Naghmeh Abedini files for legal separation

GregH and Julei Anne: It appears that you’ve allowed the zeitgeist to take precedence over scripture. Yes, sometimes real domestic abuse exists, including in some Christian marriages. And in those situations, I have no sympathy for the unrepentant abuser. Are you two objective enough, however, to acknowledge the legitimate studies showing that domestic violence against husbands occurs at least as frequently as the other way around? Are you objective enough to grant that a wife’s verbal abuse of her husband, including screaming, hurling insults, and so forth — particularly in front of the children — is just as wrong as the same behavior from the husband? Do you acknowledge that divorce courts frequently see false allegations of abuse as a child custody ploy? Are you interested in truth enough to assess the Abedinis’ situation on its own, rather than colored and likely distorted by your previous bad experience with a particular church or society’s and law enforcement’s entrenched assumption that domestic violence/abuse goes only one way? Your previous comments indicate that you’re not, which calls into question the reliability of your arguments and your criticisms.

The scriptural passages on marriage, the spouses’ joint and separate responsibilities in marriage, separation, and divorce are clear. Likewise, the scriptural passages on dispute resolution (in Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 6) are also clear. Nothing in any of those passages makes an allegation of abuse an exception to the rules. Nothing in any of those passages supports the radical idea that “there is no marriage” where there has been (or allegedly has been) abuse. I note that neither of you made any effort to support your position from scripture. I think there’s an obvious reason for that. The scripture is also clear that men and women both are depraved and perfectly capable of manipulation, deceit, and seriously bad behavior in and out of marriage. So it is unbiblical to buy into the current culture’s message that a woman’s allegation of abuse should always and automatically be believed and her husband’s denial of her allegation should always and automatically be disbelieved.

Julie Anne, I am not a pastor (you can breathe a sigh of relief). But I have been a deacon attempting to deal with some very troubled marriages, I have dealt with my own very troubled marriage, and I am a trial attorney with 30+ years of experience sorting through competing versions of the same event to attempt to arrive at what really happened. I also take the Bible seriously on marriage, divorce, and dispute resolution. If you were to take a more objective look at Naghmeh’s historical behavior and public statements, you would realize that there are major inconsistencies there. If you were at all interested in an unbiased assessment of what we know so far, you wouldn’t dismiss Saeed’s (and others’) denials, nor his imprisonment and testimony through his imprisonment. You would also acknowledge Mark Smith’s point above that even the one-sided record of the 2007 incident reflects a minor case, especially if it was not repeated (and we have no indication from anyone that it ever was). You would also acknowledge that Naghmeh’s admitted role in that incident was itself abusive. If your response is that there is no such thing as a minor case, then you demonstrate that it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with you on this topic.

Also, both of you have missed my primary point: there is no excuse for how Naghmeh has behaved in this matter, regardless of the truth of her vague accusations and especially if she is in any way overstating (or lying about) her grievances. She has clearly relied on the expectation that people like you would believe her entirely and unhesitatingly and that you would rush to judgment and excommunication of Saeed without ever having heard anything from him in defense. You have even approved of her unscriptural divorce filings (you can’t respond that she has “only” sought separation because, according to you, the alleged abuse means automatically that there is “no marriage” any more). If she had grievances before Saeed was imprisoned in Iran, she should have taken them to her church and submitted to their discipline process (short of actual physical abuse, which there is no indication was occurring, and which she should have dealt with through law enforcement if it was). If she felt she had grounds for divorce, she should have taken that issue to her church, again submitting to their discipline/dispute resolution process. If she truly wants reconciliation, which she has said she does, she should never have impugned her husband publicly and made the likelihood of reconciliation much more remote. If he was somehow abusing her from prison and enjoying a cushy imprisonment complete with 24/7 access to a phone, the internet, pornography, etc. — allegations that have yet to be explained in any sensible way — she should not have told everyone in this country that he was isolated from all but the most infrequent contact with the outside world and otherwise mistreated in his imprisonment. However you want to couch her actions while he has been half way around the world and in no position to defend himself and now that he is home and she has refused to communicate with him other than through public court filings, her behavior has been shameful.

I urge you to drop the filter of feminism and apply the filters of scripture and reality.

Dmyers, I agree with you that abuse in itself does not ipso facto break the marriage. I disagree with Julie Anne on that one with you. I would, however, suggest that if we follow the Matthew 18 process—with the caveat that the victim does not have to again face her accuser alone, since she faced him (or he her) already during the abuse—we are very likely to find out that the abuser is, in fact, not a brother, and therefore he is going to end up separated or divorced from his wife, and separated from the church.

But let’s parse this out in Naghmeh Abedini’s world. Again, we know for a fact that Mr. Abedini plead guilty, and that his church apparently knew of this and other issues and ordained him anyways. These facts are not up for debate; they’re entered in court and quotes by the participants. So she’s tried Matthew 18, and the church has flat out dropped the ball. It’s made things worse, moreover, by ordaining him when 1 Timothy 3 suggests that he ought to be rejected (one woman man, temperate, not violent, etc..), and then sending him to Iran, where he’s immersed in that culture and subjected to serious trauma in a porn-laden Iranian prison.

Side note; our society, including fundamental churches, listed abandonment along with adultery as cause for divorce.

And now he’s coming back from an abusive society where female victims are often gang raped and murdered because of the “damage done to the family’s honor.” She’s heard some of these cultural cues in their phone conversations. So given that the church has dropped the ball per Matthew 18, what is she to do?

She files for separation and goes public because that is her only recourse. You might actually say that she’s doing what the church should have done per Matthew 18:17. Find this embarrassing? Me too. It’s what happens when churches drop the ball with Matthew 18.

Your claims that the motivation for Franklin Graham and ACLJ are purely for their own benefit, which is patently ridiculous.

Also, while Saeed pled guilty to a specific abuse charge in 2007, that does not mean he continued to abuse Naghmeh before or after that event.

You then claim Saeed is unqualified for ministry based off of nothing but Naghmeh’s facebook comments. Odd.

You seem to suggest Graham was nefarious in offering counseling in NC. Odd. Weird I’d say.

You seem to imply Saeed is some unrepentent criminal and wife beater based off of nothing but Naghmeh’s facebook comments, which can be seen to be from a woman looking to benefit financially from all the money she has received over the years.

Let me say, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TRUTH IS and neither do you.

Do you have knowledge that Naghmeh’s church has given her permission to divorce? How do you know that?

I will readily admit I don’t know the truth in regards to exactly what abuse occurred. What is interesting though is the reaction. For sure, it indicates that the church’s uneasy tension with feminism (a noble thing even if it has excesses) has created some unhealthy attitudes toward abuse that inexplicably exist to this day.

Never would I have guessed that we would still have people claiming a woman is wrong for separating from an abuser whether the church “allows” it or not. And yet we do… Not just as has been hinted at in this thread but in actual situations I have unfortunately seen first hand.

Your claims that the motivation for Franklin Graham and ACLJ are purely for their own benefit, which is patently ridiculous.

Ridiculous based on what, Mark, your opinion? At least I provided factual documentation.

Do you have knowledge that Naghmeh’s church has given her permission to divorce? How do you know that?

I am troubled by this statement. What it says is that church leaders must be convinced beyond a doubt that there is abuse going on before they will grant permission to get divorced. Oh boy - - I wonder how many deaths have occurred because of this. Abusers by nature are narcissistic, manipulative, conniving. How do you think they are able to get away with abusing for so long??? Because they hide it. Yet pastors think they have an inside look into the actual lives of wives inside their residences to see how an abuser treats her physically, emotionally, spiritually, sexually? That’s putting pastors on a pretty high pedestal. Do you realize that if you are wrong by saying she doesn’t have permission to get divorce when there actually is abuse, you are further abusing her? This is called secondary abuse: spiritual abuse. Now she has been abandoned by the church, the place where she should be able to go for refuge.
Do you know how many people I connect with you now refuse to go to churches because no one believed them and their abuse? I try to be nice here, but some of you are perpetuating the problem in modern church and why there are so many Dones. Please educate yourselves on abuse and how to respond appropriately. The church in general is very uneducated on this topic. The “do no harm” is an expression that should be very high on a shepherd’s role in a person’s life. Please make sure that when someone comes to you with claims of abuse, that your first response is “do no harm.”

You seem to imply Saeed is some unrepentent criminal and wife beater based off of nothing but Naghmeh’s facebook comments, which can be seen to be from a woman looking to benefit financially from all the money she has received over the years.

I fail to see how she’s going to be making any money when DeMoss group said they are no longer representing Saeed/Naghmeh. Your claims are unsubstantiated.

We have seen nothing public about Saeed’s repentance, either from the court case in 2007, or later. What we do have evidence of is a man who went into ministry within a year of the court conviction in which he pled guilty. Are you ok with that? Are you okay with Saeed having a pastor’s title with that kind of family disarray? Your anger at Naghmeh is displaced. It seems you would want to focus more on the fact that Saeed, who chose to go in full-time ministry, to a dangerous country, representing Christ, was not qualified to be a pastor. Why is there no outrage that his own church and licensing group did not do due diligence?

Mark, let’s draw this slightly differently. If we assume that the case is as you say—an assault conviction that you’ve got no evidence was repeated, but where the wife is making various allegations. Do we allow this person to serve in ministry when his house is divided? I believe we have a few commenters here who have stepped aside from ministry for this very reason—no gross sin, but the husband and wife are simply not on the same page. It’s a very real issue.

My take is that you don’t allow them in the pastorate, because Paul told Timothy and Titus that the man must manage his own home well. For that matter, speaking as my church’s Sunday School Superintendent, I doubt I’d let him serve in Sunday School, at least not without clear accountability and clear indications of how and why he’s changed and repented since that conviction.

The ugly reality is that if I don’t take these things seriously, I risk ending up on the witness stand trying to explain why on earth I knowingly put that guy in a room with a dozen five year olds, and everything I say gets put on the front page of the local paper, while my pastor hands the keys to the church building over to the victims.

Honestly, we’ve got to take the Matthew 18 reconciliation/discipline process seriously, as well as the qualifications for ministry.

You seem to suggest Graham was nefarious in offering counseling in NC. Odd. Weird I’d say.

What counseling qualifications does Graham have when there is abuse? For that matter, what counseling qualifications do most pastors have? I can tell you from my experience in dealing with more wives than I can count, the normal response from pastors is that when there is abuse within a marriage, it is labeled as a marriage problem. That is absolutely wrong thinking.

Can you imagine putting a rapist with his rape victim, or attempted murderer with the victim? You must look at abuse in that way. Abuse is using a position of control over someone else. This is not a marriage relationship issue, it is flat out abuse and criminal behavior. Please, if any of you take any of my words home, please take this home: Domestic Abuse is not a marital issue, but an abuse issue, and most likely, criminal activity.

Franklin Graham or for that matter, any pastor, has no business dealing with criminal behavior. It must be reported. Now in the case of emotional/verbal abuse which is difficult to try criminally, I believe it is a pastor’s responsibility to come alongside and help the wife/children to separate so they can be safe. Emotional and verbal abuse is just as harmful in the long run as physical abuse.

dmyers, I think the title of your post explains a lot: Feminism doesn’t trump marriage or the Bible

I don’t know what you mean by feminism. I believe it is a very loaded word. Some equate it with different time periods in history. When I use the word, I use it to mean that women should be treated equally to men. They should have the same voting privileges, land purchasing, pay for employment, etc. I struggle to think that any Christian would want women to be treated less than men because she does not have male genitalia.

The issue of domestic violence does raise concerns about feminism and being treated equally. Are you okay with men using a position of authority to control a woman to do what he wants? I’m wondering what Bible you are reading that endorses this kind of behavior.

I would like for any man here to stand up in support of the way women have been treated through history just because they have different genitalia. What man here could say that the condition of women just a few decades ago was better than today? Go back 100 years when women could not own property in their own name and had practically no chance of getting a divorce even in cases of abuse and tell me that is better than today.

The good change we have seen is because of brave feminists. More power to them. Yes, I am a feminist in that I believe that women are equal to men in society and should have exactly the same rights.

The man just got released from 5-6 years in an Iranian prison, and we are battling about whether he is worthy of a pastorate?

The issue is rather than meet him at the airport, Naghmeh delivered a court order… OK. If Saeed is that bad, then ok. But we KNOW NOTHING. All we have is the facebook posting of a woman who, up until November, said Saeed was a great father and husband. now he is the scum of the earth.

Keep in mind, David was a murderer. Forget pornography, he had multiple wives and concubines. He killed a man to have his wife! Paul was a murderer. Were they qualified to lead in God’s eyes?

The point is, whether Saeed is qualified for a pastorate is irrelevant at this point. The shocking thing is the behavior of Naghmeh. If Saeed is that bad, that she won’t even meet him at the airport when he comes home after years in prison…wow. Years during which SHE BECAME FAMOUS for defending him!

Wow…

[GregH]

I would like for any man here to stand up in support of the way women have been treated through history just because they have different genitalia. What man here could say that the condition of women just a few decades ago was better than today? Go back 100 years when women could not own property in their own name and had practically no chance of getting a divorce even in cases of abuse and tell me that is better than today.

The good change we have seen is because of brave feminists. More power to them. Yes, I am a feminist in that I believe that women are equal to men in society and should have exactly the same rights.

Depends on whether the woman has been born yet, I guess. It’s worth noting that unborn women were protected a wee bit better (at least in most of the U.S.) a century ago than today. To be fair, Susan B. Anthony and the like were generally in favor of this protection—how the various manifestations of feminism have changed. I’m not up for a full discussion of the various types of feminism extant today line by line, and definitely not here, but let’s not pretend it’s a monolithic movement and an unalloyed good.

Plus, it’s worth noting that the case we’re discussing is not really one where 19th century divorce laws, which tended to allow it only for adultery and abandonment, would make much difference. A good lawyer could have made the case for Mrs. Abedini back in 1890 due to her husband’s long incarceration, and if he’d partaken of Victorian smut, that wouldn’t have looked good in court, either. Her pastor would likely have supported her.

Graham has a large organization. I am sure someone there is a qualified counselor, NO. Or if not, they can hire someone.

Do you not think the ACLJ does good work to promote freedom in the US? Or, is Jay Sekulow just a glory hound?