his abusiveness frees her from what the Bible commands her to do.
| Quote: | | A woman should not be advised to stay with an abuser and be more submissive in hopes that will save her from additional abuse! That is dangerous and has led to death! |
Hmmmm. I haven't said that that should be given as a solution for abuse. If a husband is abusive, the fault lies with him for being abusive. I do say that wives should submit to their husbands out of reverence for Christ. If a woman does live with a husband who is an abusive hothead, being submissive may help prevent abuse in some cases-- maybe depending on how crazy the guy is. But that's a reasonable logical statement, not a prescription for marriage counseling.
| Quote: | Ruth Tucker said she went to counseling with her husband after she had separated from him (and incidentally, she did not file for divorce--he did) and was told she should try being more submissive. Her response was that she had been too submissive by not calling the police when her husband molested their foster daughter. She also cited one more area where she felt she had been too submissive in the marriage, but I can't find the quote right now.
|
Like I said, I haven't read the book. Not reporting molesting kids... well that's a twisted story. The Old Testament has laws requiring testifying against those who commit crimes. 'Submission' is not the only issue when it comes to ethics. I don't think it would be wrong for a wife to report or testify against her husband for committing a crime. I'm not saying a wife can't use the legal system or the church's 'legal system' (which in a lot of churches doesn't seem to exist, but should.)
I do think there are scenarios where a wife is with an abusive husband and being submissive might stave off some abuse. That doesn't mean I think submission cures his abusiveness or that this absolves him of any responsibility.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 11:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | The vast majority of complementarians are against spousal abuse. |
Then why do they insist that women should submit to men who are abusing them? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 11:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | How can someone say they believe the Bible, which says that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands in everything, and then think that if a husband asks for the phone or keys, the wife shouldn't give them to him? |
Link, let's try to stick to the scenarios where a husband is being domineering and vindictive. In those cases, are you saying that the Bible means for the woman to hand over her keys and phone?
I have to take it you mean, yes. I also take it that you mean to tell women that's what they should be advised to do and that anyone who sees that as wrong does not believe the Bible.
I don't believe you've ever been able to fit 1 Peter 5:5 in your paradigm, and I don't believe you answered Ole Timer about how many times you would let him punch you in the face before punching back.
Your question appears to be rhetorical, but the simple answer seems to be that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are actually weightier than tithing on dill, mint, and cumin. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 11:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Patrick Harris wrote,
| Quote: |
Yes that was me that said get out if they are being abused. For the record, mental abuse is just as powerful and damaging as physical abuse.
Your view of submission is black and white, which I find very scary. |
Your statements seem rather black and white to me, and scary in other ways if applied as you write. I think you need to be more specific about what kind of abuse you are talking about. Everyone's situation is different.
There are a lot of different scenarios. What you prescribed makes a lot more sense if you are talking about a husband who beats his wife within an inch of her life than if you are talking about a man who got angry and called his wife a name last week and said he was sorry. Aren't both forms of abuse?
I'm fortunate that in my marriage, I can't remember any time we've argued and resorted to name calling. I may have said that what my wife did was stupid, but I can't ever remember calling me stupid. And she hasn't done that or called me 'anjing' or 'babi' or 'monyet' (dog or pig or monkey), some of the worst insults in her language. And we haven't cussed at each other. But a lot of couples do, and even without doing that, it is possible to say things that are verbally abusive.
Technically, I suspect that in the majority of married couples that have been together for a while, at some point, one has said something abusive to the other, called that person a name, made a false and unfair accusation, or just said something hurtful to the other in anger to hurt the other person.
Those are all abusive behaviors.
There are also the 'abusive' behaviors in some of the models put out in domestic violence literature, like using male logic, giving a woman a look, not giving her money, or quoting scripture about wives submitting to husbands or other behaviors that go along with trying to be the leader in the relationship.
There are a lot of genuinely abusive behaviors that can be repented of and the couple can move past it without extensive marriage counseling or things of that nature. Abusive language in a one-off argument is an example.
I don't believe that if there has ever been verbal or mental abuse in a marriage, the marriage must end forever, or that one party must move out. There are a lot of things that can be worked out quickly and forgiven by the grace of God.
Even if there has been some physical violence in the past, God's grace is able to help couples with that as well.
There are some people who are dangerous, and in a lot of cases, the relatives or church people of the person in danger need to step in and help out, since the person in it is in a weak position and can't handle it alone.
| Quote: |
Mostly because it leads to the inevitable solution that to stay and bear the abuse is commendable. You may find that in scripture, however, in my view it certainly violates the spirit of a Christian life and what the Word says. |
Your thinking here doesn't apply universally to all situations cross-culturally, throughout the world, since a lot of women in the world really have no choice but to stay in their situation.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 11:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? |
Of course, being domineering and violent isn't imitating Christ's headship. Husbands are supposed to love and honor their wives, following the example of Christ who loved the church and laid down His life for her.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 11:45 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: |
As Patrick said, whenever the issue of women being abused comes up, Link wants to change the subject to men also being abused or that what is called abuse is not really abuse. |
I didn't say, 'not really abuse.' But there are a lot of pastors on the forum who deal with issues like this or may have to. It's good to be reminded that when some people say 'abuse' then include things like verbal abuse and that some models of 'abuse' include behaviors that aren't abusive.
|
I think that is what Patrick and I are referring to. You take issue with the things some people choose to call abuse by saying they are not really abuse. For example, you suggested that Naghmeh Abedini might be using the word abuse rather loosely if she was saying she was abused in Skype conversations.
And it does seem you bring this up in every conversation on Acts about wife abuse. And it doesn't seem relevant to Ruth Tucker's case because I think we all can agree that the things she described constitute abuse. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 11:50 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Link wrote: | Patrick Harris wrote,
| Quote: |
Yes that was me that said get out if they are being abused. For the record, mental abuse is just as powerful and damaging as physical abuse.
Your view of submission is black and white, which I find very scary. |
Your statements seem rather black and white to me, and scary in other ways if applied as you write. I think you need to be more specific about what kind of abuse you are talking about. Everyone's situation is different.
There are a lot of different scenarios. What you prescribed makes a lot more sense if you are talking about a husband who beats his wife within an inch of her life than if you are talking about a man who got angry and called his wife a name last week and said he was sorry. Aren't both forms of abuse?
I'm fortunate that in my marriage, I can't remember any time we've argued and resorted to name calling. I may have said that what my wife did was stupid, but I can't ever remember calling me stupid. And she hasn't done that or called me 'anjing' or 'babi' or 'monyet' (dog or pig or monkey), some of the worst insults in her language. And we haven't cussed at each other. But a lot of couples do, and even without doing that, it is possible to say things that are verbally abusive.
Technically, I suspect that in the majority of married couples that have been together for a while, at some point, one has said something abusive to the other, called that person a name, made a false and unfair accusation, or just said something hurtful to the other in anger to hurt the other person.
Those are all abusive behaviors.
There are also the 'abusive' behaviors in some of the models put out in domestic violence literature, like using male logic, giving a woman a look, not giving her money, or quoting scripture about wives submitting to husbands or other behaviors that go along with trying to be the leader in the relationship.
There are a lot of genuinely abusive behaviors that can be repented of and the couple can move past it without extensive marriage counseling or things of that nature. Abusive language in a one-off argument is an example.
I don't believe that if there has ever been verbal or mental abuse in a marriage, the marriage must end forever, or that one party must move out. There are a lot of things that can be worked out quickly and forgiven by the grace of God.
Even if there has been some physical violence in the past, God's grace is able to help couples with that as well.
There are some people who are dangerous, and in a lot of cases, the relatives or church people of the person in danger need to step in and help out, since the person in it is in a weak position and can't handle it alone.
| Quote: |
Mostly because it leads to the inevitable solution that to stay and bear the abuse is commendable. You may find that in scripture, however, in my view it certainly violates the spirit of a Christian life and what the Word says. |
Your thinking here doesn't apply universally to all situations cross-culturally, throughout the world, since a lot of women in the world really have no choice but to stay in their situation. |
I can be more specific. If he hits her, she should leave. If he constantly threatens her harm or her children, again she should consider leaving. If he is controlling to the point that she can't leave the home or have contact with friends and family, again consider leaving..
| Quote: | | There are a lot of things that can be worked out quickly and forgiven by the grace of God. |
Unfortunately, i've never seen this take place in the real world. Abuse almost always escalates. Emotional abuse almost always escalates to physical.
That small percentage where things work out and people are forgiven is not worth the risk of telling someone to stay.
Last edited by Patrick Harris on 3/12/16 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
3/12/16 11:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, I don't think you understood what I said.
Do you think Ruth Tucker made a connection between her husband's view of headship and his abuse of her? Are you denying you are concerned that she made that connection?
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: |
Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? |
Of course, being domineering and violent isn't imitating Christ's headship. Husbands are supposed to love and honor their wives, following the example of Christ who loved the church and laid down His life for her. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/12/16 11:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | In my brief search online what I have not found thus far is anyone stating that what she wrote in her book (in terms of abuse) is untrue or unfounded. |
I'd never heard of the woman before this thread. I made a comment that we were hearing one side of the story-- the type of thing I've written often in my history on this forum. I'll point out that newspaper articles about preachers or other people aren't always true. You are just getting one perspective. I think that's a fairly common pattern in my posts, and a fair way to treat information like this. A poster referred my short comment and made much of the issue of not believing victims.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/12/16 12:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
