Created To Be His Help Meet by Debi Pearl *graphic content*

[callasandra]

I started reading the book out of curiosity and there are several things right away that bother me. Debi Pearl states in chapter one that a man attains Gods favor by getting a good wife, that this is how God created us and it is our purpose for existing, that is it Gods will that a woman be a suitable helper to their husbands, that when you obey your husband you obey God and that men are created to be a helper of God. She seems to be putting the husband as the mediator between the wife and God instead of Christ being that mediator. Some how the idea of existing for the purpose of man while the husband exists to be a helper to God comes across like women were an after thought, and of less value than man, which is not supported by scripture. We are all of equal value in Gods sight, Christ died for us all equally. I just have a real problem with her theology.

Callasandra

[Can Dance]

Originally Posted by callasandra

I started reading the book out of curiosity and there are several things right away that bother me. Debi Pearl states in chapter one that a man attains Gods favor by getting a good wife, that this is how God created us and it is our purpose for existing, that is it Gods will that a woman be a suitable helper to their husbands, that when you obey your husband you obey God and that men are created to be a helper of God. She seems to be putting the husband as the mediator between the wife and God instead of Christ being that mediator. Some how the idea of existing for the purpose of man while the husband exists to be a helper to God comes across like women were an after thought, and of less value than man, which is not supported by scripture. We are all of equal value in Gods sight, Christ died for us all equally. I just have a real problem with her theology.

Callasandra

Amen sista. and very insightful too I might add
Candice

[hsgbdmama]

Originally Posted by callasandra

I just have a real problem with her theology.

Well, remember she's married to Mr. Three Greek Bibles, who works to correct everyone else. **And** a woman is to only get religious questions answered by her husband, which has be scratching my head because I am a stronger believer than my dh and know more than him because of my beliefs and that I study Scripture on a regular basis (in fact, he comes to me with questions, which is a big no-no in the Pearl universe). Who do I turn to when I have questions (since she states that one's pastor is not an appropriate person to turn to)?

Elizabeth,

Toxic waste is a perfect way to describe the Pearl's books. I don't think they are worth whatever few nuggets are in them. Way more bone than meat with the Pearls.

Originally Posted by Jodi B

The situation was a woman's second husband taking her tween son to places (like waysides) and forcing the boy to perform acts with him and other men.

Okay, now I just assumed it was a husband wanting to engage in behaviors with his wife that she didn't want to partake in...and that was bad enough.

So now we get back to my earlier point...where do the Pearls give an example where a husband is abusing the WIFE, and she is allowed to do ANYTHING to stop it?

Seriously...

And why in the world is the criteria wordly laws? That's kind of subjective...I mean really, in some states it is illegal to strike your child with an object--which would make following Pearl's advice on child training illegal.

Jenn

[hsgbdmama]

Originally Posted by Knitted_in_the_womb

So now we get back to my earlier point...where do the Pearls give an example where a husband is abusing the WIFE, and she is allowed to do ANYTHING to stop it?

None from what I could see. So you are correct there, and it goes along with his position that a wife MUST take some abuse in order to honor the Lord.

[Katigre]

Originally Posted by Knitted_in_the_womb

And why in the world is the criteria wordly laws? That's kind of subjective...I mean really, in some states it is illegal to strike your child with an object--which would make following Pearl's advice on child training illegal.

I have seen this position articulated by others who fall into this mindset. We were discussing submission in relation to abusive husbands and these women said that the ONLY time you are not to submit to your husband is when he commands you to break the law of the land--that the government law is what is supposed to protect you, and that you do not obey your husband over the government. This is the 'protection' you have from submitting to abuse of you and your children. This was even articulated when it came to sexual abuse and what made it grounds to get the husband out of the house.

Clearly these women aren't familiar with what happens when you live in countries without laws protecting women, or laws that are on the books but not enforced, or even laws that promote the exploitation of women (countries with child prostitution come to mind...). What if you are a child whose father commands you to let them sexually abuse you and you live where there is no legal protection? What if you are a wife in the same situation?

When i raised the issue of what about these other countries, i was told that 'we don't live in those countries, we should be thankful to live in one where there are laws protecting women and children, so it's a moot point to argue about since it's not our situation'. But it seems like such a bizarre way to decide what is right or not in terms of 'complete obedience to your earthly authority--first your father, then your husband' based on arbitrary government law.

Very very scary stuff.

Originally Posted by Tsunadae

When i raised the issue of what about these other countries, i was told that 'we don't live in those countries, we should be thankful to live in one where there are laws protecting women and children, so it's a moot point to argue about since it's not our situation'. But it seems like such a bizarre way to decide what is right or not in terms of 'complete obedience to your earthly authority--first your father, then your husband' based on arbitrary government law.

Never mind the fact that IF we are basing all this on Scripture (which clearly we are not but why worry about those pesky details) guidelines for relationships should cross cultures pretty easily. AND Nevemind the fact that Scripture was written in an entirely differrent culture and with an entirely different worldview than the one articulated by this kind of mindset. AND nevermind that fact that it is incredibly arrogant and egocentric to say that since we don't live there we don't have to worry about it!

Magan

[ArmsOfLove]

When i raised the issue of what about these other countries, i was told that 'we don't live in those countries, we should be thankful to live in one where there are laws protecting women and children, so it's a moot point to argue about since it's not our situation'.

This is just further evidence imo of them basing their beliefs less on Scripture and more on Traditional Victorian and American practices.

[TulipMama]

Never mind the fact that IF we are basing all this on Scripture (which clearly we are not but why worry about those pesky details) guidelines for relationships should cross cultures pretty easily. AND Nevemind the fact that Scripture was written in an entirely differrent culture and with an entirely different worldview than the one articulated by this kind of mindset. AND nevermind that fact that it is incredibly arrogant and egocentric to say that since we don't live there we don't have to worry about it!

Soooo. . . Ukraine has now made spanking illegal. The Pearls' TTUAC is translated into Russian and at least one church is handing it out in Kyiv. So, their teachings are going against the law of the land, designed to protect children. (Using the reasoning presented here. . .) Should the Pearls actively seek to have their teachings removed from Ukraine, so as not to lead people to disobey the law of the land?


And since when were the Pearls such cheerleaders of the "law of the land"? They advocate having people married without marriage certificates. Their daughter was religiously married, but not legally married. (Ahhh. . . Or is this just one other way to remove any legal protection from women? I really wonder. . .)



(edited to turn "not" into "now". . .)

[hsgbdmama]

Originally Posted by TulipMama

And since when were the Pearls such cheerleaders of the "law of the land"? They advocate having people married without marriage certificates. Their daughter was religiously married, but not legally married. (Ahhh. . . Or is this just one other way to remove any legal protection from women? I really wonder. . .)

Interesting ... apparently none of their daughters are married in the eyes of the state. Here is what I pulled from their website:

None of my daughters or their husbands asked the state ... for permission to marry. They did not yoke themselves to government. It was a personal, private covenant, binding them together forever.... So when the sodomites have come to share in the state marriage licenses, which will eventually be the law, ...will not be in league with those perverts. ... there will come a time when faithful Christians will either revoke their state marriage licenses and establish an exclusively one man-one woman covenant of marriage, or, they will forfeit the sanctity of their covenant by being unequally yoked together with perverts.

I guess I'm a little confused about this next section:

The sooner there is such a movement, the sooner we will have a voice in government. Some of you attorneys and statesmen reading this should get together and come up with an approach that will have credibility and help to impact the political process. Please contact me when you do and I will assist with publicity.

They don't want to ask permission from the government to marry; however, they somehow want the government to recognize the marriage?

Thoughts?

[ArmsOfLove]

They advocate having people married without marriage certificates. Their daughter was religiously married, but not legally married. (Ahhh. . . Or is this just one other way to remove any legal protection from women? I really wonder. . .)

Ooooohhhhh very interesting

And did you mean that the Ukraine has made spanking illegal???

[TulipMama]

And did you mean that the Ukraine has made spanking illegal???

Yes. Went to change my "not" into "now".

*blush*