Look out for teachers that redefine words and concepts!
It seems we need to find a way to separately define common abuse (a general failure to love as we ought) and damaging abuse (serious, habitual harm to another person).
For instance, if a man neglects or speaks unkindly to his wife (and this goes both ways) he has in fact abused her. She was given to him to love and cherish; yet, he has failed to love her as he loves himself. And in a husband’s case, he has also failed to love her as Christ loved the church. He has sinned. He should repent and win back his wife’s trust.
Still, most of us would not view him as an “abuser.” We can’t go around labeling every person who sins against others an “abuser,” unless we’re willing to claim that label for ourselves as well (Romans 2:1-3).
The first paragraph assumes that most of the world doesn’t recognize a ‘pattern of behavior’ when speaking about abusive behavior.
The author herself as taken it upon herself to 'redefine' the word, and then use it. She pointed to an definition from an old dictionary, but ignored what they stated about 'pattern of behavior'. As of today we have a NEW definition of abuse that involved no pattern of behavior according to the author.
Abuse has been, and chances are always WILL BE a 'habitual' or 'pattern' of harm to another.
In her example, she is attempting to show an individual that may have sinned against their spouse one day by being unkind. I think we can all agree that is indeed sinning against another by failure to love as we ought.
Stating this makes you an abuser is a personal definition, and one that is not applicable to the one referenced in her own dictionary.
Rather than stretch the meaning of abuse (which has been redefined into oblivion) to include anything that offends our sensibilities, and instead of labeling anyone an “abuse” who gets in the way of what we want to do, let’s examine legitimate ways people harm one another, and discuss when and if the church or civil authorities must get involved.The author once again has 'redefined' the word abuse to include now a third definition.
It went from: a general failure to love as we ought to now 'anything that offends our sensibilities'.
In other words, the author is saying labeling everything you don't care for as abuse.
Its strange how the author speaks on how others 'redefine' the concept of abuse, and then turns around does it herself. Then to make sure the point is made, she redefines it yet AGAIN to another definition to use against others. Notice the 'selfish' slant she attempts to spin with her final definition.
WELL to be fair she is adding to her own definition of abuse with the slant to show how the world gets it wrong. She basically loaded up her own definition, and slanted it show how others misuse it for their own selfish motives. Don't know how that is possible since it was recently just invented.
Its quite amazing how others will divert in such ways in order to NOT deal with the correct concept isn't it?
This leap is not uncommon sadly.
The author wishes her audience to realize we are ALL abusers!
We have a bit of a dilemma. Webster’s “maltreatment” definition may simply describe the way we all regularly sin against one another. Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:37-40 that all the commandments are summed up in the two commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”Yikes! You notice the setup for the shaming? "No one is perfect, so we all are abusers?"
So, maltreatment (or abuse) could be described as failing to properly love one another. Of course, that means, to varying degrees, we all abuse one another, since we all fail to perfectly love. Defined this way, each of us has been abused, and each of are abusers. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:10)
But, again this shamefully detracts from the seriousness of true abuse—the scary kind—the kind you read about in the news. It also minimizes other forms of real abuse that may not leave visible marks. Obviously, there are varying degrees of harm people inflict upon one another, and sometimes the extremes create crisis.Now that she has shamed everyone SHE will educate us on the 'real' forms of abuse. The poor author just doesn't seem to get it does she?
There are other ways man harms man—actions that are rightly called abusive: physical or sexual assault, spiritual exploitation (cults), harmful neglect of the helpless under our care, and cruelty to the elderly or infirm. More extreme situations call for more drastic measures, and some situations necessitate the involvement of civil authorities.Can anyone recognize the 'habitual' pattern of behaviors in the above paragraph? There are additional concepts of course that fall into her above description.
The author then generates four different types of abuse in which she has come up with, but do not line up with dictionaries. At this point you need to wonder WHY she would do this. What is the motive? She will give you hints when she redefines the concepts for you. Lets take a look her catagories:
Type A: A general failure to love as we ought, which is not habitual and which occurs within the context of an overall healthy relationship. This, at the very least, includes every one of us. (In other words, we are all abusers. Which of course is not what the dictionaries say.)
Type B: A habitual and ongoing failure to love as we ought that escalates to the point of damaging the physical or emotional health of those around us. (Getting closer she mentions 'pattern')
Type C: This type of abuse includes physical or sexual assault, or serious wrongful neglect. (Hmm. Must be the 'real' abuse she mentions prior.)
Type D: This type of abuse is sometimes (ironically) abused. It describes the behavior of groups which are marked by false teachings or a false teacher—a cult. Unfortunately, there are those who use the loaded term spiritual abuse to label true brothers and sisters in the faith with whom they disagree. (Can we say not even close the definition of spiritual abuse?)
When people attempt to 'redefine' concepts like abuse? When they can't even stick to the dictionary definitions, but go way beyond that? When they try to tell you most people will claim 'abuse' when they don't like something? You need to start sniffing out motive on their part.
When I look to the list above with the types of abuse? Since Type A and Type D are completely incorrect, and off the charts? Chances are good the motive as they continue will focus on these.
It will also show how their sensibilities were offended by something, and they have decided they must redefine some concepts to show how either something is or isn't abusive. Since they have loaded the true definitions we need to keep that in mind as they continue to 'teach'.
Since New Oxford American Dictionary hasn't announced they have revised new definitions for words like they did for Palin with repudiate? All we can do is wait and see if they will accept the new definitions, until then sadly we will have assume motive.
Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it: