By Thy Words

[Soloist]

This individual is full of exaggerations and mockery. While I have made fun of some nationwide publications before for various reasons, it seems their primary objection is the focus on some Biblical teachings. Such as submission to a husband or obedience to parents. The few blog posts I read does a disservice to actual abuse. No one is teaching that you should obey sin outside of some small charity movements teaching that regardless of what your husband, asks its not sin on you. We've only actually met one Charity type person who would have believed that, by the way; the majority of the people at that church would have spoken against submitting to sin/hiding abuse. That is unbiblical.

I want to read this silly princess book just to see if its actually decent and something I would agree with or if I find issues with it. Perhaps it needs a disclaimer to prevent it being misused for abuse, but I doubt that was the intent of the author.

This is very similar to the Republican/Democrat divide, where people are saying inflammatory things about the other side and making a lot of vast generalizations/assumptions, which usually ends up closing down the conversation. I'm sure there are times when things like what the author talks about happen/teachings get abused, but the majority of CA/Charity style families I know have really good and healthy relationships with their wives/children, and would teach strongly against abuse. Ironically, last week's Sunday school focused a lot on not provoking your children to wrath and obeying in the Lord, aka not contrary to scripture. There's usually a lot of emphasis on the husband/father's role to love/nourish/protect and act in a way worthy of that submission.

as for the hands off relationship dating... I started this way... I regret we didn't maintain stronger barriers. There is nothing wrong with holding hands, but intimate displays of affection break down a wall that shouldn't be removed until marriage. We did wait, but things like kissing and close hugs should have waited too, and may have reduced some later issues in marriage. Our conversation crossed the line too. These are good things to teach against as well as the teachings on rebellion. The primary key statement, the bad should not throw out the good and those who do have lost Biblical teaching. A lot of people we know who did maintain hands off/mostly hands off dating were very thankful afterward.

Basically, yes, abuse happens and we shouldn't discount it, shame the victims or enable the abusers, but there seems to be a trend to categorize entire groups of people like Conservative Anabaptists, Charity, ect as endorsing/enabling/engaging in abuse when there are many (probably a majority) in each of these groups that would teach and practice against it. It's like when our family or nonbelievers assume that every woman who submits to her husband is subjugated and mistreated, when from what we've seen the majority of the time, they willingly do it, are cherished and involved in decision making, and have much better relationships than we've seen in normal society.

I won't deny that I as an outsider would have a very hard time integrating in Nationwide (never actually tried) and I've had my struggles with the Conservative Mennonites, but its not because of "spiritual abuse".

[Grace]

Given my current experiences with dating couples in Charity settings, “hands off” relationships would be a real improvement...

Don't get me wrong, hands off relationships are a good thing. But bragging about it, isn't a good thing. Some time back we were at a wedding in a more liberal setting and the couple, when dating, had chosen to do the "hands off relationship" thing as well. It was never mentioned in the wedding ceremony and we wouldn't have known it, if someone close to the family wouldn't have told us.

[ABC 123]

To be clear, bythywords broaches more subjects than just courtship and weddings.

Someone mentioned reading Dear Princess. Go for it. Not my style at all, and thus I missed many of those concepts.

[ABC 123]

Given my current experiences with dating couples in Charity settings, “hands off” relationships would be a real improvement...

Don't get me wrong, hands off relationships are a good thing. But bragging about it, isn't a good thing. Some time back we were at a wedding in a more liberal setting and the couple, when dating, had chosen to do the "hands off relationship" thing as well. It was never mentioned in the wedding ceremony and we wouldn't have known it, if someone close to the family wouldn't have told us.

I have wondered what would happen at those weddings if a couple hadn't kept hands off. (It is not an exaggeration to say it is a pivotal point of all those weddings I have been to.)

[Josh]

Given my current experiences with dating couples in Charity settings, “hands off” relationships would be a real improvement...

Don't get me wrong, hands off relationships are a good thing. But bragging about it, isn't a good thing. Some time back we were at a wedding in a more liberal setting and the couple, when dating, had chosen to do the "hands off relationship" thing as well. It was never mentioned in the wedding ceremony and we wouldn't have known it, if someone close to the family wouldn't have told us.

I go to a fairly conservative Mennonite church, at least in the area of dating, marriage, etc.

I have never heard this brought up once in the actual ceremony. It would not even be decent to speak of such things. How much touching happened before marriage (the ideal is none) is something only shared with closest family and friends, and ministers, in case spiritual help is needed.

One reason? To help us stay out of the trap of pride.

[joshuabgood]

I do get your point, Grace.

However how do you address these issues of spiritual abuse. You came out the other side apparently unscathed. Some are not so fortunate. And some are still there.

To say something bothers people, so we just let it keep happening?

I think a lot of harm and damage is done by some things that are written and preached in CA publications and churches.

I also think a lot of harm and damage is done by those who make light of the convictions of others.

So I think we need to find ways to address spiritual abuse without making light of others convictions and without placing ourselves in the position of ultimate judge. Folks who place themselves in the position of ultimate judge often have a lot of reaping later in life when their offspring and followers take a course that is not God honoring.

I can get behind this. This same approach of respect should also be taken by CAs to other faith traditions.

[Josh]

This individual is full of exaggerations and mockery. While I have made fun of some nationwide publications before for various reasons, it seems their primary objection is the focus on some Biblical teachings. Such as submission to a husband or obedience to parents. The few blog posts I read does a disservice to actual abuse. No one is teaching that you should obey sin outside of some small charity movements teaching that regardless of what your husband, asks its not sin on you. We've only actually met one Charity type person who would have believed that, by the way; the majority of the people at that church would have spoken against submitting to sin/hiding abuse. That is unbiblical.

I want to read this silly princess book just to see if its actually decent and something I would agree with or if I find issues with it. Perhaps it needs a disclaimer to prevent it being misused for abuse, but I doubt that was the intent of the author.

This is very similar to the Republican/Democrat divide, where people are saying inflammatory things about the other side and making a lot of vast generalizations/assumptions, which usually ends up closing down the conversation. I'm sure there are times when things like what the author talks about happen/teachings get abused, but the majority of CA/Charity style families I know have really good and healthy relationships with their wives/children, and would teach strongly against abuse. Ironically, last week's Sunday school focused a lot on not provoking your children to wrath and obeying in the Lord, aka not contrary to scripture. There's usually a lot of emphasis on the husband/father's role to love/nourish/protect and act in a way worthy of that submission.

as for the hands off relationship dating... I started this way... I regret we didn't maintain stronger barriers. There is nothing wrong with holding hands, but intimate displays of affection break down a wall that shouldn't be removed until marriage. We did wait, but things like kissing and close hugs should have waited too, and may have reduced some later issues in marriage. Our conversation crossed the line too. These are good things to teach against as well as the teachings on rebellion. The primary key statement, the bad should not throw out the good and those who do have lost Biblical teaching. A lot of people we know who did maintain hands off/mostly hands off dating were very thankful afterward.

Basically, yes, abuse happens and we shouldn't discount it, shame the victims or enable the abusers, but there seems to be a trend to categorize entire groups of people like Conservative Anabaptists, Charity, ect as endorsing/enabling/engaging in abuse when there are many (probably a majority) in each of these groups that would teach and practice against it. It's like when our family or nonbelievers assume that every woman who submits to her husband is subjugated and mistreated, when from what we've seen the majority of the time, they willingly do it, are cherished and involved in decision making, and have much better relationships than we've seen in normal society.

I won't deny that I as an outsider would have a very hard time integrating in Nationwide (never actually tried) and I've had my struggles with the Conservative Mennonites, but its not because of "spiritual abuse".

Whilst I’m not on Facebook other than Marketplace and can’t see these messages, a rather brief search found these postings, and they all seem to be of the same variety: mocking other people for having a different belief system.

This is never a good thing to do.

[ABC 123]

I guess you can look at it as mocking people with different beliefs.

You could also say these teachings are being passed off as THUS SAYEST THE LORD. And they shouldn't be.

[ragpicker]

One reason? To help us stay out of the trap of pride.

Pride was rampant in the Charity circles back in the day.

[ragpicker]

The extremely high level of corruption, sexual perversion and spiritual abuse (at best) that occurred in the churches closely connected to R&S is well documented and was widely experienced. It’s sad and amusing to see people play it down.

If I claimed that one of the top Nationwide bishops and a R&S board member used to look at himself in the mirror and gloat about how much power he had amassed, some of y’all would try to claim it wasn’t that bad. I have him on tape stating this. Etc. etc.