|
Post by rjs on Apr 14, 2009 13:03:25 GMT -5
I am sick to the top of my stomach that certain ones aren't deemed worthy to partake of the bread & wine because some worker is trying to judge someone in the room. So mean and unkind. My bible speaks of SELF EXAMINATION. Not worker examination.
Divorced professing folks are asked to shut up and not take the bread and wine during the meeting. Even if the divorce isn't their fault...someone stepped in and took their spouse yet they have to be treated like a criminal. Where is the mercy? The kindness. This is making a mockery of the one they claim to be remembering during the time of the emblems. And yet these "silent" members have brethern in other states who are permitted to partake of the emblems! So inconsistent and unfair.
|
|
julio
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by julio on Apr 14, 2009 13:16:18 GMT -5
Amen to that! There are lots of stories and comments about the spiritual wrongness of this practice. But what can anyone do about it? Are there friends and elders contacting the workers in charge about it? What can a person do to help? Change is a long time coming, and I doubt it will happen soon. This treatment is not only in Western Canada & USA, but in many other countries around the world. What moved other denominations to address it and correct it? Can any of that be applied to the friends and workers fellowship? Like my boss says "Don't come to me with complaints, without suggestions on how to fix the situation." Suggestions anyone?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 13:17:14 GMT -5
There is a new rule in the West, and probably applies in most places.
If you were divorced while you were professing then remarry, you are kicked out completely. No longer does the silence in meeting apply, you will now be barred at the door.
I'm sure there will be exceptions for awhile, but the direction seems to be getting more hardened.
|
|
|
Post by scarletto on Apr 14, 2009 13:21:18 GMT -5
I am sick to the top of my stomach that certain ones aren't deemed worthy to partake of the bread & wine because some worker is trying to judge someone in the room. So mean and unkind. My bible speaks of SELF EXAMINATION. Not worker examination. Divorced professing folks are asked to shut up and not take the bread and wine during the meeting. Even if the divorce isn't their fault...someone stepped in and took their spouse yet they have to be treated like a criminal. Where is the mercy? The kindness. This is making a mockery of the one they claim to be remembering during the time of the emblems. And yet these "silent" members have brethern in other states who are permitted to partake of the emblems! So inconsistent and unfair. Human groups are known for shunning type behaviour. It's very disheartening, yes...but also very very human. Christ is asking us to rise above the human realm and be forgiving toward others. If a person CHOOSES to not partake because of a personal conviction, I feel that is only to be honored by others. I believe it also depends on the circumstances around a D & R.,..as the example was given above: someone who has been cheated on and gets a divorce-- remarries to someone else who would be a good and true spouse in the Lord....yet then cannot partake....even tho the divorce was not their "fault". I've never understood it all and probably never will. But, I DO know what it feels like to be a widow twice over and then be SHUNNED because I did not follow the proper "rules" and etiquette for widowhood. You would have thought I was committing adultery, according to the"rules" and "standards" of the Old south which stipulated the "mourning period" and proper attire and conduct, etc. I broke the "rules" and suffered the consequences: being shunned from "proper" society. scarlett
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Apr 14, 2009 13:39:53 GMT -5
Are there friends and elders contacting the workers in charge about it? *** That is the real problem. Too many fear they might get kicked out of the syagogue if they take a stand on an issue of such importance to hardlined.
If workers on the west coast (not sure which ones are involved) are deciding that divorced-remarried friends can't enter the meeting room, will they call the police and remove the remarried person?
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Apr 14, 2009 13:52:20 GMT -5
The remarried person can be a very good person and yet unable to take part and/or the emblems because some HUMAN being has judged them. Dale Shultz and Harold Bennet are men. The way that workers handle the divorce-remarriage thing reminds me of the old uncivilized ways when public shaming took place...making someone stand in a pillory while people spit on them.
|
|
|
Post by scarletto on Apr 14, 2009 14:08:07 GMT -5
This reminds me of a saying, "Will all the sinners please leave" Tell me, how many friends and workers would be left? Do you think it is God's way of numbering the people in the truth group? The workers are obviously cruelly eliminating people from the group for what reason? Are the workers so pure themselves that they cannot stand to be around another sinner? Are they exempt from the judgment of being a sinner because they are workers and it is okay for them to have heterosexual and homosexual relationships without being married and some are abusing children?I think all sinners should leave the truth and only allow the pristine (pure) to remain. ;D You may have stumbled on some truth here. Many workers are in a self-perpetuated "role" of purity and piousness. They certainly don't want to be "contaminated" by the less pure and less pious and those of "lesser" status. God forbid; they don't want to be "TAINTED" by the world or anything that IS "worldly" OR base... .....BUT: is that what being a true Christian is all about? Of course not. Christ ate with and hung out with sinners! Sure, the "pure" and "pious" Pharisees were astonished and aghast, (woe to them) but, never-the-less, Christ remained true to His calling: to save sinners, NOT the righteous. Being a TRUE believer and a true Christian means simply put: CHRIST-WITHIN. ..In Acts it says that the first believers were called Christians....which means they had the Spirit of Christ living within them. Many thought they were crazy...because of this Spirit. Were they MISunderstood? Yes, of course they were. Were they persecuted? Yes. Did they still continue to carry forth God's purpose? Absolutely! I believe the D & R person has a very real place in God's family. [ yes, sinners are included.] -----, yes, we are ALL sinners and that no one is above the other IN GOD'S EYE'S. Unfortunately, sinners often exclude THEMSELVES.....because they get the message that they are not welcome among the "righteous".... ..And THAT is EXACTLY what satan WANTS.....for people to feel automatically discounted, excluded and/or 'banned'. ..... Anyone who 'bans' another from their little "Christian" group simply because they are a sinner is falling into the hands of the DEVIL! &....those the cave to "self-bannishment" cause satan to jump with glee. Remember the warning to Peter: ...."satan wants to sift you as wheat flour." Who can or who can NOT TAKE PART is part of status. I think there needs to be more of a forgiving attitude amongst ALL Christians, and especially amongst the clergy, who are sinners as much as any of us are sinners. We ALL miss the mark. Amen. Yes, even the little old ladies who never miss a meeting and never miss a chance to give money and time to the workers; they too, miss the mark in other areas not addressed for the most part. Yes, even the workers that have been workers for decades and are viewed as being a "spiritual success" miss the mark. Yes, even the upstanding elder and his lovely wife and perfect children miss the mark. From those of the lowliest status such as the lost sheep and the prodigals to those of the highest status: they all miss the mark. Mammy always said: "Be careful who you point fingers at."Amen. scarlett
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Apr 14, 2009 14:22:43 GMT -5
~~~ The westcoast workers teach the friends who husbands or wives that left them are allow to take parts. but NOT the ones who divorced/left and remarry another man/woman while his/her mates are alive.
Such a sad state of affairs for the so-called innocent spouse who elects to remain in the faith. That innocent spouse, who continues to revel in God's mercies, is burdened with the 'yoke of remaining single and alone,' in many instances supporting their children by themselves, ... until their divorced/remarried spouse (who may be the cheater, druggie, alcoholic, gambler, ... ) dies.
That innocent spouse is not a Worker (remaining single-alone in life by choice) and bears the burdens of the faith's condemnation, for what in many instances is, the remainder of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 14, 2009 14:47:02 GMT -5
The westcoast workers teach the friends who husbands or wives that left them are allow to take parts. but NOT the ones who divorced/left and remarry another man/woman while his/her mates are alive. Murdering one's former spouse would solve this. just being practical... fs
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 14, 2009 14:48:59 GMT -5
ALL have the motes in our own eyes before God. [/color][/quote] Seeing I live on the west coast I have heard all the excuses for why we treat people the way we do, however, it boils down to what you write here Nate. We all have motes in our eyes. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Why can we not let people come to a decision on their own about this. After all no worker will stand before God and say well I told him he could do this or that. If we were to focus on living in the grace of God, a brother or sisters falling wouldn't be such a huge deal. Self-righteousness and hypocrisy are the rot killing us from the inside out.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 14, 2009 14:58:15 GMT -5
Murdering one's former spouse would solve this. just being practical... fs ~~~ You know God's words no murders shall enter in the kingdom of God so don't even think about, FS. ;D When we have found our souls mate for life we don't want to murder them do we?David was forgiven. fs
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 14, 2009 15:01:34 GMT -5
Murdering one's former spouse would solve this. just being practical... fs ~~~ You know God's words no murders shall enter in the kingdom of God so don't even think about, FS. ;D When we have found our souls mate for life we don't want to murder them do we?I wasn't talking about murdering one's soul mate... I was talking about practical ways to get rid of the ex-husband since him being "alive" seems to be the issue. Just being practical. fs
|
|
|
Post by scarletto on Apr 14, 2009 15:02:20 GMT -5
~~~ The westcoast workers teach the friends who husbands or wives that left them are allow to take parts. but NOT the ones who divorced/left and remarry another man/woman while his/her mates are alive.Such a sad state of affairs for the so-called innocent spouse who elects to remain in the faith. That innocent spouse, who continues to revel in God's mercies, is burdened with the 'yoke of remaining single and alone,' in many instances supporting their children by themselves, ... until their divorced/remarried spouse (who may be the cheater, druggie, alcoholic, gambler, ... ) dies. That innocent spouse is not a Worker (remaining single-alone in life by choice) and bears the burdens of the faith's condemnation, for what in many instances is, the remainder of their lives. ~~~ Remember, marriage is for lifetime commitment so do whatever it takes to keep that fire of love burning unto the end. When both parties KNOW this then they will find way to work it out and not to JUMP ship during hard times.
So, PRAY, PRAY real hard and ask God to guide you when you decide to marry so and so. Don't make a hasty decision. Be prayerful and wise with your choices. Marriage is a work of a lifetime commitment, NOT to take it lightly.Yes, Nathan-very true. But the REALITY is that often times the marriage is upheld on one side and one partner is faithful while the other partner is NOT! Should the FAITHFUL partner be alone and penalized for the rest of their earthly life? Workers have chosen to be unmarried and celibate. They take a chance with that choice...not knowing what tomorrow will bring and what temptations will befall them in the work....they trust that their choice is a sound one and that they will remain TRUE.........but they do not always remain true to their vows and still remain in the work with FULL "privileges". Conversely: one may have been completely faithful in an earthly marriage, and the partner strayed: not because they weren't treated 'right' or because their spouse was bad, abusive, or became obese or or had bad habits, but simply strayed because of boredom and seeking a thrill. Should the faithful, steadfast, and TRUE partner then be punished indefinately? Yes, they DO get married, having faith that each one WILL remain true. BUT, one partner staying true does not always mean the other partner will stay true. scarlett
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Apr 14, 2009 15:18:03 GMT -5
Murdering one's former spouse would solve this. just being practical... fs Maybe Nathan should correspond with TMB member 'terry' from IN who was told, if I remember correctly, by a Worker to pray for his ex-wife's death.
|
|
|
Post by buzzybee on Apr 14, 2009 15:20:45 GMT -5
What stands out to me in all this is that the workers seem to be judging this. Workers have never married and do not know how hard and what extenuating circumstnaces exist. How appropriate (sarcasm dripping here) to have some who have never had the experiences as being the judges.
Kind of twisted if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Apr 14, 2009 15:33:30 GMT -5
~~~ Remember, marriage is for lifetime commitment so do whatever it takes to keep that fire of love burning unto the end. When both parties KNOW this then they will find way to work it out and not to JUMP ship during hard times.
So, PRAY, PRAY real hard and ask God to guide you when you decide to marry so and so. Don't make a hasty decision. Be prayerful and wise with your choices. Marriage is a work of a lifetime commitment, NOT to take it lightly.
Now Nathan that's not very wise council, '... do whatever it takes to keep that fire of love burning unto the end.' So does that include sexual threesomes, snorting cocaine or shooting heroin, spending one's life in a nearby gambling casino, spending evenings in the corner bar with the children, perform sexual acts with a stranger as you spouse watches from a closet, ... to satisfy that spouse, but lose one's faith in God.
Is is better for both to jump ship (the Truth's faith) to keep that love burning (marriage intact) or embrace that spouse who elects to stand firm and remain faithful to God?
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 14, 2009 15:36:37 GMT -5
ALL have the motes in our own eyes before God. [/color][/quote] Seeing I live on the west coast I have heard all the excuses for why we treat people the way we do, however, it boils down to what you write here Nate. We all have motes in our eyes. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Why can we not let people come to a decision on their own about this. After all no worker will stand before God and say well I told him he could do this or that. If we were to focus on living in the grace of God, a brother or sisters falling wouldn't be such a huge deal. Self-righteousness and hypocrisy are the rot killing us from the inside out.[/quote] Someguy I think you have got it right. How do you convince the workers of yours and others conclusion ken
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 14, 2009 15:41:16 GMT -5
~~~ My opinion... the overseers should continue to have some married workers in the work. They can be a great help in this department.
Peter was married when Jesus called him in the work/ministry.
Peter and some of the apostles were married. (I Cor. 9:5,6) The Vaudois apostles had some married apostles among them for 1800 yrs. There has been some 2x2s married workers for 90 yrs.
Wow Nate, totally agree with you. We really should have married workers. It is definitely scriptural and certainly would be more healthy, both for the workers and for the fellowship. As buzzybee pointed out, it would give them a fresh perspective.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 14, 2009 15:46:44 GMT -5
Someguy I think you have got it right. How do you convince the workers of yours and others conclusion ken Ken I don't believe you can. Period. I have noticed this. I am told not to focus at all on negative aspects of our faith because we are people and they always exist. Humans sin. Ok. I suppose I can accept that, to a certain point. Yet in the same breathe they will talk down to other Christians and how "wrong" they are. It just makes me shake my head. So, we are to only focus on what we do right but yet can't for the life of us focus on the good in others. We must focus on their wrongs? I have come to the conclusion it is because of the self-righteous and hyocritical rot that we do this. There is no righteous cause for these things. So, I too believe my understanding is from God, however, if someone else believes their understanding is from God, they will not see it from another point of view. Unless one is actively searching for the truth, these things, these simple truths are hidden from them. I suppose in the end, one can't change the minds of others, and they simply must walk away in love.
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Apr 14, 2009 15:48:51 GMT -5
~~~ My opinion... the overseers should continue to have some married workers in the work. They can be a great help in this department.
I agree 100%.
The dilemma I have is the inconsistency of this issue by the Workers -- or the absolute reality of the EAST-WEST Overseers.
The faith's (the TRUTH) allegiances are clearly DEFINED like the slavery issue of the Civil War, north-vs-south, where in the U.S. it's the EAST-vs-WEST on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 14, 2009 15:51:03 GMT -5
I agree 100%. The dilemma I have is the inconsistency of this issue by the Workers -- or the absolute reality of the EAST-WEST Overseers. The faith's (the TRUTH) allegiances are clearly DEFINED like the slavery issue of the Civil War, north-vs-south, where in the U.S. it's the EAST-vs-WEST on this issue. But ManFred this is the one thing we are consistent on....our inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Apr 14, 2009 16:03:59 GMT -5
But ManFred this is the one thing we are consistent on....our inconsistency.
So if we are consistently inconsistent everything's coming up roses!
I'm there.
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Apr 14, 2009 17:23:58 GMT -5
Maybe Nathan should correspond with TMB member 'terry' from IN who was told, if I remember correctly, by a Worker to pray for his ex-wife's death. ~~~ Yes, I read that... That was not a very godly thing to say. I believe that worker was joking... not a good thing to joke or making such a statement like that.
Let's be VERY clear here. Duane Hopkins was NOT joking. When I pointed out to him, in a letter that my ex had deserted me and our child (one week after his second birthday) and had been unfaithful throughout our marriage with multiple partners and that I qualified for the "except for fornification" clause. He wrote back that rather than spend time writing him I should spend that time praying for my ex's death. I tore the letter to shreds or I'd post it here. I was shunned even as a divorced but not remarried person. At the time I had responsibility for the Wed. night mtg. Three widows and old couple and two young couples--all considered inferior saints. Sunday mtg was attended by the same group but an superior saint came down from the Indy along with his son and his family. I was never in thier home for a meal. Three times I invited them (elder and son) to my home for Sunday dinner after mtg--all three times they accepted only to call me Sunday morning to tell me they couldn't come. The other two young couples and the elderly filled in. When, after 1 1/2 years my ex filed for custody the elder made a point of telling me, even though I'd never asked, that he wouldn't testify on my behalf because he was friends with my ex-father-in-law ( a pharmacist who provided free drugs to the workers). Better my child should be raised "outside the truth" than stand for right. Duane who promised he or Ron Thomke would be at my side if a custody fight ever arose was on convention rounds and so niether could come. On the other side The woman who was babysitting (and a legalist) said she'd testify for me no matter what the workers said. Her parents who were also friends with the grandparents were mortified that their well meaning tales of my childs exploits where being used against me. For instance, we live in the country with a well. After a storm had downed the electricity we of course had no water, so we used the barn as a bathroom until the power was restored. That's really big for a 3 year old. In court I was accussed of provided a home without a sanitary facilities. When I explained the Judge acutally laughed out loud. Ron Thomke accussed me of spending my time between mtgs at convention or special mtgs with the women rather than the men. In those days (late 70's) the women watched the kids, I had a 3-4year old. I could watch him play with the other kids and be accussed of spending time with the women or I could let someone else watch him and be accussed of not be a good parent. When I chose to remarry (outside of course because I was tainted) Muarry Keanne excommunicated me immediately. In his letter of excommunication he refused to refer to my fiancee my name--just "that person". Even though I begged them not to, several of those in the Wed night mtg spoke their minds and I was accussed of trying to subvert the mtg. I've written my story, but haven't given it Cherrie yet, but the time is drawing closer.
|
|
|
Post by whatnow on Apr 14, 2009 19:21:58 GMT -5
Does anyone stop to think of those (mostly younger) people who are in the truth who decide to get married- Have you ever observed professing couples who are married but seem to have a lousy marriage? Think about why they might have gotten married in the first place, there are so many controlling issues that young people have to deal with, such as only marrying within the truth, the fear of eternal death if they choose someone "outside". Sometimes or maybe quite often people in the "truth" get married because theres no one else available- Quite often when they get married they have never have "dated" anyone else I'm not saying that is always bad but so many live in unhappiness just to "keep peace in the Kingdom". Do you think God meant for two young people to tye the knot only to find out that they are completely non compatible with their spouse?
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 14, 2009 19:36:46 GMT -5
Does anyone stop to think of those (mostly younger) people who are in the truth who decide to get married- Have you ever observed professing couples who are married but seem to have a lousy marriage? Think about why they might have gotten married in the first place, there are so many controlling issues that young people have to deal with, such as only marrying within the truth, the fear of eternal death if they choose someone "outside". Sometimes or maybe quite often people in the "truth" get married because theres no one else available- Quite often when they get married they have never have "dated" anyone else I'm not saying that is always bad but so many live in unhappiness just to "keep peace in the Kingdom". Do you think God meant for two young people to tye the knot only to find out that they are completely non compatible with their spouse? Agreed, but the trouble (it almost always boils down to this) is exclusivity. It must be better to marry someone from within even if it means a cousin (this has happened, I know the couple) then to date outside. There are many trapped in terrible relationships, trapped not by God but by others understanding that they have bound people to. Once exclusivity falls and we begin to see that Jesus doesn't save in a system he saves according to grace, the binds of mans ideas fall away and God's grace wins out. Then they feel no shame of being remarried or we feel no shame at dating those outside. At least I never have dating outside.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 14, 2009 19:38:50 GMT -5
Let's be VERY clear here. Duane Hopkins was NOT joking. When I pointed out to him, in a letter that my ex had deserted me and our child (one week after his second birthday) and had been unfaithful throughout our marriage with multiple partners and that I qualified for the "except for fornification" clause. He wrote back that rather than spend time writing him I should spend that time praying for my ex's death. I tore the letter to shreds or I'd post it here. I was shunned even as a divorced but not remarried person. At the time I had responsibility for the Wed. night mtg. Three widows and old couple and two young couples--all considered inferior saints. Sunday mtg was attended by the same group but an superior saint came down from the Indy along with his son and his family. I was never in thier home for a meal. Three times I invited them (elder and son) to my home for Sunday dinner after mtg--all three times they accepted only to call me Sunday morning to tell me they couldn't come. The other two young couples and the elderly filled in. When, after 1 1/2 years my ex filed for custody the elder made a point of telling me, even though I'd never asked, that he wouldn't testify on my behalf because he was friends with my ex-father-in-law ( a pharmacist who provided free drugs to the workers). Better my child should be raised "outside the truth" than stand for right. Duane who promised he or Ron Thomke would be at my side if a custody fight ever arose was on convention rounds and so niether could come. On the other side The woman who was babysitting (and a legalist) said she'd testify for me no matter what the workers said. Her parents who were also friends with the grandparents were mortified that their well meaning tales of my childs exploits where being used against me. For instance, we live in the country with a well. After a storm had downed the electricity we of course had no water, so we used the barn as a bathroom until the power was restored. That's really big for a 3 year old. In court I was accussed of provided a home without a sanitary facilities. When I explained the Judge acutally laughed out loud. Ron Thomke accussed me of spending my time between mtgs at convention or special mtgs with the women rather than the men. In those days (late 70's) the women watched the kids, I had a 3-4year old. I could watch him play with the other kids and be accussed of spending time with the women or I could let someone else watch him and be accussed of not be a good parent. When I chose to remarry (outside of course because I was tainted) Muarry Keanne excommunicated me immediately. In his letter of excommunication he refused to refer to my fiancee my name--just "that person". Even though I begged them not to, several of those in the Wed night mtg spoke their minds and I was accussed of trying to subvert the mtg. I've written my story, but haven't given it Cherrie yet, but the time is drawing closer. Tragic Terry, but even more tragic is that this type of behaviour is totally acceptable by the workers.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 14, 2009 20:27:52 GMT -5
Now I understand why RT said he often took himself too seriously!
|
|
|
Post by stephanie on Apr 14, 2009 20:42:34 GMT -5
I am sick to the top of my stomach that certain ones aren't deemed worthy to partake of the bread & wine because some worker is trying to judge someone in the room. So mean and unkind. My bible speaks of SELF EXAMINATION. Not worker examination. Divorced professing folks are asked to shut up and not take the bread and wine during the meeting. Even if the divorce isn't their fault...someone stepped in and took their spouse yet they have to be treated like a criminal. Where is the mercy? The kindness. This is making a mockery of the one they claim to be remembering during the time of the emblems. And yet these "silent" members have brethern in other states who are permitted to partake of the emblems! So inconsistent and unfair. First of all-some background about me which may help others understand where I am coming from and my perspective. I have been divorced. Even though it was a very sorrowful and difficult experience, I have no regrets. My ex was mentally and emotionally abusive. Regular put-downs were just a normal part of our relationship that I grew accustomed to. But I received a wake up call after being married for several years. I found out he had cheated on me. And when I confronted him on the infidelity he was mortified. Mortified that the truth had been exposed, yes. Mortified that I would leave him also. Mortified that all our family and friends would find out. Mortified what I would do. But most of all, mortified by the Strength I had and how capable I could be without him. He was scared. I don't blame him. Everything in his "stable" married life was at stake: A good wife & mother to our healthy children. Financial success and stability. A nice home. An almost paid off mortgage and plans for retirement in view. A light at the end of the tunnel was suddenly farther away than he perceived as he thought of reasons and excuses that would bring forgiveness and reconciliation. We entered into earnest counseling by one of the best marriage counselors around. It helped for a bit. But, I still felt mentally and emotionally abused; put-down; never quite good enough. That wears on a person and I had to get out of the relationship to save my health and sanity. It was a hard thing to do; one of the hardest things I've ever done. But I couldn't go on pretending any longer. Even though a person's self worth and self esteem can be erroded over time, I still had some left and the urge to survive and thrive and be free helped me leave a relationship that took too much toll. I had been paying tolls for years upon years. That's not so bad if you feel you are getting what you've paid for. One of the biggest excuses he gave for cheating is that he was feeling low, lonely, depressed and not worthy- so some other woman made him feel better. He stated that he did not feel good enough for me. He tried to reassure me that he loved me so very much, but that he had weakness(es). He stopped seeing other women to prove to me I was the only one he loved. But the mental and emotional abuse did not stop. Because he was not a happy person, he could not be a loving, supportive and encouraging husband to me. He could not rejoice in my success(es). He could not support endeavors that brought me joy. He felt threatened by other people that were good friends to me and by other healthy relationships. His family begged me not to leave him. Our children just wanted peace. I finally decided to go ahead and get my own place to rent and move a bunch of my stuff there to try a trial seperation. I cannot begin to tell you the peace I felt the first night away from this man I thought I had to stay married to til death do us part. I cannot explain the way I was able to sleep well again after letting go of someone who was such a pain to my soul. It is something that I had to experience myself in order to understand. This is why I feel it is vital to not cast judgement on others who have been divorced or divorced and remarried. The workers, bless them for trying, can give some spiritual advice and hopefully a neutral, non-biased opinion on the matter. But if they have never been married to an abusive spouse for years and years they have no idea what it feels like to be emancipated from that abuse. And they have no right to cast condemnation. Only God is able to judge the rightness or wrongness of divorce. For it was God who divorced the Children of Israel. Since our divorce, we have been able to rekindle a friendship that I thought had long ago died. I have realized that it is much better to be friends than to be intimate with my ex. Intimacy brought a sense of entitlement and ownership into our relationship and then abuse. Sad, but true. For now I choose to remain single and unmarried. I have had some dates and plenty of offers for dates and even been pursued and proposed to, but intimacy and marriage no longer appeal to me. I enjoy my freedom and don't want to risk being married to a controlling person anymore. I credit the Lord with revealing the truth to me. I feel that I honor the Lord's choice when I use extreme caution and discretion regarding relationships. I feel that intimate relationships need to be treaded lightly upon. It was never meant for intimacy to thrown around like a basketball. In my opinion, divorce is not a sin and being divorced is not living in sin. If I find the mate that God intends for me to be with-I would wish to have the Lord's seal of approval on that; for it is the Lord that should be the one to join a couple together for life. -steph-
|
|