Christian Marriage, divorce, domestic violence, abuse, marital counseling, extramarital affairs
***
***
My friend, Valerie Jacobsen posted this statement on her Facebook page and I asked permission to share it. I found it powerful, and yet, so contrary to the way marriage is handled in the church – especially when abuse is involved. I’m sick and tired of women being forced by their pastors/elders to bear the brunt of evil in their marriages by staying in their evil and harmful marriages.
I do not believe for a second that it is godly advice for pastors tell abused wives to remain married to their chronically evil and reviling spouses. If marriage is supposed to be representative of Christ and the church, an abusive marriage is a mockery to Christ. It seems that pastors would want to help rid the church of the blot of evil when there is an abuser clinging to his marriage and refusing to change his evil ways.
Women who leave their chronically cheating and/or abusive husbands are saying NO to evil. It is their husbands who abandoned the marriage long ago when they started their evil ways.
We need to stand beside these women and tell them they are free to go when pastors tell them otherwise. Pastors who give this bad advice are not living with this evil. And I’ll bet that they would not say this kind of thing if it were their daughter living with an abuser. Let’s stop this crazy business!
h/t Hannah Smith for image (taken in Hawaii)
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Hi Julie Anne, I too am sick and tired of women being pressured, coerced and forced by their pastors/elders to bear the brunt of evil in marriages by staying in the marriage where the husband is an abuser.
But you might want to clarify this sentence in your post: “I do not believe for a second that this is godly advice.” What advice are you referring to? At first glance, you could have been referring to Valerie’s advice in her meme.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Got it. Thanks, Barb!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Met with a friend last week and she proclaimed that marriage was a “holy sacrament.” Well, I don’t find that in the Bible. She was alluding to another friend who is being abused physically in her marriage but could not leave for fear of “tainting the sanctity of marriage.” I choked on my cappuccino.
Will a loving God bless an evil marriage? Does a loving God want us women to suffer all the emotional trauma, etc., just because of a marriage contract? Will a born again Christian woman lose her place in heaven should she file for a divorce? NO. I am divorced, and I have never felt freer or more secure in my life.
Pastors who dish out silly and non-biblical advice on marriage should be avoided on all matters pertaining faith. Their ignorance should be the warning light to run like hell from them and their churches. They are cons. Investigate their fruits and you’ll find the roots of their trees of “knowledge” to be rotten…
LikeLiked by 7 people
“And I’ll bet that they would not say this kind of thing if it were their daughter living with an abuser. ”
My bible loving great-grandfather was pleased that my great-aunt, his daughter, stayed married to her husband who beat her. In my experience, these men do not love their daughters more than women they have never met. They are happy for their daughters to be abused, used, demeaned, degraded, trapped slaves. That is what they have been training their daughters to do and be.
“If marriage is supposed to be representative of Christ and the church, an abusive marriage is a mockery to Christ. ”
As a child, I had negative feelings towards God, but good feelings towards Jesus.
When I started hearing “The Church is Jesus bride” I started having sick feelings towards Jesus too. I became an atheist not long after that. Marriage to me is rape, slavery, wife beating, wives being disrespected and treated like five years old trapped sex slaves. My father did not love my mother, he treated her like a child slave, she was trapped.
Calling me Jesus’ bride, if I am his bride then he wants to do mean things to me against my will, how could Jesus me nice if he is a husband? He couldn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Boston Lady
I can attest to how I felt as a little girl always seeing and hearing stories like yours in my own family. God is not good, God does not love my mother or me. He is for the vilest of vile men and hates mothers and little girls with a bloody passion. I never believed God loved women or little girls because I grew up in an ideology that coddles wife beaters and child rapist, and treats abused mothers and raped children like trash.
Treating abused woman like dirt and pitying sexual abusers of children makes Christians look like very bad people, even to little girls who love Jesus and have been born and raised in Christianity.
The sentiment is men should protect women and children. In the Christianity I grew up in men protected each other. We needed protecting from our selfish, sadistic, childish, self-worshipping fathers, husbands, and preachers.
I learned from my own scumbag father that odious men need the clause (no divorce) because they know they are the kind of men women and little girls want to get away from as fast as possible. When these men start going on about no divorce it tells me they are selfish, abusive, and unwanted. The only way my father could have women in his life is by trapping them. No divorce.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I went to two people in our church and basically groveled for help and someone to reach out to my husband. He wasn’t physically abusing me but we were having some huge arguments over me suspecting he was having an affair. Not one phone call from one person! I left him and the rumors started. The associate pastor’s wife even wrote something on FB. Her husband tweeted something that I’m sure we were the subjects of. Nice of them to come to us! We were there 11 years ! We left! They aren’t all like that!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree to this. We also need to protect men in abusive marriages. I know a guy whose wife has swapped his medicines, has stolen needed medications, etc. He almost died. Our pastors told him he has grounds for divorce, but he actually wants to save his marriage (her girls from a previous marriage are precious to him). I don’t understand why he would want to go back. (Unfortunately, our church closed its doors recently, so I no longer know if he is receiving good counsel.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dear “Christianity Hurts”
My heart aches just reading your story! I am so sorry that you experienced the horrors that you did all in god’s name. The god you and I grew up hearing about is not a god one would want to know or serve. The language referencing this god absolutely communicates the sick messages you wrote about.
I am grateful that my own journey led me to a place of rejecting the god of my father and discovering the God of the Bible (minus the erroneous theology I had been taught). I have to constantly reinforce to myself that the truths about the God of the Bible that I am learning because the lies are so deeply entrenched in my core. Reading The Shack and watching the movie based on it has helped as well as watching one program on religious TV (something I avoid at all costs). The program features Paul Young, author of The Shack and is excellent.
In no way am I trying to convince you to give God a try–just sharing my own journey. I respect where you are at and understand the deep level of pain and anger at the abuse, abandonment and betrayal you have experienced. But know this. You are loved by (call it the Universe, Higher Power, or God). You are loved extravagantly and without reservation. Your abuse was not sanctioned or condoned by this Being. I believe he/she is just as angry as you are.
Hugs,
Brenda
LikeLiked by 2 people
To Christianity Hurts:
You make great points, but, sadly, you’ve fallen for yet another lie of that certain lot. Nowhere, and I mean, nowhere is the church called the Bride of Christ. The only reference in that regard is The New Jerusalem that is called the bride of Christ. If Christians collectively are known as the body of Christ, how sick would it be for Jesus to marry Himself?
The church being called the bride of Christ is just another in a very long list of lies that have come from THAT lot. Yes, it’s all part of the “control” strategy, etc.
Your points about men protecting one another are so true; it is a boys’ club, after all, and I’m talking about THAT lot who has done more harm than anything else in the history of the modern church. If you’re a woman, they’ll smile at you, but behind your back, they despise and look down on you.
I have written about THAT lot before, but I don’t like mentioning the word “Calvin” or “Reformed” every time, as they make me very, very sick. Immediately.
There is a true Christianity out there, “Christianity Hurts.” One where all those things you wrote about do not exist; I promise you that. I found it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Brenda and Boston Lady. Much Love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bonus points if a Christian woman married to a nonbeliever realizes she does not have the patience or strength to deal with spouse’s series of affairs and other antics, gets a divorce, and several years later meets and marries someone who is, in the grand scheme of things, a heck of a lot better for her than her previous partner. Boy does THAT ruffle feathers.
I watched the above scenario happen to a family friend when I was in my early teens. She ended up stepping down as our church pianist because she couldn’t deal with all the gossip about her, and when she remarried a couple years later, quite a few people from that church openly refused to go to the wedding because they thought it was too great a sin. Mostly the same people who liked to talk on and on about how LOVING that church was. Well done them.
My distrust of organized religion comes much more from the holier-than-thou female sheep than from anything masquerading as leadership. Tell a bunch of judgmental b!tches that their behavior is God-sanctioned and what do you THINK is gonna happen?! But no, let’s bully someone out of the church for having some genuine self-respect and then turn around and be all kinds of happy when a good son of the church gets his girlfriend pregnant and an emergency wedding happens. Double standards much?!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“wife has swapped his medicines, has stolen needed medications, etc. ”
How is that not attempted murder? The woman should be in prison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that whole thing about Christ and the church was meant to refer to husbands loving their wives and it has been SO twisted! I wish people would stop just parroting these little phrases and really think. Ugh.
Sadly, I don’t know that I believe this. I think we have to look at it as coming from two places.
A person who believes this may honestly believe it, and when it happens in their own family they could react by actually sticking to it and encouraging her to stay. Or they might care more about their own reputation, and encourage her to stay because it would make them look bad.
There are those who, when confronted with this in a family member, would encourage her to go and try to protect her – but what does that say about them? That people in their church are unimportant because they aren’t related??? That is so WRONG. Basic compassion for hurting people ought to be present in Christian and that includes pastors. This is something that needs correction. I have heard many of these patriarchal types, when confronted with the ‘what if it was your daughter’ argument go to the ‘well I would beat him up, harump,’ macho man place. Aside from the fact that I straight up don’t believe them, what about the other women you aren’t related to??? This is more on the level of protecting what is ‘yours’. In the worst cases, it treats a woman as a possession, and you are only protecting the ones you care about. Christians should not be this way at all.
The only people I would give a pass (sort of) are the men who legitimately do not understand, and through the process of dealing with this, learn, and repent, publically, to the people they have wronged with their error. Do this, then maybe we’ll talk.
LikeLike
Here is the third error I meant to mention. The men who simply don’t believe women. This is where I think having women in leadership makes a huge difference, as a counterweight to that impulse that apparently exists. This idea that women who talk about these things are lying. The ones who default to that assumption.
And this is why I say, it is your marriage. It is your decisions. Pastors can only ever give advice, and they should not be the ones making the decisions, because they are terrible at it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, Octavia. They are constant. Better no standards than double ones!
LikeLike
Lea, don’t forget that a lot of abusers are masters of deception. Not only can they lie like seasoned politicians but many missed their callings by not pursuing the theater. Because they often lack consciences they could easily pass a polygraph test too. Scary.
LikeLike
Not surprisingly, every other human covenant is considered breakable for all sorts of things.
For example, church membership is considered a covenant. That covenant can be broken by any unrepentant sin, then members are excommunicated and the covenant is broken. How is it that marriage is considered by many Evangelicals to be unbreakable, even in instances of unrepentant, continuing sin?
Even with “Christ and the church” at some point a person is recognized as not being part of the church. In the same way, we should recognize that one “part” of the marriage has, by repeated serious infractions, or by neglect, or by sexual immorality become “not a spouse”. Divorce, then is just a recognition of what has already happened, rather than the creation of something new.
LikeLike
“Because they often lack consciences they could easily pass a polygraph test too. Scary.”
I saw on show about crime fighters where a woman who had killed her husband passed a polygraph. A man who had not killed the husband failed it. It was disturbing.
LikeLike
Yes, some narcissists are great liars–I know one who almost persuaded a police officer not to arrest him–but when we’re talking about abuse, bruises and broken bones are a little bit less subjective. (which is why he got arrested and convicted)
Regarding what to do in such a case, if we take 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:19, and Matthew 18:15-19 seriously, at least in the church, we’re going to quickly get to the point where we determine the offender is not eligible for fellowship, and the rules of believing spouse/unbelieving spouse from 1 Corinthians 7 apply. It almost does not matter whether we recommend separation (my position) or divorce, as the end result will likely be the same.
(note; I concede 100% that taking Matthew 18:15-19 seriously is a BIG “if”–a lot of churches make a hash of it)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Valerie Jacobsen’s quote says it all and says it beautifully and clearly. I printed this baby out to post on my office bulletin board. I intend to memorize it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I happened to notice that Lori Alexander is again taking delight on her blog to bash women. The title of her blog article today is: Leading Captive Silly Women. That title is taken from 2 Timothy 3:6-7. “For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Now, I quoted the NKJV instead of the King James Version that Lori used. But what I find interesting and ironic is that in the NKJV it says always learning – the very name Lori gave to her former blog. And I would say that she is always learning, but learning dangerous and destructive teachings that subjugate women and make them captive to abuse and toxic thinking.
I say it’s time that some of us get together and start a blog specifically to combat the toxic teachings of Ken and Lori Alexander. I think we could include some other women in there as well, like Nancy Campbell, Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth, Debi Pearl & Zsuzsanna Anderson. We could name it something along the lines of: Oppressing Women in the Name of God.
LikeLike
That’s the ‘text me encouragement, but I’m going to be too busy to be bothered texting you back’ lady, right?
Nice catch. Sounds like Lori for sure!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oppressing Women in the Name of God: Exposing the Underbelly of Patriarchy and Complementarianism. How does that sound for the name of a blog? I must say that I am glad I let that door slam in my rear view mirror when I left Protestant Evangelicalism. Increasingly, Conservative Evangelicals are becoming abusive and toxic in their teachings and behavior. I know ill treatment of women has been around in the church for a long time, but it seems to be making a resurgence especially within Calvinist/Reformed churches. It’s time to continually call them out on their abusive ways.
LikeLike
Lea, yep. That’s the one and the same Zsuzsanna Anderson. She’s an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. They are just as abusive in their views toward women as the Neo-Calvinists.
LikeLike
Another Scripture that needs to be paid attention to and applied is 1 Corinthians 5:11. To paraphrase the pertinent bits, if someone claims to be a brother/fellow Christian but they are among other things a reviler, a railer, a slanderer (pick your translation) we are ordered not to even eat with them. Ordered, not suggested or recommended. ORDERED.
A reviler/railer/slanderer is a verbal abuser at the very least.
If we are not even supposed to eat with them, would somebody please explain how we’re supposed to stay married to them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Oppressing Women in the Name of God: Exposing the Underbelly of Patriarchy and Complementarianism. How does that sound for the name of a blog?”
If somebody starts up such a blog, I’d be happy to contribute.
LikeLike
More reasons why the modern church is obsolete. I’ll never set foot in another church again for as long as I live, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let some suited up preacher man tell me what to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, the word “covenant” makes me throw up in my mouth. I have a contract for my job, a lease agreement for my apartment, a contract for my cell phone, my utilities, my bank account. Those are necessities, I have to have them. You want me to voluntarily sign another one with a church so that other people can tell me how to behave?? “Eta Kooram Nah Smech!”
Married people have to have a license agreement with the state for tax and ownership purposes. If one or the other party wants out, for ANY reason, they should be able get out. A church group applying moral pressure to try to force them to stay together is simply absurd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It takes quite a while to build up a wide audience on a blog. What do you think about having that idea: “Oppressing Women in the Name of God: Exposing the Underbelly of Patriarchy and Complementarianism” as an ongoing series on this blog with guest posters here? I’d be happy to host it and can use the SSB platform and the social media network to advertise.
What do you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds good JA
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel like that’s what the Lori stuff is anyways 🙂
Seriously, although I certainly think it’s true that these things oppress women, they are no good for men either. If I could think of a pithy name for how they ruin men I will post it!
It creeps me out too. A marriage is not the unbreakable vow. The bible doesn’t even treat it that way! There are lots of out clauses. When I see people explaining how actually they were just getting out of engagements, really, so actually no marriages can end it sounds the same as when people try to explain how the wine in the bible, that gets lots of people drunk, was non-alcoholic grape juice eyeroll
LikeLiked by 2 people
BTW, I am always open to guest posters – especially while I’m in school and pressed for time. I’m sure many have noticed that I don’t have nearly the amount of in-depth articles because I don’t have the time to interview people and get source information. But this place was meant to be not just my stories, but yours, too!
LikeLike
I love that idea, Julie Anne. Of course, as Lea mentioned, Patriarchy and Complementarianism is no good for men either. One could say it is oppressive to men in certain religious groups. For example, in my former Christian cult, the males were publicly mocked and derided by the pastor for not being responsible, manly men and fulfilling their duty as leaders.
But here is where I think the experiences within these kind of Comp/Patriarchy environments differ for men. If men in these religious circles take up the mantel of leadership in church/home/society, they immediately have the upper hand & advantage over the women. Once they fulfill what is deemed their God-given role – they can and often do abuse such a position, and it isn’t held against them because they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, i.e. – leading. And men leading, even if they are doing so in abusive, unethical and harmful ways, is still looked at as preferable to being passive wimps (their view, not mine) within these religious environments. And unlike women who are supposed to be submissive to their unbelieving and/or abusive husbands in the name of suffering for Christ (remember that Paige Patterson tripe about the abused wife who got black eyes from her husband, or John Piper telling women to suffer abuse for a season) – men who have genuinely difficult wives have much more leverage in these environments. For one, they don’t have to submit to their wives if they are bullies and out of control. For another thing, they can can place limitations on the wife, such as taking her check book, ignoring her, or any number of disciplinary measures. But the wife in the same scenario with a bully, abusive husband must be sure to be kind, make him special meals that he likes, speak winsomely and sweet to him, and tell him how much she loves him in order to win him to Christ. Not so for the husband with an abusive wife.
Women, on the other hand, are in a lose/lose scenario. If they are passive, sweet, submissive, winsome, etc. – they are subject to being abused and mistreated anyway because they can never be any of these things enough, especially with an abusive bully knave of a husband. In other words, they are still blamed when their husband verbally, spiritually, physically abuses them and told that they need to submit more. Or, they are told to look at what kind of behavior they are doing that is causing their husband to act that way, i.e. – the message is that they are complicit in their abuse. And, if women are frank, straight-forward, and assertive, they are told that they are rebelling against their God-given role and buying into the Feminist lie that women must be strong. Women in these environments are blamed no matter what. At least that is the way I see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d be happy to try my hand at a few opinion pieces JA. I have some things to say at the Pearls, at Doug Wilson, at a few others. I’m sure I could come up with an individual essay for each one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To add to what I said above, in Patriarchal/Comp circles, women with abusive husbands are told that God is calling them to suffer for Him and that such suffering is pleasing to God. On the other hand, men with abusive wives are never told that they are called to suffer for Christ in this way. They are to do everything possible to eradicate such suffering in their marriages. That’s the double standard here, in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would be happy to contribute some articles as well. I could start with my own experiences from my former Christian cult.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m going to title my essay series “You Don’t Have To Listen To ________.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Darlene, I absolutely agree with you that women are in a more precarious position in these environments. I look at things in terms of risk management. Where can things go most wrong? And how can we protect ourselves? Patriarchy is asking women to pull all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. If the basket breaks? Oh well. You lost.
Wouldn’t it be better to encourage a teensy bit of long term planning here? Would we tell people to be without a savings account, because God will provide? I wouldn’t.
Regarding men, I am thinking of this parable:
Which wolf do we think is being fed by men in these patriarchal, male focused and complementarianismist environments?
LikeLike
Dash, that sounds fantastic 🙂
If I wrote an article, it would be about how much peace it gives me to go to a church, for the first time in my life, that treats women with full equality in every respect. Where I know no one will be told not to talk, or preach, or take up the offering or read scripture.
And how sad it makes me to leave that environment and read these things would that dehumanize women in the name of Christianity instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Julie Anne! A woman (or a man for that matter because women can be abusive as well) shouldn’t have to stay in an abusive marriage in the name of being a good Christian wife. I have never seen anything in the Bible that states that a good wife has to be a punching bag. I wonder how many women have been killed or beaten into unconsciousness because they followed the “advice ” of some misogynistic pastor who told them that in order to please God, they had to stay with their abusive prick of a husband?!?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darlene, “For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
I think in a very Neo-Calvinist sense, Lori is claiming this verse on her detractors when she is the one doing just that.
Here’s Calvin’s (apologies to Boston Lady) commentary on the passage: “These marks it is proper to observe carefully, if we wish to distinguish between useless drones and faithful ministers of Christ. These former are here marked by so black a coal, that it is of no use for them to shuffle. To “creep into families” means to enter stealthily, or to seek an entrance by cunning methods.
[misogynist aside deleted] He says that they “are led captive,” because false prophets of this sort, through various tricks, gain their ear, partly by prying curiously into all their affairs, and partly by flattery. And this is what he immediately adds, “laden with sins;” for, if they had not been bound by the chain of a bad conscience, they would not have allowed themselves to be led away, in every possible manner, at the will of others.”
Isn’t that precisely what Lori does? She seeks an entrance by claiming that every marital problem is fixable, and that she has the answers. The kinds of women that Lori attracts are those who have been told they’re worthless, valueless sinners and that their husbands are straying/abusive/adulterous because they are not godly wives. Lori then leads them astray from understanding the love of God and what it means to be daughters of the king (what king would allow his daughter to be abused by her husband??) to slavery – captivity – to her teaching. They are never able to come to the truth because they believe in an abusive god – one who would choose to make them suffer and degrade themselves for his pleasure.
What does Lori / false prophet get from this? Same kinds of things that they got in that time – sustenance (they buy her books and visit her blogs), affirmation (they write wonderful comments and beat down detractors) and control (they follow her teaching). Even if she doesn’t want to profit from her books, she still seems to want affirmation (she deletes negative posts) and control.
Yet, we are somehow to believe that the people who are trying to build women up to have healthy boundaries and affirm their personhood and value as those loved daughters of the king are the ones who are trying to make them captives? That’s so quintessentially Neo-Calvinist!
LikeLike
Regarding the potential article series… I’d love to contribute one or two pieces to the tune of “collateral damage as inflicted on innocent misfit girl-child of the hellscape”. I have FEELINGS about purity culture. And enforced femininity, which is the woooorst when you do lean towards the feminine side of the gender spectrum, just… not in the right ways. Not quite delicate enough. Not the right shade of wallflower. Too HUMAN.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, do we have an all-encompassing title for the ongoing series? And feel free to start sending in whatcha got to spiritualsb@gmail.com
LikeLike
I like the “Oppressing Women” as the main series title; people can have their own subtitle categories under that heading.
LikeLike
Dash said:
This. What if a marriage isn’t necessarily abusive? What if it was a courtship/betrothal marriage to someone you’re not really compatible with even if you still love the other person? What if you feel like you’re dying inside even though, by all outward appearances, you have a good marriage?
LikeLike
“rebelling against their God-given role and buying into the Feminist lie that women must be strong. ”
This is how my father and the child rapist talked.
My rapist favorite things to call women and little girls who did not kiss his bottom just right and make him feel like a powerful man.
Feminist.
Jezebel.
Rebellious.
Unsubmissive c*nt.
When I hear men say these words, because of the child raping man I knew when I was little, I always wonder if he has been raping a three-year-old. These are words used to make me hate myself as a little girl and bully me.
The reason my father did not like strong women is because he could not be married to, or have sex with a grown up. My mother had to have the education, information, resources, and rights of a child. For her to be a grown up, well he could never be in a relationship with a grown up. Adults have power, children do not.
These kind of men want all women in a trapped child sex slave state.
A strong woman, informed woman, experienced woman, critical thinking woman would have told my father he is an embarrassing POS, to hit the road, get lost, he is simply not worth it.
LikeLike
“Also, the word “covenant” makes me throw up in my mouth.”
Once I read online a Christian man saying “A woman bleeding when she has sex for the first time is supposed to be a blood covenant.” I don’t know if he meant with her husband or God, but is was hurtful and offensive.
I have found that most people use the bible to promote their fetishes and condemn their pet peeves. They don’t care if it is true or not, they just want to use it to get what they want.
LikeLike
I saw that somewhere recently. I honestly have no words.
Even if it were true, what would it actually mean, in reality? Because if I made that ‘blood covenant’ with someone awful, or by force, or by ignorance, I’m not sticking around. And what if the person in question doesn’t even want you around?
Those people haven’t thought any of the implications through. Having sex is not a contract, it’s surely not a covenant either. You haven’t agreed to anything but sex.
LikeLike
Dash/BTDT: “A church group applying moral pressure to try to force them to stay together is simply absurd.”
I agree that the pressure is wrong. I like the way Boundaries approaches this. The marriage is broken. Let’s acknowledge this and move on, but we know that God restores things that are broken. Would you both be interested in figuring out whether this marriage can be restored?
I think the moral pressure is based on the lie that the marriage isn’t broken until the divorce is finalized. The marriage is broken long before and divorce is just an acknowledgment of that brokenness. The last thing I would want to hear after years of trying to make it work, then finally throwing up my hands is that the marriage isn’t broken. THEY WEREN’T THERE!
“If one or the other party wants out, for ANY reason, they should be able get out.”
I don’t think marriage is like having a car. Three years later when the warranty runs out and there are repairs, we shouldn’t think, I’m going to trade this car in and buy another one. Marriage is meant to be permanent. It’s not permanent because people sin and cause irreparable harm to each other. We should acknowledge both – that it is meant to be permanent, and that there are ways that sinful people can break the marriage. I almost threw up in my mouth when a couple’s vows were “as long as we both shall LOVE”. Needless to say, two years later when the infatuation ran out, they got a divorce.
I think we agree that the vast majority of married couples who want to get a divorce are doing so for valid reasons. The marriage is broken. I’m just not comfortable with “ANY” reason.
LikeLike
Just for fun, some “Cliffs’ Notes” for those who would write.
Regarding a “blood covenant” or “hymen covenant”, it’s worth noting that Paul and Jesus simply say “flee fornication” and “leave your life of sin.” They do not say to stay with the person one is fornicating with, let alone someone who has seduced or raped them. Even Exodus 22:16-17 notes that the father does not need to give his daughter to the man who seduced her. Those who endorse a “hymen covenant’ are going way further than does Scripture.
Regarding how to address abuse, I would bring up passages like 1 Peter 3:7 and Colossians 3:19; if a man is being harsh and cruel to his wife, God does not hear his prayers, and it is cause for church discipline per Matthew 18:15-19.
(one thing that I can’t see clearly is something I advocate, to be fair–Scripture does not really mention separation or divorce from the woman’s perspective, so I make a judgment call that I’d rather see a live sister without her husband than a dead sister and a murderous widower)
More or less–and keep in mind that I’m one of those “Neanderthals” who endorses some degree of male headship in the church and family (boo hiss, I know)–my impression is that what goes on in some quarters of the “patriarchal” and “complementarian” portions of the church is that they confuse “the way things used to be” (say back in the 1950s or so) with “the way Scripture describes.”
Really, we see this in “fundagelical” circles a lot in a lot of areas, from music (worship wars, hymns vs. choruses, etc..) to alcohol and dance, to clothing. I love the good in fundagelicalism, but in many areas like this, it is my prayer that my brothers and sisters will see what Scripture actually says and come to repentance. It is a real danger to read our own biases into Scripture,no matter where we start.
LikeLike
NO! The vast number of divorces ARE NOT for frivolous reasons. That is a “Christian fake fact” we need to end. Pastors make it sound like 95% of divorces are frivolous, but they are not.
In a survey done a few years ago, these serious reasons for divorce given by women over age 40:
1. Physical, verbal or emotional abuse. — 24%
2. Drug or alcohol abuse —18%
3. Cheating —17%
4. Abandonment — 4%
Conservative churches fall across a spectrum for “acceptable” reasons for divorce:
— 0 reasons
— 2 reasons (adultery and abandonment)
— 4 reasons (adultery, abandonment, abuse, and addiction)
— Any “serious” reason
If you’re divorced, there’s no point in staying at any church that broad-brushes a majority of divorce as frivolous. It’s bad for your children’s emotional health to be told they are from a “broken home,” when in reality you made it a “healthy home” by divorcing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“when in reality you made it a “healthy home” by divorcing.”
Thank you!
My childhood would not have been so hellish if my mother had divorced the creepy perv (my father) she was gullible enough to marry before her eighteenth birthday. And maybe she could have found love.
LikeLike
Just ran across the ‘he thinks he’ll keep her’ song, which I had forgotten.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like your comment, Bike bubba. You raise some important points about what the Bible does and doesn’t say.
I’m interested in learning what your idea of male headship looks like, if you dare 🙂
I have many friends who say they are complementarian, and they are happily married, but they look more egalitarian to me. LOL
LikeLike
JA, in a nutshell, it’s that male leadership has authority–that would be the elected/selected pastors/elders/deacons in the church and the father/husband in the family–but that authority does not extend to actions the Scripture clearly indicates are abusive.
To draw a picture, a domestic abuser told me that he thought he had the right to “discipline” his wife. Um, no–that’s 1 Peter 3:7 and Colossians 3:19 talking to ya right there, buddy. A man ought to lead his wife, train her in Scripture if he can, and the like, but if she’s not along for the ride, he needs to work on those knee callouses in prayer. Argue, but don’t slander, don’t revile, that kind of thing.
In the church, my view is that leadership ought to be male simply because God said so, and God presents HImself as such in Scripture. It’s not that women are less capable or gullible, or more sinful, but simply that God set it up that way. Their authority is similarly limited by Matthew 18–explusion from the church with sadness (e.g. 1 Tim. 1:20) and prayer for restoration.
A bad example was when Harvest Bible Chapel released a video when two elders were expelled for saying they’d actually like to see the budget before voting on it–first of all it wasn’t a sin (all it would have done is show MacDonald’s pay structure), and more importantly there ought to be sadness, not aggression, in such a statement.
So I’m definitely not campaigning for some 1950s corporate style patriarchy, but I do believe in male headship constrained by what ought to be the fruit of the spirit.
LikeLike
One other note; if we wish to persuade people like Lori Alexander that they’re in error, we need to speak the language they think they speak, whether they do or not in reality. Just as you’d speak in terms of cash flow and profit to a corporate executive, you speak in terms of Scripture to a fundagelical. We may or may not be operating on that basis, but you’re at least speaking the language we claim to speak.
And be patient. If you doubt this, ask someone who likes modern music, or a glass of wine, about the arguments he’s heard against both in fundagelicalism. It takes a lot more than pointing to Psalms 149 and 150, or John 2:1-11, to make your case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But that leaves a lot of room for nitpicky control, that becomes abusive.
I disagree at this point. Maybe one on one, with a friend in person? I would soften things, quote more bible verses, or what have you. But for people like Lori, she is not listening. We are talking to her acolytes really. Or people who already have doubts. They need to hear some bible verses, sure, but I think even more they need to hear some plain talk. This is a problem, and here is why. You don’t have to stay, and here is why.
There is a bible verse that can be used to support any position you want to take, and probably another one to counter it. So what are we really needing to say to reach someone? I think it’s something else.
LikeLike
With regard to “any” reason to divorce…
Whatever the reason, and whether frivolous or not, the decision to divorce is between the person who makes that decision and God alone. I am fed up with church folks who feel they have some divine right to know the issues involved, then piously condemn divorcees whom they mysteriously decree “did it wrong.” Justified before God, I don’t have to explain myself to anyone.
And as far as the lifelong covenant teachings go, throughout Scripture covenants are made, kept and broken. All parties must adhere to a covenant for it to kept, and when one party of the covenant breaks it, it is broken. Whether a breach can be healed or not is for the parties involved to determine – and no one else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding nits, they would be defined as things where there is no Biblical, safety, or other important reason for that position, no?
The nicest thing one can say about that is that it’s micromanageing, a waste of time for a real leader at best. At worst, it’s loading un-Biblical requirements on people. So I think there’s more Bible than you’d think, as Galatians makes clear that extra-Biblical requirements can flat out be a rejection of the Gospel. No?
And perhaps Lori will not listen to Scripture–I’ve never interacted with her to my memory, so I don’t know. At a certain point, you separate. That’s what I did when a “pastor” read me the riot act about cutting communion bread too large, and then ignored Biblical and historical evidence about what the first Lord’s Supper would have been like. He also loved his personal attacks in his KJVO literature, and ignored Ephesians 4:32 and Jude 9 in the process.
So I separated. Harder to do when it’s marriage–that’s where I’d look to Matthew 18–but at a certain point, if Paul didn’t submit to wrongful whipping in Acts 16, why should we submit to abuses of authority?
LikeLike
Some men seem to think it’s really ‘important’ to have the dishes washed in just the correct way. Or the cans turned right. Or 50 other nonsense examples I could give that are not important.
And if something is truly ‘important’, then the wife should absolutely have a say. A full one. Two people don’t need one of them to be designated the official ‘leader’ for all time.
Two heads are better than one.
LikeLike
Oooh! that should totally be an anti-patriarchy blog name 🙂
LikeLike
Some men seem to think it’s really ‘important’ to have the dishes washed in just the correct way. Or the cans turned right. Or 50 other nonsense examples I could give that are not important.
Lea, (I’m saying this with a friendly smile, BTW) my mom worked in food service for 50 years, and I’ve been cooking since I was six–over four decades now. She taught me well that proper dishwashing greatly reduces disease and food poisoning, and arranging like cans with like with the labels out makes things a LOT easier on the cooks, and reduces food waste greatly. Just ask your county health inspectors.
Or Lillian Gilbreth, the real mom from “Cheaper by the Dozen” and the first great female ergonomics engineer. She designed the “triangle” you’ll find between the sink, fridge, and stove in most kitchens–and was able to cook while hardly taking a step in any direction.
Not that there aren’t good examples of nit-picking, but within reason, there are GREAT reasons to organize a kitchen well. :^)
LikeLike
I agree with you, Cindy. And to think there are churches where you will be put in church discipline if you go against what pastors determine as the best choice in someone’s marriage, when they are not living in the marriage, is so disturbing to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then I’m sure you are welcome to organize them As you like!
But you are avoiding my point. I don’t suppose you ever saw sleeping with the enemy?
LikeLike
@Mark thanks. We as Christians should want our marriages to work, and do the best we can to work things out. And sometimes that may mean getting help. I think pastors(at least I’d like to think) want to know why a couple is separating so he can help them both. A dear friend who is a counsellor has written many a blog post about when a couple feels disconnected, how to address it before it is too late.
Pastors probably are scared that one frivilous divorce will lead to others NOT taking marriage seriously. Ending a marriage, as Christians, should not be taken lightly, and any of you who have done that, I’m sure you didn’t take it lightly.
Keep on learning. And church discipline is a continually learning process too. Wasn’t there a part in 2 Corinthians where Paul re-addresses the man caught in blatant sin, who was repenting and needed to be restored? I’ll have to look that up again, but in that, the goal is always, hopefully, reconciliation. It doesn’t always turn out that way, but that’s the goal.
LikeLike
Cindy, “Whatever the reason, and whether frivolous or not, the decision to divorce is between the person who makes that decision and God alone.”
I don’t think that’s quite how it works. The man in 1 Cor who was sinning had an effect on the entire body. It appears that the church was reveling in the “grace” they showed the man by not disciplining him at all.
I definitely agree that there are specific matters where the church wants too much to pry, and especially too much to try and force people together, and divorce is one of them.
My experience is that my past leaders simply weren’t trustworthy, and they had no idea how to bandage sheep. So, when couples went to the church as their final straw, the church told the husband to love his wife and the wife obey to her husband, which was exactly what the husband wanted to hear and exactly what the wife didn’t want to hear, because the husbands tended to be patriarchal.
LikeLike
We’re discussing about 1 Corinthians 5 right now over at A Cry For Justice. So Cindy, Mark and others may like to go to the link I’m giving and see what is being said. Ps Sam Powell has suggested an interpretation of 1 Cor 5:5 that I have never heard before, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2017/06/19/the-pcas-position-paper-on-divorce-is-dangerous-for-abuse-victims/#comment-94902
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Are you still planning to post the other weeks of Ken’s thesis about spiritual abuse and recovery from it?
LikeLike
Yes! A new post should be up today (Friday). I had finals last week and I’ve been trying to chill a bit this week before summer classes start in Monday.
LikeLike
@Bike bubba,
“In the church, my view is that leadership ought to be male simply because God said so, and God presents HImself as such in Scripture”
In the Bible, Yahweh also gives strict instructions for how to punish slaves. Do you agree with that one, too?
Admit it. You agree with the above quote because it’s self-serving.
LikeLike
@ Bike Bubba,
“male leadership has authority–that would be the elected/selected pastors/elders/deacons in the church and the father/husband in the family–but that authority”
Why should my rapist or father have leadership or authority just because they were born with a penis? And why should I have to be lead by a man and be submissive just because I was born female?
“A man ought to lead his wife, train her in Scripture” My father had no business training my mother or me. He was a dumb pervert and we are not canines.
You are very very lucky you were born male. You can deny this, but your ideology is extremely demeaning, terrifying, and hurtful to many women and little girls that have been raped as children and has been child sex slaves.
Your ideology is a gold mine for little girl rapist, men who want female sex slaves, and wife beaters. I was trained to worship your God and as a young teenager, I felt like he was a pimp.
I have been wondering this. Should a sex slave be submissive and obey the man who has her chained in his basement?
LikeLike
“There is a bible verse that can be used to support any position you want to take, and probably another one to counter it. ”
My grandfather and great grandfather, both Southern Baptist and both only read King James Bibles got into heated debates when I was growing up about what the same Bible verses meant.
“Oppressing Women in the Name of God: Exposing the Underbelly of Patriarchy and Complementarianism. How does that sound for the name of a blog?”
I have thought about starting a blog about how conservtive Christianity hurts raped little girls and benfits little girl rapist, but since I am dyslexic I havent.
LikeLike
The thing about this ‘authority’ is that there is no (kind, Christian, legal) way to enforce it. So you have to convince women they are to yield to you, just because.
BTW, I saw the article you posted about that lady from Proverbs 31 ministries, Julie Anne. Maddening!
Her husband cheated and wasn’t sorry and this is the response?
It’s funny that Ashley Easter posted the other day that women are supposed to be subordinate, but are still blamed when the husband cheats, and then here comes a prime example!
LikeLike
ISTM that fundagelicalism has made a sacred cow out of marriage permanence. If you haven’t been following the comments on the “single woman over 50 at church” post, you can pretty much sum up the attitude toward singles as “sucks to be you.” Been there, done that, and they’re not wrong. But once you’re married, evangelicals think they now have a right to be all up in your business even though — wait for it — it still “sucks to be you.”
None of this even closely resembles the Jesus who rebuked Pharisees for their arrogance while extending grace to a prostitute who washed his feet with her tears. It’s little wonder that there’s a mass exodus from churchianity.
LikeLike
Lea; I do believe I addressed your point about nit-picking by noting that it’s poor leadership and a waste of time, micro-managing. It also tends to go beyond where Scripture, or even common sense can go. We can quibble over where the boundary is, of course, but I agree with you wholeheartedly that headship does not mean that one ought to micro-manage.
“Christianity Hurts”, by no means does Scripture endorse placing a rapist in authority. A couple of first things here;
Male headship does not mean any arbitrary male has authority over any female. I have no authority over anyone here, for example, as I am not married to anyone here, nor am I in church leadership, so even if a member of my church was here, I would have no authority over them.
Male headship does not mean giving leadership positions to rapists, molesters, and the like. Matthew 5:31-2 is very clear on this. Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is grounds for terminating the marriage and any church office, and any crime of violence is grounds for church discipline. Period.
Headship under Biblical authority structures ends where the authority granted by Scripture ends. If anyone thinks their position as pastor, husband, father, whatever is a position of “ruling” rather than one of service, he’s missing the point.
I get that a lot of people out there have been abused by perverse interpretations of pastoral, husbandly, and fatherly authority. I’m one of the abused. I just think that when one looks closely at what the Scriptures actually say about the matter, you can fix things without casting out the structure altogether.
More or less, you’re going to have authority figures, no matter how you organize it. You might as well choose the structure that reins them in the best, no?
LikeLike
“It’s little wonder that there’s a mass exodus from churchianity.”
It seems like Christianity use to make people think of sweet grandmothers taking care of dying neighbors, taking food to crippled seniors, and taking medicine and homemade quilts to poor people.
Now it makes some people think of Shirley Phelp-Roper. Deranged hate.
Mark Driscoll. Religious thug.
Jim Bob Duggar. Misogynistic pervert.
Debi Pearl. Violence against babies and little children.
LikeLike
That ignores completely the interpersonal problem within marriage.
I really, really hate using this bschool language in the context of a marriage, btw. ‘servant leader’, ‘micromanaging’, etc. That is a relationship! There are only two people in it. No one has to be in charge.
I realize you disagree and I feel reasonably confident you are not abusive, but this mentality is not healthy.
[and seriously, watch ‘Sleeping with the Enemy’.]
LikeLike
Also, the ‘structure’ that reigns in abuse best in a marriage is equality. Period.
Christianity Hurts, I completely agree with you about Christianitys image problem. The focus is off. That needs to be fixed.
LikeLike
@Bike Bubba, “In the church, my view is that leadership ought to be male simply because God said so, and God presents HImself as such in Scripture”
This is what I grew up with and it’s cherry picking. God is personified as Wisdom, a woman, and Jesus compares himself to a mother hen desiring to gather her chicks. God CREATED male and female, but God is not bound by gender.
The Fall created a patriarchal bent to society, and God created laws to try and curb that patriarchy, but ultimately the Jewish nation was too hard hearted to give women their proper place. Even in that patriarchal system, we see glimpses of God’s heart – women like Deborah, Huldah, the woman who delivers her city by negotiating with Joab. Our church background likes to say “Deborah was the best man for the job”, but I think that is completely contrary to scripture. That’s works-based salvation – that Israel could somehow be so far beyond the Holy Spirit that God was forced, despite himself, to pick a woman for a man’s role.
LikeLike
Carmen; on the Old Testament and slavery, it’s worth noting that what the Torah does for slaves of the time is seriously restrict what could be done to them. Kidnapping slaves was a capital crime, slavery generally resulted from unpaid debts (we’ve got that part today as we sit in our workplaces, no?), it was temporary, injuries during slavery resulted in release, slaves were protected from abuse by owners (e.g. rape), slaves could buy their freedom, etc.. It also provided a safe harbor for people who simply never figured out how to make ends meet on their own.
Nothing like the peculiar institution in the U.S., really. I am glad I’m not under the Mosaic law–another difference between what I’ve mentioned and this case–but let’s not misrepresent what the Torah actually does. I can’t think of any country that had slavery where it was as benign as it was under the Torah.
LikeLike
“The Fall created a patriarchal bent to society, and God created laws to try and curb that patriarchy, but ultimately the Jewish nation was too hard hearted to give women their proper place. Even in that patriarchal system, we see glimpses of God’s heart – women like Deborah, Huldah, the woman who delivers her city by negotiating with Joab. ”
Thank you, Mark. If you have little girls they are lucky.
LikeLike
@Bike Bubba, let’s talk headship and authority. Every authority structure God has created on Earth also has a corresponding punitive system. Fathers/Heads of Households are given authority over children, as well as the responsibility to discipline them when they stray. In the same way, the church exercises discipline on those members who are unrepentantly bearing bad fruit. In the same way, the state passes laws and bears the power of the sword to execute those laws.
Now, tell me. What God-given punitive system exists within the husband-wife relationship? What law can the husband create and enforce? In our current society, we have names for the things that husbands typically do to enforce their will. Verbal abuse, domestic violence, economic abuse, and so on.
And yes, each sphere has a “capital punishment” – excommunication, divorce, etc., but even in that instance, both the church and state believe they have the authority/responsibility to “grant” divorce, and that a husband cannot (unlike Muslim cultures) divorce his wife without state approval.
There simply is no God-ordained wife discipline.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bike Bubba, Leviticus says only Jewish slaves were not permanent slaves. It’s totally fine to ‘acquire’ slaves from other cultures and keep them permanently, bequeath them to your kids.
Traditionally, a lot of people became slaves by conquest.
LikeLike
It seems like if I was married and my husband wanted a divorce I would not want to live with or be married to some who did not want me.
If I respected a man enough to marry him I would never tell him to be submissive to me or expect him to. I would not want him to have those gross trapped demeaning feelings, especially towards me, and I would not want him to live like a dog.
If a marriage is not going to be perverted and Ariel Castro like both wife and husband should have the right to say no to each other. I would not be a loving spouse or want to be married to someone who could not tell me no.
If he thought he had to tell me yes all the time I would think he was childlike, and it is not attractive to be married to a kid.
LikeLike
There simply is no God-ordained wife discipline.
Agreed. That is precisely what I pointed out about 30 comments ago. So when a husband has a wife who will not submit, he does not beat her, does not berate her, etc.. He prays. Similarly,Biblical church discipline ends with expelling a sinful member. And the church ought to pray, too.
It puts a definition, really, on servant leadership, in my view.
LikeLike
Regarding Mark’s claim that I’m “cherry picking” because God is referred to as a bird protecting her young, and because wisdom is represented as a woman, there is first of all a reality that metaphorical language is, well, metaphorical, Plus, male birds (e.g. geese) often take part in sheltering the young, depending on the species, so even that metaphor does not point inextricably in a feminine way.
My claim that God refers to Himself as male derives from the use of male pronouns, declensions, and conjugations in both Hebrew and Greek for 65 of the 66 books of Scripture–the only exception being Esther, where the name of God is not used. You’ve also got the consistent prayers of Christ to His Father, the position of Christ as the Son, etc.. I simply don’t view a few cases of metaphorical language, at least one of which is debateable, as a refutation of the general principle.
LikeLike
Lea, on gaining slaves by conquest, keep in mind that the kings were forbidden to keep large numbers of horses or gold–critical for an aggressive army. The main foreign slaves they’d have obtained would have been during the conquest of Canaan.
Plus, after David, most of the Israelite kings were pretty bad at war. So the exception for non-Israelite slaves really would be a sidelight in the law. And even they were treated far better than the slaves of any other nation at any other time I’m aware of.
LikeLike
What is your purpose in defending slavery here exactly? There may have been some protections, but it was hardly a rosy state. It was SLAVERY. Heavens.
I don’t want to get into that more, I was merely correcting your error on permanent slavery being disallowed. It wasn’t.
LikeLike
@Bike bubba
I suspect this attitude is what some others are picking up on. Each marriage is different as we are all unique individuals, so some women are happy to be the more passive partner. Whatever works for them. But when there is a demand for submission, there is most definitely a breakdown. And the problem isn’t necessarily the “wife who will not submit.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTDT said: And the problem isn’t necessarily the “wife who will not submit.”
Right – could it be just that the wife does not agree with her husband? Why does the husband get to be the one who calls it? Why shouldn’t it be give and take? What about Eph 5:21. Isn’t the husband supposed to submit to the wife, too?
LikeLike
Lea; what is your purpose (and Carmen’s) in introducing the Torah’s provisions on slavery in response to my pointing out New Testament descriptions of church headship? As a rule, the implicit logic is that if we can point to a provision in the Mosaic Law that we would be no means defend, then we might infer that we ought not defend provisions in the New Testament, either.
The response, then, is twofold. First, if we’re not under law, and we’re not, then that logic is a simple non sequitur. It makes no sense. But since the Torah is God’s Word as well, it is also important to understand it in its context, since what’s really being attacked is the character of God. That’s a big deal.
LikeLike
Ask Carmen. I don’t recall bringing it up at all.
The only reason I commented was to correct your error.
LikeLike
Lea: well, there you go. And my response was in response to Carmen. :^)
To build on my errors, it’s also worth noting that women slaves could be slaves for life, too. My guess is that this had to do with the fact that at the time, a woman’s well-being was tied to her husband, and that was tied to her fertility. So if you take six prime childbearing years away from her and then send her on her way, you’re more or less consigning her to poverty. So the person who bought a female slave had to buy her for life–either as a slave, or if she was willing, eventually as a wife. It probably also encouraged fathers not to sell their daughters into slavery, but rather themselves.
Not that I like slavery, and it’s inherently ugly, even as a sort of ancient debtor’s prison. Poverty and debt work that way. But the Torah approach to slavery is miraculously merciful.
LikeLike
Bubba,
But in the case that Christianity Hurts had to endure (and likely countless others), it didn’t rein anyone in. Her father, her grandfather, those who molested her… no one faced any consequences from church or society for their degrading and tyrannical treatment of women in their household.
You seem to be missing this point, Bubba. It’s something that happens over and over again to women. It happened to Dr. Ruth Tucker. Apparently, much the same was perpetrated on Christianity Hurts. A husband (or father, or grandfather) mistreats the girls and women he’s supposed to love. The pastor and elders at his church (all male, of course) declare he has the right and “authority” to do so. What are the wife and daughters in this situation supposed to do? There’s nothing left to “rein in” this harmful behaviour.
You really need to listen to what you’re saying, and hear those words from Christianity Hurts’ point of view. Your insistence that a wife needs to be “trained” (like a dog, or a child) by her husband must sound like a horror to her. She was treated like a slave and a plaything for most of her formative years by her father. The notion that she requires more of that from a husband is, I’m sure, the last thing she needs to hear.
She’s already said elsewhere that she would never, ever marry a Christian man. I doubt you’ve made that prospect any more appealing to her.
LikeLike
Serving Kids in Japan, thank you for commenting. I completely agree.
The problem with all this authority business, is there effectively is NO structure for reigning it in except to give women agency in their own lives. [It would also help to prevent it if we would not teach men this entitlement towards women.] Unfortunately, children are in an even more precarious position. They need to be protected by their parents and when they aren’t things fall apart.
LikeLike
or possibly ‘reining’.
LikeLike
Bike bubba, I’ve been away all day on a class trip with one of my grandchildren. I’m pleased to see that Serving Kids in Japan (we have a daughter who taught in Japan, too!) dealt with the problem I have with your insistence on male leadership b/c it’s in the Bible. My point was – and you studiously ignored it – that there’s many things written in the Bible that you don’t follow, and it’s as plain as the nose on my face the the reason you stick to this one ‘rule’ is that it’s completely self-serving. You’re a man, ergo, you agree with that particular set of ‘instructions’. Get it?
LikeLike
SKIJ, given that I’ve repeatedly noted failures of fundagelicals to hold to the Scriptures in this regard on this thread, and given that I’ve never suggested women need to be “trained like a dog”, I am at a loss as to who, or what, you are actually responding to. It is certainly not what I’ve written here. Maybe you have me confused with Lori A. or something?
I write here to bring a bit of comfort and healing, and remind those who have been abused that what they experienced is not Biblical, providing chapter and verse.
LikeLike
You are certainly not Lori A, BB. No way!
LikeLike
Carmen: what you’re saying, more or less, is that if you or I can point to a single point where another person does not follow Scripture as you or I understand it, we can safely discard whatever portions of Scripture we find inconvenient. In other words, we’re setting ourselves up as God.
Not.Going.There. My application and understanding of Scripture is certainly imperfect, but I’m not smarter than God. If and when I sin by not following the Scripture as God understands it, that is not license for others to take an Xacto knife to the pages of the Bible.
LikeLike
Carmen, to soften things a bit, there are reasonable arguments for various positions of evangelical feminism. That we do not follow the Torah in its entirety is simply not one of them–there is too much good scholarship and Scripture explaining how the requirements of the Law no longer “bind” Christians for us to go there. If you want to argue that male headship might be cultural and not eternal, you go with (as Mark noted) Deborah and Ja’el, women “among the apostles” and as “servants of the church”.
(I disagree, but I volunteer these as more reasonable justifications)
LikeLike