“He always apologized, and sometimes he would even cry because of the bruises he'd made on her arms or legs or her back. He would say that he hated what he'd done, but in the next breath tell her she'd deserved it. That if she'd been more careful, it wouldn't have happened. That if she'd been paying attention or hadn't been so stupid, he wouldn't have lost his temper.” ― Nicholas Sparks, Safe Haven link
Update on Dee's situation: Lou is coming home from Rehab. This is very good. Although Lou and my mom will still need lots of help, having them close by will help me gain about 3 hours in my day. So hopefully my participation will increase in the coming week. Thank you all for being so understanding.
***
Although we want to continue to give you some updates on Gospel for Asia(GFA), we felt it is an important to the mission of this blog to promptly report on a developing situation that deals with domestic violence and a well known religious figure. The circumstances surrounding this situation have been debated and we wanted to add our thoughts on the matter.
Three stories
Here three stories as told to me by the victims, friends and/or family.
1. One man, a church leader in a Reformed Baptist church, was abusive to his wife on numerous occasions. When he realized she was going to go to the church and ask for help, he set up a situation in the home, complete with hidden video recorder, to *prove* that she was an angry woman. He showed this to the leaders before she came for help. He told the leaders he needed help in dealing with her. They refused to believe her side of the story. She was to be disciplined. She left the church. He divorced her with the approval of the leaders. He immediately began dating again.
2. A health professional (and church member), with knowledge of a number of domestic violence episodes in a well known church which has a pastor on the board of TGC, asked to place a few signs in the women's bathroom with the contact number of a well respected domestic violence hotline. Said pastor absolutely refused to do so.
3. An assistant pastor's wife, mother to their several little children, was being physically abused. Her parents convinced her to leave the home with the children. They then called the lead pastor and asked him to deal with his abusive assistant pastor. He refused to do so unless she and the children returned to the home. Thankfully the wife refused to do so and she divorced him. The church was never told the story. Oh yeah, this lead pastor is hugely supportive of TGC and CBMW and well known to them.
Owen Strachan and the Council of Biblical™ Manhood and Womanhood says the church deals really well with domestic violence.
Special thanks to Julie Ann Smith for copying these into a post.
I think Owen Strachan does not understand the reality in many churches and I am talking about his kind of churches. The first call we ever got on this blog was from a pregnant woman in Georgia who was being beat up by her husband. Her pastor, of another Reformed Baptist church, told her she had to return to him. We talked her out of that and told her where to seek help.
Oh, and TGC/CBMW isn't the only group that has issues. Paige Patterson is notorious for bragging about sending a woman home to her abusive husband and getting two black eyes! Hallelujah! Don't believe me? From our post
Patterson's message sounds like the same old, same old; and we have little hope that anything will ever change. Remember, this is the Christian leader who told a wife who was being physically abused by her husband the following: (audio link)
“I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy."
"And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.
And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he's doing that kind of thing he's got some very deep spiritual problems in his life, and you have to pray that God brings into intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees."
And, of course, there is TGC's much admired Doug Wilson who recently wrote in Moving Out of Range
Often intractable marriage problems are also opaque. She reports his abusive behavior to the elders or pastor and the husband denies it. It is now a did too/did not situation. When that happens, it is not possible to excommunicate the husband on the testimony of his wife, any more than it would be lawful to go the other way and excommunicate the wife on the strength of his word. You cannot do this because sometimes men lie and other times women do. Scripture teaches that two or three witnesses are necessary in order to excommunicate anyone.
Oh yeah, and she can't divorce because he might repent. And even if he doesn't and she divorces his sorry butt, she can never remarry because it's against the Bible. Besides, it is only a he said/she said situation. Does he care about what really happens out there in churchville? Oh yeah, he's the guy who thought it was a good idea to marry a pedophile off to a young woman. Stupid me.
Some important statistics
From the American Bar Association:
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims
Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.
50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
From The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women :
The percentage of women who lie about violence is quite low.
To date, the MAD study is the only research conducted in the U.S. to evaluate the percentage of false reports made to law enforcement.The remaining evidence is therefore based on research conducted out- side the U.S., but it all converges within the same range of 2-8%.
So, what am I leading up to?
Who is Pastor Saeed Abedini?
Here is a quick history from Wikipedia.
Saeed Abedini (Persian: سعيد عابديني, born 7 May 1980) is an Iranian American Christian pastor imprisoned in Iran. He has been detained in Iran since the summer of 2012 and initially incarcerated in Evin Prison in September 2012. On January 27, 2013, he was sentenced to eight years in prison, reportedly on charges of undermining national security through private religious gatherings in Christian homes in Iran in the early 2000s. In November 2013, the Iranian government transferred Abedini to Rajai Shahr prison, just outside of Karaj, Iran.
Free Saeed
There has been a concerted effort to free Pastor Saeed amongst both Christians and justice groups.
From Tasered and Abused, American Pastor Saeed Threatened with New Charges
After a short family visitation today at Rajaei Shahr prison in Iran, Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of American Pastor Saeed Abedini, heard disturbing news about possible new charges being brought against Pastor Saeed. Over the years, the Iranian government continually promised that Pastor Saeed’s eight-year-prison sentence could be arbitrarily extended, and yesterday they took their first steps to fulfill that promise.
Yesterday in Iran, Iranian intelligence officers summoned Pastor Saeed for an intense round of interrogation. Pastor Saeed reported to his family that the interrogators were abusive both verbally and physically. During the course of interrogation, the officers repeatedly used a taser gun on Pastor Saeed. This new assault is concerning as Pastor Saeed is still being denied needed medical care for injuries sustained as a result of beatings in the past.
The interrogators threatened that Pastor Saeed will face new criminal charges. They claimed Pastor Saeed has connections with anti-government groups and has made statements and taken actions against the government of Iran. Pastor Saeed denied all of these allegations, and once again asserted that he is apolitical and that he has never threatened the security of, made any statements against, or taken any action against the Government of Iran.
Petitions have been sent to President Obama (who has met with the family), members of Congress and the United Nations in an attempt to secure his release. On each Wednesday, a number of people send out reminder tweets to Pray for Pastor Saeed. I have happily retweeted them.
Nagemeh Abedini: Pastor Saeed's wife.
Nobody has been more of an effective mouthpiece for the Free Saeed movement than his lovely wife Naghmeh Abedini who is the mother of his two children. Here is a report she gave about a visit she had with Pastor Saeed in prison.
The visit was bittersweet. The loss of his dear Grandma in the last few weeks and not being able to say his last goodbyes at her funeral, the sense of loss of missing out on seeing his kids go to their first days of school, and especially missing out on Rebekka’s 9th birthday, has taken its toll on Saeed.
It was too painful for him to see pictures of how much his baby girl had grown up since he last saw her, from the 5-year-old little girl to the 9-year-old young lady she has become. A different kind of maturity covered his baby girl’s face. A maturity that spoke of painful, tear-stained nights. The picture his family took to show Saeed told him of a girl who was trying to be strong and brave for her daddy. Many tears were shed and stories shared. So many stories that Saeed struggled to remember his babies and our family, memories that the prison walls were slowly stealing from him. So many new memories were trying to form about what the kids liked to do now and how they had changed over the years. Saeed tried hard to hold on to something to take back to the prison once the visit was over; something Rebekka said; or something Jacob did.
Saeed was told of the prayer vigils that are happening on September 26th, which marks his third anniversary in prison. Told that he was not forgotten. His face lit up and he was encouraged to hear that so many are praying for him. He was encouraged to know that a date that brought so much pain had become a day when Christians united together to pray for him and the persecuted church.
A stunning admission: Naghmeh Abedini recently claimed that Pastor Saeed was an abuser as well as user of pornography and that she was stepping away from the public temporarily.
Last week, Christianity Today reported that Naghmeh was stepping away from her advocacy for her imprisoned husband.
For the past three years Naghmeh Abedini has publicly battled her husband’s captors, advocating for his release from an Iranian jail.
Behind the scenes, she also struggled with his inner demons.
Last week, the emotional distress of doing both finally proved too much, she said.
In two emails to supporters, Abedini revealed details of her troubled marriage to Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012.
Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said. The two are able to speak by phone and Skype.
Touring the country to advocate for Saeed’s release while coping with marital conflict proved too much, she wrote. She told supporters she’s withdrawing from public life for a time of prayer and rest.
However, she asks everyone to still pray for his release.
Pastor Saeed supporters reacted with disbelief.
Many of Pastor Saeed's followers expressed both concern and doubt, even stating that this report was not true and questioning her motives. Julie Ann Smith asked an awesome question on Twitter. I did not take a screen shot but it went something like this.
"Why would you automatically believe a pastor in prison over his wife?"
Good question indeed and one that had me pondering for quite awhile.
Why did she wait until now to report this? The answer will most likely demonstrate why Strachanand CBMW is wrong about how the church responds to domestic violence.
In a post published today, Timothy Morgan at Religion News Services attempted to answer this question.
Why do evangelical women wait so long before reporting abuse?
Research shows that domestic abuse survivors in general are less likely to receive extensive public support through their local church. According to a 2014 poll from LifeWay Research, about two-thirds of Protestant pastors address domestic abuse from the pulpit once a year or less. Additional research from LifeWay found that only 25 percent of surveyed pastors consider abuse or sexual violence an issue within their congregation.
Once again, CBMW and Owen Strachan stick their heads in the sand, refusing to see what so many see. This is one reason why complementarianism will not capture the hearts of women because they do not see the plight of abused women (and let's not forget children) in the church.
The church's response to abuse is to make the woman feel ashamed for mentioning it.
“Many churches appropriately stress the importance of marriage and family, but some churches wrongly teach that a wife’s primary role in life is to protect their husband’s or family’s reputation,” said Holcomb, the Episcopal priest. “Because of this emphasis, those experiencing abuse in their relationship may feel ashamed because they believe they failed in their relationship,” Holcomb said.
Women in the church experience isolation and shame surrounding this abuse, despite what CBMW claims about their advocacy for women.
“Many who suffer domestic abuse feel lots of shame, are blamed by others, and do not tell anyone,” said Justin Holcomb, a Florida Episcopal priest and seminary professor who co-authored with his wife Lindsey “Is It My Fault? Hope and Healing for Those Suffering Domestic Violence.”
“Christian women, in particular, stay far longer in abusive situations and in more severe abuse than their non-Christian counterparts,” he added.
Sadly, according to Fox News, Naghmeh reported that this abuse has gone on even during the Skype conversations she has had with Saeed while he has been in prison.
She also spoke about "physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed's addiction to pornography)," which, she disclosed, started in the early days of their marriage and increased during her husband's imprisonment in 2012 as they spoke on phone and Skype.
My take:
I believe Naghmeh. It is extremely difficult to admit to a marriage filled with abuse, particularly when the Christian world which is watching you and expecting you to be a "good wife." I believe that she reached the end of her emotional rope and could no longer keep up the charade. She is a courageous women in many, many ways.
I also believe that the evangelical church, and, in particular, complementarian churches (both Reformed and not) have stuck their heads in the sand for far too long. It is time to wake up and support the abused and stop pretending that the church has led in this area. When CBMW and Owen Strachan make unprovable statements, it is time to call them on it. I am waiting for Strachan and friends to release a statement that they support Naghmeh. I bet they side step this one, big time, like they have in the past.
#IBelieveNagemeh
*****
Here is Fix You By Coldplay sung by an elderly gentleman from Young@Heart. This group is becoming well known and I think you will see why. This elderly man died two years after this was recorded. Try to watch it without tears.
Prayers for this brave woman…so very sorry for her nightmare.
Wow, unbelievable and so upsetting to see abuse take so many forms and for the church to be so passive that it actually supports abuse. Praying for these brave women and sisters.
While Owen Strachan/CBMW Reports That Complementarians Handle Abuse Really Well
They do.
From the MAN’s Point of View.
“WOMAN! DO AS I SAY OR I BEAT YOU!”
CBMW is very pro woman. That is why they send abused women to COUPLES Nouthetic Counseling whose counselors are female subordinationists. Because, to them, it is simply a “marriage” problem. Not the abusers sin problem.
Why in the world would CBMW feel they need to send out a tweet about being pro woman? Do they have an image problem they are trying to correct with image rehab/PR?
One of the smartest things any judge can do in a domestic violence hearing is a mandatory physical separation of several years. It often takes that for the woman to come to grips with normal– sans abuse that has become her normal. This could very well be what happened with Naghmeh.
Well, if divorce is the GREATEST “SIN” and to be avoided at all costs, why does it surprise us that domestic abuse and adultery are tolerated. The shiny god of an “intact marriage” is what is pursued…at great cost to innocent parties like abused women and children plus (abused men).
To be clear, I do NOT believe divorce is a de facto sin. It can be a righteous act according to Scripture. Jeremiah 3:8 indicates that God is a divorcee. And, personally, I would find it problematic to suggest God wants a woman to stay in a marriage where the husband is threatening her life with abuse (I Cor 7:15).
Husband(s) love your wife(s) as Christ loves the church
He (Christ) laid down his life for……
Do not forsake the wife of your youth…..
etc etc etc
Now what part of that don’t you understand?
I felt so sorry for Naghmeh when I first heard about this. I hope she’s getting some actual comfort, as I doubt many of Saeed’s supporters will even mention this. The symbol cannot be damaged.
Dang you for that video…wife was wondering what was wrong with me.
Thanks…
I am confused by the Saeed story. She states that the problems have gotten worse since he has been in prison. How is that possible? I have trouble envisioning an Iranian prison with lax and extended conjugal visits…or internet access. So, how did they get worse?
I ask that because I don’t think it is farfetched for Iranian officials to tell her that if she destroys his reputation they are more likely to let him go. It would be within their MO to discredit and destroy someones life before they let them go.
I was also confused. How can the abuse have continued while he was in prison? Was he abusive to her during their rare opportunities to speak with each other? That seems unlikely. He can’t hit her from inside a prison 10,000 miles away.
Also, as to “Why would you automatically believe a pastor in prison over his wife,” we are all clear that this man is imprisoned for his Christian witness, right? He is not some crook or embezzler. The fact that he is in chains for Christ should not impeach his credibility at all.
I think it is difficult to deal with the text when it comes to remarriage. Paul DOES say if you abandon(my wording) your spouse you can’t remarry. But I also think there is a good case to be made for the abuse of your spouse to be YOU being abandoned and convenant being broken.
The challenge is in do we make as big of a deal of the covenant of marriage as God does, or, do we view it too lowly. What I mean is, is the convental nature of Marriage of such importance/holiness and exists as a living picture of Christ’s covenant with the Church that, like Christ, once commitment has been made, it cannot be broken? Perhaps a God centered commitment and hope for redemption and restoration of a marriage that is “justifiably” on its way to divorce is to be viewed as a powerful witness to the Gospel.
The power of the Gospel is found in the truth that God keeps His promises even when we do not. And if marriage is supposed to be a witness of that, does that indicate that our commitment should be similar? What a powerful witness it would be for a spouse to say, “Because of Christ’s love for me, I will not give up my commitment to this person.”
To be clear, this isn’t justification to submitting to abuse….and at least DW says that a church shouldn’t make a wife go back to the home of her abuser, even if the church isn’t totally sure it was happening…so there’s that I guess….
But within what I posit here, I would say that what we are encouraged to pursue and hope for in a life IN Christ is not the same as rules that must be followed to be a “true Christian”. To compare this to something else…..We are told in the NT that Christians should be generous givers and take care of the poor….and we SHOULD teach that….but when we abuse that concept it becomes a new brand of legalism that demands people to share all their financial details with a church who gets to tell them what to do with it….so the prinicple (give generously) is true, but when it becomes a hard and fast rule it becomes a real problem…. In the same way, the principle of a hope for restoration in all situations is is true…it becomes a serious problem when it becomes a FORCED rule.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I believe Naghmeh. You would be amazed at the emotional and spiritual damage a husband can do over with phone.
I am now divorced, but I have been there, done that, and have the emotional scars to show for it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Exactly.
And if they don’t beat you, they explain that every problem in the family is due to the woman’s shortcomings. Heck, my ex-husband told me that it was my fault that he lost his faith.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
I can vouch for this. I’ve never been married, but I have a family member or two who are verbal abusers.
I live apart from my sister – she’s in another state from me – but she is verbally abusive in person or over whatever media she uses to contact me. The emotional / verbal abuse, whether it comes in person or over the phone or e-mails is just as damaging, hurtful, and stressful as when it’s done in person.
Abuse does not have to be physical, btw, which I say in general (Elizabeth, you probably already know this). But a lot of Christians think that only abuse that leaves a physical scar “counts” as abuse.
The article says that the pastor was using Skype with his wife, for the person above who was asking.
There was more I wanted to say about the original post, but I may wait until tomorrow. It’s getting a little late where I am, and I may turn in soon, to sleep. 🙂
There’s always lots of talk about Paul said this and Paul said that. And even Jesus spoke of men divorcing for anything other sexual immorality was forbidden. Again the bible needs to be taken in the context of its time.
First – Paul was a man, studied in Jewish law. I think it coloured his worldview. There are many secular scholars who have analyzed Pauls writings and found some likely additions – including many of his admonitions regarding women’s roles.
Second – In the first century, if a man divorced a woman, she would have been sent from his house (note that it was “his house” ie – no splitting of property or wealth – no alimony or child support). Knowing this Jesus reminds men of the day to keep their commitments. Heck, it’s only in the last twenty or so years that the governments gone after “deadbeat dads”.
So fast forward to the 21st century. I don’t think (I believe the Christian lingo is “discern”) that Jesus intended women (or men for that matter) to stay with someone who abuses you, mentally or physically or sexually (yes, there is such a thing as marital rape).
This pathological patriarchy needs to be stopped. It is driven by men with insecure egos, who feel “under attack” by a culture that no longer considers what they have to say a relevant anymore.
They perceive a loss of control in the wider society so try to consolidate control within what they feel the can control – their families.
It’s really a weak faith, rather than engage the culture boldly like Jesus or Paul – they shrink behind “church discipline” and “biblical manhood and womanhood”. They control and coerce using covenants and out of context bible passages. If Christianity doesn’t shed these millstones, the whole faith is liable to go under. The Lord helps those who help themselves.
One thing that really struck me about Owen Strachan’s tweet is that if a husband in these churches was pulling in 180 million dollars and abusing their wives there is no possibility that the church would discipline them. Gravity would fail before that would happen. Now said rich husband might get the boot if he was nice loving “egalitarian”, non-Calvinist or heavens to Betsy “liberal”.
Dee, I hope everything is going good for you I have been a care provider for most of my adult life and it can be very emotionally draining and painful. It sounds like you have a good support network, God bless all of you.
From Doug Wilson “Often intractable marriage problems are also opaque. She reports his abusive behavior to the elders or pastor and the husband denies it. It is now a did too/did not situation. When that happens, it is not possible to excommunicate the husband on the testimony of his wife, any more than it would be lawful to go the other way and excommunicate the wife on the strength of his word. You cannot do this because sometimes men lie and other times women do. Scripture teaches that two or three witnesses are necessary in order to excommunicate anyone.”
I call total Baloney sauce on this one you know they would boot the wife on a whim and the husband, not a chance if he is part of the in crowd.
Jack wrote:
Displacement Behavior.
When everything is spiraling out of control, find something you CAN control and micromanage it to death. Like a business enforcing dress codes (to the point of having VPs with rulers measuring employees’ hair length) while the company circles the drain and the front desk receptionist is on a first-name basis with every process server in the county.
“I’M IN CONTROL! SEE? SEE? SEE? RAWR!”
I’m mystified as to how watching / being addicted to pornography could qualify as a form of abuse (unless it involves children or sexual slavery or something like that, but this was not suggested). In fact her whole complaint is vague.
@ Adam Borsay:
” Perhaps a God centered commitment and hope for redemption and restoration of a marriage that is “justifiably” on its way to divorce is to be viewed as a powerful witness to the Gospel.
The power of the Gospel is found in the truth that God keeps His promises even when we do not. And if marriage is supposed to be a witness of that, does that indicate that our commitment should be similar? What a powerful witness it would be for a spouse to say, “Because of Christ’s love for me, I will not give up my commitment to this person.”
To be clear, this isn’t justification to submitting to abuse….and at least DW says that a church shouldn’t make a wife go back to the home of her abuser, even if the church isn’t totally sure it was happening…so there’s that I guess….”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I dunno…. this all seems quite overspiritualized. you know, that ‘so heavenly-minded as to be of no earthly good’ thing. I think you’re a little high on this ‘powerful witness’ thing. (sounds like you read Paul to the exclusion of other writers/thinkers) do you even realize what you’re implying?
your lofty language and highly idealized descriptions would seem to consign a woman to a life-long union with a hateful bully. how kind of you to suggest that she is not required to be under the same roof. she’ll just be alone the rest of her life. love and companionship & mutual support from a life partner are forever closed to her.
are you a pastor? are these the kinds of things you say from the mic? your language is so floaty it’s hard to figure out exactly what you’re saying and what you’re not saying (do you read a lot of john piper?) — other than to imply that unless a woman in an abusive marriage remains married to her abuser for the rest of her life, she will be a disappointment & a tarnished spiritual failure. that’s the take away. your idealized spiritualization of things here is very cruel at ground zero, where human beings actually live.
Lydia wrote:
I’m sure you have your own ideas here – and incidentally, I think in retrospect that my comment to you in the Open Discussion on baptism (about overlooking the elephant in the room) was discourteous, for which I apologise.
But the discussion is worth having re the CBMW’s world-beatingly pro-woman stance… it reminds me of the concept of “the Big Lie” promoted by a well-known Austro-German dictator who coined the term in his autobiography (entitled “My Struggle”, albeit in german).
For those unfamiliar with the term, I quote the Wiki article which itself quotes the english translation of the book “My Struggle”, in which the author says of what he calls “the broad masses”:
So the C_“B”_MW, having committed themselves so passionately to the infantilisation of women that they have made it central to the gospel itself, have a circle to square. And the easiest way to do it is not to bother doing it at all. Let’s save ourselves the effort, and swallow the whole thing up in a vast, colossal lie: we’re the most pro-women people in the world.
I don’t think the C_“B”_MW are engaged in the same deliberate, calculated lie that the pre-war German chancellor was describing (and even he didn’t openly admit to the tactic on his own account, but attributed it to the Jews). Rather, I think they’re lying to themselves.
Adam Borsay wrote:
If you had been abused emotionally and verbally and beaten physically for 15-17 yrs., you would know that restoration of that union is a near impossibility. Trust and respect has been destroyed and for good reason.
That abused individual will likely experience the effects of PTSD (in the marriage) forever as a result.
elastigirl wrote:
I understand where you are coming from….I tried to be clear that you can’t go around saying, “everyone should do ‘this’ ” But to address this(among other things) in the general abstract of living with a perspective of the high value and promise of a covenant. As people/culture we seem to have trouble NOT swinging pendulums from one extreme to the other. 100 years ago women(and men) were forced to stay in horrific situations, today, people give up to easily(not to imply that divorcing a spouse who beats you is giving up).
I mean to relate it more to the idea that there seems to be a emphasis that remarriage is only possible(in the NT) in the cases of death or sexual sin. Therefore, it seems that God places an extremely high emphasis upon the committment of a marriage covenant. Again, in specific pastoral sense you don’t go around saying someone should do this or that. THe Gospel gives us hope for restoration/redemption in the midst of all things, it doesn’t give us rules to follow to be good enough for God(or other Christians)….which is a difficult challenge….specifically….the Gospel speaks to hope for a broken marriage due to abuse….but it doesn’t demand someone be stuck with an abuser….and carefully managing that distinction is a challenge that we often fail at making causing no small amount of distress.
Either we overemphasize “hope” in such a way as to lead someone to believe that if they leave their abuser they have lost faith, or, we do not talk about the Gospel enough and rob ourselves/others of the power of being encouraged by Christ’s abiding peace and hope.
@ Adam Borsay:
I think you answered your own question with that last paragraph.
Yeah, it’s a great thing to be able to forgive, to commit to loving in spite of faults. I think of that church in Charleston that publicly forgave the murderer earlier this year. It’s a beautiful thing.
But you know what? Nobody told them to do that. Nobody pressured them. That was THEIR decision. They felt strong enough to do this. And I might add it’s likely a bit easier to forgive someone who’s committed his crime and is in jail where he can’t hurt anyone anymore than it is to forgive in the moment of likely ongoing abuse by the one most intimate with you.
So yeah. I have a hard time hearing people play theological word games while the troops on the ground, so to speak, are the ones getting mowed down by enemy (or “friendly”) fire because they’re put in harm’s way by their commander. I don’t see how bruises and a broken spirit (or a dead parent, another parent in prison, and the kids in foster homes, if we’re going to not sugar coat a possible ending) from being pressured by spiritual leadership to stay with an abusive spouse in any way advances the Gospel.
Aren’t we told that comparing ourselves to each other is not wise? Our goal as Christians is to come alongside those that are hurting and bring healing and strengthen them to be in the position to make the best decisions for themselves. To not fog up the lens of the Holy Spirit and Scripture for them with our own projections. Only God knows what they’re capable of, and certainly not us.
As far as the story, I believe Nagemeh. Honestly, it makes less sense if it wasn’t true. Nobody would torpedo their circumstances, their platform, like that, unless it was true. I hope she can find some peace in all this – an incredibly tough situation to be in.
@ Zla’od:
Physical abuse is vague?
Cayuga wrote:
So, only if she is beat to a pulp she is being abused? Really? This woman alleges that she has been sexually, physically and emotionally abused. Imagine how emotional abuse could go down in a phone call.
Secondly, you misunderstand Julie Ann Smith’s comment. She is alluding to the possibility of the fact that he is imprisoned for his Christian witness causes people to disbelieve her claims he could be an abuser.
Zla’od wrote:
Most everyone agrees that addiction to pornography will cause serious problems in a marriage. Think about it.
Jack wrote:
There was a similar comment along these lines here last week, that I *almost* replied to. Now I will.
When I first read that, I had a VERY hard time swallowing it. “God, after all, is unchanging, and therefore His moral principles as revealed in Scripture are unchanging. God’s morals are too pure and holy to ever have been sullied by cultural context!” That is the mindset underlying most of complementarian/patriarchal thinking – God said it (it’s right there in Scripture and God doesn’t change), I believe it (and it is our job on earth to obey God’s laws, our happiness is VERY secondary), that settles it.
All very neat and tidy. How Christ-Like it is… Well, you can judge.
Divorce Minister wrote:
Great comment.
@ A. Stacy:
I understand…
Adam Borsay wrote:
The Iranian government has allowed Skype and phone calls. Now, think about how an abuser can use phone calls to denigrate his wife. It can and does happen.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Thank you, Elizabeth. It is fascinating to see how much education needs to be done on the subject of abuse. The same goes for the long term effects of a pornography addiction on a marriage.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
He was a jerk. He couldn’t admit to his problems.
The story here is vague and the information scanty. Both of these people are in what appears to be dire circumstances. I am all for saying that it is sad and that only the people involved know the details, and perhaps the prison authorities as someone has suggested. We do not begin to know what pressures have been brought to bear on either of them. But we do know this, that if all the stories are true and accurate then they are both abused people; she abused by him and he abused by the prison authorities in Iran.
Am I correct that now both the authorities in Iran and his wife want this man in prison? Would that tend to lend some credence to some of the charges brought against him by the Iranians?
So the possibilities for her range all the way from truth of very truth from the wife to the idea that somebody threatened her or her children if she did not say this whether it is true or not.
And the possibilities for him range all the way from his being somebody who has betrayed both wife and native land to somebody who is innocent of all charges but helpless to prove it.
All of this with the greek chorus of the ever present media and the ever present people who want to make political hay out of this.
My point is that we do not know at this point. My position is this: Oh dear goodness, these poor people. And again there are children involved who did not do anything to deserve this.
okrapod wrote:
No. Naghmeh still wants people to work for his release.
okrapod wrote:
They would have been witnesses to their father’s abuse of their mother.
brian wrote:
I agree with you. As you know, he appears to like the idea of possible active pedophiles being a part of his church.
@ elastigirl:
Loved your comment!
Adam Borsay wrote:
So he can commit adultery one time and the wife can divorce him However, he can beat her to a pulp on a regular basis, cause her to be admitted to the hospital, scream at her, not allow her access to sufficient funds, and divorce is not allowed? Really? Does that make sense to you?
@ Lydia:
That reminds me of the Air Force Officier I knew from Redeemer Arlington who constantly bragged about how he was in the “heathiest church he ever knew.” Who says stuff like that repeatedly? People who are in a healthy, solid church don’t brag about it. You see it in their life.
I’m waiting for people to start saying, “This is the healthiest marriage that exists!”
GovPappy wrote:
Agreed. And then, to top it off, put up with the pain of people questioning her motives as well as the reality of the abuse.
I wrote about deception in the church the other day. Just some thoughts…no specific answers.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/when-religion-is-deceptive-the-problems-of-deceit-in-mormonism-evangelical-christinaity-and-neo-calvinism/
Eagle wrote:
I actually do brag about being in a healthy church; but it’s because I know what it’s like to not be in a healthly church.
I get brain hurt whenever someone suggests that their pet theological idea is a magic bullet to solve societal issues. I get even more brain hurt when someone suggests that a system designed to intentionally concentrate power while disempowering people based on inherent traits (like sex) could actually reduce abuse. It is so monstrously foolish that I just can’t. it’s like trying to have a conversation with a cabbage.
okrapod wrote:
Yes, this is true, IMO, especially about the children. There is something that makes me uneasy about this situation, but that may be due to some other considerations that have nothing to do with this particular case. Sometimes things are just as they appear and sometimes they are not just as they appear at first or even after some time. At the very, very least, all of these people are victims of a tyrannical and anti-human political system.
In the course of working with many couples trying to start their marriages off on the right foot *and* trying to help them make their marriages healthy *and* trying to help them work through the divorcing/divorced complications to mitigate damage to the children, Gramp3 and I have learned that things are often, as you have said more than once, complicated. That does not mean that we automatically believe the apparent victim nor does it mean that we automatically disbelieve either the apparent victim or the apparent perp. Throw in the political aspect of this and other considerations I can think of, and the picture becomes unclear for me for now. That said, I am thankful that we are discussing it here.
However, I hasten to add that verbal abuse is soul poison and spirit acid. And I hasten to add that men are frequent victims of verbal and emotional and sometimes physical abuse that too often goes unrecognized and which is denied for various reasons. And that there are good reasons why a real victim might not speak up until well after the victim has come to see things more clearly, which may be the case in this instance and in many cases of long-standing abuse.
As for Owen BHLH and the CBMW Crew being pro-woman, it would be laughable if it were not so sad. I suppose all of the SGM apologists would trumpet that they are pro-child as well.
My understanding is that the reason adultery can be grounds for divorce is that it is a violation of the marriage covenant. Seems that hitting a spouse would also break the covenant.
Such a sad situation for Naghmeh and her kids.
And I also believe that use of pornography is a form of sexual abuse of the innocent spouse. Child pornography production and consumption is unspeakable abuse of children. Period.
GSD wrote:
And emotional and verbal abuse as well. Jesus was addressing the false teaching of the rabbis about the marriage covenant which made the wife disposable property. That was not God’s intent *from the beginning.* I believe that sometimes divorce honors God’s intent for marriage which has been destroyed by one or both of the parties. Enforcing no-divorce doctrine can sometimes make a mockery of God’s intent as expressed in Genesis.
Cayuga wrote:
I think the article said they were video chatting via Skype – which means he could have been verbally abusing her long distance in that manner.
I have a sister who verbally / emotionally abuses me by phone and in e-mail and on social media. I’ve had to block her from social media, I’m very careful about when or how I e-mail her, I generally don’t take phone calls from her, to limit the abuse.
The wife, Naghmeh Abedini, defines porn use as being sexual abuse in one article, and says her husband is doing that, so maybe she also means he is still looking at porn? (Though I don’t know why an Iranian prison would allow prisoners to have access to porn, but who knows how they run their prisons.)
Zla’od wrote:
If I am understanding her correctly, she probably feels her husband viewing that stuff as being abusive to her, as though he’s cheating on her. Having an affair mentally, if not physically.
A lot of women who have husbands who view this stuff regularly feel as though their husband is cheating on them, doesn’t find them attractive or good enough, etc. Maybe that’s what she means.
I saw one testimony on TV by a Christian woman married to a Christian guy who looked at it so often, she almost divorced him. The moment he would get home from work, he would run down to their basement (where they kept a second computer with the internet on it), and looked at naked lady photos all day until bed time.
The guy got to the point he wasn’t spending time with the wife at all, but preferred to spend all his time looking at nudie ladies on a monitor. His wife was going to divorce him over all this.
elastigirl wrote:
quoting Adam B, I think it was-
How do never married, Christian adults figure into this (or widowers, the divorced)?
Christians constantly holding marriage or married couples up as the only or best reflection of Jesus, God, and the church marginalizes anyone who is not married.
And such a view suggests that an unmarried adult cannot reflect Jesus, the church, God, etc, yet, when you die, Jesus says you will not have marriage in heaven, not to another person – you will be married to Jesus, whether you were married to a person on earth or single.
The Bible says Jesus is the groom, the church is “the bride.”
Adam Borsay wrote:
You do not understand the psychological warfare of an abuser. That is why I mentioned physical separation probably allowed her some time to see things differently and gave her the courage to make the break.
Can a man even be found guilty of spouse abuse in Iranian justice as it stands today?
GovPappy wrote:
That’s a very good point. Nagemeh was on a lot of Christian TV shows over the past year asking for Christians in America to support her husband. She was interviewed on shows such as The 700 Club, IIRC, as well as other Christian programs such as “Life Today.”
As to the rest of your post addressing Adam B’s post. I think we’re all talking about different things.
I think most of us here are addressing abusive marriages, where as maybe Adam B. is talking about those marriages with garden variety problems, ones not necessarily abusive, where a woman may decide to divorce her husband because he has some annoying habits, like leaving the cap off the tooth paste tube every other day.
I agree that some folks in U.S. culture are too quick to divorce over reasons like that (which are, IMHO, goofy), but in marriages where there is severe, consistent abuse (which can be physical, emotional, financial, or verbal), I think a person has every right to divorce the abuser.
Churches too often place the institution of marriage above the welfare and happiness of the two people who are IN the marriage.
The Pharisees or some religious group way back when did the same thing with following the Sabbath, so that Christ has to correct them by saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
It’s the same with evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christains today: they teach that mankind was made for marriage, when it looks to me as though God created marriage for mankind.
Marriage is meant to be a blessing, fulfilling, fun, and other things like that, not to be a torture that an abused person has to endure – and not to be made “holy”
Some pastors guilt trip abused women to stay in a crummy, abusive marriage, because they teach her God will use it to “sanctify” her, or make her more pure or holy. But it’s the Holy Spirit who sanctifies people, not abusive marriages.
One of the things it is so important to do is convince the abused spouse that they should not need bruises or black eyes to convince people. Smart abusers never leave evidence. Then we must help them see how damaging the psychological ware fare has been to them. It is like they were living in a black op. The only reason it worked is because they were too nice. They wanted to do the right thing for marriage/family and the manipulator took advantage of it. Each situation varies but I have seen some very bad ones. Some were the pillers of society. They hid behind their public credibility. One was a Mayor!
Victorious wrote:
Even a different marriage will prove difficult after abuse. Trusting another man would be hard. Trusting yourself to choose another spouse would be hard. Most people don’t understand the difficulty at all, especially those filled with over spiritualized thoughts and beliefs about marriage.
Adam Borsay wrote:
It’s probably true that the Iranian authorities want to destroy his reputation, and they have him hostage, so that’s their leverage vis à vis the wife. I don’t know what other leverage they have, like e.g. family members still living in Iran …
So we might never know the full story.
What we do know is that this poor woman – whatever the truth of the allegations against her husband – needs all the compassion and help she can get.
Jesus said that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts
There are also the lovers of self rather than lovers of God
and wolves in sheeps clothing. I don’t doubt that can be in the pulpit and home.
How about that minister who has in wife in bed on the roof of the church?
Daisy wrote:
Another aspect, if he was looking at porn, usually it means more than just looking at naked pictures.
Male porn addiction usually means watching illicit acts that get increasingly abusive and demeaning to the female.
Watching this does a couple things.
It decreases empathy and respect for women in general, turning them into objects to be used rather than people to be concerned about.
And it can create an entitlement mentality in the man making him believe that he is owed the demeaning sex acts from his wife. And when the wife balks his excuse, in his own mind at least, is, “the girl in the porn movie likes it, what’s your problem?” As if the girl in the porn movie is normal, health, and not acting to get a pay check (or drugs or to not be abused or whatever she gets for acting like she likes stuff she doesn’t.)
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Yes it is.
dee wrote:
Very much “Yes” on that.
You can get very eye-opening, sad, and horrifying examples of how most churches, Christians, and preachers spectacularly mis-handle all manners of marital abuse (physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, financial abuse).
The wife is almost always held accountable for the abusive husband’s behavior (ie, if only she were nicer to her husband, he wouldn’t mistreat her, etc), even though all experts on domestic violence and other types of abuse explain time and again that there is nothing a victim can do or not do to change the abuser!
I just left some posts in this thread at ACFJ (A Cry For Justice) blog the other day:
“To every man an answer,” but if it’s an abused woman, let’s lance her!
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/11/20/to-every-man-an-answer-but-if-its-an-abused-woman-lets-lance-her/
The summary of that post a ACFJ: a Christian wife named Erin called into a Christian radio show, hosted by two or three male preachers, saying her husband is cruel to her, which puts her off to sex.
The preachers proceed to give her victim-blaming, ineffective advice.
They end up only telling her to work harder at the marriage to make the spouse happier, and pray hard for the husband, and get her friends to pray for him too.
This is similar to the Christian produced move “The War Room,” which was released several months ago: the wife character in the movie had a bad husband (I can’t remember how abusive he was, but he came close to having affairs on her), and some Christians in the movie coached the wife to just go “pray about” the husband.
BTW, according to news reports linked to in the ACFJ post about Erin the wife? One of the married radio show preachers advising her, Mike Kestler, I think, was (again, according to news reports), propositioning a woman (who I think was from his church) for an affair.
If that is so – can you imagine a married preacher who tried to have an affair with a woman advising other women on how to handle a cruel husband?
As I said in one post on ACFJ, the moment I saw the opening comments of their post about it, I just knew that all male preachers in that conversation would advise the wife to cave in and have sex with the husband no matter what (which is yes, what they did, even though she had NOT been with-holding sex at that point).
Many male preachers always put the husband’s so-called (emphasis on so called) “need for sex” in priority above the woman and her feelings and needs, no matter her health problems, or if the husband is being abusive.
I have only seen maybe one male pastor so far in my life (Jeff C. from ACFJ) argue against that view. (Good on Jeff C.! *applause, applause* for Jeff C.)
Daisy wrote:
She should, unless he completely stops and changes.
Daisy wrote:
Oops, I meant to say you can find such examples at A Cry For Justice blog. They often have women write to them with examples of how horribly churches and preachers treated them when they went to them for help with an abusive husband.
(Churches are sometimes bad at dealing with husbands who are being abused or mistreated by wives, too. The husbands get a lot of the same ineffective, victim blaming advice that wives get.)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I had to go look for Nick being discourteous! Could not find it. :o) But thank you. I am pretty thick skinned and usually not shy about responding.
You wrote:
“So the C_“B”_MW, having committed themselves so passionately to the infantilisation of women that they have made it central to the gospel itself, have a circle to square. And the easiest way to do it is not to bother doing it at all. Let’s save ourselves the effort, and swallow the whole thing up in a vast, colossal lie: we’re the most pro-women people in the world.”
This is exactly what I discerned they were doing 15 years ago. It took me a while. I noticed a pattern In that world. They are extremely pro woman to the women who buy into it. Women who question any aspect are immediately marginalized . And there have been plenty of women who buy into it . In fact I found them scarier than the men who taught it .
Comp doctrine was a huge money maker in the 90’s and up around early 2000’s for many in the mega world and other ministries. I don’t think they have gotten over that. It was a gravy train for speakers and book sales. Some of the wives of these comp leaders would have scared General Patton . I am speaking strictly of the comp world as I know very little about the world of Quiverfull patriarchy which started to be embraced by these guys early in this decade. Russ Moore comes to mind. Mohler and CJ. Piper and Doug Wilson. Paul Washer and Doug Phillips and so on
Bridget wrote:
This was one of those miracle stories. The husband ended up stopping the nude- photo- watching hobby, so the marriage stayed together.
Christian TV shows hardly ever do stories about people who do not get a healing or positive answer for prayer.
In the ten plus years I’ve watched Pat Robertson’s TV show, I’ve only seen maybe two out of hundreds (literally hundreds) of testimonies where the people either got a “No” answer (one woman’s disease was not healed)-
And another woman got a delayed response (she prayed for like 15 to 20 whatever years before she got a “Yes” answer).
The majority of the time, they do stories like this (I’m making this one up, but I’ve seen equally bizarre stuff before):
“My name is Joan. My left leg was eaten off by a shark two months ago at the beach. Then I prayed and asked God for help, and five seconds later, a new leg supernaturally grew back. Whee, Praise the Lord!!”
So what about all the people who have a missing leg who prayed who never got a new limb?
The Christian shows hardly ever bring those people up, which is discouraging, if you have a missing leg or whatever.
dee wrote:
I am not saying that one cannot, I am saying, based on the text, there is clear instructions related to sexual sin, but none related to abuse. Spousal abuse is not something that only modern marriages confront. The first century surely had its fair share of physical abuse(if not more), yet Paul, who would have been fully aware of that, did not list it as justification for divorce and remarriage. So we have to ask, why not?
I would contend that the nature of sexual sin is foundational to breaking of the very nature of the marriage covenant, while abuse to your co-covenanter is not. This does not then equate to not seeing abuse as horrifically heinous. But that in covenant language/thinking it is not a covenant breaker.
@ Adam Borsay:
Adam what in the world is the Gospel to you when it comes to a long time “Christian” abuser. Did they miss the Good News?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
This is a brilliant comment. I give you a billion jillion likes for this post of yours, if this were Facebook, and we had Like buttons here.
Daisy wrote:
Well, that is a good thought, but also. Lifelong heterosexual monogamous pair bonding can be found in some other species (though not too many) including I think fish, birds (bald eagle) and some mammals (certain wolves). So if genesis is correct and the other animals were made before man, then apparently the idea of marriage did not arise de novo in the mind of God on the sixth day.
Just thought I would make note of this for fun if nothing else.
Daisy wrote:
Excellent points Daisy, and I think that some pastors are able to foist a load of crap on the ‘little woman’ through the aid of one word. Fear. Fear that she was never ‘saved’ to begin with or fear that she’ll lose her ‘salvation’
Bridget wrote:
Right on the money Bridget. In my opinion, much of Christendom tries to extrapolate way too much out of Scripture and apply it to marriage in the here and now.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think so too.
I think they have so much invested in their philosophies that they can’t admit any flaw in them. They can’t admit that their Bible interpretation is not 100% correct. Admitting such a thing is too far out of reach for them.
Legalistically using certain passages of the Bible as “God’s plan for marriage” and “THE marriage trouble-shooting section” has dug a pit for them that they don’t even know that they are in. And not knowing they are in such a pit, they are clueless that they need to get out of it.
So it is much easier to believe their own lies than to revamp their entire understanding of God, life, the universe, and everything.
Lydia wrote:
One crazy thing that shows how difficult it is for women who have been abused was the Bill Cosby case.
In spite of the fact that what, 20, 30, or more women over ten or more years stepped forward to claim the guy sexually assaulted them, there is still skepticism to this day about it!
It took a male stand-up comic mentioning Cosby’s apparent exploitation of women for the women to be taken seriously by the wider culture/ media.
It shouldn’t take 10, 20+ years and 20 – 40 women victims saying they were abused by the same guy to be taken seriously. The standards set for women in these matters are too high and are at times unfair.
Adam Borsay wrote:
If you really think this, then you do not understand what a covenant is.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Ummmm. Thank you for boiling it down with pure common sense!
GSD wrote:
The Hebrew scholar, Instone-Brewer, would agree with you.
Bridget wrote:
That might go for any man, in fact. Years ago I went to the doctor and when he reached toward my face to examine something, I ducked. I was so embarrassed but it was a reaction that I thought was buried so long ago. He evidently understood because he quickly withdrew the inspection and never charged me for the appointment. He happened to be on the Board of Directors at a local Safe House for domestic violence victims.
I believe it’s called hyper-vigilance that’s a natural reaction to being abused or attacked.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I don’t know about you, but “passionate infantilization of women” plus “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!” and/or “Penis Homes” starts giving me a strong vibe of Closet Pedo.
Let us not forget the money angle. Apparently people who marry and stay married have more income (not just because there are two of them) and more net worth (divorce is financially disastrous) than those who are single or divorced. I just googled this and found lots on line. So if somebody wanted to build a religious empire why would they not pitch to that crowd while at the same time trying to dissuade others from participation.
Just a few days ago I heard the Dave Ramsay program in which he was advising somebody about rental property management. Here was the advice: keep raising the rents until you have vacancies because you want the ‘cream” (of the market). Next sentence something to the end that you do not want the rest (of the market) and staying full is not the goal.
That sounds a lot like the church. Keep raising the bar, aim for the ‘cream’ financially (married and stay married possibly at any cost) and run off the rest.
Daisy wrote:
Remember that Cosby is not only a CELEBRITY(TM), but one of the Biggest Name CELEBRITIES of the past 40+ years. A CELEBRITY(TM) whose name is a household word.
Basically, the 20/30/more women were Nobodies accusing a God Incarnate.
Mara wrote:
The Party Can Do No Wrong.
Purity of Perfect Ideology, Comrades.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I believe Malachi 2 speaks of God hating violence and treacherous treatment of wives.
BC wrote:
After proclaiming a Seven Day Sex Challenge from the stage of his Mega (not a pulpit, not with wife in bed onstage) the exact same Sunday my church was celebrating High Mass for the Feast of Christ the King (end of the church liturgical year just before Advent — come to think of it, tomorrow should be this year’s).
@ Eeyore:
It might have been me that wrote that comment. I won’t go into chapter and verse on the bible but when we look at Mosaic Law, the stories of the Israelites entering the promised land, the story of the flood, even the book of revelation, we do not see a God of love or mercy. We see a vengeful deity that gives no compromise to the enemies of his people (or even the people themselves). Even Jesus in Matthew says he didn’t come to change the law. In the open discussion I’ve talked about re-joining Christianity after a long absence and this is the struggle that I have with the faith vs what I know to be right. I don’t want to insult anyone, faith is at the heart of many good people who visit here but when I read these posts on complementarianism and hyper-patriarchy I get the feeling that Christianity is at a crossroads. The wider society has rejected the brutality of the past (at least in principle if not in practice). Our soldiers don’t go into places and slaughter the enemy to the last man, woman and child (much less sheep and donkey – and I won’t get into a discussion about instances like Mai Lai or the Canadians in Somalia or drone attacks in Afghanistan on hospitals – I’m talking a general rule). Nobody in their right mind would advocate the execution homosexuals or disobedient children or adulterers. And women have the same rights and privileges in our society (again in principle if not in practice). As a Christian, I am asked to accept that God doesn’t make mistakes and (in some faith circles), I’m asked to accept the bible at face value. All of it pointing to a just and merciful God. Quite frankly I can’t. I can accept the gospels, I can even respect most of Paul’s teachings (where he’s not going back to Mosaic Law). If God is going to consign me to hell for advocating and endorsing full equality for all citizens, for treating my wife as my equal, for being merciful to my enemies, for not judging a man or woman based on who they love, then I guess that’s where I’m going. I’ll be sure to say “Hi” to Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and the gentlemen who signed the US constitution while I’m down there.
Victorious wrote:
And the original meaning of “Taking God’s Name in Vain” is invoking God’s Name to justify such things as Godly and Righteous.
Adam Borsay wrote:
One thing to consider is that women way back thousands of years ago had no choice but to say in an abusive marriage because there weren’t as many opportunities for women to have a career and earn their own income. Women tended to be very reliant on male family for financial support way back when.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Adam, do your homework on the ‘clear’ instructions in scripture. First, who is Jesus talking to? Second, what did the actual law entail? That is a big one. What did the concept of ‘neglect’ in marriage entail in ancient Hebrew? Third, what was the occassion/circumstances surrounding Jesus’ words in this interaction?
Gram touched on this earlier in the comments. It is another reason I asked you about the Good News. In your ‘clear covenant’ understanding you are basically saying it is perfectly understandable for someone to use Jesus Christ to perpetuate harm against another. Think of that. But since it is marriage that makes it different? What about the fact that Jesus Christ was used as a cloak of respectability in order to perpetuate harm on another person. A long con.
Jesus found it insidious when the Pharisees pulled this sort of thing. That is what He was addressing.
Lydia wrote:
If someone is an unrepentant continous abuser they do not have the Gospel at all. Someone who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit simply cannot go on for years and years unrepentantly beating someone…especially if they have been confronted. So, to answer your question….they just need the Gospel period!
Adam Borsay wrote:
Jesus Christ saves. Not the abused spouse.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Do we have to ask why not?
Do we look at the scripture as a list to follow as do’s and dont’s as if it is a prescription? Do we assume that because abuse is not mentioned that it has no bearing.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I think it may, actually.
The Old Testament and/or Jewish cultural beliefs had stuff in it about what a woman could rightfully expect from a husband – food, shelter, and other stuff was included (maybe affection?) and if the husband did not meet that, she was okay to divorce the guy.
Anyway, from what I read, that Jewish cultural understanding of divorce/ marriage/ abuse was not spelled out in the New Testament, because it was already assumed and understood by Jesus and the Jews of his time.
This page explains some of it:
Bible Scandals > Marital Abuse by David Instone-Brewer
http://www.bethinking.org/bible/bible-scandals/5-marital-abuse
Snippet:
The Jewish leaders learned this approach from the Bible, which establishes a general law by specifying the minimum requirements.
Exodus 21 details the law of marital neglect by listing the minimum support that must be given to a wife: food, clothing and love (Exodus 21:10-11).
… These three were the basis of Jewish marriage vows: the husband had to provide food and cloth, while the wife had to make meals and clothing, and both had to give themselves in love to each other.
… This mystery [of how to understand Jesus’ comments on divorce] has been recently solved by research in ancient Jewish documents where we find that the phrase ‘Any Cause’ divorce was a legal term equivalent to the modern no-fault divorce (see the chapter ‘No-fault Divorce’).
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Good point. And I’m still trying to find out where a marriage is called a covenant between those two individuals. I don’t find that in scripture along with vows, promises, ceremonies, etc.
Lydia wrote:
I am not sure where we are missing each other, but abuse is NEVER ok. Regardless of what weasely words one may use to explain it. My point is that,… is the nature of the marriage relationship such that sexual sin is a destruction of its meaning, while physical abuse(no less horrific…more so in many instances) does not fundamentally alter the “one flesh” picture? This isn’t to say, you can’t ever get remarried, but more to say, perhaps we have TOO low a view of the nature of marriage if we do not recognize the categorical differences between adultery and harm(though they comingle together in many ways).
AND…I say all of that to not say, “It is THIS way”, but to honestly say, “I wonder if…” because it is a general thought/question/concept I am wrestling with. As the world has increasingly painted a picture of marriage as being very self-centered and individual oriented I think there is a challenge for Christians to think more deeply through the meaning and implications of marriage. And not just what seems practical, but what it is that God means.
Adam Borsay wrote:
So you are saying that the sexual relationship is the most important aspect of the marriage covenant? It is more important than love, respect, and trust which are all broken by abuse as well as adultery.
@ Adam Borsay:
“I am not saying that one cannot, I am saying, based on the text, there is clear instructions related to sexual sin, but none related to abuse. Spousal abuse is not something that only modern marriages confront. The first century surely had its fair share of physical abuse(if not more), yet Paul, who would have been fully aware of that, did not list it as justification for divorce and remarriage. So we have to ask, why not?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
how ’bout: it wasn’t at issue with the people to whom he was writing. he was writing letters to specific people in specific circumstances — he wasn’t composing his thesis on every topic.
Adam, I would imagine decision making is very hard for you. if it’s not spelled out in the bible you can’t do it.
————————-
“I would contend that the nature of sexual sin is foundational to breaking of the very nature of the marriage covenant, while abuse to your co-covenanter is not. This does not then equate to not seeing abuse as horrifically heinous. But that in covenant language/thinking it is not a covenant breaker.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
pious & lofty,… lofty & pious
you appear to be kind and compassionate, & certainly going in the politically correct direction with your “This does not then equate to not seeing abuse as horrifically heinous”.
but really, you are a cruel ideologue. it’s time for one of headless’ “PURITY OF IDEOLOGY, COMRADE” comments. when you get down to brass tacks, a set of ideas is much more important to you than human beings.
what in the world is someone married to an abuser supposed to do with your entire comment here? if she does not remain married to her abuser for the rest of her life, denied the comfort, companionship, and practical mutual support of a life partner (especially later in life), she is forever branded with a scarlet CB: Covenant Breaker.
and not only that, from your previous comment, it’s curtains on her ever being a powerful witness. no, she’s barred from that ‘members-only’ club reserved for those either lucky enough to have non-violent marriages or those willing to sacrifice their lives & the lives of their children on the chopping block of rigid ideology.
get over the covenant language/thinking and come back down to earth where people live real and actual lives. lay off all the theology books and blogs by theological coke-heads for a season. you need a detox.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Then this “covenant” is, in my not so humble opinion, absolute complete and utter *garbage*.
And I’ve seen what it’s like to stick to a marriage. My dad stayed with my mom all his life, even though for the last 40-odd years of the marriage he was married to a paranoid schizophrenic. When Alzheimer’s took my dad’s mind away, my mother (the aforementioned paranoid schizophrenic, now taking really good medications) stepped up to help care for him the last few years of his life. I was worried with how mom would handle dad being gone, but she’s done pretty well, and I think her stepping up prior to his death helped a lot. Thing is, my parents weren’t doing it for religious reasons–my dad did it because, as he told me once, even if he were to divorce my mom, she was unable to really care for herself and he would still be taking care of her even if they weren’t married. But it was their choice to stay in the marriage, not the choice of a covenant enforced on them from above.
Seriously, I don’t know how you could say that a marriage should continue when one party is a bodily threat to a spouse and the children. And we know this happens, because there are men (mostly men, I’m hard pressed to think of a woman who has done this) who have gone out and murdered their wives, or ex-wives, or girlfriends and their kids because they escaped from him. This happens drearily often–last month a man drove his SUV with his estranged wife and their three children into Tempe Town Lake. It was a murder-suicide, as all five died. As I said, this happens all too often, but because it doesn’t involve actual adultery, there are far too many people who would not allow a divorce in a situation like that. And it’s, again, pure, unadulterated, stinking to high heaven GARBAGE.
Lydia wrote:
I am confused by this response. Did I say that an abused person is responsible for the salvation of their abuser…or did I imply it…because if I did, I would never think that or think we should be teaching that.
Can an abused person share the Gospel with their abuser? Should they be judged for not doing it if they don’t though…of course not, that would be heinous!
Adam Borsay wrote:
So, excused by absence of understanding? Jesus did address it with the Pharisees if you go and do your homework on ancient Hebrew understanding. As to Paul, how come he did not demand that Philemon free Oni? Does that mean that Paul was pro slavery? Many pro slavery pastors used this one at one time, too.
Perhaps it was because Paul knew there was no Corinth or Ephesus Spouse Abuse center for them to run to? Perhaps he thought it was covered in “love your wife” and sacrifice for her.
I am blown a way that a pastor would ask why spouse abuse was not covered in the NT as a “law”.
Adam Borsay wrote:
How so? Paul said that a believer whose spouse abandoned them is no longer bound. Loosed. I contend that the spirit of that is that an abuser has indeed abandoned their marriage and has broken their covenant of oneness.
Adam Borsay wrote:
What do you think are the implications of what you teach about what is allowed in “covenant” marriage divorce? What exactly do you think you are communicating?
Jack wrote:
Sometimes you do, though.
There were examples on the Old Testament of God forgiving sin and extending mercy.
In the OT, God says that the death of the wicked does not make him rejoice or bring him pleasure.
God said in the OT (maybe NT, but I think OT?) that he desires mercy, not sacrifice (i.e., I think he meant animal sacrifices?).
God took pity on outcasts, like the handmaiden who gave birth to a son for patriarch what’s- his- face.
The handmaiden lady was stumbling around in the desert with her kid after the angry wife of said patriarch gave her the boot, and God sent an angel to minister to her, and I think gave her water.
God scolded Jonah for wanting quick destruction on the Ninevites. From Jonah Ch 3:
And from Ch 4, God speaking to an angry Jonah who wanted Ninevah to be wiped out:
So, there are examples in the OT of God showing grace and compassion to people, if you look for them.
I think it’s easier for most folks to recall the examples of the harsh God of the OT, but the moments in the OT of God being gentle and forgiving towards people or nations are so often forgotten or overlooked.
Adam Borsay wrote:
You cannot be serious. Abuse does not alter the “one flesh” concept of marriage? Only sex can?
About the only thing I can do here is quote Caroline Bingley in Pride and Predjudice: “I am all astonishment”.
Bridget wrote:
That is exactly how most evangelicals look at it.
Adam Borsay wrote:
A man is to love his wife as he loves his own flesh. Does a person who loves himself destroy himself or herself? I think not. Not physically, not emotionally. I think your view of one-fleshness is a bit narrow if it is limited to physical misbehavior only. If that is the measure, then how far can someone go before they break the covenant?
@ elastigirl:
I am not attempting to be facetious and glib…..but either Scripture is God breathed and suffecient, or, it is not. If we do not agree on that foundational premise than we will always be arguing at cross purposes.
To push back a bit on your criticism….saying “x” is a good and wonderful thing that we should be encouraged to puruse, does not automatically mean that those who instead did “y” are failures. There is an important distinction between Inspiration and Guilt. We should be inspired to reach higher than we believe we are capable, but we should not be guilted into it or guilted by not achieving.
In analogy, Corrie Ten Boom is a great example. Her story of forgiveness is one that we should all be inspired and encouraged by. I cannot imagine forgiving the SS officers who killed your family. I hope no one has had to even contemplate something so horrific. And her sotry and example should be a challenge to all of us. What she was able to do(empowered by the Holy Spirit) is powerful witness that I dare say is beyond anything I have done in my life to date.
But you can misuse her story as well. You can tell a hurting person that they need to be more like Corrie if they are reallllly going to be a good Christian and then tell them they are SINNING if they don’t forgive like she did.
This inverts and destroys the meaning of the Cross and perverts the witness of Corrie into a tool to control through legalism.
In the same way, we can be encouraged and inspired by the stories of people who faced horrible things in marriage, yet saw God and the Gospel work miracously within it. BUT if you take those examples as a template to force upon others that is horrible.
And to ultimately circle back to my first point….either the Bible says something true about the nature of marriage and our responsibilities within our marriages(regarldess of circumstances) or, it doesn’t.
@ Jack:
“If God is going to consign me to hell for advocating and endorsing full equality for all citizens, for treating my wife as my equal, for being merciful to my enemies, for not judging a man or woman based on who they love, then I guess that’s where I’m going. I’ll be sure to say “Hi” to Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and the gentlemen who signed the US constitution while I’m down there.”
+++++++++++++++
can I buy you an expensive glass of wine with lots of appetizers (including things made with blue cheese, figs, green apples, rosemary, basil, garlic, horseradish, pecans, cucumbers, red peppers, crunchy things, spready things, leafy things…)
(it’s my offer to buy you my favorite meal, my highest compliment)
Gram3 wrote:
I agree, I actually said that earlier…aka…I think the case is able to be made that abuse can be painted as convenant breaking.
My further questions, which I clarify here again, has more to do with what is the nature ultimately of marriage according to scripture, and do we often set to low a bar in our culture? And I am not saying we do, I am asking the question because I am genuinely curious. Because Paul DOESN’T say that if a man(or woman) physcially abuses their spouse the victim is free to leave and marry someone else. And since he doesn’t say that, why not, what could it mean, how do we utilize scripture wholisitically in light of a limited prescription in this particular instance?
Deebs, thanks for the young at heart video…saw it about 8-10 years ago and still brings tears to me eyes!
elastigirl wrote:
If those ideas are divinely inspired and unchangeable eternal principles, that conclusion naturally follows, especially if you regard typical human attitudes as sinful.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Sometimes it helps to look at this from a historical aspect. Yes, there are people who have a low view of marriage but that is one of the most overused weapons in evangelicalism I have ever seen. To the point of excusing heinous behavior.
Historically, it has been near impossible for women to divorce abusive husbands. They would lose their children and had no way to support themselves. In the ancient world, it was often best to be abused than to have NO protection at all or provision for shelter/food. Women were often a throw away commodity in that world. Only wealthy women had real choices.
All bad policies tend to “overcorrect” when they are changed. But what you do is make blanket statements like many pastors do. Then they try and make laws from the NT for divorce based upon VERY shoddy scholarship.
The most famous divorcee is God himself. And why did HE threaten divorce? For what?
@ Lydia:
How many men and women have stayed in abusive marriages because they believe that they can keep a covenant unilaterally like God can? Because they took a vow before God to endure whatever comes, as they see it? A slave can seek freedom but a spouse may not. How many kids have been damaged for life by growing up in a toxic family, thinking that this is what godliness looks like? WWJD is apt when it comes to the little ones, IMO.
I would love to hear what JeffS has to say about this.
Lydia wrote:
(to Adam B)
Here’s something else maybe for Adam B. to consider, or folks who think in this way.
Okay, I’m over 40 years old and have never been married. Christians often (wrongly) assume the reason singles like me stay single is that we hate or disrespect marriage. Not true. I’ve always wanted to be married.
However, when I hear Christians saying stuff in their books, radio programs, and blogs like a spouse should stay married no matter what, or only allowing divorce for slim, narrow cases only – but not physical/ verbal abuse – it makes me want to stay single for the remainder of my life.
Christians who advocate for most singles to get married, really lay the pressure on thickly, but, the way you guys teach about marriage-
That women should stay trapped in a marriage no matter what, even if abuse is included – are not selling me, an adult single, on getting married. You’re turning me off to it.
Or, your teaching has the effect of:
I, who was raised as a Christian, now only want to consider marrying Non-Christian men, who are not as likely to buy into the
1. ‘no divorce ever, not even over abuse!’ stuff, or
2. wifely submission stuff (rationalized by mis-interpreted Bible verses)
You’re not making marriage look safe, fun, or appealing to singles, especially not to unmarried women.
elastigirl wrote:
+ a bunch
I much appreciate your frequent reminders that God is in the daily, the actual, the mundane–where our delight lies and where our battles are.
molly245 wrote:
AMEN. I am glad she shared her story. Her husband sounds like a classic abuser, who needs help badly. I hope she is never hurt like that again by anyone . . . no one, NO ONE deserves that kind of hell, especially at the hands of a spouse and in the hearing of little children. God have mercy.
Gram3 wrote:
Judges here seem to understand this better than evangelical pastors. If the abuse occurred in front of the kids, it is automatic mandatory court ordered separation. Usually three years! They are not adults who have choices. Seeing the abuse is devastating to them and our society long term.
Except, it seems, in evangelical circles where all one has to do is say “sorry” and forgiveness is required. All is well, then. This approach is perfect for the abuser and makes the church look like it saved a marriage.
@ Lydia:
I am fully opposed to rules and legalism. Outside of CLEAR statements of scripture, I am convinced of the immense value of Christian Liberty. In this particular case, my overall push back is not that people should be forced to stay married(I would completely support an abused woman leaving her abuser and would gladly officiate her future wedding to someone else), but that I sense a going too far the other way. Meaning, any talk about being inspired or encouraged to seek redemption/restoration in the midst of great evil is being shouted down carte blanche. Can such talk be used as a battering ram by abusers/abuse apologists..obviously, but that isn’t germaine to the issue of whether or not it should at least be on our radar as a true hope in light of the Gospel.
Lydia wrote:
That is true. A wife is not the Holy Spirit and should not be expected to act as Him.
I don’t know about Adam B. specifically, but I’ve seen a lot of Christians on other sites (preachers who counsel abused wives) that it’s their duty to continue loving the abusive husband and pray for him, because it’s somehow her duty (they think) to bring the guy to the Lord, or what have you.
I don’t think women should be put in harm’s way to reach a guy for God.
You know the vast majority of men who teach this malarky to Christian women would never themselves endure this, if they were a 5 foot 2 inch tall, 110 pound woman getting verbally or physically abused by a 6 foot tall 200 pound husband.
And some of these men would probably not expect their own daughter to endure it, but tell her to divorce the guy. They find it so easy to tell other women to put up with this treatment though.
They care more about keeping a marriage together (an abstract thing) than in the well being of an honest- to- goodness human being Jesus died for on the cross.
Adam Borsay wrote:
That is an argument from silence, IMO. I do not believe you can make a tight argument that inerrancy and sufficiency entails the RPW much less the Regulative Principle of Life. Or the Regulative Principle of Marriage which is what you seem to me to be advocating. Why didn’t Paul explicitly outlaw internet porn? Or child porn? Or slavery? Or all manner of things which we find abhorrent?
Because the Bible is inspired, I think it is a living document with timeless principles that we apply appropriately to differing circumstances. That is not abandoning the authority or sufficiency of the Bible. It is rightly dividing it, so to speak. Beyond that, we have the pattern of the life of Christ himself as recorded in the Bible. Do you believe that the Jesus of the NT would require that children be raised in such a toxic environment? Really?
Adam Borsay wrote:
It is VERY germaine to the issue. You are not the arbiter of what is “going too far the other way”. That is for the abused to decide. And when the abused hear pastors teach the way you are teaching, WHO exactly do you think takes it to heart? The long con abuser hiding behind Jesus or the abused who was abused in the first place for trying to do the “right” thing?
You guys would do well to rethink your approach to this issue.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I discussed this here, up thread:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/20/naghmeh-abedini-wife-of-imprisoned-pastor-abedini-is-a-victim-of-domestic-abuse-while-owen-strachancbmw-reports-that-complementarians-handle-abuse-really-well/comment-page-1/#comment-228975
Paul, or some NT writer, said in the NT that a husband is to love his wife as he loves his own body.
Do most abusive husbands punch themselves in their faces? No.
Adam Borsay wrote:
So far Adam, what you have declared as “clear” in scripture is very shoddy scholarship.
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, don’t know about Adam B, but as I said in another post up thread, that is PRECISELY how most male preachers view marriage.
If a wife is being emotionally and/or physically abused, they teach her she must still have sex with the husband no matter what.
There is a recent example of this very thing on the ACFJ blog, please see this:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/20/naghmeh-abedini-wife-of-imprisoned-pastor-abedini-is-a-victim-of-domestic-abuse-while-owen-strachancbmw-reports-that-complementarians-handle-abuse-really-well/comment-page-1/#comment-228945
With these men, the husband’s needs are paramount, always come first, while a wife’s needs and safety mean nothing, nada, zip in their universe.
A husband is always entitled to sex (what the wife wants and needs doesn’t matter), they reason, though I don’t see anything in the Bible that teaches this.
@ Adam Borsay:
“My point is that,… is the nature of the marriage relationship such that sexual sin is a destruction of its meaning, while physical abuse(no less horrific…more so in many instances) does not fundamentally alter the “one flesh” picture? This isn’t to say, you can’t ever get remarried, but more to say, perhaps we have TOO low a view of the nature of marriage if we do not recognize the categorical differences between adultery and harm(though they comingle together in many ways).”
+++++++++++++++
I’m picking on you today. what’s one of your sermon-hearers to make of all this? i’m completely confused.
categorically different yet not categorically different. I can/I can’t/I must/I mustn’t/I should/I shouldn’t/it is/it isn’t/rules yet not rules/it’s heinous & horrible yet not heinous and horrible (because to get the gold star you have to continue to honor your marriage commitment)/you can’t remarry/you can remarry.
you’ve read way too much Paul, i’m sure of it.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Not by me, for one. As I said, Gramp3 and I have worked with many couples to understand why their marriage is not working and what needs to change. We have done/are doing that based on the entirety of the Biblical witness precisely because we do believe in inerrancy, inspiration, and sufficiency. That is not the same thing as saying that the Bible is exhaustive and comprehensive.
I am weary beyond saying of churchy people who offer the “take two Bible verses and pray together” approach to marital conflict of any sort. It is not that simple, though I wish that it were.
I am weary beyond saying of clobber verses of every sort and the magical thinking which many Christians mistake for the Gospel. Not every person who holds themselves out as a victim or as a Christian is necessarily either of those things. There are times when the perp portrays himself or herself as the victim, and churchy people go along with the ruse, thereby compounding the sin and the toxicity. Other times churchy people do not believe the real victim for various reasons. Someone who stays in an abusive marriage with an unrepentant abuser and offers the children of that marriage up on the altar of marriage permanence is mistaken, IMO, about what marriage is and what the Gospel is.
I have another comment waiting for you in moderation, so this will have to do for now. 🙂
elastigirl wrote:
Hee Hee. Paul should only be read with Jesus filtered glasses on.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I don’t most of those disagreeing with you are denying the Bible is true, God’s word, and inspired.
Most here are disagreeing with some of your interpretations or opinions about the Bible and what it says.
Disagreeing with someone’s interpretation about a teaching or passage in the Bible does not necessarily equate to disagreeing with God Himself or denying that the Bible is the authoritative word of God.
Lydia wrote:
If a pastor teaches that ALL victims HAVE to forgive/abide with their abusers, that is wrong, unbiblical and immeasurably damaging. But SHOULD we teach on radical forgiveness and grace even for the most monstrous of people? I would argue absolutely yes. The scandal of the Gospel is not just that the victims and the least of these are elevated, but that the abusers and monsters have the same hope as those they victimized. This does not mean that we submit to their abuse because they might get saved, but that message of forgiveness is a true call to them as well.
The logical outflow of your contention that teaching in such a way is damaging to the harmed spouse is that we should also not share Corrie Ten Boom’s story as a source of hope and encouragement. There are people we shall run across who have faced similar circumstances as she did who harbor deep(justifiable) anger and resentment. Does sharing Corrie’s story cause too much damage because it tells of a different approach to dealing with the pain they have experienced?
Thanks, Dee, for doing this post. I have also started a post on this story – with a bit of information showing why I believe Naghmeh account of abuse is true.
BTW, I found my old tweet and you did get the gist of the it:
Daisy wrote:
To add my two cents to the idea that sex is most important….it isn’t, yet it is significant. But not in the way people wrongfully apply it….imho. If my wife or I had some sort of physical condition that precluded sex for the rest of our lives, the marriage doesn’t get invalidated. But sex is representative of something spiritual(regardless of the quality and/or frequency). That is of “oneness”. As Paul says about this particular thing, it is a mystery that two become one. Similar to the Godhead, we, as image bearers, are two distinct persons yet one being in the context of marriage, and sex is representative of that spiritual mystery.
This, to reiterate, is not license to demand sex. So when I previously stated that sexual sin is a different category than physical harm, it is in relation to sexual union has a foundational relationship to the mystery of “oneness” in marriage.
Daisy wrote:
If my ex-husband had not had an affair, I probably would not have divorced him. My former pastor heavily pushed “Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy?” by Gary L. Thomas. I was taught that my happiness didn’t matter. Emotional and verbal abuse didn’t matter. It “might” have been different if he had been hitting me, but he wasn’t. He was a pillar of the community and of the church.
I did not recognize my husband’s treatment of me as abuse. All I knew was that I was desperately unhappy. Suicidally unhappy. The only reason I’m still alive is because my children needed me. I began to realize that it was abuse after we separated. That’s why I believe Naghmeh.
About the original post, where Owen Strachan at CBMW tweeted that complementarians and / or CBMW are pro-woman and fight tooth and nail against the abuse of women.
I have to call hogwash on those claims.
I think that men who are prone to abuse and control women are attracted to what CBMW promotes (Christian gender complementarianism), precisely because gender complementarianism makes it easy for abusers and controllers to exploit women, and with biblical justification – so they get a pass.
Gender comp, when taught to women, even the kinder version of it, leaves women very susceptible to dating controlling, manipulative, or abusive men, and to attracting jerks and abusers. (It had that effect on me.)
I’ve brought this up before on this site, but Gender Complementarianism shares many of the same characteristics of codependency.
Gender complementarianism (a.k.a. “Female Subordinationism”), like codependency, fosters in women, traits that leave them vulnerable to being abused or attracting abusers, such as:
Passivity, lack of boundaries, automatically accepting blame for horrible treatment by others (rather than leaving abusive relationships or holding abusers accountable),
being naive (not recognizing dangerous “red flags” in men they are dating), etc.
There are many other traits I could list, but that gives some idea.
Women under gender comp are taught that being super forgiving, lacking boundaries, and being passive (all qualities that abusers love in potential targets) are God’s intent for them, and are “biblical womanhood” qualities.
It’s a very warped theology that sets up and primes girls and women for being abused by men (and by dishonest women), and teaches them to be complicit in their own mistreatment.
Adam Borsay wrote:
When Corrie was given the opportunity to get out of prison she went
Adam Borsay wrote:
People and theologians and whole denominations do not agree on what it is exactly that the scripture is sufficient for. Or for that matter what ‘God breathed’ means in practical terms. Some say it is sufficient as history and science and detailed minutia of everyday life which are unchanging for all time and cultures. Others say it is ‘sufficient’ in all things necessary for salvation-only. This is not to say that it is not profitable for doctrine and reproof and instruction in other things but that it cannot be said to be ‘sufficient’ in that sense, and that it does not claim to be. And various ideas on that continuum. Some people think that ‘God breathed’ means essentially dictated like the Quran, and some say not at all but rather a perception of the mind of the Spirit at the time.
The thing is, we are not going to solve those differences. This has been cussed and discussed to the limits for centuries, I think, and nobody is convinced by anybody else’s arguments. That does not mean that we cannot value each other, but IMO we can’t get very far in the valuing process until we accept that we differ and determine that this will not alienate us from each other.
Adam Borsay wrote:
There’s a lot of things that Paul and Jesus did not specifically mention or call out.
I don’t think Paul ever specifically says that the Jared Fogles (former Subway restaurant spokesman) of the world, who sexually abuse kids, should go to jail.
Do you infer from Paul’s lack of commenting on this particular matter means that he or Jesus thinks it is A-OK and groovy with adults sexually abusing kids, and that they should not be held legally accountable, then?
Paul also doesn’t specifically say it’s immoral for a person to hold up a car dealership, but can you not extrapolate from other passages in the Bible that maybe God would consider that particular act theft, and hence sin?
I’m not understanding why you seem to think each and every possible scenario has to be mentioned in the Bible, in great detail and with sub-clauses, for people to be able to draw conclusions about what God maybe thinks about it, or how law or the church should handle it?
Event the Bible has Romans Chapter 14 in it, where it says not every moral scenario under the sun is going to be spelled out for you, you must judge for yourself based on what you do know. A link to Romans 14:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14
It concludes with: “everything that does not come from faith is sin”
Adam Borsay wrote:
Tell that to rape victims. And Dear God, there are tons of them out there for whom it is their horrible secret. And I say that as one who truly believes sex is a sacred thing to be enjoyed and is exclusive.
The “oneness” is better termed a blessed alliance as Carolyn Custis James so aptly put it. Man/Woman building on God’s creation together. You reduce that to sex which is but one part of the blessed alliance.
Beloved we are gathered here to give this woman to this man for him to abuse, exploit, and dominate completely. She is to have no say, no right, no expectation of being loved, cared or provided for. Whenever she is abused, either verbally, psychologically, physically she is to remain silent and in a perpeptual servitude mode no matter how tired, overstressed or sick she may. She may not talk to others about the private things in their relationship or ask for help. She is to forgive and endure as long as she lives… yes even to attempts by him on her life. As for children that may be born into this marriage they must understand to expect the same.
Do you then accept this woman as you wife? (if he answers in the afirmative the ceremony is complete for there is not need to ask her permission for anything)
Eeyore wrote:
Jesus addressed this with the Pharisees. The Pharisees and scribes kept putting God’s laws and religious principles above people and people’s needs.
Like the religious guys got all bent out of shape when Jesus did stuff like healed a crippled lady on the Sabbath, or that the 12 disciples picked and ate some heads of grain on the Sabbath.
Jesus was trying to show that sometimes, to God, people are more important than religious rules.
Jesus pointed out that God sometimes allowed folks to bend the rules he already gave-
Like God didn’t have a cow and get angry when David and his army (who were hungry) in the OT, ate the bread in the Temple that was meant only for the priests. Normally, that bread was only for the priests (or for God?) but God was all, like, ‘I don’t mind, they were hungry.’
@ Adam Borsay:
Adam, you are deeply mixed-up about abusive marriage. If you want to become a good pastor to people in abusive situations, you would do best to volunteer at a women’s shelter—not as a pastor but as a runner/domestic help. After 6 months of that, graduate to the desk, writing/filing. Do not pontificate about any of it; just listen.
Doing this will pay off in spades regarding the rest of your pastoral work, too. You got some stuff very wrong and I doubt you can straighten it out via comments at TWW.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Most of this thread is about men abusing women. Let’s turn the tables here.
So, if my husband does something I don’t agree with, it’s biblically permissible for me to whack him a few times with one of my cast iron skillets???
Daisy wrote:
I do agree that you can’t go around trying to find every specific scenario detailed in scripture…..but in the case of divorce Jesus does say the ONLY grounds for divorce is sexual sin. While a strict reading of Matthew 5:32 would indicate no marriage ever after divorce, most protestants historically have not taken that view. And to say again, I would completely support a woman(or a man) divorcing and remarrying due to abuse.
The larger point, coming from a perspective of supporting the position you take, is my wrestling with the picture of what marriage is, the categorical difference of sex and abuse, and what DOES it mean to be one flesh.
Adam Borsay wrote:
It depends on what you think forgiveness means or entails. It is probably the most misunderstood and abused concept in evangelicalism. It would take a more than a blog thread to get into. Here is a start:
http://www.nacr.org/wordpress/160/the-f-word-forgiveness-and-its-imitations
Add to the problem the long con of using Jesus as a shield for evil deeds and forgiveness could entail moving far away from the abuser. Does trust even enter in to your formula of radical forgiveness? One can forgive and not trust. Did you know that? The sad thing for me is you do not take into consideration the victims. You expect them to act more like your version of Jesus so the con person can be forgiven! Does this make any sense?
Lydia wrote:
To riff off what you said here, I am reminded of a page about “Divorce Care” programs I saw at ACFJ blog.
Someone in that thread was saying that most Christian commentary they see on divorce (maybe including Divorce Care stuff?) goes on about how damaging divorce is for the world, the nation, for couples, for kids, etc.
I’m not a supporter of “easy breezey, divorce your spouse because he goes bald or gains 30 pounds, or she doesn’t bake you home made cookies enough to your liking,” but… some Christians go too far in the other direction with this.
They really over-state the ramifications or awfulness of divorce, to the point they make divorce sound far worse than Ted Bundy serial killing.
As one divorced, Christian guy in that thread said, he was not unhappy (or permanently psychologically scarred) after divorce.
He said he was quite happy post-divorce (as he was no longer subjected to abuse by his ex wife), which runs the opposite of the extreme, anti-divorce propaganda some of these divorced folks got from churches.
When I read stuff by evangelicals and other Christians about divorce, they do make divorce sound very “end of the world-ish.”
I’ve no doubt that divorce can be difficult and sad for many people to get through, but they do survive it and move on, some even do remarry and their second marriage is happier than the first.
I am sorry, there is nothing worse than a man who beats a woman, perhaps a man in the clergy who condones it…..sorry, but these are not men.
Adam Borsay wrote:
So Jesus changed the spirit of the Mosaic law? Or was he speaking to a specific situation called “any cause” divorce the Pharisees had conjured up?
How about the law? Thank God we are not under Sharia law.
Are the following cases against the law?
The man who tries to kill his wife and shots her jaw off?
The young man who takes his pregnant wife for a drive in the country where he beats her in the stomach until she miscarries?
The man who beats his wife and throws her down a flight of stairs.
The man who drunkenly brings home a friend to have sex with his wife in front of his child.
The drunk man who brings another woman home and kicks his wife out of bed, beats her and makes her cook breakfast for them.
The pastors wife who is shamed into silence by her husband when he sexually abuses their little daughter.
I could go on and on with cases I have seen when I was a social worker my point is that abuse is not pretty it is damn ugly so let’s not tip toe around the parlor about it as some confusing theological issue.
Lydia wrote:
Forgivess does not prescribe removal of consequences. Someone who strikes their spouse should go to jail and the victim should be supported in being safe from continued abuse
Lydia wrote:
I would contend he is doing both….he is specifically addressing the absurdityand abuse of their “any cause” while also teaching that adultery is the sole grounds of divorce.
@ Patrice:
Good advice. That is where I learned how complicated and upside down this issue really is to so many. One of the biggest problems we had were pastors coming to the center to declare the husband was sorry and encourage her to go home with the kids. This was usually before the court date. Most women went home. And came back later. A tiring rotating door.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Then something is definitely wrong with the views on covenants. You cannot convince me that God would want a woman to stay married to a man who is abusing her but will let her get out of the marriage when the guy has a one night stand. It makes NO sense whatsoever.Sorry-I cannot buy your explanation and i take Scripture seriously.
I believe that such an answer is a wooden literal misinterpretation-something that goes on in the faith regularly.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Totally disagree that this has anything to do with abuse. You need to flip it around. Jesus was addressing the Pharisees who could divorce their wives at the drop of a hat. He was telling them that they (the Pharisees) could not divorce them unless they broke the marriage vows.
He is not saying a wife cannot divorce her husband for abuse. The wife was not the object of the lesson here. This is why I profoundly disagree with your interpretation. Such a reading makes a mockery of the pain of physical abuse and could lead to more women being abused by their complementarian/patriarchy husbands.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Abusers seldom change. They are controllers and entitled. They are not interested in meeting a spouse “half way,” compromising, and giving up the advantages they get from the control/ abuse (they get all their needs met, they don’t have to get off their behind and meet the needs of the wife).
The only real option for a woman in such a marriage is to leave the guy (divorce), and move away.
This is what I’ve read in the books and blogs by people who are therapists and counselors in the field of domestic violence.
I have a verbally abusive sister. I tried talking to her, reasoning with her, about a year ago, and asking her to stop treating me horribly.
Her response? She chose to stay angry, controlling, and abusing, so I had little choice but to halt most contact with her.
All the prayer, and redemption/restoration seeking in the world cannot change someone who is unwilling to change. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink it.
dee wrote:
I’ll say it again…I support a person leaving their physically or emotionally abusive spouse and I would gladly officiate their future wedding(if it would occur). Perhaps my writing was needlessly obtuse, but I have been trying to clarify WHY is sexual sin the only specifically listed justification for divorce when abuse was probably AS common, if not more so. And does this indicate that the concept of marriage is deeply interwoven with the picture of what “oneness” is?
To repeat, I clearly am not saying that ONLY sexual sin is justifiable because I keep saying I would support other reasons for divorce and remarriage.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Horrible thing to say.
Adam Borsay wrote:
So, you agree with The Village ELDERS? Because technically speaking, Karen’s “husband” did not commit adultery, AFAIK.
How does verbally and emotionally and physically abusing one’s spouse demonstrate oneness? Or any of the fruit of the Spirit? Are we joined together in oneness or are we bound by legal chains of “Jesus didn’t give grounds beyond adultery.” And do you know that some take “adultery” to be limited to unfaithfulness during the betrothal period? How do you know if something is permissible/forbidden if Jesus did not speak to it? What is the governing principle?
Lydia wrote:
That is a good point.
You have some guy (quoted in the OP) who thinks it’s not going too far for a husband to give his wife a black eye.
He actually told her, ‘I am so happy to hear that, so happy to hear your spouse punched you in the face and gave you black eyes!! Now maybe your husband will accept Jesus as Savior.”
So, some of these extreme pro-marriage guys, remarkably, don’t think it’s “going too far” for a husband to give his wife black eyes. I think most on the receiving end of a punch or two to the face would beg to differ. I know I do.
dee wrote:
Exactly.
Adam Borsay wrote:
All things are holy.
It doesn’t work to say that sex, an act, is more spiritual than the body, the physical form through which the act happens. That’s classic dualism right there.
And since the body is a full aspect of marital oneness, then one person hurting/damaging the other’s body destroys oneness just as does adultery or marital rape.
You bring up the Triune Oneness. Similarly to our God, a human is one: mind/body/spirit (or mind/body, whatevs). Not separate parts, but a unified creature.
So, likewise, when one human damages another’s spirit/mind by emotional/mental abuse, it also breaks the other person down and destroys marriage oneness, just as surely as does adultery, marital rape, physical abuse.
Mutual respect, love and honor for the full&complete ‘other’ must be developed/tended, or the covenant between them slowly comes undone until it is altogether gone.
@ Adam Borsay:
“I am not attempting to be facetious and glib…..but either Scripture is God breathed and suffecient, or, it is not. If we do not agree on that foundational premise than we will always be arguing at cross purposes.
++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we need to first figure out what in the world “God-breathed” and “sufficient” mean and what they don’t mean.
———————————
…We should be inspired to reach higher than we believe we are capable, but we should not be guilted into it or guilted by not achieving.
—————————
I agree (within reason). however, in everything you’ve been saying this morning, I think you’re doing exactly that. in fact, going a bit further than “guilting”. you are making any option except for A one of spiritual failure. having to give up on being “powerful witness” & being branded a “covenant breaker” are frightening threats to someone trying to find their way, especially coming from someone in a position of authority.
————————
“And to ultimately circle back to my first point….either the Bible says something true about the nature of marriage and our responsibilities within our marriages(regarldess of circumstances) or, it doesn’t.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sure, it says something. and it can be true in context, but that doesn’t make it a comprehensive treatise on the subject.
@ Daisy:
The only thing I would add is that I have known plenty of verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive women, too. To those who do not know what goes on, they may flip everything and portray themselves as helpless victims. Abusive people come in all varieties, but they have entitlement and self-seeking in common.
Gram3 wrote:
*cough* War Room (Christian produced movie) *cough*
War Room review: shut up and pray he quits
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/28/war-room-review-religion-christianity
“Alex and Stephen Kendrick’s faith-based film argues that domestic abuse can be cured by retiring to a bunker and praying. It’s an odd plan of attack”
Not making any judgements of this one yet, though there is obviously a lot of pain there and some terrible things have happened. Time will tell. She may be entirely truthful. Don’t get why the story must always be linked back to cbmw or dever or Piper or the rest. The guilt by association thing is unbelievable here. Where is the data? Where is the evidence that the comp view leads to this or that it is the reason in this case? I have asked Boz T for any evidence of this. Crickets. I have asked another organization on this as well. Nothing.
On the one hand, you say comp is not surging. It is a narrow gate of white male reformed privilege. On the other hand, comp teaching is a powerful enough force to get associated with the whole abuse dynamic in the nation. Even I didn’t realize Owen was so powerful.
A consistent theme throughout the OT and NT is God/Jesus caring for and defending the oppressed. How can God be a merciful God in the Old Testament and allow divorce with regard to the hardness of man’s abusive heart and then Jesus take that provision away in the New Testament? That would imply that Jesus is not merciful to those who are in harm’s way. That’s not the Jesus I see in the New Testament – it’s completely contrary to His character. You can’t just take one verse out of scripture and disregard God’s character throughout the whole of Scripture towards the oppressed.
It seems to me that the ones who fight hardest about not allowing divorce for abused wives are also ones who very strongly believe in spiritual headship and authority over the wife.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh yes. I’ve mentioend several times on this thread I am related to one: my sister.
My sister has been verbally and emotionally abusive of me going back many years, and it seems to have increased after our mother died several years ago.
So yes, I know women can be just as bad.
@ Daisy:
Yes, abusers seldom change. And this is why I call it a long con when they are professing believers hiding behind Jesus make up.
For once, I would love to see a pastor declare to an abuser they should pick on him instead because believers take care of one another, And unless the pastor thinks he has the right or ability to police their marriage in real time, he should be very careful how he presents forgiveness/divorce so he has no metaphorical blood on his hands and abuse passed on through the children as normal and Christian cos all you have to do is say sorry.
js wrote:
Being obtuse is not a virtue.
You could try googling authoritarianism. Also patriarchy.
@ js:
Piper is on record saying wives should take abuse ‘for a season’. There is plenty of data from recent history. Some it may get deleted now that CBMW is in image rehab.
js wrote:
Because CBMW claims to be strongly anti- domestic violence (as was explained in the original post), which they really are not-
As CBMW’s views about women (i.e., gender complementarianism = codependency) actually can cause women to end up with abusive men, and to blame themselves for the abuse, and to stay with the abuser, rather, than, say, divorce the guy. I explained all this in another post on this thread.
Piper teaches the “permanence view” of marriage, and has said a woman should endure being hit “for a season.”
It’s not hard for me to see why Piper, CBMW, etc, are being connected to domestic violence against women, since their very teachings help to perpetuate it.
@ js:
I think we got stuck on Owens definition of “surging”. :o)
Adam Borsay wrote:
Do you really think the “oneness” Paul speaks of is the uniting of two physicalbody parts??? Goodness! Even child molesters and rapists have this kind of “oneness.” And let’s not talk about David, Solomon, Samson, Isaac, Abraham, etc.
And if it’s a “spiritual” component of marriage, then that begs the question why Paul said marriage is a safety net for those who have no self-control, however he wishes they would remain single like he was.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Your approach is not going out work for most abusive marriages, however.
Please read works such as “Why Does He Do That” by Lundy Bancroft to learn more and understand why.
In abusive marriages, what has to be done most of the time is for the woman to divorce the husband and physically move to another home or city.
Abuse in a marriage is about abuse and the abuser’s entitled mentality, and his lust for control – it is not an equal split problem, where the victim (the wife) is equally capable of restoring the marriage
Abusers don’t seek 50-50 solutions, mutuality, or compromise, not in marriages and in many other relationships in life: they want ALL the power and control and NONE of the responsibility.
You simply cannot pray that sort of person to change, or be extra loving and nicey nice and expect him/her to change.
@ Adam Borsay:
” But sex is representative of something spiritual…, sex is representative of that spiritual mystery.”
++++++++++++++++
bjjjjj…overspiritualization has been reached…bjjjjjj……roger that….bjjjjjjjjjjj
Adam Borsay wrote:
Please don’t go too far with this view or analogy. It’s not necessary to have sex to know God or to be a good Christian.
I’ve seen Christians who actually have taught, yes, it’s necessary to be sexually active to really know God.
I’m over 40, a virgin, never married, so I guess I can never know God, if this weird theory is true. Jesus was celibate, so I guess he could not truly know God or experience the mysteries of God.
The topic of Christians who think that having sex is necessary to know God is discussed at the following blog (and in some Christian books about celibacy):
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2015/09/tim-keller-sex-and-eternal-submission.html
@ Elizabeth Lee:
I am so, so sorry. I am glad you got out and have been healing.
I went through one similar thing as you: I too didn’t realize what was happening to me with my sister was abuse.
I had described my sister’s behavior so several internet friends a few years ago, and they all told me it was bullying and emotional abuse, but I didn’t realize it until a year or two ago.
I was in denial for a long while, and I was trying to rationalize her recurrent, profanity-laced screaming, insults, etc, at me as just her being under stress.
You can be abused by a person and not even realize that what the person is doing to you IS abuse, not until later.
Since many people only equate abuse to physical issues (such as black eyes, bloody noses, or broken bones), you can endure verbal put downs, insults, and mind games for years (which chips away at your self worth, can cause or worsen depression, etc), and not realize those things are a form of abuse too.
Patrice wrote:
I may be obtuse but I am not trying to be. If as the article a few days ago said, cbmw is a small non-surging movement limited to a small number of people mostly in the reformed orbit, how can it have so much influence that it should be associated with almost any report of abuse or neglect that comes down the line here?
If we want to go to authoritarianism and patriarchy, I would say those are definitely not Christan constructs and we make a mistake to lay the responsibility for abuse of authority almost exclusively at the door of the church. And most Christians who hold a comp view wold not own either term. But many insist to believe comp must lead to both because comp will lead to abuse. Just don’t see it in my own experience and while I can’t see every aspect of any marriage the ones I’ve seen have seemed strong and happy. I hate to see the many decent people I know labeled as abusers.
Adam Borsay wrote:
That’s not what Jesus was teaching, however.
You want to strongly consider reading this page:
Marital Abuse
http://www.bethinking.org/bible/bible-scandals/5-marital-abuse
@ Lydia:
Some of what Adam B is saying in this thread reminds me of older ones, where people from TVC church and some other one kept screaming at everyone here that we don’t really believe in grace, forgiveness, or that Jesus can change people because we were simply saying that…
– a person should not be expected to stay married to a pedo
– safeguards should be put in place in churches so that a known pedo cannot harm anymore children (eg, maybe restrict the pedo’s access to the church building, never leave him unattended).
It’s the same concept. If we argue for safeguards for abused spouses, or justice for them, this is seen as somehow denying grace or mercy to the abuser. Way too much concern shown for abusers here for my comfort.
God can heal an abuser all day long, I suppose, but in the meantime, I don’t want to hang out with the abuser or be married to him.
Adam Borsay wrote:
He also said that lusting is adultery. So…if a husband admits lusting after a woman or watching porn, the wife has grounds for divorce. Right?
Lydia wrote:
The data i am looking for is not whether comps have said stupid things. Why we hang on anybody’s word as though it is inspired is beyond me. The data I am talking about is evidence that comp belief encourages abuse. Until there is a definitive study that establishes this I am loathe to discount my anecdotal evidence in favor of yours.
@ Daisy:
To Lydia: And P.S.
Tied in with this, you have Christians who confuse earthly justice and holding sinners accountable with the broad concept of,
“But Jesus forgave ME for MY sins, we are all sinners, so isn’t it mean to hold wife abusers accountable, or say divorce is okay for abuse?”
I think those are apple and oranges issues.
That Jesus died for my sins does not mean my sins are just as bad as someone else’s.
That is, yes, Jesus died for my sins, but guess what? I don’t go around molesting kids, and if I were married, I would not punch a husband of mine in the face.
Down here on earth, in the mean time, I think people have to deal with reality: protect the people who ARE being molested or being punched by sinners.
Rather than sit around twisting your hands in empathy for them or worry how the Gospel is being perceived, ie, “Oh, boo hoo, aren’t we sending a message that Jesus doesn’t love abusers.”
I think the concern and worry is misplaced and is confusing categories of topics, but I’m not sure how to articulate that.
@ elastigirl:
I was with you until the word “cucumbers”.
Adam Borsay wrote:
We cannot answer the “why not.” Only Paul knows why he didn’t address abuse. We would only be speculating. We must then leave a believer (in an abusive marriage) to their own conscience in regards to the matter of divorcing or not.
BTW – Corrie T. did not have a one flesh union with her captors and was not expected to continue a sexual relationship with them after she forgave them. A big difference.
Adam Borsay wrote:
And often, one of the only ways to make that very thing come about is divorce, and the victim physically keeping her (or his) distance from the abuser forever, but this is a solution most Christians never allow.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Jesus was not teaching that adultery is the “sole grounds for divorce.”
http://www.bethinking.org/bible/bible-scandals/5-marital-abuse
Victorious wrote:
Jacob sired 12 sons with 4 different women.
David ….. Bathsheeba ……. Adultery……… Pre-meditated murder.
Yep. There’s some kinda “oneness”!
js wrote:
Is there forensic evidence that socialist policies lead to entitlement mentality? What you are really saying is you want forensic evidence. People have been debating this for decades.
Some realize that there are certain people who are attracted to certain policies/teaching for the wrong reasons. That is not all people of course. But it is wise to discuss whether the teaching affirms or excuses such behaviors.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Years ago, a friend of mine was married to a controlling man who was verbally and physically abusive. A divorce was not necessary ~ my friend committed suicide.
Lydia wrote:
Oh goodness, yes, many preachers are the biggest enablers of domestic violence and other, similar problems for women in relationships.
I have a book by a doctor who talks about her clients. She mentioned one who the husband kept putting them into debt. The husband would take the wife’s paychecks and gamble them away.
She finally kicked the guy out of the house after ten or whatever years of this.
The husband came crawling back to her, said he was a respectable church-goer now.
The preacher from that church later met with the wife and reassured her the husband was a new man. The preacher convinced the wife to forgive the husband and take him back. So she did.
After months, the husband slid back into his old habits, he was taking her money, gambling. She got fed up, dumped him, started dating again, and got herself a new guy who treats her very well.
Note, though, how the preacher snared the wife back into hanging on to the husband for many more months. She could have moved on and been rid of the husband much sooner if not for the preacher interfering.
Adam Borsay wrote:
You have misunderstood. Jesus was not teaching that sexual sin was the only grounds for divorce. That is a mis-reading of the text.
js wrote:
I agree, it’s terrible that CBMW, Owen Strachan, and others who subscribe to these views or similar, tell married women that they must do as their husbands say and should not be surprised if they get beaten for it.
Go to the OP, and you can see a complementarian who told a woman to be “happy” that her husband gave her black eyes.
See John Piper who thinks women should endure being hit for a season or a night, or however he put it.
@ js:
“On the one hand, you say comp is not surging. It is a narrow gate of white male reformed privilege. On the other hand, comp teaching is a powerful enough force to get associated with the whole abuse dynamic in the nation. Even I didn’t realize Owen was so powerful.”
++++++++++++++
an off-the-cuff reply to say that keeping women disempowered (by limiting their scope) is simply agreeing with the base aspects of human nature since time immemoriam.
Enforcing the status quo of power and control ultimately in the hands of the man is what is powerful & dangerous. When Owen or whoever embroiders that with “the complementarian church is the more pro-woman outfit there is”, it is automatically relevant to this discussion.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I lost you at cucumbers? really? too many crust-cut-off sandwiches?
js wrote:
I think gender complementarianism (and/or CBMW) may be on the wane, but it’s still influential. Beliefs from gender comp still pop up in a lot of Christian TV shows, blogs, and books, whatever the denomination may be.
Joyce Meyer, the TV preacher, who is some kind of Charismatic, word of faith type person, believes in male headship (as it is taught by CMBW types). She has a daily TV show on Christian networks, and I’ve heard her spouse the same/similar views on marriage and gender roles as one can see from CBMW.
I wouldn’t say CBMW is limited to only reformed type churches.
Gender complementarianism has been pretty wide spread among SB (Southern Baptist) churches in general, not just in Reformed ones.
IFB Churches also buy into gender comp, though they may not use the term gender comp, they may call it “male headship,” or “wifely submission,” or something else.
js wrote:
They are inadvertently supporting and perpetuating domestic abuse. Gender complementarianism, even the gentler form of it, is codependency for women taught as virtue.
Codependency is one issue that can cause women to date or to attract abusive men and to stay in abusive marriages much longer than the otherwise would.
Under gender complementarianism, Christians are actually teaching as virtue to women, qualities that can cause them to attract manipulators, con artists, or abusers.
Comps then slap the label “biblical womanhood” on a long list of traits that are the same as codependency, and tell Christian women this is God’s design for them.
It’s like the gender complementarians are calling Good Evil and Evil Good. The Bible warns against that.
They are also attributing to God something God did not do or advocate (it’s harming women), which is taking God’s name in vain.
I do believe some gender comps are sincerely ignorant to how damaging gender comp is.
They really think they are helping marriages or culture by teaching this stuff, but they are blind to how sexist and hurtful it really is.
For more on a similar situation, please google for the secular equivalent of that, the phrase “benevolent sexism”
Daisy wrote:
I am thinking that Joyce does not want to lose that segment of her following.
js wrote:
U.S. secular society also encourages girls and women to behave in a similar fashion that gender comps teach women they ought to behave.
Women in secular US culture get punished and discouraged from being assertive and having boundaries, which leaves them more vulnerable to being mugged, sexually assaulted, or getting married to abusers.
To see more explanations of this, please see the books…
Why Does He Do That, by Lundy Bancroft
The Gift Of Fear by Gavin DeBecker
I do think men who are already prone to abuse love gender comp teaching and churches, because the teaching gives them ‘cover’ to more easily get away with abusing women.
After all, in a gender comp church, the GC preacher is typically going to tell any abused wife to just return to the husband and pray for him, don’t leave the husband. -That is exactly what abusive men are counting on.
Gender comp encourages women to overlook or repress “red warning flags” they see in a man, so they will walk into a marriage with an abusive guy.
(Though in some cases, some men hide their abusive side UNTIL they get married, so there may not always be a warning flag.)
js wrote:
Oh please. No one is saying that comp teaching is responsible for the ‘whole abuse dynamic in the nation’. Try not to be absurd.
dee wrote:
And it also casts the Almighty as little more than a cosmic magistrate who is bound solely to a goto source book (the Bible). No appeals, no recourse, no exceptions.
@ Nancy2:
I am so sorry for the loss of your friend.
@ Daisy:
Bruce Ware teaches that “unsubmissive wives trigger abuse”. He even proclaims that women are made in the ‘indirect” image of God. They are a “Derivative”.
This stuff is everywhere in that world if one opens their eyes.
js wrote:
Yeah, Owen isn’t the font of abuse/neglect 🙂 But these guys are part of a larger difficulty and since they are embedded in a corner of the church that many here inhabit, they will be mentioned when the larger difficulty appears elsewhere.
Yes, authoritarianism/patriarchy isn’t the sole construct of Christianity but it is also there, and has been for a long time. And js, of all places, it should NOT be in Christianity. Cf our Christ. “Do not do as the gentiles do, lording over each other.…” Yet, ‘power-over’ is dearly held in the loudest sections of current US Christianity.
I am aware that some comps say they aren’t patriarchal or authoritarian, but their assertions contradict their definitions.
Given that we believe all humans are inclined to sin, common sense tells us that there will be more abuse when we give one half of humanity authority over the other half, for no reason except a theory from scripture.
After all, men don’t have authority because the other half is less intelligent, less gifted, or what-have-you, right? God’s gifts/talents seem fairly evenly spread across the sexes. So why would He give talents to some people but then tell them they must bury them in the ground? I never get an answer to that, only the same appeal to a theory from scripture. A theory I find narrow and flimsy.
Yes, some comps are completely contented, as you say. I know two couples who are. Their personalities/talents fit the parameters very nicely. But they’d be as happy under mutuality, and there would be more besides them happy. People like me, for eg. I don’t fit the comp parameters and I nearly wrecked myself trying. Why should that be?
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
I have been known to call a spousal affair a “get out of jail free” card. It is really sad when an abused spouse can’t get out of their living hell with church approval without that card. But the church has made it that way.
Adam Borsay wrote:
If scripture is sufficient, then why the Holy Spirit? That is as God-breathed as it can be, and that is in us humans, not in a book.
Scripture is useful for instruction, etc, but it isn’t God Himself. ‘The Word’ is, in fact, Jesus, who is also a person.
It is all embodied, Adam. Sex, marriage, the Holy Spirit, the Christ—all of it.
@ elastigirl:
this!
@ dee:
Not by itself, but she says the abuse has “worsened during his imprisonment.” How is that even possible? What exactly is she saying he did?
Now if she wants a divorce, for whatever reason, that’s her call–I don’t share the religious belief that she needs the permission of some sort of religious professional, as is apparently taught in certain circles. If abuse is claimed in the course of the divorce proceedings, then it will be up to the judge to sort that out, and I wish him or her luck with that.
@ elastigirl:
I am laughing, but also agreeing…
@ Daisy:
Thank you, Daisy. That woman and I grew up together. We were friends from before we could remember up until she committed suicide when we were in our early 30’s. In her marriage, everyone knew they got off to a bad start. But, then they started sugar-coating everything with the “we’re doing better now”, and “oh, it really wasn’t that bad”. None of us knew how bad it really was until her husband found her body.
I also grew up in a home where my dad abused my mom. My mom was very “submissive”, but she was blamed for everything that went wrong, as well as everything that didn’t go quite right. Things really got bad after I married and moved out. She filed for divorce after 27 years of bloody noses, black eyes, bruises, broken eye-glasses, broken dishes, broken windows, and broken furniture. She finally left and filed for divorce following a shattered car windshield and threats on her life. (And, yeah we went to church.)
My dad never abused my brother or me. My dad tried it once on each of us, but we didn’t play the way he expected. (We kinda have a little of our dad’s mean streak in our DNA, so I think he knew better than to really push us.)
So, I’m in pretty deep against this “male headship” nonsense! If the people who proclaim how great and Godly “male headship” had to see their mothers bloody and bruised and had to place flowers on a friend’s grave, they might have some second thoughts.
@ elastigirl:
I don’t like them, either, although I love kosher dill pickles.
elastigirl wrote:
Wasn’t Torah and Gospels given to TRANSCEND THE ANIMAL?
Patrice wrote:
Your other comments have touched me tonight and this one sums them up. There is an attempt in so much of Christendom to separate people from themselves. Sounds dumb on the face of it, but it is the dualism you mentioned earlier.
Where is the Holy Spirit in that construct?
Daisy wrote:
Just like successful serial killers, pedophiles, and sociopaths in general, successful abusers are masters at camouflaging what they are. We only hear about the ones dumb enough to get caught.
“For Satan himself can transform himself to appear as an Angel of Light.”
@ Nancy2:
I hate to hear all that. Children should not have to grow up with that, and your poor mom. The thing about your friend is so tragic. I don’t know what to say except that you seem to have grown up smart and tough and compassionate, and that is such a good thing.
elastigirl wrote:
No, I eat the crust. But not with cucumber.
It is my belief that, before sin entered the world, midges were herbivorous and cucumbers actually tasted of something.
Muff Potter wrote:
Even worse, it allows stupid men to enforce stupid rules that were unintended by God. There is no possible way that God allows for a woman to divorce(and remarry) whose husband who has a one night stand one time but will not allow a woman to divorce (and then remarry) whose husband who is hell bent on killing her.
@ numo:
you’re kidding. i mean, lima beans i could understand. but cucumbers…. one of my favorite flavor/textures. not necessarily by itself, but with other flavors/texures. like hummus, bleu cheese dip,…. grainycracker/stinkycheese/cucumber/pepperjellly/chopped pistachios/basil leaf, down the hatch with a sip of fine wine or champagne.
Gram3 wrote:
Boom!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
But….I love fresh cucumbers.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Wait-I got it figured out. It is your taste buds which are affected by sin.
Zla’od wrote:
It is apparent that you do not believe words and threats can constitute abuse. Therefore, anything I say will not be of use to you.
Please read A Cry for Justice. http://www.amazon.com/Cry-Justice-Anna-Wood-ebook/dp/B00CF12XN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448147776&sr=8-1&keywords=a+cry+for+justice
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have a kid who practically lives on cucumber sandwiches. I cannot figure it out.
@ Adam Borsay:
All hail the covenant over the human….. I will never accept God approves of that notion.
js wrote:
So, then, you are willing to take the word of Owen Strachan and your limited experience to claim that comp marriages prevent or deal with abuse better than noncom marriages?
elastigirl wrote:
And I thought marriage was the representative not the sex (silly me). Sex is a part of marriage, but it is not the marriage.
js wrote:
This post was partially based on the limited observations of Strachan and his view of the comp crowd which is by far not the most influential crowd on the planet. However, since they are producing lots of whippersnappers who go into churches to proclaim the new gospel™ of complementarianism, it is vital that our readers be aware of what is happening.
This blog is about Christian trends not the nation as a whole.
@ Mae:
There is a reason that I have some trouble with covenant theology. One of these days I will write about it when I am prepared handle the outrage of the doctrinal police.
People, people. As far as divorce being a sin or not, we are not under law, we are under grace. The law was our tutor to reveal our need for Christ. We cannot make law work. Christ’s words about marriage/divorce reveal our sin and our need for a Savior. Why, once we know him, would anyone want to go back and follow rules for the sake of rules? And remember that, even under Moses’ law, divorce was allowed! Are we now under a stricter law than Moses’? No, we are under grace. We have the freedom to follow our personal convictions. It is no one else’s place to judge whether another person should have to remain in a marriage or not.
Gram3 wrote:
And somebody (Ryrie??) proposed that porneia only meant a marriage to somebody which one was forbidden to marry because they were within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, which would have made the marriage null/illegal to start with anyhow. Thus leading to the conclusion that there is absolutely no divorce ever for any reason.
js wrote:
This blog is not the nice, whitewashed church that says everything so very nicely and never allows for freedom of expression since it will cause “disunity.” One reason this blog exists is so the church can see what those outside the sanctified halls think about what they see.
Let me make a suggestion. Instead of fussing about what HUG said, why don’t you think why he might have said it? I do that a lot. I let people call the Deebs all sorts of names because I want to hear what they really think about us.
If Adam B. is still reading here:
Other than “Why Does He Do That” by Lundy Bancroft and “The Gift of Fear” by G. DeBecker, I’d encourage you to read the book “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” by Patricia Evans.
(Pastor Jeff Crippen’s book on domestic abuse, “Unholy Charade: Unmasking the Domestic Abuser in the Church,” may also clarify for you how domestic abusers operate. I’ve only read summaries of that book.)
I think Jesus and Paul taught approaching sinners in different ways, differing on how repentant the sinners were. If a sinner was contrite about their misbehavior, Jesus/Paul said to restore them, and be all lovey nice to them about it.
If not, they taught, go hard on them and kick them out of fellowship. The Bible does not say everyone who does wrong should get the ‘kid glove’ treatment.
If you read books such as “The Verbally Abusive Relationship,” they explain that abusive people do not think in the same terms most of us do.
The author of that book, Evans, says people fall into groups, which she terms R1 (“Reality 1”) and R2 (“Reality 2.”) Abusers are in R1. Non-abusers are R2.
How abusers think was so foreign to me, I had to re-read this book, and the others, to even begin to make sense of what the books are saying, to understand the mindset of abusers.
I am an R2 type. This means that I tend to seek mutuality in a relationship.
Which doesn’t mean I never get grumpy with people, but I do not have a consistent pattern of wanting to control others, or using and mistreating them selfishly, to get my own needs met.
R1 types (abusers) have totally different ways of viewing relationships, dating, marriage, etc.
They are entitled, self absorbed, and view other people only as a means to get their own needs met. If R1-ers have to use put downs, insults, threats, or actual physical violence against a spouse or their other victims to do this, they will go that route.
R1 people don’t care about meeting their spouse’s needs, and some may not even consider that their spouse even has their own needs. They use physical and / or financial, verbal, and emotional abuse to control their partner and get their way.
They are not interested in getting along, compromising, or seeking solutions to disagreements that can benefit both parties.
They view fights, disagreements, and tiffs in “win – lose” terms. They have to always be the winner, which means their spouse (or whomever their victim is) has to always be the loser.
They don’t believe in seeking a way for both people in a squabble to win or benefit.
With people living in a R1 reality (abusers), appeals to their sense of fairness, spirituality, or what Jesus said about love and service to others, will not work on them because they do not care.
Pleas to R1-ers to be compassionate to their spouse and so on will fail.
This concept is in the Bible, too. Even God says in the Bible he will not always strive with people who resist/ reject him.
Jesus told the disciples not to toss their pearls before swine, and to shake your dust off your feet and walk away from those who reject you / Gospel message.
God had to break some stubborn sinners in the Bible by being harsh with them, like causing the one king in the Old Testament to go nuts and eat grass like a cow for a month or two.
Being nice to some people, trying to set a good example for them, making appeals to them to be nicey nice to their victims because Jesus says so, gently trying to restore them, just will not work.
For those people, God says turn them over to Satan, or walk away from them, give them the boot out of the church. God does not say to continually live with the person and put up with their nonsense indefinitely.
elastigirl wrote:
I say bring on the cucumbers!
Lydia wrote:
There is a sub shop here that makes great veggie subs which are mostly lettuce, cucumber, tomatoes and cheese. Lots of cucumbers. I like to add some slivers of red onion. It is sooo delicious.
BC wrote:
Thank you BC. I ran in similar circles to you as a public health nurse. That is why I get so gosh darn mad when people discuss issues of pain and suffering like we are in a lab.
John Piper is one who likes to thank God for suffering/tragedy and thinks we all should do so as well. But, Piper has not spent weeks on pediatric oncology floors, listening to little kids cry out in fear and pain. he doesn’t consider little Jessica Lunsford who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive and then died.
I have seen women beaten to a pulp and cannot imagine anyone saying she shouldn’t be divorced from that man since he didn’t commit “adultery.” This is just ridiculous and it casts God as a monster which I know he is not.
Thank you for your comment. It is right on the money!
One comment not approved.
js wrote:
These were ancient constructs based on the simple fact that men are physically more powerful than women. Why the Christian church should perpetuate it I do not know.
@ Nancy2:
I’m sorry for the abuse of your mother you witnessed, Nancy. That’s so frightening for children.
@ elastigirl:
i like it in other things, to a degree, but never by itself.
i like lima beans, actually.
Bridget wrote:
Me too! Yummy.
Patrice wrote:
Or some complementarian churches make the parameters so narrow for women, they might as well be doing this.
You have a lot of complementarian churches who permit women to serve only in very limited, stereotypical roles, such as babysitting babies in the church nursery, or baking muffins in the church kitchenette.
What happens if you are a woman who is not gifted, skilled, nor interested in kitchen work or children related stuff in such churches? You’re out of luck. Whatever talents you do have won’t be put to use.
@ okrapod:
My kid would love that!Daisy wrote:
That one has always fascinated me. Do people think it is addressed only in the context of the Good News and if yes, then how would that play out with an unrepentent abusive spouse.
Your comment was great, BTW. In fact, “Christian” abusers tend to like it when the church manages the relationship problems. As one comp mega church pastor told a woman who had to be hospitalized over abuse: you have to take 50% of the blame.
Yep, he really told her that!
Lydia wrote:
Oh, good. Hard to write clearly in comments. I am hit/miss.
ITSM that dualism is a human problem, not particular to Christianity. It IS silly, but I think we all get caught a little. Physicality is messy, frail, temporary, confusing. If we can “rise above” it, perhaps we can conquer it, or at least manage it. Some Christians think they can do that by becoming purity warriors.
I learned an important thing from a few agnostics/atheists: these physical selves, these small lives, are precious and to be cherished. And then I was astonished to find that right there in the fragile lovely mess, there is also the Holy Spirit. He too cherishes our small embodied selves; so much so, that he chooses to live within us, each. We aren’t subjected by our frailty but are privileged with it.
I think the Holy Spirit is one of the most beautiful aspects of our faith.
dee wrote:
There’s a bunch of us on here that’ll have your back, Dee!
Zla’od wrote:
Maybe his verbal abuse over the phone/ video chats has gotten worse? That happened with my sister.
She’s always been a screaming hot head with me, but after our mother died years ago, it increased – over phone calls and e-mails to me. She also began harassing me on social media where we are followers or friends of each other.
My sister became more nasty, her insults became more barbed and vile and came more frequently than they had in the past.
Maybe that’s what the wife meant about her husband’s abuse getting worse since he’s been in jail?
My wife and I have led divorce recovery groups in two different churches over ten years. We hear a lot of stories. My conclusion is that many “complementarian churches are not safe places, especially for those in struggling marriages.
At the church where we first started our recovery groups, a friend at the first was in a very rocky marriage, with violent arguments, police visits and out of control children. He moved into a trailer on the property to avoid conflict while they tried to sort it out with pastoral counseling. The pastors gave them an ultimatum to either move back under the same roof or be banished from the church. He asked me what to do and I said I would give you both the same advice, do not cohabitate until the safety of everyone can be reasonably assured. You are both very close to going to jail.
His refusal to submit to their “pastoral authority” got them banned from church and the congregation was instructed not to “fellowship” with them. It all went downhill from there with a divorce, an unfortunate short rebound marriage that was endorsed by a new church (part of the CBMW) another divorce and a lot of problems with the kids.
My wife and I left that first church in part because of this incident and the knowledge that we could never, ever refer people in our divorce recovery groups to our own pastors for counsel. We found a great church in town that is very supportive of our ministry and has women in leadership in every program.
okrapod wrote:
Y’all can have the cucumbers. Gimme some of that cheese melted on some fried baloney and throw a couple slices of tomato on my sandwich! Oh, I want my baloney a little crispy!
Victorious wrote:
OK, it’s Saturday night, I’ll play. Take half a pita, heat it up a bit, smear it with hummus, fill it with lettuce, tomato, and cucumbers, and drizzle some yogurt in there. To me that’s just about the perfect Summer meal.
Lima beans, well, they sort of trigger my gag reflex. Aren’t food preferences funny!?
@ Nancy2:
I’m sorry for what you and your sibling and mother went through with your father!
I’m also sorry again for your friend. Did her husband express any remorse at all for how he treated her prior, or that his treatment pushed her into that?
I think a lot of the warm and fuzzy gender complementarians types are very blinded to how and why gender comp can lead to abuse or provide a cover for it, or it can create other problems for girls and women.
I’ve explained the negative consequences of gender complementarianism (even this “nice” type that has good intentions) until I’m blue in the face to one gender comp guy who frequents this blog, but it seems lost on him.
Or, that doesn’t matter to him so much as being loyal to a very wooden mis-interpretation of the Bible and/or trying to “fix” society’s ills by cramming women into a little gender comp box.
@ okrapod:
@ Victorious:
Thanks.
At least my brother and I learned how not to live instead of repeating the behavior we saw.
@ Nancy2:
Sounds great. Did you ever eat a spam-burger? In this order: slice of bread, slice of spam, slice of tomato, slice of onion and slice of cheese. Then place under the broiler for just a bit.
Daisy wrote:
Thank you, Daisy.
Remorse??? Never. The husband moved to another county and shaked up with my friend’s younger sister 2 or 3 months after the suicide. ….. Makes me wonder.
My dad, however is another story. He and my mom get along fairly well, now. My shy, introverted mom has the guts to stand up for herself now, too! Crazy world.
Nancy2 wrote:
That is wonderful!
okrapod wrote:
Yep!!! Toasted bun!!! Mmmmmm, num,num.
@ okrapod:
Well, I guess you could just use middle rack of the oven, but the broiler thing adds a bit of adventure what with trying to see that it doesn’t self destruct from the heat.
okrapod wrote:
For an authentic Hawaiian spam-burger (and those folks know their spam), you need a thin slice of pineapple. Just sayin’.
roebuck wrote:
That sounds great. I can’t believe I missed that.
@ Lydia:
You’re very kind! If only it were more common in Reformed Baptist circles…
roebuck wrote:
LOL! For sure. I grew up watching my dad eat salted radishes with a glass of ice-cold milk. That became one of my favorites for years as well.
Lydia wrote:
I’m glad you liked my comment.
I apologize to everyone that it was rather long, but I have a hard time being concise.
I felt it necessary to write it because I suspect that some folks, such as Adam B, honestly do not grasp how abusive people think. I think he means well but just doesn’t understand the dynamics in abusive relationships.
You cannot employ the same tactics on abusers as you do non-abusers, and have success.
The preacher you mention who said the lady was 50% responsible also is ignorant of how abuse or bullying operates.
What the victim does or (does not do) plays no role in the abuse. What the victim does (or does not do) does not motivate the abuser.
Abusers are motivated by 1. wanting absolute control over other people (especially their victim), 2. they are entitled, and they are 3. self absorbed, and they 4. abuse because they choose to abuse.
Nothing in particular has to “set them off” for the abuser to be cruel to a spouse. That is just how they operate on a daily basis, how they handle relationships with their victim. They use the abuse to get their way, so it doesn’t matter what they say “caused” them to abuse.
BTW, the thing that causes an abuser to abuse is their choice. They choose to use abuse to get their way with a victim.
I remember in my own case (with my verbally abusive sister) I was visiting her at her house a few years ago, and on two different occasions, days apart, the same scenario happened:
I was quietly reading a book in her den when she came into the room and began shouting at me out of the blue. I had said and done nothing to her to provoke her.
She was just screaming and yelling very hateful, hurtful put-downs at me. I had said literally nothing to her before these incidents began, and I remained quiet during the first tirade (I gave her mild push back during the second one).
I was just reading a book, quietly, while sitting on her sofa, minding my own business when she went into a rage.
Nancy2 wrote:
I guess I’m not surprised by that, but I was hoping he did have remorse.
Good for your mother for coming out of her shell and becoming assertive!
Daisy wrote:
I think you’re right about this, Daisy, but you’d be hard-pressed to find agreement by some people. It’s actually the abuser’s choice as you mentioned above. It’s a power and control issue for the abuser.
okrapod wrote:
Try it, you’ll like it! 🙂
js wrote:
Here is one of many sources of (non-anecdotal) research and data. The link below is to a 19-page abstract from research on marital systems and spousal abuse from David H. Olson and Shuji G. Asai of the University of Minnesota, from a sample of over 20,000 couples in 2003. One finding: Only 5% of marriages with significant compatibility and shared responsibility experience abuse, compared to 21% of hierarchical marriages–over 4 times more.
https://www.prepare-enrich.com/pe/pdf/research/abuse.pdf
Here’s an abstract excerpt which cites other data: “Sharing egalitarian gender roles appears to be of great significance as it has been found to be associated with a couple’s greater sense of marital satisfaction, and with higher relational qualities (Olson & Olson, 2000).On the other hand, research on spouse abuse continues to find the association between family violence and unequal decision-making power (Arias & Pape, 1999). The levels of violence against wives are significantly higher among husband-dominating patriarchal couples than among egalitarian couples (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980).”
Victorious wrote:
I know, oh boy do I know.
I told my own brother about the rage fueled outbursts I got from my sister that I mentioned in my post above, and he (due to 12 step program / AA conditioning he received) asked me to consider “what role did you play in that episode.”
Absolutely none. I didn’t do anything to instigate our sister’s verbal abuse. She chooses to handle her anger and frustration in life by taking it out on me (and her other victim of that time,her now ex-boyfriend).
So, yes, there are some programs -like AA or Nouthetic counseling – that just assumes if you were yelled at or beaten, you SURELY must have done SOMETHING to “ask for it,” deserve it, or to trigger the abuser.
A few years ago, I read about a domestic violence expert who gave a lecture to a church. He explained all the dynamics of abuse I just did above.
In spite of making it clear to the audience that abusers abuse because they want control and are entitled, that the victim did nothing to deserve and provoke it-
When he took audience questions at the end of his lecture, the questions revealed the church members still had a “blame the victim, she must have provoked the abuser at least partially” mind set.
They asked the expert stuff like, “But what if the wife burned the husband’s toast that morning? Isn’t he the least justified to hit her? Maybe if she stops burning the toast, he will stop the abuse?”
“But what if the wife has refused to have sex with her spouse for X weeks, surely that is a justification or reason for a man to strike his wife?” -etc. They asked him questions like that.
@ Bridget:
Bridget UNITED STATES on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 06:20 PM said:
elastigirl wrote:
” But sex is representative of something spiritual…, sex is representative of that spiritual mystery.”
bridget wrote: “And I thought marriage was the representative not the sex (silly me). Sex is a part of marriage, but it is not the marriage.”
++++++++++++
for the record, posterity, and gumballs’ sake elastigirl did NOT write this part, but something even sillier.
@ Deb Willi:
This may have some of the information JS was asking for:
A Deadly Formula for Violence By Barrington H. Brennen, 2005
http://www.soencouragement.org/deadlyformula.htm
Snippet:
“When rigid traditional family values are combined with rigid traditional religious beliefs [and the page includes the concept of “male headship” as taught by some Christians], there is always abuse.”
—–
I may have another link or two with similar information, if I can find them.
@ Bridget:
….cucumbers!
++++++++++
we’ll just have to add a letter c to the myers briggs thing.
js wrote:
The following page does not have stats, but does a decent job of explaining how it is gender comp perpetuates domestic violence.
You have a lot of Christian women on various blogs giving absolutely sad testimonies of how gender complementarianism led to their abuse or played a role in their abuse and made it worse (their husbands were comps), and how their churches, due to being comp, refused to help them.
I only agree with the following author on the domestic violence topic; I don’t share his views on other subjects he raises on the page or his blog:
“Bible believing” pastors and the enabling of domestic violence
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2015/04/bible-believing-pastors-and-the-enabling-of-domestic-violence/
@ js:
Another resource:
Headship and Abuse by John Turner, and guest writer Kristin du Mez
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/04/headship-and-abuse/
It begins:
“If conservative churches preach the dominance of men, and submission of women, does this add weight to those who think men have a right—even a divine right—to control their partners?
…Baird posed this question in response to the growing public awareness of the problem of domestic abuse in Australian society, a discussion which—until then— had largely ignored the role of religion.”
Daisy wrote:
Amazing! I’m remembering something we talked about in SA training sessions that might be the same in the “blame the victim” rationale. If the victim wore short-short skirts and got raped, we might assure ourselves that we would never get raped because we don’t wear short-short skirts. And if she wear large dangling earrings and a low-cut blouse, we wouldn’t get raped because we would never wear that type of apparel.
If the wife got abused for burning the toast, we feel safe from that consequence because we are always careful in our meal preparation. It’s like the Stockholm Syndrome where one aligns themselves with the captor to stay safe.
Just thinking this might be the rationale in these types of situations.
@ roebuck:
“Take half a pita, heat it up a bit, smear it with hummus, fill it with lettuce, tomato, and cucumbers, and drizzle some yogurt in there. To me that’s just about the perfect Summer meal.”
+++++++++++++++++++
any lamb? lemon?
funny food preferences: pretzels and milk
js wrote:
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In secular society, we want to see transparency, accountability, and neutral oversight of those who wield power (law enforcement, government, etc). Without it, you *will* have corruption.
If one person wields power over the other in a marriage, where is the accountability and neutral oversight to keep that person from committing abuse? These churches are putting up a pretense of being that oversight. This may fool the unwary, but in reality they are not transparent or neutral themselves. They have a stake in keeping things looking good from the outside.
Sure, there will be some men who don’t abuse their power, but even then is it good for them? is it necessary?
It’s a dangerous and unnecessary position for a woman to put herself into.
siteseer wrote:
Well said!
elastigirl wrote:
Lamb is totally good (I can’t really afford it, though). Falafel is good, and I make it often. You can make a big batch – it freezes well. The yogurt bit is easily turned into a nice tzatziki sauce with some garlic and lemon and mint. It’s not really hard to make delicious food…
elastigirl wrote:
For the record . . . I know, but it is good to make it clear. I thought I copied the quote from Adam’s comment. Didn’t mean to take it from your quote of his comment. 😉
There’s also these maps showing that violence against women (abuse, rape, murder, etc.) are all generally higher in countries with stronger patriarchal views, female dress codes, etc. The countries that have had strong feminist movements (comps in general demonize or at least badmouth feminism), in general, come out pretty well here. There’s certainly multiple correlations here worth noting even if this by itself doesn’t definitely prove causation. I doubt all of them are attributable to just first world vs. third world. Not all of the bad spots are in Muslim countries either.
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2014/06/modesty-culture-part-5-faulty.html
http://womanstats.org/newmapspage.html
Victorious wrote:
Yes, this is the psychological reason cited in books about workplace bullying as to why co-workers who see a co-worker being harassed by a boss don’t defend the co-worker, and why they act like she deserved the abuse after she quits the job. People like to believe “it won’t happen to me if I follow the rules.”
People find the irrational, somewhat unpredictable nature of calamity (such as abuse) too scary to deal with so they come up with these ideas of,
“Well so- and- so must have gotten picked on at work / abused by spouse / bullied at work, because they did X, Y, and Z. I would never, ever do X, Y, and Z, therefore, I am immune from this. I’m safe so long as I don’t XYZ.”
siteseer wrote:
This reminds me.
On that ACFJ blog page I gave you all a link to above, the pastors at the radio call-in show told Erin the wife to hold her abusive husband accountable by taking him to talk to their church pastor.
Erin had already informed the radio preacher hosts that her husband refused to see a counselor. She then told them after their “talk to your preacher” suggestion that her spouse had also refused to talk to anyone at their church, including the preacher.
This left the radio pastors tossing out ineffective advice to her, such as, “Pray for your husband. Ask your girl friends to pray about your marriage. Talk to him more and find out what he wants from you over an ice cream cone at the park, and try to meet that need.”
(She had already told them she had already tried that stuff, and it did not work. And yes, the one pastor actually lamely and naively suggested she go on an “ice cream cone” date with her spouse in a park to talk things out.)
js wrote:
I do not say that “complementarian” dogma leads to abuse. I say that it is abusive *in itself* because it denies the fullness of humanity to the female half of humanity. To the extent that one person’s agency is contingent on the approval of another, the first person does not, in fact, possess full agency and, thus, is deemed as less than a full human being created in the image of God. Despite the clever rhetoric of the kind which Paul himself disdained but which the false teachers loudly proclaimed.
That is the elephant that you refuse to acknowledge. I am certainly happy that the people that you know in female subordinationist marriages are happy. That does not prove at all that female subordinationism itself is either good or consistent with either the Biblical texts or with the example of Christ himself. It is certainly not consistent with a conservative hermeneutic or with plain reason. Owen BHLH will not be ***thrilled*** with this, but he and Piper combined do not have sufficient horsepower to make the female subordinationist case persuasive to anyone who is not already persuaded. They have no evidence but lots of spiritual blackmail and fallacious reasoning and prooftexting.
3. Requiring obedience of children is possible.
To watch parents act as if they are helpless in the presence of disobedient children is pitiful. God requires that children obey because it is possible for parents to require obedience. Little children, under a year old, can be shown effectively what they may not touch, bite, pull, poke, spit out, or shriek about. You are bigger than they are. Use your size to save them for joy, not sentence them to selfishness.
Here’s a good page for Adam Borsay and js
You will notice that all the mis-steps and ineffective and harmful approaches by clergy in responding to women victims of domestic violence discussed on this page are common in gender complementarian beliefs, teachings, and assumptions about marriage and the genders – not so much in mutualist or egalitarian churches:
Clergy Response to Domestic Violence
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/clergy-responses-domestic-violence?page=show
I wasn’t done writing..
The quote above is from an article by John Piper titles “Parents, Require Obedience of Your Children”.
A FB friend linked to it recently and I read it to see if anything had changed in Mr. Piper’s view of parenting children…
A belief system which condones physical domination and intimidation (“you are bigger”) to cause a child, a little child, to comply, isn’t likely to be all that worried about whether men are doing the same thing to their non-compliant wives. After all, they could say, men are bigger than their wives…Use your size…
Hideous!
roebuck wrote:
When nationwide abuse statistics are in the original post followed by a lambasting of CBMW (guilt by association), I am not the one being absurd.
Nancy2 wrote:
If you don’t mind sharing, what enabled you to do that rather than perpetuating it?
js wrote:
Yes you are.
js wrote:
Are you denying that gender complementarian teachings / beliefs play any role what-so-ever in some abusive Christian marriages?
Are you denying that the advice commonly given by gender complementarian- based preachers(*) to abused Christian wives who seek them for assistance is ineffective, and enables and prolongs the abuse?
*(such as “submit to your husband more, and he will probably stop abusing you”)
How likely do you think it for an egalitarian or gender mutualist based preacher would be to tell an abused Christian wife who seeks him for assistance, would tell the wife something like, “Just submit to your husband more”.
Gender comps really suck rocks at helping women who are being abused by their husbands.
There are scores of their testimonies on Christian blogs and forums.
Most articles on the topic (I just linked to one above in another post) surveyed abused Christian women who said straight up that Christian clergy were the least helpful to them in their abuse. IIRC, they said secular sources were actually more helpful.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t disagree with what you say here. The comp/egal thing has been debated for decades. And there are attractions for certain people to beliefs for the wrong reasons. I disagree fundamentally with the assertion that there is a functional or real subordinationism going on in the Scriptures, even though I do believe in roles in marriage as I have laid out here before. I believe, as with most things, the application of the biblical principle can take on a thousand different shades, but I believe it is there, in Ephesians, in Colossians, in 1 Peter. The principle of leadership exists in Scripture, in marriage, in parenting, in the church, with government. Even Jesus’ words about not lording over people do not imagine a world void of leadership but a world of servant leadership. That a parent lovingly leads a child is not a sign that the parent has more worth than the child. No pastor is greater than a member in the eyes of God but the pastor still has a leadership role within the body. God-given authority should be exercised humbly and with regard for the well-being of the other. That it is not always so is no reason to dispense with it. In marriage the authority of the husband is for the wife’s flourishing or it is dysfunctional. That we have dysfunctional comp marriages is not an indictment of the roles of husband and wife but an indication of the selfishness of our culture. As to the worst of the abuses, I would put more responsibility on our violent, sexualized culture than on a small but loud segment of evangelicalism.
js wrote:
P.S. I think one reason Dee included national stats about abuse was to give a bird’s eye view of how prevalent abuse it.
Also, Owen S. of CBMW is the one who was claiming (see his Tweets at the top of this blog post) that secular society is too lax about domestic violence, but that [gender comp] churches are tough on domestic violence… which is a joke.
Gender comp churches almost always blame the abused wife, and make her responsible for the husband’s abusive behavior, instead of holding the husband accountable.
Like with gender comp teachings about modesty. Gender comp Christians will teach women men are helpless at controlling sexual impulse, so if a woman wears a short skirt, she is “causing” men to lust after her or attack her.
Same concept with domestic abuse, gender comps blame the woman for it, not the man, where it belongs (in marriages where the wife is the victim).
js wrote:
Where in the actual text of the Bible does leadership entail one class being in authority over another class without regard to gifts or abilities but *merely* because of membership in that class? Where? Not parents and children, because a man is to leave his father and mother. For the bazillionth time, female adults are not analogous to either children or slaves. Just stop it. We see through that smokescreen. Also the employer/employee one. Show me one iota of gender authority determinism in the actual text. Just one.
Gram3 wrote:
I disagree fundamentally that this is what the Bible teaches. Leadership does not assume inferiority of the other or subordination. That I have to submit in other areas of life does not mean I am less than fully human. I am even to submit for a lifetime to some things: to God, to a local church or fellow believers, to governing authorities. The wife is not submitting to the husband because he is a man, she is submitting to him because he is her husband. The wife is not submitting to the husband because she is a woman, but because she is a wife. On both sides the commitment is to be entered into with understanding and in good faith for the blessing of the other. If it turns out one-sided it is not because of the arrangement but because of the sinfulness of those involved. God’s best gifts are often the things most likely to be corrupted.
js wrote:
Who determines whether the wife is flourishing under her husband’s authority? Who determines whether the marriage is dysfunctional? What constitutes dysfunctionality, in your opinion?
js wrote:
Point 1.
If you and other gender comp (are you a male) so keen on this servant leadership stuff, and realize you are not to Lord authority over anyone, why so staunchly continue to defend and insist upon the idea of husband authority over wives? Lay down your so-called (supposed) right to be in authority over your wife.
Wanting to cling to this authority (which the Bible does not say men have, btw), is not a sign of “servant leadership” but wanting to, ironically, Lord Authority Over.
Point 2.
Grown women are not children. Assigning lower class positions/roles to people based on a trait they are born with is immoral.
A child can grow up and be an adult. A private in the Army can possibly one day earn the rank of General.
A woman, however, will always be a woman.
She can never take enough college courses, or do ‘whatever’ thing more or hard enough, to be granted the same opportunities that gender comps give to men only.
Telling women they are “equal in worth but not in role” is dishonest.
It’s no different from white Americans who used to argue on suppressing black Americans by saying, “Blacks should be separate but equal.”
Point 3.
I direct you to this page:
John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
js wrote:
Yes, it does one when entire of group of people gets carte blanche leadership over an entire group based on an unchangeable, in-born trait, such as gender or skin color.
dee wrote:
My daughter in law works as a marriage and family counselor in AZ. She’s seen everything from black eyes to a woman on a ventilator from broken rib shards puncturing a lung. The most disturbing thing she says she’s encountered though, is when fundagelical women tell her that their pastors have told them it’s ‘not Scriptural’ for them to leave their abusers.
js wrote:
It is the cultures fault if a comp marriage has inappropriate leadership? How does that happen? Selfishness is within the person not a culture. Selfishness can more easily play out in a comp marriage where one party believes others need to submit to them.
Daisy wrote:
But why bring CBMW into this OP, which was about the Abedini’s, when I can’t see any shred of evidence that comp teaching is what caused the abuse? Some random tweet establishes a link? Not unless you are looking for a link. Are we saying that only comps abuse? If not, why make the link? It is guilt by association. Now it may turn out that Saeed has everything CBMW has ever written but even then, to make these links is really unfair. This is a TWW method I call “Watching for Warts.” Link a current controversy somehow with one of the TGC, SGM, 9Marks crowd in a way that tars the latter with the controversy of the former. It is really a great way of tearing down people but it is not right.
js wrote:
Oh dear. There is no such thing as “servant leader”. I am sadly familiar with the rise of that unfortunate terminology from the mega world and the need to appear humble as the “leader”. It is now so ingrained you think it a biblical concept.
Grown Women are not children and even children get to become adults. The government of the US was never intended to “lead” its citizens but that is what is has become.
When you see the word leader in NT scripture think: One who has gone before.
If one wants to infantilize adults instead of seeing them grow in wisdom with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one buys into your views.
js wrote:
It certainly does mean exactly that if the circumstances of your birth determine whether you are the one in authority or the one under authority. Can a woman ever be in authority in a marriage? If she earns every penny of income? If her husband is totally incapacitated? If a woman can *never* be in authority in a marriage, then she is subordinated for the sole reason that she is female. Hence, female subordinationism is, in fact, the proper name for this doctrine.
If you want to say that a woman is to be submissive to her husband non-reciprocally, then she is inferior. You are saying that husbands are exempted from the one-anothering in a way that women are not. The only exegetically and logically sustainable position that is that God created men and women to mutually fulfill the creation mandate. There are no roles assigned by God *in the actual text.* Nowhere.
Gram3 wrote:
Scripture determines flourishing. Am I growing in the fruit of the Spirit, etc? Dysfunctionaliry is a continuum and the worst cases are normally the culmination of years of small surrenders to selfishness and away from love.
Gram3 wrote:
I am not saying any of that. A woman is to submit to her husband not because she is a woman but because she is a wife. She has entered into that relationship with the understanding of this role. Of course it doesn’t preclude mutual submission and the one anothers. The creation mandate is fulfilled by loving leadership and gracious submission as both look out for the good of the other and grow as one.
Lydia wrote:
My point was to say the principle of leadership exists in Scripture, not to say that all relationships are equal.
js wrote:
That is not an answer to the question that I asked. Who determines what Scripture says a flourishing marriage looks like? Oh, yes. The males who are the only ones designated by God–according to your view–to authoritatively teach and interpret such “flourishing.” As I have repeatedly asked Ken, please provide a non-circular argument from the text if you want to maintain that God has ordained what you say he has ordained.
js wrote:
Can a wife ever be in authority in her marriage or must she *always* be the subordinate one regardless of circumstance? If the husband is totally incapacitated, do you maintain as Piper does that the woman must still be subordinate to her totally incapacitated husband? What does that even mean?
If subordination is a wifely thing and not a womanly thing, can a single adult woman who is otherwise well-qualified preach from the pulpit with all the authority of a male?
js wrote:
Nobody said only comps abuse, but their theology promotes, encourages, and perpetuates abuse with some marriages, and makes it harder for abused Christian women to deal effectively with abuse (which usually comes down to divorcing the clown, and gender comp preachers almost always tell such women divorce is forbidden in cases of abuse).
You said, “Some random tweet establishes a link?”
CBMW mouthpieces claimed in their tweets that secular culture is horrible at dealing well with domestic abuse, but that the “church” (one can only assume Owen meant gender comp churches) deal with abuse seriously.
The CBMW account tweeted,
“The complementarian church is the most pro-woman outfit there is. That is why we cannot, like secular cuture be ambivalent about abuse”
Owen claimed in his tweet that abusers would be disciplined quite strongly “in the church,” which is bunk, too.
Do you know what the gender comp response to Saeed’s wife would most likely be to her abuse?
Something like, “Submit to him more, honey, be super nice to him. He is your head and servant leader, you are to submit to his orders and leading! When he gets out of jail, cook him his favorite meal, and pray that the Lord gives you the grace to tolerate the abuse.”
All of that gender comp advice, which is based on gender comp interpretations of biblical passages and assumptions about gender and marriage, is ineffective. It enables and prolongs abuse.
If you don’t like any sort of conclusions or applications being made of gender comp vis a vis Naghmeh, consider Dee’s other examples in her post, such as:
Contrary to the CBMW tweet at the top of this page, gender comps are not really “pro woman.”
CMBW and like-minded are in favor of their particular construct or definition of “woman,” which is based on their personal preferences and prejudices, which they insist are biblical (but which are not really, wholly biblical).
If, however, you are a woman who does not fit their gender comp box – you are not passive, for example, and have no interest in marrying or having children-
Gender comp churches tend to treat you as though you are in the wrong, you are not following God’s true design for your life, you must secretly be a liberal feminist, you have failed in some way.
Women who don’t fit that gender- comp- created prescription for womanhood don’t feel like they are accepted or fit in among gender comp churches, so they bail on church. Gender comps are not truly “pro woman.” They don’t really accept all women just as they are.
siteseer wrote:
Without accountability and oversight you will have corruption. Agreed. The fact that corruption happens is, in my opinion, more connected to a lack of accountability than to a relational arrangement itself. For example, because police sometimes abuse their authority, I do not believe we should jettison police fin favor of citizen’s militias. If it could be proved that the system of law enforcement we have is structurally corrupt, then a jettisoning would be appropriate. Even though many in our country are aware of the abuses that police have carried out, very few are ready to do away with police because the understand that even though the structure is acceptable, some police (probably a very small percentage in the big picture) do bad things.
js wrote:
No one is denying this, AFAIK. The “principle of leadership” is not the issue under discussion. Who may legitimately be a leader under what circumstances and why is the issue.
js wrote:
Seriously? It sounds to me you have imported the Greek Chain of Being right back into your interpretation of scripture. The Gentile understanding of “leadership”. Very pagan.
Gram3 wrote:
Do you really think I believe that women can not read and interpret Scripture for themselves, thus being able to determine what the Bible says flourishing looks like?
Lydia wrote:
Thank you for adding that. Girls grow up to be adult women.
I think gender complementarianism infantilizes women.
The GC teaching can have the consequence of making grown women act and behave like toddlers (or encouraging them to be so-, and the husband becomes the daddy figure.
I also don’t remember the phrase “servant leader” being in the Bible.
Gram3 wrote:
But my point is that if the principle of leadership is established in other areas without leading to inferiority, it can also be present in a marriage, where leadership through entering into covenant with one another before God.
Daisy wrote:
I would take it right out of Jesus’ words for one thing. “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant and whoever wants to be FIRST must be your slave.” There is a principle of servant leadership there. Jesus was talking to the Twelve, who became key leaders in the early church, urging them to turn their ambition toward service. Everyone here is quite right obviously in saying that leading is not lording over. Scripture is abundantly clear on that. So since Scripture points us to the reality of leadership (government, parental, church, marriage) and Jesus has told us not to lord over others, the only alternative I am left with is a kind of leadership that serves.
js wrote:
But a wife is a woman. A wife will always be a woman.
So you you are limiting her over a lifetime based on her gender.
I’m so glad as a never-married female, I am not to be subjected to any male, not even in gender comp theology, though some try to stretch it to mean that.
Your view is, in a sense, arguing that submission is only one-way for women and not mutual.
You seem to feel that only a wife has to take direction from the husband, but not the husband from the wife. -That the husband gets the role of “final tie breaker” in any disagreements, or some such?
You said, “She has entered into that relationship with the understanding of this role. ”
I’m not sure of that for a few reasons one of which is, what if you have a mutualist (or egalitarian) woman who marries a gender comp guy?
If I married a gender comp guy (unlikely at this time of my life), I would tell him to take his male authority shtick and cram it. I’m not going to take orders from a husband. I’m happy to compromise, but take unilateral direction? Nope.
js wrote:
Where is this creation mandate? I have not seen where God initiated a creation mandate.
js wrote:
So you turn slave and servant into the modern concept of leader. This one is sort of personal to me. I spent many years in corporate training and sat under the biggies in Leadership training. The worst thing in Christendom is mapping the concept of leadership to the Body of Christ and marriage. It has been a disaster.
Daisy wrote:
How can a movement, which many of you said really got started in 1988 with the Danvers Statement, wield so much power in matters which have been culturally present for decades in our country? I think comp is getting broad-brushed as the culprit for our whole culture’s marital dysfunction.
js wrote:
There are plenty of marriage agreements that do not incorporate a “leadership section.” Many of these marriages function perfectly fine and wonderfully before God.
js wrote:
Once more:
John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html#sthash.T6VG8geN.dpuf
You may want to really consider that the problem is with gender complementarianim itself, js, not just with how imperfectly some complementarians carry comp out, or that some may abuse some of its precepts.
Also, see my example higher up the page. I was at a blog that specializes in domestic violence in Christian marriages, they posted this true story the other day:
Abused wife calls in to Christian radio show with 3 male preachers as hosts. They tell her to hold her abusive husband accountable by taking him to a counselor and a preacher.
She says she already tried, but the husband refuses to see a counselor or their preacher.
They are left instructing her to “pray more” and “communicate” more with him over an ice cream cone. She cannot hold the husband accountable under gender comp terms.
Lydia wrote:
I have no use for leaderspeak and the concept of a modern leader. Nor do I want to live in the first century. I am taking a general principle in the Bible (leadership exists) and trying to see it applied in 2015. I know we have to do our best to understand the original context of these things but there is so much to study and understand about the Bible’s context that I may not understand as well things you have studied more deeply.
js wrote:
Well, they sure can, but in many a gender comp marriage or church, what the woman thinks the Bible means -especially if it contradcits what the husband wants – will be over-ruled or disregarded or explained away by what the male preacher or husband says it means, or if they disagree with the wife’s interpretation.
js wrote:
So, why can’t the woman be the one in leadership in marriages, and the male can be the underling for the entire lifetime of the marriage, since you’re saying men should not find that to be a sign of inferiority?
js wrote:
The term “servant leader” is not in the Bible, though.
That you keep insisting on men being the only ones to be in authority over a spouse in marriage (even under the guise of a nice sounding term like “servant leader”) is a form of lording authority. Can you not see that?
If you really believed in servant leadership, you’d lay down your so-called, supposed right to be the “servant leader” in your marriage (in gender comp speak, the servant leader is the boss head, final authority) and allow your wife,or other men’s spouses, to take that role.
Bridget wrote:
And unbelievers can be perfectly nice people. People who hate God can accomplish great things. People who have weird ideas about the end times can be awesomely kind people and really filled with the fruit of the Spirit. People can do marriage in different ways and get along pretty well. And my perspective would be that this is a secondary issue over which true believers may disagree and that we should have much tolerance for one another in this. But this is a hill to die on for many here, because they see the comp view itself as responsible for the abuses in so many marriages, directly or indirectly. Therefore, Christians who hold this view are adversaries rather than brothers and sisters.
js wrote:
Comp actually has a lot of the same traits and beliefs about women and marriage that secular culture does, so I think both are flawed.
Gender complementarianism is nothing but codependency for women, white- washed with religious terms and backed by a few misinterpreted Bible passages.
Much of secular culture also pushes girls and women to be codependent (be passive, non assertive, etc).
Gender complementarians claim to be counter-cultural but actually want to maintain the sexist status quo that men have enjoyed in many nations for centuries, of being in charge of everything and limiting women.
You only have some aspects of secular culture (and maybe some of the earliest feminists who may have been Christians) who realize how unfair societies have been to women.
I do think in some ways, secular culture (parts of it, anyway) deals with stuff like domestic violence more effectively than Christians /churches.
Sometimes parts of secular society are awful at how they treat women and deal with domestic violence too.
BTW, some here have actually said that the impetus for gender comp goes back to the 1970s, which was before the Danvers statement. I’ll leave it to those folks to explain why and how that is.
Daisy wrote:
The term “trinity” is not in the Bible. Doesn’t mean the idea is not there. I do not believe the comp position is inherently about lording or is inherently subordinating because it is not an issue of gender but of marriage. It is wives submit to your own husbands, not women submit to men. This is not just verbal gymnastics. Christian marriage is a covenant which requires consent. An agreed to arrangement of leadership and submission with a view to mutual flourishing and growing oneness is not abusive, it is a beautiful God-given design. I know some fellow Christians who would see that as an absolute corruption of Scripture, but I do not. One of us is likely right and one of us is likely wrong (unless there is a third way I have not considered that is the right way). In the meantime, I hope we can get to the point where every person who holds to comp is not a “prooftexting judgmental conservative who doesn’t care about the victims” and every egal is not a “feminist liberal squishy with the Bible pagan.”
js wrote:
But the Bible does not limit leadership to men only or to husbands only. There are actually examples in the Biblical text of women leaders, such as Deborah and Junia.
Daisy wrote:
This assumes something about leadership that I don’t assume, namely that it is a right. It is not a right, it is a God-given calling. Some are called to lead as a pastor/elder. Some are called to lead as parents. Some as governing officials. Some as husbands. In each of these cases there is a God-given calling or God establishing that goes on. If one is understanding the scriptural call to love, fighting over the right to lead would be the last thing on our minds. This is not the same thing, however, as saying there is no God-given calling to lead which I am to fulfill if I am a husband.
Daisy wrote:
My view of that would be because God has ordained the husband to be the servant leader in the marriage for His own purposes. Others disagree and I am fine with that.
js wrote:
There are Christians who have egalitarian / mutualist marriages, not just Non-Christians.
There are also Christians who claim to be comps who live out functionally egalitarian marriages, they are nominal comps.
This is something that even comp leaders have noticed – it was I think Russell Moore? – who griped that such Christian couples should stop being egalitarian in practice, and the wife should start rigidly obeying the husband so as to model a “true” gender comp marriage.
Moore also wants comps to drop the word “comp” and go all out and call what it is comps really believe, “patriarchy.”
You can read more of that here:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/05/russel-moore-i-hate-term-complementarian
Do you deny that gender comp teachings about submissiveness and related matters prolong marital abuse, and tend to keep women in such marriages trapped and stuck?
Because there are stacks and reams of testimonies by Christian women on other blogs and forums who say they were told by their preachers, who echo typical gender comp talking points, that divorce is forbidden, a wife must submit to a husband even if he is abusive, etc.
It is a pattern. It comes up over and over.
Many Comps think that husbands are the final boss and authority in marriage over the wife, the wife cannot divorce the husband, she is usually instructed to “pray and submit more” to the abuser
Sometimes these abusive men will whip a Bible out and point to the verses to “prove” they have a “right” to be a “servant leader (boss)” to their wife by pointing out the passages about “wives submit to your husbands” and “Sarah obeyed Abraham” verses.
And of course these are some of the very same verses the comps like to use to prove that women are to be in subservience to men.
Daisy wrote:
That is true. I love the women leaders of the Bible. Nor can I find anything in the Bible that would prevent a woman from serving as a governing authority or a police officer (contra Piper) or exercising leadership in a variety of other areas. Most people who hold the comp position speak of leadership in marriage and in eldership in the local church as the two places of a God-given limitation. That is all I am comfortable with because of the very examples you mentioned. There are lots of women very involved in ministry. It is very bad when comp churches shut off good avenues of ministry over fear of violating what they see as the one limitation. Better Bible reading and attention to what you point out here could ameliorate that problem to a great degree.
Daisy wrote:
was totally not meaning to imply that egal marriages are all unbelievers. No way. I know there are many Christians who have egal marriages.
js wrote:
If you’re not lording authority over someone, you should be okay with giving up this “servant leader” role to your wife.
“Servant Leader” as used by gender comps, when discussing marriage and gender roles, is a Christian euphemism for “boss” or “authority figure.” You’re basically saying that by virtue of gender only, someone is granted authority over another person… which was not mandated by God, it’s something that you’re reading into the text.
Daisy wrote:
The moment a husband goes to the Bible to point out his rights he has ceased to be the servant leader God has called him to be.
js wrote:
But a woman is a woman for life.
Children grow up and are no longer expected to obey their parents. Anyone can be elected to be a governing official, if they have the educational qualifications.
A person cannot change his or her gender. You are limiting leadership concerning certain roles to gender. That is immoral.
js wrote:
It is not a hill to die on for me, probably not for many here either. As I said before, to you I believe, I have found that comp churches hold the comp view as a hill to die on. They exclude all from leadership who do not hold the view. It may be a secondary issue to you, but it is not treated as a secondary issue by most churches. In most churches it is “the hill” to die on. Just look at how CBMW, TGC, Piper and others promote it and talk about it. It is written into Christian organization and church “what we believe” sections. So, for who exactly is it a hill to die on?
Daisy wrote:
In theory I would be glad to give this role to my wife, except that I believe God has ordained it for the husband. My role as servant leader is not mine by virtue of my being a man, but because I am a husband who has entered into covenant with my wife. This is the same reason her submission to my servant leadership exists, not because she is a woman but because she is a wife.
js wrote:
God does not ordain that husbands be the boss of their wife which is how comps define the term “head”
Head did not mean “boss” in the days of Paul.
Also, your wife is by default a woman, a quality that will never change, so yes, you are limiting her based on her gender alone, not merely station in life (“wife”).
Bridget wrote:
I think for both groups it is a hill to die on, and that is a tragedy. This should not be the powder keg issue it is in the evangelical world. I don’t have any problem with holding strongly to our views, but the bombast which both sides display toward the other side is terrible. That we are so quick to broad brush whole swaths of our fellow believers in Christ with all the labels we throw around on all sides is a shame. That we stumble over even calling another person a believer who holds a differing view from us does not speak well of us. This is a great sin of the YRR, the eagerness to point to themselves as the guardians of truth and virtue, with the attendant habit of casting aspersions on all other views.
Daisy wrote:
It is not how I define “head” of the wife. I can’t speak for others. Again, she is only in that role if she enters into the covenant of marriage. And of course I would contend, as I would with all of God’s boundaries, that when walked out faithfully the marriage relationship under these roles is a blessing to both husband and wife.
dee wrote:
Of course not. I am just not willing to take the anecdotal evidence of TWW as the whole story either.
Because this same strategy worked really well on Jim Bob’s son, Josh?
From Nov 21, 2015
Jim Bob Duggar Offers Advice to Fathers: Remove ‘Sensual Content’ From The Home
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/jim-bob-duggar-offers-advice-230200242.html
js wrote:
One more and I will let it go…
I am not really understanding this “general principle” of leadership within the Body of Christ and marriage. I do understand functions within the Body but they are not static. How does this principle of leadership you declare is “God ordained” align with the indwelling Holy Spirit available to all believers, especially adults, to grow in wisdom and Holiness? Can you not see the problem?
When do believers get to grow up in your construct?
js wrote:
So what is the point in the ‘head’ role in marriage then, as defined by comps?
My understanding of alternate views on the word(put forth by conservatives) is that in Paul’s time, the Greek word for head meant “source,” as in the husband was to be a nurturing source for the wife; not a boss over her, not her leader, etc.
As far as how the usual gender comp definition goes, these sorts of marriages end up being a curse for the wife, not a blessing. Wives end up being abused in these marriages. The fault is with gender comp itself, not just with how it’s lived by those who believe in it.
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
dee wrote:
All well and good, complete with a Pharisee reference. I didn’t think I was fussing, but just consider for a minute what would happen on this site if Doug Wilson said something like that. Or Driscoll or any of the others.
The over the top Nazi references and ridiculous communist references and all the rest are just beyond the pale. It has nothing to do with being whitewashed and churchified, it is just about treating other people decently.
Lydia wrote:
The assumption that the leader will grow in wisdom and holiness to a greater degree than those led is off-base in my opinion. Because the Holy Spirit is active in all true believers, His work in growing us is not based on a role we hold, but on His will and our response to His working. We all probably know grandmothers in the church who are more spiritually mature than anybody there. Sometimes a young person will outstrip many others in spiritual maturity. The wind blows where it wishes. In the church, leaders equip members to minister. Leaders help members grow out, get outward and upward focused, the Spirit grows them up. In marriage, the roles of servant leader and submission don’t cause the spouses to grow up, but to grow together, to become one. Again, the Spirit grows us up, and that is available to all equally.
Gram3 wrote:
My grandparents did not behave that way, for starters. I don’t know why my dad did – I’ve heard he picked up bad habits from the company he kept. My dad was more careful about his behavior until my grandpa died.
My family was demanding, in a way. Uncles, aunts, grandparents, parents – all of them expected me to be responsible and to think for myself. I had a lot responsibilities on the farm (tobacco and animals). After my grandpa died, I tended to all of the animals by myself, except for my dad’s cattle. (50 hogs, including one mean Poland-China boar). I wasn’t raised to be a “girly” girl, which was good because that is not in my nature, anyway.
I am the oldest child by 9 years, and the oldest grandchild by almost 8 years. From the time I could walk, I was my grandpa’s shadow. He would let me do just about anything, as long as he though I wouldn’t get killed doing it (my uncle, too!)! By the time my grandpa passed away, I was pretty much ruined for life! When I was 4, I repeated some filthy language that I had heard my dad use. My dad was going to whip me, but my grandpa told him to leave me be, and he said my dad was the one that needed the whipping! Maybe it was my grandpa’s influence and quite a bit of his DNA, but I have always been a bit headstrong … even defiant … never had any qualms about standing my ground.
My grandpa died when I was 12. When I was 13, my dad came in from work in a bad mood. While my mom was preparing supper, my dad threw a few things and turned the kitchen table over on it’s side. While he was screaming and yelling, I turned the table upside down, threw my dad’s boots across the room. When my dad stopped yelling and looked at me, I ran out the door. My parents found me about an hour later. I was perched up on the second tier pole in a tobacco barn …. in the dark. My dad told me to come down. I told him to come up and get me, or go away. He finally apologized to my mom and me, and I climbed down. Supper was cold, but my dad didn’t say a word about it.
When I was between the ages of 5 and 8, my grandparents babysat three very rough boys and ME during summer vacation time. I held my own with the boys. My grandparents didn’t play favorites when the 4 of us were together. I fought my battles and paid my dues, just like the boys. My aunt and uncle (school teachers) treated us the same way, too.
An opossum has been stealing my little cousin’s cat food for the past week or so. Last night, my husband and I went for a walk after supper. Our dogs ran an opossum up a tree about 200 yards from my cousin’s house. My retired military Light Weapons Specialist husband held the light while I shot the opossum out of the tree. (Honestly, it felt good. Due my health problems and losing our best-ever hunting dog to old age a couple of years ago, that’s the first opossum I’ve shot in a while!!!). In a few hours, I will put on a pretty dress and go to church. I don’t even think about trying to fit into any category.
js wrote:
When the Scriptures were written, women, for the most part, were considered to be property. Very few women were literate, and women had almost no rights. Most marriages were arranged. Have you noticed that husbands are instructed to love their wives, while wives are not instructed to love their husbands?
js wrote:
Yeah. That’s a pretty accurate descriptor of my daughter’s relationship with her parrot. My authority of my daughter is for the bird’s flourishing or their relationship is dysfunctional …….. and somebody would probably call PETA.
@ Nancy2:
Go Nancy2! You do have a category… that category is AWESOME 🙂
js wrote:
This is a huge red flag. Why is it some powder keg issue like it is? I think that the older woman who Lydia said gave her a bit of a tutorial on the development of comp was spot on in saying that it started in earnest (my words) in the early sixties with the civil rights movement. I was already a grown up in the sixties; I was there; this sounds so believable. There is just waaaay too much fervor here for it to be just about some theory about marriage. I believe that lying within the thinking that allows people to preach submission/subordination is a greater driving force than just being dominant over women. Rather they want dominion over first the women then dominion over other groups who used to be subordinate in our culture (gay, immigrant, poor, employees for example) and eventually they want dominion over the entire culture. They want to rule. Period. They want a permanent lower/servant class who can be servile to them and their purposes. This skirmish over the women is the tip of the iceberg. There just is no way that this is only about women–just listen to the way they talk about right to rule within the church, which includes men (elders) ruling over other men. Look at the dust ups over how some employees have been treated in some comp churches and seminaries.
Of course I have heard the red neck attitude toward women and the KKK racial attitude, so maybe this is why I see this. One sees what one knows, of course. But I have seen this attitude, this entitlement, this disdain, this wanna be suppression of people before in other settings. The comps are fellow travelers with these others, except the comps are potentially worse because they draw from a class of people who indeed have some power and money and some level of sophistication to pursue their goals, and because they market this as religion there is nothing that the government can do about it.
Beware. Enough said.
js wrote:
I believe that you believe that wives should be subordinate to their husbands. Such subordination entails submitting to his interpretation of both the texts of the Bible. Otherwise, she would not be subordinate, would she, if she sees both the texts and “flourishing” differently than her husband. If she does see them differently, how does she express her conviction in any meaningful sense without being insubordinate? You have not squared the circle.
js wrote:
Of course leadership occurs in marriage, at least at times. The question you are evading is proof of the legitimacy of your claim that such leadership *always* is male. You have not demonstrated that from the text. If a married female is necessarily subordinate, then she is necessarily inferior. Please explain, without resort to examples which are irrelevant to the issue how your position is logically possible and textually mandated.
js wrote:
Because they have sanctified sin in the conservative church. They have taken the evil of patriarchy and re-branded it as the *solution* to marital dysfunction. That is dishonest on so many levels. That is not the same thing as making them responsible for all marital dysfunction. They are, however, responsible for calling evil good. The fact that others do evil does not excuse the evil done by the comps.
js wrote:
People who add to the Gospel, as the comps do, are adversaries of the true Gospel, not its defenders. Surely you can see that you have the luxury of calling this a secondary issue because you are a male.
I ask the question again. If subordination is a matter of marriage, then may an otherwise qualified single woman legitimately proclaim the word of God from the pulpit with authority equal to a male?
@ Nancy2:
That is encouraging. Thank you for sharing.
okrapod wrote:
Slavery is illegal. Separation of Church and State says that patriarchy and twisted suppression under the guise of religion is not illegal.
js wrote:
But, in marriage, husbands are forever the supreme authorities and wives are forever the subjugated inferiors. You insist that when a couple marries, the woman merely becomes the man’s Forever Servant. There is no hope for wives, until death do us part. We become prisoners. Our freedoms and liberties are determined and controlled by the men who own us. According to your beliefs, when a couple marries, the woman is, for all practical purposes, selling herself to one man for life. Your definition of marriage a covenant is indentured servitude – the wife just happens to be the only indentured servant with which it is biblically acceptable for husband to have sex and procreate. Oh yes, the wife is the servant the husband is instructed to love. In a strictly “biblical marriage, submission is non-mutual, and love is non-mutual.
When my husband and I married, we enter into a loving partnership. We spoke the same words to one another. The words “submit” and “obey” were NOT included in our vows. Do your beliefs make the promises we made to one another null and void???
js wrote:
I agree. If a husband acts like this, he’s not being Christlike towards his wife.
So, what’s the remedy? What should his wife do to protect herself?
This is a bit long, but well worth the read.
http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-response-to-danvers-statement_20.html
Gram3 wrote:
So true. I can’t help but feel very insignificant and marginalized when I hear the “woman” issues called secondary. 🙁
Victorious wrote:
If the tables were turned and the belief was that husbands had to submit to their wives, do you think js would believe that was a secondary issue?
To Adam and JS, there are many women who take leadership in their marriages due to the fact that the man doesn’t want to or simply can’t. The man has no head for finances, so the wife takes control of paying all the bills and their budget. I know of many such couples as this. Is it wrong, not in my opinion. Or how about the couples that marry just for companionship. They led their own separate lives before marriage and keep certain things separate. I don’t think that is wrong either. A lot of women (gasp) even have their own checking accounts, me included. Or how about couples that stay in marriages even though they don’t really get along. There is no spousal abuse, they just married the wrong person, yet they are true to their marriage vows before God. I don’t think that’s wrong either. Or how about marriages, where sex and intimacy aren’t a big deal. Maybe one person in the marriage doesn’t really liked being touched for some reason. There are so many aspects of marriage that you 2 don’t realize. When you’ve been married for a long time, you understand this. Those marriages that last 50 or 60 years, ask these people why they stayed together. You might be surprised with the answers you get.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Maybe because a spouse’s right to leave the abuser was… self-evident?
Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson (a la “Family Ties”), “obvious, even to a big dope”.
harley wrote:
For the first 14 years of our marriage, my husband was active duty military. He was gone as much as, or more than, he was at home. I controlled and was legally responsible/liable for everything most of the time because of that.
js wrote:
And less greed and foolishness from the CBMW. And less chauvinism and entitlement mentality in the pulpit.
js wrote:
Oh Puh-lease. In the early days of my abusive marriage I was growing in the fruit of the Spirit. Growing tremendously. Just because God used those bad circumstances does not mean that the relationship was healthy. Give me a freaking break.
js wrote:
Did you read this post? http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
Nancy2 wrote:
I just love reading your stuff here! 😀
@ Daisy:
You’re right, I had not considered the stories where God is merciful. Unfortunately, God now seems very arbitrary. Perhaps because the Ninevites were not indigenous to the land he had chosen for his people? I don’t have an answer but why the Ninevites and not Jericho? When God destroyed the whole world in flood and punished the first born of the Egyptians, were there no innocents involved there – (and those that died in the flood, would have died slowly with the water creeping ever higher, holding their children.
I do appreciate your sentiment and I can tell that your a good person of faith but personally, it is these incidents (whether they actually occurred or are allegorical lessons) and components of Mosaic Law along with the extremely violent destructions apparently to come in Revelation that I have trouble reconciling with the idea “just and merciful”.
And it is these same passages that are justifying the destructive attitudes being fostered in some churches. This cult of the man being the pinnacle of God’s creation. Where women and children are reconsigned to being mere chattel. Where whole families worship under the vengeful eye of a temperamental deity and the leaders “chosen” to represent him (because it’s gotta be a guy! – and a manly man at that).
This will lead to Christianity moving in ever decreasing circles. As the damaged and broken crumble off the edges and take their stories to the internet (and many blogs that detail the abuse), less new Christians will want to come on board. (Try and sell this schlock to the younger generation that aren’t involved in church). A few posts ago, TWW talked about kindness. Even some of the posters here imply that the bible is the bible, beyond reproach. If that’s so then don’t be surprised as your churches get smaller and smaller.
Maybe such an upheaval needs to happen. Maybe it needs to go back to a few good people, retaining the message of hope and wandering like Paul planting churches where the bible is read with discernment, where kindness is the focus.
elastigirl wrote:
That sounds like a fine meal. I’m humbled by the compliment – Thanks!
js wrote:
That is ridiculous. No one on this blog has ever claimed that comp is “the culprit for our whole culture’s marital dysfunction.” That is a straw man, and it’s at least the second time you’ve played this game in this thread. It is disingenuous at best, and somewhat childish.
@ Nancy2:
Thanks for sharing that Nancy! In my family and entire extended family the girls were raised with the same expectations as the boys. Same type of responsibilities, etc. I just do not know any other way.
roebuck wrote:
IMHO, the comp doctrine is oftentimes used to justify male superiority in dysfunctional marriages.
Gram3 wrote:
This is so true.
My sister-in-law was suffering terrible stress issues that were leading to physical issues, largely due to her insensitive husband. The said insensitive husband decided to step up and alleviate some of that stress by forbidding her a trip home to visit family.
He felt he was the one who knew what was best for her, what would protect her, and what would help her do better. He was wrong. But in the comp world, they believe than men, by virtue of being husbands, somehow just know what is best for their wives. And these men are given the authority to make those choices.
So while the goal may be to cause the wife to flourish, the system set up for this purpose makes it dysfunctional by being dysfunctional itself.
@ js:
Here is a tip. Try to communicate your views without the word “role”. See how that works. A “role” is “a part played”. It comes from the French word, roll, and has its roots in preforming. Its first known use is in the 1600’s. It was a sad day when this word was incorporated into the Body of Christ to describe people and their functions. It is plastic and contrived.
Nancy2 wrote:
Of course they do – that was not my point at all. My point was that js plays this game where if you point out that comp doctrine is associated with facilitating dysfunctional marriages, he claims that you are blaming all of culture’s dysfunctional marriages on comp. It’s strawman logic, set up so he can argue against something that no one ever claimed. He’s done it several times in this thread – two that I have pointed out. He’s done it countless times in past threads.
BTW: The husband being responsible for the wife’s “flourishing” is very Piperesque. It could be js heard a pastor or a favorite guru say that and did not realize he was cut and paste Pipering. So many of them are without attribution these days.
I can just see Piper’s arms waving as he passionately delivers the word “flourishing”. You can’t make this stuff up. All the while a wife should take “abuse for a season” while he is responsible for her “flourishing”. It is a sicko world that Piper has created for so many men.
Nancy2 wrote:
Because it is strictly voluntary. And the point we make here is to look at what it leads to if you get caught up in it. This blog looks behind the curtain and connects the dots.
That is hard to see when one is in the middle of it. It might have become their normal. It could be that they have never challenged what is taught so they have not felt the backlash that WILL come from people who have been so “nice”. I even know people who differ but won’t say a word so as to not the rock the boat. And who at The Village would have known about Karen Hinkley but a few out of thousands if she had not gone public? So much stuff is hidden from the pew sitters. I know that for a fact from my mega days.
These are not Body of Christ relationships.
js wrote:
If you genuinely believed those words, you would be doing whatever wives/women asked, rather than hovering over them with authoritay. If you held to that principle, anyone but men would preach/teach/prophesy in church because you’d be too busy scrubbing the toilets, sweeping the floors, making the coffee/tea, baking the pastries. Those are the jobs of slaves/servants, after all.
But you do not actually accept the principle in that verse, so you continue to insist that you should, by reason of genital shaping, lead your intimate other. You don’t have the courage to admit, “yeah, I think God wants patriarchy”. Instead you come up with all kinds of dubious rationales, ‘wives aren’t women in complementarian marriage’ and such. Oy
“Servant leaders” try to claim both last and first place for themselves. You want it all but you are only one small human and it is too much for you.
Well, it is too much for any human. We here don’t want it for ourselves either. We are interested in mutuality in intimacy and in the church. We want peer relationships.
Your desires are awry and you work your hardest to make it look as if God approves of them. As if He requires them to be fulfilled to the sacrifice of others He created. That’s dangerous, js. I thoroughly completely and heartily advise against it.
js wrote:
God never called him to be a servant leader in the first place.
You won’t find it anywhere, even in the clobber verses.
God NEVER instructs the husband to lead his wife. Not even once.
That verse simply does not exist.
He is instructed to love and lay down his life. That is all.
Deriving husband servantleaderhoodshipness from a verse not even directed to him is dishonest and grasping for power.
So the fact of the matter is, God never called a man to servant leadership. He can neither attain nor lose such a position because it is a fantasy interpretation of certain Bible texts.
JS, I appreciate that you’re getting heat from many sides on this comment thread. I hope that you’ve taken the time to peruse some of the links that other commenters have suggested to you, and taken their words and stories seriously. I also hope that you’ll give some thought to what I have to say.
js wrote:
For myself, I don’t think that the CBMW or its adherents are “the culprit for our whole culture’s marital dysfunction”. They didn’t create chauvinism or sexism or spousal abuse. To paraphrase Billy Joel, they didn’t light this fire. But, from what I can tell, they’re not doing much to fight it. The CBMW isn’t solely responsible for abuse or other problems in Christian marriages, but they are complicit. Too many of the statements and actions on record from this Council’s members do harm and confusion rather than good.
Earlier on this thread, you’ve declared your disagreement with some statements from John Piper. And you’ve pleaded that they don’t represent what you or other comps believe. If that’s the case, then the other members of the CBMW should have called Piper out on it, perhaps even removed him from their association. Yet there he still is. Along with other members whose words and actions have been perplexing, or downright harmful. Does that bother you?
I think that the CBMW is in the spotlight here because its members make such grandiose boasts (as in the tweets above), yet the experiences of the abused in their churches tell a different tale. And also because they have outsized influence in evangelical churches, especially for such an irresponsible bunch.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
This phenom of defending Piper is amazing to behold.
When I brought up the error in Piper’s words to an abused woman, the comp I was speaking to defended Piper to the extreme all the while attacking me for being angry and shrill.
The best thing anyone could have done with Piper’s error was to admit that it was an error, correct it, and move on.
But that isn’t done. It is just piled onto all the other errors and bad doctrine and bad advice and disempowering of women that the cbwm* represents and pushes.
I’m glad js is willing to concede that Piper was wrong. But he is the exception, not the cbwm* rule.
(*yes, i know i put the initials in the wrong order. but in honor of js claiming the servant/slave of all verses and first shall be last verses, i though i’d give it a shot with cbwm initials, just to see what it looks like in type.)
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
They make such boasts because they truely believe they have the answer.
But they will not open their eyes to see that they do not have the answer. And on many levels, they are part of the problem.
Watching their delusion is mind numbing.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/06/i-heard-it-said-once.html
@ Jack:
I am currently between two poles: Christian and Agnostic.
I’ve been having problems with portions of the Christian faith myself the last 2 or 3 years, but have not completely left the faith. 🙂
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
I have cited that post to him a few times in this thread. He seems to have glossed right over it.
Any criticism of comp by a lot of comps is chalked up to the following:
“There is nothing wrong with comp or with a man being a leader over his wife, just because a few men abuse some of its beliefs. A true complementarian man would never abuse, or lord authority over his wife, but would be a servant leader to her.”
BTW, even though many complementarians think the term “servant leaders” softens things, and makes it sound like the man serves the woman…
In the end scheme of things, comps are still communicating the concept that a wife (who will always be a woman), is to be, by quality of gender alone (somethng the wife cannot help, she was born a woman),
always to be below a husband in authority…
Which does, yes, contrary to how they try to spin it, denote inferiority or servitude.
Nancy2 wrote:
It would probably be a bit harder for an abusive guy to pull this off using Christian mutualist / egalitarian interpretations of Scripture or material.
I read a book by a Christian psychologist author a few years ago, it was co-written by a Christian man who is a sort of expert on the issue of bullying. Her book was about codependency (though it didn’t really use that word).
She had a chapter or two in there about marital abuse.
She said in all her years of giving therapy to people (which has been over ten or more, IIRC), only the abusive / controlling husbands would trot out complementarian biblical interpretations (about wives submitting and so forth) during counseling sessions when arguing that she, the counselor, should order their wives to obey and be deferential to them, the husbands.
She said non-abusive Christian husbands were not as prone to using the “wives submit” (and so on) verses on their wives, but tried to hammer out mutually satisfying solutions to their marital conflicts.
At this point, before JS or someone wants to bring up the, “Well, see, a TRUE complementarian would NEVER use those Bible verses in that manner to excuse mistreatment of his wife,” shtick again, please see-
The No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
As that page puts it, for complementarianism to really work, and work consistently, men have to be perfect, just like Jesus Christ was totally perfect, and be perfect all the time.
And no human male is going to be able to do that.
And the mens who are already predisposed to abuse and control women will just love and adore the gender comp emphasis on stuff like ‘wifely submission,’ or women being forbidden to lead and teach men.
Daisy wrote:
And the thing about this is that they don’t teach men or women this.
They are so hung up on men being the head that they don’t want to undermine it with little fail safes like, “If your husband uses the Bible to clobber you, he is no longer your servant leader.”
Nope, that isn’t said at all.
It’s… “He’s your head, even if he isn’t acting like it. And unless he is trying to push you into sin, it is sin for you to not submit to him.”
No true complementarian is definitely a fallacy. There are no fail safes for women where they don’t have to submit. Except in extreme cases. And even then women have to wax eloquently how much they adore his leadership and how much they long to be able to follow male headship. His ego and his position are to be coddled. And a woman is to always be mindful of her role, position, and need for male headship.
Lydia wrote:
Doesn’t the Bible say that the Holy Spirit gives “gifts” to all believers, not “roles.”
And that nothing in the Bible says the Holy Spirit only gives certain gifts to men and others to women?
I don’t recall the Bible saying there are “pink” spiritual gifts, which go to women, and “blue” spiritual gifts, which go to men.
I don’t even recall Paul’s discussion with analogies about body parts breaking service into pink and blue, woman vs. man, where he says “the foot cannot say to the hand, I do not need you” or however he put it.
Patrice wrote:
That is a good way of putting it.
I agree with the rest of your post as well. I tried communicating the same things to him in other posts last night.
If gender comp men really believed in being servants and not lording authority over others, they’d stop insisting on the notion that husband should lead wives, or only men should be permitted to lead or preach.
But they keep defending the concept of male- only leadership and male authority over women / wives.
BTW, I’m not totally undersanding JS’s thing about leadership applying only to wives, because wife is a role?
In a hetero marriage, the wife is always going to be a woman by virtue of having been born a woman, and being a woman is not something she can necessarily change, unless JS sort of gender comps are okay with Bruce Jenner / Caitlyn Jenner transgender stuff??
Also, as Gram3 has alluded to, JS is arguing in a round about way, inadvertently perhaps, that single women such as me are therefore permitted to be preachers to men and women since he has repeatedly said being led falls to the role of “wife” only.
js wrote:
You may also want to see this:
Not All Complementarians by Nate Sparks
https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/not-all-comps/
Here is how that page starts:
—–
Recently, I have been puzzled by some of the responses to my posts on Complementariansim. Some feel I have not presented complementarian belief in an accurate light.
Other’s have insisted that there are good, godly complementarian persons they know who do not believe “like that”.
I have been told, “I used to complementarian, I wasn’t like that though.” However the responses are worded, they can all be summed up with three words: “Not All Complementarians (Comps)!”
Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women And Domestic Violence
http://religiondispatches.org/biblical-battered-wife-syndrome-christian-women-and-domestic-violence/
Snippet from page:
For a paragraph or two, that page also gets into how dangerous Adam Borsay’s insistence that the Bible have an explicit “the wife can divorce if she’s being abused” verse, or else a wife cannot “biblically” leave an abuser, is to women.
Some of the women in that page were being stuck in dangerous situations (marriages to violent men) precisely because some preacher at their church was all like, “But the Bible only says divorce is okay for adultery, not abuse!!” type of thinking.
Every time I hear or read the phrase “servant leader”, I get an image in my head. The image is either a dog chasing it’s own tail, or the dog’s master leading the dog around on a collar and leash, then serving up the dog food!
We have certain roles? Really?? Usually, when we are behaving or reacting in a role, we are pretending to be something we are not. Where’s the verse that says Jesus loves fakers??? Why not say that if we don’t agree with comp doctrine, then we should mutate into whatever it is they think they think should be? That would put a whole new definition on being ” a new person in Christ”.
(PS: With my daughter and myself, unless we are in a Christmas play or the like, you’d better watch your back if we start playing roles. We’re setting you up!)
Nancy2 wrote:
I often think of that line for a song “Just a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down”.
It comes across as being all about packaging.
Here’s the medicine – God says, “Men are the leaders.”
Here’s the sugar – But God says, “They have to be ‘servant’ leaders.”
They are selling something that they know is a hard sell in this day and age. So they have to sugar coat is with something to help the message go down better.
Mara wrote:
More like SugarTwin (TM) …… so artificial ….. bitter aftertaste.
@ Bridget:
completely understood, from the git-go — you’re too much of an ally and friend to have thought otherwise.
just had to shake the association off with all the panic-dancing as if it were a Jerusalem beetle crawling up my sleeve.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Great comment.
js wrote:
I do not see that but rather this:
“Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility” 1 Peter 5:5
“submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” Ephesians 5:21
(I see Eph 5:22 as an afterthought of verse 21, specifying that wives should submit to THEIR OWN husbands, as opposed to possibly pastors, leaders, family of origin.)
Let’s also look again at 1 Corinthians 7:4
“The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”
Why do we continually hear only the first half of this verse when the second half is equally true? How can the husband justify forcing his wife into anything when she has equal authority to tell him what he can do with his body?
Gal 3:28: “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Lydia wrote:
I have to admit, your comment made me giggle.It is my belief that we are all supposed to encourage one another and to help each other flourish. The saddest thing that I have heard is that strict churches, like the one that Piper used to run spent more time in trying to rebuke people for their sins instead of spending lots of time encouraging, complimenting and honoring each other.We flourish in environments that respect our talents, encourage our talents, as well as an environment that is so welcoming that people flourish because they feel wanted and gifted.
js wrote:
Since this issue is bringing a great deal of suffering to many, I feel it is an important one we should speak out about.
dee wrote:
AMEN, Dee! And thank you for providing such a place through this blog!
js wrote:
I am so glad that your brought this up. For about 5 years before I started this blog,m I spent time on ExChristians.net. There I learned about the pain experienced by people at the hands of the church. Over time, I began to see the role that Christian leaders play in sending people running from the church.
One reason this blog exists is to hear from those who have been deeply hurt or kicked in the tuckus by the celebrity pastors. One thing I learned from the ExChristian crowd is that using strong language tends to push Christians away from conversation because they want things to be said in a *nice* way. I learned that if I listened in spite of strong language I could hear to the heart of what they were saying.
This is one place where lots of folks can be heard. The Doug Wilsons and Mark Driscolls of this world have a bunch of supporters who overlook their words and behavior and how that affects people. So, we have decided to support the non celebrity crowd here. And that crowd comes from all sorts of backgrounds.
I will not allow the language in the comments become the method by which some will ignore what someone is saying because they didn’t say it nicely. I would expect Christian leaders to speak in a manner worthy of their calling so they get to be critiqued.
I do not expect you to fully understand my reasons for handling things this way. But I am comfortable with it.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
I wish I knew who the one true voice of Complementarianism is.
Other than maybe agreeing that women should never be preachers, and husbands get the tie- breaking votes in marital spats, they can’t agree on much else with each other.
Some comps will say they totally disagree with some other comp on X, Y, or Z. I think this is maybe an indication that their position is not quite as iron clad, obvious, or biblical as so many of them think.
But they sure do expect all women everywhere to be subjected to this stuff, stuff they can’t even get straight amongst themselves.
@ Daisy:
This blog post discusses all that stuff:
The Means of Ministry: Gifts, Grace, Faith . . . Gender?
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/ministry-gifts-grace-faith-gender/
Snippet:
dee wrote:
They can, but we are forced to guess at what she means. I assume there is something behind her complaint, but again, she does not clarify exactly what he is supposed to have said or done. Not that it’s important for me–a complete outsider–to know the truth, but any judge will surely make her be more specific. BTW I have zero sympathy with complementarian theology.
dee wrote:
Thanks, Dee. I know how the comment boards can heat up over this topic, and I worry about adding unnecessary fuel to the fire. But sometimes I feel that I just have to say something, hoping that what I say is worthwhile and helpful.
BTW, I’ve been praying for you. I hope that you have lots of support, and enough time to rest, as you take care of your family.
Daisy wrote:
So often, when I hear the words “servant leader” in the context of comp, I can’t help thinking, “benevolent dictator”. And benevolent dictatorships never last long. They either move away from dictatorship, or they cease to be benevolent.
@ okrapod:
yes.
js wrote:
HUG’s references to communism are far from “ridiculous”. To me, they make a lot of sense in the context of the words and deeds of CBMW’s members, and those of many other comp leaders. I particularly like his use of the phrase, “The Party Can Do No Wrong”. It’s an excellent illustration of the tendency of all too many self-styled leaders in Christendom — ignoring the sufferings of their adherents, and refusing to consider that their doctrines might be to blame.
JS, if you don’t like seeing the CBMW compared to the Communist Party, don’t bother blaming HUG. It’s not his fault that he sees the similarities. Perhaps the Pied Piper and his gang of sycophants should stop acting like lofty dictators. That might help.
Throughout this discussion are many underlying questions, of which several particularly disturb me:
-How do we know this woman isn’t lying about being abused?
-What is abuse, anyway?
-Is abuse enough of a reason to divorce?
-Don’t a lot of people these days divorce over matters that they should work to resolve?
Details about each have been explored in comments above. I list the questions together because I believe that they swirl around in churches, families, workplaces, and neighborhoods.
If I were an abused spouse, this quartet of skeptical questions would make it well nigh impossible to disclose my secret pain and terror.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
BINGO!
JS,
There is not really a way of empirically studying complementarian vs. egalitarian rates of abuse, because these identifiers are really hard to quantify objectively. Plus, most non-evangelical sociologists lack the skill to differentiate between these groups and evangelical sociology itself is not known for being particularly ethical or rigorous in its exploration of these issues. In your defense, I would have to say that CBMW is a powerful organization and that perhaps the original post needed to be better thought out (no offense to Dee or Deb here). You can’t really judge CBMW’s influence based on its budget size. It’s the networks it has formed and the institutional alliances it has made with organizations\colleges like Southern Baptist Theological Seminary that are the true indications of its strength.
I would have to say, as an academic who is writing on this subject, that is quite implausible to claim that egalitarians are responsible for the greater share of abuse issues in the church. The major abuse scandals in evangelicalism in recent years have occurred at BJU (which is even more conservative than most complementarians), Sovereign Grace Ministries (complementarian),Bill Gothard’s Institute for Basic Life Principles (hope I’m remembering the title right, sorry I’m tired) (the ILBP is compelentarian), The Pearls (worse than complementarians even), the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (even more conservative than the complementarian mainstream), and within certain elements of the biblical counseling movement (which is pretty explicitly complementarian). The only egalitarian ministry or leader of importance that has been charged with these kind of abuses is Tony Jones, and whatever one thinks of that case, it occurred within a single family, and thus is unlikely to be representative of all egalitarian culture.
I would agree that some of the survivor rhetoric currently emanating from egalitarians has tended to take on an overly-partisan character, one that often paints with a broad brush. However, it is not difficult to understand why this is the case, considering that many cases of abuse within the church for which the evidence is overwhelming – SGM, IFB, Bob Jones, the Gothard cases – have been swept under the rug for years, even decades. And this is easy to document and has been documented, both by academics like myself and by reporters such as Kathryn Joyce. Unless you have some evidence to back up your position, there is little reason for anyone to listen to you on this score. And I say this as someone who is likely to be at least slightly more receptive to your position here than most critics of complementarianism.
js wrote:
I was recently in the emergency room for ten hours, told I would be admitted overnight, and then completely forgotten—until I stood up for myself and asked to be taken to the promised room.
After my condition improved, I was told I would be discharged; within an hour, someone vetoed the release decision, and I was instructed that the hospital wanted to keep me another two days just in case I was not really better.
It so happened that my supportive, egalitarian husband was not in the room when either of these things happened. I had to assert myself. In the ER I had to point out my presence. In the inpatient unit, I asserted my legal right not to be detained against my will.
In the complementarian mindset, a married woman submits both to her husband and to other men. How would I have handled these predicaments submissively?
I cannot even imagine the emotional mine field I would have walked through in the hospital if I felt bound by God to submit to an absent husband, various male and female doctors, nurses, and technicians, and all others in authority over me. The teaching of women’s submission, the gradual and lifelong conditioning of the woman’s mind to decode every requirement that she submit, creates tremendous confusion and suffering.
Nancy2 wrote:
Note my earlier comment about mutual flourishing. I believe in mutual flourishing (or growth, or whatever non-flowery word you would prefer) in marriage under God’s good design of callings for husband and wife.
Gram3 wrote:
You define submission and subordination identically and I do not. It is like saying that a citizen can’t object to the government or else they have violated their God-given calling of submission to governing authorities. It comes down to love. Both husband and wife must live with each other in an understanding way and must be for each other’s good. This means both must have a real and legitimate voice in the relationship.
Gram3 wrote:
The illogic of your position is seen in the assertion that to be under the leadership of another is to be inferior.
Gram3 wrote:
I would hope that if I were a female and saw this in Scripture or if females were to hold a leadership calling in marriage as I saw it in Scripture, that I would follow my view of Scripture rather than turn away from it. With that said, I don’t think it is my gender that causes me to call this a secondary issue. It is a secondary issue, just because it is not the gospel. Doesn’t mean it is not important. But if we make it a primary issue by our objection to it, we are making it a gospel plus issue and that is unbiblical. If I say Jesus plus complementarianism I am in error. But if I say Jesus plus NO complementarianism, I am also in error. Our views of marriage and leadership in the local church must fall under the secondary framework. I would put it in the category of a secondary issue which should not cause us to question the salvation of another (as no secondary issue should) but is probably an issue which will limit somewhat our ability to fellowship together (much like views of baptism tend to provide a dividing line) but should not limit our ability to love and respect each other as followers of Jesus.
Nancy2 wrote:
No, you have the full right under God to live by your convictions.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
She has many options. The calling she is given by God does not prohibit her from taking any of the steps that would be taken in any other kind of marriage. The husbands calling is not a power chip to play against his wife but is God’s design for the benefit of both husband and wife.
harley wrote:
I definitely understand that there are lots of types of marriages and have observed many of the ones you have listed above. I don’t think this means the comp position is wrong. Nothing in a fallen world is perfect. We are all in progress. Egal marriages are quite imperfect in many cases. The best we can do is try to understand what God has told us and seek to live based on what we understand.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
God grows us through hardship, that is a solid biblical truth. You are right. Now, was the relationship unhealthy because of comp belief or because of the people?
roebuck wrote:
I don’t understand how you can’t see that the original post’s equation . . . Abideni’s abuse (may or may not be related to the comp view) + nationwide abuse statistics (not directly related to the comp view) + Owen Strachan and CBMW= Comp is the bogeyman. This is guilt by association and is not the first time it has happened here.
siteseer wrote:
Everything verse you quoted here is true and is not incompatible with a comp position.
Wartburg Watch’s channel and time slot has been pre-empted by the J.S. Show…
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
We just need to stop with these kinds of comparisons. I’m sorry. Communist regimes in the 20th century killed hundreds of millions of their own citizens and oppressed many others. Same with Nazism, millions killed and oppressed. And this is compared to some preacher with fluttery hands whose teachings are really not even known by all evangelicals, much less the culture at large. These kinds of comparisons should just be avoided in reasonable discourse.
siteseer wrote:
Suffering people should be addressed without throwing everyone who holds the comp position under the bus. There should be a way to address sufferings and misuses of comp teachings without dismissing the faith of the many Christians who hold the comp position out of biblical conviction.
Friend wrote:
This is mistaken, in my view. There is no command for wives to submit to all men. The text is very clear, “wives, submit to your own husbands.” The other submission of a wife is identical to that of her husband as regards other authorities.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Thank you, thank you very much. I’m here all night playing the best hits of yesterday and today.
js wrote:
No one “here” is doing that. I wish you would stop making this false statement. No one is dismissing anyone’s faith. But many comps dismiss the faith of people who do not believe in the comp position.
John Weaver wrote:
What exactly are you asserting is my position? Have I said that comp abuse must be equated with egal abuse? I don’t remember saying that. What I said was what you said in your post above, that this article was a broad brush against CBMW where none was needed. In a story unrelated to CBMW, a link was forged in order to reconfirm an existing bias.
@ John Weaver:
Would you say it’s fair to say that the teachings of complementarianism may be more appealing to men who are already abusive, who may be seeking a church, religion, or theology to join?
Or that such men would find complementarianism very convenient cover for their abuse of their wives? That is the way it appears to me, anyhow.
It also seems to me that it would perhaps be easier for an abusive husband to find justification based on complementarian views of marriage and women, than in other types of Christian teachings.
As I said up thread, I don’t see how men in egalitarian / mutualist churches or groups would be able to point to the Bible as easily to defend their mistreatment of their wives, as a guy in a complementarian church or denomination would be.
Lastly, if an abused wife goes to a complementarian pastor for assistance, the complementarian slant on topics such as marriage, gender roles and divorce, causes the pastors to often issue ineffective advice (I have seen this a lot in testimonies by abused wives who attended complementarian churches).
Preachers who adhere to complementarian views, from what I’ve read, repeatedly tell such women that abuse is not grounds for divorce, that the wife should simply pray for the husband more, submit “better,” etc.
@ js:
Could you please tell me what you believe is different in the actions of complementarian Christians from those who are not complementarian Christians in terms of the marriage relationship. Nothing esoteric-simply Comps do this; gals don’t do this.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
There just isn’t enough information out there and Sayeed is not even in a position to defend himself and answer these accusations. Further, when one is under duress from having been tortured by prison officials who hate the Christian faith, they may do or say things that they ordinarily wouldn’t do or say. Just read some of Richard Wurmbrand’s books such as “If Prison Walls Could Speak” – in which he describes the behavior of prisoners such as himself and other pastors – after having been beaten and deprived of sleep and proper nourishment. All this to say I reserve judgment against Sayeed until further evidence can be given. No one should be judged and found guilty by the words of one person without any accompanying proof.
@ js:
Who gets to define what “flourshing” is or what it looks like, and what if the wife’s idea of her flourishing differs from what the husband thinks it should look like?
Does the wife get to go ahead and define how she flourishes then, or must she cave in to the husband’s so – called leadership and bow down to how the husband defines it?
As you don’t believe un-married adult women need a male covering, or male head to lead them in life, why on earth do you propose this for married women? And citing the Bible, “Oh, it says God does” doesn’t answer the question, because God is not illogical.
If single women do not need a leader (and we do not), and if single women can get by in life without a male leader or male head, there is no reason a married woman cannot.
Women do not suddenly become incompetent or stupid when they marry a man.
@ Darlene:
Is looking at dirty photos of ladies part of that?
Because the wife says he is also looking at “adult” images.
IIRC (but I may be mistaken), didn’t she say he was abusive early in their marriage, even before he was sent to prison?? If so, that would mean his current behavior is not necessarily due to being in prison now.
js wrote:
The logical outworking of comp “submission” is that it is identical to subordination because you are casting a human being in a life long secondary position based on nothing but an in-born trait (gender).
And that is not loving, no matter how much you feel it to be so.
js wrote:
No, that is inherent in your position, the gender complementarian view, much like white American Christians justified racism against black Americans by telling them that limiting them based on an in-born trait (skin color) made them “separate but equal.”
You are saying a wife has to be under a male leader not because the male is more educated, learned, or skilled, but only because of genitalia differences, which are traits people are born with and cannot change, unless you are okay with Bruce Jenner morphing into Caitlyn Janner (transgenderism).
js wrote:
You did not answer her question there.
She was not asking if you believe that
salvation = Jesus + Complementarianism,
but how is it your view does not permit un-married women from being preacher, teachers, and leaders of men in church?
Because your view so far has been that only MARRIED women need a male leader. You said un-married (single) ones do not.
Which in turn suggests you are accepting of single women leading men in church, including single women holding the position of preacher.
js wrote:
Point 1. Do you include divorce in that?
Point 2. How does the comp view of husband being leader of the wife benefit either one of them or both together?
Why should married women not be allowed to lead themselves?
And please, offer solid reasons to that question, not “just that’s what the Bible says.” If you offer “the Bible says so,” that’s not getting to the heart of the matter, and we will be arguing in circles all day.
Zla’od wrote:
I agree. dee wrote:
dee wrote:
Unless there is something we aren’t seeing. It is very possible that she has been threatened or the live of her children are at stake if she doesn’t comply with those who are torturing her husband. The Communists had a way of doing this with the families of Christians. In fact, Richard Wurmbrand stated that while he was in prison for his faith, he and several other pastors were deprived of sleep and nourishment and until their wills were broken and they had little resistance against their torturers. In this broken down state, they were publicly filmed and made to admit untruths one of them being that they were treated well in prison.
There is so much to this situation that we really don’t know therefore I think it is hasty to make any statements affirming that Naghmeh was abused. It is wise to wait before making judgments and convicting a man before he has any recourse for a defense.
js wrote:
I have seen complementarians admit on other sites that they have marriages that are functionally egalitarian.
R. Moore, who is pro-comp, also noticed this, and it makes him angry. He thinks too many comps have egalitarian like marriages…
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/05/russel-moore-i-hate-term-complementarian
dee wrote:
No, I can’t do that because human relationships even in submission to God are diverse. The Bible works from principle to practice and especially in Christ it is more a matter of being led by the Spirit than making out a list of rules to keep. The general principle is that husbands should live for the good of their wives as servant leaders in marriage and that wives should live for the good of their husbands by loving submission to his servant leadership. The two grow in oneness as they walk in these God given callings and this mysteriously models the relationship of Christ and the Church. Some general ideas can be seen in Scripture on the relationship between husband and wife are there (husbands don’t be harsh, things like that) but there is not a biblical list of all that complementarian teaching entails. Ultimately, as with much in the Bible, principles are laid out which must be worked out in everyday life. The applications are almost endless. This is the genius of God’s design in that the Bible is as applicable to us today as it has ever been. It is also a reason the Bible can be used by sinful people to justify bad things. To make a list of what husbands and wives can do in marriage is a recipe for endless arguments over lines. Each couple must work out before God what the callings they have received in marriage will look like. And ultimately they will stand or fall on that, not on Wayne Grudem’s opinion of what they should be doing.
Daisy wrote:
I am not saying that. I am saying that a wife has a calling from God in marriage due to the design of God. It is not a matter of a man’s will but of the will of God.
js wrote:
Complementarian beliefs perpetuate domestic abuse, as comp preachers often give women the opposite advice that secular, professional, qualified DV counselors do.
Complementarian husbands, when seeing a counselor with their wives, will often point to the usual misinterpreted verses (such as Ephesians 5.22) and insist their wife must endure the abuse because she is to submit no matter what.
It’s all related, js.
CBMW spokesheads claimed that complementarianism persons or churches treat DV (domestic violence) victims far superior to secular culture… when the opposite is true.
I’m amazed you cannot connect the dots on this.
Daisy wrote:
Pornography is wrong period. But the issue here is that all we have is the wife’s words. She may be telling the truth. But there may be other issues as well, which I have already stated. I’m not willing to convict a man through so little evidence. Just as I wouldn’t be willing to convict a Naghmeh of wrongdoing through her husband’s words alone.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, I have seen that article many times.
js wrote:
Eph 5.21 calls for mutual submission, or submission of all believers to each other, which nulls your claim that elsewhere, the Bible is calling for male-leadership over wives.
One of your fellow complementarians, flag Ken, denies that understanding of Eph 5.21, by the way.
Daisy wrote:
We’re just going to both have to be amazed at each other apparently.
js wrote:
God would not call any married woman to be under a male leader, due only to being born a woman though, which is the logical outworking of your interpretation.
Just repeating over and over to me and others here that, “God wills wives to be led, it’s what the Bible says!” does not erase this problem and out-come from your position.
Your interpretation as to why wives must be led by a spouse is the same misinterpretation that white, American, Christian racists used to justify “separate but equal” (racist) treatment of black people in the USA.
Your interpretation of the Bible is doing the same thing, but with wives.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, divorce is an option. Of course Christians of all stripes have many views on when divorce is permissible.
The benefit of the comp relationship is that the couple is drawn to each other and that it is glorifying to God as a model of the relationship between Christ and the Church. In order for this model to be most apparent and oneness to be strongest, a covenant is entered into wherein sacrificial love is expressed through the God-given roles granted to husband and wife by God.
Daisy wrote:
Both are true. All believers are to submit to one another and within the covenant of marriage, wives are to submit to husbands.
js wrote:
What is your evidence for this assertion? It seems to me to be very much a matter of a man’s will.
Darlene wrote:
Someone above raised this point, which I felt was quite good:
Why would someone (the wife) say any of this negative stuff after having spent the last 1 – 2 years championing this very same man (her spouse) all over the place?
I saw her I don’t know how many times on various Christian shows begging for help in the release of her spouse. She doesn’t gain anything by making this information public.
Daisy wrote:
The issue of church leadership is a separate issue from the issue of marriage.
js wrote:
We don’t submit to “governing authorities”. We submit to debated and voted upon laws. That was the whole point of our founding. Not to submit to governing authorities.
In the fervent quest to affirm hierarchies and authorities we seem to have way too many pastors and their followers out there who do not even understand our form of government and end up teaching it at church.
You follow laws not submit to them. Those elected are to be our servants. Yes, I know we are way past that. Perhaps because so many think like you. It is all about power.
js wrote:
I did not make that assertion. And you are still evading the question *and* avoiding providing any textual evidence for your assertions including the one that the leadership in a marriage must be male.
js wrote:
As long as the male voice is the decisive one.
@ js:
I don’t take it you realize that gender complementarianism is about identical to codependency?
Some characteristics of codependency are at times, in the Bible, referred to as “the fear of man” which is something God says he wants no follower of his to have, but which gender comp actually encourages women to have and to think of as God’s design for womanhood.
And I would also have to guess you don’t realize how codependent behaviors can make a person easier to abuse and manipulate?
Women and girls are especially pressured by secular culture and gender complementarian materials and churches to be very codependent.
If not, if you’re not familiar with the topic, I would encourage you to start reading up on that topic…
Take a look at books such as “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin DeBecker, “Why Does He Do That” by Lundy Bancroft.
CBMW and other gender complementarians promotes the very traits that make girls and women easier to abuse, and makes them attractive targets to abusive men, and tells girls/women that those same traits are “God’s will,” “God’s design,” or “Biblical womanhood.”
js wrote:
That basically sounds like an egalitarian marriage in some fashions so there is no need for a wife to be led by a husband.
But many women get stuck with an abuser, and when they go to their comp church, the comp pastor tells them they must stay with the spouse no matter what and just submit more to the husband.
js wrote:
Husbands are to submit to wives, too. That’s under Eph 5.21.
js wrote:
You didn’t explain how this is consistent.
If an Un-married woman does not need a man to lead her it does not follow that a married one does, nor does it follow that an unmarried woman should be barred from leading other men or from being preachers.
I was responding to GovPappy’s comment and somehow it didn’t show up. He said, “As far as the story, I believe Nagemeh. Honestly, it makes less sense if it wasn’t true. I hope she can find some peace in all this – an incredibly tough situation to be in. And then to top it off, put up with the pain of people questioning her motives as well as the reality of her abuse.”
I responded: “Unless there is something we aren’t seeing. It is very possible that she has been threatened or the lives of her children are at stake if she doesn’t comply with those who are torturing her husband. Islamic terrorist methods are brutal as we already know. Further, this wouldn’t be the first time something like this was done. The Communists had a way with threatening families of imprisoned Christians. And the same was done to the prisoners if they didn’t comply – they were told that their families would disappear and they’d never see their loved ones again. Richard Wurmbrand describes one incident while he and other pastors were imprisoned in which they were deprived of sleep and nourishment until their wills were broken down and they had little resistance against their captors. In this broken down state, they were publicly filmed and and confessed to various untruths, one being that they were treated well in prison.
There is so much to this situation that we don’t know, and therefore I think it is hasty to make any statements affirming that Naghmeh was abused. I am open to the possibility that she was, but not without more evidence. It is wise to wait before making judgments and convicting a man before he has any recourse for a defense.
@ js:
Here is the problem with your answer. If you were to compare a comp marriage to one which is egalitarian, there would most likely not be any difference in how it is expressed or exhibited either to one another or to outsiders.
If the purpose is to be a demonstration of the Christ and the church, I would say it has been an epic fail. I have yet to meet one couple who has clearly demonstrated such a relationship in their marriage. That includes some of the more vaunted and outspoken comp leaders.
Years ago, i stood up against church leaders in a well known comp church in which there was a poorly handled pedophile situation. The pedophile is now serving time in prison. The elders attacked my husband and I, along with other couples, saying out marriages were in trouble.
I am still married. I wish i could say the same for a couple of the comp role model elders. I contend that you cannot show any difference in between a successful egal and comp marriage. If that is the case, then the terminology and the attempt to define gender roles in marriage is a waste of time.
It is nice to pretend that there is something different and also to think that somehow in some way you are doing it correctly. However, it doesn’t make a bit of difference in how it is lived out. There is a lot of hot air being spent on some sort of benefit that cannot be defined except for no women pastor and elders and the guy gets the final say. That is it and there is way too much time being spent on councils, conferences and books which are useless since there is no practical difference.
If you can show me a difference, I would be thrilled. So far, no one has been able to do so.
Daisy wrote:
She doesn’t gain anything that we are aware of. I do not underestimate the tactics of Islamic terrorists. They are as brutal, if not more brutal, than the Communists.
Darlene wrote:
This attitude is why so many women DV victims or rape vics or kids who have been abused don’t step forward, because they are often met with skepticism, or with demands to come to the table with scads of evidence.
Darlene wrote:
If Naghmeh has been abused, the longer we wait, the more isolated she will feel. I would prefer to believe her, say so, and then back track if somehow this is some sort of Iranian plot to embarrass Saeed.
Darlene wrote:
In the American court system, people can be found guilty on the words of one person without accompanying proof. That is how pedophiles and rapists are convicted. It is the church which has demanded the witnesses of 2-3 people for proof of molestation and that is what has gotten the church into trouble.
Once again, it is rare for women to lie about domestic violence and you can read that in the post. Therefore, I will choose to believe Naghmeh’s words. I believe she is a brave women to confess to this knowing that there would be lots of people out there who would not believe her.
js wrote:
When someone demands submission, it is subordination. Demanding submission for life is slavery.
@ Daisy:
Remember, Daisy, that my husband, the old dude in Raleigh, is willing to be the covering for any woman out there for a small yet noticeable love offering. 🙂
Nancy2 wrote:
Why is it I always think of microbiology when I hear the word subordination?
js wrote:
Bullhockey!! Prove it. Sacrificial love can be expressed just as well in any marriage, not only in a comp marriage. You are asserting, underhandedly, that a comp marriage is superior to any other marriage. Oneness is not more apparent in a comp marriage. God is not more glorified in a comp marriage. God did not give husbands and wives roles.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is “What if Naghmeh is telling the truth? How does that affect our faith? How does that affect how we view our Christian celebrities and causes?”
Daisy wrote:
I would say it absolutely does. The same way politics attracts the power hungry and being a boss attracts those who want to lord over others. That doesn’t invalidate being a politician, or, being the boss at a company. It just means we need to be cognizant of the fact that bad people will abuse any system that they feel they can manipulate.
The missing part of the equation is moving from correlation to causation. And the clarity to show that the Bible doesn’t indeed say the husband is the head of the wife, and that the Disciples, Apostles and virutally all 1st century church leaders were male. And that the scriptural exhortation for the selection of church eldership assumes male eldership. I agree with JS that this is secondary and, in my denomination(EPC) we are reformed complementarianish (the ish because churches have joined us with women pastors and we don’t tell them they have to quit, and we don’t force any church to only have men leaders).
The problem, from both sides of this debate, is that people either try to make up a list of rules, or demand to see them. That is antithetical to the Gospel message. I fully disagree when someone like Driscoll says men have to work and women have to stay home. There is very little to go on other than the description and encouragement of the husband being the leader of his family. How a couple works that out is up to them. How a church works it out is up to them.
For my family, my wife and I are complete opposites of the stereotypes. I am super emotional and sensitive and can’t fix a thing with my hands. She is not “tender” and asked me to stop messing with the power tools because I break everything I try to fix. Even in parenting I am the more gentle spirited one. She also is an ER nurse working towards her Nurse Practicioner degree. She will always make a looot more money than I will(until my televangelism career takes off….) She is a lot better with numbers than I am so I rely on her to be budget savy. None of what I described there causes me any concern about not being the head of my household. With all of what I described she would be the first to say she counts on me to be a proactive leader, yet nothing I described causes her to think I can’t be due to her more stereotypical “male” roles.
I did read to her that Wilson quote about disciplining your wife about not doing the dishes and she died laughing. I would have a black eye for anything like that. Plus I have done the dishes almost exclusively for about 8 years….following the dried ketchup on a plate incident of 07′.
I agree that making a bunch of lists and do’s and do nots is absurd and unhelpful. What does being the leader in our house mean? Can’t really describe it, but it is what I aspire to be, and what she expects of me.
Bridget wrote:
You make a marvelous point here. When we ask for practical examples of the differences between the two, they cannot give it. So they retreat to the spiritual realm, claiming that oneness and God;s glorification is more in evidence. But they cannot prove it. I guess if the comp leaders say it, it must be true, right?
I have been observing this phenomenon for a long time. The women who claim they are submissive to their husbands are no more submissive than most other women except when you get into the Duggar crowd and then we are in whacko land.
It is like Brave New World. I we say the sky is orange, it is orange even if we know it is blue.If we say comp women are submissive and legal women are not, then it must be true because we have said it.
The king has no clothes and that is why they retreat to the spiritual realm.Never forget that there is the crowd who claims God is glorified when children are molested and women are killed by abusive husbands.
They cannot prove anything. They just name it and claim it and deep down inside they know it.
Adam Borsay wrote:
How do you lead proactively?
js wrote:
The people at T4g, TgC, 9Marks, Piper, and CBMW–the people you want to defend here–are the ones who have explicitly said this is a gospel issue. They say that to deny patriarchy is to deny God’s law and his “good and beautiful design.” People who reject this dogma are called rebellious and liberal when, in fact, it is the patriarchs who twist the text and use peculiar “logic.”
Where was male leadership ordained? What verse? I do not believe you have supplied your evidence yet, though I have not read through the rest of the comments yet.
dee wrote:
I am still having a lot of trouble understanding this. Not trouble in the sense of believing a celebrity pastor could be doing something so terrible. But, if she had simply said, “These were his problems, I am too emotionally burned out to keep putting on a pretty face about what our marriage was like when it wasn’t like that” I would be totally on board.
But
The adding of it has been worse since his imprisonment is a red flag to me that something else is possibly going on behind the scenes. Not that she is lying, or that she is crazy or something. But as I said in my very first post, it isn’t that crazy to think that Iran is demanding her say that stuff. We have heard reports that Saeed continues to evangelize people in prison. Not only would they want to discredit him internationally, but, they would love to take her testimony to those people he has been talking to and say, “look, he is a liar, don’t trust him”.
As others have pointed out, an abuser can continue to abuse through simple conversation. But how believable is it that a man who is being starved, beaten and tortured is finally given a chance to talk to his wife and he is like, “you know, this is a good time to remind her what a terrible wife she is!” It isn’t like they are having these long private phone conversations every evening. Everything he does is monitored, and if he was abusing her verbally, IRan and probably the US would have evidence of it. And again, if Iran had those recordings, they of course would be showing them.
And she also indicated his porn problems are worse in that statement. Muslim regimes have strict laws on that stuff. Where is he getting porn? He surely doesn’t have unfettered internet access, let alone time to cruise porn sites, let alone a computer AT ALL.
I wouldn’t be negatively effected personally in my faith if it was all true, I would be said for her and him, but I say all that I just did to say, I feel as if there is a lot more going on here.
@ Friend:
+1,0000
@ js:
Ever read Eric Hoffer’s nook tiyled The True Believer?
Daisy wrote:
Well, as Okrapod has pointed out here recently, that is exactly what the Big Lie strategy is. Repetition, ignoring objections, repetition, ignoring objections, etc.
dee wrote:
As a reformed person, I would argue that nothing I do myself in my own power gives any more evidence to the majesty and soveriegnty of God than anything else I do or anyone else does. My desire and goal is to honor God by living in alignment to what He instructs.
@ numo:
Book titled…
Danged Android!
dee wrote:
This is just list requests. I don’t mean that rudely, I just mean, once you start forming a bunch of lists to what something does and doesn’t mean you start creeping into legalism. The husband is called to lead like Jesus did, so, I lead like Jesus does.
js wrote:
That is pure eisegesis. There is nothing in Ephesians about marriage being a model of Christ and the Church. It is a metaphor. A metaphor is not a model.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I agree that a list of rules is antithetical to the Gospel. I disagree that both sides are doing this. AFAIK, no egalitarian demands that every marriage have exactly equal distribution of power on every issue at every moment. There really is only one ironclad rule of Female Subordinationism. Females are subordinate by God’s “good and beautiful design” though said design can never be demonstrated from the actual text. ISTM that it is the Female Subordinationists who are adding to the Gospel with their ironclad rule.
Gram3 wrote:
Preface—I am going to bed and will not be able to respond tonight….
But I am curious to why you believe it is a metaphor and not a model. And if it is only a metaphor, why was it used as only a metaphor, and what was its purpose AS a metaphor. Not that this is your intention, but I feel as if you are being dismissive of what it indicates by hiding behind calling it a metaphor. It seems to flow with the general thoughts here that state that the husband is the head of the wife, while not equally stating that the wife is the head of her husband. Even if it is all metaphor, why is it only used one-directionally, and what would you interpret that one directional nature of metaphor to be indicating?
Adam Borsay wrote:
Which can (and is) interpreted in various ways. I even imagine there are some things God instructed in scripture that you would not do.
Gram3 wrote:
Are we able to be submissive to Gov without being subordinate to it? A list of rules OUTSIDE of what God says is problematic, submitting to what God DOES say is not legalistic. Making up a bunch of dating rules(ala duggers) is legalistic, not having sex outside of marriage is God honoring.
Adam Borsay wrote:
And that is why we must be very careful not to either add to his instructions or to take away from them. The Female Subordinationists cannot make a consistent textual argument, and they cannot make a consistent logical argument. Putting inconsistent exegesis together with an illogical argument does not yield an effective case for any doctrinal position, especially when it has to do with the status of half of humanity.
Here is the only “earlier” comment I have found that you have stated on marital “flourishing”. This statement doesn’t seem to indicate any mutuality.
js wrote:
It is the “authority of the husband is for the wife’s flourishing”????
Afterward, you said this:
js wrote:
Do you think the submission of the wife is for the husband’s flourishing????
Adam Borsay wrote:
It is a metaphor on its face, IMO. Paul says he is speaking of a mystery which has to do with Christ and the Church. I do not see anything in the words of the text which indicate that marriage is a model of Christ and the Church. If that is so, is every marriage a model of Christ and the Church? Or only a Christian marriage? Or only a Complementarian Christian marriage.
The question, IMO, really has to do with the definition of “head” in the context of Ephesians. It is instructive to me that Paul defines in the immediate context exactly what he means by head. He does not mention authority. He mentions provision and sacrifice. Christ is indeed the absolute authority over the Church. It does not follow from that fact that every man is therefore the authority over his wife. There is not a one-to-one correspondence, but the word “head” is laundered through the word “mystery” to somehow mean authority.
There are a couple of reasons why it might be uni-directional. One is the idea that Woman came from Man, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 11. That is the idea of source. Another reason might be that the male is the provider of the woman’s means of life such as food and protection. The head is the means by which food and air and water are provided to the body. There was no concept of the head being the command and control center of the body in the first century.
To import the modern idea of head as “authority” into the text is not good practice. Even today, the word “head” has numerous meanings. Like the head of a boat. Or the head of the line. To insist that head can only ever mean authority is just as fallacious as insisting that it must only ever mean source. Or any other particular meaning. The context determines the meaning. Otherwise we run afoul of Don Carson’s illegitimate totality transfer exegetical fallacy. Of course, Carson does precisely that, but it’s OK because the topic is non-negotiable dogma so the normal rules do not apply in the gender texts.
Daisy wrote:
Apparently, single women are intelligent, functional, sentient human beings. Once a woman gets married, she hands her brain over to her new husband and she then becomes a puppy on a string, to be led by her new servant-leader-owner.
Adam Borsay wrote:
But we must first make a solid case that God is actually saying what the Female Subordinationists say he is saying. In other words, I am objecting to the question begging that frequently passes for argument by the Female Subordinationists. See my interaction with JS who has yet to provide the verse where God ordains female subordination.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Jesus was perfect.
Gram3 wrote:
“Effective propaganda consists of Simplification and Repetition.”
— Reichsminister Josef Goebbels
Daisy wrote:
And it’s too long-winded a phrase; it can be further simplified to one word:
“SCRIPTURE(TM)!”
(SIMPLIFICATION und Repetition, remember. Heil und Sieg…)
dee wrote:
Just like Gnostics and New Age Ministers of Woo-Woo?
Adam Borsay wrote:
If it is a model, how do you think that model should be carried out in day to day life with a married couple??
The church is to serve and obey Jesus.
The church prays in Jesus’ name.
Jesus will read the Book of Life, telling who is and who is not of the “Church”.
Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross and shed his blood to pay for our sins and to allow the church to be born, and to give the members of the church eternal life.
Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.
If Christ is the “model” for husbands, and the Church is the “model” for wives, how does that work?
……..??????
Bridget wrote:
Of course.
He has a PENIS and You Don’t.
@ Nancy2:
Oh, yeah. The Church didn’t begin until after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven.
js wrote:
A question for the great hearafter is whether He laughs at our assertions or has his finger poised over the “smite” key. I get a kick out of that old farside cartoon.
I’ve been offline for some days, just trying to give assistance to someone who is a primary care giver for a relative currently moving to a more intensive long term care facility. I’m frankly baffled how Dee has the time or energy for anything else. My hat is off to you, I’m in awe.
js wrote:
The PEOPLE?!? Gosh, that sounds like victim-blaming.
The relationship was dysfunctional because of one person–my personality disordered husband. The relationship was made even more unhealthy because I was attempting to following the “Biblical™” mandate to submit. The more I submitted, the greater the abuse. The more my husband heard messages about how the husband was to rule over his wife, the more abusive he became.
On one stunning occasion our pastor’s sermon was about how it is easy for a wife to submit when the husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church. On the way home from church my husband said, “See! I don’t have to love you until you submit.” Yes, he was a complete nutjob. But the complementarian teachings we were hearing caused increased dysfunction in the marriage.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
LOL! I think I need to change the channel. JS is making me feel ill.
@ Darlene:
I think she is sick of being trotted out at conferences, being held up as some sort of gold standard, being given awards by evangelical organizstions – all the sideshow aspects of notoriety.
I also think she just can no longer continue to deny her reality.
This has nothing to do with “Islamic terrorists,” and everything to do with the way evangelicals have made both she snd her husband into celebrities. That, in and of itself, is very messed up, and given that plus the history of serious problems in their marriage, well… if i were her, I’d chuck it all (public appearances, intetviews, awards, the lot). Which is exactly what she’s done.
@ Bridget:
Goodness yes – even in same-sex marriages.
This line of argument has never made sense to me, that’s for sure.
@ dee:
She has been reduced to a meme of The Good Wife by SO many evangelicals, given awards for (basically) being married to a man who is in prison – it’s bern a spectacularly embarrassing sideshow, and i can’t blame her one bit for wanting to be left alone and not splashed all over social media.
The fact that so many will not believe *any* of what she has said because *some* of her wording seems ambiguous is just so awful, and very revealing, imo. (Yes, I’m unclear on some of what she said, but i don’t think she owes an explanation to anyonr, and i do believe she has bern abused.)
js wrote:
I begin to doubt you are truly representing the complementarian position, then.
@ Gram3:
Yes.
Bill M wrote:
One of my favorites!
@ siteseer:
I think js is having fun trolling this site. No less, and no more.
Things have been going around in circles ever since js started posting. Whoever they are, and whatever their reasons, they will keep manufacturing replies for as long as others engage them.
Might it be a good time to take a break from responding? I can’t and don’t propose to know the answer to that – but i think it’s worth considering. Whenever someone turns the comments into attention-seeking (as here), i have doubts about their motives.
Adam Borsay wrote:
This is an interesting statement and maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
I don’t believe I would ever have the confidence to state that I do anything “like Jesus does.” I would aim for it but to say that I do it? Not possible.
dee wrote:
Like Darryl Hunt?
numo wrote:
That is quite the point. Our system operates on the presumption of innocence. Ei incumbent probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on the one who denies).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
According to that article this idea is found with some variation in the Justinian codes, in English and Anglo-Amerocan common law, in the UN declaration of human rights and there is some questioning of testimony in Islamic law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
We do not and must not have a nation in which people are found guilty by accusation alone. And if public credibility is to be put behind the accusation alone theory, then we need to stop criticizing Billy Graham for the BG Rule.
Ask any malpractice carrier if there need to be two people in the examining room, if you don’t think there can be false accusation.
This woman may well be absolutely correct, or not. But there must not be a presumption of guilt without evidence.
Nancy2 wrote:
A lot of YOUNG women are attracted to this doctrine. They see it as an anecdote to the culture. Independence and free will are scary to a lot of people. They were never taught how to be interdependent (as we see in 1Corin 11). It is another reason Islam has been able to recruit the young here. People want rules, roles and formulas to follow. It is much easier to follow human gurus than it is to Abide in Christ and seek His wisdom.
The women in the comp world often scared me more than the men. Try hinting to a comp man his wife must not be very sharp or capable (after he has gone through the comp litany as we have seen here) and they go nuts. It is uncanny. They have basically just described not very sharp or capable women in general but then it is a point of pride that they may have married such.
Then they start to defend how brilliant and capable she is but that only means her role is to prop him up . It really starts to look like the house of cards it really is .
@ Lydia:
I will add that their only retort is that this is how God has designed things . That only impugns God’s character and really makes no sense in the larger picture of the creation narrative . They take the results of human sin and turn it into a virtue . The sin of Patriarchy as Gods design.
I think Paul will have Something to say to them for butchering his words. Have you ever noticed comps never quote Jesus? Jesus is the filter through which we are to understand Paul.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, a lot do. And our society including the church has perhaps gone too far in eliminating even healthy rules and roles and formulas. Maybe we have thrown the people you are talking about to the wolves, so to speak. Maybe what they need is more structure than they can find in less abusive situations. Perhaps they should not have just two choices: either live with an abusive situation or else stand alone and directionless and afraid.
Hey, I don’t know, but I do think you have raised a very important issue in noting that some people need this. They used to tell us, don’t take something away from (the patient) unless you give them something to replace it. In this case I mean structure. And here is Mohler saying where are people going to go if not to them? We need to brain storm on that IMO.
siteseer wrote:
That was my desired point. Not to be Jesus Himself, but to live according to the example of Christ.
But this leads me back to Gram3 comments from late last night(early this morning EST). I would contend that you have to do a significant injustice to the plain meaning of the text to dismiss the passages related to “headship” and husband and wives roles in marriage. If the roles of marriage are completely interchangeable(generally speaking) Paul has a funny way of doing that….because he gives completely different instructions.
The husband is clearly listed as the head and you are right it doesn’t just mean “boss”(which the concept of boss is antithetical to the example of Christ anyways), and the idea of “source” is also a rich word picture that Paul isn’t accidentally referring to.
But to briefly list the clear differences;
1. While spouses are to mutually submit(which is often ignored by the hyper complementarians) Paul ADDS a specific statement to the wife…ie..submit in all things AS IF TO Christ. Paul does NOT tell the husband to submit to the wife as if to Christ.
2. Husbands are to give themselves up for their wives, wives aren’t told to give themselves up. To add a silly analogy…after we were in bed my wife said she was hungry(she had just gotten home from a 12 hour shift) so I went down stairs and made her a snack…I would never think to ask the same…but in our marriage I regularly look for ways to serve my wife…I think of her needs and desires as opportunities to show love to her and I enjoy giving up myself(being in a warm bed) a great opportunity to be loving like Christ’s example.
3. The husband is encouraged to invest in his wife’s spiritual life. It is a natural and specific outflow of the example of Christ. Obviously a husband can’t make his wife pure and spotless, but the example of Christ is the standard. And as a reminder, Christ didn’t go around brow beating people into following his lead on spiritual matters, but spoke truth gracefully to those in his life. This does not mean that wifes CAN’T do the same for their husbands, but this passage clearly indicates it is a specific charge given to the husband. Not to the wife.
4. The husband is given the specific command to love his wife and the wife is told to respect her husband. It doesn’t say love and respect your spouse. Again, not that there isn’t a mutuality in this, but it speaks to a difference in the design/character/general needs of the husband and wife.
You(Gram3) argue that the comp position is logically inconsistent, and I would push back that though you are approach is not unthoughtful, you aren’t meaningfully engaging with a clearly described differentiating dynamic specifically laid out by Paul. You have to avoid much, and assume more, to ignore that the husband(male) and wife(female) are given exclusive expectations/rules for their “role” in marriage.
Now, it is as problematic to take this passage and start listing a bunch of rules(mostly first world 21st century flavored) about what
Adam Borsay wrote:
Hit the post button accidentally..
Now, it is as problematic to take this passage and start listing a bunch of rules(mostly first world 21st century flavored) about what you can and can’t do….aka…what jobs you are allowed to have, how much money (comparatively) you can make, who has to do dishes and change diapers and change the oil in the car.
siteseer wrote:
It concerns me that you and the rest of the comp crowd feel like husbands have to be Jesus. That’s a pretty big role to try to fill. The Bible doesn’t even say that’s what you have to do. Seems like a lot of comp people have unrealistic expectations for husbands and even wives. And the fact that you have to get on a blog you know is against your views to defend it the you are doing is also a red flag.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Chrstina wrote:
You are misunderstanding my point….I tried to clarify, I am not to BE Jesus, but to follow Jesus’ example. There is a world of difference between the two. And regardless, whether metaphor or model, the text clearly says, Husbands are to be like Jesus. The argument you have is not with me, but the text itself.
And I personally get on TWW because I find it a valuable place to be more aware of significant issues within American Christendom. For instance, this post alone, and the conversations I have had has served to; 1) I am going to put counesling/battered wives information in the womens restrooms at our church, 2) Enjoyed and was helped/encouraged by the article Daisy(or Nancy2) about how clergy can better be aware of and serve those who suffer abuse 3) Dialoguing with people who disagree forces me to think more deeply about things that are often unthoughtfully assumed…unrelated/related example…I used to be a staunch young earth creationist, but dialoguing and reading material by old earthers enriched my theology, created a more consistent position, and sharpened how I thought through things. Engaging with our brothers and sisters in inhouse “debates” is beneficial, we shouldn’t disengage just because someone seemingly is reading somethign “wrong”, we should lean in and work through what we think and be challenged on how we think. 4) And though I often find myself disagreeing with the TWW’s theological and doctrinal positions, the Deebs are excellent and fair moderators who I respect and enjoy highly and even where I find secondary disagreement, I make a point of reading virtually everything they post because of their kind and thoughtful tone.
js wrote:
No, the scope of harm isn’t the same. The primary reason for that, I think, is that the Pied Piper and his gang of Female Subordinationismists haven’t achieved political power. For a glimpse of what might happen if they did, we need only listen to the recent rantings of Kevin Swanson.
Adam Borsay wrote:
But you claim we are called to be submissive to our husbands. The very act of submission is a giving up of oneself for the other.
Here is my confusion. My husband works long hours and is often on call. When he comes home, late at night, I have his dinner warmed and waiting for him, even if t is my bedtime. He gets calls in the middle of the night on a routine basis. He has offered to sleep in another room so as not to wake me. I told him it is a pleasure for me to hear his calls at night. I also tend to make funny quips when i am half asleep anyway.
So, for you it is giving up yourself. but I do the same and far more than I am willing to discuss on a blog. What is the gender difference here? In some respects, it sound like semantics.
@ Adam Borsay:
Thank you for your kind comment.
numo wrote:
I am concerned that the reactions (this is a conspiracy) could be a pall on Christian women being able to safely confess they are being abused.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I am not asking for a list. I am asking how you, personally, lead like Jesus. What, in the leadership ministry of Jesus was something that He did, beyond the Cross since none of us can do that, that a woman could not do?
Nancy2 wrote:
2.). I’ve done things for my husband lots of times. Once, his truck broke down in Alabama. We live in Kentucky, but I gathered tools, packed a suitcase, and drove to Alabama in the middle of the night to help my husband. As a wife, I guess I really messed up there. My behavior was not biblical. When my husband called that night, I guess I should had told him that he is supposed to take care of me – not the other way around!
3.). A husband is supposed to keep his wife’s spiritual life on track? A wife can’t study and pray without a babysitter? And, if the husband gets off track …… what then?? Does the wife jut smile and submit?
4.). Here is my biggest problem with Paul’s teaching when applied to the modern world. The husband has to love his wife, but it doesn’t matter if he respects her or not. A wife has to respect her husband and submit to him, but it doesn’t matter if she loves him or not. Respect, love. and submission are all one way streets in a “biblical” marriage. That might work if we still did arranged marriages and pater daddy’s sold their daughters to the highest bidders, or if we married for financial or political gain like the monarchical royal families of medevial Europe.
“Design/character/general needs”. …. A truly biblical husband doesn’t need love, and a truly biblical wife doesn’t need respect. When hold that up to the comparison between Christ and the Church, that would indicate that Christ doesn’t need to show any respect for the Church, and it really doesn’t matter if the Church loves Christ.
siteseer wrote:
What if you’re Hyper-Calvinist and Jesus is just the one Holding the Biggest Whip?
@ dee:
The problems in Christianity always start when we take something good and true and try to construct systems to help us maintain it. The legalism of the Pharisees wasn’t new made up rules untethered from God’s laws, they were a bunch of increasingly elaborate rules inititally developed to make sure someone didn’t, even accidentally, break the original rules of God. And eventually those extra rules evolved into the whole point themselves….
The day to day instructions for husbands and wives are virtually non-existent. So when Piper says, “don’t give a man directions” it is Pharisitical. The original concept, Respect your husband(who happens to be male) is being protected by new additional rules. So, if you won’t even give a strange man directions as to not usurp created order, you can be pretty confident that you are going to be super mega respectful to your husband…..Clearly absurdity.
So where does that leave us? God’s word says, “x”, but doesn’t give a bunch of do’s and don’ts. So, we are left to simply say, “God is good, He is trustworthy, and through the indwelling of the Spirit, a humble heart and faithful pursuit of Christ, I will do my best to live that out in the context God has placed me”. End of story.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
For a glimpse of what might happen if they did, read The Handmaid’s Tale or search the news for #Taliban or #ISIS. “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!”
Lydia wrote:
“IN’SHAL’LAH… IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
We often get folks who come on this blog to show that they can, by superior theological ability, that the Deebs are nuts. If you go back to one of his original comments, he said that TWW is into finding the warts in other people.I knew, at that moment, his agenda would be to oppose us at every turn.
However, unlike the children who run The Gospel™l Coalition website, we are happy to post his running disagreement with us. We are comfortable in our skin.
Also, it is gratifying to see our readers responding to his comments and doing a great job at defending their point of view. The dialogue on this blog is a great way to hone all of our theological arguments.
numo wrote:
I was wondering that too…
Lydia wrote:
Some years ago, I read a news item about young British women who converted to the most extreme forms of Islam. After being raised and living with “Do Your Own Thing” for 20 years and burning out, they said it was a relief to take the chadoor or burqa and have everything you do or think spelled out for you word-for-word in the Koran and Hadith.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I certainly hope that you are correct in your feelings.
If you are not, then this incident will prove to be damaging to women in high profile positions who are being abused. They will realize that they must reach some impossible standard of proof of their abuse.
Adam Borsay/All readers
One further point of which to be aware. We have some indication that Naghmeh is viewing some of these interactions. Think about that as you post your responses.
@ Nancy2:
You have shifted the conversation from “what does the bible actually say”, to, “I don’t like what it says because it is antiquated and unhelpful in our new modern context”.
To specifially address your examples/questions; I specifically stated multiple times that an instruction to a particular member of the marriage is not a statement that it doesn’t exist in reverse/mutually. Of course a husband needs love, and of course a wife needs respect. To imply that I was stating that as long as I love my wife I can be direspectful is as an uncharitable reading of what I plainly wrote as possible.
The question isn’t the mutuality of a healthy marriage, but how do we engage with and apply the clear teaching of different “primary” realities of marriage roles. Again, you are clearly stating that you have a problem with Paul’s teaching. Not that I am misreading Paul, or that he is being misapplied, but that you simply don’t like what he has to say. Perhaps I have misread you, but that is actually what you said….aka, the biggest problem I have with Paul’s teaching….
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Modern Stepford wives wear burqas and suicide bombs?
Adam Borsay wrote:
God did not say there were specifically different designs/needs for husbands vs. wives. You are taking what Paul wrote and applying it to ALL husbands and wives for all times and with the idea that ALL husbands and wives have these exact same designs/needs.
Paul was writing in a time and place in history when the husband/wife relationships/dynamics were quite different than they are today. I want respect as much as love from my husband, likewise my husband wants love as much as respect. Today, husbands and wives freely choose each other. This was not the norm during the time of Paul nor for a long time after.
You are reading the text Paul wrote to a certain group at a certain time, possibly he was even answering specific questions asked of him, as though they are a prescription for eternity.
Love and respect are principles for all of us, but not commands to never be broken. I would never respect my husband if he beat me. I don’t believe God would expect me to respect him if he was abusing me, and the governing authorities would agree with me. This would not have been the case during Paul’s time. The wife would be at the mercy of her husband’s whims. I can see why Paul wrote what he did, when he did. Can you? Can you see how it is not “exactly” the same now, but we still have love and respect for our spouses? We would not “choose” them if we did not love and respect them freely to begin with. That was not the case during Paul’s time.
dee wrote:
I would say that it is comparing apples to oranges. Other high profile women aren’t stating that their husband is currently looking at pornography and abusing them from an Iranian torture cell. Again, I DON’T think she is lying. I feel like something else is going on. And even if my hypothesis is correct, I do not have trouble believing he wasn’t a good guy previous to all of this. He was raised in a patriachial society where wife/woman abuse is the norm. Just look at pictures of Iranian culture(specifically women) pre Ayatolla and post…crazy! Though he was saved, I am sure his formative years were defined by the examples of horrific mistreatment of women and it surely would have an effect upon him as an adult.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Paul’s teachings are taken out of context, and his letters were written to churches that existed in a society where people worshipped idols and women were, by and large, either prostitutes or property.
My thought is that maybe Paul is telling his friends in Ephesus ( where he lived for 3 years) what they needed to hear. Women in the female dominated city needed to be told more than once that they needed to have a submissive attitude. Husbands needed to be reminded to express love and protection, and maybe be involved in spiritual things, because their culture taught them the opposite.
It’s a letter, written to real people in a real city, to address real issues. Not a rule book, engraved in gold. Centuries of Christians also concluded that it was inspired, God-breathed. But it must be read in context.
I should probably ask my wife if its OK to post this 😉
Adam Borsay wrote:
And the context in which God has placed 21st century husbands and wives is quite different than the context they were placed 100,500,1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, etc. years ago.
@ Bridget:
Your assesment begs the question; What is the purpose and weight of scripture to us today? While you disagree with my theological/doctrinal position, I am not sure of what yours is. Frogive me if I am misreading you, but it feels as if you are saying, what Paul(or other parts of scripture) says is limited almost exclusively in scope to those contemporary situations he was dealing with and has little influence and weight for us today.
Scripture can, and should, be read with careful grasp of its contemporary voice, but that does not also mean that it isn’t universally and consistently applicable(within the context of its actual meaning) regardless of era. To read scripture through a lens that limits its convictions to only that which we feel makes sense for our modern sensibilities is to divorce ourselves from the historic approach to scripture/Christian living.
What is admitted in your position is that we aren’t even arguing the same thing. I am arguing that the Bible means what it says, and you are arguing that it (at least in some areas) is antiquated and has not bearing in a modern sense. Which leaves us with an ineffective dialogue because we don’t even have an established and agreed upon understanding of what Scripture even is, or, what role it plays.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Are there not other scriptures that say all believers are to emmulate Jesus?
Bridget wrote:
In the 1st century, people were stoned to death. Death by stoning was biblical ~ Mosaic Law.
Even the Ten Commandments indicate that women/wives were property. Exodus 22:17 “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife ………., nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
Bridget wrote:
Of course it does. It isn’t a zero sum game where if the husbands are given specific instructions to be like Jesus in their marriage no one else at any point in their life shoud emmulate Jesus.
To give a simplistic example; Historically we have had an attitude of “women and children first” if a boat is sinking. This is a good thing. We should look askance at a man who pushes a woman out of the way to take the seat on the lifeboat. Not that a woman therefore gets to push a man aside, but the accountability society has placed upon men(as an outflow of this ‘like Jesus’ concept) is that a woman should never need to push a man aside anyways because the seat has already been provided for her.
Bridget wrote:
I was about to add to this, but GSD beat me to it:
That’s what I’m thinking, too. Perhaps Diana/Artemis worship had badly damaged marital relations in Ephesus, and Paul felt he had to remind wives about respect and husbands about love.
But he did more than that: He went on to remind both sexes that, more than anything, a husband and wife are to be “one flesh”. To enjoy the kind of unity (not headship and submission) that exists between Jesus and His people. That’s what both men and women are called to, and what will truly glorify God.
Adam Borsay wrote:
The Greek word for respect in that passage is phobios. It means fear. So understand “respect” in that sense. Then go back up in that entire Chiasm for what is being communicated: Be children of light, filled with the Holy Spirit and submit to one another.
So with what we know about the The Temple cult cultural complications in Ephesus from not only history but Acts and 1 Timothy, what might we glean from that?
Adam Borsay wrote:
Yes you are. And I didn’t say that about Paul at all.
See my reply here @ Bridget. You speak of the importance of context yourself.
You are suggesting many untrue things about me in your response. You seem to be painting me into a box of your own making. I hope it is not for the purpose of easy dismissal 😉
Adam Borsay wrote:
Wrong, Adam. Both women and men are called upon to be Christlike. It makes no sense to me to say that, within marriage, women (and only women) are supposed to be… something other than Christlike. (What would we even call it? “Church-like”? Ugh.)
Why are some scriptures read and applied so woodenly, as we are seeing now, yet so many other bits of scripture are not?
@ okrapod:
I think you are right. It must be addressed. And I do understand why comp doctrine is an attractive alternative for those who desire a good marriage. They see it as offering a template with godly people to guide them.
But that is a lie. It is arbitrary, vague and full of platitudes that keep people focused on the wrong things —stunting their wisdom growth. Genitalia becomes the qualifier for spiritual wisdom. It is silly.
I cannot tell you how many young women I have heard lament about their husband not being the spiritual leader he should be. I always ask them what that would look like. It is usually a list or more platitudes. I think it is a strange thing to say when one has access to the Holy Spirit. But it does not occur to them. They are too busy praying the husband will be the leader “God intended him to be”. Their leaders taught them to pray like this.
It never occurs to them that adults in a marriage don’t need a “leader”.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Ha ha. Someone once told me to substitute ‘assembly’ for ‘church’ in the Eph passage. It helps to dispel some of the silliness. We tend to view the word church in strange ways.
Assembly like? Hee hee.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Actually, I think that is a very recent attitude as far as history is concerned. Men ‘may’ have saved women and children that they loved(.) The weak and less valuable were generally left to die or fend for themselves. This often included women, children, aged, sick, slaves, etc.
To address multiple comments…What we are dealing with in disagreement is, at its heart, a much different approach to Biblical interpretation. I am a big fan of the approach of “Prima Facis”—on the face/plain reading. This serves an important purpose. Sometimes we lean so heavily on modern scholarship/extra biblical research that we can dramatically change the way we read something. It is one thing to sharpen/enrich a reading of scripture, it is quite another to change it all together.
The problem with changing is that we are indirectly stating that for “x” amount of centuries everyone was wrong, but now, with our new academic standards and research we know more than our predecessors in the 5th century knew.
While it serves a great value to utilize the things we are continuously learning as an enrichment of our understanding, we need to be careful to not change the plain reading. It can become like peeling an onion until we find an apple, vs finding a richer flavor and aroma of onion.
What seems to be happening in discussions like this is finding ways to say that what is plainly written about husbands being the head and serving their wives like Christ is not what was meant. I do absolutely agree that of course wives(and everyone else) should be like Christ in their lives, I still haven’t heard an explanation of why men aren’t actually the heads of their wife and wives aren’t supposed to submit to their husbands as if to Christ.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
“the text clearly says, Husbands are to be like Jesus.”
Wouldn’t that statement imply that wives are to be like the Church. And, since the Church is to worship and serve Jesus, should wives worship and serve their husbands?
Do we have the Gothard umbrella thing going on here, with wives always at the lowest level?
Adam Borsay wrote:
Make sure you are living that by greeting your brothers with a Holy Kiss. :o)
I don’t want to get off topic, but this whole discussion is really a matter of interpretation. We are reading the same Bible, but interpreting it differently.
I would argue that the Bible must be interpreted in the context of the language and culture in which it was written, and in the context of the rest of the Bible. It was written for us, but not to us, and it cannot be interpreted to mean something that it would not have meant to the original readers. Yes, it applies to us, but that application is secondary.
Yes, the Bible means what it said. In terms of Ephesians, it means what it said, in Greek, written to people in a very strange and corrupt city, with a unique and bizarre culture, who Paul knew very well. Ephesians was written as a letter, not a collection of verses that can be disconnected from the whole. And I think it’s quite possible to grab a verse out of an English translation of the Bible, outside of its context, and make it say something that it doesn’t.
Sorry if I’m rambling. I think about this stuff a lot.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I am trying to think of a city these days with one of the largest temple cults in the world dedicated to a fertility goddess. Can you think of one? Hail to Diana?
dee wrote:
This is the difficult thing about abuse. The abused has little support unless and/or until it can/is proven in a court of law. Victims of other crimes get more protection and understanding. I would even say that Christian woman have a more difficult road because, afterall, she is married to a “Christian” man who does not do “those” things.
Lydia wrote:
And women should wear covering over our heads. Those kisses and coverings must be taken at face value and applied in contemporary situations. We should never consider the culture in which those epistles were written.
okrapod wrote:
What we replace the fake hierarchy with is a command to pattern ourselves after Christ himself. To love and serve one-another. To love others as we love ourselves. To be ready to serve and not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. To pursue the fruit of the Spirit. All of this is the mutuality and genuine complementarity displayed in the body metaphors of the NT. In other words, the structure is to do what Paul instructs in Ephesians before the 5:22ff clobber prooftexts.
@ GSD:
I agree!!!
GSD wrote:
I am very sorry but you are making too much sense! :o)
Could it be similar to the “letter of the law and not the spirit of the law’?
The irony of Patriarchy/comp is they are pushing a similar phallocentrstic idolatry. They must have a pink and blue Christianity. Women are saved by staying in their role. Only for women is there a work of salvation according to their interpretation of 1st Timothy. It boggles. They leave the context of 1st century Ephesus out of the equation and women are left with bearing children to really be saved.
It does not occur to them that females can be like their Incarnate Jewish Male Savior.
Lydia wrote:
…and drinking a little wine for upset stomachs.
…and lifting holy hands.
…and teach that it’s a good for a man not to touch a woman
…and encourage young people to remain single like Paul was so they won’t be distracted from their devotion to the Lord
…and cut off your hand if it causes you to sin
Adam Borsay wrote:
Agree fully with all. Argument/critique is vital, esp because we’re divided into thousands and thousands of denominational pockets. We are not a very tolerant people. And that highlights the value of Deebs’ tolerance and generosity.
But there are limits to debate. Their value depends on the willingness of both parties to be open about their own beliefs, the strengths/weaknesses which are inherent in all of them. Vulnerability in critique is hard work.
Too, thanks for your comment about your own marriage. It was lovely to read. As also Dee’s comment about hers. They are so similar! The difference of hers to yours seem merely window-dressing to me.
@ okrapod:
I am not liking whst you say – if you apply this logic to rape, then …
Yes, there are *some* false accusations, but imo, they do not invalidate the vadt majority of true statements by those eho hsve endured abuse and/or sexual assault.
Adam Borsay wrote:
No one is trying to “find ways” for anything. What Paul said was meant in the context and to whom it was written, probably in response to issues happening specifically in Ephesus. Are their wider applications, yes. We are all to love and respect our spouses. We are all to emmulate Christ.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Because head does not denote authority in that context or to that audience. In Greek there are very clear words for such. One is used in 1 Corin 7 in relation to marriage. Check it out.
As long as you interpret kephale as authority you will miss the beauty of Eph 4-5.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Where are these roles spelled out? Did God say anything about these roles in Genesis? If so, where? What I believe that you are ignoring is another reason why those particular instructions were given to wives and husbands in the first century. Husbands did not, as a rule, love their wives who were considered little more than property to provide sexual satisfaction, heirs and future labor, and housekeeping. Certainly a husband would not expect to lay down his life for his wife. Lay down his wife for his life? You betcha. Similarly, a respectable woman was extremely deferential to either her husband, her father, or her oldest living male relative. Because it was a……Patriarchal Culture. If a woman behaved in a manner which was deemed disrespectful, then the husband, his family, and the name of Christ would be defamed.
It is impossible to do sound interpretation while ignoring the context into which the instructions were spoken. It is a theme of Paul’s not to bring shame upon the name of Christ. We see this also in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere. If there are divinely-ordained Roles, then we would expect to find them specified in Genesis 1-2. We do not find any reference to Roles there. In the text, that is. Perhaps in the study notes, but not in the text itself.
Patrice wrote:
So true! I agree.
@ Adam Borsay</b.
@ Adam Borsay:
OK, if a wife earns every penny of income and the husband is severely incapacitated, is the husband still in the Role of Leader? Because he is the male? Or is head a functional term rather than a positional term? I believe it is a functional term.
@ Gram3:
What you are saying is an ideology of how things ought to be. What do you suggest for people who cannot get from the ideology to the practical application because they do not love themselves and they do not know how to make decisions and they are on the down slope of some gaussian curve of some essential trait necessary to convert ideology into practical behavior. I am not willing to say about these people, well good enough for them.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Yes, and so are wives. And single males and females. And children who are believers. I do not think it is supportable to break Christlikeness down into girl and boy categories. In whatever circumstances we find ourselves, we are all to pursue Christlikeness.
Adam Borsay wrote:
We need to engage with the teaching of the entirety of the written word and the life pattern of Christ. However, to say that the “primary realities of marriage roles” is that clear teaching is begging the question.
Regarding Naghmeh:
Someone here wrote (can’t find it, thread is too long) that we need to have evidence before we support Naghmeh. This is true in the US court of law. It is also true for most accusations, since we do not want to jump into foolishness.
But this does not work out neatly regarding domestic abuse (whether child or spousal):
—-Victims of intimate crime often can’t provide witnesses or evidence since it is one on one.
—-the number of false reports regarding this type of crime is low.
—-Additionally, a great deal of domestic abuse goes unreported, so the false-report stats we have are actually very low indeed, although we cannot be precise about it.
—-As several have said, asserting spousal abuse brings even more damage to Naghmeh. No benefit.
—-IMO Dee is wise to say we can retract later, if political coercion is behind Naghmeh’s assertions. Naghmeh is in a terrible situation from many different directions. Undoubtedly, she needs our support for whatever she chooses to ask.
I support her completely. Be tough to all the naysayers, Naghmeh, and be gentle with yourself. I wish I could do more than simply wish you safety and peace!
Adam Borsay wrote:
Are women saved by bearing children? Do you practice guy-smooching every Sunday morning? Do females at your church wear either braids or pearls?
If you want to follow a simple plain text hermeneutic, then you need to do that consistently, IMO, for such hermeneutic to have any force.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Similarly, to read it through a lens that limits our convictions to only that which made sense to prior generations steeped in patriarchal thinking is to divorce ourselves from the historic approach to scripture/Christian living. Unless, of course, that we are governed by prior historical approaches to the text, like the legitimacy and, in some case, the virtue of slaveholding.
Bridget wrote:
“there”
Adam Borsay wrote:
You have not demonstrated, either, where your conception of “headship” is ordained by God in the first place. In the first century, the males were the heads of their wives in every way imaginable. Should we revert to that model? Slavery was considered acceptable by conservative Reformed authorities, like Dabney, until fairly recently in church history. Have we, therefore, abandoned the authority of the Bible because we have discarded misinterpretations of the plain reading of the text? I do not think so.
I am the village inerrantist, for crying out loud. I do not, however, believe in an infallible theological system nor an inerrant interpretation. Except my own, of course.
okrapod wrote:
No, of course not. If people are not believers, for example, they need some structure, like laws and social norms. Even believers need those things. In the church/Kingdom, however, we are to build one another up. I do not think that necessitates any form of hierarchy, though clearly human organizations need leadership. The question is, does that mean that there must necessarily be a leadership class that is limited by criteria other than qualification?
Bridget wrote:
If this is the case, then the authoritarian aspect to Adams’ window-dressing needs to be rejected simply because it does harm to many women and men.
If the same good can be obtained without applying a power quotient, then submission needlessly makes more trouble in a world already full of it.
Complementarianism, here, appears to be a legalistic application of scriptural principles. It conforms to Jesus’ criticisms of the legalistic bunch within the Pharisees—their literalizzed extrapolations of principles produced damage from what was intended to be good.
Gram3 wrote:
Have we abandoned the authority of the bible because we have discarded one interpretation for another to better fit our current culture and beliefs? I think that in doing so we have re-defined what the authority of the bible actually is. We have said that the ‘authority’ of the meaning of some passage was limited to a particular cultural pattern in the past but that now this no longer applies in our current situation. Of course, I believe that it is right and just to do so, and that the ‘all truth’ into which the Spirit leads the church includes this very process. B16 commented on this by saying that we are not expecting further revelation but sometimes our understanding of something changes.
But for those who think that this change in understanding is error, then yes it does constitute an abandonment of the authority of scripture as they understand authority.
Lydia wrote:
“AVE, PRIAPUS!”
Bridget wrote:
“Which wooden Scriptures personally benefit MEEEEEEEE?”
Adam Borsay wrote:
It IS a zero-sum game if you’re into Comp.
okrapod wrote:
And that is an incorrect understanding of what “authoritative” and “sufficient” means WRT the Bibliical texts. I agree that this misunderstanding is widespread.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t have any good ideas about leadership or hierarchy or qualifications for leadership or such, and my original comment did not mention any of that. My concern is more similar to what HUG was talking about with young women converting to Islam-that it was a relief to get away from doing you own thing. The church from which I recently departed, and that denom as a whole so I am led to believe, have taken the idea that people can believe pretty much whatever or nothing much and that this approach is within the norms of christianity. I think that this leaves some people in a really bad situation because they need something quite different from that. I think that there has to be within christianity something substantive on a level that meets human needs of these people without being abusive.
Nancy2 wrote:
Specifically, Paul’s letters were written to churches that existed in THIS society:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhP-OUt1Eos
(And after what came up when I searched for this on YouTube, I’m going to have to flush my search history.)
Lydia wrote:
Well, there’s a lot of “Kirks” dedicated to “Hail to Priapus!”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is what it ends up looking like, HUG. I don’t believe that all people who do this with scripture consciously do itsl, although I’m sure some few do. Some were taught and sincerely believe the comp. teaching, as I did for many years. But if you are going to believe the simple meaning of the text, as Gram has pointed out, you can’t pick and choose which verses to apply woodenly (well you can BUT . . .)
Nancy2 wrote:
“It Is Written!”
Around the same time I came across that news item, the now-defunct Church for Men website had a blog post about “Why Men Flock to Islam” or “Why Islam Appeals to Men”.
Not the Male Supremacist aspect of X-treme Islam, though that does appeal to those who already lean towards Male Supremacy.
No, the most common appeal of Islam to men was that Islam gets results. Islam gets respect (phobos kedros doxa). Islam promises that if you convert and follow the rules, your Islamic daughters won’t become sluts, your Islamic sons won’t become rebels or slackers, i.e. your sons and daughters (and your family line) will be Godly instead of Worldly. And Islam demands rigor; you can’t just slide by lukewarm; Islam enforces DISCIPLINE.
Not that much different from the appeal/sales pitch of Pearl/Ezzo/Dobson childrearing, Vision Forum Homeschooling, and Church Membership Covenants.
@ okrapod:
I see that I misread and misunderstood your comment. It is difficult for me to answer your actual question because I have little experience with the problem of too little structure. What do you think that might look like without explicit rules or hierarchy? Perhaps I am experiencing a failure of imagination.
@ okrapod:
I honestly believe the Body of Christ has failed in this area. For 2000 years. In more ways than we have time to discuss.
Nancy2 wrote:
I get the impression that if Paul were recorded to say “turn right at the next intersection” some people would be going in circles for the rest of their life.
@ Patrice:
I agree. Until people understand the psychological aspects of living in basically what amounts to a black OP life, they would do well to say nothing.
If I am going to err, it is to believe her, encourage her, etc. I know so many women who have NO one to accompany them to court for an EPO hearing. They cannot afford lawyers! So I go when I can. A nodody with no legal training. The moral support helps with courage to face what they have been beat down by.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Some of these Muslim guys overseas don’t have a very high view of women (vast understatement on there), so I wouldn’t be surprised that the Iranians find it normal for a husband to verbally berate his wife harshly on the phone.
You said,
If he was already verbally abusive prior to the imprisonnment, that is yes, highly likely.
Verbal abusers deal with their anger by taking it out on other people. They don’t really need to be triggered by their victim per se, but some verabl abusers, if they are feeling especially stressed out, the anger erupts.
Verbal abusers choose to deal with any stress or frustration by taking it out on others around them, so yes, I can see an abusive husband who is stressed from jail, choosing to let some steam off at his wife, rather than scream at his captors and risk the captors smacking his head off.
(On a side note, the ultimate deal with verbal abuse if that the abuser uses the verbal abuse to maintain control over the victim, so it does not really matter what the victim does or does not do, the abuser will always lash out at the victim anyway.)
Bill M wrote:
That was a laugh!
Nancy2 wrote:
(quoting JS):
Another issue with JS comment there is that there are egalitarian / mutualist marriages where the wife is not under the spouses’s leadership or headship, but their marriages are not dysfunctional.
There are married couples who claim to be complementarian, but their marriage is functionally egalitarian, and they say they are just happy that way. Their marriages don’t seem dysfunctional without husband-leadership.
Bill M wrote:
Until they get dizzy and wreck! Or, run out of fuel.
@ Gram3:
About the marriage as metaphor thing.
If marriage was so incredibly, monumentally important to use as an illustration of comparing Jesus’ relationship to the church or whatever, these comments by Paul are funny (and never addressed by complementarians):
1 Corinthians 7
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
Do not look for a wife. …
But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
@ Patrice:
I agree. Until people understand the psychological aspects of living in basically what amounts to a black OP life, they would do well to say nothing.
If I am going to err, it is to believe her, encourage her, etc. I know so many women who have NO one to accompany them to court for an EPO hearing. They cannot afford lawyers! So I go when I can. A nodody with no legal training. The moral support helps with courage to face what they have been beat down by. okrapod wrote:
This made me think of the monk Pagnino who translated teshuqa in Genesis 3 from “turning” to ‘desire’ in the 1300’s. It became the defacto translation. Did that change the way that part was understood centuries later as society changed? As word meanings evolve, they communicate different things…even subtly. It is something to consider. It is one reason I prefer linguists over theologians when looking at translations.
To me, it would be prefering a doctor over a pastor when very ill. Although both are good, one is more practical.
Oops! Two responses in one combox. Sorry!
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes, this is what I was trying to drive at with JS.
All he kept doing was saying, “Husband leadership is God’s design for wives.” I don’t think God is a dope or an illogical clown.
It makes no sense to me why Un-married women do not need male leadership (JS confirmed this), yet if that same Un-married woman were to marry, suddenly, according to JS-complementarian style thinking, that woman has to turn all, or most, of her agency and decision-making over to a husband?
If you, a woman, did not need male leadership prior to marriage (and you didn’t), you don’t need it afterwards, either. This should be an eye opener to comps that something is wonky with how they are interpreting the biblical text about leadership, headship, marriage, women, etc.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You have that right!
Adam Borsay wrote:
You will be told that ‘head’ meant ‘source’ to Paul’s original audience in Ephesus, although unless I have missed something important somewhere, this has no linguistic evidence to back it up at all. Moreover, the man who first suggested this other understanding of the word head (Bedale) it would appear still believed in wifely submission, though presumably for reasons different from those if you take the word head to mean what we usually mean by the word when not being used for your bonce.
Over and out!