A Southern Baptist woman by the name of Mary Gruben (pictured here) wrote a guest editorial in the Abilene newspaper, which was published in the Sunday edition earlier this month. Lest someone dismiss Mary as a liberal, it would be wise to note what she wrote in the comment section that follows her editorial, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. The Bible is the Word of God and without error." This inerrantist had some rather interesting things to say about her beloved convention. Her editorial appears in full below:___________________________________________
"I love my Southern Baptist denomination, but may I tell you how very discouraging, disgusting and frustrating it is to be a woman in the Southern Baptist denomination? For two reasons, I believe that I have earned the right to be heard.
I was married to a violent and abusive man. When I talked to my pastor about the physical abuse, he asked me if I was "willing to give my life for my husband." When I could no longer follow that kind of warped thinking, I got a divorce. I began to realize that the God I know and serve loved my children and me more than that. After the divorce, I was told I should have tried harder and prayed harder.
Currently, I am a nontraditional college student at a local seminary, wondering what God may want me to do. I have already been told that my choices may be somewhat limited because (you guessed it) I am a woman. The Southern Baptist view of women is demeaning, to say the least. I am both shocked and saddened at the radical and desperate approach of banning books in an effort to silence those women who have broken rank and become pastors.
For many years, I have been rethinking the way the Southern Baptists treat women. It is wrong, and it is based on an old, traditional grave clothes kind of thinking. Old grave clothes stink!
Southern Baptists' "prominent" decision-makers' (whoever they are) view of women is like a two-legged chair. It just doesn't hold up. One of their favorite verses in Ephesians 5:22 does say, "Wives submit to your husbands graciously." The prominent Southern Baptist thinkers enforce that verse as meaning, "Wives obey your second daddy, and do it graciously." No place in the Scripture can I find where it says women are to have two dads. Do they not see verse 21 of that same chapter that says "Submit to one another." It seems to me that a lot of our "prominent" thinkers may be controlling and insecure. But as long as the wife can cook and sew, he just might keep her around.
Our Southern Baptist system sets women and children up to be abused. The "prominent" Southern Baptist thinkers have no idea the jeopardy their view places women and children in. They have given husbands carte blanche to do what they want to. It also gives the impression that the men are perfect and the women are flawed. It is a closed system when it comes to the woman's place at home and in ministry.
Since I've already blown it by speaking out like this, I might as well go ahead and say what else I've been thinking. Get over yourselves! And please, don't tell me that stupid joke anymore about, "If God can speak through a donkey, he can speak through a woman." It isn't funny.
In the Old Testament book of Esther, God gave us the story of a courageous young woman who saved the Jews from being annihilated. The end of the story might have changed if she had been a Southern Baptist woman.
If you'll excuse me now, I have to run. I am going to contact one of my FDLS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) sisters to see if I can borrow a pattern to make myself a prairie dress."
353 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 353 of 353Incidentally, those who question why "we allow this" of our leaders, might do well to check the attendance at the last few years' Annual Meetings ... I've only been to the last three and even I can see a bad trend ... and also ask themselves where they were at those times. And where they'll be next June.
And, Anonymous, I've heard it stated that the statistics would be different if those unmarried couple who broke up were included, too. That perhaps the Christians' percentage might even be a bit less.
Which would be, of course, a lousy standard to compare it to.
Wade,
It seems to me that your agenda is soundly defeated by the fact that you bring articles like this to your blog.
Mary Gruben makes no theological case
at all for her positions. Why promote
this article?
Honestly I would rather put my eggs in the basket with The Young ,Reformed ,Restless . Your vision for the SBC are more like the Stinky Grave clothes.
Here is a alternate position that reflects a Biblical Model.
And Yes I know that Ray Ortland is not a Southern Baptist.
http://christisdeeperstill.blogspot.com/
This will be my last post on your blog.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Why Baptist Families are Fracturing
Robert,
Wade did not say "Do Southern Baptists Set women Up for Abuse? Of course they do"
Or "Do Southern Baptists Set women Up for Abuse? Or course not"
Or "Do Southern Baptists Set women Up for Abuse? Maybe"
He asked the question. Gave no answer. Said you should not dismiss her for lack of inerrancy. Revealed the article.
Let folks comment.
[I wish somone would comment on my 5 points of genderism--whether it be agreement or disagreement]
First and foremost, yes, I also find the SBC to be demeaning women.
That said, the guest editorial was very demeaning to all women who value the role of the full time homemaker.
What we need is balance. This particular blog lacks that.
Linda
COMMENT BY MARY GRUBEN
I am a non-traditional college student working on my Masters at a university in Abilene Texas. I am disgusted and saddened about the way women are treated in the average Southern Baptist Church.
I am writing a research paper on the difference in autonomy and decision making among women in subordinated roles vs. women in egalitarian roles.
If any of y’all have any good information on stats re family violence in Baptist churches or any good peer journal articles I could use, please let me know.
It is my guess that domestic violence is as protected in Baptist families as much as it is in the FDLS.
If you belong to Jesus, you are equal to others
I am responding to Mary Gruben's guest column Dec. 7 as a father, a husband, a Southern Baptist and a Christian. You have generalized all Southern Baptists into a neat, woman-repressing package, but many, if not most of us, just don't fit. There has been much controversy in Southern Baptist churches over interpretation of Scriptures related to the role of women in the church, and, unfortunately, it is still not settled, nor is it likely to ever be.
Marginalized on Sunday
Thank you, Mary Gruben and John Compere, for speaking out on the treatment of women in the Southern Baptist denomination. As the granddaughter of a Southern Baptist minister and graduate of Baylor University, I left the denomination years ago during my Air Force career. Being a commander of hundreds of people and millions of dollars, chosen and well paid for my judgment and good decisions, I could no longer stomach a religion that believed a man’s judgment was superior to mine. It was impossible to work as a professional during the week only to be marginalized as a human being on Sunday. No person should tolerate that discrimination. I can only believe that in time the Southern Baptist denomination, as John Compere said, will become extinct like the dodo bird.
Robin King
Abilene
"MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM"
EQUALITY and difference willed by God
Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God:
on the one hand,
IN PERFECT EQUALITY
AS HUMAN PERSONS;
on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman.
"Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God:
man AND woman possess
an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.
Man and woman are both with one and the SAME DIGNITY "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.
"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"
God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text.
"It is not good that the man should be alone.
I will make him a helper fit for him."
None of the animals can be man's partner.
The woman God "fashions" from the man's rib and brings to him elicits on the man's part a cry of wonder,
an exclamation of love and communion:
"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."
Man discovers woman as another "I",
SHARING THE SAME HUMANITY.
Man and woman were made "for each other" -
not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other,
for they are EQUAL AS PERSONS ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine.
In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh",
they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."
By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work.
from BRUCE PRESCOTT'S ARTICLE:
"SBC leaders leaders still think the solution to the problem of divorce is to tell wives to “submit” to their husbands.
“Submissive” wives don’t question their husband’s directions and they hold their tongues when they know their husband is leading the family astray. In the words of Dorothy Patterson, a drafter of the SBC’s 1998 family statement, "When it comes to submitting to my husband, even when he’s wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God."
In the Fundamentalist’s world, husbands give orders and wives obey. All relationships, even families, are structures of power and servility.
Unfortunately for Fundamentalist’s, most women in the real world of twentieth century America believe that marriages are built on love and respect.
They got that idea from the Bible (Eph. 5:33), not from their culture, and they expect to be equal partners in a regenerate relationship. They got that idea from the Bible too (Gal. 27-28; Eph. 5:21-33).
Fundamentalists don’t deny that love is the basis for marriage. They just define love in the terms of pagan Roman culture rather than in the terms of biblical Christianity. For Fundamentalist’s, love is a struggle for power and marriage is a relationship between a master and a slave.
Christ, on the other hand, demonstrated in word and in deed, and in life and in death, that true love is sacrificial and self-giving. Christian love concerns itself with serving others not with ruling over them. That is the only kind of love with power to reconcile fractured and broken relationships. "
Anon:
I haven’t studied Barna’s analysis, but I would say that “born-again” folks actually get married as opposed to just living together that would be more prevalent in society in general. This would skew the divorce statistics and make them seem higher for “born-again” folks.
KCP
to KCP:
The stats are for MARRIED Christians in all denominations, so your argument is moot.
Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians September 8, 2004
New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released March 31, 2008
A STORY FROM JUDAISM
A couple came to see the rabbi.
The wife said her husband was consumed by work; and when he did speak to her, he criticized her and ordered her around.
The husband said his wife had no respect for him and did not listen to his suggestions.
"Why do you think your wife should listen to you?" asked the Rabbi.
"Because a woman must listen to her husband," the husband replied.
"AND WHY SHOULD A WOMAN LISTEN TO HER HUSBAND?" the Rabbi asked.
"Because the man is the master of the house," said the husband.
'NO', SAID THE RABBI, "THE FIRST THING THAT YOU, AS A MAN, MUST FOLLOW IS THE EDICT THAT A MAN MUST HONOR HIS WIFE MORE THAN HE DOES HIMSELF, and then the wife will have a husband that she can love and respect." The rabbi continued, " if the man does not fulfill this role, then it is the woman who must respectfully bring it to his attention."
Wisdom from Judaism practiced for five-thousand years: how long has the SBC been in operation?
"And the sages commanded that a man should honor his wife more
than himself and love her as himself. And if he has wealth, he
should magnify her good according to his wealth. And he should
not put too much fear upon her, and his speech with her should
be gentle, and he should be neither sad nor angry."
SBC could learn from this.
Anonymous who asked why "born again Christians" divorce at a higher rate that the general populace,
I actually just finished a class on the subject of Christian marriage counseling. We came up with several possible reasons for this phenomenon.
1. Evangelical Christians tend to be from lower socio-economic classes (thus less resources, less education, etc).
2. Evangelical Christians tend to get married younger (23 v 27) than the general population (thus less aware of what they are looking for in a spouse, less experienced at life).
3. Evangelical Christians have a pressure to have perfect marriages, so they are less likely to seek help early on (marriage counseling is often sought to justify divorce, not prevent it).
4. Evangelical Christians are just as likely to view marriage as a contract (which is about what the other person does for you) as opposed to a covenant (which is about what you are doing for the other person).
But I think that Bob makes an astute observation: if you include live-in couples (who are contractually married even if not biblically or legally), the statistics might be different.
Does not 'evangelical' teaching portray education as unimportant and science as in opposite to the Bible?
Could this not be one reason why the intense, expensive, time-consuming, and exhauting striving to get a university education is something that evangelicals as a group happily walk away from?
Or is the above info incorrect?
Yes, it is true that lower economic status derives from lack of education and/or preparation for certified trades and professions. But is there a reason that evangelicals fall more into this category?
Why Christian marriages are failing: I don't know but I'm just trying to work on mine.
Why women feel belittled in the Church: I don't know but I'm trying to honor and care for my sisters as much as possible.
Why kids fall away from the Church: I don't know but I'm spending every single minute possible with my kids.
Why do Christian men act like weenies so much? I don't know but I watch the UFC.
The bottom line is that if you hold yourself accountable before the Lord God and I do likewise then many of these issues will hopefully decrease as His Spirt transforms us and we seek to do good things He has prepared in advance for us to do.
John in the STL
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
How are they affected by the people they call 'their parents' when marital problems happen ?
by Alex on 12/10/2008:
"Well I was 8 years old my dad was a druggie he would go and get high with our house payment so we ended up having very little to eat he missed my birthday to get high with his friend he took all my birthday money with him so I waited up all night for him and he never came but now I hate him more the anything I am almost 13 now but what he has said and done I just can't forget so I was left to sit through life my mom later ended up marrying some guy after only a few months she was later pregnant but now 5 years later we are back where we started and they are getting a divorce I am starting a new school everyone stares at me here I don't like it but hey when life obviously doesn't like you you just have to take it and hope one day you can escape but it doesn't matter anymore I just am tired of being on earth why can't god end it now. I must be good for something but I don't know what but whatever!"
YES, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
Anon:
Check your stats. From Barna’s website:
“In fact, when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults: 32% versus 33%, respectively.”
It is not a higher risk, but an identical risk. Still it is a travesty.
It seems to me that the quote you provided has combined a Barna quote with their own interpretation. A two percentage point difference over the national average may statistically not be a difference at all. If you look at the magin of error of the study it is not. As Barna has stated above.
The argument is not moot and still stands.
KCP
Statistics are 'indicators' of what is going on.
Pull up some other studies.
What do you see?
Always a good idea to get more than one set of data.
Jack,
I wish those in leadership in the SBC had a fraction of the courage you have demonstrated to stand for God's truth. In all honesty, I think SBC men are scared to death of the leader you mention in your comments. As a woman, that really bothers me because I can't depend on them to defend the defenseless.
God bless you brother, and Happy New Year!
Blessings,
Wanda
Well,
Sorry for offending you so deeply Kevin. I was not intending to be condescending. I am sorry you perceived that in my post. I will be careful not to address your posts in the future. Indeed, it is a rare occasion I do post here, since I am not a Baptist of any stripe.
My point about the Greek septuagint is that it is a translation of the Hebrew as you noted. Given that you are currently working through your studies, I am sure you are currently much sharper in the languages. I was simply pointing out that it would take an investigation of the Hebrew (something I haven't the time to do at the moment) to make the claims you were making in your original post. I was responding to content. I was not making an evaluative judgment about you as a person. Again, I am very sorry for offending you so deeply. I promise I won't address your content ever again.
Kevin,
I just saw your second post to me. Thank you. Again, I am sorry for any hurt my post may have caused. It is never my intent to hurt another person. I know you don't know me. I trained under the late Anthony Casurella. I have extensive experience in a number of languages, not least Greek, including LXX and classical. But that is beside the point. I just want to be helpful where I can. I guess I forget sometimes that intent does not translate well via text especially on a blog where there is active lively debate. Have a blessed New Year as well.
*churp, churp*
Is there a Hebrew Professor lurking in the night perhaps?
:)
But seriously Glen, I am less concerned with the Hebrew in this case and more specifically concerned with the way the LXX uses the word. It is possible that the Hebrew could shed some additional light, but the Hebrew would really only go so far as to tell us if the 70 did their job right. We can look other places for uses of the word chorizo. The point still stands that it refers to positional separation and not, "you just don't meet my needs" sort of mental separation.
Cheerio!
Wanda,
I am sorry too. I think it might be helpful for you to know the difference between God's Revealed will and His Decreed will. I do not have much time at the moment but if you are genuinely concerned with my position further you can email me. Or ask someone who is not a pastor, or a pastor who is wiser and more leaned than I.
Peace!
Stephen Pruit:
For the time being I am going to leave my position as vaguely stated: I believe that Psychiatry and most of Psychology has no place in the church nor in Pastor Counseling. I am hugely aware that it is an issue amongst Baptists, and one which will cause great divides in the future. Mostly because parishioners and congregants are not very well acquainted with the crux of the issue. But they will I predict in the decade to come.
This has been one the points I have used in making my seminary selection. Many are not aware, but Southern has move to a neuthetic ONLY course of study. My undergraduate counseling professor is a DMin Student at Southern. I am choosing to go to Covenant Seminary in part because their Pastoral Counseling courses are blended but are heavily weighted in Bible over Psychology. I also want to explore more deeply some of Francis Schaeffer's ideas and can easily do so at Covenant.
So, I am very much open to the idea that Psychology and Sociology can in some small way assist the pastor, but I am firm in my belief that diagnosis and treatment come from the Spirit and the Word. Psychotropic and Psychopharmacological drugs are an evil the likes of which no true believer should be involved.
K
yeah! more negative stuff from a negative person, you wade
LORD OF THE NEW YEAR
COME TO US AND BRING US PEACE
""To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;"
-Ecclesiastes 3:1-4
Come quickly, Lord Jesus
MARANATHA
LORD OF THE NEW YEAR
HEAR OUR PRAYER
Kevin, did you ever consider how many people can be harmed by one prideful 'know-it-all'?
No anon,
But if you tell me please, then I WILL know it all.
:)
Kevin,
Psychotropic and psychopharmacological drugs are medicines! People don't get high off of them! If some people didn't take them they would be unable to get out of bed! If some people didn't take them they would be seeing things that aren't there! If some people didn't take them they would be putting themselves and others at risk! We recently had a couple of small children killed here because of a schizophrenic who wasn't taking his medicine! Your dismissal of medicines that have a bonafide use is frightening.
K,
What is in the kool-aid you're drinking?
Seriously, would you refuse anesthesia for an appendectomy? I doubt it.
Also, we as ministers should never "bare" anyone's burdens; rather we should "bear" them. :)
Russ+
E-LIZ:
These drugs are a scam. I would take me a day or 2 but I could get links to journal articles revealing that Doctors are even clueless as to how these drugs really work. They are shots in the dark.
I find however that a rejection of Christ as the only true and valid cure to Spiritual deficiencies (all mental health conditions) is the really frightening thing.
But we are each entitled to our own opinions. I believe the soul must be fixed first and that through that the heart is sanctified more and more through biblical discipleship and the Power of the Spirit.
Drugs only mask the problem.
K
Batlips:
Apples...
...Oranges
BTW1: thank you for "baring" my use of the wrong word instead of "bearing" it. :)
BTW2: Russ plus what?
K,
Apples/Oranges? Anesthesia is not a mind altering drug? Hmmmm...
Your a John Mac/Jay Adams guy, no doubt, good stuff but insufficient for those who truly suffering from chemical/physiological issues.
Russ+
btw "Name" followed by "+" = Priest
K,
I should have added this in the btw: "+" followed by "name" = Bishop.
Russ+
Russ,
What priestly order?
What if one were to use the term bishop and pastor interchangeably and believed in the priesthood of all believers?
+Kevin+ ?
I like it :)
Thank you though, I never knew this. I am sort of fascinated with religious symbolisms and other nomenclature. We in Baptistville have sort of done away with anything "Romish" whether it be good, bad, or neutral.
K,
I moved out of Baptistville but spent most of my life there. As for the +Kevin+, I like it too but Pope Patterson may have issues with it, probably something best reserved for him. :)
Russ+
I don't view all mental health problems as spiritual deficiencies - I don't see that in the Bible at all.
E-LIZ :-)
Back in the late 1970s, when I was an undergraduate medical student learning about hypertension and cardiovascular disease, it reached everyone's attention that the studies that informed our understanding of these problems had all been done on men. No one knew whether or not everything that had been learned so laboriously about men applied equally to women.
I think men, most particularly younger men, have no inkling about how it is to live as a wife in a culture where men rule the roost and women are expected to be subservient. I had no inkling myself until I lived it.
I was a baby Christian (3 years born-again) when I married and I was happy to promise to obey my (2nd) husband. But then I found myself bearing the brunt of his unresolved childhood issues and his (normal, male) desire to be an in-control, head of the household type guy.
After about 7 years of marriage (during which time we were both terribly busy with career (him) and child raising (me) duties) I suddenly realised that I had almost ceased to exist as a person. It was as though I had become, as it were, my husband's left great toe; so much a part of him (in his view) that he didn't think about me at all. It might have been all right if he had thought very well of his left great toe but, as I've mentioned already, he had his own problems.
We did what he wanted in all major things. I tried to do what he wanted in all small things but failed regularly and then felt not just a failure but a guilty failure. I vividly remember wishing that God had made me different so that I could find contentment being the wife my husband wanted me to be. I prayed that God would make me the kind of housekeeper that could keep on going, cleaning and cooking, without a word of encouragement or praise, and with no interest in anything but what suited my husband's interests. I knew that there were some women who found great joy in pure domesticity and I prayed for God's help in making me that sort of woman even though it felt like I was praying for my own annihilation.
And then it all got too much and I started fighting for my life, both metaphorically and literally. That fight (it continued, on and off, for the next ten years or so) was an iron-against-iron battle that smoothed most of the burrs off both of us. After 26 years we now have an excellent, loving relationship built on give and take, i.e., mutual submission. He wants to keep me. I want to keep him. Really, if my husband should die and go to heaven before I do, there is no way that I'd bother with marrying and going through all that trouble again with another man.
You don't learn this stuff except by experience. You don't learn this stuff unless you're willing to learn it. You won't learn this stuff if you won't accept that women's experience of life can teach men anything. And if you won't learn it then too bad for you.
Janice:
You said "You don't learn this stuff except by experience. You don't learn this stuff unless you're willing to learn it. You won't learn this stuff if you won't accept that women's experience of life can teach men anything. And if you won't learn it then too bad for you."
True, but I would add that you don't learn this stuff unless someone teaches it to you, and I mean both the woman's and the man's responsibilities in marriage. And, except by the indirect reference to being "Christlike" .. agape and all that .. I don't recall anybody teaching it where I was.
Praise God, about 31 years ago HE shot some scripture out at me and set me straight (at least as straight as I am).
And, incidentally, treating one's wife as the Bible mandates, in all respects, works. Next March (Friday the) 13th will be our 50th.
As to the matter of mental illness, I am puzzled that much of the Christian world seems to think there's no such thing. Maybe it's our penchant for cutesy buzz-phrases like "Jesus is the answer" to any question. He's not that.
Jesus and a right relationship with Him is not the answer to a broken leg, a severed thumb, or what to order at McDonald's. And from experience I can tell you He is not the answer to the depression brought on in men by the male andropause (look it up, guys, if you're under 40 ... you'll need the info) and He is not the answer to prostate cancer.
Using the noggin and the wisdom He has given us is an answer but that certainly doesn't mean not seeking professional help when one or another form of mental disorder crops up.
Good morning everyone,
It's me, L's
Oh, Kevin, what have you written?
My dear Kevin, until you are a physician and have completed your psychiatric rota training, I not sure people are going to take you seriously.
Mental health intervention does not always involve the use of medications. It depends on the needs of the individual. Anyone who receives medications must be under the care of a psychiatrist who is, of course, also a physician, OR
under the care of a physician.
The responsibility of the doctor is to prescribe the proper medication, monitor its effect, and monitor the health of the patient. Not all medications work the same way on all people.
You CANNOT make generalizations about the appropriateness of drugs, Kevin, you simply don't have the qualifications. And if you use your position as a minister to 'intervene' in someone's care, I'm not sure what the consequences might be for the patient AND FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
I'm just saying this to get you to think about it. There is so much more for you to learn before begin to intervene with a member of your congregation who is under the care of a physician.
I'm worried for the people you might ill-advise (and I know that you would never want to cause them any harm) , and I'm worried about the legal and ethical consequences that might affect you personally.
Please think this through carefully. For all that we disagree, I don't want to see you in any difficulties that you might not have foreseen. We do care about each other here. Please know that I do not want to see you get into any trouble, because I know that you only want the best for people.
Love, L's
DEAR BOB CLEVELAND,
When you wrote this:
"As to the matter of mental illness, I am puzzled that much of the Christian world seems to think there's no such thing."
I was thinking that I had no idea that this the case. In my own faith, it is not, I know.
In my brother's church (Methodist), it is not the case that they believe this. He is a physician and a Sunday School Teacher for an adult class.
Apparently for some Protestant denominations, medical intervention is not approved.
I just didn't know that it was as widespread as you seem to think.
L's
I have tried to read most of the comments, but want to address of few things that have been said.
First, there has been some research regarding spousal abuse and denominations. Not enough to be sure, but some. What the research shows is that abuse happens just as much in conservative denominations as it does in liberal denominations – which is just as much as in the secular world. The rate is anywhere from 25 to 50% of al marriages if you include all forms of abuse (emotional, verbal, sexual and physical). The difference between conservative and liberal is their acceptance of abuse. Conservative churches show a higher acceptance of abuse than liberal churches. Research shows a higher tolerance for abuse in churches that teach complementarian roles vs. egalitarian roles. Why? I think it has been clear from the comments here.
Second, we are leaving out the spiritual abuse that happens in any abusive relationship. Abuse damages a person’s view of God and their relationship with Him. Further, in homes where the person being abused is a Christian, their faith is used against them, much like some of these comments. Scripture is misused to justify the abuse she is suffering – again not submissive enough, just pray more, etc etc. I am sure Christ does not condone that. His example was always to remove women and children who were being abused from their situation and to protect them.
Third, rather than accept the premise in the article that this woman was abused, some want to hear from the husband to confirm his side… why? Can we not accept that this is her reality and maybe, just maybe, she was abused in the first place? Kind of goes back to my first point about acceptance of abuse, don’t you think? We MUST call out the abusive person to repentance, not the abused person to submission.
Forth, mental health and Biblical counsel. I do not see a competition between the two. All truth comes from God, and if we believe that, whatever means is used to bring about His truth is allowable. As a Christian Mental Health Counselor, I was trained at a Christian University. I received theological and biblical training as well as my psychology courses. I have also had courses showing how to integrate the two. ALWAYS, theology comes first and a Biblical world view which all else is sifted through. Freud was way off in much of his stuff, but he was also one of the few who said that man is bad at his core, not good, and must learn to be good. Is this a Biblical view? Many times problems are sin nature, just as with abusive behaviors. Many times they are chemical, as with depression. Always they can be helped by our Lord. Sometimes, he uses the medicine of the day to do it, just as He used mud and oils in His day. To say that mental health counseling is never needed is to join with the Faith movement in saying that if a person has enough faith, their problems would be resolved and wee would all be happy, healthy and prosperous. Would we agree with that statement?
Fifth, if we spent as much time speaking out against abuse from the pulpit as we do speaking about headship and submission, we would probably do away with abuse in our churches. People would hear loud and clear that this reality is not what God had intended. I heard a pastor recently talk about love and submission, rather than headship and submission. Makes a lot of sense. Love and submission are verbs, what God intends in our actions. Headship is not a verb, it is a position. What if we taught love and submission instead? Would it make a difference? We care more about teaching the sanctity of position than the sanctity of life. I do not think God is pleased.
Sixth, and this is my last point. Do you know there have been Muslim coalitions and Jewish coalitions against domestic violence but no Christian one? How can this be? If we are to ne His hands and show His love, we must come together to tackle this issue and show His healing love. In late 2007, my husband and I along with some others started the Christian Coalition Against Domestic Abuse to try to educate, equip and empower the Christian community and it leadership to understand and minister to those suffering from abuse – both those victimized and those perpetrating – in all ages of life. Often when I contact churches to offer seminars, I am relegated to the women’s ministry. Why? Because – no surprise – I am a woman. Even though I am considered an expert in the field, I am set to speak to the women. Why? WE NEED MEN to become involved! Who will help hold men accountable if not other men? Who will help a woman in need to move if not the men? I wish all churches would join our coalition sp we can say in a loud voice “No more violence, nor ruin or destruction…” Is 60:18.
And I will close with this, having suffered many years of abuse at the hands of an abusive husband, I sought help form many pastors. Not one of them told me his behavior was wrong or that I could leave. Every one of them told me to be a better wife, try harder, be more submissive, tell him you will try harder. I took all of their advice. It made matters worse because now they proved my husband right, it was all my fault. Eventually, after almost 20 years God gave me permission to take my 3 sons and leave and when I did, I was kicked out of my church. I am not bitter or angry, so please do not dismiss my comments as being a bitter woman who hates men. I am happily married to l a loving, God serving man. I am in anguish over the churches lack of commitment to ending this evil and calling it out for what it is – evil from the pit of hell that seeks to destroy God’s design for loving union in marriage. We should be speaking out against this long before we speak out against homosexual unions.
Let me leave you with one final question. How many sermons have you heard against domestic violence or abuse? Sadly, the response is often none. If you are a pastor, how many sermons have you given on this subject? How many trainings have you attended and how many books have you read? Rev. Al Miles has written two good books on the subject. Please read one.
Kate Johnson,
www.ccada.org
L's,
I've been in some Pentecostal demonination who gathered around the depressed (and in some cases other mental problem-beset) people and exorcised demons, commanded generational curses to depart, etc. etc. When that didn't seem to happen, the normal result was to tell the person they didn't have enough faith to "receive their healing".
I don't know much of anything for sure, but I do know that following sound medical advice in mental as well as physical illnesses is in no way against scripture or indicative of weak or deficient faith.
Would it be abuse for a husband to share his wife with other men so that he could get on their good side? I'm just curious.
Kate,
What excellent points you make! I pray they will be taken to heart by those who have an ear to hear.
For those who choose not to listen to you and others on the topic of spousal abuse, God will have their full attention one day soon and they will answer to Him alone. I would not want to be in their shoes!
Happy New Year! I will be praying for the important work you are doing.
Blessings,
Wanda
Darby,
I have read weird comments on this blog, but yours takes the prize! :-p
I think I might know what you were getting at in your weird way, though. In your comment you were asking if that kind of abuse, where a man is definitely treating his wife like property, is abuse. And in all spousal abuse, whether it be emotional, physical, or sexual, the abuser is treating his spouse like property. And it is just as wrong as that scenario that you asked here.
"Would it be abuse for a husband to share his wife with other men so that he could get on their good side? I'm just curious."
Abraham?
Here are some thoughts from the perspective of a violated woman.
1. Physical violence from an intimate and trusted partner causes extreme shame and embarassment as nakedness is violated and used as a weapon. This prevents a woman from getting help.
2. Sermons like Bruce Wares's reinforce the notion that abuse is caused by the rebellious attitude of a woman. The woman may blame herself and attempt to be more submissive. The woman loses faith in herself and at the same time reinforces the behaviour of her husband.
3. Submissive behaviour on the part of a wife reinforces and feeds the abusive behaviour of a husband. If a woman obeys her husband when he is abusive, raises his voice, is selfish or hits and kicks, either way, she teaches him that this behaviour is effective and she ensures that he will be entrenched in his habits of abuse.
4. The abuse feels like it is coming from God. One is alienated from one's husband, one's self, God and children.
In my case,
5. Women used to guest preach in my church but were then uninivited (so to speak.) The pastors views on women were clear - disrespect!
5. Many sermons were preached on wifely submission and Bruce Ware was invited to preach at a conference. (no connection to SBC)
6. There was not one mention in any sermon of domestic violence.
7. When I asked the pastor's wife for a reading list on domestic violence she said that she did not have one because a church like ours did not have this problem. It was a white church of white collar workers and only 1000 people, so very likely would have no cases of domestic violence - right?
8. My husband forbade me from talking to anyone about our problem as that would violate my marriage vows and make me a whore. And bring about more violence!
As it turns out, when I told my pastor after I left about the violence he did not advise me to return. He was supportive, but ony after the fact!
The fact is that he offered no help while I was in the relationship.
The only help that I feel is appropriate in a "submission of women" church is this -
If the pastor wants to preach on the submission of women he should post a home guard, of several men, well trained, or call in the local police. And then he can offer those women who are being abused the safety of not going home that day.
But what woman will answer that kind of altar call. I often fantasize that an army unit had come down and kidnapped me out of my situation, out of the life I had.
But when I was in the situation I knew no army would come and I used to dream of dying of cancer. Cancer the only friend of a woman in my situation.
It will take a lifetime to put the pieces back together. I wish my "other" no ill will, I am so sorry for what he also lost, but I wish the carnal church would suffer the fate of all carnality.
The subordination of women creates a life of God-authorized slavery for some women.
Recently I have been able to read through all the studies my pastor recommended to me to reinforce the view of male authority. He recommended the authentein study and the kephale study in particular. Because I have studied Greek, Hellenistic as well as classical, I can see the flimsy resonctruction of evidence that is used to bring about conclusions in favour of male authority. It is sad that so many people cannot see what is clearly there, that the evidence has been doctored.
I don't seek a teaching position in the church, that is not my concern. Women deserve a life of safely and dignity in the home. That comes first.
I would recommend two authors that should be on the shelves of every pastor, Lundy Bancroft and Evan Stark. They do not point at the patriarchal church per se, but at every belief system which reinforces male entitlement regardless of where it comes from.
Wanda, thanks for the encouragement. May God open ears to hear and eyes to see.
Sue, glad to "hear" you, and you are so right. Bancroft's book, Why Does He Do That, is the best I have ever read on the subject, and I have read a lot! I am currently reading Stark's book, Coercive Control.
A statement I use in my seminars is "Submission without equality is slavery." Of course, if there is equality in all things, submitting to EACH other is easy. When it is forced, it is slavery. Nothing less.
Anonymous asked:QUESTION: what is it about being a 'born-again' Christian that puts you at higher risk for divorce?
very simple
SOW bad doctrine about marriage-->
--> REAP death of marriages
In "the world" a woman does not enter into a marriage expecting to be considered subordinate, inferior, or incapable of making adult decisions on behalf of the household. "The world" has better doctrine on marriage than "the church".
"Anonymous.
Personally, I'm much more prone to "dismiss" people who hide behind anonymity. At least Ms. Gruben had the fortitude to sign her name to what she wrote."
To Bob Cleveland: Have you stopped beating your wife?
"Fortitude" you say?
It was her "glory" to publicize her victimhood in the local paper and then smear a whole denomination as a monolith.
I guess she found the supposed missing link in Evolution - it was Southern Baptists.
Maybe this type of profundity speaks to you, but I don't know anyone who remotely resembles what she describes.
But hey, if her insights help you then I guess that’s good for you, isn’t it?
Dear Anon,
If you do not know anyone like she describes, then you are blessed. I, on the other hand, know many. And from the comments, so do many others.
From your comments, which are not necessarily grace-filled, might I suggest a mirror?
Anon,
When you step out from behind the cowardice of anonymity, and have been happily married for 50 years, I might be willing to address questions about my marriage. Even stupid old nonsense ones like you asked.
Ms. Gruben spoke the truth. If you equate that with smearing the entire SBC, go ahead. I happen to agree with what she said.
[Random comments related to various threads popping up here and there in this long comments box]:
It's always so weird to see Christians getting uncomfortable about marital seperation, much less divorce. Have we all forgotten that our God is Himself a divorcee?
One of the key themes of a righteous person seen throughout the Old and New Testament is that he/she will care for the poor, the downtrodden and the abused. There is something markedly wrong, then, when professing Christians scorn the words of the abused, chide them for bitterness, or tell them that being abused is far more acceptable to God than being divorced is. Our God was both abused and divorced. I think both are catagorically less than best.
And please, whoever is doing it, stop comparing abused wives to Christian martyrs. The fact is that the Christian martyrs have little recourse, whereas Christian wives living in a free country have ample recourse to get help and get away from their abuser. The Christian wife being sent back to an abusive home is *not* the same thing as the Chinese Christian in prison. The Chinese Christian had no choice, whereas the abused wife has all sorts of resources available to her...all she needed was someone to stand with her and help her (because her mind isn't working clearly---that's what happens to you when you live with an abuser).
There is no glory brought to God when a Christian woman is told to keep herself and her children in destructive environment. Who would tell the escaped Jew to go back to the death camp? (And what is it about marital abuse that causes us to lose all shreds of common sense)?
Btw, count me as another abused wife who heard the message of submit, submit, submit, loud and clear from the books and the pulpit and from my minister husband. My abusive husband was blessed and adored. And me? Loved too...as long as I smiled and kept my problems to myself. (Since he never hit me, it wasn't abuse, you know).
I'm glad I stopped listening to my spiritual "authorities." And you will be hard-pressed to ever find me setting foot in a comp church again. If that makes me bitter, so be it. But I prefer the term "street smart."
Divorce for a Biblical reason is not a sin, God divorced Israel for Biblical reasons.
Divorce without a Biblical reason is breaking the covenant and a sin.
Divorce is not required, it is merely allowed.
See David Instone-Brewer.
DON said, "God divorced Israel for Biblical reasons."
H m m m m ......... can't find that in the Bible . . . .
I wonder why?
The NEW SBC version of the
Golden Rule:
'do unto others as you would have them do unto you '
EXCEPT: 'others' does not include women, wives, missionaries, and anyone who doesn't agree with you
"DON said, "God divorced Israel for Biblical reasons."
H m m m m ......... can't find that in the Bible . . ."
Jeremiah 3:8, though interpretations vary.
Dear brothers and sisters, several points,
1. No one should stand idly by while anyone is abused. Period. One of the most Christian things said in this stream was that before a pastor would send a poor woman back to a beating, he should go himself in her place. I agree we have a responsibility to suffer with those who suffer, weep with those who weep. That's why Bonhoeffer went back to Germany in WWII. I suspect that rather than do that, we'd rather confront the situation. No abused woman deserves our judgment or our neglect. We must come alongside, immediately, and if she chooses to stay, maybe perpetually. Period.
2. I don't think there's a comparison between the martyrs worldwide and abused women directly. The comparison is only when one chooses to suffer for love's sake. The reason I asked my weird question is because the father of faith did this to the mother of faith and Peter uses her as an example of faith, tells modern women to follow her example by not fearing anything frightening. Peter wasn't referring to spiders in that text. The book is about suffering under other people. His command to women begins with "Likewise" and there's a reason for that. Peter wants women to know how to ruggedly suffer when idiot jerk husbands mistreat them and God is keeping score with rewards.
3. Peter also says husbands should treat their wives like precious vases. There's not enough preaching on this. Period.
4. Dear sisters, please don't empty the tub. There's a baby in there somewhere. I'm just afraid that we've been coddled too much - men the most by being given passes on how they treat their wives. Not all churches and pastors are like the ones named here, and we don't deserve to be lumped with them just because we're trying to expound Scripture.
5. The things I've written in this thread are from a heart that isn't personally naive about abuse. My words are to encourage my dear sisters to keep the faith and keep loving and don't allow any man to jade your endurance and yet let the Bible say what it says about suffering well without bitterness. If you think this comes from someone who is soft on men, e-mail my wife and see how she's treated, ask my five little ones how their mother is honored and ask the men and women of my church if the husbands get over on their wives. And read the book I wrote on the subject.
On the concept of divorce being sinful, has anyone here mentioned that God is a divorcee?
[See Ezekiel 16, among other passages]
"On the concept of divorce being sinful, has anyone here mentioned that God is a divorcee?
[See Ezekiel 16, among other passages]"
But let's not forget how Ezekiel 16 ends, as well as the other passages.
Ignore that last comment. I was confused (didn't see that the comments thread ended at 200 and that I had to press "Newest" to get to the next batch).
Slowing down in 2009,
Molly
:)
[PS. Jeremiah 3, I think, is another place where God gives Israel a bill of divorce...]
But, while I'm here again, divorce can't be a sin. God did it. So saying that divorce is *always* a sin is saying that God sinned (which, He didn't).
That doesn't make divorce great. (I sure don't read any verses where God is delighted about getting divorced). But it makes it something that happens in a fallen world. If *God* had a failed marriage, then we can rest assured that some of us will have them too.
Darby,
Now that you have drawn attention to your book I recall your name.
You wrote this,
"We can responsibly gather that as a result of the fall, women desire to be on top of the relationship; to be the boss. They will not want to submit to the leadership of their husbands. This will be a source of constand friction in the marriage."
Let me just say that the Bible nowhere says this. You make every single woman who makes the tiniest decision responsible for causing friction in the marriage. I hope that God will some day replay a tape of an abused woman's life so you can see that women can be whacked for sneezing at the wrong time.
This exegesis of Gen. 3:16 has been around for all of 40 years, especially dreamed up since women's liberation to put women back in the box.
And I would like someone to acknowledge that there are more female farmers on earth now than male farmers. Women work the ground, feed their families and provide and protect. They did so in the Bible and they do so now.
Half of women in the Bible were single as far as we know, and half of women are now. This is reality. Is God a God for real people or just for a certain class of "lucky" people?
Yes, I find your books not only very naive but very dangerous. I pray that women who believe that their role is to submit will some day realize the truth. Submission feeds abuse.
I would recomment an article by Susan Hunt which makes it clear that women are to be the defenders and protectors of abused women. She said this because whe came to realize that men just were not going to do it and somebody had to.
Women should just exit stage left.
Sue,
It is irresponsible and appears very biased to quote something I wrote about women without quoting anything I wrote about and to men. You didn't give the flipside of my exposition of that text regarding men. It's right there in the section you quoted. You quoted nothing from the chapter where I blast men for being cowardly lovers who wouldn't, in fact, live or die for their wives. You are doing what I just pleaded with you not to do - exit jaded
Darby,
I don't know why I should be criticized for exiting jaded. I wish I had left much earlier. Some women are very deeply degraded by what you say is not degrading. This is simply fact. A woman ought to leave something that is not right.
I did read the rest and I apologize for not acknowledging it. However, I did not see any useful advice for abused women. Since submission encourages abuse it is likely that a significant number of submissive wives are actually physically abused. Did you think of this? You say you are not naive.
I would like to ask an honest question about your book. Did you only write the one paragraph on physical abuse? This was all I could find.
I also want to ask if you have no respect for single women who work hard, are protectors and providers and care for their parents and raise their children and take care of their own house, car and computer and so on. Would a woman like this, who was not just a submissive helper, but could look after herself and have goals and a career and so on, would a woman like this not inspire desire in a Christian man?
Sue,
First question: Yes, that is the only little spot on abuse. Please believe that it's not because it's not important, but it wasn't the goal of the book. That doesn't mean that books couldn't be filled with helpful stuff on that subject, and the little bit I did write on the subject was I hope sympathetic with the woman, not the abuser.
Second question: Yes, I think that kind of woman would be incredibly desirable to strong, non-cowardly men who aren't looking for someone to walk on, but rather someone to serve. I know lazy men who'd rather have a doormat out of convenience. No one respects a doormat. But people do respect strong humility. I personally have a wife who decided to quit a partnership in a great pizza place to stay home and raise our kidlings. But I can think of situations where other women wouldn't.
My views aren't private on these things. There's nothing I like more than praising my wife who is my equal or better in every way. I'm not just saying that, I know it to be true. But we have decided together on what our roles will be under the headship of Christ. We have decided to pursue our pleasure in the pleasure of one another, rather than at one another's expense. Like I said, there is still a baby in the bath.
Darby,
Yes, that is the only little spot on abuse. Please believe that it's not because it's not important, but it wasn't the goal of the book.
Whenever submission is discussed, the result of submission to any kind of smallest abuse must be made clear. If a woman submits to a raised voice, she teaches her husband to raise his voice. If a woman submits to selfishness she teaches her husband to be selfish. If she submits to violence the violence increases. For the physical safety of women, this should be mentioned in every book on submission. If a woman submits to what the husband wants for himself then he grows in that department, in his own desires whatever they are. So a woman who believes in submission should probably never submit to anything the husband wants. On the other hand, if the submission is mutual it might be workable.
And yes, I found that in the paragraph following the paragraph on abuse, you talked about how women might call any little selfishness of the husband abuse. I felt that you belittled abused women in that paragraph. I do not believe that you provided any advice on violence or sympathy. I amy have missed that, but I did not see it.
Reread that page in your book now and think about how it reads to an abused woman.
I personally have no views on whether a woman should or should not work while raising children. That can go either way. The husband might be unemployed or in a vulnerable industry and need his wife to work. I believe this is a private decision. I do not think that you give proper credit to the fact that women have always contributed financially to the family for thousands of years.
Your personal situation may be very happy and pleasant/pleasurable. However, you should think of the effect of your writing on other people.
I respect women who stay home to raise their children. I think men should respect single mothers who provide and protect and realize that this is a good way to be a woman.
Women are deserving of respect as those who can function as equals.
You are probably a very decent person who is unaware of how many women live.
Darby,
We have decided to pursue our pleasure in the pleasure of one another, rather than at one another's expense.
I am glad that you have made this decision. So have many other people who do not require women to be submissive helpers. It is not a trade off. Women who vow to be submissive helpers do not usually get rewarded for this, they can be degraded. Women who are equal partners are very often are in such relationships. Submission is no guarantee of happiness or there would not be so many websites, quite a few, dedicated to women fleeing the misery of their submission.
"Submission is no guarantee of happiness"
I disagree. That's the whole point of Hebrews 11-13 and 1 Peter. Jesus always submitted to the Father for the joy set before him. That included a cross that some scholars have called divine child abuse. If you're saying submission is no guarantee of immediate happiness in the situation, I'm inclined to agree with you. But that's not nearly heavenly-minded enough to be a Christian perspective.
Benji,
A few years ago I would have completely agreed with your comment about sins (e.g., alcohol/drug abuse, etc.) being primarily a "heart" problem. Two things have modified my view. I got to know a man who was a recovering cocaine addict and relapsed three times, his wife left him (justifiably I think), and he moved without telling anyone where. In several conversations, I came to realize how deeply he wanted to quit his habit for good. He knew it would cost him his family if he didn't, and he still couldn't do it. Is there an element of moral failure to this. Yes; he did not keep promises and was deceptive; he broke the law and ignored commonly given advice when he took the drug the first time.
However, the second bit of information I learned suggests that his drug abuse was genuinely beyond his control. The pattern of brain activity in persons addicted to cocaine changes, and this lasts long after they have stopped taking the drug. This pattern of brain activity is in an area associated with "reward" feelings. The bottom line is that these folks do not feel "right" unless they take the drug. There is a demonstrably strong genetic component associated with this and other addictions. A friend of mine has developed a drug combination, which is in clinical trials, that acts to reverse some of the changes in the brain that lead to addiction. So far it seems effective.
All of this tells me that at the very least, we should be very careful about judging anyone for addiction. There but for the grace of God could be any one of us. I am, however, confident that God can sort out with complete fairness where sin begins and biology ends.
I agree completely with your idea that naturalism is an inadequate (not to mention Godless) philosophy and some psychologists/psychiatrists embrace it. However, this does not change the fact that most treatments (particularly all recently approved drugs) are objectively effective for at least some people. This is also true for some counseling techniques for specific conditions. Thus, regardless of the world view of the counselor, he/she can and does help people who need help. Seeking treatment for mental conditions does not indicate support of a naturalistic world view any more than seeking treatment for pneumonia does.
It is objectively documented that many mental illnesses (anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive, bipolar disorders, autism, schizophrenia, and depression) are physical illnesses caused by altered brain function. They may all be influenced to some degree by the will of the patient, but none of them can be cured by simply wanting them to be gone. I believe prayer can help, just as it can with other physical illnesses, but we know that God does not always answer prayers as we want or when we want. Why is there hesitation to support treatment for mental conditions when very very few Baptists would recommend relying only on prayer or will power for cancer, or kidney failure, or infections. There is no hesitation to seek treatment and the ill person gets nothing but support from the church. However, mental illness, when it is mentioned at all, is dreaded and the response of the church tends to be to stay away from the family affected. What a shame.
This is not an issue about philosophy. You and I are probably precisely in agreement philosophically. However, I recognize that mental illness is just as much a physical disease as any other. It cannot be cured by will power, and God does not often intervene supernaturally to end it. The only compassionate course of action is to encourage people to get treatment and to rally around them and their family while this occurs.
Darby,
Let me express myself more clearly. When women submit to any selfish desire on the part of the husband, this may increase the husbands selfish demands. If the husband is abusive, the abuse is reinforced.
Unilateral submission is not a guarantee of a happy marriage. It is not a guarantee that God will be honoured. Submission is very likely to increase abuse and this brings complete disrespect on the church and on God, on the entire Christian community, as we see here.
The abusive husband is unhappy, the abused wife is unhappy, the sbuse becomes generational ensuring generations of unhappy men, women and children. God is not happy. Who is happy? Whose happiness is brought about be submission to abuse?
I think rather the verses indicate that if someone is in an abusive situation and has no possible way of escape then they are to act as Peter directs. If a man is a slave then he takes his beating with grace. If a man is a sailor then he accepts being flayed to death with happiness, and if a woman is in a hierarchical marriage and cannot escape she takes the hits as much she can with grace. But it turns out that if the wife stands up and resists by calling the police she stands a better chance of ending the violence and enabling everyone involved to experience an improved life. She may just prevent generational violence.
"That included a cross that some scholars have called divine child abuse. If you're saying submission is no guarantee of immediate happiness in the situation, I'm inclined to agree with you. But that's not nearly heavenly-minded enough to be a Christian perspective."
No offense, but you you insinuating here that God is glorified to the watching world when the Christian church sets up wives to be abused because of preaching female-to-male submission without adequate qualification?
I think that the church should be different than the world, sure. But what we're doing is looking more like the Taliban than we are like people joyously set free. It's one thing to be persecuted for righteousness sake, it's another thing to be scorned because we're doing things worth scorning.
How exactly is the world brought closer to Christ and the Church when they are given models of wives being abused *because* those wives are trying to be faithful to church teaching?
It's hard enough to fight your way out of an abusive marriage without adding in the church to the gauntlet. These poor women.
Then there is always that delightful day when the kid comes home crying and asks "why did X say that you were going to hell, Mommy?"
Sue,
"But it turns out that if the wife stands up and resists by calling the police she stands a better chance of ending the violence and enabling everyone involved to experience an improved life. She may just prevent generational violence."
I absolutely agree and would give her the phone. Unfortunately, even against counsel, many women choose to stick it out. I'm not for enabling others to sin, and it seems that's a big part of this issue.
Molly,
"No offense, but you you insinuating here that God is glorified to the watching world when the Christian church sets up wives to be abused because of preaching female-to-male submission without adequate qualification?"
None taken, and no I'm not insinuating that at all. I think we can be faithful to the text of Scripture and trust God with the results. I'm saying that a structure of authority doesn't automatically mean abuse. This is the same argument that folks in the culture use against Christians who spank their children. And it's the same argument that folks use to dismiss the gospel because they agree with some in this thread who think all submission opens the door to abuse. That's why they call the gospel divine child abuse. The Son submitted to the Father's will to crush him. Abuse. So they say. Is that the argument folks on this thread are using to dismiss marital roles? The same argument folks use to dismiss the gospel? Dig deeper than just the surface outrage over spouse abuse.
YES, I am agreed on mental illness being NOT simply a matter of the heart. The amount of research we have now is wonderful (and it would be nice if church leaders would avail themselves to it instead of repeating the same tired arguments about mental illness being all spiritual).
MRI studies show that the brains of those with mental illness literally are NOT working correctly. This is not a spiritual issue, it is concretely PHYSICAL in origen.
Is it acceptable to tell the diabetic to go off of insulin in order to be spiritual? So why is it considered unspiritual for a person who's brain isn't working correctly (read: not a spiritual problem, though there may be some of those too) to go to people trained to work with malfunctioning brains?
Much of the abuse I suffered as a comp wife was the result of a mentally ill husband (though I didn't know he was mentally ill for a long time, and neither did anyone else).
The church is woefully inadequate, in my experience, in this arena. One pastor said all my (theology trained) husband needed was more theology lessons. No joke.
Others have thought that it can't be true, since sometimes "he acts normal."
I've learned so much about mental illness so far, and I can't tell you how frustrating it is to experience much of the church's treatment. Being an abused wife was bad enough (with the church seeming to support the abuser, not the abused) but now with mental illness thrown in the works!?
It's hard enough for the mentally ill person to believe they're mentally ill and take their meds, but now the church, too, is helping with statements like, "You act so normal right now, are you SURE you've been correctly diagnosed?" Or sermons that indicate that taking medication for mental illness is a crutch, is a substandard replacement for real hard work. Just trust God...
There is so much misinformation out there, on both the front of spousal abuse and on mental illness.
Btw, what Sue said is spot on (these are things I learned AFTER the fact, of course...if only I'd been privy to them during all the abuse).
When the abuser is submitted to, he is behaviourally conditioned to believe that his behavior is acceptable. Submission, in the case of the abuser, *guarantees* more abuse, in frequency and in level of harm).
It is really frustrating. Especially when you consider that the Bible never actually uses the word "leader" or "authority" for the husband. It did command husbands to love their wives. How is it that "love" got translated into "leadership?" I don't know.
I am thankful for some of the dear *dear* friends in the church world who have come to our aid. But they are the exception, not the norm. And church leadership has truly been the biggest let-down of all.
An Abused Pastor's Wife
Darby,
I am deeply concerned about any association between Christ on the cross and a woman in marriage. It is a very violent image for an violated woman to read about.
I wrote this,
"But it turns out that if the wife stands up and resists by calling the police she stands a better chance of ending the violence and enabling everyone involved to experience an improved life. She may just prevent generational violence."
And every sermon and every book that recommends submission to women needs to make this clear. It is a health and safety hazard otherwise. I seriously think that the surgeon general needs to require a warning posted on the front of all books mentioning submission that this can be very dangerous. It is negligent otherwise and can be considered a contribution to abuse if the warning is not there.
Bob Cleveland wrote, "Ms. Gruben spoke the truth. If you equate that with smearing the entire SBC, go ahead. I happen to agree with what she said."
.................................
Which explains the myopia.
So I guess you accept that Southern Baptists not only set up women for abuse but they victimize and abuse women in particular (Hey, why teach it and then not practice it, right?)
Read her words again, she DID smear the entire SBC in a broad demagogic way.
If that's the kind of logic that makes sense to you than so be it.
The tone and content of her editorial is nonsense. Just more "Oprahification" of the SBC (as if Southern Baptist churches aren't worldly enough). We more "tolerance" and "diversity," don't we?
Can you believe that King Solomon and Apostle Paul? What a couple of misogynistic jerks! They had to be proto-Southern Baptists.
We'll get it right one day when our views "evolve." Until then, SBC women, you better learn self-defense because that loving husband of yours that goes with you every week to a SBC church could wake up one day and suddenly become your abuser.
It's being subtlety programmed into him as he becomes more actively involved in church. Insidious, isn't it?
"Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter" by Dr. Steven Tracy, Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics. A good read on the subject from a theological perspective. I think it can be accessed at Mending the Soul Ministry, (mendingthesoul.org)or requested through them.
"It is really frustrating. Especially when you consider that the Bible never actually uses the word "leader" or "authority" for the husband. It did command husbands to love their wives. How is it that "love" got translated into "leadership?" I don't know. "
And when it teaches that the woman is the 'despot' of the home. :o)
The fact is that they ignore mutual submission in Eph 5:21. All believers submitting to one another. Then we have all the 'o
ne another verses',Rom 12 and 1 Corin 13 and Matt 5 which seem to be ignored because they like the hierarchy so very much and these do not fit so well with their view of a 'leader'. That is why they invented 'servant-leader'.
I think too many have fallen in love with what they think is authority over another in marriage and the Body. It seems to have become a serious snare in Christendom where vast amounts of time and resources are devoted to the keeping of power and authority over others. And anything that threatens that position is deemed unbiblical.
That is what is truly a worldly view and carnal response to scripture. Those who are of Christ are not seeking to be 'over' others. They do not argue for it and condemn others who speak of mututal submission and service to others. Has this subject become the biggest snare of sin to so many? I really believe it has. So much money is tied up in this teaching with books, conferences, speaking engagments, etc. Everyone wants rules and formulas to live by. We are writing our very own Christian Talmud with the way we have added to scripture on this topic.
It is much easier to follow a 'role' some human outlines for you than to BE in Christ. That word 'role' is the most insidious addition to scripture interpretation that has come down the pike. It denotes a pretending, playing a part. Not one who is abiding in Christ.
Many in Christendom are literally teaching men and women to carry out the conseuqences of sin in Gen 3. And there is lots of money to be made doing it.
DARBV said: The Son submitted to the Father's will to crush him. Abuse. So they say. Is that the argument folks on this thread are using to dismiss marital roles?
I think this is insightful in that you have identified the connection between views of the atonement with the travesty of broken marriages in the church. I find myself rejecting the traditional "penal substitutionary" view of the atonement because I find nowhere in scripture the traditional teaching that "God's WRATH is poured out upon Jesus for my sins". (PUNISHING the innocent for the guilty- which is eerily similar to the way I hear some popular teachings on marriage) The fact is, if I sin, I pay... even though I claim Christ. I don't get a pass on consequences for sin.
Oddly enough you have also identified another phenomenon which is pandemic in the church- that of "putting the pants on" wives and expecting them to take on the role of husband. Ephesians 5 is ever so clear about who is to be "as Christ" in the marriage. So if you are maintaining that anyone suffer and be "crucified" in the marriage, BIBLICAL support goes to the male for that role, not the female. Put that way, as a male, perhaps you'll want to re-think punishing the innocent for the guilty?
DARBY wrote:We have decided to pursue our pleasure in the pleasure of one another, rather than at one another's expense.\
That sure sounds like mutual submission to me. :)
" I find myself rejecting the traditional "penal substitutionary" view of the atonement because I find nowhere in scripture the traditional teaching that "God's WRATH is poured out upon Jesus for my sins"."
You may want to check out what the 'cup' Jesus asked the Father to take from Him, means going back to OT times.
Jesus took the Wrath we deserve.
"So if you are maintaining that anyone suffer and be "crucified" in the marriage, BIBLICAL support goes to the male for that role, not the female."
I've never argued for anyone being crucified in the marriage. Here's what I'm saying. I am a comp. I think I've written about as balanced a view as possible how both spouses can be happy in Christ without throwing out completely everything that comes after Eph. 5:21. I've championed the husband's "role" as one who lives and dies for his wife. But because I'm still a fuddy-duddy who thinks Eph 5 and 1 Pet 3 are clear about how each spouse is supposed to act, I'm lumped with those who support abuse and oppression of women.
Darby,
I'm lumped with those who support abuse and oppression of women.
I most certainly do not think that you support the abuse of women. I did find your book incredibly naive and I would not have remarked on this except that you drew attention to your book and then said that you were not naive.
I felt that a correction was needed. Some of what you wrote to men was very lovely. I was unable to continue reading what you wrote to women. It was very disturbing.
Women are not designed to be the submissive helpers of men. They were designed to succour men, to help men when men are in trouble. This is the meaning of ezer. Women are designed with all the interest, ambition, creativity and intellectual strengths of men. To relegate women to a lifetime of being the submissive helper of someone else, who has a 50-50 chance of being less intelligent and less creative is dreadful.
There is no need for you to assure anyone of your own personal integrity or healthy marriage. No one is questioning this. What is in question is whether women were designed to be only submissive helpers, to not provide for their family, to not work the ground, to not create and produce as men are.
I was simply appalled at your theoretical representation of women. I am convinced that you are a personally considerate individual but have never actually thought about what it is like to be a woman in general terms within the framework of total submission and underneathness, as opposed to ontopness.
Darby,
I've written about as balanced a view as possible how both spouses can be happy in Christ without throwing out completely everything that comes after Eph. 5:21.
Perhaps you could elucidate on what you mean by happy here. Do you mean happy in the sense that the slave is happy when he is beaten for doing what is right rather than what is wrong. Was this what you wrote the book about. I don't think so. I think you really meant "happy" in the normal sense.
Perhaps women are made happy in the same way that men are made happy, by being treated as equals and not as "submissive helpers." Just a thought.
But because I'm still a fuddy-duddy who thinks Eph 5 and 1 Pet 3 are clear about how each spouse is supposed to act, I'm lumped with those who support abuse and oppression of women.
You might want to take out the word "act". The "roles" and "act" terminology appear to trigger some people.
I agree with you that Eph 5 and 1 Peter 3 have distinct and unique instructions to husbands and wives. And I vehemently disagree with those who seem to want to throw out the whole concept of wifely submission. Wifely submission is BIBLICAL. The question is not whether or not wives should be submissive. The question is HOW IS SUBMISSION DEFINED?
SUBMISSION is not to be confused with OBEDIENCE. This confusion is FATAL TO MARRIAGES and robs men of the strong help meet God intended a wife to be. Some translations err, much teaching errs, to the detriment of women, men, and marriage.
A wife being SUBMISSIVE is simply to have a demeanor role modeled after CHRIST. (see the LIKEWISE instructions of 1 Peter 3) Jesus was SUBMISSIVE, Jesus was "SUBJECT TO" his parents and still followed His Father's will EVEN to His parents great distress! (see Luke 2:48-51) The Greek word there is the same one used of wifely submission. Jesus was COMPLETELY FREE to follow GOD while not violating "submission".
I am CALLED by God to be my husband’s ezer/help MEET. When God “helps” us it is not about achieving our goals, but HIS. Similarly, as my husband’s ezer I am about my Father’s business, which can- on occasion- be quite unpleasant and displeasing to my beloved husband but without ever violating "BIBLICAL SUBMISSION".
DO SOUTHERN BAPTISTS
SET WOMEN UP
FOR ABUSE?
When a husband behaves towards his wife in the manner of an out-of-control misbehaving child;
the husband has LOST HIS HUSBANDLY AUTHORITY over his wife.
He needs to resume his role as an adult in the relationship, with the help of ANY AND ALL who are available to help him,
BEFORE he has the PRIVILEGE
of resuming a sacred blessed union with his wife, whom he is to love and honor above himself and
treat better than himself.
DO SOUTHERN BAPTISTS SET WOMEN UP FOR ABUSE?
or
DO SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTORS SOMETIMES IGNORE THE GOD-APPOINTED ROLE OF A HUSBAND TO HONOR HIS WIFE ABOVE HIMSELF?
Strange, strange ways come from taking holy scripture and using it the way the Devil would: to promote sin and evil and abuse.
"I was simply appalled at your theoretical representation of women. I am convinced that you are a personally considerate individual but have never actually thought about what it is like to be a woman in general terms within the framework of total submission and underneathness, as opposed to ontopness."
The condescension is more than I can bear. I rest my case and exit stage left. You are all the enlightened ones. What would someone like me who was abused as a child in various ways by a much older neighbor GIRL know about being underneath rather than on top? What would I know about the shame? What would I know about being under the absolute control of someone who didn't deserve that right? Surely I'm too naive to understand at the same time fear of reprisal if I spoke up, the shame for being such a wimp, the fear that no one would believe me. What knowledge would I have about forgiveness and love and God making all things right in the end through Christ? What kind of battles would I know how to fight about not hating women and lumping them all together with my abuser? And yet, I will still strive to be faithful to Scripture and tell men they must love, live and die for their wives, and I teach our church and my 11 year old boy that it is never under any circumstance okay to threaten or even raise your voice to a girl or woman. They are precious to God. I concede. I'm a naive fool who sees the world through rose-colored glasses.
What would someone like me who was abused as a child in various ways by a much older neighbor GIRL know about being underneath rather than on top? What would I know about the shame? What would I know about being under the absolute control of someone who didn't deserve that right?
Are you implying that some husbands deserve this right? Do you think any woman wants to be under the absolute control of anyone?
I don't lump all men together in spite of your suggestion, nor do I think you are an abuser. I do think that the ideas and notions about women which are current in some circles and which are mentioned in your book are very damaging to women.
I think perhaps you could write about shame and violence and total and absolute deprivation of self with empathy, and realize that for some women they live an entire lifetime within this framework and are taught that this is what God wants for them. How would your life be if you lived it out within abuse for 30 or 40 years?
You could write about what you know to be true about human emotions from your own experience and really speak truth to people. No one wants to be subordinated, not men and not women.
I am a student at Southwestern Seminary and have heard Dr Patterson and others speak on this subject in person unedited manytimes. I also took Biblical Counseling there. The stance they take is that yes a woman should seperate from her husband if she is being beaten or the kids are. That is common sense however the Bible only permits two grounds for divorce Adultery or a believer is left by an unbeliever. Jesus said that the only reason divorce was ever granted to begin with was because of the hardness of peoples hearts. To take the issue of divorce and to use it to springboard onto women should be pastors they are being mistreated or degraded is not even in the same boat. My question is what culture was God looking at in Genesis 3 when He said man was to be the head of the house and if man is the head of his house how can he submit to his wife being pastor.
" My question is what culture was God looking at in Genesis 3 when He said man was to be the head of the house and if man is the head of his house how can he submit to his wife being pastor."
God never said man was to be head of the house.
No where in the Bible is man called the head of his house. I think this is important.
Just as important as the fact that no where in the Bible does it say that a husband is to be the authority over his wife, or the leader of his wife, or that we have roles. It's not in the text.
In Genesis 3, it does appear that God describes what the future will look like, now that sin and death are in the picture. He describes a number of negative things, and as God describes the negative affects, He says (to the woman, about the man), "He will rule over you."
So the very first time we see a clear cut picture of gender hierarchy in the Scriptures, it's in a list of negative consequences of the Fall.
(Feel free to look up the Hebrew there. THe word "rule" is not speaking of a negative rule whereas before the Fall there was a positive rule. It's just talking about rule in general).
To me that speaks volumes. I think the first clear mention of gender hierarchy is in a very telling place. And if gender hierarchy is a product of the FAll, should the church be about spreading the negative consequences of the Fall as part of the Gospel? Isn't the Gospel that thing that liberates us from the curse, not entrenches us further in it?
When I see the church preaching sermons against using tractors and epidurals (well, help for pain in childbirth used to be considered sin worthy of being burned at the stake, but interestingly enough, tractors and other labor-saving devices for farming never were), then I think the church will have the right to preach male rule over female.
It's no fair, this getting to pick and choose which consequences of sin and death you want. Our history full of male clergy seem to always pick the one where men rule over women, but they never do the one where they are supposed to work by the sweat of their brow (if they did, they would have to quit their jobs). If you preach one, you need to preach them all, ya know.
... :)
QUESTION:
What is the Church doing to
PRO-ACTIVELY work towards
supporting HEALTHY, WHOLESOME,
FULLY-CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES?
This 'subserviance' thing slanted TOWARDS the benefit of the husband to the detriment of the wife is
NOT SCRIPTURAL and
NOT OF GOD.
If the husband cannot treat his wife with great love and great respect, then the wife needs to remind him of his Christian husbandly duties to love her more than himself and place her welfare above his.
Sue,
That is appalling. I can't believe that a man admits that he was abused and you respond that way. That is far more heartless than anything he may have written.
He was not saying that a because she was a woman she didn't have the right. He said that because it was abuse she didn't have the right. No man or woman has the right to abuse any other.
Get off the high-horse long enough for compassion, please.
I am not saying this is the case, but could it be that the reason you find what he wrote to men so inspiring because you didn't have to examine yourself for it, but you were appaled by what he wrote to women because you were convicted? We all find beautiful the teaching we can pass on to others. Nobody likes the preaching that challenges us to change ourselves.
Stephen Pruett,
I appreciate your thoughtful disposition and the spirit with which you write.
A few thoughts.
"However, this does not change the fact that most treatments (particularly all recently approved drugs) are objectively effective for at least some people."
We must be very careful that what we might call "objectively effective" is only taking care of the symptoms of a problem instead of the root.
For example, in the physical realm it would be like merely seeing the results of a painkiller on someone in extreme pain from appendicitis instead of a doctor opening him up to fix where the pain was coming from in the first place.
If someone has a root moral problem, then this can produce all kinds of negative symptoms [including in the physical realm] and to only take care of those symptoms [through drugs that make them feel better, for example] is not fully helping that person.
"Seeking treatment for mental conditions does not indicate support of a naturalistic world view any more than seeking treatment for pneumonia does."
But this is operating off the assumption that mental conditions are physical problems that require a physical solution.
If you are right and I said the problem was moral then I, of course, might be deemed "harsh".
However, if mental problems are essentially moral and not physical, then trying to solve these problems through drugs will be "inadequate" and the person may have an illegitimate "out" to not take responsibility.
Of course, you can show data revealing brain patterns, etc. However, if the moral sins of the person "effected" the brain patterns, then would not those brain patterns be evidence of the symptoms of a moral problem.
Allow me to speak "big picture" at this point.
I'm not comfortable saying that every single thing called a mental illness is a moral problem.
However, I do believe:
1. Soft/hard Naturalism undergirds much of secular counseling today.
2. There are many who are too trusting of those perceived to be experts in the secular counseling field and thus may "unknowingly" believe in ideas that spring from a naturalistic perspective.
3. There are many who want to believe their secular counselors because it allows them to escape responsibility.
4. I think there are many people making serious cash through pumping out drugs they call meds.
Allow me to also give a little bit of my background/perspective:
1. I was blessed to take counseling courses from Dr. Sam Williams who has his Ph.D. from the "California School of Professional Psychology", but who advocates counseling from Scripture. He had a presuppositional approach to counseling [explained below].
2. I am not an integrationist but a presuppositionalist in my approach to counseling. A broad Presuppositional approach means that I believe all of the fields of knowledge should reason based off the Bible.
Let's take the field of science for example. The Bible teaches the uniformity of nature [UON] and with that presupposition, scientists can justify doing science with that assumption. However, if they tried to justify UON apart from the Bible, they would not be able to since they are finite. One cannot justify UON by using the UON of the past since that would be operating off the assumption that the future will be like the past.
God Bless,
Benji
BENJI:
'In a comprehensive listing of 185 psychology PhD programs across the United States by the National Research Council, schools of psychology were rank-ordered in quality. This report was published by the American Psychological Society Observer (APS Observer) in January of 1996. The report showed the California School of Professional Psychology-Alameda as scoring well towards the bottom of this list in quality at 171 out of the 185. In a close grouping the other three schools in the California School of Professional Psychology system ranked even lower in quality. (CSPP-LA at 176, CSPP-San Diego at 177 and CSPP-Fresno at 178 out of a total of
185.)
Check out a school for reputation before you mention it.
What you find out might make you think twice.
Chris,
And I have been abused also but I would never tell any man, including Darby, to spend his life as the submissive helper to a woman and live without the ability to make decisions.
Darby wrote,
What would I know about being under the absolute control of someone who didn't deserve that right?
Darby believes that wives should be in some sense under the absolute control of their husbands, because they must be submissive in all things and trust ALL their decisions to the husband. The husband provides, protects and directs and has affection.
But consider that women also provide and protect but they have to let the husband make all the decisions, although first listening to the wife's input.
Consider what it would be like to never be able to make a decision about work, church, house, finances and children's schooling and discipline, as Darby outlines, for an entire lifetime.
Consider that I do know what this is like.
And I felt deeply convicted when I read the part of the book written to women that this needs to stop. No other woman should ever have to endure what some of us have endured.
I do not in any way argue that women cannot be abusive. They can be. That is the point. Men and women are not really all that different. But the church deprives women of all self direction.
No, Chris, you are way off track if you think that I was convicted by Darby's section on wifely submission. I overdid that by 30 years, but will not write the details right now. I know by experience that submission to a bully feeds the bullying behaviour. Obey one order and the next one is snapped out faster.
The problem is not that anyone says a man is to order his wife around. The problem is that some men do this, and then the wife is told to submit and that is where the problem begins. That is the worst advice possible.
I don't think you have any idea what an entire lifetime in submission to a bully could be like.
People are no more 'responsible' for a neurological medical problem that leads to mental illness than they are for getting a broken leg if they are injured by a speeding drunk.
People ARE responsible for being uneducated about mental illness.
And they are VERY responsible for using 'God' as an excuse to use their ignorance to harm people who are sick.
If you are 'uneducated' you need to take care of that BEFORE you use your 'faith' as a weapon against the mentally and emotionally ill. That is not biblical, it is not responsible, it is not ethical or moral, and it may, depending on YOUR intervention in the medical treatment of a very ill person, amount to murder, if the person commits suicide on YOUR watch.
There are other Biblical reasons for divorce besides adultery and abandonment by an unbeliever. If you think this, you are taking those verses out of context, bigtime.
The Biblical reasons include abuse and neglect, see David Instone-Brewer's works and website. And abuse includes physical and emotional abuse.
If a man can't figure out how to treat his wife in a way so that she can RESPECT him as a Christian man, then HE NEEDS some help from his pastor.
When women are given the total burden for trying to make a marriage work with an out-of-control, childish bully;
the odds are stacked against the marriage.
The woman is told: you have no rights here but you have all the responsibility.
It's like tying a wife's hands behind her before sending her back to be beaten again: this time, she can't even count on the church to help her ward off the blows, because the church has tied her hands.
Some religion.
Actually, is this religion at all?
"My question is what culture was God looking at in Genesis 3 when He said man was to be the head of the house and if man is the head of his house how can he submit to his wife being pastor."
I guess I should not be, but I am still stunned when a seminary student writes such things as above. No where in scripture is the man said to be the 'head of the house'. There is a verse in Timothy about the woman being the despot (root word from the Greek) of the home, though.
If this is what you are being taught comes out of Gen 3 at an SBC seminary, we are in more trouble than we might know. They are literally teaching the consequences of sin as a good thing! Think if they said that using fertilizer for farming is a sin. Or working in an air conditioned office is a sin. You would be appalled. Same thing with the consequences of 'Teshuqua'.
Strange how that verse was translated as 'turning' until about the 1400's or so when some monk changed it to 'desire'.
The true implication is that because of SIN, Eve would turn toward her husband (away from God) and the consequence is that he would rule over her. It is a sinful state we see right away in Gen.
This quest for authority over another adult in Christendom is nothing but pure fleshly desire and it is a great snare for all of us. One can hardly read a chapter in the NT without coming across humility, service and love mentioned for Christians toward one another. We are reading lots of hierarchy into it that is NOT there.
Anonymous and Anonymous,
I agree that we must be "informed".
However, who are we going to trust to inform us?
Let's say, for example [I've modified this from Greg Bahnsen], I was evangelizing someone who believed in evolution and he started telling me "You little dweebe...You have your stupid little Sunday School 'faith' that you hang on to whereas I believe in science"
To which I ask "Well, why do you believe in evolution?"
To which he says "Well, my college professor said..." [I hope you see where I'm going]
Is this what you are advocating when it comes to mental illness? That we MUST blindly believe what the experts say because we think they arrive at their conclusions with blank slate objectivity and no axe to grind or fundamental commitments [like, let's say, keeping others dependent so that they make good cash money].
And speaking of money, I guess those who came to see Dr. Williams [before he became a prof at Southeastern] did not seem to have too big of a problem giving him their money [no matter where his school was ranked]. However, if I remember correctly, he came to the conclusion that it was not right/good/ideal [something like that] to take it and ended up leaving where he was working.
By the way, if you two are Christians, then why do you not go all the way and deny there is a Creator God in the first place?
I'm sure there are plenty of Ph.d's you could find in the field of science to put your faith in.
You might say "Ahh, but that's different..."
Well, why is it different?
God Bless,
Benji
Do not harm in the name of God.
Your 'faith' is not to be used for that and you know it.
People who are 'compromised' as a result of mental or emotional illness are GREATLY AT RISK
for 'charlatans' of any stripe to take advantage of.
A true minister of the Gospel would never advise a person in the care of a physician to stop medication abruptly or to leave treatment abruptly.
If you are not knowledgable: speak with a psychiatrist who specialized in neurology as an M.D.
Maybe then, you will learn about the damage that YOU, or any minister of the Gospel, can do in a case where someone is very ill.
You ARE responsible to God for what you do in HIS NAME.
Your pride means nothing before Him. Be careful how you use His Name.
You will answer to Him.
Oh, Benji. As a Christian, who is also a counselor, let me make a few points as you lump us all together.
1. This is my ministry and I do not make much money, especially in these economically hard times. Toi practice for the sake of money is not only anti-Christ, it is against every ethical code we practice by. By the way, would you do your profession without a salary? Should a mechanic work on your car and not get paid? Or do you just pray over your car when it breaks and believe God will fix it without assistance?
2. Some mental health issues ARE physical problems - imbalances which bloodwork shows. Prayer and fasting may not work, and medicine may be needed. Not always to be sure. We are an overmedicated society. But as one said, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Many problems are spiritual, or have a component of both, so when I pray with my clients, am I using secular psychology or Biblical healing?
3. I believe in a Creator God who has created all things, even the brain and body which sometimes go askew.
4. I believe that all things are to be sifted through a Christian world view - meaning to Scripture and dictrine for truth before accepted.
5. I am also a University professor and teach my students to take everything to Scripture as any Christian should do, whether that is finances, medical advice or eating healthy. What makes you think that I do not do that with my profession/ministry/calling?
Kate Johnson,
It was not my intent to say that "all" do it for the money. However, I think I could have articulated it better and so I am sorry for not doing so.
Let me cut to the chase and say that our fundamental disagreement is that you are an integrationist and I am a presuppositionalist.
I do not believe in "sifting through" in the sense of saying "well, the Bible does not contradict this idea from Dr. ________ and so I think this is OK."
I believe we must reason our way up based on the Bible and not apart from the Bible [see my comment Fri Jan 02, 02:23:00 PM 2009 for an example of what I am talking about].
Let me give one more example. I'm sure you use logic in class. But what if a student asked you how you know logic exists? You can't see/throw/eat logic.
If you tried to say "Well, logic does not contradict the Bible so I believe in it", then the student might still press you to explain why you believe in. Just because it does not contradict the Bible does not necessarily mean it exists, right?
However, since the Bible reveals the reality of logic [in that it uses it for one thing], then you could respond that you believe in logic based on Scripture and thus use it in the classroom.
Your perspective is a Christian one that believes in the reality of the seen and unseen.
It's the "I only believe what I see" perspective that will have the problem justifying the existence and thus the use of logic.
Also, please take note that I said earlier "I'm not comfortable saying that every single thing called a mental illness is a moral problem."
Grace to you,
Benji
Anonymous,
Please take note that I said "I'm not comfortable saying that every single thing called a mental illness is a moral problem."
Grace to you,
Benji
Kate Johnson,
Let me also say that, no, I do not want to say that it is wrong for everyone who does what you do to get paid.
Perhaps I was a tad aggressive in bringing up the example of Dr. William even though I respect what he "personally" did.
To take a step back, there are a variety of approaches when it comes to the Christian faith and the academy.
Greg Bahnsen summarizes the different approaches well here in this quote:
"Christians have long disagreed over the proper strategy to be assumed by a believer in the face of unbelieving opinions or scholarship. Some renounce extrabiblical learning altogether ("Jerusalem versus Athens"). Others reject Biblical teaching when it conflicts with secular thought ('Athens versus Jerusalem'). Some try to appease both sides, saying that the Bible and reason have their own separate domains ('Jerusalem segregated from Athens}. Others attempt a mingling of the two, holding that we can find isolated elements of supportive truth in extrabiblical learning ('Jerusalem integrated with Athens'). Still others maintain that extrabiblical reasoning can properly proceed only upon the foundations of Biblical truth ('Jerusalem the capital of Athens')."
* Quote from Always Ready: Directions For Defending The Faith by Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Robert R. Booth. Covenant Media Foundation, 3420 Piccadilly Circle, Nacogdoches, TX 75961, 1996, Pg 236. Copyright 1996 Robert and Virginia Bahnsen.
I believe in the "Jerusalem the capital of Athens" perspective.
Grace to you,
Benji
Here come the faith healers!
Hallelujah, baby.
No more doctors needed!
Faith Healing Parents Assert Religious Rights
December 20, 2008
by Daniel Florien
From ABC News:
A Clackamas County, Ore., couple accused of letting their infant daughter die by relying on prayer, rather than medicine, today asked that the charges be dropped, arguing that they infringe on their freedom of religion and their right to raise their children in their own way.
Carl Worthington, 28, and his wife, Raylene, 25, belong to a church that believes in faith healing, and police said that, instead of going to a doctor when their 15-month-old daughter Ava got sick, they turned to prayer.
The infant girl died March 2 from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and an infection, both of which could have been cured with common antibiotics, the medical examiner said.
Do you think these parents should be punished for not seeking medical help?
Does their church’s pastor bear any responsibility for this, since HE LED THEM to believe they should seek help from God instead of doctors?
Wade,
Since the letter by the woman discusses the limitations put on women desiring to serve in Southern Baptist ministry, I thought I would give you a heads up on a nice article in the Baptist Messenger about the female minister of music at FBC, Alva. The article is in this week's messenger.
If mental and emotional illness is due to 'not being right with God', then so is physical illness.
More faith, less medicine.
But don't do this to suffering innocents who can't decide for themselves;
do this to yourself,
so YOU CAN FEEL THE AGONY
WHILE YOU PRAISE THE LORD.
In short, YOU practice what YOU preach. Don't test it out on other sick people to see what happens.
Anonymous,
I think they should have gone to the doctor [even athiest doctors can borrow from the Christian worldview].
Even Jesus Himself in making a spiritual point used a physical example that shows the appropriateness of going to the doctor--Matt. 9:12.
Besides, my grandfather was a doctor [Duke University graduate] and so I guess I think doctors are cool in the first place:)
You need to make the connection that SOME mental and emotional illness is due to:
chemical imbalances in the brain
or
hormonal changes
You need to RESPECT that God gave doctors their gifts to help sick people.
You are a proud man.
You can hurt people with your pride.
"Still others maintain that extrabiblical reasoning can properly proceed only upon the foundations of Biblical truth"
On this we can agree, the Bible is foundational. On the rest, we will agree to dosagree.
Anonymous,
Why are you attacking me personally?
I don't think you have read what I have said earlier very carefully.
But before I end this [I've got things I believe I need to do], let me say a few things about some specifics.
1. I think putting the "negative" label ADD or ADHD is absolutely cruel. I think many of these kids have a creative bent and instead of putting a positive identity on them, people say they have a "disability".
2. I think the person who seems to accumulate more and More and MOOORE drugs to help them with what is called bipolar, etc. and talks about themselves being a victim of their biology and talks about drugs as if they are their best friend might be dependent on drugs like the one snorting cocaine. The differences being one is legal and the other is not, one is called a "MED" and the other is called a drug.
I do not deny that there are physical problems that make people feel awful, cause highly complex problems, etc.
I do agree with Kate Johnson that "We are an overmedicated society."
I do not have to *always* agree with finite doctors.
I want to always believe the infinite God who created those doctors in the first place.
It's drunkenness, not "suffering from" alcoholism.
It's grace within an encouraging community of believers, not the ever accumulating Meds that then conflict with each other so that you have to try another Med and then the side effect of that Med causes you to have to get on yet another drug, I mean MED, and you can't sleep at night so that you eat cheese while no one is watching and take sleeping pills and you sleep during the day and watch all of the nut case worldly secularists on the TV so that you feel better about yourself since you aren't doing nada to the glory of God and thus feel good about that...
I have read from the sidelines and I can't take it anymore. There is one reason this post has over 300 comments.
Girls Gone Wild
That's right. I said it. And that is not meant as a joke. No smiley face included.
It is ridiculous that not one man, fine Christians like Darby, Bob C., and Benji can make the simplest comment without being attacked and made to feel like a fool. It makes me sick just from the sideline.
The topic of this post, just like the other posts of this nature that bring out all the feminists (most of which post without even a nickname) always rack up 300 plus comments. 250 of the comments are cry babies that hate the fact that the Bible says that they are to be submissive to their husbands. So they jump on an "abuse bandwagon" to make themselves feel better about rewriting what God's Word says.
It's ridiculous and I'm fed up reading it. All of you should be ashamed because you take away from the one's who really have experienced abuse. They are so lost under your muck that no one even cares anymore.
I know, I know. You were all abused by your husbands, right?
Now, you women ruler wannabe's of house and church will find this comment offensive. As you may be able to tell by now, I couldn't care less. Get in line with all the rest of us that you have offended.
Suck it up and take it like a man. That's the role you want anyway.
I would rather watch the real Girls Gone Wild than read this nonsense.
And I'm a woman!!!
It's ridiculous and I'm fed up reading it. All of you should be ashamed because you take away from the one's who really have experienced abuse.
I am not anonymous and you are. Are you implying that I have not "really experienced abuse?" My email is in my blogger profile on my site. I am expecting an email from you shortly because you seem like someone who is interested in the truth.
"And I'm a woman!!!"
Oh, Miss Tarter was it (?),
have we offended you?
So sorry to assault your
Christian sensibilities.
It's just that we are sick of seeing women beaten up by such 'good Christian men'. :)
I guess that if a woman doesn't like it when she gets slapped around by her good Christian husband: that makes her a cry-baby.
So what SHOULD she do?
Kill the "son of a -----"?
Any ideas, Miss Tarter?
Oh. I'm sorry.
Let's ask the men.
THEY'LL TELL US WHAT TO DO.
OR THEY'LL TELL US TO SHUT UP, LIKE YOU JUST DID.
"Girls Gone Wild
That's right. I said it. And that is not meant as a joke. No smiley face included."
Wasn't that the name of one of the talks at the True Woman manifesto conference?
"Now, you women ruler wannabe's of house and church will find this comment offensive"
If you have read the comments, you would know that most of us believe in mutual submission as Eph 5:21 (and most of the NT including the very uncomfortable Matt 5) teaches for all believers. Most of us do not believe a true Christian would want "authority" over another adult Christian. We would want to serve them and love them. That would include standing for the truth of the Word and being compassionate about different interpretations of a secondary doctrine.
Blessings to you.
LADIES,
READ THE FOLLOWING,
BUT IT WILL MAKE YOU NAUSEATED:
SIGNS of Christian Men Who Hate Women: (misogynists)
1) "Any challenge or objection by his wife is met with rage, temper tantrums, or stony silence.
The Christian misogynist (yes, there are such people) often uses distortion of scriptural teaching to keep his partner "in her place."
2) "The reason is that once the woman changes a particular behavior to please him, another behavior becomes the target. The definition of what is pleasing constantly changes, so that she is kept off balance."
3) "A woman should examine whether her marriage relationship has most of these characteristics:
1. The man assumes he has the "God-given" right to control how she lives and behaves. Her needs or thoughts are not even considered.
2. He uses God, the Bible, and church doctrine to support his "right to tell her what to do," and demands that she "submit" unquestioningly to his desires, whims, decisions, or plans. There is no sense of mutuality or loving consideration. It is always his way or nothing.
3. She finds that she no longer associates with certain friends, groups, or even family members because of her need to keep him happy. Even though these activities or people are important to her, she finds herself preferring to avoid them in order to "keep the peace."
4. He believes and acts like her opinions, views, feelings, or thoughts have no real value. He may discredit them on principle or specifically because "she is a woman and easily deceived like Eve was." Or, he may give lip-service to respecting her thoughts, but later shoot them down one by one because they "are not logical."
5. He acts charming and sweet at church and is well-liked at work, yet at home the family has to "walk on eggs" to prevent setting him off.
People who do not see him at home find it hard to believe that she is really suffering emotional abuse.
He reinforces this feeling whenever she points out the differences between home and church by saying something such as ,
"Oh, quit exaggerating. I'm not like that!"
6. When she displeases him and he does not get his way, he yells, threatens, or sulks in angry silence.
7. She feels confused by his behavior because one day he can be loving, kind, charming, and gentle;
the next day he is cruel and full of rage.
The switch seems to come without warning.
8. No matter how much she tries to improve, change, or "grow in the Word," in her relationship with him,
she still feels confused, inadequate, guilty, and somehow off balance.
She never knows what will set him off next, and no matter how much she prays, he never changes.
She almost feels she must be "crazy" and she is sure it is her fault.
9. He acts possessive and jealous, even of her time with the children. He may even try to restrict her normal church activities because "a woman's place is in the home."
If other people, especially other men, notice her or talk to her, he becomes very angry or jealous.
10. When anything goes wrong in the home or in their relationship, the problem is always her.
If she would just be "more submissive"
or "more filled with the spirit" or "obey me like a good Christian wife,"
everything would be fine.
He seems blind to any cruelty or misbehavior on his part.
He actually sees himself virtuous for "putting up" with a woman like her."
4) "The unique feature of misogynists is that their abusive, nonempathetic grandiosity is directed toward the women in their lives.
Misogynists may occasionally exhibit these characteristics toward other people, but the brunt of their disorder is aimed at their wives.
5) "The misogynist is extremely control-oriented; he needs to control and dominate his wife."
6) "He may make sex mechanical (when and where he wants it), refuse to be concerned about her sexual satisfaction, becomes less and less physically affectionate after the wedding, express repulsion or disgust at the idea of romantically touching, or use blame or punishment when her sexual needs differ from his own."
7) "The goal of his emotional and psychological battering is to wear down his wife, to keep her under his control AT ALL COSTS.
Some of the tools of abuse and control are:
yelling,
bullying,
threatening,
temper tantrums,
name calling,
constant criticism,
verbal attacks,
ridiculing the woman's pain, subtle attempts to confuse her and make her doubt her sanity, forgetting things that happened between them,
accusations,
blaming,
and rewriting history.
The misogynist uses all these tactics with the overt aim to "teach you a lesson" or "make you a better person."
In Christian homes the justification for abuse becomes even more powerful.
Often God or the Bible is used to justify the verbal attack as "correction." "
If you were a really good Christian wife you'd . . . ," or "I only do this because God gave me the authority to lead you and be your spiritual head." These become stereotyped defenses. If the wife shows anger, fear, or weakness, she is "rebellious," "untrusting," or "immature in the Lord." If she questions her husband's decisions or opinions, she must be disciplined for her own good."
8) "Codependent women are usually deceived by the occasional "nice" behaviors that their mates exhibit."
"she must be disciplined for her own good"
Yes, by all means . . . .
Yes, even that.
I'm not anonymous either, and I have experienced marital abuse (at the hands of a husband who was a minister). Sue's got my experience beat by 20 more years of insanity, of course, but I'll openly 'fess up to my fair share.
In my experience, the comp/patriarchal doctrine we espoused fed my husbands need for power and control, and my submission to his control. In my case, there was no "sin," persay, as in no adultery, nothing like that, and no hitting physically, either.
I don't talk about the details very often, but I will today. Just stuff like, say, lists on how to clean the kitchen before I went to bed each night, telling me what time I had to get up in the morning, informing me what books I was not allowed to read, considering my differing opinions as sin (my "role" was to support his vision, not have any of my own), not allowing me to hang up any pictures in the house, telling me when I had to have babies (even though my body was broken down and I had to have a couple surgeries to repair things, etc), telling me what roads I could and could not drive on, telling me who I was to vote for at the polls, telling me where we were going to move, telling me where I had to go to church, commanding me not to speak during adult sunday school classes, and so on, plus regularly using Scripture to batter me into a complete state of confusion.
Despite the many claims of complementarians that a wife's submission will produce a beautiful marriage, my submission to my husband made everything worse...and then worse...and then worse, but the thing is, I was so blind to it all because it happened so slowly...I didn't realize just how bad it was, or just how much of a wreck I was becoming.
It took a major health crisis for me to even *begin* to be aware of what was happening, my body caving in because of the internal stress I was constantly dealing with, trying to make this man happy who would never be happy enough. That got my attention, but it would be a few more years before I would really begin to understand what was going on, and how much my comp theology had been used to tie me up and hand me to the abuser on a platter.
So, in my opinion, Sue isn't full of it. Submission to abuse produces more abuse. It's statistically documented, it's not something being made up, not some false claim concocted just to fight compism. It's actually a very valid critique of comp theology. The same reason that societies have learned not to give in to terrorism applies here: if you meet their unjust demands in one area, they will soon demand more in another area, until there is nothing left of you.
This is what happens to abused women who are taught to submit. These women are sitting in the pews at your church, listening to the sermons on how wives are to submit and husbands are to lead. Their abusive husbands are sitting in those same pews. You aren't setting the abused women free, you're adding more weighty chains to their ankles, and putting more whips in the hands of the abusers.
And then, and this is what probably bothers me the most, people have the audacity to chide the *abused women* (for being bitter, angry, for not "seeing that she was abused" [how could she see, especially given typical comp teaching!], or just for going completely mental).
What a mess we have made.
Among the other problems, being taught that a wife's "role" was to be submissive fed my inability to get the heck out (hard to see that you're being abused when you are repeatedly taught not to trust yourself---after all, your feminine nature means you will want to rebel, right?---and that you were made to be led/controlled/ruled). Like a frog cooking in the pot, the abused spouse has a difficult time seeing that they are abused, but when you add complementarian theology to the mix (male=leader, woman=follower), you are essentially patting the frog on the head and telling them that they were created for the pot.
I'm afraid I don't understand why someone would assume that women are lying about being abused? I also don't understand the frequent assumption that the only reason women would express frustration with comp doctrine is because they want to rule. I don't want to rule. I don't hear other women saying they want to rule, either.
This isn't about dominance. That may seem hard to comprehend, given that the comp message often assumes that it's all about dominance (who is dominant, who is subordinate" seems to be the core message in all comp sermons, no?).
But this isn't about dominance. Leaders are good. Following is good. Both leading and following are part of the Christian life. No baby is getting thrown out of any bathwater here. The point is just that leading is not relegated to males, nor is following relegated off to females. No, the NT clearly expresses that leading and following are virtues that are for *Christians,* irregardless of gender.
My husband fumed, as I came out of complementarianism and started reading my Bible more carefully, at the suggestion that he was to be submissive too. But why? Isn't that clearly in the Bible? Isn't it commanded of all Christians? Comp teaching made submission sound as if it was female-only. But that's not Scripturally accurate, not at all.
So, again, this isn't about dominance. No need to assert that any anti-comp women are trying to be the rulers. I don't want to rule you, or rule anyone else here. No "Jezebel spirit" here (love that term, regularly thrown at women who don't fall into line).
I would just love to see some other woman spared what I had to endure as a comp wife, that's all. This is just about being considered full human beings.
Seems simple, but ever since the Fall, it's been anything but simple.
Some people treat their dogs much better than they treat their wives.
I guess they like dogs.
To adventures: your husband sounds like he was very sick.
SUE said: I know by experience that submission to a bully feeds the bullying behaviour. Obey one order and the next one is snapped out faster.
The problem is not that anyone says a man is to order his wife around. The problem is that some men do this, and then the wife is told to submit and that is where the problem begins. That is the worst advice possible.
I don't think you have any idea what an entire lifetime in submission to a bully could be like.
I agree with your first observation that OBEYING a bully feeds the beast. However, I don't agree with your definition of "submission" as equivalent to OBEDIENCE! Biblical "submission" does NOT mean following orders! 1 Peter 3:1 "likewise" points back to Jesus as a role model for wives (and for husbands 1 Pet 3:7). And 1 Peter also identifies the sole female role model of submission identified for wives by God. Her name is Sara and a close look at her relationship with Abraham reveals some fascinating characteristics which every Christian wife should be aware of:
Taken in context, the passage is quite clearly addressed to wives (see 1 Pet 3:1) which I take to mean that Peter and God apparently had some confidence that “wives” are capable of understanding, interpreting, and and applying it! :)
I am a wife! :)
Here are some of my findings:
The passage does not tell wives to “obey your husband”. Not then, Not now. The reference to obeying husband is oblique “as SARAH obeyed ABRAHAM”. So, we need to look very carefully at Sarah’s role model. On a side note: Personally, it tickles me that SARAH is given as a wifely role model while husbands are told (Eph 5) that their role model is Christ. Sarah is ever so human and fallible and God is understanding and merciful to Christian wives, knowing our tendency to beat ourselves up mercilessly for our failures.
“even as Sara obeyed Abraham calling him lord”
Did you know that Abraham also obeyed Sara calling her “ruler”? And that it was GOD HIMSELF who instructed Abraham how to refer to his wife? “God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.” Gen 17:15 My paraphrase, “STOP calling your wife contentious and respect her when she speaks to you! SHE has authority!” GOD changed her name from Sarai (contentious) to Sarah (ruler)… which means that every time Abraham addressed his wife by name, he called her “ruler” and he would have been very much aware of that. (so its only fair that she addressed him as lord- like a queen calling her husband king and vice versa)
Sarah (ruler) assertively speaks GOD’s will and GOD’s Word (that which Abraham found “displeasing”).
Look at Sarah here:
Gen 21:9-12
Exactly how much more authoritative can one get? All at once she speaks with authority into Abraham’s life, into history, and right into the Word of God in the new covenant:
Gal 4:29-31
How is that for GOD exercising HIS OWN AUTHORITY behind the “displeasing” words of a wife?
I LOVE that GOD will do that for a wife of a disobedient husband!
It is ever so comforting and encouraging! :)
I see Sarah as having her own relationship with GOD, her own communication with GOD, her own faith, and her own walk of submission and obedience to GOD. (She is in the Hebrews 11 hall of faith in her own right.) In Gen 21:9-12, I see Sarah as walking in submission and obedience to GOD. She heard from GOD and said what GOD’s will was for their marriage, history, etc. And GOD informed Abraham that he needed to obey her… which is significant and powerful and I’m sure GOD knew that when HE designated Sarah as the role model for wives of disobedient husbands. :)
And I believe that GOD still honors wives who have faith in HIM, hear from HIM, obey HIM, and speak HIS Words into the lives of their husbands (even when it is displeasing to the husband as it was to Abraham). They will be daughters of Sarah if they “do what is right and do not give way to fear.”
“do what is right” means to DO what is right, to walk in the way GOD leads, EVEN IF it is “displeasing” to her husband. Wifely submission is an attitude of humble cooperation which operates in the best interests of the husband, which is precisely what Sarah was doing when she told Abraham to “get rid of the slave woman”.
The passage and Sarah’s role model is filled with HOPE for women married to disobedient husbands. When she is right and her husband is stubborn, the very GOD OF HEAVEN is with her and will be speaking to her husband. :) (Course Abraham was a man of faith in his own right. He checked with GOD. I fear some modern Christians want to justify keeping their slaves and neglect to check with GOD——> high divorce rate!!!)
Gem,
For me the word "submission" was not the issue. I had vowed to obey and I was told to obey every single thing that I was told to do. If I was not able to do EXACTLY as I was told to the letter then I had to apologize and be punished - physically.
It is very disturbing to me that I did not leave earlier. The reasons are very complex. We were geographically very remote and isolated from friends and family for many years.
The person that I was cries out to me every day to be rescued and comforted. This is a very disturbing issue and I cry for a long time after writing something like this. I have written and deleted this comment many times so you must only imagine what it was like.
In other ways I have been very lucky. I do not in a real sense feel sorry for myself or bitter. I am very grateful, but at the same time the broken person is here writing and the tears are all over the place. This is a very dark thing, to enter into a lifetime of servitude.
A Hebrew word for husband can also be translated as lord.
Ba`al baw-al'
Parts of Speech TWOT
Verb 262
Definition
to marry, rule over, possess, own
(Qal)
to marry, be lord (husband) over
to rule over
(Niphal) to be married
Jan
"A man must love his wife at least as much as himself but honor her more than himself."
Where God is respected in a marriage, there will be peace in the home.
The husband shows honor to his wife whom he is to love more than he loves himself.
In response, his wife will respect and love him.
'and the two shall become one'
Jan,
There certainly were "lord" husbands in the OT (and up through history until now). What is at issue is whether or not *God* actually *created* men to be lords over their wives, not whether or not sinful men think themselves to be lords over their wives.
It is also interesting to note that God, when speaking of Himself as a husband, said He wanted His bride to call Him, "Ishi," not "Baali." (See Hosea). It appears that Ishi is a better thing than being a Baal.
Anonymous,
Yes, you are right. He was sick. But what's important is to realize that the entire time, he looked fantastic from the outside. He was a minister (and actually did a wonderful job in the church), much loved and lauded, and all but the most perceptive of individuals NEVER would have guessed that anything was wrong.
In fact, that was one of the things that really confused me...I kept thinking it must be *me* (which is exactly what he always said), since he was so great with everyone else... And of course, I never told anyone what was going on. You know, respect and stuff.
I don't know how many times in the comp books for wives I've read that we must respect our husbands, no matter what, and that includes not talking about our husbands faults. Because I was so faithful to follow that definition of respect, meaning to never ever talk about him or express open frustration of any kind, I was denied the perspective that others could have brought into my marriage. Someone could have told me it was BAD a long time ago. But no one knew. We looked so perfect on the outside.
Sue,
((((hugs))))
You've suffered so much. You are a dear soul and what happened to you was so wrong. You are so strong and so brave.
If computer screens can carry huge hugs, know that yours is now bearing you much love from a sister in Alaska. And THANKS AGAIN so much for that sweet sweet Christmas gift!!!! :)
Adventure,
I have been very lucky in other respects and so I don't think I suffered that much. I escaped into a mental space that people go to when reality is too much. I feel more hurt now in some ways.
I have many blessings and I am not bitter about this at all. I know that the other person also suffers and I often wonder if some proper teaching or better environment might have made some difference and enabled this situation to be addressed earlier to everyone's benefit. He is an intelligent Christian man in many ways, and does not fit any profile mentioned here. I think intergenerational damage is the best explanation for what happened. It is very sad.
I simply want to people to understand that this is a silent and very misunderstood circumstance. If I don't try to express what it is like, then people really don't know, and they can't be responsible for what they don't know.
If someone is made to live in a situation in which they always have to submit or obey, and the other person has all authority, and never submits, it is extremely difficult to retain one's sanity especially when children are involved.
I think the church has seriously lost its way on this.
I'm not doubting all the abuse stories. God bless and I pray all works out in the end.
But some of you ladies need to learn how to pick a husband to begin with.
To say that he was perfect before you married but then turned into this evil devil after you married is a little too difficult to believe considering the depth of his evil actions.
Again, to sum up. To me, there is no doubt abuse has occured with some of you, but better choices by you and better guidance for you was needed when you were choosing the proper mate.
Anon,
I am not sure you understand your words... you have again joined with a society that blames the woman for the abuse she suffers.... it is her fault for picking him.
As I often point out when people say that you should have seen... xyz, I am sure that the disciples thought Judas was a good guy, too. And they lived WITH him for three years when they all said, no, Lord. Not one of us! We love you! Only God saw his true heart.
Abuse is insideous, a slow burning process that has you before you figure out what is going on, and if people who abuse were not so good at what they do, then they would all have a scarlet A on their foreheads and we would see them from a mile away. Alas, they do not and often come as an angel of light - sound familiar?
(and I do not call it a sickness - it is evil and it is an choice by one to abuse another)
To say that he was perfect before you married but then turned into this evil devil after you married is a little too difficult to believe considering the depth of his evil actions.
Again, to sum up. To me, there is no doubt abuse has occured with some of you, but better choices by you and better guidance for you was needed when you were choosing the proper mate.
Sat Jan 03, 09:32:00 AM 2009
Anonymous,
I was much like you so I can relate to your comment. But then the Lord decided to teach me compassion. I would not wish that on anyone because it was so painful. But, it also saved me from a hardening heart.
Dear Sue,
I once shared about my young daughter (I think she was about twelve at the time) who visited the home of a school friend for dinner.
The family was Protestant, but I don't know what denomination.
The father treated the mother with great disrespect in front of my daughter and in front on his own children.
The stories my daughter told me about what happened were remembered by me when I read here of some of the verbal and 'spiritual' abuse that 'Christian' husbands have inflicted on their wives.
My daughter told me that the mother was virtually silent, did whatever she was told to do by the husband, and could look no one in the eye.
My daughter had never seen anything like this before. Apparently the father was very sick in the way that he talked to his wife, quoting scripture the whole time he was berating her.
We are Catholic, so I had no reference at the time to explain things to my child as to what was going on. My Jenn was SO upset, for her friend, for the mother, and for the other children in the family, that when she talked about the visit, she cried.
My daughter never went back to that 'Christian' home again, but their daughter came to our home frequently and we included her into our family like she was one of our own. She loved being in our home.
My daughter and I did pray for the family together and I tried to help my daughter understand but what can one say to a child of twelve?
What can one say? L's
Again, to sum up. To me, there is no doubt abuse has occured with some of you, but better choices by you and better guidance for you was needed when you werechoosing the proper mate.
Better guidance would certainly openly state that obedience is totally inappropriate in a marriage relationship. This is why Darby's book was so upsetting to me, It is books like this that tell a woman to expect the husband to make all the decisions on every aspect of family life.
Perhaps he meant well but he praised Sarah for staying with Abraham who was himself an inappropriate husband. Christian literature must change. Liturature which normalizes controlling behaviour, such as one person making all decisions, is not helpful.
Inappropriate focus on sexuality and marriage also does not help. A woman needs to be taught that she can function fully as an individual and does not need to be burdened with the woman's role aside from the fact that IF she marries she will be the mother.
This is one point of the original post. Women need to be treated as equals.
"Women need to be treated as equals."
Amen.
SUE said The person that I was cries out to me every day to be rescued and comforted. This is a very disturbing issue and I cry for a long time after writing something like this. I have written and deleted this comment many times so you must only imagine what it was like....
I have been very lucky in other respects and so I don't think I suffered that much. I escaped into a mental space that people go to when reality is too much. I feel more hurt now in some way
I think you feel more hurt because you have a tender heart.
I have been praying for you today, Sue and my heart goes out to you... Its true that the wounds hurt worse later on when the time comes where we are in a safe enough place to process the pain. These tears are cleansing and healing tears, though. I pray that the GOD of COMFORT will embrace you deeply, that you will feel His comfort and be able to discern His love and protection past, present, and future.
We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered … We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life.
But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God…
He has delivered …
he will deliver us.
On him we have set our hope that
he will continue to deliver us, (quotes from 2Cor 1:8-11 NIV)
DO you hear what I hear?
past, present, and future DELIVERANCE
HE cared, HE cares, HE always will care
HE WAS there, HE IS there, HE always will be there!
GEM,
What you wrote is beautiful.
SUE,
I know you will find God's Healing Peace. I will pray for you that you don't suffer so much sadness.
Love, L's
SUE said:If someone is made to live in a situation in which they always have to submit or obey, and the other person has all authority, and never submits, it is extremely difficult to retain one's sanity especially when children are involved.
I think the church has seriously lost its way on this.
I agree that the "church" has seriously lost its way on this!
Sue, would you agree that the people who are so strident about "submission" and pointing the finger at others who are "unsubmissive" tend to be those who have a log in their own eye? Was your abuser a SUBMISSIVE man? Did he SUBMIT to correction? to bosses? to the laws of the land???
The reason I ask is because I think you do yourself a disservice to come down so hard in opposition to BIBLICAL SUBMISSION. As Molly pointed out in an earlier comment, ALL CHRISTIANS are responsible for being submissive. I'm really not sure that a person can be a genuine Christian and lack submission? My point is that when God gives instructions for wives to be submissive, HE is merely telling them a way they can role model Jesus Christ to their husbands and the world.
WHY are some men so afraid of submission? WHY do they think submission is only for women? Because they have a wrong view of what submission IS. They think submission is weak, powerless, easily exploited, lacks authority... My job as a wife is to demonstrate GENUINE BIBLICAL submission
I reject the LIES about submission and I embrace the TRUTH of BIBLICAL SUBMISSION
In submission lies POWER
In submission lies AUTHORITY
In submission lies FREEDOM
In submission is dignity and honor
I already talked about Sarah (the only named female role model of submission) but think about some other Biblical characters:
Esther. I really never heard anyone claim that Esther was unsubmissive. Yet, think about it. She directly defied at least two of her husband's laws/edicts. She was a most disobedient wife! She submissively asserted herself with great spiritual authority and anointing. Esther's husband (pagan though he was) still listened to his wife and a great many were saved- a very inspiring story of the power of a spirit filled woman when women had no social nor political power whatsoever.
Abigail. (1 Sam 25) I have heard her called "unsubmissive" but the Bible does not label her thus. The BIBLE says "And she was a woman of good understanding and beautiful appearance; but the man was harsh and evil in his doings." In order to save her household, Abigail goes directly against a decision her husband had made. And she sure doesn't whitewash his character or cover for his bad decision when she speaks of him to David: "May my lord pay no attention to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name is Fool, and folly goes with him. But as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my master sent". Nabal died. Abigail and her household lived.
Sapphira- (Acts 5) I'm afraid much of modern marriage teaching would commend her for being a "good follower" of her husband :(
Note that she agreed with him to "LIE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT". In modern psychobabble, I think we would call her "in denial". Her denial led to her death right on the tailcoat of her husband.
May you and your household LIVE, Sue, and bring words of life and freedom to many! (Some of your blogging on original language word studies is very enlightening and speaks and breathes LIFE to me... Do you ever find that some of your deepest insight comes out of deep pain? What was meant for evil, to steal kill and destroy, is REDEEMED!)
Gem,
The most explanatory passage I have read on biblical submission is this,
1Clem 38:1-2
"So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with his special grace.
Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He hath given him one through whom his wants may be supplied. Let the wise display his wisdom, not in words, but in good works. He that is lowly in mind, let him not bear testimony to himself, but leave testimony to be borne to him by his neighbor. He that is pure in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestoweth his continence upon him."
I contend that in this passage the proper acting out of submission is that the strong minister to the weak and in response the weak give thanks to God.
This is the proper relationship and not authority and submission as Ware teaches, but grace and gratitude, and in a marriage each person bears each gift to the other, both grace and gratitude.
On the matter of how I have used the word "submission" in other ways. Let me rephrase this. If anyone COMPLIES or OBEYS a selfish request then selfishness is reinforced. If there is the tiniest bit of dominance or command or superior right to have one's way expressed by the husband, then the compliance of the wife is the surest way to reinforce it and help it grow.
I will not continue to debate the semantics. It is clear that culturally much of early church writing and the scriptures inhabit a place of tension between a sinful male dominated culture and a mutuality seeking spiritual core.
My sense is that when the dominance driven ethic increases, some will exit church.
Gem,
My deepest insights, as you call them - I don't make that claim, come out of dialogue. I would not recommend that people seek pain in order to have insight. :-) Frankly I just consider myself lucky that Grace Irwin maintained an active classics dept in my high school and I benefitted from that and went on to Near Eastern Studies. Grace went on to be the pastor of a church near the high school. She was elderly at that time and never did approve of "feminism." She did approve of study and spirituality. She died this fall at the age of 101.
L's,
I just saw your comment now and Gem's earlier one.
My thoughts are that pain is suppressed while one is in a very unhappy situation and comes out later. Perhaps it is not so much supressed as denied. Perhaps many people are in much worse situations than I would ever know. Many people suffer many terrible things.
But clearly what happens to some women is that they suffer specifically because of church teaching. This is what I want to bring attention to.
I would like to share that about half of the people that write to me are men who also have experienced severe disappointment in some personal way. I have no intention of lining up women against men, but want to bring attention to our common humanity, our common vulnerablity. I appeal to men to accept women as full sisters, and "neighbours" in the biblical sense.
There is a beautiful French poem - which I have forgotten - which contains the line "when will women be our brothers?"
I ask the same question "When will men in the church treat women as their brothers?" (Well, it worked in French, but sounds odd in English.)
Dear Sue,
I agree with your observation that repression is certainly one way women unknowingly use to cope at a time of unendurable pain.
Recently, about two years ago, I had occasion to see a psycologist for the strangest reason (or at least I thought at the time):
I experienced a severe emotional upset over something that happened OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. I told the doctor that it was 'like it happened yesterday' and that I couldn't understand the strength of my feelings about something so far in the past.
He explained that what I was going through was normal in the sense that emotions do not behave like thoughts and memories: emotions exist 'outside of time' in us and can come back 'like it happened yesterday'.
Turns out, I had not dealt with the situation in my past at all. I had pushed the feelings away and refused to deal with them and tried to go on. And I did, for thirty years, until those feelings came back.
We have to embrace our feelings as a part of who we are: we live on this earth and we earn the right to our feelings, even the painful ones. So I embraced and then I let go of the pain. The pain slowly subsided: like the psychologist had 'lanced' a boil and the 'infection' drained away.
I've thought about the pain: I've thought it was like a grieving for something lost to me. Yes, it was like a grieving.
I hope you find comfort in sharing with us women here. Women understand these things better than men, you know, because we women are already on page two. :)
Love and a big hug from me, also.
L's
I have written what I have written to support the thesis of this post. Yes, some doctrines in the church do set women up for abuse. That is my experience and I very much appreciate the supporting comments. I hope that Mary Gruben can accept them also as extended to her. I thank her very much for having the courage to post on this topic.
Jan said: A Hebrew word for husband can also be translated as lord.
Ba`al baw-al'
Parts of Speech TWOT
Verb 262
Definition
to marry, rule over, possess, own
(Qal)
to marry, be lord (husband) over
to rule over
(Niphal) to be married
Jan
Thank you for pointing that out, Jan. That is another very interesting piece of the puzzle and food for thought. I do recall from children's Bible stories the evils of idolatrous "Ba'al worship". I am presently reading a book on the atonement which quotes Jer 31 at length in the chapter on "covenant". In part:
Jer 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
I looked up the word "husband" there and it is that Hebrew ba'al
Right Quick,
I want to give all of the secular and/or Christian counselors the benefit of the doubt that any of them do what they do with the intent to make money.
Let's assume the best about them. Let's assume they do what they do with the intent to help people.
However, if they are operating on the presupposition of soft/hard naturalism, then they still are harming people no matter what their intent is.
"Do Southern Baptists Set Women Up for Abuse?"
If the WOMAN loves being treated as the church suggests,
it is not technically 'abuse' but it may be a form of masochism, depending on the degree of 'submission' if she offers her body to be beaten by the 'disciplining' husband.
It may be more that the SBC sends a MIXED MESSAGE to couples.
The 'vagueness' of the SBC in outlining 'submission' without promoting 'husbandly love and respect for his wife above himself' MAY BE THE PROBLEM.
Actually, Patterson's record of personally responding to an abusive situation may be taken as the role-model by some husbands.
In this case, the 'setting up' of wives for abuse is definitely true.
More recent statements by the SBC 'vaguely' support the safety of women, if not their dignity as human beings under the protection of the Golden Rule.
The SBC seems pretty satisfied with the status quo of how husbands treat their wives. It is the WOMEN they are working on: the SBC is requiring that women be more submissive, less prominent in Church roles: so the SBC is not done with women yet.
Let's see how the SBC evolves in the future: maybe the 'vagueness' will dissipate and the answer to 'do Southern Baptists set women up for Abuse?' will come more into focus.
As of now, the answer for many is yes: and most of those answering 'yes' are,of course, the women.
QUESTION: what is it about being a 'born-again' Christian that puts you at higher risk for divorce?
ANSWER: It's the fact that you're delusional.
The question? Well, it is simply an oxymoron.
It is not possible to be a true "born again" Christian and yet be at a higher risk for divorce than those that are of the world.
The answer? Well, it is simply from a moron.
The question remains a serious one: the comments reflect the NEED for serious debate on the issue.
A couple of things...
First, to "Anonymous" who tried to clarify the different levels of training for mental health professionals. You were close, but a little off, because every state has different titles/licenses for mental health professionals.
Social Workers -- These have Master's degrees and some have training in therapy and some have training in helping people get connected with all kinds of services.
Licensed Professional Counselors/Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists -- These have Master's degrees and their training and practice is all in therapy.
Psychologists -- These have Ph.D's and are qualified to do therapy, but usually do more psychological testing and consulting.
Psychiatrists -- These are medical doctors who have chosen psychiatry as their specialty. They rarely do therapy and almost exclusely do medication management.
Second,
As a counselor who used to work in a Domestic Violence shelter, I too cringed every time I saw a pastor walk in. Generally, if he wasn't trying to directly encourage the woman to return to the husband he was reporting how the husband had attended church the last Sunday, walked the aisle, cried, "rededicated his life to the Lord," and asked the pastor to begin counseling the couple. Now, there were some good pastors who were there to minister to the wife and children, and I rejoiced when that happened, but that was the exception and not the rule. I can't even count how many of these women who went back after their husband's display ended up back in the shelter again.
Lastly,
There are some very good therapeutic interventions for abusers who WANT to change. These are not quick "anger management" classes. Good treatment lasts from six months to a year and focuses on a group of abusers holding themselves and each other accountable with guidance from the Mental Health Professional in learning new skills to use in their relationships.
I absolutely believe in the healing power of God in any situation, but we are broken people living in a broken world and perfection will only be realized in the end. Until that time, we must discipline ourselves to allow the work of the Holy Spirit to perfect us. And, I've never seen instantaneous perfection after someone walked an aisle and cried.
"Submit ye yourselves one to another out of reverence for Christ."
In light of this verse, ALL Christians submit to one another. All following verses demand nothing more than Christian submission to one another.
One fruit of the Spirit is self-control (egkrateia).
Webster defines it as "restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desire."
Notice, the Holy Spirit does not give us "spouse-control."
The current SBC attitude towards women IS demeaning. I would ask Christian men who subscribe to that type of thinking to follow Christ's advice to treat others the way they would want to be treated. I would request that they ask themselves, "Would I want to be told that I was created as a 'helper' to someone else? That I must obey another human being as if I am a child? That I don't deserve the American ideal of self-governance, even though God placed me in America and I also have a responsibility to submit to my country's structure of government? That my place is defined ONLY by my gender and husband, not by God as He gives me gifts through the Holy Spirit?"
On a side note, I am amazed at the number of American men who have a demeaning worldview of women yet feel victimized and limited by affirmative action initiatives and certain federal laws.
It seems they want a dictatorship for their wives and self-rule for themselves.
Although I find fundamentalist views of women to be unbiblical and abhorrent, I still pray that fundamentalists will take the gospel of our Lord to all ends of the earth, in light of the spirit of Luke 9:50.
I just wish the SBC would wake up and extend a Luke 9:50 attitude to their sisters in Christ.
"As a recent study by George Barna showed, the percentage of born-again Christians who have been divorced (27) actually beats the national average by 2 points."
Is it possible that the general population marries later than born-again Christians, and that later marriages are less prone to divorce? Or, that the general population is not as committed to marriage, but for those that do marry, marriage is really important?
Statistics, statistics. They often don't mean what they think you mean.
I can't stop thanking Dr Ekpen for helping me to get my ex back, with Dr Ekpen spell you can get your ex back no matter how long the separation as been. Contact Dr Ekpen today on (ekpentemple@gmail.com) to help you get your ex back
Post a Comment