Thomas Cranmer-Wikipedia
“There was never anything so well devised by men which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted” — Thomas Cranmer
My husband and I took a four-day weekend trip to the beach. It is cold but sunny and he is recuperating from a long week on call. In the past week or so, I have been approached for assistance in a number of abusive situations. I will be writing about those in the next few weeks. As usual, I feel a bit overwhelmed. I need a day off from writing an extensive post. A reader sent me a link to one view of divorce in the 1500s.
I have long been troubled by some churches which deny a woman’s pursuit of divorce in cases of abuse. They often allow for her to seek temporary refuge from being harmed. Nevertheless, reconciliation is the goal. In other words, separation, not divorce, is the ideal in these churches. I believe that divorce is totally justifiable and even necessary in cases of abuse. Reconciliation is nigh on impossible when a spouse is seriously abusive: physically, mentally, and spiritually.
Is this view, shared by many advocates, a new thing dreamed up by a bunch of progressive feminists setting out to destroy the institution of marriage? Not at all! In fact, there are historical precedents. Think Theology presented an interesting post by Andrew Wilson: Cranmer’s Five Reasons for Divorce and Remarriage.
Thomas Cranmer, for example, was no stranger to the problem. Most of us would not accuse Cranmer of being soft on the seriousness and irrevocability of marriage; his wedding liturgy revolves around phrases like “seriously, reverently, and in the sight of Almighty God,” and “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer,” and is still used around the world five centuries after he wrote it. Anyway: in a fascinating section of his Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum (1553), he identifies five possible reasons for a legitimate divorce followed by remarriage, and two of them were about domestic abuse.
For those of you who do not remember the part played by Cranmer in the fascinating history of the English Reformation, here is a great overview by Wikipedia. Cranmer was a complex man who arranged for Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon yet later instituted reforms and was executed by Queen Mary.
Thomas Cranmer (2 July 1489 – 21 March 1556) was a leader of the English Reformation and Archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and, for a short time, Mary I. He helped build the case for the annulment of Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which was one of the causes of the separation of the English Church from union with the Holy See. Along with Thomas Cromwell, he supported the principle of royal supremacy, in which the king was considered sovereign over the Church within his realm.
During Cranmer’s tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury, he was responsible for establishing the first doctrinal and liturgical structures of the reformed Church of England. Under Henry’s rule, Cranmer did not make many radical changes in the Church, due to power struggles between religious conservatives and reformers. He published the first officially authorised vernacular service, the Exhortation and Litany.
When Edward came to the throne, Cranmer was able to promote major reforms. He wrote and compiled the first two editions of the Book of Common Prayer, a complete liturgy for the English Church. With the assistance of several Continental reformers to whom he gave refuge, he changed doctrine or discipline in areas such as the Eucharist, clerical celibacy, the role of images in places of worship, and the veneration of saints. Cranmer promulgated the new doctrines through the Prayer Book, the Homilies and other publications.
After the accession of the Catholic Mary I, Cranmer was put on trial for treason and heresy. Imprisoned for over two years and under pressure from Church authorities, he made several recantations and apparently reconciled himself with the Catholic Church. While this would have normally absolved him, Mary wanted him executed, and, on the day of his execution, he withdrew his recantations, to die a heretic to Catholics and a martyr for the principles of the English Reformation. Cranmer’s death was immortalised in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and his legacy lives on within the Church of England through the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles, an Anglican statement of faith derived from his work.
So, what were his five reasons? According to Wilson’s article:
Cranmer addresses the issue in some detail, clarifying what does and does not count as a legitimate divorce and a legitimate remarriage, and lists the following five:
1. Adultery.
2. Desertion with malice.
3. Prolonged absence without news.
4. Deadly hostility.
5. Ill-treatment.
Remember this was during the time of the Reformation when Protestantism was being defined. For me, it was transfixing to view these early thoughts of one who was a Reformer, albeit a rather unusual one at that! Wilson quoted two of Cranmer’s elaborations on the above categories.
Deadly hostility is a ground for divorce.
If deadly hostility should arise between husband and wife, and become so inflamed that one attacks the other, either by treacherous means or by poison, and wants to take the other’s life in some way, either by open violence or by hidden malice, it is our will that as soon as so horrible a crime is proved in court, such persons shall be separated by divorce. For a person who attacks health and life does greater injury to his marriage partner than one who separates himself from the other’s company, or commits adultery with someone else. For there cannot be any sort of fellowship between those who have begun to plot or to fear mortal harm. Therefore, since they cannot live together, it is right for [the marriage] to be dissolved, according to the teaching of Paul.
The crime of ill-treatment is also a ground for divorce.
If a man is cruel to his wife and displays excessive harshness of word and deed towards her, as long as there is any hope of improvement, the ecclesiastical judge is to reason with him, rebuking his excessive violence, and if he cannot prevail by admonitions and exhortations, he is to compel him not to inflict any violent injury on his wife, and to treat her as the intimate union of marriage requires, by making him pledge bail, or by taking guarantees.
But if the husband cannot be coerced either by bail or by guarantees, and if he refuses to abandon his cruelty by these means, then he must be considered his wife’s mortal enemy and a threat to her life. Therefore, in her peril recourse must be had to the remedy of divorce, no less than if her life had been openly attacked … Both in this and in the above-mentioned offences, it is our will that parties set free in this way may contract a new marriage (if they wish), while those convicted of the said crimes shall be punished either by perpetual exile or by imprisonment for life.
I hope you find this historical account as fascinating as I did
Here is a lecture on Thomas Cranmore. in the series Dead Guys YOu Should Know. It starts off a bit slow but speeds up.
1
“2 CHOCOLATE CREAM PIES!”
3 Development of the doctrine in Presbyterian Churches from the Reformation onwards.
https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/digest/studies/2-267.doc
Thank you, Dee, for taking the time to put together something like this. Indeed interesting.
Gretchen Baskerville has written a book,”Life Saving Divorce”, aimed at Evangelical Christians. It is very well researched and practiced by a divorce recovery leader in evangelical churches for over twenty years. A fascinating section of the book covers how New England Puritans endorsed and practiced divorce for abuse. She also overturns the teaching of groups like Focus on the Family by revealing their misapplication of research. They frequently mistate the conclusions of researchers. Absolutely the best book for Christians contemplating or going through divorce. A bestseller in it’s category on Amazon.
Henry VIII-th
Sure had Trouble
Short Term Lives
And Long Term Stubble
BURMA SHAVE
Don’t “Dateline”.
Yes, do divorce.
Everybody lives.
And, thanks Dee for this interesting history lesson.
And what does John Piper say about hostility and ill-treatment? “If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night.”
Simply hurting her?!! Endure smacking?!! Why in the heck do folks follow this guy?!!
Max, you’ve got it right:
“Simply hurting her?!! Endure smacking?!! Why in the heck do folks follow this guy?!!”
Twentieth century Fundamentalism combined with twenty-first-century right-wing nationalism is an animal the Reformers wouldn’t recognize—not even Old John Calvin! It’s not just Piper and boys on smacking their women, it’s basic doctrinal tenets mixed up with politics that have taken them so far afield—all in an effort to retain power. The Reformers had their backs against the wall. These guys have tasted power in megachurches and Washington, and they fear people of color and women might encroach on their domain. So smack ’em up!!
They follow him out of fear.
Fear that if they don’t toe the mark, they’re going against the Almighty himself and will face the music on judgement day.
Muff Potter,
And they have more verses than a dog has fleas to ‘prove it’ too.
I notice a conspicuous absence of Hosea in his (Cranmer’s) reasoning…
Just kidding 😉
1. Adultery.
2. Desertion with malice.
3. Prolonged absence without news.
4. Deadly hostility.
5. Ill-treatment.
Which of those allowed Henry VIII to divorce Catherine?
Buried in all of this is what happens when church and state are not divorced. Your theological beliefs could get you drawn and quartered. Note that Reformers and Catholics alike misruled this way.
Speaking of John Piper… did you know that his son Abraham Piper is an ex-vangelical and makes some pretty awesome videos on TikTok about some of the absurdities of fundamentalism/evangelicalism?
https://www.tiktok.com/@abrahampiper/video/6935484294538300677?sender_device=mobile&sender_web_id=6927427125234763269&is_from_webapp=v3&is_copy_url=0
Officially this ‘divorce’ was an annulment. Henry argued that Catherine and he were in a prohibited marriage since she was his brother’s widow. They had gotten papal permission before the wedding, but, Henry argued that this shouldn’t have been given.
The law is not for princes, but for the protection of the common people.
*regulation
In the religious context, think: covenants, tithing, discipline, hierarchy (higher you go, less regulated you get).
Back in the day, Driscoll “Took one for the team” concerning preaching against wives who let themselves go. The reasoning was that, once a woman had a man trapped in a marriage he can’t escape except for the sake of adultery, it was pretty awful of her to not be sexy any more.
I guess this could be compared to Piper’s (who once loved Driscoll’s theology) theology. That once an abusive man has a woman trapped in a marriage she can’t escape except for the sake of adultery, it’s pretty awful of him to start smacking her around.
This kind of lines up with that saying, “What a man fears most from a woman is to be laughed at. But what a woman fears most from a man is to be kill.”
Either way, marriage as entrapment is bad doctrine. But more so for women who might get smacked around (or killed) than for men who might have to suffer so terribly under the heavy burden of a, gasp, less than slender wife.
Cynthia W.,
Divorce. Which laws allowed him to murder his wives?
What happens is tyranny.
I am amazed how incredibly imperfect men could bring about the Reformation. He wrote the fist two edition of the Book of Common Prayer which I use at times in my devotionals. Such beauty and such depravity.
Bridget,
There is a good reason our forefathers saw fit to rebel against the tyranny of absolute power.
Meredithwiggle,
Yes. He became rich through his website, 22 Words. He attends a Metropolitan Community Church. When he was young, Piper excommunicated him and then reinstated him later. Since that time, there has been silence. My understanding is that he now has a closerelationship with his father.
Kids have a way of challenging the status quo. Both of his sons have done that. His son, Barnabas, was divorced (I have heard it was his wife’s wish) and has now remarried. Piper attended the wedding and clapped during the ceremony. We have pcitures.Yet he preaches against remarriage.
elastigirl,
Thank you. I found this fascinating. I love history, especially church history. I developed a two year course on church history which involved a lot of videos that I found alone with a bunch of other resources. I taught it twice. Once in Dallas and in Raleigh. I have thought about doing it again.
Mara,
You have got to see this. This guy ended up having to step away from the pulpit and get some help.
https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/heres-a-pastor-just-preaching-a-sermon-about-how-women-these-days-arent-hot-enough/
I believe in the separation of church and state. We have enough numbsculls running churches. We don’t need to add politicans.
Divorce Minister,
🙂
Lowlandseer,
Thank you.
Do divorce. Don’t “Dateline”. All good.
Ruth Tucker,
In case you didn’t see it, congratulations for your mention in The Church of Tov.
Erp,
It’s good to be the King.
Muff Potter,
I know. I was making a little dig about Henry VIII, because he was a total creep.
Bridget,
Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were both convicted of adultery, which was also treason. Whether either was actually guilty of adultery is a disputed question, although the evidence that Catherine Howard was is fairly persuasive.
dee,
Hi Dee
I also
found this assessment of Andrew Wilson / NewFrontiers / Complementarity quite interesting although I’m not sure if they’re simply trying to put some distance between themselves and John Piper or trying to make NewFrontiers more attractive to egalitarian-minded folk.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/the-future-of-complementarity-when-newfrontiers-became-accidentally-feministexecute1/130003.htm
just to clarify, my statement about church and state is that they *should* be divorced. (i inside-out wording that might not have been clear.) render to God, render to caesar… Christ himself made this clear.
I’m surprised he is still close with his dad. He says a bunch of things on his videos that his dad would consider heretical/blasphemous. Such as, hell isn’t real, it’s weird to make kids read the Bible, reading the Bible literally leads to nonsensical conclusions, evangelicalism doesn’t represent “true Christianity”, and other stuff of that kind. *I* find him quite refreshing and funny but I don’t think John Piper would.
I have known a few New Calvinists who have taken this to an extreme by claiming that a woman who lets herself go or who isn’t “submitting” enough causes a man to cheat on his wife, and so the adultery is her fault and not his. But women are not supposed to have any free will or emotions apart from the direction of her husband. So if he cheats on her, it’s her fault, and if she cheats on him, it’s her fault.
I don’t think this would fly openly in their churches, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t widely believed privately by many men.
Sidenote on this side topic.
LOL. Producing commercial entertainment and making money. Entrepreneur w/o being a god-freakin’ snake oil salesman. (Not following in parents’ footsteps in more ways than one.)
Funny all the begging “church” leaders (also collecting Covid $$$ & such from the Govnmt – speaking of church & state) – haven’t figured this out.
Apparently ex-fundy, ex-evangeo, & even ex’d from fam for a bit, were lucrative. Nothing like work that pays on its own to make a living.
Sadly, there are so many victims of this kind of “preaching” (and not just in the church).
And, predictably, there were the usual spin-doctor responses by church officials (very similar to the spin-doctor responses that would be given in the secular world).
So will this “pastor” be like all the other “pastors” who return to “pastoring” a church after a suitable period of time has elapsed (even that means starting his own church)? Or will he actually change?
Interesting and good post!
Here in MO we have a General Baptist (Arminians) preacher gone viral for scolding women for letting themselves go, causing men’s eyes to wander.
Back in the 1930’s my abused aunt was urged by her church to escape her abusive husband. He came home drunk one more time, and she took her 5 kids out a window and fled to the parsonage where the pastor and his wife took them in. The church supported the family, and supported her financially until the end of her life in the 1970’s. They were very fundy pentecostals, but they had compassion.
Mara,
Physical abuse of men by women exist also. Women, that are abusive by nature, can become “mean drunks” when they hit the booze too.
I’ve had a friend in the past go thru this, his girlfriend the abuser, falsely accused him of being the abuser, even jailed. After multiple calls to the police, a police investigation was conducted. It proved “she” was the abuser. Why did he put up with it so long? They had a daughter together. He left when he obtained full custody of his daughter.
I have another acquaintance currently in the same situation, except they don’t have children together. I found out thru a mutual friend of his situation. Photo’s of the marks left on his body were sent to the friend. He was hit up side the head, by his wife, with a ceramic noodle strainer, the impact breaking the strainer. Since she is shorter and smaller than him, she didn’t use her fist to hit him but her elbows. He may lose 50% of his vision in one eye because of this. No police report was filed.
Why don’t men report this? The fear of not being believed and the sigma behind it. From two counselors, one my own and the other a friend from high school, say that today men don’t report the incidents of abuse because some law enforcement tend not to believe them and societal stigma of “why didn’t you stop her”, i.e., women the fairer sex harming the stronger male. The situation is similar to child molestation responses in the 1980’s, it happened mostly to the young girls, rarely to the young boys.
So the idea that “men fear most being laughed at by their wife” is a fallacy. Spousal abuse by either gender is the reality and should be looked on as such.
ishy,
“I don’t think this would fly openly in their churches, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t widely believed privately by many men.”
+++++++++++++
i find many of my co-believers haven’t thought things through concerning what they say (which appears to be a reflection of what they believe).
they are in touch with the words they say (which are the “right words” that all card-carrying christians are taught to say), but not the implicit message, the take-away
–the significance– which their listener is left with.
things like:
–Lou says “God has blessed me with good health”.
the take-away for Mary with chronic disease that has made her life difficult: hmmmm….God hasn’t blessed me. Why did God bless him and not me? God loves me less? what did I do to make God love me less?
.
.
–Ted says, “God has been so faithful to me. I’m a faithful tither. I’ve gotten many bonuses and our finances have grown.”
the take-away for Murray who has also tithed faithfully, but got no bonuses despite being a very good worker, who also lost his job and whose mortgage went into foreclosure: Why didn’t God bless me? God is highly selective, arbitrary, picks favorites on who to be faithful to.
.
.
-Kevin speaks to high school students. He talks about how God’s design for marriage is a man and a woman. It’s beautiful, he says. God loves you. He designed you.
Alexis and John are 16 years old, whose earliest memories of attraction have been to their same sex. Their take-away: the love I feel that is beautiful to me will never be beautiful to God. it is disgusting to God. God loves me so much that he designed me to be disgusting. God made me in such a way so as to deny me a love relationship with a life partner that God blesses everyone else with. The implications are so devastating to their young minds that Alexis and John consider ending their lives.
.
.
–Donnie and Marie are both people of influence in christian culture. In one way or another, they both convey that it is incumbent on wives to look their best. they probably didn’t elaborate on the “or else” part.
This wasn’t lost on Marsha, Jan and Cindy, and all other women in the audience. The take-away: it will be my fault if my husband cheats on me. i am responsible for my husband’s actions.
.
.
When Lou, Ted, Kevin, Donny and Marie are each confronted with the significance of what they said, they are aghast and reply, “I said no such thing!”
they are absolutely clueless and oblivious as to what their words mean to the listener. afterall, they are ‘biblical’ and part of standard christian rhetoric. besides, God works all things out for good, anyway.
I’ve never known the New Cals to be very vague or do that kind of traditional evangelical double-speak. That’s a lot of the problem with them. Their beliefs are pretty much the logical outcome of evangelical beliefs, but they actually admit it.
They do have their share of cherry-picking. I almost think their constant refrain of “it’s Biblical!” are because deep down they know their theology is so short on support in the Bible. Like all those pastors who are very loud on certain “sins” and you find out later that’s what they have been doing for years.
Is there theology that supports these women, too?
Patriarchy, complementarianism, matriarchy, egalitarianism … theology?
Actually, Piper has 4 sons. Sons 1,2 and 4 are all divorced. So far sons 2 and 4 are remarried.
Oh, I have. I think it was one of the things fueling my comment. Men can have a “divorce Weight” but women have to endure being smacked around.
It really does showcase the fact that these guys are following the wrong Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Whoever controls the mic gets to twist things to their own advantage.
Yup. Again, Whoever has the gold, or power, makes the rules, controls the narrative and defrauds those who are not in power.
I would be the last one to deny this. I used to work in Foster Care. I’ve seen more than my fair share of abusive parents, both male and female.
However, in the trenches, I definitely saw waaaaaaay more male on female violence than the other way around,
But even so, this is not what I’m talking about.
The entire John Piper, complementarian religion is abusive to women. First off, it silences the voices of women. Because of this and other things (like unilateral submission and unconditional respect teachings), a John Piper church is a shelter for male abusers, protecting them from the consequences of their abuse, i.e. the little woman divorcing the abuser. John Piper’s doctrine traps women in marriages to abusers by using the fear (and love) of God against women.
This is not to say that I don’t have compassion on the few men in Piper churches that are abused. They are also trapped by his unjust marriage doctrine. Those few men are not any less important than all those women. But no one in a Piper church is telling those men to submit to the abuse.
Dee:
I know that most of your readers are no fan of Wayne Grudem, but it is good to see that he is reexamining what the bible says about divorce and remarriage. It is kind of sad that he has to present as some great scholarly discovery what any reasonable person with some Holy Spirit given compassion intuitively understands.
https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/could-certain-kinds-of-abuse-also-be-grounds-for-divorce-and-remarriage
So Desiring God translates to Desiring Power?
Christian Hedonism = “Christian” Hierarchy? Pleasure for empowered, tyranny for the disempowered? Sounds Heavenly? … not for the woman and soul poisoning for the guy that drinks this toxin.
Ben B.,
“It is kind of sad that he has to present as some great scholarly discovery what any reasonable person with some Holy Spirit given compassion intuitively understands.”
++++++++++++++++
well… it’s what any reasonable person of any faith or no faith intuitively understands.
i think the Holy Spirit is the coolest thing going, but card-carrying christians have no Holy Spirit superpowers, here.
really, all reasonable human beings understand the rightness of commitments, especially the marriage commitment and seek to honor the gravity of it. as i see it, it’s part of what being made in the image of God means.
mistakes are made, of course, but i would wager our kids’ college tuition dollars (and i am not a gamblin’ girl by nature) that christians have no better track record in quality of their marriage relationships compared to those of other faiths or no faith at all.
i have many, many examples i could refer to.
Cynthia W.,
I think that because Catherine was married to Henry’s brother, Arthur, and Henry wanted a reason for an annulment.
elastigirl,
Excellent comment, elasitgirl. 🙂
I’m sorry for not being able to write a better reply, elastigirl….I’m having a bad day and I cannot seem to express myself the way I would like to….
researcher,
I hope tomorrow is better for you. 🙂
dee,
Thanks, Dee!
researcher,
hi, researcher!
i understand. i hope things settle down. the newness of tomorrow’s sunrise and a new batch of mercies can only be a good thing.
With open flies, no doubt…
In the first century, divorce could be tantamount to a death sentence to a woman. The system was heavily gamed in favour of men. A woman and her children didn’t have many options.
Given that context, I’m more inclined to interpret the gospel missive against divorce as more a call to honor a vow.
In today’s world I don’t believe in forcing people to stay together ‘forever’.
People are living longer and there can be profound changes in a person over the course of a lifetime.
I’m not a libertine, marriage is always a work in progress but there are times when it’s time to let go. My parents stayed married for years and wound up hating each other. Life’s too short for that noise.
Grotesque isn’t it?
This endless parade of human suffering and all the well-meaning attempts by evangelicals to justify it by saying: ‘God knows what he’s doing’
Really?
And how do you (generic you) know in fact that it’s God’s doing and not just the cold outcome of a great cosmic roulette wheel?
I think Shmuley Boteach has a better handle on it than all I’ve heard thus far from Protestant evangelicalism:
https://www.jweekly.com/2010/02/19/no-reasons-can-justify-human-suffering/
You obliviously cant be left alone with a highlighter… (grin)
Mara,
I’m going to agree with this. Men are certainly victims of abuse, my Father-in-Law was one of them, & they should be helped in every way.
But none of that removes the fact that there is far far more abuse that is male on female, there is no symmetry with the amount of female abusers. There is also far far more theology that puts women in danger of abuse from men & tries to justify this ‘Biblically’.
So the old adage about women fearing being killed by men is actually true, far more women are killed by their male partners than vice versa.
We can include all victims without having to pretend that the number of male & female victims (or abusers) are the same. Indeed, we may fail to serve victims properly if we ignore this reality.
Thanks….I hope so too. 🙂
🙂
Cranmer was writing about husbands harming wives, and his words are illuminating and important. Outside the scope of his topic, alas, is a whole spectrum of other abuse.
There are abusive mothers in the world, and many of them abuse all their children, both boys and girls.
Abusive fathers will abuse sons and daughters. Sometimes they single out the boy to “toughen him up” or “make him a man.”
Discussions that minimize men’s victimization also omit what happens to incarcerated and institutionalized boys and men, as well as girls and women. Given the huge rates of incarceration in the US, American readers should be particularly aware of this.
I should have highlighted this too.
In my experience, a lot of men aren’t even aware of the constant aggressions women have to deal with from men. For example, I’ve been stalked multiple times. I know when a man is not treating me the way I want to be treated. But I’ve had a lot of male friends/acquaintances (particularly Christian ones) tell me I either misunderstood or didn’t have the right to set firm boundaries.
And if a man was ignoring my or another woman’s boundaries, other Christian were much more likely to think the man was a “nice guy”. Just like so many Christians who think their favorite famous pastor is a good guy, even where there’s all kinds of proof that he’s not.
I’ve been assaulted twice now. In both cases, other people dismissed me over it. Even when the second guy admitted in a group of a people that he not only did it, but planned to keep doing it and nothing I did would stop him. They still told me I was overreacting after they heard him say that.
I don’t think as many men understand what it’s like to constantly be in fear of being violated.
Lemme guess, did you get quizzed on what you were wearing?
I forgot to add in this that when the abuser claims to be Christian, other Christians will dismiss his behavior even if it’s apparent.
FYI: some six years now after I first contacted Warren Throckmorton about the clear signs of fraud I saw in Gospel for Asia the hammers starting to fall: https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2021/03/05/news-reports-india-tax-authorities-take-control-of-gospel-for-asias-cheruvally-estate-in-money-laundering-case/
GFA has raised over a Billion dollars from the West since it first started many decades ago now.
I actually didn’t on that, though I absolutely believe that’s something people ask. Both times, I was told I “misunderstood”. There was absolutely no way I could have misunderstood being assaulted. The second time I was told “he’s like this with all women”. That’s not completely untrue, because he did regularly assault women and totally ignored women telling him to stop. But that doesn’t mean what he was doing wasn’t assault, which is was.
The first time was in a Christian group and the guy claimed to be a Christian. The others either told me I misunderstood or they told me he was desperate so I should just date him because he was desperate and couldn’t countrol himself. People witnessed what he did and then acted like they didn’t see it when I called it out. One guy told me Christian women just need to shut up and date any Christian guy that asks, because “it’s too hard to be a man with needs.”
I caught the first guy cornering another woman a few years later, with several of those same people standing right there just ignoring him doing it. He had her pushed up into a corner and was laughing every time she tried to push him away so she could leave. I pushed him out of the way and asked her if she wanted to go to the restroom. She came with me and inside told me he had been stalking her for several weeks, kept touching her, and didn’t listen to her saying no.
Totally unbelievable that this is tolerated in any ‘Christian’ group.
By what Dr. Seuss twists and turns do they come up with the rationale that it’s no big deal because he’s ‘desperate’?
That.
ishy, ishy,
Thank you for sharing….
(Both of your comments touched my heart.)
I’m pretty sure that it was my fault for not dating him or giving him the attention he wanted.
Basically, there was no rationale that he could be a predator in any way, even though that’s exactly what he was and he didn’t even bother to hide it because nobody questioned it except his victims.
The case of Stewart-Allen Clark suggests that when cruel and crude people look at others, they simply don’t see themselves. Nobody judges the judges.
Interesting. They are definitely really judgy people, but it’s always the ones without power that get judged, as Mara said above.
Hence why I no longer go to church. All of them were filled with people like that…
Eternal Hell (and/or being Left Behind) is quite a motivator.
“BEGONE FROM ME, YE CURSED, INTO EVERLASTING FIRE!!!!! JOIN THE DEVIL AN HIS ANGELS!!!!!”
— God on the Great White Throne, “This Was Your Life”, Jack Chick
i.e. “SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!”
“Show me SCRIPTURE!”
— PastorRaulReesCalvaryChapelWestCovina, whenever snyone tried to reason with him
“He shall rule above the Law,
Calling on The LORD…”
— Rudyard Kipling, “The Old Issue”, 1899
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_oldissue.htm
Ever heard of the Fifties Rom-Com “Divorce, Italian Style”?
“Divorce, Italian Style” was a snarky idiom of the time for murdering your spouse, as under Italian divorce laws of the period that was the only way to “get divorced”.
And the lesson learned?
“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort
“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflcting maximum suffering among the Powerless.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
“JUST BECAUSE I CAN!”
Has anyone considered that Christianese Purity Culture would make the men pretty clueless? I know when I was young (high school thru college), I acted in some ways that would result in stalking or harassment charges today – out of sheer Cluelessness. Based on what I knew and the environment around me, I genuinely thought that was how you were supposed to act. That was romance and dating and how to approach girls.
So I’m sure it’s a factor, even if it doesn’t get to the level or or join with full-honk “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! WOMAN, SUBMIT!”
All I can say from the inside is that When You’re Desperate, YOU WILL DO SOME REALLY STUPID SH*T. REALLY, REALLY STUPID.
There were guys like that in college and sometimes it was obvious. But both of the men that assaulted me were over 50 and their behavior was regularly predatory.
That make explain the reasoning of some of their defenders, but that nobody else would say anything when they saw men harming women is far beyond that.
Missed Wade’s sermon, hope he’s well
OT Road signs:
If you dislike
Big traffic fines
Slow down
Till you
Can read these signs …
Burma-Shave
—-
If you dislike
Church improprieties
Weigh in
Here with
Friends who likewise care …
Wart-Watch
Because, … bullies.
The fact that churches & seminaries set up patriarchal hierarchies that add fuel to the fire is … what’s the word? Sick? Evil? Definitely not Christian, in any case. Very far off the mark.
Max,
Why anyone follows Piper is beyond me
Friend,
The point I’ve made is soley about marriage, as this is the subject of this article & discussion.
It’s not downplaying the victimisation of men & boys in other segments of society to say that in marriage, & especially amongst those claiming to be Christians, women are more frequently victimised & that some theologies work to enforce this. This is simply telling the truth about victimology in areas pertaining to divorce in church circles.
1 – dr +
2 – steve +
3 – J
a “holy” trinity or what? Thou shalt have no —- before no. 1.
Time to get those pugs sniffing!
Friend, did you go back far enough to see my comment that Beaker was responding to. I bring all this up with first-hand witnessing due to working in Foster Care for a time. No one here is saying that this isn’t so.
But as BeakerN mentions, this post and comment thread is specifically dealing with abusive doctrine that places women in specific danger. As mentioned above, while preachers of this doctrine talk about women needing to submit to abuse for a season in order to be holy, please God, and keep all the gender planets aligned, no preacher is saying the same thing to men about submitting to the abuse of their wives. Instead, we have preachers out there haranguing women about their weight and getting older (letting themselves go) and talking about ‘divorce weight’. The imbalance is insane. This is what we are drawing attention to.
Just as the original Pied Piper, JP offers strong but delusive enticement with his New Calvinist message. The whole movement is about charming young believers with aberrations of Scripture to lead them away from the Truth of the Gospel. Convert one generation to another gospel and you will change the face of faith in America. Stealth and deception are their modus operandi … and it’s working! … there are more SBC-YRR church plants in my area proclaiming Calvin is the way, than those which still preach Jesus is the way.
Doesn’t sound like Piper’s Calvinist God was able to keep his sons in line … they were obviously not “elect.”
“Give me your children for five years and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
— Adolf Hitler, cult leader
That is probably the actual Rationale.
“In’shal’lah” means It Can Never Be Your Fault.
OK. That’s NOT Cluelessness.
(Except maybe as a fallback defense. Sociopaths are good at at that.)
One reason I am currently struggling with a crisis of conscience regarding any churches that do not espouse free will is highlighted by this post, this topic, and the many replies.
It is just this: it is possible for all or any of us, gay or straight, male or female, young or old to have desires that no matter how pervasive, how long we have had them, what triggers them, or how good we feel about how we choose to fulfill them, that can be disordered desires outside the bounds of God’s will.
When God says “do not do this” and “do this” who are we to argue or explain it away?
Until the church comes to grip with THAT, along with calls for some serious repentance that includes reordering our lives, we will continue to sing “same song second verse somebody did somebody wrong.”
I need to go wrestle with that.
What should strong but delusive enticement look like to church leaders, if they’re abusive? Chuckle… Oh My! Probably a main dish of Christian Hedonism with a large side of Complementarianism…. 🙁
Seriously, the operative word in the headline is “allowed”. When church leaders decide when to “allow” or not “allow” divorce and remarriage, they’re likely to excuse abusers, or become abusive themselves.They’re powerless to stop it even if they think the reasons are unbiblical. Even the pope couldn’t stop Henry— he just “planted” a new church.
“It” being divorce — not abuse. They’re NOT powerless to stop that.
When it all boils down and the kettle starts to burn, who the hell are they to ‘decide’ anything that has a direct bearing on the health and safety of any woman?
BeakerN,
Understood. Just adding my voice. Thank you.
Of course.
BeakerN,
Mara,
I’m still struggling with a need to explain why a broader comment about abuse falls within the scope of this discussion.
When a husband fat-shames, threatens, and otherwise degrades his wife, she might very well turn around and abuse their children. He might abuse them too, or might take the cleaner role of Pontius Pilate.
My experience of this is professional, but on the receiving end. As a child hiding somewhere within earshot, I had occasion to wonder why the social worker was only trying to help one person, an older child.
At this age I am guessing that she saw straight through several Oscar-worthy performances, but was bound by a narrow court order. She was a nice lady, but the rest of us never got a turn to talk to her.
If you are still reading this thread and have any insights about such situations, I’m sure they would help people here. I appreciate your experience and comments.
BeakerN,
This post was meant to specifically deal with women and divorce. I know that some mothers abuse children. I know that some wives abuse husbands. However, this is dealing with women and marriage. Until recently, churches coerced abused women to stay in their marriage in spite of the abuse. That is slowly changing. However, it appears that 500 years ago, women had more freedom to leave an abusive marriage than they do in the many churches that I’ve highlighted.
In the meantime, Noel Piper still trudges up three flights of stairs with hot tea when Pastor John rings his little bell. Heck, she’s been enduring abuse from this guy for more than a season!
It gets me angry every time I hear of it.
The men who do it are not men.
They are louts.
I’m not sure what you mean by insights. But I really do appreciate this comment.
Before and during the time that I worked in foster care, I was married to a narcissist. And I did turn on my own kids once in a while when they were little. But when I did, I knew immediately how wrong it was for me and I apologized to them profusely. With time, I was able to keep from taking my own misery out on them.
Now the children are grown and I’m recently divorced. But I’m still dealing with the fall out of being married to a narcissist for so long and wanting to get out for so long. So are my children. Three out of four of them have had to have therapy to overcome their father’s narcissistic abuse.
In the early stages of wanting to leave, one family member (of his family) told me that I should be able to stay in the verbally and emotionally abusive marriage because… wait for it… Corrie ten Boom was able to endure Ravensbruck Concentration Camp during WWII because of God’s grace.
This it one example of the kind of crap being thrown around out there to try to preserve the marriage at all costs. But the cost is being paid by women and children, not the preachers and teachers who shame and threaten people with hell-fire and brimstone.
Oh, and just to cover my bases, there are men who are being hurt by this bad doctrine as well. There are men who are being asked to climb up on the alter and sacrifice themselves for the sake of harsh marriage doctrines. Any man or woman being abused should not have the church telling them to endure abuse for a season. Marriage should never be compared to Ravensbruck.
Mara,
Well put, and a sound antidote to the horse-crap being put out there by those who have no idea what it’s like to stay in a bad marriage.
I’m sorry you went through all of that. Thank you for telling your story; it’s good that you are out, and wonderful that you apologized to your children. I’m sure those moments continue to help them. (Some parents would never apologize, because that would undermine their authority, which must never be questioned.)
Therapy helps. It can also plant seeds that grow and flower.