Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I raised the issue of abuse in the context of the father being deceased, as Lee is. All that is left are the child's wounds and the father's reputation. Some observers, though they even acknowledge some abuse, seem to think it's much more important to defend the rep of a dead man than to heal the soul's of the living. I don't understand that thinking and I like someone to explain it to me if anyone is up to it.
|
Igzy, we're talking about the same thing here. Abuse issues remain even after the abuser has passed away.
Real healing does not involve cover ups or attacks. Real healing does include discussions of wrongs, with sympathy and compassion and trust, but also leads to understanding and forgiveness, but not "forgetting." Discussions help to sort thru the mess, especially when things have been bottled up for years. Abused ones tend to feel isolated, without any support, which never helps.
I don't think anyone is in denial here, rather at times, I do find my posts limiting just how much we "heap on the hate." I find extreme views to be very unproductive. The alternative is, for sure, more difficult. We are left with the task of properly discerning the "good from the worthless." This I have found to be far more profitable.
Let me give an example of a comment which helped me personally. It was very balanced and therefore profitable. The brother commented about TC, "I appreciate all the work he has done for the Lord, but the way he treats people, I will never agree with that."