Reconciliation with a Hardened Wife

[debrand]

revivalandreformation.wordpress.com/for-men/

Notice how condescending this is to women.

When a woman first seriously considers divorce she usually isn’t thinking about the theological implications of her desires – all she knows is that she feels like she has to get away from her husband. She doesn’t arrive at this state of desperation by a process of calm deduction. She is simply reacting to the feeling that she “can’t take anymore.†Her departure is typically a sign that she has hardened her heart towards the man to whom she once entrusted it. Likely, she has been hurt over and over, and finally decided she will tolerate no more emotional pain. Her leaving may have been an attempt to coerce her husband to change, but more often it has been a desperate effort to survive. She sincerely believes that she cannot endure anymore heartache, so she has reached out and grabbed onto the separation like a drowning swimmer clings to a life ring.

One of the reasons she became so weak, and finally, unwilling to go on, was that whenever she became hurt, she also became angry. As time progressed, the hurts mounted up and the less she felt able to endure. She inadvertently was doing what Christians are warned not to do, and was letting the sun go down on her anger (Eph 4:26), which grew into bitterness, which ultimately defiled her (Heb 12:15). In a final act of self defense, she hardened her heart so that it would no longer be vulnerable to pain

I followed the link to the rest of the article and it seems to connect to a site helping Christian women in domestic abuse cases. Yet, the author's tone is obviously very condescending.

[OddLittleBird]

Well, it blames the *wife* for not just being a forgiving little trooper and bearing all the crap and abuse flung at her, making the assumption that only spiritually unhealthy people walk away from constant abuse. Very blame the victim.

[EllyPDQ]

Those bitter, angry, emotional women. It's all their fault for not being sufficiently compliant, forgiving doormats. Obviously. That crap is TOXIC.

[fundiefan]

There is so much to refute but I can't too it. The stupidity burns. Also, the man explaining the motives of women is just beyond ridiculous and arrogant.

As a divorced woman, I can say with confidence that he doesn't have a clue. Well, except for the not considering theology thing. In my case, he is right; it was never once considered.

[Burris]

Wow – what an singularly ugly little paragraph. It’s not merely condescending, but a concentrated attack on women’s agency and character.

“…she usually isn’t thinking about the theological implications of her desires…â€

I should imagine part of the reason many a Christian woman stays in abusive relationships - and, for the sake of simplicity, let's say these relationships involve regular physical abuse - is because she is continually hammered with the so-called "theological implications" of divorce.

She is told repeatedly that "divorce is not an option," with the implication being she's a vow-breaker if she leaves the marriage after having promised at the altar to stay until one partner dies.

If someone in that situation leaves her husband, she has probably done so after more deliberation than the pea-brained author of the quoted article can imagine.

“…all she knows is that she feels…â€

While I'll grant some people are led by their feelings, I don't think this problem is specific to women or present in all women. The woman who leaves a philandering or abusive or exceptionally lazy man has probably thought more deeply about her decision than merely, "I feel like I want out."

“She doesn’t arrive at this state of desperation by a process of calm deduction.â€

Depending on the situation, "calm deduction" would lead one woman to annul her marriage or get a divorce after a few days or months rather than years. She would calmly deduce, after her husband has cheated on her several times, that this man is serial adulterer who will never change.

Another women might calmly deduce that the man who swore to pretect her is derelict in his duty if he raises his hand to her in anger - or worse, if he beats her and injures her, or worse still if he beats any children they might have. She would then deduce, rightly, that such a man is the biggest, most immediate, threat in her life and in the lives of her children; that she should leave, quickly and without warning, not only to protect herself but also the kids.

She would, if she were calmly deducing matters, be highly suspiscious of any proimise the man makes to change and "never do that again, I swear." She would not swoon at the man's predictable, facile promise, drop the charges, and endure the cycle yet again.

She would leave and stay gone.

The rarer woman who feels duty-bound to reconcile, and yet is making calm decisions based on fact, would in the very least...

...press charges, and not drop them; requiring her "apologetic" husband to submit to whatever punishment the authorities deal for assaulting another human being.

...demand that her husband, if he really 'wants his family back,' take anger management classes - and have the facilitator send regular progress reports directly to her.

...spend the next year of separation watching carefully that her husband scrupulously meets any financial support obligations, or at least negotiates these payments in good faith, even while everyone involved recieves counselling.

The woman who stays with an abuser through several cycles of abuse, merely because she loves him and he promises to change (even while doing little if anything in that direction), is the one acting out of emotional, blind desperation.

“…decided she will tolerate no more emotional pain.â€

The assumption here is that women are emotional creatures who feel emotional pain and make emotional decisions, rather than going through some supposedly more cerebral process of calm deliberation before deciding the marriage is finished.

“One of the reasons she became so weak, and finally, unwilling to go on, was that whenever she became hurt, she also became angry.â€

First of all, how did the woman "become hurt"? Did she just trip and fall into an injury then angrily blame it on her husband? I love how the author's language takes men out of the equation entirely:

The woman "arrives at a state of desperation," presumably falling into it after taking a wrong turn at the grocery store.

The woman has these amorphous desires - and notice, these are called "desires" and not "needs" - that just sort of float around, uncoupled from any specific interpersonal conflicts.

The subtext is clear: It's the woman's fault. Her heart has become hardened. She has failed.

This is made all the clearer with the following comments:

“She inadvertently was doing what Christians are warned not to do, and was letting the sun go down on her anger…â€

...and...

"...which ultimately defiled her..."

Words fail.

[doggie]

where does it factor in when hubby tries or does kill the wife and or children?

[Joykins]

Likely, she has been hurt over and over, and finally decided she will tolerate no more emotional pain. Her leaving may have been an attempt to coerce her husband to change, but more often it has been a desperate effort to survive. She sincerely believes that she cannot endure anymore heartache, so she has reached out and grabbed onto the separation like a drowning swimmer clings to a life ring.

A good and healthy reason to leave a marriage. My advice to this woman would be to get a SHARK of a lawyer.

[notsocommon]

What if the husband is the one who turns cold and it is the wife who tries everything she can to fix the problems in the relationship, but the husband refuses to try?

oh, yeah, that does not happen.....WTFever

[fundiefan]

A good and healthy reason to leave a marriage. My advice to this woman would be to get a SHARK of a lawyer.

Exactly. I fail to see how emotional damage and pain could possibly be considered irrelevant when one makes decisions about their lives.

[Austin]

When a woman first seriously considers divorce she usually isn’t thinking about the theological implications of her desires – all she knows is that she feels like she has to get away from her husband. She doesn’t arrive at this state of desperation by a process of calm deduction. She is simply reacting to the feeling that she “can’t take anymore.â€

How the eff does he know this? Oh, that's right, because women are not rational creatures :roll:

[JesusFightClub]

where does it factor in when hubby tries or does kill the wife and or children?

Well, this.

I once knew someone who fell for the routine described. I say "knew" because he killed her.

[BravaAmica]

She doesn’t arrive at this state of desperation by a process of calm deduction.

1. Women who leave abusive marriages are not desperate

2. Calm deduction is often the only tool that allows you to leave.

[SunnyAndrsn]

There is so much to refute but I can't too it. The stupidity burns. Also, the man explaining the motives of women is just beyond ridiculous and arrogant.

As a divorced woman, I can say with confidence that he doesn't have a clue. Well, except for the not considering theology thing. In my case, he is right; it was never once considered.

Agree 100%.

"She sincerely believes that she cannot endure anymore heartache, so she has reached out and grabbed onto the separation like a drowning swimmer clings to a life ring."

Um, duh? Who would willingly ask for more heartache in their life? Why are we focusing on the woman who are leaving instead of the men who are hurting the woman they are supposed to protect?

Shouldn't this anti-divorce focus really be about chastising the men, since apparently these people can recognize what assholes the men are?

Instead, my translation is "Yeah, your husband is a world class asshole. Too bad, suck it up and deal with it."

[finleeport]

I like to see this guy talk to my step-aunt. She lives in Greece and its a very religious country (not exactly religious but most people there believe in God) she is a devout Orthodox Christian. She divorced her husband immediately because he was a wife-beating alcoholic. She married my uncle, who was also divorced from his unfaithful wife (she kept chasing police men). Both of them are happily married and have one son, my cousin. Divorce is acceptable in my Church, as long as there is a good reason for it

I think even Jesus said it was also alright for divorce because many men in the bible could divorce their wives if they can't have children. If men can have divorces than so can women.

[Joykins]

Um, duh? Who would willingly ask for more heartache in their life? Why are we focusing on the woman who are leaving instead of the men who are hurting the woman they are supposed to protect?

But the THEOLOGY! She's not thinking of the theological implications! How dare she want her misery to end more than she cares about THE THEOLOGY!

[Olive Plant]

I should imagine part of the reason many a Christian woman stays in abusive relationships - and, for the sake of simplicity, let's say these relationships involve regular physical abuse - is because she is continually hammered with the so-called "theological implications" of divorce.

She is told repeatedly that "divorce is not an option," with the implication being she's a vow-breaker if she leaves the marriage after having promised at the altar to stay until one partner dies.

If someone in that situation leaves her husband, she has probably done so after more deliberation than the pea-brained author of the quoted article can imagine.

Burris, I always enjoy your posts. They're as sharp and well-seasoned as a good steak knife.

[Kashmir]

So then you have situations like this one...http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showth ... p?t=560642

Sad sad sad. Especially because they balance the abuse vs. "vow breaking" and somehow "vowbreaking becomes the larger offense? Ridiculo'.

(Second post, I was OUSOONERMOMMY over at yuku. Time to ditch the mommy and embrace the "me" again.)

[Joykins]

So then you have situations like this one...http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showth ... p?t=560642

Sad sad sad. Especially because they balance the abuse vs. "vow breaking" and somehow "vowbreaking becomes the larger offense? Ridiculo'.

(Second post, I was OUSOONERMOMMY over at yuku. Time to ditch the mommy and embrace the "me" again.)

How is abuse NOT vowbreaking?

Does the vow to love and cherish not count for anything?

[Letgo]

What if the husband is the one who turns cold and it is the wife who tries everything she can to fix the problems in the relationship, but the husband refuses to try?

Well, you know it is still her fault. It is because she wasn't submissive enough!

[Trynn]

I think even Jesus said it was also alright for divorce because many men in the bible could divorce their wives if they can't have children. If men can have divorces than so can women.

Actually the only grounds Jesus gives for divorce is sexual infidelity. Unfortunately he doesn't say abuse, which is really sad because it keeps people in such sad situations. Jesus was arguing against those who divorced their wives for, like you said, fertility issues and other smallt hings.

That being said though, a lot of abused women I read about do have biblical grounds for divorce under that definition, which makes me even angriER when I read the advice to "stay with the husband, God hath commanded it." Because, He didn't.

[QueenMother]

I have worked with so many women in DV, who would not leave their abusive husband because God doesn't tell them they can. The state God only says they can leave if he is unfaithful. So sad.