relationships

[vernecarty]

(moderators note: this topic branched off from "what role should shame play in raising kids?")

I realize my response will not speak to the partucular query you raised Brian but here is my two cents.
The context in which your son is raised will have as much, or more to do with how he truns out as any paricular strategy of training that you employ.
You will not be surpised to hear me say that your relationship with your son's mother far dwarfs any impact that "shaming" or lack there-of will have.
Those of us who saw the horrible perversion of marital and family relationships in George's corrupt assemblies should have a fire burning in our heart to never subject our mates or children to such sick and destructive manipulation.
Haviing said that, in my humble opinion the place to begin is by making that young man's mother your dearly beloved wife...
I envy you for God has not seen it fit to give me a son...but oh who I love the two little angels he has sent to brighten my life!
Verne

[Marty]

IMO, one of the biggest problems in our society today is a lack of shame. There is no shame in mothers killing their unborn babies, there is no shame in flaunting homosexual and lesbian lifestyles in municipal endorsed parades, there is no shame in a President’s immoral life and perjury, and there is no shame in living in a sexual relationship and fathering children outside of marriage. So it seems that the last thing we want to do is have our children feel shame for their sin. And in all that, “Christians” don’t want to say anything that may appear to be judgmental of such behavior. That is the real tragedy, apathy toward sin.

There was certainly no lack of condemnation toward everyone who was associated with the assembly, even  toward those who were sincere servants. “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

And that’s my opinion.

[Margaret]

I know of at least one AK who cannot contemplate the possibility of marriage because of their experience growing up in an Assembly family.  I wonder how many others there are....

[Eulaha L. Long]

I know this comment is off-topic, but I feel it needs to be said.  My mom was pregnant with me before she was married.  She and my dad married after I was born, because it was "the right and honorable thing to do".  Needless to say, their marriage was miserable (he physically and emotionally abused his wife and his kids).  She finally left him after 15 long years of marriage.

I don't think a couple should marry "for the sake of the kids".  I think my life would have turned out a WHOLE lot better if my mom never married my father.

[outdeep]

If someone is marrying for the sake of the kid while all the while hating the spouse, I agree that the marriage is doomed from the start.  Duty while hanging onto selfishness is never a basis of marriage.

The commitment of marriage is "no greater love than for one to lay down their life for their friend."  Assuming your spouse isn't abusive nor evil, if you commit your life to that approach and abandon the "what's in it for me?" attitude, you can learn to live with and love almost anyone.

[vernecarty]

It is certainly an amazing thing to observe the number of women who are willing to bear the children of men clearly unfit to be fathers. I know of one case of a colleague of my wife ( a professor no less) who thought the way to salvage a miserable relationship would be to get herself pregnant with the wayward lover's child. It has been a heart-break to watch it all unfold.
I agree that at first blush accepting responsibility for bringing a helpless, totally dependent little life into the world after pre-marital sexual relationships is very often portrayed as compounding one error with another (marriage after the fact).
The data is clear nontheless.
In the overwhelming number of cases, children are far better off being raised in a home where both parents are married to one another, Eulaha's stated experience notwithstanding.
Of course in today's liberated world, the best interests of the children certainly does not seem to occupy a place of priority...

[brian]

i took the liberty of splitting this off from the original topic, as the topic has clearly shifted. i wasn't quite as clear about where to split it, since several posts deal with both topics, so i kind of split it down the middle.

[Mark C.]

 “Christians” don’t want to say anything that may appear to be judgmental of such behavior. That is the real tragedy, apathy toward sin.

There was certainly no lack of condemnation toward everyone who was associated with the assembly, even  toward those who were sincere servants. “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

And that’s my opinion.

Hi Marty!
  I would like to respond to what you wrote above as it seems like you are putting all "Christians" in the same boat.

  First, it is clearly apparent that most of the posters on this topic here were supportive of the need to feel shame for sin and that children need to learn this kind of healthy shame.  I think that you would agree that there is an improper use of shame that can damage the soul.

  The bible supports this by telling parents, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." (Eph. 6:4) To "exasperate", as a parent, can be accomplished via the immoral use of authority.  In other words, as a parent we have power over our children and the Lord always wants us to use that authority in a loving way that seeks to build them up vs. just trying to make demands on them.

  As an example, if we keep telling our kids they are stupid when they make childish mistakes we will "exasperate" them and this is what is meant by an unhealthy use of shame.  On the other hand, if our kid steals something we should make them understand that this is wrong and worthy of shame.  Of course, this kind of healthy shame is not an end itself and should lead to the removal of that shame via restorative grace.

   As to your last comments re. the Assembly:  There were very many fine, sincere, and dear Christian people in the Assemblies (of which some post here).  There were also some very evil, weak, and unrepentant people associated with that group (GG and Betty heading up that list).  The evil folks in the Assembly had all the power and used that power to manipulate, control, and abuse many of those that made up the first group (the fine, sincere and dear Christians).

   I would certainly not call (nor do I know any who would) most of the sincere followers of GG "evil"!  Were they deceived?  Absolutely!  Would I call former GG followers who can't see that GG was/is evil and used a false claim of authority to spiritually and psychologically abuse his followers evil?  That is a more difficult question to answer, but they are for sure very wrong and potentially an evil influence if they continue to hold to that view.

  I am not sure who you are talking about when making reference to "sincere servants."  If these are indeed sincere servants of the Lord, and not just servants of GG and his views, then their sincerity should lead to an honest assessment of their involvement in the group (confession) and a public desire to set things right with those they have hurt via their involvement in GG's policies of abuse (repentance).

 At the very least, a willingness to talk about these things with former members would demonstrate the kind of spirit that the bible calls for: "As a prisoner of the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.  Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.  Make every effort to keep unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."  Eph. 4:1-3.
                                                                            God Bless,  Mark C.