A lot of conversation occurs on Twitter. Some tweets are ridiculous, others are maddening!! I read about current happenings in Christianity, exchange conversation with survivors and advocates. Sometimes there are tweets that really need to be seen wider than the Twitterverse. I will be compiling tweets to highlight here.
This is a few months old, but Mark Driscoll sure has changed . . . .
Gretchen Baskerville is a friend of mine who has been leading divorce recovery groups for a couple of decades. She has done a ton of research on divorce and is a powerful voice on Twitter telling the truth about divorce in the context of harmful and abusive marriages.
She is also writing a book called Life-Saving Divorce. I love her voice, giving abused men and women “permission” to divorce their abusive spouses, and even going against the bad counsel of pastors who have no business telling abused spouses to remain married with their abusers. Go, Gretchen!
Ummmmmm, no, just NO!!!! Sin-leveling doesn’t look good on you, TT.
Another older tweet, but one that needed to be documented. I understand that women talk about estrogen, but usually it’s in the context of menopause. But check out Owen Strachan’s tweet on testosterone. This stuff is plain weird. A grown man tweeting this? Bizarre!!!
I love reading Chuck DeGroat’s tweets. Chuck is associate professor of pastoral care and counseling at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan. He gets trauma, spiritual abuse, and so many of the issues we deal with here. Look how he handled this sensitive situation on a recent trip:
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Hmmm: Queries for ordination: “2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?”
Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 83. Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
Apparently TT failed that quiz.
LikeLike
Even if all sins were equally heinous in the sight of God, we’d have to deal with the reality that various sins do various amounts and types of harm to our fellow man. Which, again, brings to mind the question of whether God sees that and weighs things accordingly.
Or, as the thought occurred to me while reading something in the news, a guy would have to be a special kind of sick to do some things.
LikeLike
Most Christians would likely agree that all sins, from Original Sin forward, contribute to the need of a savoir. However, to claim that they are equally heinous sounds like attempted justification from those wanting an easy out for serious offenses. Our current legal code loosely derives from biblical justice, and we certainly don’t apply the same type of punishment to misdemeanors as we do to felonies. Or arguing from a purely logical standpoint, 100, -5, and 37 are all numerals, but each represents unique worth–they are not equal in value to one another.
LikeLike
” a guy would have to be a special kind of sick to do some things.”
Like, suggest a woman needs not divorce her husband for beating and sexually abusing her.
Like saying, “Immediate resort to divorce is, IMO, the relational equivalent of the President reaching for the nuclear “football” instead of talking to ambassadors when crises arise.”
That is something you said Bike Bubba about a woman divorcing her husband for beating or sexually abusing her. You then proceeded to LIE and say you never said it.
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/04/30/analysis-paige-pattersons-teachings-on-domestic-violence-put-victims-in-harms-way/
LikeLike
BB, I went back to Christianity Hurt’s linked post to read your comments and this one stood out to me:
“And really, CH, I’m on your side, though I don’t agree with you in every point. The core of our disagreement is really the question of which steps are going to get us closer to the goal–fewer victims abused, more victims finding a safe place, more offenders coming to repentance, more people in good families. If you were to sum up what I’m saying, it is that going directly to divorce is an “all or nothing” proposition that inhibits all of this for obvious reasons. Immediate resort to divorce is, IMO, the relational equivalent of the President reaching for the nuclear “football” instead of talking to ambassadors when crises arise.”
Bike Bubba, I don’t think you have an understanding of abuse in a marriage. When there is chronic abuse, the marriage has ended long before the “official” paperwork is done. Do you recall a post I did including words from three pastors who regularly deal with cases of domestic violence? I asked them if they would tell me if they have EVER seen an abuser change. There answer was that none of them had ever seen an abuser truly repent. It’s just not going to happen. So this wait and see business is malarkey. And it’s not a decision you get to make. It solely belongs to the victim who will decide when she is ready to leave and when the safest time to leave is – as no one knows an abuser better than the victim.
LikeLike
BIKEBUBBAApril 24, 2019 at 2:38 PM
“CH, that’s absolutely not true. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever specifically addressed the question of rape in marriage.”
Where Bike Bubba lied.
Bike Bubba has said many misogynistic things about women and about abused women getting a divorce. Notice Bike Bubba is a comp man and a Doug Wilson fanboy.
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2019/04/22/book-review-christians-in-a-sex-crazed-culture-by-bill-hybels-part-2-bills-problem-with-porn/
LikeLike
Julie Anne, in addition to this….nothing precludes someone from remarrying later if they decide the person really has changed and they both wish to. So fighting to keep the marriage seems more like an admission that once they are out, the abuser will probably move on to someone else to abuse. Or more happily the abused will find an actually kind loving partner and have ZERO wish to go back to being treated like dirt.
LikeLike
Exactly. This simple concept, that an abused woman has the right to make her own decisions based on the information she has, requires men to relinquish control over women.
[If these churches were not patriarchal, I would apply this equally to an abused husband, but the dynamics are different.]
LikeLike
I want to say that I have read Bike Bubba’s comments and I believe he is not saying a battered spouse should remain with their abuser and put up with their abuse. Just that a separation should be the first option first given the abuser a chance to repent and get counseling to change his/her ways, Then afterwards they can work on healing and reconciling and restore the marriages.
Many churches and pastors support this viewpoint as well as popular Christian leaders, speakers and authors. Some of them believe if the abuser is unrepentant, won’t change or decides to give up on marriage, then divorce is allowed on grounds of a desertion by an unbeliever as the abuser would be considered an unbeliever in those cases. Some from what I read even believe that even if the offender has repented it’s up up the innocent party(the victim) to decide if he/she wants to reconcile as forgiveness isn’t the same as forgetting. I don’t really have a problem with this view point because it helps both the victim and abuser to get help and heal and eventually have a better marriage than before once it’s restored and they’re have been actual cases that it has occurred.
The only problem I have is when some Christian communities say that divorce even in case of domestic violence isn’t an option. They truly believe that the victim should just separate indefinately hoping the abuser decides to repent some time in the distance future. The problem with this idea is that it doesn’t take into consideration that the abuser may never repent or what happens when the victim is in so much danger she/he may need to go into hiding or if the abuser tries to kill them for leaving. Also exactly how long does the victim suppose to wait for the abuser to redeem themselves? A year, two years? I have read sad cases where the battered woman was shunned by her relatives church community for divorcing her abuser even after the abusive husband injured their children.
I even once read of a case where a battered woman’s husband attempted to murder her but was told by her pastor she couldn’t divorce him as the bible didn’t allow it. Or the times I read on Christian forums of people advising a abused woman not give up on her marriage telling her that she won’t find happiness another man as if her husband if the only person she could be happy with. These types of mentality does make me angry because none of it is true and are an unfair to the abused spouse.
Bike Bubba said himself even during separations would lead to divorce anyway if the abuser turns to some thing else which I assume he means adultery which could happen or he/she just gives up on his/her marriage by either leaving or refusing to repent and change in order to restore it.
I plan on writing a post on Christian divorce on my blog sometime in the future where I can discuss the facts including this topics. God Bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know where a “good” church would fall on this spectrum. My experience with couples who have marital issues is that patriarchal churches are going to everything in their power to keep the marriage together, and when the marriage fails, the person who gets the blame is the person who filed for divorce.
I think the underlying problem is an Evangelical belief that “ALL” marriages can be restored. Because of this, they often look at the marriage and put pressure on the more honorable person in the marriage to “submit” to the less honorable to preserve the marriage. In all but one case, the wife was encouraged to submit to the less honorable husband. In the last case, the husband was told to throw his wife under the bus, probably in a vain attempt to pressure her away from her adulterous relationship, but he wasn’t going to do that and was excommunicated.
It seems to create the opposite. Marriages that can be restored get driven apart, and marriages that should be dissolved get pulled back together.
LikeLike
Sorry, I made a bit of an error on my post. I mean to say that Bike Bubba isn’t saying that a battered spouse should remain with their abuser.
LikeLike
Curious Thinker, I fixed your comment. Thanks for clearing that up.
LikeLike
Curious thinker, the problem I see with this is the problem I see with most of this advice…It’s all based on ‘hopefully the other person will do X’ whether X is ‘repent’, get magically better, stop being terrible, stop cheating, or officially leave you and file for divorce and then, and only then, is the abused spouse allowed to be free.
The idea that the abused person has no agency or decision making ability after being the injured party seems ludicrous to me. At a certain point, they are allowed to make their own choice about their own life!!! Anyone who takes away that agency is siding with the abuser, imo. Sometimes a marriage might just be broken, and no amount of ‘i’m sorry’ will cut it. Sometimes a person is not trustworthy. The onus should be on them to actually become a better person and if the injured spouse wishes to take them back they have that option not requirement.
I also think they entirely discount the idea of divorcing someone only to remarry them if you really want to – probably because they realize once someone is actually FREE they will realize they don’t want to go back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lea, correct, the church is often guilty of creating codependency in marriage. The righteous spouse is told to return for the purpose of changing the other spouse’s behavior That is the definition of codependency – feeling compelled to suffer to change someone else’s behavior. Our American culture is often codependent… don’t we tell our daughters that boys are being mean to them “because they like them”. That does not excuse the behavior, but somehow we are laying a burden on our daughters to suffer because the boy might change.
We use “turn the other cheek” as a codeword for suffering through violence to our person so that the other person might be converted.
Also, many churches hold that divorcees cannot remarry, especially if they’ve married in the interim. One is an OT case law, and the other is a misinterpretation of “and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”
LikeLike
@CURIOUS THINKER
Do you think if a man beats or sexually abuses his wife she should stay married to him?
Are you a man?
LikeLike
My opinion on separation vs. divorce – when the Spirit talks about Paul to Ananias, he says, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
God was explicit that Paul was chosen and anointed for a purpose of suffering for the sake of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit put it on Paul’s heart to be a witness to the Gentiles, through which he suffered many things to bring salvation.
I believe that God can heal abusive spouses, and I believe that the victims of spousal abuse can stay and suffer for the Gospel. BUT! That is a matter of personal gifting and intervention of the Holy Spirit, not the status quo, and not the operating direction of the church.
Does the church put all Christians on a boat to unreached people, or only those who they believe are gifted and called for that purpose? Likewise, the church should recognize that an abusive marriage is irreparably broken, and that they should step back and see what the Holy Spirit is doing in the couple. They should be counseling the couple to, at a minimum, separate, and even seek divorce proceedings, recognizing that the marriage is broken.
What JA says is right. It should be the expectation that the marriage cannot be salvaged, and that the abusive spouse will never change, and as such, divorce is necessary to adequately protect the abused spouse.
LikeLike
Christianthinker did a pretty good job of summarizing my position. I said “nuclear option” simply because in the minds of most married people, that’s precisely what divorce is. It hardens those who are left due to the trauma and expense, and it’s a barrier to abuse victims to get help if everybody immediately says to divorce.
Regarding “nobody’s seen a man repent”, well, maybe that’s true among our hostess’ sample, but here’s an interesting article that notes what does, and does not, reduce recidivism:
Click to access Wsipp_What-Works-to-Reduce-Recidivism-by-Domestic-Violence-Offenders_Full-Report.pdf
Quick summary: Duluth model counseling had no effect on recidivism, but cognitive behavioral therapy, relationship enhancement, and substance abuse treatment reduced it by an average of 33%. Not yet tested was faith based counseling, and the paper found a lot of therapeutic and law enforcement approaches to be promising, if not yet proven. My personal guess is that if churches took part in this, these numbers could be improved even more. Worth noting as well is that when VAWA was passed, overall domestic violence rates went down about 60% by 2010. Given that most of the offenders from 1994 are still alive and interested in a relationship, something changed in their (and other offenders’) attitude. Recidivism is nowhere near 100%.
Another reason to heed the old proverb “act in haste, repent at leisure” is what the statistics say, and what I observed as a kid going to Parents Without Partners meetings; singles’ relationships are much more volatile in terms of domestic violence than married couples as a rule, and the relationship path of divorcees observed at PWP suggested a general downward spiral.
Long and short of it; people do repent of domestic violence, and divorce is one option, but not a panacea.
LikeLike
BB: “and it’s a barrier to abuse victims to get help if everybody immediately says to divorce.”
I don’t see this at all. “Not all codependent relationships may be saved, however, as both members need to invest in change and commit to getting necessary help. Abuse often accompanies codependence, and this cannot be tolerated. Both partners in a codependent relationship will need to commit to change and work together toward recovery in order for the relationship to be salvaged.
During treatment for codependency, individuals will learn how to set clear boundaries and stick to them. Partners need to learn how to embrace self-love and take care of themselves first. Individuals must first accept themselves before they are able to engage in a healthy relationship.”
“Not yet tested was faith based counseling, and the paper found a lot of therapeutic and law enforcement approaches to be promising, if not yet proven. My personal guess is that if churches took part in this, these numbers could be improved even more.”
Which churches? Most Evangelical churches follow the Biblical Counseling approach, which tends to sin-level (by pointing out the sins of each partner and treating them equally, BC often re-victimizes abuse victims). They also tend to want to push couples back to physical intimacy quickly “lest they be tempted”. Often, divorcing is seen as more important than the well-being of each partner. My experience with the BC approach in a few cases is that they, without exception, try to sin-level the righteous spouse into feeling responsible for the actions (porn addiction, unemployment, sexual violence) of their spouse, then try to use that to shame them into “praying and staying” their partner back into the fold. All while trying to love bomb and grace the sinner back into the kingdom.
If you’re a Doug Wilson fan, you know that was essentially the tactic they used with Jamin Wight. They denied it was rape (she was 14, he was an adult, go figure). They then accused her parents of not protecting her and excommunicated them. Then they proclaimed forgiveness towards Jamin and worked to get him judicial leniency (while she had to fight him alone as the victim) by saying he had repented and changed (apparently the “change” wore off because he got sent back to jail for putting finger marks on his wife’s throat…).
Is that your model? The church was VERY involved in the matter. They proclaimed forgiveness for the rapist and hung the victim out to dry. They brought her parents up on charges for allowing him into their home, despite the fact he was a Wilson-approved seminarian. And, all the grace and forgiveness shown by the church didn’t improve any statistics in his case.
LikeLike
Mark, the barrier is simple; if you push divorce HARD for domestic violence cases, you create the perception that to come forward and get help, you have to be ready to divorce. If you’re not ready to make that step (my mother had to get to that point over years), that delays coming forward for help. If you can step forward and receive help without pulling that trigger, stepping forward is likely far more likely.
Regarding Wilson, as I noted before, I’ve agreed with him on some things and disagreed on others. Fanboy? Never. Un-linked his page when he called Boz an ambulance chaser a few years back in a dispute over the Sitler situation, and apart from the dispute over whether the “courtship” was sanctioned by the parents, I don’t know much about his involvement in the Wight case.
Regarding counsel, I’ve never deeply studied, let alone bought into any of the several approaches to Biblical counseling (no, it’s not monolithic), but my approach these days is to understand the barriers to stepping forward and gently encourage and pray for those who do. I’ve had the opportunity to encourage the family of one rape victim, and my daughter is now meeting with the routinely, in part to encourage her–they’ve also become good friends. I understand fully that we “fundagelicals” tend to have preconceptions that tend to make things difficult, starting with an undue deference to authority figures and men. I’ve seen in the past couple of weeks a big resistance to understanding why a victim would not report–even a victim who’d had a gun pointed at her and whose rapist wasn’t even prosecuted for an open and shut firearms offense. (the SWBTS plaintiff)
So more or less, my comment about “I acknowledge churches have often stunk up the place” stands, and what I’d recommend is really….what people are saying is working. Non-Duluth counseling, consequences, etc… Churches can at least work the consequences, no?
LikeLike
“CURIOUS THINKERSeptember 29, 2019 at 2:42 PM
I want to say that I have read Bike Bubba’s comments and I believe he is not saying a battered spouse should remain with their abuser and put up with their abuse. Just that a separation should be the first option first given the abuser a chance to repent and get counseling to change his/her ways, Then afterwards they can work on healing and reconciling and restore the marriages.”
That is telling a woman who has been beat and sexually abused by her husband to stay married to him and give him a chance. That is telling her NOT to divorce him.
It is making sure the wife-beater/wife rapist doesn’t lose anything and maintains what he wants. It is the abused woman’s job to suffer so the MAN gets what he wants and doesn’t lose anything. Islam, the Taliban, and ISIS hate to see an abused woman get to divorce her abusive husband as well.
That is putting the wife-beater and the wife rapist wants ABOVE the abused woman. Telling, suggesting, and peddling the anti-woman propaganda you pulled off the internet to use against abused women to give the abuser a chance to keep what HE wants is degrading and hateful to the abused woman.
Bike Bubba is choosing the abusive man over the abused woman. He wants to polish it up.
If people hated wife-beating and wife rape half as much as they love wife rapist and wife beaters they would tell her to stay away from him forever. That she should never have to see him again. But no! Christianity was created to cater to selfish abusive men. The whole point of Christianity is making sure men get female slaves, sex, and minions/children.
It is actually the preference that an abused wife stay married to the man who abused her that basically convinced me as a teenager that there is no God and Christianity was created by and for loser men. We now call them incels.
I was repeatedly sexually abused as a child. Conservative Christianity never helped me it only made it worse. I did see it help the man abusing me a lot though. No one who has been sexually abused by anybody (even their own bible quoting church-going husband) should ever have to look at his face, hear his sick voice, or feel his evil hands again. I know how conservative Christian men LOVE to minimize and deny the heinous pain of sexual abuse. The way conservative Christian men treat abused women is evil, stupid, and embarrassing.
I grew up with men like Doug Wilson, Mark Driscoll, Bike Bubba, Paige Patterson, and Al Mohler. And because of that, I am going to spend the rest of my life speaking out against Christianity. This group of men are so flamboyant about their Christian Taliban ideas they make my points for me.
Bike Bubba won’t answer women’s questions when he says hurtful degrading things about women but it looks like he sees that another man has his back about abused WOMEN so he feels confident enough to talk again.
LikeLike
I would like the church to get there, but right now, the church generally does more harm than good.
I don’t want the church to push divorce hard, but I want the church to start from a recognition that the marriage covenant has been broken. Reconciliation, then, is something that both have to want and work towards. Divorce is no panacea, but being forced with the threat of church discipline back into the same bedroom with an abusive spouse is a recipe for greater harm and even murder. Much of this has to do with the “fundagelical” misrepresentation of repentance. All it takes to be reconciled is a few tears and a good story about feeling bad, and the church is ready to pat you on the back, put you back in the pulpit, and start church discipline against your wife who sees past the lies.
LikeLike
This is some of Bike Bubba’s ideas about women.
BIKE BUBBA said,
“Regarding “support” of Doug Wilson, no, never have and never will give him unequivocal support. There are things he has done very well, and things he has done very poorly, and quite frankly if you want to make him a demon from whom one must utterly separate or be demonized, you’re doing the same kind of secondary/tertiary separation nonsense that the fringe of fundamentalists indulge. People are more complicated than that.”
Should we not demonize Keith Raniere?
Should we separate from Keith Raniere?
As if Doug Wilson is any better. Doug Wilson has a fetish with slavery and has never met a child-raping pedophile who he did not want to promote and protect.
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/11/01/spiritual-abuse-when-people-tell-you-no-church-is-perfect/comment-page-1/#comments
BIKE BUBBA said,
“My major difference with many on this thread–really many very significant activists in the area of protecting women–is that I think before one goes to divorce court, one ought to attempt a rebuke and corrective action first because divorce is a very real trauma on both sides of the courtroom that can tend to “harden” people who otherwise might have repented.”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/11/01/spiritual-abuse-when-people-tell-you-no-church-is-perfect/comment-page-1/#comments
I kept asking BIKE BUBBA if a wife can and should divorce her husband for beating and sexually abusing her. BIKE BUBBA’s excuse for wanting the raped women to stay married to her rapist is because the woman needs to suffer so rapist doesn’t sin anymore.
In conservative Christianity it is always the woman and little girl’s job to live in pain, lose, and not get what she wants so the manbaby/Christian father/Christian husband can feel good, win, and get what he wants.
Bike Bubba consistently calls divorce very bad. He makes wife-beating and wife sexual abuse sound like an afterthought.
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2017/06/20/taking-marriage-seriously-what-does-that-mean-for-a-christian/#comments
“Darlene
JUNE 23, 2017 @ 1:34 PM
Bike Bubba: Are you the same guest Bike Bubba that comments over at Blog and Mablog? The same Bike Bubba that has a blog named BikeBubba’s Boulangerie in which you have Blog & Mablog, The Pyromaniacs and the Bayly Brothers recommended on your Blog List? Are you the same Bike Bubba that said in a blog article entitled “Manly Monday: Now Lead Already” – “…and one can point out that a lot of the greatest failures in marriage occur when the husband has been sidelined from his proper role“? Are you the same Bike Bubba that defended Doug Wilson’s blog article “Christian Women are Prettier” in a blog article entitled “Sigh”?
If your answer is ‘yes,’ then I think you need to come clean and tell us what you really think about Patriarchy. You know, the kind Doug Wilson and The Bayly Brothers promote. If your answer is ‘yes,’ I’m pretty sure I know what you think about women and their role in marriage, church and society. ”
Barbara Roberts
JUNE 23, 2017 @ 1:42 PM
“Thanks SO much Darlene for putting Bike Bubba on the carpet. I’ve always felt there was something NQR about him.”
Barbara Roberts is an expert on abusive men and she knew Bike Bubba was NQR. I grew up with a father who beat his teenage wife in the face because the sick baby he FORCED her to get pregnant with was crying and getting on his nerves. I also grew up with a bible quoting, little girl raping, misogynistic pedophile and I knew the first time I read Bike Bubba’s ideas about women that he is a total misogynist.
BIKE BUBBA June 22, 2017 at 1:35 PM
“A man ought to lead his wife, train her in Scripture”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2017/06/20/taking-marriage-seriously-what-does-that-mean-for-a-christian/comment-page-1/#comments
My mother and I do not need to be lead or trained like a dog by any man. To say the sex that has a monopoly on raping children should be training and leading the sex that gives birth to those children is totally insulting to women who were repeatedly raped as little girls.
Bike Bubba’s bible does not give a d*mn how RAPED little girls feel or how abused wives feel. That bible only wants to help embarrassing men get a childish ego boost and more Ariel Castro power. https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/ariel-castro
The reason Christian marriage reminds me of Ariel Castro and Phillip Garrido is because I grew up in the comp cult.
It is so embarrassing how so many Christian men root that abused wives stay married to the wife beaters/wife rapist. It is a huge red neon sign that Christianity was created by men like the Taliban for men like the Taliban.
I believe that comp man and the Taliban deserve to take turns being each other’s submissive wives. They are the only wives each other deserve. Both groups are nauseating and embarrassing.
LikeLike
Lea said,
“The idea that the abused person has no agency or decision making ability after being the injured party seems ludicrous to me.”
The group (usually conservative Christians) does not believe a woman should have any ownership of her own life, body, or future. It is up to men to own her, decide for her, and pass her around.
I read a story about a woman who’s pastor told her she could leave her husband for beating her and go stay at a friends house. But, if her husband wanted to have sex she could not tell him no. If her husband called at 2 am she had to let him come over and have sex with him.
I also read a homeschooling father demand that making it against the law to rape your own wife is anti-family.
This is comps pro-rape ideas women and little girls are being brainwashed with in conservative Christianity. We are told at a very young age to say we agree with it and like it.
LikeLike
It’s not better to tell her not to divorce, when divorce is probably going to be the end option. You could try this nifty little thing the kids are calling ‘support someone without telling them what to do or what not to do because it’s not your decision’.
LikeLike
Also what is this weird anti duluth counseling thing? I know they have a wheel of domestic violence which is solid but you seem to have a bias against them. I dont really trust what BB has said about counseling results.
Most people are going to be going to go to regular licensed therapists I hope, preferably with some experience in the field. Maybe to a shelter or other such organization that can help them make a safety plan.
LikeLike
CH, someone pointed out that some men are more likely to respond to other men than women on these threads and now I do look for that. It is sometimes quite clear. It’s interesting.
LikeLike
I talked to a Christian man on line one time who had positioned himself to have access to abused women and sexually abused little girls. He informed me that unless a man penis rapes a woman or girl it is not real rape. The man that bothered me used his penis and other objects. This man wanted me to agree with him that I had not really been raped. This man did not want women to hate rape or to tell anyone they had been sexually abused. He was very adamant that a rapist should not lose power over his family.
For years It has been looking like Conservative Christian men want influence over abused women and abused girls where they can minimize the abuse and convince the women and girls to help the abuser feel better about abusing them.
Bike Bubba sounds like he wants access and influence over abused women were he can help the wife beater/wife rapist out. The first thing I ever read by him it sounded like he sits around looking up propaganda online to use against abused women to help the wife beater not lose anything.
2 things are for sure. Bike Bubba is on my father’s side and not my mother’s. And his heros are the biggest misogynist in all of Christendom.
“Darlene
JUNE 23, 2017 @ 1:34 PM
Bike Bubba: Are you the same guest Bike Bubba that comments over at Blog and Mablog? The same Bike Bubba that has a blog named BikeBubba’s Boulangerie in which you have Blog & Mablog, The Pyromaniacs and the Bayly Brothers recommended on your Blog List? Are you the same Bike Bubba that said in a blog article entitled “Manly Monday: Now Lead Already” – “…and one can point out that a lot of the greatest failures in marriage occur when the husband has been sidelined from his proper role“? Are you the same Bike Bubba that defended Doug Wilson’s blog article “Christian Women are Prettier” in a blog article entitled “Sigh”?
If your answer is ‘yes,’ then I think you need to come clean and tell us what you really think about Patriarchy. You know, the kind Doug Wilson and The Bayly Brothers promote. If your answer is ‘yes,’ I’m pretty sure I know what you think about women and their role in marriage, church and society. ”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2017/06/20/taking-marriage-seriously-what-does-that-mean-for-a-christian/#comments
LikeLike
CH “For years It has been looking like Conservative Christian men want influence over abused women and abused girls where they can minimize the abuse and convince the women and girls to help the abuser feel better about abusing them.”
In the Evangelical church, abuse is a lesser crime than insubordination. Since women are considered to be the bottom of the pecking order, then they will circle the wagons against women lest they feel empowered to stand for themselves. Since powerful women is the worst thing in their minds, it’s okay to allow husbands to abuse wives. It’s okay for the church to cover over sexual abuse. It’s okay to force women back into abusive marriages.
The alternative is women having a voice. Beth Moore, for example, is a complementarian’s complementarian, but she is still hated and scorned by the powers that be, simply because she is a woman with a voice.
The double standards around the Evangelical authority structure, and especially as it relates to women and children are shocking. Remember, the PCA created a team to work with TT – for the purpose of bringing him back into the ministry. (According to the Aquila Report: The PCA’s Book of Church Order has a section on restoration from various church censures, including deposition. The steps for restoration are clearly outlined including this statement, “In the restoration of a minister who has been deposed, it is the duty of the Presbytery to proceed with great caution.”)
LikeLike
Regarding CH’s notion that I’m in favor of forcing a woman back into an abusive home, hell no. Never have been, never will be. I’m all in favor of separation for as long as it takes to keep a woman (or man) safe, and as I’ve noted elsewhere, I’m not against divorce when a marriage participant demonstrates clear, Biblical reasons for divorce–and as Curious Thinker noted, that does include abandonment as well as adultery. I just believe that the evidence supports an opportunity for repentance (while separated in many cases) before pulling the trigger on divorce. Many states have this in the law as a waiting period before it finalizes in part for this very purpose.
And regarding Lea’s comment about my views of the Duluth Model, I’ve got a mixed view of it. Where the power wheel is correct is in describing many of the techniques for control and abuse. Finances, humiliation, etc., are all in there. Where it goes wrong, IMO, is in assuming that “patriarchy” drives most domestic violence and abuse. The study I linked noted that substance abuse and other factors rank very high among causes, and if you look at state and federal data about domestic violence, you’re going to see very high rates of domestic abuse/violence among homosexual couples (where there is no clear patriarch, obviously) and unmarried couples (where the man has not taken the most basic step of patriarchy by putting a ring on it). I’ve seen a case or two that DID involve patriarchal assumptions, so it’s on the list of causes, but the data don’t support the notion that it’s a primary reason, let alone THE primary reason.
And that’s why a few studies have found that Duluth-based counseling is generally ineffective–it’s simply pushing a narrative that is foreign to the experiences of most offenders. Probably it was higher 50 years back, but it’s not a dominant factor now.
Another reason why Duluth-based counseling is ineffective may be that too often, you have the basic assumption that the offender is not likely to repent. I see it a lot here, FWIW, and the problem with that is that if you go in thinking you’ll fail, five will get you ten you will.
Long and short of it; the Duluth Model needs to be updated for what we’ve learned about these crimes in the past few decades, starting with the wonderful success we’ve had in reducing domestic violence since VAWA was passed in 1994.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Weasel words. Abuse IS a reason for divorce. And it’s only ‘pulling the trigger’ if you think of divorce as a fundamentally bad thing in and of itself, which it is not. Abuse otoh is.
‘Duluth based counseling’ is not an evidence based psychotherapy and I have not seen it defined by you in any way, except that you think patriarchy is alternately awesome, or doesn’t count if a couple isn’t married. I don’t think you get, or want to get, what people are talking about there.
I think Substance abuse is correlated sometimes with abuse, but that doesn’t make it causitive #science. And that’s only a subset of abuse.
People are what they are, drunk or sober. Its the thoughts that drive the action, and generally those thoughts are rooted in control.
LikeLike
Bike Bubba said,
“Where it goes wrong, IMO, is in assuming that “patriarchy” drives most domestic violence and abuse.”
Men thinking women are subhuman.
Men thinking women should submit to them.
Men thinking women owe men something.
Men thinking women were created to be child sex slaves for men.
Men thinking they should be able to rape their wives.
Men pretending women are stupid.
Men saying degrading things to their wives.
Men saying demeaning things about their daughters.
Men lusting after their own daughters.
Men not wanting women to have jobs.
Men not wanting women to go to college.
Men not wanting women to have money.
Men not wanting women to have friends.
Men not wanting women to have veto rights over their own bodies.
Men wanting a female slave.
Men trying to arrange life for themselves so that they can beat and rape their wife and she can not divorce him.
Men degrading women to make themselves feel smart.
Men trapping women.
Men brainwashing little girls in male supremacy cults.
Men wanting women and girls to not have the right to tell men no.
Women wanting to escape men who are abusive to them and their little girls.
This is patriarchy. This is what drives domestic violence.
ISIS and the Taliban are pro patriarchy. ISIS and the Taliban are unattractive scumbags. They need patriarchy. The man who raped me when I was little needed patriarchy.
Wife beating and daughter rape is patriarchy.
My mother and I were born and raised in the Christian patriarchy cult.
My mother, grandmothers, and aunts all got married and had babies before their eighteenth birthdays. They married church going, bible quoting, baptist comp men who had an obsession with wifely submission. Child rape, incest, wife-beating, mental health issues, and teen suicide has been a constant in our family ever since my great grandmother was a little girl. The incest in our family which happened to 8 out of 10 children started when the babies were 2. It all traces back to bible quoting Christian patriarchy.
When I was a child three bad things happened to me. I was brainwashed in Christian patriarchy, I was sexually abused for years, and I was burned. My skin melted off. At age eleven I became suicidal. At age fifteen I had my first out of three mental breakdowns. Compared to the sexual abuse and conservative Christianity the burns ware painless.
Sexual abuse and patriarchy are both sick excruciating evil. They are both about men owning women and owning girls. And about women and girls not being able to escape them and tell them no. Growing up I was so desperate to one day have the freedom and right to tell men no.
I can’t say what I would say to the man who sexually abused me here. I can’t say what I would say to my father who beat my mother here. It is too graphic for this Christian website. But, Bike Bubba, I would tell you the same things I would tell them. They too felt it was women and girls jobs to hurt so men could get what they wanted.
LikeLike
BIKEBUBBAOctober 1, 2019 at 9:49 AM
“Regarding CH’s notion that I’m in favor of forcing a woman back into an abusive home, hell no. Never have been, never will be. I’m all in favor of separation for as long as it takes to keep a woman (or man) safe, and as I’ve noted elsewhere,”
I have never said you are in favor of FORCING a woman to go back to an abusive home.
“I’m not against divorce when a marriage participant demonstrates clear, Biblical reasons for divorce–and as Curious Thinker noted, that does include abandonment as well as adultery.”
As a victim of rape, why should I have any trust or respect for your god when he finds rape so irrelevant that his pro rapist book says I can divorce my husband if he cheats but not if he sexually abuses me?
Do you believe a woman should stay married to a man who rapes and sexually abuses her? Yes or no?
“I just believe that the evidence supports an opportunity for repentance (while separated in many cases) before pulling the trigger on divorce. Many states have this in the law as a waiting period before it finalizes in part for this very purpose.”
You are so pro-wife-beater and pro-wife-rapist; you are actually an advocate for wife-beater and wife rapist rights.
Julie Anne do you know any other advocates for wife rapist and wife beaters rights?
LikeLike
Mark said, “Beth Moore, for example”
As someone who grew up in the Southern Baptist Convention with a preacher grandfather, I can just imagine the perverted demeaning things that woman has heard about underage girls. These men talk much worse about girls while sitting around the dinner table than they do on stage.
I don’t believe for one minute that Beth Moore gives a tiny d*mn about any raped children.
The Southern Baptist Convention will always remind me of slavery, racism, incest, misogyny, wife-beating, pedophiles, child abuse, mass rape, dog torture, peeping Toms, rubes, nosy creepy women, Al Mohler, and Paige Patterson.
LikeLike
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rolltodisbelieve/2019/07/16/why-complementarians-hate-no-fault-divorce/
http://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/how-to-find-a-counselor
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing that no fault divorce article! From the article:
The same people yelling about ‘you haven’t proven this rape beyond a reasonable doubt so you can never speak of it’ would be trying to keep you from leaving a marriage because they refused to accept your reasons were valid. The same people who believe nothing women say were judging these things. No fault divorce is just better.
You know what happened also when the law trapped women in marriages with terrible men who hurt them? A lot more mysterious deaths by poisoning. Women who were legally not allowed to marry again. Here is an interesting article about arsenic poisoning:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/14/murder-by-poison
LikeLike
Lea, CH, regarding “Duluth model counseling”, it’s defined in the paper I linked, and in the studies to which it refers. If you “Google” around further, you’ll find a number of peer reviewed studies that have found that the model has some serious problems. My contention is simply that given actual statistics about domestic violence, the “patriarchy” assumption simply doesn’t fit the vast majority of cases..
Any program that is used to reduce recidivism–from government, in the church, etc..–really needs to come to grips with this. If you don’t, you end up telling lesbians and mean drunks that their problem is patriarchy, and they not surprisingly sit politely through the course while privately muttering to themselves “these guys have no clue.” Really, ever since Freud, psychology has had a tremendous difficulty dealing with the reality that if you assume the problem, you’re going to be wrong a tremendous amount of the time. This is hilariously spoofed in the Christmas classic “Miracle on 34th St.”
Regarding CH’s comments, I’m going to hold back from responding to most of them for a simple reason; she (?) is trying to paint a picture of me that simply isn’t representative. For starters, I don’t believe no fault divorce is the problem; I’ve actually looked at the data for divorce rates, and they really started ticking up after WWII, when couples who’d married to keep in touch during the war realized they’d acted in haste, and were free to repent at leisure. (also a discreet theme in “Miracle on 34th St.”, for reference)
My initial source on the perils of hasty divorce, for reference, is Ms. Magazine. No kidding. My mom not surprisingly subscribed to it after my parents’ divorce, and I’d pick it up at times. Some things I’d agree with, with some I did (and do) vehemently disagree, but very informative at the very least on the troubles and travails of divorcees.
LikeLike
BB: “My contention is simply that given actual statistics about domestic violence, the “patriarchy” assumption simply doesn’t fit the vast majority of cases..”
I agree. However, we are dealing here with survivors of emotional, spiritual and even sexual abuse under the guise of complementarianism/patriarchy. We’re not making claims about all divorces or all marriages, but primarily those within Evangelicalism where the husband and wife are put into church-proclaimed “God-given” roles.
I find the same sorts of things happen in many areas of therapy. For example, studies are becoming more clear that the treatment for “typical” PTSD does not generally work as the treatment for Complex Trauma. This is mainly because classical PTSD is the result of a single severely traumatic experience, and not an environment where there is ongoing low-level trauma.
What I’m primarily fed up about with the church and marriage is what Paul Tripp says [as a representative of the Biblical Counseling through CCEF]:
If the church follows Tripp’s advice and goes into every domestic violence situation trying to figure out how the wife is sinning, then the results are obvious, and pretty much exactly what we see today. The church telling the wife how to navigate the minefield that is her husband, and then accusing her of sinning whenever he acts out (i.e. codependency).
LikeLike
My experience with abuse was amplified by the church’s involvement. First of all, my dad grew up in an abusive environment. When he became a Christian, he found a church where their patriarchal teaching matched his experience and beliefs. Then, when his peers observed his discipline, he was praised rather than corrected.
The church gave me no instruction on the difference between abuse and discipline, and, in fact, when I questioned certain things, they always told me I must have deserved it. There was never any suggestion that the church would ever intervene between a child and parent. In fact, the church opposed pretty much all child abuse legislation. Even when I was an adult reflecting on some instances I consider to be clearly abusive, those in my former church still are convinced that “father knows best”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m still baffled at the 80’s era ZOMG They’re taking corporal punishment out of schools and it is the worst thing! attitude I remember hearing. As an adult, this raises all sorts of eyebrows for me.
On the other, i don’t time to parse out patriarchy for you two, and how it can affect abuse and/or the treatment of abuse except to say that if people don’t respect women, or believe them, that can do nothing but contribute to the problem and that’s what patriarchy encourages in men.
LikeLike
Lea, and what do you think churches in that era were preaching to parents? The solution to all family ills is at the end of the paddle or belt. If your child isn’t obeying you, you’re not hitting hard enough.
It’s interesting now, though, that the result of this is all these advice columnists handling complaints either from the mom/dad who want to move in with their kids that they abused, but the kids refused, or the kids saying, my mom disowned me, but now that she can’t take care of herself and has no money she’s insisting that she should move in with my family.
LikeLike
Mark, Lea, no doubt that it can be patriarchal assumptions, and on the same plane, it can be the kind of thing Tripp mentions. I’ve seen both. No doubt, either, that going in with one set of firm assumptions is going to get you into trouble a certain portion of the time. Again, part of the “trick” to doing psychology (etc., ) well.
Regarding the nature of patriarchal assumptions justifying domestic violence, the most interesting thing (besides being appalled) when such notions are presented to me that it was quickly apparent that the notion “a man has the right to discipline his wife” (which is precisely what I heard) really doesn’t have a Biblical basis–1 Peter 3:7, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3:19, etc.. I guess you could exalt Ahasuerus for his treatment of Vashti, but the long and short of it is that (even when practiced by self-proclaimed Christians) that version/extent of male headship derives mostly from 1960s culture. John Wayne, not Jesus, really.
Why this is significant; it reveals the problem as something no believing Christian, no matter what their theological perspective, ought to feel compelled to defend. It also ought to help us to resist the notion that we’ve got to divide ourselves up into “warlike tribes” where a connection with one (however minimal or significant) ought to anathematize one person in the eyes of another.
LikeLike
Tripp basically said women are asking to be hit, when they use their words. Are you endorsing that?
We tell children to use their words. Can we not expect the same from grown men?
LikeLike
No, Lea, that’s not what Tripp is saying at all. He’s not excusing anyone’s sin, but is rather saying that in his experience, domestic arguments and violence follow about the same pattern as arguments and violence between those who are not romantic partners. One person is, rightly or wrongly, seen as sinning against the other, the other retailiates, you’ve got a certain amount of tit for tat, and finally punches/etc. are thrown.
No doubt that some DO excuse violence by saying “she provoked it”, but that’s not inherent in what Tripp says. Put differently, when he says that there are two sinners embroiled with one another, he’s blaming both sides for their own sins.
LikeLike
Bike Bubba said,
“Regarding CH’s comments, I’m going to hold back from responding to most of them for a simple reason; she (?) is trying to paint a picture of me that simply isn’t representative. ”
If you were not so full of pride it might occur to you that many of the victims of male supremacy who post here have told you that your preferences about women are hurtful and degrading. I have repeatedly told you that your male supremacy preferences hurt little girls who are living a life of repeated childhood rape. It keeps looking like your attitude is scr*w her. Men’s power and feelings come first.
You do not like it when a victim of the cruel wife-beater rights you promote scrapes off the sugar you try to keep spread on your idea’s about women’s’ and girls’ wellbeing.
Maybe some self-awareness would tell you that you have presented yourself as a pro-wife-beater rights male supremacist. Who has to demean women to feel like a big special powerful important manly man. It is so very Christian comp male of you to conclude you should be able to say hurtful insulting things about women; even abused women! But, women who have lived the life you promote for women can not say hurtful insulting things about you.
You have repeatedly called divorce derogatory things. You have not called sexual abuse of wives or wife-beating anywhere near such horrible things.
BIKEBUBBASeptember 30, 2019 at 4:18 PM
” If you can step forward and receive help without pulling that trigger,”
BIKE BUBBANovember 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM
“divorce is a very real trauma”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/11/01/spiritual-abuse-when-people-tell-you-no-church-is-perfect/comment-page-1/#comments
BIKE BUBBAMay 4, 2018 at 8:23 AM
“Immediate resort to divorce is, IMO, the relational equivalent of the President reaching for the nuclear “football” instead of talking to ambassadors when crises arise.”
“divorce leaves a mark that time does not erase,”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/04/30/analysis-paige-pattersons-teachings-on-domestic-violence-put-victims-in-harms-way/
My great grandfather beat my great grandmother. I remember waking up in the middle of the night because she was screaming that my great grandfather was coming into her room. 60 years after she escaped him she was still having night terrors and triggers about the physical and emotional terrorism he put her through. You suggest she should have to let him touch her again and live with her again if he had said the right things to your woman-hating god. Wife rape and wife-beating cause a life long mark.
You have refused to answer many people’s questions. You run off when people call you out on your cruel misogyny.
“DAVIDJune 23, 2017 at 4:47 PM
BB: Can I ask you point-blank to address Lea’s remark @ 12:58? “Being controlled is not a light burden. I really encourage Bike Bubba to think about this from a perspective of being the one controlled. What is your out? When do you take it?”
This, to me, is the most important question you’ve been asked in this thread. And I couldn’t possibly be more interested in hearing your answer.
I would ask in advance that you not tapdance around it by saying that actually no one is controlled because everyone can be free Christ, etc etc etc. The point of the question is for you to imagine that you — like many actual abuse victims (you can see some of this in Christianity Hurts’ posts) — do feel controlled and do feel terrorized by this person who has “authority” over you, who’s an intimate and inescapable presence in your life, and who will be believed by the church if you try to take the dispute to that forum.
Don’t argue about whether it’s accurate, theologically or factually. Just get in that headspace the best way you know how, and answer Lea’s questions: what is your out? When do you take it?”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2017/06/20/taking-marriage-seriously-what-does-that-mean-for-a-christian/#comments
You would not answer David’s questions. Many people at that article asked you questions you refused to answer.
JULIE ANNEApril 25, 2019 at 9:11 AM
“Have you changed your beliefs now, BB? Do you think it’s okay for abused wives to divorce?”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2019/04/22/book-review-christians-in-a-sex-crazed-culture-by-bill-hybels-part-2-bills-problem-with-porn/
I never saw you answer Julie’s question.
You are afraid to answer people’s questions because your answers are male serving and abusive towards women. They confirm what people are believing about you.
LikeLike
Lea said, “They’re taking corporal punishment out of schools and it is the worst thing! ”
Whipping children should be against the law. No one should be able to do it to any child.
After the sadism Tom Chantry heaped on those little boys, any semi-decent person would say let’s make d*mn sure this never happens to another child. I recently had to stop reading Can’t Hurt Me: Master Your Mind and Defy the Odds by David Goggins because the child abuse in it was so unbearable to read. It gave me sick feelings for weeks. I don’t know how someone could get such pleasure out of hurting a new helpless scared little person. Kids are so desperate to be loved, valued, protected, wanted, and respected. Adults just poop all over them because they can get away with it.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2019/05/08/todd-wilhelm-thomas-chantry-has-been-convicted-on-all-4-counts-of-felony-child-molestation/
LikeLike
Goad = something that encourages, urges, or drives; a stimulus.
This line of thinking is unacceptable and excuses violence.
LikeLike
BB, et. al. I don’t think anyone here is saying that all couples in DV situations must be forced to divorce. The question is really where the line is, and I think that’s going to be different for every couple. I look at my dad, who was emotionally abusive to my mom, and physically abusive to us. I think he could have changed. He was just steeped in patriarchy and naturally selfish.
The first problem in Evangelicalism with intervening in marriages is that they often impose their patriarchy and the force the couple back together. If there was hope for a change, that hope is lost when the church coddles the man. I’ve been told by a church leader of this exact situation. The husband, knowing that the church would force his wife to stay with him, played the game. As soon as his wife filed for divorce, he walked away. What I’ve seen and read is that this is the typical pattern.
So, yes, divorce is the nuclear option, but the church does the couple no favors (as my former church exemplifies) if domestic violence, emotional abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse and porn are not “valid” reasons for divorce. What good does it accomplish when the church tells the husband (why does this sound so much like Piper) “hey, you’re an evil man and completely mistreating your wife, but as long as you don’t sleep around, we’ll spiritually abuse her back into being your domestic servant and sex slave!” How do you think Piper is going to be able to counsel spousal abuse victims, such that the violence can end and the marriage saved? I don’t see it.
As I see it, the church cannot help abuse victims until: 1) They recognize DV as grounds for divorce. 2) They recognize that applying “force” to put couples back together will often lead to an escalation. 3) They start listening to victims WITHOUT trying to point the finger back at them. Some abuse, contrary to church belief, is actually undeserved. (hint: Jesus).
While divorce is the “nuclear option”, it isn’t an “action” taken by the victim. It is a recognition of what has happened. If my car is stolen, it’s still stolen whether or not I go to the police station and file a report. The report just acknowledges what happened. The wife who files divorce against her husband isn’t lobbing grenades, she’s just officially recognizing the state of the marriage. I’m not sure you get that.
I think it would be more applicable, in the cases of abuse, to say to the husband and wife… “Your marriage is broken, you can acknowledge that and work to protect yourselves and separate, or you can acknowledge that and work to put it back together. Either road is going to be hard, but we will help you through.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lea, re: Tripp. That’s my thought, too. When he starts listening to the abused wife, he’s thinking, “how did she goad him to violence?” I don’t think the abusive husband walks in the door and hits his wife. There is going to be something that triggers the violence. So, then Tripp goes on the offensive. “Why aren’t you doing the dishes? You’re not respecting your husband!” So, now her “lack of respect” is the sin problem that is driving the marriage apart, and the husband hitting her is perhaps too dramatic a response, but still a response.
In that instant, DV has been turned into normal marital problems, and the root sin is not the violence of the husband, but the lack of respect of the wife.
I can say that this is EXACTLY what has happened when I’ve discussed my abuse.
LikeLike
I’m very sorry for that Mark. It’s so, so wrong. This is 100% what tripp is doing.
Words have meaning and BB is trying gaslight us into thinking they don’t. Pass.
LikeLike
Mark said: While divorce is the “nuclear option”, it isn’t an “action” taken by the victim. It is a recognition of what has happened. If my car is stolen, it’s still stolen whether or not I go to the police station and file a report. The report just acknowledges what happened. The wife who files divorce against her husband isn’t lobbing grenades, she’s just officially recognizing the state of the marriage. I’m not sure you get that.
Yes, this is exactly what is going on. The demise of the marriage occurred long ago. The piece of paper simply makes it legally over.
Mark said: I think it would be more applicable, in the cases of abuse, to say to the husband and wife… “Your marriage is broken, you can acknowledge that and work to protect yourselves and separate, or you can acknowledge that and work to put it back together. Either road is going to be hard, but we will help you through.”
Yes! And the victim is the one who must decide, not church leaders. She may have good reasons to remain with her abuser – especially if children are involved. I read a story yesterday that underscored how important this option is. Some moms are literally sacrificing their health to protect the well-being of her children (knowing that if she divorced, her abusive husband would have joint custody and could harm them).
LikeLike
Lea, Mark, Julie Anne,
Back in the day an egalitarian blog that I used to comment on had a visiting Patriarchalist who, after much questioning, I ascertained that he really was concerned about abuse and really did want to work towards the lessening of abuse. He was of the persuasion that patriarchy (done right) was the solution to all the world’s ills. And he had no problem admitting that there were plenty out there doing patriarchy wrong using Islam and FLDS as bad examples.
Even though we strongly disagreed, he wasn’t a jerk. Nor did he have low self-perception like BB. He wanted to defend women from abuse but would never concede that patriarchy was part of the problem. It finally came out that he had been abused and understood the dynamics of abuse. He wanted to use his patriarchy position of authority to protect women and children.
The last thing that I said to him was something along the lines of this:
“Okay, so you hate abuse and want to fight it from your perceived place of authority. First of all, you can’t be everywhere to defend every woman and child. Second, don’t you see that you are using this position to protect yourself, lift yourself up out of the way of abuse? Don’t you see that what you give yourself and use to protect yourself, you deny others through asserting a power differential that favors you over others?”
He never really answered.
From my many conversations with him I see that much of what is fueling the patriarchy is fear. Fear of NOT being in control. Fear of being control by the other. I have actually referred to patriarchy and compism as Jock Strap Religion.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/05/jock-strap-religion.html
LikeLike
I know this post is a bit old but I just had to add more of my two cents. First I wanted to clear up to Christianity Hurts that I’m not a man backing up Bike Bubba. I’m a woman who is against domestic violence and believes divorce justified in Christian marriage as some form of desertion by the unbeliever(the abuser) who does not repent from his or her ways as in 1 Corinthians 7:15 “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace”. Desertion doesn’t always physical leaving the marriage but also an emotional abandonment due to their actions. I also pointing out that Bike Bubba wasn’t condoning spouses just continue to live in violent marriages but that his views are actually the same as many churches and Christian leaders men and women who believe a separation and then counseling should be the first action. Helping the abuser to change his or her ways and the victim to forgive and for both of them to heal and eventually reconcile and have a better marriages. The point if these churches want the abuser to change and not abuse anymore. Many churches want to help and try to restore a marriage first even if their are grounds for divorce. I also stated I disagree on those who doesn’t think divorce is never an option and reconciling is the only way to go because that may not happen and sometimes the abuser may not change or they should just wait years hoping the abuser to see error of his/her ways and who victims sometimes get shunned by the church if they divorce their abusers which is sad. I also believe the victim should be given a choice to take back a repentant abuser who has changed their ways or is willing to. It shouldn’t be forced on them to take back their spouse and unfortunately some pastors and Christian counselors thinks forgiveness and repentance ceases the option of a divorce and the victim and tries to push reconciling based on their opinions. I have personally read views from some other websites who have said this in the the past. Regarding helping spouses heal and save their marriage, it’s not about siding with the abuser but helping them both and try to end the cycle and restore for a better marriage as sometimes( not always) the abuser can change with the counseling and the help from God. God Bless.
LikeLike