"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…"
Ephesians 5:25 (ESV)
http://www.domesticviolencenomore.com/
John Piper, one of the foremost authorities on complementarianism, recently addressed ways in which women can lead/serve at a “Let the Nations Be Glad” seminar organized by the Desiring God ministry. Not surprisingly, he began by explaining why men, and not women, should be the leaders in their homes and the church. In a Christian Post article entitled "John Piper Explains Why Women Shouldn't Lead Men," Piper is quoted as follows: (link)
“The Bible really cares about the dynamic between men and women. It has nothing to do with a woman’s incompetency. A man’s headship in the home is not based on his being superiorly competency," said Piper, the pastor for preaching at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as he responded to the question of what’s the place of women in missions.
"Men are not superior," Piper said. “She is more competent than you [men] in most ways.” He said a wife could be smarter, more read, and know her Bible better than her husband. “This has to do with God’s created dynamic of what a man is and what a woman is in their gut with regard to the ballet of leadership and submission.”
Piper explained when he says the Bible calls godly men to be the leaders in their homes and the leaders and elders in the church, “I don’t mean that with regard to ministering to women and ministering to children.”
“That means,” he added, “women shouldn’t be, in general, leaders of the men … exercise a certain kind of leadership of men.”
But that doesn’t mean women have any lesser role in missions, he argued.
To help women know how they can serve, Piper listed around eighty things women can do in his book What’s the Difference. Many of those roles are related to missions.
Piper claims that women have the responsibility to be in leadership over women and children; however, here’s the problem from our perspective. Christian women are often interested in the protection of women and children. Sadly, sometimes their concerns are at odds with the male leadership in their church.
Here are two specific examples which occurred at a large church that holds John Piper is high esteem.
(1) A church committee made up of both men and women wanted to post a domestic abuse hotline in the ladies' bathroom at the church. The committee approached the pastors for their approval. Their request was flatly declined.
(2) The pastors in this very same church informed a wife who had been abused by her husband and separated from him that in order to be counseled by them (the pastors), the wife would have to return to her abusive husband.
John Piper encourages women to lead women and children, but when they attempt to do so by posting a domestic abuse hotline, for example, the pastors say no. Therefore, women will NEVER be able to lead other women and children in a church because ultimately the pastors are in charge of all the ministries, including those geared strictly to women and children. Piper's statements are based on a reality that does not exist in most conservative churches.
In our ministry here at TWW, we were contacted by a woman in Georgia who was being abused by her husband. She was suffering ongoing physical abuse which included being punched in the stomach and face. Desperate for help, she went to her pastor and was told that she must stay in this abusive marriage. She called us on the TWW hotline frightened and confused. We put her in touch with a Christian psychiatric nurse practitioner who was able to counsel her. Since that time, the woman left both her husband and her church. She is now situated away from her abusive husband and has found a wonderful new church.
Once again this real life situation shows that John Piper’s paradigm of women having leadership responsibilities over other women is just smoke and mirrors. In the end, it is the male leadership that makes the final decisions, forcing Christian women to do an end run around patriarchal leadership.
Remember Mark Winkler, the pastor's wife in Tennessee who killed her husband? Here is how CNN covered the story:
"After spending a total of seven months in custody, the Tennessee woman who fatally shot her preacher husband in the back was released on Tuesday, her lawyer told CNN.
Mary Winkler, a 33-year-old mother of three girls, was freed from a Tennessee mental health facility where she was treated for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, lawyer Steve Farese said….
Prosecutors and Matthew Winkler's family members said he was a good husband and father.
But on the stand, Mary Winkler described a hellish 10-year marriage during which, she said, her husband struck her, screamed at her, criticized her and blamed her when things went wrong. She said he made her watch pornography and wear "slutty" costumes for sex, and that he forced her to submit to sex acts that made her uncomfortable.
She testified she pointed the shotgun at her husband during an argument to force him to talk through their problems, and "something went off."
A defense psychologist testified that she was depressed and showed classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mary Winkler initially received a three-year sentence in June. But Circuit Court Judge J. Weber McCraw required that she serve only 210 days, and allowed her to serve the rest of the time on probation.
She also received credit for five months she spent behind bars awaiting trial, which left only about 60 days to her sentence. McCraw ruled she could serve the time in a mental health facility."
Tragically, when pastors fail to respond to the legitimate fears of abused women in their church and when authorities fail to protect them, those women can sometimes feel that their only choice is to take matters into their own hands in order to protect themselves and their children.
Remember the song "Goodbye Earl" recorded by the Dixie Chicks? When the song first came out in 2000, there was an outcry that they were endorsing taking the law into one's own hands by killing an abusive spouse. The Wikipedia article about "Goodbye Earl" describes the song this way: (link)
"The song uses black comedy to tell the story of two best friends from high school, and what became of them after graduation. Mary Ann leaves the town where they had grown up, while Wanda settles on marrying a man named "Earl", who batters her on a continuous basis. Wanda files for divorce based on the domestic violence, but "Earl walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care". Mary Ann flies in from Atlanta, Georgia, and after some talking, the women decide "that Earl had to die", and they kill him, by poisoning his black-eyed peas. The song plot has been described as a cross between the films Fried Green Tomatoes and Thelma and Louise."
To read about the music video featured below, consult the Wiki article. In the video, Wanda is hurt so badly by her abusive husband that she lands in intensive care with life-threatening injuries. During her recovery and after obtaining a restraining order that was useless, she and Mary Ann realized there was a strong possibility that Wanda may be killed the next time her husband treats her like a punching bag. The Dixie Chicks are singing about a woman who could have died from her injuries and was not protected by the law. Even though this is a fictitious tale set to music, we believe pastors should sit up and take notice because they play an important part in protect the women in their congregations. When they fail these women and advise them to remain in abusive relationships, dire consequences can result.
We want to make it exceedingly clear that we are not advocating the killing of abusive spouses. We simply want to point out the inevitable when those in authority (whether it be the church or the law) fail to intervene.
Finally, in our reading of the Scriptures, we find absolutely NOTHING that requires a wife (or husband for that matter) to remain in an abusive marriage.
Once again, we are NOT advocating what is taking place in this video, but we must face the reality that if churches cannot protect women against abuse, they may be forced to take matters in their own hands. Remember, there is such a thing as self-defense.
Finally, to demonstrate that this is a parody Dennis Franz (Earl) is dancing a jig at the end of the video. Let's work together to help abused women get out of these destructive relationships before it's too late…
By the way, guess who wrote "Goodbye Earl"? A man named Dennis Linde.
Lydia's Corner: Ezra 1:1-2:70 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5 Psalm 27:7-14 Proverbs 20:22-23
The “ballet of leadership and submission”?????
Is this meant to complement Thabiti Anyabwile’s tango regimen?
I’ve been in such a “leadership” situation before.
I was in a leadership position in a church, but I wasn’t allowed to do anything, really. Oh, i was allowed to sort, fold, and staple for hours. Anything menial, sure. But nothing beyond that. I certainly wasn’t allowed to lead.
I was merely the puppet for the person who held all the strings, required to do whatever they said.
It was so very demeaning.
See my response this evening on “Hurt? Wary? Afraid?”.
Man, I miss that band.
I remember when that song first came out. I don’t ever remember thinking it was anything but a good song. I later found out it was considered controversial. I was like. Huh? It was? But wasn’t Earl a really bad sonofab**** who beat his wife to a pulp? I mean, I too, don’t advocate offing abusive spouses, but I just wasn’t offended given the circumstances of the story.
Typo alert!!
Mary Winkler, NOT Mark Winkler.
Oops!
Deb
Awesome post. Great song. Maryanne and Wanda reminds me a bit of the two of us, minus the dead husband. 🙂 If we ever get bored, we could open up a roadside stand where we can sell Norwegian and Russian staples!
Pingback: Around Town: Week in Review « The Reformed Traveler
I listened to some of that seminar by Piper last weekend. It was recommended on Facebook and I thought I’d give him the benefit of the doubt (again).
What bothered me most was listening to Piper’s “tone”; “that should be enough for them” as he talked about his list for women at the end of his book. Why did it not occur to him that he WAS talking TO women in the room?
I do not understand his reasoning that churches should be “masculine” and “be lead by and be predominately men”. What is a masculine church? Fishing in the baptistry? Old Spice incense? A dictionary suggests: possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a man.
What does this look like? A bullhorn to announce someone is needed in the nursery? Towels tucked in the waist of the guys up on stage? Music sung an octave or two lower? With lashing of “masculine leadership” thrown in?
To get back to the seminar, there is an interesting account of how they (was that Piper and his church?) used to do missions in South America. Some verse taken and applied badly and how it is not like that anymore.
I long for the day when Piper and his followers see that what is taught about women should not be what it is!
And churches would be described as “possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to Jesus”.
The link for that seminar is:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/let-the-nations-be-glad-qa#/listen/full
Heather – you spoke of how Piper say churches should be masculine.
The Bible calls the church the “bride of Christ”, so it will be much closer to scripture to say the church should be feminine, and male pastors cannot represent the church as they do not picture a bride accurately.
Joke, of course.
The evangelical husband
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2004/wilcox-june-8-2004.html
Seneca
I find that article very interesting and I am going to read a bit more about it. Here is the question. How does the author define “soft patriarchy?” From my reading of the article it is a guy who attends an evangelical church on a weekly basis. He doesn’t even define evangelical.
Permit me a guess. This gentleman is not using patriarchy in the same sense that Russell Moore and gang are using the term. The author looks at the male leadership inherent in the evangelical church and defines patriarchy based on that criteria.
For example, in the model proposed in that article, my husband and I fit the model. Regular church attendance, involvement with kids, etc. But, if you were to call my husband a patriarch, he would have a very good laugh since he knows how the Calvinistas are defining that role.
It has long been know that families who attend church together tend to have more stable marriages. I am not sure that this study breaks new ground but I could be wrong.
Retha
I rarely hear patriarchal pastors talk about the church as the bride of Christ. You could be on to something here. i wonder if they feel uncomfortable with the term.
Heather
There is a movement within these patriarchal circles to force the church into a male model. Driscoll is the king at this-redefining what constitutes manhood.He made a comment that Christianity is not about some gay relationship with Jesus. If he were to have followed jesus, he most likely would have advocated beating up the Pharisees except he wouldn’t do it. He would have some follower do it because Driscoll likes to play at being the aggressor.
Jesus did not conduct business the way these guys want to define the church. It was all about humility, sacrifice, giving up one’s life for the brothers, etc.In their warped vision, the flock is to be humble, to sacrifice and to give up one’s life for the pastor. The church, in the hands of authoritarian leadership, is going down a very whacked road.
Eagle
i loved Spencer’s article on domestic abuse.
It does not surprise me that Piper has risen to new heights. He is the chief advocate for patriarchy, along with Driscoll, Mohler, and most of the Gospel Coalition. The sin in the Garden at the beginning of this great life’s drama, was two people who wanted to be like gods. This wish is behind many of these sorts of movements. These sorts of men want to be declared “in charge.” Many of them could not have made it in the real world of business where they would have had to earn leadership and respect. Many of these guys are wimpy bullies who are looking for a guaranteed declaration of “authority.” It’s a nice gig.
One word for Piper’s remarks about women.
Unbelievable.
Wade,
Thanks for the stands you have taken to defend Christian women like Sheri Klouda. You have been an inspiration to me.
Piper: “The Bible really cares about the dynamic between men and women.”
The Bible doesn’t care about it all that much, really. There’s a few (very few) verses in there about relationships. But they make up such a small percentage of the Bible. Even in the epistles where they are written they make up such a small percentage it is amazing when you step back and compare the rest of the Bible. Piper and those like him make a few overused and abused verses to appear larger, more abundant, and far more important than what they are when compared to the whole. And when examining the words Jesus Christ, Himself, you find absolutely nothing about this all-important ‘dynamic’ that Piper wrings his hands over.
The truth is, Piper really cares about the dynamic between men and women, not the Bible. In fact, he is over-the-top obsessed with it. And he should take care about saying “Thus saith the Lord” or “Thus greatly careth the Bible” when it is completely debatable whether or not the ‘Bible’ really cares about it.
“Ballet” made me chuckle. I know what that it is supposed to be an illustration of proper role playing, but its an awful illustration of what Piper means by male leadership. The choreographer is the leader – they can be male or female – and the precision and unity of the dancers is determined by both of them working together, one doesn’t get to make a decision to overide the other. They each know their part, but they read each other, pay close attention to the other dancers on stage and adjust their movements accordingly. As to the “leader” – that changes based on the step (some steps the male dictates and some the female), the physical location of the dancers on the stage in relation to each other and sometimes just what they agree to do to make the steps work. Both dancers respond to each other or someone gets kicked in the face, dropped or worse. Its not nearly as simple as what your average amature learns in a ballroom dancing class about men leading. I suspect that in Professional Ballroom dancing, male leadership is the basic foundation for something far more complex and nuanced.
Of course I omitted the most common “leader” MUSIC!
I just ran across a church by the name of Manly Memorial Baptist Church- Lexington, VA.
elastigirl,
When my older daughter was a freshnan at UNC-Chapel Hill, she lived in an ALL GIRLS’ dorm named Manly. That was a family surname. We had a few chuckles over that.
chuckles-worthy, indeed. i imagine the church name is also a surname.
it’s just somewhat ironic, what with the emphasis on the idealistic “manly man”.
Such a dangerous thing — laden with imagery and stereotypes of what qualifies (and doesn’t qualify, which i would presume amounts to sin) — “gospel masculinity” by way of masculinity profiling.
A kind of a “gospel Mccarthyism” culture, separating out who doesn’t fit the manly-man ideal. There’s a certain amount of fear and anxiety to it.
“…Finally, in our reading of the Scriptures, we find absolutely NOTHING that requires a wife (or husband for that matter) to remain in an abusive marriage…”
Preach it Deb & Dee. Get the word out that the Bible says NO SUCH THING! Let the big guns in calvinista land get some push back from places like TWW. No more playing nice & making nice with these guys. Why? and what makes it different now? Because the stakes have been drastically raised with the deaths of beaten and starved kids, and with horribly battered wives in ER’s all over the nation. They’ve closed their ears and eyes to it.
Whether you guys realize it or not, you’ve become activists and I applaud you for it. It was activism that stopped the slave trade. It was activism that got women the vote & activism that got the monumental civil rights act passed in 1964. Godspeed and Providence guide TWW.
I’m not sure what Piper ultimately has to do with this, as he has never indicated that a woman being physically abused ought to stay in the same household as the man abusing her. This seems like a guilt-by-association type thing, and assumes that Piper knows facts about the Church that he may not know, or even may actively disagree with.
From a personal perspective, if a spouse is being physically or emotionally abused, I would strongly urge that woman to not only separate from her husband, but also that the Church she is a member of ought to provide for her food and shelter, with the hopes that a reconciliation can occur. Divorce is not acceptable in this situation, but taking care of her until she is able to get back on her feed, lending her emotional support, offering counseling to both her and her spouse, and refusing to accept or support any desire for divorce on either of their behalfs is a necessity.
“get back on her FEET”, [whether that takes months or years]”
Dustin
“if a spouse is being physically or emotionally abused, I would strongly urge that woman to not only separate from her husband, but also that the Church she is a member of ought to provide for her food and shelter, with the hopes that a reconciliation can occur. Divorce is not acceptable in this situation, but taking care of her until she is able to get back on her feed, lending her emotional support, offering counseling to both her and her spouse, and refusing to accept or support any desire for divorce on either of their behalfs is a necessity”
How much do you know of abusers? Abusers, even with counseling, have a high recidivism rate. Why is divorce not an option? You seem 100% sure of yourself! I imagine that there are many, myself included, who would disagree with you.
Wade
It was most interesting thinking this one through. At first, Piper appears to making sense. He outlines that women have leadership over other women and children, thus making up the majority of the populations. But what really happens. All of these women “leaders” are to be submitted to the men who are in leadership over them. These men have the final say in the matter. So, when women decide to lead for other women, lets say in the case of posting the number of a domestic abuse hot line, they are shot down.This “leadership” of women does not exist in these types of ministries. i would rather have piper say that only men are in charge as opposed to pretending otherwise.
Sure glad there are men like you out there to restore my faith in the system.
Dustin
One final statement on Piper, he most certainly did say a woman needed to endure abuse for a season which he then defined as one night. So, in Piper’s system, a husband could whop a woman around until dawn. How much you wanna bet that he wouldn’t let a burglar whop him around for a night! But, I guess you if you are married, you get whopping rights for a limited time?
“How much do you know of abusers? Abusers, even with counseling, have a high recidivism rate. Why is divorce not an option? You seem 100% sure of yourself! I imagine that there are many, myself included, who would disagree with you.”
“because such were some of you, but you were washed…” i believe that the gospel of jesus christ changes people, that it takes away their heart of stone, gives them a heart of flesh, and as the holy spirit indwells them begins the slow process of sanctification. i did not give any easy way out-i said it may take years, but we don’t cast of or disregard people that easily.
as far as why not divorce- because the scriptures make no provision for it in these circumstances. if one is being abused, they should separate from their spouse, as fast as they can. if they need to legally separate to acquire financial independence, then that is an option as well. but after that- their responsibility is to pray for their spouse, with the hopes of a changed heart and eventual reconciliation.
Dustin
I believe that ,as you age, you may find that, in some circumstances, things do not change and everyone is not freed from all unrighteousness in practicality. Even Paul, suffered with a thorn in his side that God ddi not fit to have him “overcome.” Christian concerts still sin , and in particular, at times do not have complete victory over habitual sin. In fact, I am willing to make a prediction. I used to believe exactly as you do when I was a young woman in my 20s. Remember this when you are in your 40s. I think you will change you mind. If the blog is still around, please write me!
I disagree with your interpretation of when divorce is permissible. Are you actually saying that Jesus wants women to stay in a marriage with an habitual abuser or substance abuser. What does adultery mean to you? Men can have many types of mistresses. Talk to a drug addict.
My view is that abuse of a spouse breaks the marriage covenant just as much, or perhaps more so, than adultery. I have represented a number of abused women with respect to keeping their children from the abuser, who seeks custody to keep control of the woman. Abusive men do sometimes change, but rarely for more than a brief season. The exceptions are where the abuse occurred because of alcohol or drugs and the person becomes rehabbed successfully, a very, very rare event (so much for the power of the gospel to change some things!).
I believe in getting the divorce, reconciling to the point of having agreement regarding the children (unless he has abused one of them), and working out visitation and child support.
BTW, I have heard no one suggest that we should return an abused child to the custody of the parent that has abused them. Why should we return a spouse to the abuser?
Dee, first of all thank you for engaging with me. i plan on being a regular on your blog and disagreeing with you a lot, but i hope that you will find me a kind and gracious voice of opposition.
As to what Paul’s thorn is, it is extremely difficult exegetically to discern what it was. some believe it was a sickness, others believe it was inner psychological anguish over his former persecutions, and others believe it was opponents who were harassing him. Paul struggled with one of these things [I favor a physical illness] but it wasn’t a sin that he had to overcome, but rather a circumstance that the Lord had to see him through. It wasn’t a failure to be sanctified, but rather a hardship to be endured by which he would be sanctified through. major difference.
I do firmly believe that the bible is clear that Jesus wants women to stay in a marriage with a habitual user or substance abuser. That being said, its important to reiterate what I said earlier, that “stay in a marriage” does not mean live in the same home and stay in close proximity to this person. Living with a habitual abuser of any sort is a terrifying, emotionally catastrophic experience, and so as I stated earlier their best option and the advice I would give is get away and seek refuge in the Church or with friends or family or the government.
From there, as believers their responsibility is to pray for their husbands or wives, that they might hear the gospel, get saved, and after a long time, if they feel the person has changed, then they must come back to them. If their husband or wives never change, then they ought to live a life of celibacy.
I know those words sound harsh or unreasonable to you, but their basis is biblical and exegetical. When Jesus spoke of adultery, he was very specific about what it meant, and it did not include substance abuse or physical abuse. A marriage covenant can only be broken through sexual infidelity. “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32
You would have an impossible time making the case biblically and exegetically that divorce is allowed in the cases that you wish it were.
Dustin
There are many conservative theologians who have no difficulty allowing divorce in the case of abuse. Now, following what I perceive to be your logic, you will say that they are simply not “following the Bible.” I believe you use the word, “impossible.” I always smile a bit when I hear “impossible, ” only one way to interpret it, etc. I have heard this on a number of secondary issues: age of earth, eschatology, form of baptism, women in leadership, etc. In fact even within certain groups there are differences.
So for the Calvinista crowd: Mohler-Young Earth only-clear in scripture; Keller- no problemo with an oE, PresbyterianCcalvinista-OK Infant baptism; Reformed Baptist infant baptism is an anathema.Please read through this blog to see the number of secondary issues that we have covered.
Each of these groups is 100% convinced that they are interpreting the Scripture correctly-no possibility of error. So, i say that you are correctly interpreting that verse for your paradigm. I am also quite sure that you will change your mind in this matter as time goes on. I, too, would have argued your precise point when I was in my 20s.
Dustin
This bog has fielded opinions from all points of view from its inception. Although we glamorous blogmeisters are evangelical, we do not fit well into today’s au courant delineations of Calvinist, Arminians, etc. The Apostle’s Creed is a good baseline for our essential belies.
We have awesome people from all faith backgrounds and even a few agnostics and atheists who come by from time to time. You are welcome so long as you adhere to the rules of the game as posted in the About Us section. You are also welcome to post a link to your blog in one of your comments.
Also, we ask that our commenters be aware that there are people who come here who were treated like detritus at previous churches. We care about them and pray for them regularly. We ask that respect be shown to people in process.
BTW, did you know that disagreement is the lifeblood of a successful blog? Look at the blogs of many Calvinistas. They are so boring, with few comments because it is a mutual “yes” club out there. Many of them delete opposing points of views. I understand why. Authoritarianism is the basis of communication and they know they are interpreting the Scriptures “correctly.”
Dee, I don’t believe I have violated your rules, and I am a bit dismayed at your repeated references to my youth being responsible for my opinions, especially when you know very little about me and the journey i have traveled in order to arrive at my beliefs. I am wise enough to know that as I mature in the faith certain beliefs may develop more careful nuances, but i am settled in my convictions, and so I would appreciate if you would stop suggesting that once I hit my 40’s I will believe completely different. It is extremely condescending, and it does little by way of offering a biblical counterpoint to my specific objections.
As to those secondary issues, while I hold to some of them, they are not hills that I die on. I believe that the overwhelming majority of them can be seen multiple ways, and that a reasonably solid case can be made for either side, and so I would not presume to say that “it is impossible” regarding any of those secondary issues. I might offer my opinions regarding them, but i am not rabid or tenacious in my disagreements. I take a very “agree to disagree” approach to them, and I hope this is something you can appreciate about me.
At the same time there are some secondary issues that can be known 100%. For example, I would suggest that it is impossible to make the case exegetically that a man who is unrepentantly and openly sleeping with his fathers wife ought to be able to remain a member in good standing in the church. Its not a primary issue, but surely that can be known.
As to your specific objection- I would imagine there are many Christians of all stripes who have no difficulty in allowing divorce in the case of abuse- I just don’t think they are able to offer a consistent biblical case for it.I don’t beleive it can be done, especially when we examine the textual and scriptural evidence for what Christ says regarding what makes someone an adulterer.
http://www.thepaperthinhymn.com
Dustin,
If you were the one who was overpowered and beaten by a human being 6 or more inches taller than you, with much greater physical size & strength all around, & this person was the one you had trusted enough to share all your intimacy with… i wonder how your views would change.
But it is highly unlikely you will ever be in such a position to be violated in this way. So one can only hope your letter-of-the-law adherence isn’t to the exclusion of empathy, compassion & the spirit of the law.
God is not the totalitarian dictator, with regard to such betrayal in the most intimate & trust-based of human relationships, which you make him out to be.
Dustin
The reason I addressed you in the manner that I did was your condescending attitude that it is “impossible” to view a particular verse in Scripture unless it is viewed your”way. “You would have an impossible time making the case biblically and exegetically that divorce is allowed in the cases that you wish it were.” Not only is it possible but conservative theologians have done so, contrary to your statement. Remember, Jesus also said that if you do forgive someone, you won’t be forgiven. Is that the case? is it possible to see something else in that verse? Is our salvation dependent on more than than the forgiveness of Jesus? Do we need to accept Jesus AND forgive everybody? Could it have to do something with Jesus’ role during this bridge period of the OT and New Covenant? What was Jesus doing with the Law during this time?
The reason I addressed your youth is that most people find opinions (and yes, it is your opinion since it is not shared by all conservatives, only by some) become a bit more nuanced as more time is spent on this earth, especially by those who are as thoughtful and gung ho as you and I are. (Note: I included myself in this)There is a reason that elders should not be young and inexperienced in the faith, in spite of the fact it is now very “in” to have an elder board made up of young guys.
If you read carefully the comments posted by older Christians on this blog, you will see that significant changes occurred to their thinking over time. i am merely making a prediction based on experience.But, there is always an exception to the rule.
The reason I reviewed with you the rules of the game is due to your statement, ” i plan on being a regular on your blog and disagreeing with you a lot, but i hope that you will find me a kind and gracious voice of opposition.” When someone informs me that they plan on being a regular and a voice of opposition, it does cause me pause. Why?Most people, who have become regulars here, do not announce themselves and warn the blog queens to prepare for battle. So, since you warned us, I just wanted to be sure you understood how we do things around here.
“If you were the one who was overpowered and beaten by a human being 6 or more inches taller than you, with much greater physical size & strength all around, & this person was the one you had trusted enough to share all your intimacy with… i wonder how your views would change.
But it is highly unlikely you will ever be in such a position to be violated in this way. So one can only hope your letter-of-the-law adherence isn’t to the exclusion of empathy, compassion & the spirit of the law.
God is not the totalitarian dictator, with regard to such betrayal in the most intimate & trust-based of human relationships, which you make him out to be.”
My views would not change on the matter, though I wish to assure you that I have complete empathy and care for anyone caught in this situation. I would suggest that Churches aren’t doing enough about it in fact- that they in many ways have failed those caught in a cycle of violence and abuse and need to support families all the more.
“The reason I addressed you in the manner that I did was your condescending attitude that it is “impossible” to view a particular verse in Scripture unless it is viewed your”way. “You would have an impossible time making the case biblically and exegetically that divorce is allowed in the cases that you wish it were.” Not only is it possible but conservative theologians have done so, contrary to your statement. Remember, Jesus also said that if you do forgive someone, you won’t be forgiven. Is that the case? is it possible to see something else in that verse? Is our salvation dependent on more than than the forgiveness of Jesus? Do we need to accept Jesus AND forgive everybody? Could it have to do something with Jesus’ role during this bridge period of the OT and New Covenant? What was Jesus doing with the Law during this time?
The reason I addressed your youth is that most people find opinions (and yes, it is your opinion since it is not shared by all conservatives, only by some) become a bit more nuanced as more time is spent on this earth, especially by those who are as thoughtful and gung ho as you and I are. (Note: I included myself in this)There is a reason that elders should not be young and inexperienced in the faith, in spite of the fact it is now very “in” to have an elder board made up of young guys.
If you read carefully the comments posted by older Christians on this blog, you will see that significant changes occurred to their thinking over time. i am merely making a prediction based on experience.But, there is always an exception to the rule.
The reason I reviewed with you the rules of the game is due to your statement, ” i plan on being a regular on your blog and disagreeing with you a lot, but i hope that you will find me a kind and gracious voice of opposition.” When someone informs me that they plan on being a regular and a voice of opposition, it does cause me pause. Why?Most people, who have become regulars here, do not announce themselves and warn the blog queens to prepare for battle. So, since you warned us, I just wanted to be sure you understood how we do things around here.”
I appreciate your response and the time you are devoting to my comments, and yet it feels like I am being deliberately being misunderstood. I imagine for example that we could find some Christians who would say that its not a big deal if someone is openly sleeping with their fathers wife in church. In fact we see that very thing happening in 1 Corinthians 5. It seemed that in the face of their contrary opinions, Paul was adamant that it was impossible for them to have their permissive opinions.
Likewise my point is simple; that it is not condescending to suggest that “certain” secondary issues may be objectively known, but rather that it is condescending to dismiss someone who claims to know something objectively on the basis of their youth.
For that reason I don’t mind you saying that you think I’m wrong. You are right that disagreement is a key to a lively blog and that it functions best when people can express themselves respectfully and with a mindset of being gentle with each other. That being said I am generally accustomed to people offering specific and pointed counterpoints and objections to my opinions when they don’t agree with me, not dismissing me as a child and berating me for my certainty without delving into the substance.
As it were, I do understand your reasons for reviewing the rules with me. My intent in announcing my presence was with good intentions however- it was my way of saying that I didn’t intend to be a troll and stir up trouble and then disappear. I hope that clarifies some.
Dustin
I am becoming concerned that you are not interested in discussion but merely a forum to state your views which are the only ones defensible. The rest of us use arguments that are “impossible.” That is not seeking to understand or even win someone to your argument. You have effectively closed the door. Since it is impossible, why bother? So I won’t.
And if you think that this is akin to us justifying the issue in Corinthians, you show your ignorance of this blog. You leap from one verse to the next and compare them as if they are comparable. They are not and you and I both know it. I really hate arguments from the absurd.
Give me a good reason why it is worth my time to engage you if it is impossible to have another point of view and still be Biblical?
Dee, perhaps it would help if I said that I believe certain things are “extremely unlikely” verses “impossible”. As well, I said in my initial post that I believe the vast majority of secondary issues are open to interpretation. for example, I am a reformed calvinist, but I make it a habit to rarely if ever bring that up or even argue it. I recognize that my view and the view of arminians have our own weaknesses and strengths, and that like most things in the bible have their own verses that are pro or con. I am not particularly concerned about “winning” an argument, but rather my concern is to know what people think and how they arrive there.
As to your last point, when speaking of secondary issues, I think there are some opinions which simply are not biblical. For example, we would both agree that the handling of the SGM towards its former members and the spiritual abuse they have suffered at the hands of CJ and others is not biblical- or at the very least, highly improbably that it was biblical. and while the 1 corinthian 5 verses is not an exact parallel to the divorce issue, the point was that it was a circumstance where the opposing point of view was not biblical.
In any case, I recognize that I am a guest here and that you don’t owe me a response or even to let me stay. I would not presume to think otherwise. All I can do is say that I am interested in discussion to understand people, and that even though I hold that some beliefs are extremely unlikely to be biblical, that the conviction and certainty that I posses would be welcome in an environment that allows differing opinions, while at the same time being loving towards all.
Dustin,
If you take the verse literally, the only grounds for a MAN to divorce his wife is adultery. Literally it says NOTHING about a woman divorcing her husband!!!! So are you a literalist or NOT??
Arce- interesting thought. I would say that the fact that the verses does not give a mirror command to the wife does not make the verse any less literal- only that it does not touch on part of that. Part of it has to do with the context- in that society it was unthinkable that woman would initiate a divorce, as that would leave her poor and destitute. The problem seems to have been the men, and the cold, uncaring, selfish and cruel way they treated the women- as objects and not as beautiful vessels of God. In this passage Christ is chastising the men, and I would imagine that the same thing applies to women as well if they chose to pursue that route.
In terms of a thought regarding your objection I think of Ephesians 5, where Paul tells the husbands to love their wives. We don’t look at that and say “if you take that verse literally, it says nothing about wives loving their husbands, so does that mean they don’t have to? are you going to be a literalist of not?” I think it a bit silly, and not a very strong argument.
When I consider this, I think inherent in the equality of men and women is the idea that the scriptures are to be given to both and understand by both. The scriptures say that women should respect their husbands, and I would likewise add that the men should respect their wives. The scriptures say that women should submit to their husbands, and in a similar way i believe the men should submit to their wives.
So while I take that verse literally, you do not seem to. Can I ask in what way you take it? If you think it symbolic or figurative, what about the text indicates it should be taken that way, and what symbolic or metaphorical meaning would you give it?
Dustin
I know this may surprise you but I knew you were a Reformed Calvinist in your very first comment on this blog. How is this possible? I refuse to call myself Calvinist or Arminian (although I am partial to Armani-a glam blogger joke), believing that the truth is far more complicated than either theology affords.
i find that Calvinistas are so assured that their perspective on particular verses is unassailably correct because, well, they are the ones who really, really know how to read the Bible and besides, they know all about the Puritans and Calvin.
Your very word “impossible” is a dead give away. When one uses such a word, i know that i am in for a lecture as opposed to a dialogue. This is an open blog. Unlike people like Tom Challies, Ray Ortlund and the such, we do not throw people off this blog unless they are masquerading themselves, trying to purposefully firebomb conversations or they say things that are legally concerning. To that end, we have only banned 4 people in 2 1/2 years-not so bad if you know the numbers who visit here. You do not appear to be one of those.
However, I may not engage you in conversation. You are welcome to post your 100% correct version of theology and doctrine. Why should I bother to respond? There is no dialogue or human connection involved in telling others what is 100% true. You know that CJ Mahaney believes what he is doing is 100% correct (or, another possible interpretation is that he knows he is a charlatan and continues with the masquerade). In fact, the reason he is adored by the Calvinista set is his extreme confidence in his way of doing things.He has failed in his humanity.
I also take umbrage with this statement which is also a dead giveaway to your rigid doctrinal tendencies.” even though I hold that some beliefs are extremely unlikely to be biblical.” Let’s get something straight. i am a conservative Christian that does not go around advocating that men sleep with their father’s wife. Neither would anyone else here including the agnostics and atheists.
However, you may be using the “biblical” word in the same way that many Calvinistas do. For example, there is the Council of “Biblical” Manhood and Womanhood. What they are egotistically saying is that if you do not buy their exact interpretation of gender roles then you are not, that’s right “Biblical!” This same group does this with the word “Gospel” as well. I am a Christian and love both the Gospel and the Bible and take a jaundiced view towards anyone who might attempt to claim that I am not Biblical. You tread on shaky ground here.
Finally, Arce has a point in his comment to you. But once again, you show a lack of interest in dialogue by this statement ” I think it a bit silly, and not a very strong argument.” Silly, huh? Wow, that surely belies this comment you made “while at the same time being loving towards all.” All I have to say is “Where is the love?”
Dee, I am a little surprised that you were able to discern my reformed leanings in my first post. I hope you would not consider me a calvinista, but rather a believer with a reformed bent to his soteriology- or better yet just a believer. I don’t like to put my reformed beliefs at the front and center, or make it a defining characteristic to my faith and beliefs. I feel welcome and at home in any “arminian” church and in fellowship with believers who have a different understanding of salvation than I do. Differing soteriology is not something worth arguing over or separating from others for, in my opinion.
I also think you’re right that there is a general arrogance and pride that is found in many Calvinists and reformed people. I think it comes because they perceive that their beliefs and framework are more intellectually rigorous, which is a characterization that I would disagree with. I look at big names in other denominations, men who I find to be absolutely brilliant and far smarter than I who disagree with me, and I can’t help but have tremendous respect for them- particularly when I see that their exegesis and scriptural case is biblically sound from a certain perspective. I may not agree with them, but that would be a case where I would never say that their viewpoint is impossible to be true.
To that end, I still feel that the word “impossible” is an apt description for some theological purposes. For example, I would say that is impossible to biblically justify a man or woman physically, sexually or emotionally abusing their spouses or children. I understand that such a proclamation of certainty rankles you, and I so will try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum.
It seems that a cardinal sin on this blog is telling someone that you think they are wrong about something or that their arguments are weak. I don’t know if that’s true, and I apologize if that is not the case and am speaking out of ignorance, but that’s the vibe I’m getting.
In any case, I appreciate the continued dialogue and the correction regarding the culture of this blog, so that I don’t needlessly offend people.
At the same time though, as I read more, I have seen commenters on this blog rip apart men whose ministries I hold dear, such as Al Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, DA Carson, Matt Chandler, etc. The vitriol and language towards them has not been “in love” I don’t understand why its ok to burn these men to the ground…?
Dustin,
It’s perfectly okay to hold dear the big guns of reformed thought you just named. Not a problem here at TWW. TWW is one of the few places where open dialogue concerning all brands of the faith is tolerated and not censored.
The only thing I take issue with is the charge that the regular denizens here at TWW have engaged in vitriolic salvos against the guys you’ve listed. Many of us have inferred and come right out and said (myself included) that these men are deluded, but this is not the same thing as slinging vitriol.
It is my fervent wish that these men would regain their humanity long enough to hear the tears of human suffering rather than giving it a pass to appease a cruel and vindictive god of their own making.
Dustin,
Welcome to TWW. I do hope we can have some constructive dialogue.
One of your heroes of the faith, John MacArthur, explains that there are TWO “Biblical” reasons for divorce. Here they are:
What’s your view on divorce and remarriage
“…there are two extraordinary cases in which Scripture teaches that God does permit divorced people to remarry.
First, note that Jesus Himself included this exception clause: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9, King James Version, emphasis added). He allows an exception in this one case, only “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt. 19:8). Clearly, Jesus is treating divorce as a last resort, only to be sought in the case of hard-hearted adultery.
The apostle Paul allows one more reason for divorce: if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer, the believer is under no obligation in such a case (1 Cor. 7:14). This would free the abandoned spouse to remarry.
But we must emphasize that apart from those two specific, exceptional cases, divorce is not sanctioned in Scripture.”
I would be shocked if an abused wife, finds herself, leaves to protect herself and her abuser does not commit adultery in short order.
For those who need the letter of the law.
Dustin,
The church is guilty of causing the death and injury of many by not protecting those abused. The attitudes and over emphasis of (some) people you admire may very well be part of this.
Watched the Piper video recently…”endure being smacked around for a night..” NOOOO NO NO !!!
Assault and battery are a CRIME especially in marriage.
Deal with the theological implications of remarriage LATER
I need to take back something I said. I do know of 2 instances where women sought and found shelter with (a different , not their Sheperding cult like patriarchal church) the church from their husbands and cut off complete contact. The husband then repented, went to counseling, and the families eventually reconciled.
Oh Arce, these situations did involve alcohol.
Hi Deb. I’m not sure if you disagree with John Macarthur or not. I would say that I generally agree with most of what he says, though I would add a nuance. In 1 Corinthians 7, it does not say that the woman [or man] leaving is free to remarry, only that she is not bound to live with him. In verse 39 we read that “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” But even if I allow for those two, that still would not mean that divorce due to emotional abuse is allowed.
As far as the Piper thing- I had never seen it and am dissapointed with it. I think it’s the wrong thing to do. At the same time though, because I believe in putting the best construction on things, I think he brings out a valid point- namely that there are some interactions in most marriages at moments that are essentially abusive as the nasty sides are exposed, and in confronting this (and understanding what one is confronting, etc.), one might indeed have to endure a spouses’ sinning for a time in an attempt to be devoted to the covenant. I think this is true of all marriages- though I know that because physical abuse can cause death [though it seems unlikely that it would happen the first time they lay hands on each other] I would still hold to my former point- that any and all abuse is unacceptable, and that at the first signs of physical abuse a man or wife should flee.
Dustin
Here is a list about those who you say we have used language and vitriol towards
DA Carson: i don’t remember writing anything about Carson except that he is a found of the Gospel Coalition. Please refer me to our vitriol towards him.
Matt Chandler: I guess I was supposed to ignore the fact he called someone who dared criticize him a “narcissistic zero?” I probably would have ignored writing on him otherwise. In fact, I think I was quite kind about his brain tumor-having a child who had such a diagnosis.
Al Mohler: My anger is directed towards his efforts to impose secondary doctrines on the faithful causing terrible turmoil and partnering with Ken Ham, one of the meanest, most divisive Christians on the planet today.. This divides the saints and division is not warranted unless it is an essential. He has pushed Young Earth as essential, the ESS doctrine which subordinates women for eternity, patriarchal theology, etc. Those stands are worthy of opposition. Also, we complimented him on his statement.
regarding homosexuality.
John Piper-Once again our critique rests with his views on abuse (endure for a season or one night), his promotion of Mahaney, and his views on women. Each of these issues is appropriate for discussion and disagreement. I did say, just this week, that i like his earlier stuff in the 90s.
Muff
You get my purpose. There are many who sacrifice humans on the altar of “perfect and unassailable doctrine” , especially on the secondary issues. Many use these issues to their advantage in order to climb the ranks of the Neo-Calvinist movement. Some of these men, such as Mahaney, leave a swath of destruction behind them yet are vigorously promoted by the Pipers of this world. Jesus did NOT demonstrate this. he spent time removing the burdens of the oppressed, sharing His mercy with them and calling the Pharisees who know the Law oh so well-snakes.
As you know, i stand a bit more conservative on certain doctrines. But, I am far more concerned with the pain and suffering of those hurt in some of these ministries.
Deb
I talked with JA about this verse today. he says that there are many difficulties in applying this to our concept of marriage today. In fact, this was most likely addressed at the betrothal period. More later.
Dustin,
The scriptural standard for a husband’s love of his wife is the willingness to die for her, to love her as Christ loved the church. Such a love NEVER results in physical abuse. Engaging in physical abuse is a willful choice to violate the marriage vow, and breaks the vows. (BTW, in my experience, if the woman leaves, in a large majority of cases the man will shortly be involved in adultery.) Breaking the vow means breaking the covenant relationship, the contract of marriage. To re-establish the marriage requires the making of a new covenant between the couple. Almost all men who abuse once will abuse again. Most states recognize a woman’s right to use deadly force to stop the abuse if escape is not possible.
On Mohler and some of your other heroes. ESS is a man-created doctrine that contradicts the long teaching of the church, and the teaching of scripture. It was created to underpin patriarchy, which is a creature of the fall. It is a heresy, plain and simple. As a teacher of ESS, Mohler is a heretic, and I, for one, no longer consider him a true Christian — he is outside the faith. The same applies to others who teach ESS. They are denying the clear teaching of scripture, including the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
Thanks Dee. I have long respected your conservatism on certain issues of the faith because unlike those who insist on their way or the highway, you never make it a litmus test for dialogue and participation here at TWW.
Dee, it is not necessarily you specifically, but the commentors on this blog.
“Chris Dean…John MacArthur is a fraud as well. He is just as bad as Mark Driscoll or John Piper.
My reformed poison was John Piper. Every time he says something unbelievable and rotates feet in his mouth or lodges his head up his ass further.
Many of these guys [in the gospel coalition] are wimpy bullies who are looking for a guaranteed declaration of “authority.
I believe that abuse (sexual and physical) abuse of children and women is the silent crime of today’s evangelical church. Piper, Patterson, SGM, and many others are actively participating in this abuse by giving terrible, awful advice”
Even saying that Ken Ham is one of the meanest Christians on the planet. Were those things spoken “in love”| as you have described it? I say that a particular argument is weak and silly- not the person making it but the defense they have presented, and i am labeled as uncharitable and unloving, but saying that piper is actively participating in the sexual abuse of children is somehow not?
Where is the consistency?
Dee,
We may be entering a new “season” in which justified criticism is labelled as slander and divisiveness. See current post at SGM Refuge to see what I mean. This means we will have to notch it up!
Deb, does that mean my comments about a poor argument regarding divorce was not unloving, but rather was justified criticism?
Muff
Frankly, I sometimes tire of talking to the choir. It is folks like you who challenge me to think deeper and teach me to love those who think differently from me. I need you more than you need TWW!
Dustin
Have you ever heard Ken Ham use the heretic word on deeply faithful Christians? Have you ever heard him say that those of us who disagree with his superficial science are in danger of the denying the doctrine of the atonement?(translation-not Christian).Read his website-I have. I had the opportunity to speak to a famous Christian debater in Europe. He spoke with me off the cuff so I hesitate to use his name. He said Ham has done damage to the cause for Christ in Europe with his single minded crusade to save the world through 6 day creationism. His mean-spirited rhetoric towards a Christian brother just got him disinvited from several homeschool conferences who are his chief supporters. Read about it and think.
If you have a guy who encourages women to stay in an abusive relationship or encourage them to use material by the Pearl’s, you have to be wiling to accept that you are likely promoting someone getting whopped around! How many kids have died by those using the Pearl’s methods? How many women have been told to endure abuse for a season or one night because of Piper’s advice. What about the woman who called us and told us her pastor wanted to endure abuse after getting punched in the stomach and face? If you take the time, you can see the videos and transcripts of these things. This is not an accusation. This is fact.
Have you read our post on Patterson who told a woman to go back to a home in which she was physically abused and pray for husband? She did so, got two black eyes and Patterson was pleased because her husband came to church the next week. So what in the world do you call this? We called for his resignation on this blog two years ago.
We have proof for these things. Do you have any evidence that Arce is silly in his interpretation of the Bible verse? Could his be one of the acceptable alternative explanations?
Dustin,
My comment was not directed at you. Dee and I are just having a little chat online.
Deb
Yawn…….only charlatans use this as a fall back position.
Arce, how does your belief that the abuse of a spouse, whether that’s verbal, emotional, physical, financial, etc are grounds for divorce in light of what Jesus said whereby anyone who divorces except for SEXUAL IMMORALITY is an adulterer?
[Note, that question is only relevant if you are a christian who believe sin binding his conscience to scripture. if not, then no worries- i don’t expect an answer]
As far as your last question about returning a child to the abuser- an excellent objection and consideration. I think it depends on the nature of the abuse. For example, if a mother verbally or psychologically abuses the children, and the father separates from her for protection, if the mother undergoes a gospel transformation and her life bears consistent fruit, then the children should be returned to her. If the abuse is sexual, while putting them back with her after a long time and under the same circumstances may be permissible- I’m not sure that it is wise, and would almost always recommend that they not be allowed back in her care.
As far as why should we return the spouse to the abuser- we don’t have to. the person who was abused may remain celibate and separated. Furthermore, we don’t return them to abusers, but only former abusers who have a track record of gospel-soaked life transformation and sanctification.
Dustin
How do you know that this was referring to marriage as it is practiced today. Could it have something to do with betrothal? How about the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ incarnation? Also, how do you know it means both parties? Would you agree that it means both parties when it asks wives to be submissive to their husbands?
Here is a quote from an article at equip.org written by Michael F. Ross, M.Div., Columbia Biblical Seminary; D.Min., Reformed Theological Seminary, is senior minister of Christ Covenant Church, Matthews, North Carolina. You may find it here
“THE COVENANT BASIS OF MARRIAGE
Both Christ’s teaching on adultery and divorce and Paul’s instructions on desertion and divorce reflect God’s covenantal design for marriage. The Lord ordained marriage as a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman. In Scripture we can observe four purposes to this covenant:
1. The spiritual partnership and mutual edification of husband and wife in pursuing the will of the Lord (Gen. 2:18–25; Eph. 5:22–33; 1 Pet. 3:1–7).
2. The procreation of children and the nurture of the human family (Gen. 1:26–28).
3. The development of spiritual intimacy and the fulfillment of sexual pleasures through conjugal love (Gen. 1:18–25).
4. Protection against lusts, immorality, and sexual temptations (Prov. 5:15–23; 1 Cor. 7:1–9; 1 Thess. 4:1–12).
When we understand marriage as a covenant it follows that violations of any one of its four covenant purposes could constitute grounds for divorce. Adultery and willful desertion are obvious and potentially irreparable violations of covenant love. It would seem that there are other sins against marriage that could rise to the same level of covenant unfaithfulness as adultery and desertion, including physical abuse, refusal to work and support the family, illicit and illegal activities that threaten the safety of the family, refusal to engage in marital sex, refusal to bear or care for children, unrepentant addiction to pornography, alcoholism or drug abuse, forsaking the home for long periods of time unnecessarily, and engagement in occult activities or other spiritual actions harmful to the family. It could be argued that these violations of the marriage covenant may constitute biblical grounds for divorce, even though they are not specifically named as such in the New Testament.”
In other words, there are thoughtful Christians who have some pretty good reasons for disagreeing with you.
Dee,
“I talked with JA about this verse today. he says that there are many difficulties in applying this to our concept of marriage today. In fact, this was most likely addressed at the betrothal period. More later.”
I would love for you or Deb to write an article on this issue! Here is my story, some of which you already know:
In my early twenties, I married a man I loved and whose family I loved. He was sweet, kind, and funny – for the year of courtship. Very early in the marriage, he became emotionally and mentally abusive – calling me names I’d never heard, much less ever been called. He had enormous anger and rage. He punched holes in walls and doors, flung items such as phones at me and the walls, ran over our mailbox, threatened to kill me numerous times, made plans to harm and kill other people who had wronged him, told me he had a “posse” who would kill me and no one would find out. I began to suspect he was using drugs. He was spending lots of time away from home and out in his car in our driveway. He made suspicious and secretive phone calls. I eventually picked up the other phone and overheard him making a drug deal. I contacted the sheriff’s department about this as well as his threats, name-calling, bashing stuff around. They told me to call them immediately the next time he threatened me. Within a couple of days, he had a rope and threatened to choke me with it. I got away from him and called 911. That was the first of several calls over the course of our very short one-and-a-half year marriage.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. Divorce was a huge no-no. My dad abandoned my mom, my two brothers, and I because he just didn’t want the responsibility. So, I was preached to at church and at home about the sin and shame of divorce. Thus, I hid what was going on in my marriage from my family, church, and any Christians I knew.
Long story short, we separated and attempted reconciliation numerous times. I even consulted with my pastor at the time about reconciling after the divorce was final. Because my ex-husband never consented to what he would need to do for reconciliation (drug tests, anger management, counseling), those efforts were never effective. All my ex-husband wanted to do was to “get back together”. He didn’t want to truly work on anything, so it would have been the same ole same ole. I give credit to my pastor at the time, because he was serious about what my ex-husband would need to do – random drug tests, counseling, etc. He did not want us “back together” until he was sure my ex-husband could be rehabbed. When my ex-husband refused, my pastor told me that he appreciated my heart and my efforts, but he believed God wanted me to move on.
I later married my wonderful husband, and we have four beautiful children ages 9, 7, 5, and 3. 🙂 We’ve been married 12 years. When we’d been married for several years and already had three children, we received a 20-page document in the mail from my Calvinista brother who was in seminary at the time. Included in this document was a lengthy paper on divorce and remarriage from John Piper who condemns divorce, except in the case of adultery, and remarriage for any reason. In my brother’s letter, he stated that God did not recognize our marriage and that my husband and I were both living in adultery. Umm… what exactly did he expect us to do at that point?? And for that matter, I wouldn’t change a thing anyway.
I thought David Martyn Lloyd-Jones once preached that Jesus’ teaching on divorce has to be seen in terms of the absurdly cavalier divorce permissions granted to men in that time period, since women were not as a rule granted the power to seek divorce in that time and region. Jesus was not contesting that the Mosaic law permitted divorce but contesting the way that law was interpreted by Pharisees at that time. I think even Don Carson mentioned this. Since even Carson brought it up perhaps we should bear in mind that Jesus’ rebuke was aimed chiefly at the Pharisees for their misapplication of the Torah and its commands about divorce first, and then get to limitations on divorce.
Rather than interpret biblical teaching about divorce in light of its rebuke to men making too quick use of it guys can jump in and say “God hates divorce” as an assertion founded chiefly on saying that women shouldn’t divorce bad men when, if you look at the broader biblical rebuke on the cavalier use of divorce it was precisely bad men who abused their power and privilege in patriarchal settings that the prophets were writing against.
Calvinistas just want all the Abigails to wait on God’s sovereign timing to kill the Nabals in their lives so they can marry Davids. 😉 Oh … wait, that’s not what Calvinistas would want at all since David was a polygamist. Never mind.
Wenatchee The Hatchet,
I agree wholeheartedly! The verse to which you refer says:
“I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Isreal, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the Lord Almighty. Malachi 2:16
If the energy spent on condemning divorce in these situations was used to hold violent men accountable, there would be less divorce.
Wendy,
Thanks for sharing your testimony. I believe it will open blind eyes. Do you know whether John Piper revised his position paper on divorce? I recently read it online, and he recommended that those who have divorced stay in their CURRENT marriage. We will have to do a post on this topic since there appears to be so much confusion.
Eagle, thank you for sharing your story with me. I don’t believe its fair to say that MOST people check out and let MacArthur do their thinking for them. For my part I don’t find the beliefs that I cling to toxic at all- but rather god’s sovereignty in all things is a warm blanket to my soul.
As a note, as far as cancer being a gift, do you think its impossible for it to be a good thing?
Dustin, You might want to check out David Instone Brewer, a Hebrew Scholar at Tyndale House in London who has studied and written on this. Neglect is a reason for divorce, too. You have done what many do and mistaken Jesus’ words for “any cause” divorce in his convo with the Pharisees.
And if the abuser is a professing Christian, the problem is even worse. Unfortunatly, guys like Piper never make that distinction when giving advice.
Nevermind that God threatened to divorce his people. I fear Dustin loves his power and position as “head male” a bit too much. He finds great comfort in it.
Deb,
One of the reasons were were given for not being able to put flyers identifying the red flags of abuse and shoe cards with a domestic violence hotline on them in the ladies’ bathroom was that it might cause a woman who was not being abused to think that she was and report her husband. Of course, I, as a woman (and one who lived in an abusive marriage for nearly 25 years), did not have access to the pastors making the decision in order to speak on the behalf of the women being abused.
Abigail,
Thanks for clarifying. That is even worse. So if I see a domestic abuse hotline posted somewhere like a ladies room I might be led to call and report my husband even if he is not abusive to me? That’s idiocy!
Abigail
Which belies Piper’s assertions that women can be in leadership of women and children. It is baloney. Men are still absolutely and utterly in charge of everything including women and children. I am so sorry for your years of abuse.
The men, who were in “leadership in your church and who knew “oh so much more about leading in this situation,” were ignorant and should be ashamed of themselves.
Dee, as I have not made any personal attacks against anyone, is it customarily to let people insult me in this way “I fear Dustin loves his power and position as “head male” a bit too much. He finds great comfort in it?”
Dustin
Tread carefully here. Eagle is now an agnostic due to the ministrations of legalistic Pharisees masquerading as evangelicals who understand grace. His story makes me very angry. I wish he had met me during this time.
As for the cancer thing, the time for it being thought of as a gift usually comes later, not during. Not only have i been a hospice nurse, I have a daughter who was diagnosed with a massive malignant brain tumor when she was 3. Let me tell you that such a sentiment should not be expressed in those early days. I hope you will never feel the pain of watching a small child suffer. You might find the warm blanket a little threadbare as you walk through that dark night. You learn from pain and a God who sometimes seems a little distant. And this is what I mean that the trials of life often change your perspective on things.
Deb,
I watched a Desiring God interview with John Piper during which he discussed divorce and remarriage. A man asked Piper if his daughter, who’d been abandoned by her cheating husband, could divorce and remarry. The man was clearly heartbroken that his daughter’s husband had committed adultery, gotten his mistress pregnant, and left his daughter after a short marriage. Piper answered that she would need to remain single and pray that her husband’s heart is softened, that he doesn’t marry the mistress, and that he returns to the marriage. Otherwise, she would have to remain single for the rest of her life.
Another person wrote in and asked John Piper what he does about divorced and remarried people in his congregation. He said something like he and his congregants have an understanding that their situation isn’t ideal, isn’t biblical, isn’t what God wanted; but God offers grace.
It doesn’t sound like Piper has revised his divorce and remarriage position. Divorce is permitted in the case of adultery, but for no reason but death should one remarry. It doesn’t sound like he would advocate leaving your CURRENT spouse, but he obviously believes that God doesn’t recognize remarriage after divorce. If I remember correctly, Piper says that the marriage covenant (first marriage, that is) can only be broken by death; thus, there IS no covenant in second marriage (except when both have been widowed).
So, as my Calvinista brother explained to my husband and me, we don’t have a marriage covenant and God doesn’t recognize our marriage. The only covenant that God is part of is the first covenant I made with my first husband, because God doesn’t break covenants for any reason except death and adultery. Doesn’t make sense, but that’s what he said after studying Piper. Furthermore, my husband and I are living in habitual adultery, because I was married before. I should have remained single for the rest of my life, and my husband should have married a woman who hadn’t been married before. When I asked my brother why God had been in the circumstances of our meeting and our relationship and had blessed our marriage so much, his reply was “God blesses the just and the unjust.” When I asked him about the precious children who have resulted from my marriage, two of whom are saved, and that God knew them before the foundations of the earth, he didn’t have much to say.
Not only is John Piper causing division in the body of Christ, he is also causing division and great harm in families. I firmly believe that, if my brother hadn’t gone to seminary and been influenced by these men who idolize John Piper, he would still be the humble, compassionate man he used to be.
Dustin,
I believe that God, in His sovereignty, is able to take the things meant for evil and use them for good. He can take cancer and use it in a powerful way that may be perceived – eventually – as life-changing and, perhaps, “a gift.” However, we know that God is not the author of evil. So I think He “allows” cancer and then uses it for something good rather than “giving” it as one would a gift.
But, seeing the good in something is a process that takes time. A person needs all the time they need to grieve, to cry, to be angry, to feel whatever they feel. Time to wrestle with God. That is being authentic. If I am privileged to have opportunity to speak into someone’s life who is suffering, I need to remember the saying, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” I need to listen. I need to spend time just sitting with them. Truth spoken too soon is not heard and can come across as harsh or insensitive.
My then-husband once said to me, “God made me the head in our marriage. Therefore, whatever I do to you (talking about the abuse) is God’s will for you.” Was he right? Absolutely not! His statement was a perversion of scripture and drastically misrepresented the heart of God. Did God use that incident and the many years of abuse for my good and the good of others? Most definitely! I would not be who I am now nor would I have the ministry God has given me without experiencing the things I did. Does it still hurt sometimes when I think about it? Oh, yes, but not to the degree it once did. Now I know how to run into the arms of Jesus who holds me closely and shares the pain with me. If, however, when I was in the midst of the abuse and despair, someone had told me that God was “giving me a gift” by allowing me to experience these things, I would have felt that I had been stabbed in the heart.
In line with the topic of this post, the greater degree of pain for me now comes from the betrayal I feel from the pastors and elders of my church not believing me and not stepping up to the plate and intervening on behalf of me and my children. I strongly believe my husband also lost out in not being called to repentance. It took me a long time to realize that the pastors were not likely to change and I no longer attend that church.
Dustin
You are not taking the scripture literally as you suppose. You use “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32
And then you say that this is why wives cannot divorce abusive husbands! If you really wanted to take it literally, you would have said that MEN could not leave except for adultery, but this verse don’t mention why or when women can(not)leave.
You put in your own interpretation when saying this applies to women, and then insist that others cannot interpret it differently.
Oh, and the “God hates divorce”passage, (Mal 2)as others pointed out, is in the middle of a passage where God is blaming men for being violent, for mistreating their women. It is not a place – as others here pointed out – where he force women to stay with abusers – he is blaming violent men there!
Hi Dustin:
You’ve said above:
The reality is that the obligations of the marriage covenant include at least three things: [1] leaving father and mother, [2] “cleaving” to one’s spouse, and [3] becoming “one flesh”.
These three aspects of the marriage covenant are explicitly mentioned when God originally ordained the institution: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
These three aspects of the marriage covenant are not distinctive to one dispensation of God’s dealing with men, but are repeated throughout Scripture: for instance, at Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31.
In light of the vow to be “one flesh,” we can understand that sexual infidelity breaks the marriage covenant and is, as such, grounds for divorce.
The expression “to be one flesh” denotes sexual intercourse, thus being applied even to relations with a harlot: “Don’t you realize that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? for ‘the two,’ He said, ‘shall become one flesh'” (1 Cor. 6:16). Note how “marriage” is treated in parallel to “the bed” in Hebrews 13:4.
One of the divine purposes for marriage is to provide the proper outlet for the sex desire, thereby avoiding fornication: “Because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband…. It is better to marry than to burn (with passion)” (1 Cor. 7:2, 9). Outside of the marriage bed is fornication and adultery (Heb. 13:4).
Refusal of sexual relations is contrary to one of the very purposes for marriage, then, and illegally subjects the marriage partner to fornication – having a marriage, not in substance, but only in name.
Engaging in sexual relations is a “debt” which must be “paid (rendered)” to one’s spouse (1 Cor. 7:3; cf. the use of the same two words in Rom. 13:7, “render to all their dues”). It is a contractual obligation of marriage.
Willful refusal of sexual relations with one’s marriage partner is thus explicitly called “defrauding” (or stealing his/her rights) in 1 Corinthians 7:5. (The word is used of defrauding workers of the pay which is due to them in James 5:4; cf. Mark 10:19; 1 Cor. 6:8, referring to matters settled by court [vv. 1, 6].) It is a breaking of the contractual obligations of marriage. Paul’s use of this kind of language is noteworthy for understanding the covenantal nature of the marriage bond as well as how it is dissolved.
This is confirmed by the law at Exodus 21:10-11, which stipulates that a wife who has been deprived of “her conjugal right” becomes free of the marriage commitment, being released from her husband.
Since the marriage vow is (among other things) a public commitment to be sexually faithful to one’s spouse, sexual relations apart from with one’s spouse is a violation of the marriage covenant. Thus, as is commonly recognized, Scripture teaches that when a wife commits adultery, she may be put away and given a bill of divorcement (Jer. 3:8; cf. Deut. 24:1, noting that the Hebrew term “indecency” refers to illicit cohabitation, e.g., Ezek. 16:36; 23:29; throughout Lev. 18; 20:10ff.). Adultery “defiles” the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4).
For now, I’ll leave aside the vow to leave father and mother, and turn to the vow to cling to your spouse.
In light of the vow to “cling (cleave) to” each other, we can understand why attempting to destroy the life of one’s spouse breaks the marriage covenant and is, as such, grounds for divorce.
The verb “to cling” (דָבַ֣ק) in Genesis 2:24 (Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31) stands between and complements the ideas of [1] leaving father and mother (to cleave to one’s spouse) and [2] becoming one flesh (cf. the verb’s use in I Cor. 6:16-17). Nevertheless it adds something to both notions. It denotes more than living together and going to bed together.
This is evident from the use of the verb elsewhere in Scripture. In Hebrew and Greek it can apply to a physical joining of things together (e.g., Job 19:20; Ps. 22:15; 2 Sam. 23:10; Lk. 10:11; Acts 8:29). However, in terms of human relationships, it means “to join with,” “enter into a close relation with,” “associate with on intimate terms,” “make common cause with,” “be committed to in loyalty.” For instance, it denotes clinging to someone in affection and loyalty: e.g., Ruth to Naomi (Ruth 1:14), the men of Judah to David during Sheba’s rebellion (2 Sam. 20:2), Shechem to Dinah (Gen. 34:3, “speaking to her heart”), Solomon to his foreign wives (I Kings 11:2, “in love”), the prodigal making common cause with his employer by being “joined to” him (Lk. 15:15); it was unlawful to have this kind of relationship – to adhere – to a foreigner (Acts 10:28).
Thus we see what is entailed by the word when it is used in the Old Testament for Israel adhering to the Lord in love and submission (e.g., Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Jos. 22:5; 23:8; Jer. 13:11). When the Psalmist says that he “clings” to God’s testimonies (Ps. 118 [119]:31 LXX), he refers to his support and commitment to them – not somehow to a physical relation with them. Likewise, Paul bids us to “cleave to that which is good” (Rom. 12:9) – the other side of abhoring evil. New converts “cleaved” to Paul (Acts 17:34) by taking up his cause. Believers are described as “joined to” the church (Acts 5:13; 9:26), which obviously speaks of their making common cause, supporting, and being loyal to the perspectives and purposes of God’s people.
Likewise, a husband and wife are to “cleave” to each other by being committed to and seeking to do what is in each other’s best interests; they are to be united, not simply in body, but in loyal support of each other’s lives. They are positively to adhere to the genuine needs of each other. This is the diametric opposite of abhorring each other’s life, trying to kill each other, and engaging in physical violence.
Accordingly, if we examine the husband’s marriage obligations, Scripture teaches us that he is to “dwell together with” his wife “as a weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7). He is obligated to show consideration and protection for his wife in light of her physical vulnerability. Failure to supply the necessities and protections of life, not to mention physical abuse of this “weaker vessel,” is clearly forbidden.
The gravity of a man refusing to supply what is necessary for the physical life and protection of his wife is made evident by the stern words of Paul: “if anyone does not provide especially for his family, he is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). When one remembers the evaluation and destiny of unbelievers according to the theology of Paul, these words have incredible intensity and severity. Someone who exposes his wife and family to physical harm by deprivation of their basic necessities is (somehow!) in a worse moral condition or under greater condemnation than an unbeliever. If this sin of omission brings someone into such a dreadful evaluation, one can imagine how much more positive abuse – or sins of commission against the physical life and well-being of his wife and family – would do so.
Rather than taking steps to kill their wives, husbands are morally bound by their marriage covenant to give up their lives for the sake of their wives: “Husbands, love your wives, even as also Christ loved the church gave himself up on behalf of it” (Eph. 5:25).
The obligation entailed here has very obvious outward and physical manifestation. Husbands are required by their marriage covenant to love their own wives “as their own bodies” (Eph. 5:28). Just as they would not do anything detrimental to their own physical well-being or life, so they have strict moral orders not to do so to their own wives. They are forbidden to “hate their flesh” (Eph. 5:29), which clearly rules out depriving them of sustenance and protection or showing them physical violence. By direct contrast, Paul teaches in the same verse that it is the duty of husbands to “nourish and cherish” their wives’ flesh.
Accordingly, when a husband deprives his wife of nourishment, physical covering and protection, or (more) when he actually beats her, he has done far more than fall short of “an ideal mate” – like someone who lies to his wife or sins in other ways. This kind of sin has a special intensity. He has violated an essential obligation of the marriage covenant, refusing to adhere or cleave loyally to his wife’s well-being and life.
If in the other two cases of covenanted obligations of marriage (sexual fidelity, living together) violation of the terms of the covenant grants the offended party the moral right to seek dissolution of the legal bond (by divorce), we should reason that it does so also in the case of the covenanted obligation of “cleaving to” each other. To deny that implication without sound and Biblical reasons for doing so would be to indulge special pleading and preconceived notions – a kind of arbitrariness which must not characterize Christian theological thinking.
The above conclusion is explicitly substantiated by the law of God at Exodus 21:10-11, demonstrating (a fortiori) that spousal abuse violates the marriage covenant and, as such, is grounds for divorce.
Frankly, Dustin, it seems to me that you need to go back to the Scriptures and do some heavy reading and exegetical work. Your thesis that divorce isn’t called for in cases of abuse simply can’t stand even a cursory biblical investigation.
Thank you RefReb for the extensive exegetical work on this matter. It is my view that abuse also violates the modern wedding vows, thus breaking the contract of marriage. I also feel the same way toward addiction to drugs or alcohol, which become not only a higher priority to the addict than the spouse, but also an idol, breaking the covenant with God.
If I may jump in here. I was an abused wife for 10 years. I was told by Christians that if he killed me (he tried to run me over in a car with our two young children in it) then I would die in glory and Jesus would honor me. Hogwash.
I had a greater responsibility to my children and myself. My husband abandoned me by his behavior. To separate, which we did for 2 years, is when the woman is in most danger. If you hold to the position that separation is fine, divorce is not, then you have just subjected the woman to risking her life.
An abuser is all about power, if she leaves you threaten his power and he becomes more violent. Separated, she exists in legal limbo. When my former spouse broke into my house during our separation and raped me the courts did basically nothing as we were still legally married. They told him to stay away from me but let’s say that was not effective.
I finally decided to leave the state. Allowing children to live and witness abuse of their mother is abuse against them. No child should bear witness to such. My children were young thank goodness and don’t remember the abuse. They have grown up to be delightful Christians who follow Christ, not a religion.
Reformed Rebel
Thank you for your explanation. I wish Dustin were here to read it. I think we scared him away. I might like to use this comment in a post.
Wait, did I just read a self-identified Reformed guy use 1 Timothy 5:8 for something other than condemning stay-at-home dads?
Ms. Dee,
You may feel free to use my comment however you might wish! I’m glad you found it helpful.
RR.
Reformed Rebel,
I am most impressed with your commentary. Well done!
Thanks, Deb. I’m guessing that course on Christian Ethics at seminary may have paid off…
Interesting reading on submission by Frank Schaeffer
“Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back'”
http://www.alternet.org/story/152039/are_michele_bachmann%27s_views_about_%27christian_submission%27_even_more_extreme_than_she%27s_letting_on/