“Rebellious Children” Verses Abused Parents
In husband and wife relationships, according to the “experts,” almost everything a husband does that changes the chemical balance of the wife resulting in bad feelings is “abuse”; i.e., “emotional abuse” and “verbal abuse.” Years of this kind of abuse (unwise conflict resolution) is considered “extreme cruelty” in divorce cases. In regard to women, actual physical harm to the husband can be considered abuse when it’s not in “self-defense” (which includes defense against emotional abuse) which is rare. Indeed, an odd anomaly in a day when we strive for equality between men and women.
But for those of you who are now offended, don’t bother—this arrangement/reality is neither here nor there to me; it’s not the point. Abuse (in any form) shouldn’t be going on anyway. BUT, if that is the standard, and a mother is a woman (and she is), what’s up with children, both unemancipated and emancipated, being labeled “rebellious” when they abuse their mothers? Also, the abuses take the exact same form: verbal, general disrespect/disregard, physical, and in many cases, murder. Moreover, do mother abusers eventually become wife abusers?
Let’s think about this. A wife abuser is disdained in our society, and counseling for wife abusers is a tacit concern in most cases. But a mother abuser is merely “rebellious,” and as one reader stated here on PPT: “Rebellion is usually the result of poor parenting.” But waaaaiiiiittt jjjuuuuussstttt a minute here—how do we respond to those who blame wives for provoking their husbands to abuse and victims of sexual abuse for the way they dress?
Our child centered society shouldn’t get away with relabeling abuse to “adolescent rebellion.” As I heard one pastor say, “Rebellion is the teenager’s job—to pushback.” Oh really? Imagine if he said, “Abuse is the husband’s job—to push back.” Well, actually, many pastors in our day do say that, if you know anything about the Patriarchy Movement.
Abuse is abuse, and by the way, even the secular realm is catching on to this. Teens can be locked up in most states for being “unruly” which includes incessant talking back, verbal abuse, refusal to obey instruction, and especially physical abuse which can result in short term incarceration without due process.
And in conclusion, what about dysfunctional families where there is both abuse by the husband and rebellious children? Hmmmm. Let’s call it what it is: that’s a situation where the wife/mother is being abused by the husband and the children both. Funny though, the wife will often get rid of the husband and take the abusive children with her who probably learned their abusive behavior from the father. At the most, the X will receive abuse counseling while the children will receive some other kind of counseling predicated on the all-pervasive mantra, “Children are the victims of divorce.”
I’m not so sure.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
and as one reader stated here on PPT: “Rebellion is usually the result of poor parenting.”
Hi Paul,
Was that a reference to a comment I made on your previous post with the letter the dad wrote? With all due respect, if that is in reference to my comment, then what you wrote is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. I will admit that I should not have used the word “generally”, however, at the same time, I think your paraphrase does not do justice to my quote in the context of my overall point, which, simply judging by your use of my paraphrased comment in this post, you seemed to have missed…again, with all due respect. My quote was simply a tangential example as to why I could not make assumptions about the step-son’s behavior based only on dad’s letter. I am not excusing truly bad behavior as merely being rebellious, just pointing out that I cannot make a judgement call about any of this with incomplete information. Even Jesus’s teaching on the matter in Matthew 18 is hypothetical.
My point was simply that it is hard to develop an understanding of how Matthew 18 can really apply in a situation where we don’t have all the relevant facts and is told from the perspective of only one offended party.
LikeLike
Argo, The paraphrase was in reference to several such comments that have been stated on this blog, but not in regard to your statement specifically. The statement you made and prefaced with qualification would not apply here as you have well stated. I believe you went out of your way to be tentative in your assessment based on the information supplied.
However, I have written and continue to write on the parental plight of obeying God in parenting during teen years while acknowledging that the past parenting leading up to that point was unbiblical with results following. Susan and I have counseled in such situations, and it is a spiritual warfare that can lead to the death of parents and teens alike. Hell has no fury like a rebellious teen, and such ministry is not for the faint of heart.
We have learned many things, such as the disastrous ramifications of allowing teens to date at an early age. This well not turn out well ever.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
Please forgive me for jumping to conclusions. Thank you for your response…and I agree with it, and with your post. Thank you for being such a blessing to those you counsel and those who read here.
LikeLike
Argo, No offense taken at all, and thanks much for your encouragement. Blessings, paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Hey Paul,
Out of curiosity, do you think there is some inherent immaturity in teenagers that makes them unfit for dating, or do you think it’s more of the culture/society to which we belong? I ask because in biblical times it seems people were not dating, but MARRYING in their teen years…
Joey
LikeLike
Joey,
I believe human potential on the horizontal level is immense; ie, we in western culture find the whole idea of 8-year-old kings, being married at 13, or 14 years of age, etc, bizarre. But western culture has a long history of tyrants dumbing down the populous. The Dark Ages were a product of western culture. Hence, for lack of knowledge and an overabundance of erroneous information and the unintellectual functioning on pithy sayings and cliches, the youth of our day are woefully unequipped to handle emotional type relationships. Parents should start putting the idea in their children’s heads early-on that they will not be dating until age 16 under certain conditions, and unchaperoned at age 17.They should also keep their daughters from ‘boy-crazy” peers. This culture is awash in personal interaction ignorance and pay Nihilists $120.00 an hour for the best information on how to cope best on the rat treadmill of Gnostic cybernetic loops.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Joey, People were marrying young then because they also had lower life expectancy. Men usually married much younger women, too. Think about it, many women died in childbirth. It was a huge deal. In fact, I believe that is an issue affecting what Paul is saying in Timothy using the metaphor: They will be saved in the childbearing. (Noun) A metaphor about dying in childbirth yet they will be saved.
There was the great cult and temple of Artemis in Ephesus around childbearing and one of the things they taught was that Eve was created before Adam. And because Paul Authenteo (only time used in NT) in that passage concerning what a woman was doing. Authenteo is hard to translate but it is not authority over as there are several good Greek words for that. It has a more sinister meaning such as domineer (As Jerome translated it) or compell. And this “domineering teaching” is connected with the “childbearing” metaphor.
Dying young in childbirth was a real fear. I have read some scholars who think Mary was 14 or 15 and that was the norm.
LikeLike
Yep, yep.
LikeLike
“Out of curiosity, do you think there is some inherent immaturity in teenagers that makes them unfit for dating, or do you think it’s more of the culture/society to which we belong? ”
One more thing….:o) I read an article in some scientific journal while at the Dentist on brain development that was very interesting. It talked about why teens do such stupid things and take such risks and they map it to brain development. In fact, they talk about the brain not being fully developed until mid to late 20’s. What is too bad is there is no baseline data to know if this is a cultural construct or not.
Let’s face it, in wars in the past, the 18 year old would charge the hill while the 35 year old would probably ask more questions. The problem today is that most 18 year old are too lazy to even think of charging the hill.
I just go by my mom’s advice. NEVER ever trust kids or teens. period. Or, trust but verify. We think they have the wisdom or whatever but get them in a group and you never know. Ever read Lord of the Flies? It pretty much describes most public high schools these days. The inmates are running the asylums.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
I get what you guys are saying. Maybe I wasn’t clear with my question. It was basically one of those nature vs. nurture questions. I was just saying that, in my opinion, there is nothing about being a teenager persay which necessitates, or even makes likely, that they will be too immature or irresponsible to marry, or to engage in any other number of “adult things.” Whether the brain of a teenager is fully developed or not, I wouldn’t doubt that the average 16 year old of antiquity was far more mature and responsible than the average 16 year old (or thirty year old!) of today. Even today when people don’t die as young, there are certain tribes in the world where it is the norm to marry young, and the youth are expected to take on an awful lot of responsibility. This makes me suppose that all of the irresponsibility and immaturity we see in teenagers has more to do with the atmosphere in which they are raised–witht the society or the culture to which they (and we) belong. The pressure and temptations of the World can be even more persuasive than the pressures and temptations of the Flesh, espeacially on the young.
LikeLike
Joey, To your point, our countries founding fathers, who were a product of the Enlightenment movement, accomplished more before they were 20 than most people in our day accomplish in a lifetime. People are amazed that Susan was a freshman in college when she was 16, but in colonial days, that was common.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Lin,
“They will be saved in the child bearing.” That always confused me. Thanks for clearing it up. 🙂
LikeLike