What does Pearl actually teach?

[NewLeaf]

Originally Posted by MomtoJGJ

Is that from CTBHHM? or a different book?

I remember the second paragraph about molestation being the book, it's word for word as far as I can tell. The first paragraph might be in there too, perhaps I don't remember it as strongly.

[jewelmcjem]

What I found in Spunky's review was that the 1999 article on the website - easily searchable, quotable, and linkable - gives one view. Call the law, but be waiting for him when he gets out of jail - bad enough, right?

From the 1999 article:

In a moment when he is not angry, calmly inform him that the next time he physically assaults you or the kids, you are going to call the law and have him arrested.
<snip>
If your abusing husband fully understands that you have the power of the law behind you, he will learn to keep his hands in his pockets. I am not suggesting you do this to be vindictive or to get even with him. It must be done in humility and love. If your husband knows that you are the weaker vessel, desperately seeking your survival and that of the kids, and that you are not trying to punish him, but that you are going to stand by and continue to love him, that you are going to wait for him to get out of prison and then try to start over again, it may move his heart to fear if not to repentance.

But the book - not as easily found, very easy to accuse things taken out of context - says you should suffer in silence and God will reward you. Even worse.

From her review (indented quotes are from the book. The rest is hers.):

At this point, rather than explain further how a woman should handle situations where a husband crosses that "bright red line" or engages in domestic violence, Michael launches off into the doctrine of wrongful suffering in silence.

If you are not at least moderately versed in Scripture and in the will and ways of God, this doctrine of suffering abuse in silence for the glory of God will amaze you. (emphasis in the original)

Using I Peter 2 and 3 as the primary text he states on page 262,

The servant is not given the option of deciding that the master is not acting within the will of God and therefore should not be obeyed. It is acceptable with God (God's will) for the underling to suffer wrongfullytake it patiently.
You will surely wonder, "why is it the will of God for the underling to suffer at the hands of an unjust, and perverse authority?" Two reasons are obvious, one of which we have already stated. First, the chain of command must remain intact, even to the point of allowing some abuse. The other reason is introduced in verse 20 - glory.

[Taedareth]

I can see why this stuff is so insidious. Even I am feeling a little confused, because lately I have been led to respond to situations of injustice in my life with grace and kindness rather than my natural inclination, which is to set out on a crusade to right the wrong all in my own strength I'm talking about situations of wrongful accusations against my character, or of people wronging me financially etc. I read a book by John Bevere titled How to Respond When You Feel Mistreated.

But if my husband started abusing anyone in our family, I would take the kids and LEAVE instantly, and get help from a higher authority. So I guess that tosses all of the "turn the other cheek" theology out the window Or put another way, what does scripture say about the line between being gracious toward those who treat us injustly vs. taking action to protect ourselves?

[relizabeth]

Originally Posted by Taedareth

I can see why this stuff is so insidious. Even I am feeling a little confused, because lately I have been led to respond to situations of injustice in my life with grace and kindness rather than my natural inclination, which is to set out on a crusade to right the wrong all in my own strength I'm talking about situations of wrongful accusations against my character, or of people wronging me financially etc. I read a book by John Bevere titled How to Respond When You Feel Mistreated.

But if my husband started abusing anyone in our family, I would take the kids and LEAVE instantly, and get help from a higher authority. So I guess that tosses all of the "turn the other cheek" theology out the window Or put another way, what does scripture say about the line between being gracious toward those who treat us injustly vs. taking action to protect ourselves?

Not allowing abuse to continue is a powerful way to love an abuser as yourself.

[saturnfire16]

Originally Posted by Taedareth

I can see why this stuff is so insidious. Even I am feeling a little confused, because lately I have been led to respond to situations of injustice in my life with grace and kindness rather than my natural inclination, which is to set out on a crusade to right the wrong all in my own strength I'm talking about situations of wrongful accusations against my character, or of people wronging me financially etc. I read a book by John Bevere titled How to Respond When You Feel Mistreated.

But if my husband started abusing anyone in our family, I would take the kids and LEAVE instantly, and get help from a higher authority. So I guess that tosses all of the "turn the other cheek" theology out the window Or put another way, what does scripture say about the line between being gracious toward those who treat us injustly vs. taking action to protect ourselves?

A husband who is abusing his wife is living in sin. It's not loving to enable someone to live in sin. It's not loving toward our children to allow them to be hurt. That doesn't mean to take off and run at the first sign of anything unkind and never speak to him again. It means to love him, pray for him, be gracious with him and forgive him, while at the same time setting up boundaries to protect yourself and your children. Those boundaries can begin LONG before the need to leave ever arises and setting up the boundaries early, on the easy stuff, might stop the abuse before it ever gets to a serious level.

[newday]

Originally Posted by Taedareth

I can see why this stuff is so insidious. Even I am feeling a little confused, because lately I have been led to respond to situations of injustice in my life with grace and kindness rather than my natural inclination, which is to set out on a crusade to right the wrong all in my own strength I'm talking about situations of wrongful accusations against my character, or of people wronging me financially etc. I read a book by John Bevere titled How to Respond When You Feel Mistreated.

But if my husband started abusing anyone in our family, I would take the kids and LEAVE instantly, and get help from a higher authority. So I guess that tosses all of the "turn the other cheek" theology out the window Or put another way, what does scripture say about the line between being gracious toward those who treat us injustly vs. taking action to protect ourselves?

just fyi (this is all my opinion, based on studies I did long ago), Christ's instruction to "turn the other cheek" and "walk the second mile" are not referring to this kind of abuse, but to actual insult. A backhand across your husband's cheek may not do much (probably won't leave more than a red mark) but his gut reaction would be to deck the offender - right? Christ's words give your dh the instruction to not bear the offense. The Roman soldiers had the "right" to force a Jew to carry the soldier's things for one mile (), Jesus is saying, in essence, go ahead and walk the second mile --- I firmly believe that Christ is not teaching us Passivism here, but saying that we are not to allow an offense to be offensive (at least under certain circumstances). I haven't worked this all out in my mind/heart, but this is my best understanding of Christ's point.

[saturnfire16]

Originally Posted by newday

just fyi (this is all my opinion, based on studies I did long ago), Christ's instruction to "turn the other cheek" and "walk the second mile" are not referring to this kind of abuse, but to actual insult. A backhand across your husband's cheek may not do much (probably won't leave more than a red mark) but his gut reaction would be to deck the offender - right? Christ's words give your dh the instruction to not bear the offense. The Roman soldiers had the "right" to force a Jew to carry the soldier's things for one mile (), Jesus is saying, in essence, go ahead and walk the second mile --- I firmly believe that Christ is not teaching us Passivism here, but saying that we are not to allow an offense to be offensive (at least under certain circumstances). I haven't worked this all out in my mind/heart, but this is my best understanding of Christ's point.

I've also heard that the striking on the check was a way to challenge a person to a fight, like a duel. So, rather than accepting the challenge, Jesus was saying to let it go, let him hit the other check and challenge you again if he wants.

[Taedareth]

Ok so that's a confusing passage. I've also read that all the examples in that passage of the sermon on the mount (carrying gear, striking faces) were examples of passive resistance, ways to level the playing field.

Because to strike a person's cheek going one direction (with open hand) was how you hit a servant. But if they strike again coming back the other way, that's how you strike a person of equal status. Or vice versa, I forget which way was which.

And with carrying a soldier's gear, it was legal to make someone carry their stuff one mile. But if they persisted and the person carried their stuff a second mile, the soldier would be in trouble because that was illegal.

[Treenahurricane]

Another good blog, not sure if it's from someone here or not, just found it.

http://www.benedictionblogson.com/20...d-abuse-death/

[walkwallfall]

wow guys! Great info! Those Pearls are scary people. Yikes!

[Taedareth]

The only unfortunate thing about that blog entry is that it says the parents "took Pearl's teachings too far" - as if there's an appropriate way to apply Pearl's teachings.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by keepinghome

But that whenever your husband wants sex- you give it to him no matter what.

But what if this is what he wants? Then you have to give in....right? Even if it's sinful?

[relizabeth]

Originally Posted by Taedareth

The only unfortunate thing about that blog entry is that it says the parents "took Pearl's teachings too far" - as if there's an appropriate way to apply Pearl's teachings.

The only way to "appropriately" apply the Pearl's teachings is to MISapply them.

[Taedareth]

The thing about punitive/adversarial parenting styles is that they don't live up to Jesus' teaching that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. Which of us wishes our parents had spanked us more as children? Which of us would rather that our parents had taught us with a little more kindness and respect?

[keepinghome]

Originally Posted by mamaBear

But what if this is what he wants? Then you have to give in....right? Even if it's sinful?

I got the impression Debi was saying that you are never to do anything sinful your husband asks of you (sexual or otherwise), but when he wants sex you have no right to deny him or you will be sinning and responsible for any sin he commits as a result. But, she was pretty clear on the not consenting to sexual sin thing... shockingly.

Man, I'm glad my husband respects me enough to not demand sex whenever he wants it.