Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence

Voices

2011-04-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

For the past few months, Cindy Kunsman and I have been discussing the abusive paradigm of patriarchal religion on our BlogTalkRadio Show. Sometimes the impact of the things we talk about can overwhelming. I, for one, would love nothing better than to have a show that deals with light, pleasant topics--anything but the horrors of places like Hephzibah House--but we feel led, even compelled, by the Holy Spirit to turn the flood light of truth upon these dark places and expose the lies and abuses that take place in the name of Christ. We do this in hopes (along with fervent prayers) that eyes will be opened, that lives will be changed for the better, that abuses in the name of Christ will be stopped, that Christian men and women will stand up and refuse to lend their support, any longer, to evil agendas.

What a travesty that pain, suffering, and ugliness is propogated in the name of our dear Savior who came that we might have life and that more abundantly, and that men who would be god would impose their cruel images over that of Him who is altogether lovely.

On April 18, Cindy did an episode entitled Helplessness and Bounded Choice, and Life at Hephzibah House which helps us to understand a little better why victims are often voiceless and why we must lend our voices to them, raised in opposition to religious systems that not only offer no life or hope but actually steal those things from us.

Opening Statements Video of Seneca Falls 2

2010-09-08T06:41:00.000-07:00

Jocelyn Andersen's opening statements (video) at the Seneca Falls 2 Christian Women's Rights Convention held in Orlando, Florda on July 24, 2010

Woman this is War: Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System of Complementarianism from FreeCWC on Vimeo.

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition: Complementarianism: Sowing the Wind and Reaping th...

2010-08-23T07:58:00.000-07:00

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition: Complementarianism: Sowing the Wind and Reaping th...: "More and more people are asking, “Is it legal for state created organizations, such as 501c3 tax exempt corporations, to practice and promot..."

Under Much Grace Blog: A Review of Andersen's "Woman This is War" Part I of III (Concerning Christian History)

2010-08-19T06:20:00.000-07:00

Under Much Grace Blog: A Review of Andersen's "Woman This is War" Part I of III (Concerning Christian History)

Under Much Grace Blog: A Review of Andersen's "Woman this is War" Part II of III (Concerning Doctrine and Gender Bias)

2010-08-19T06:12:00.000-07:00

Under Much Grace Blog: A Review of Andersen's "Woman this is War" Part II of III (Concerning Doctrine and Gender Bias)

Under Much Grace Blog: A Review of Andersen's "Woman this is War" Part III of III (Concerning Abuse and Insidious Totalitarianism)

2010-08-19T06:10:00.000-07:00

Under Much Grace Blog: A Review of Andersen's "Woman this is War" Part III of III (Concerning Abuse and Insidious Totalitarianism)

Apology Demand Fed Ex'd to J Ligon Duncan III and to Randy Stinson

2010-07-26T19:30:00.000-07:00

ORLANDO, Fla. (ABP) -- A group of women and men calling themselves the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition has demanded an apology for religious teaching they say is harmful to women. Shirley Taylor, founder of Baptist Women for Equality, presented the Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at a July 24 meeting in Orlando, FL....
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5370/53

The Demand was Fed Ex'd to the CBMW today. Fed Ex Tracking numbers:

Tracking number 790720735778 to J Ligon Duncan III

Tracking number 792202508448 to Randy Stinson

Copy and Paste numbers here to view delivery confirmations http://www.fedex.com/Tracking

The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition Demands Apology

2010-07-24T15:34:00.000-07:00

FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN COALITION

July 24, 2010

Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood
2825 Lexington Road, Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280

And

Dr. J Ligon Duncan III
Chairman of the Board of the CBMBW
First Presbyterian Church
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202

The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition met on July 24, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, and agreed and affirmed this Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood because of the concerns as listed in the following pages.

For the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.

Sincerely,

Shirley Taylor
Waneta Dawn
Cynthia Kunsman
Janice Levinson
Jocelyn Andersen

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition

DEMAND FOR AN APOLOGY FROM THE COUNCIL ON BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD

At a time in our church history that the main focus should be on winning lost souls and spreading the gospel to a hurting world, we fear for the future because the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood has placed a greater priority on women’s submissive role rather than on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is with that thought in mind that we make these statements.

1. We are concerned that men are being taught that they are god-like in their relationship to women within the church and home. As the mothers, wives, and daughters of these men, it is our concern that this doctrine is setting them up for failure as Christian fathers, husbands and sons;

2. we are concerned about the sin that evangelical church leaders commit when they deny the love of Christ fully to women simply because they were born female;

3. we are concerned about the damage this causes to families when husbands and fathers are told that they have Headship over their wives and daughters;

4. we are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse, and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women;

5. we are concerned that the children who attend churches that subscribe to the principles of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood will grow up not knowing the full redemptive power of the blood of Jesus for both men and women;

6. we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females;

7. we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women;

8. we are concerned about the mistranslation of the scriptures by complementarian translation committees and by the false teachings propagated by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

9. we are concerned that pastors who teach and preach male domination/female subordination cannot relate in a loving, Christ-like manner to female members of their congregations because they have already judged them and found them lacking;

10. we are concerned that the issue of wifely submission, promoted so heavily by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God.

It is because of these concerns that:

1. We demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood acknowledge the harm that has been done to the church body by The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, confess it as sin, and denounce it;

2. we demand that denominational leaders and all churches and seminaries which have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do the same;

3. we demand a public apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, and from all heads of seminaries and Bible colleges that have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, for the inestimable damage this statement has done to all Christians whose lives have been influenced by it;

4. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to promote the Biblical design of functional equality for all Christians, both men and women;

5. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to speak out against pastors who continue to demean women and oppress Christians by the use of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

6. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood chastise pastors who claim that abuse of women is acceptable and justified because the wife is not submitting to the husband;

7. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood make known to every boy and every girl who attend an evangelical church, that God is their head, and that authority over another human being can come only from God;

8. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach men that they share equally in the burden of society’s ills, and that all that is wrong with society today cannot be blamed on women;

9. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do everything in their power to teach seminarians to show the love of Christ to both men and women;

10. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach pastors to be loving towards those Christian men and women who disagree with The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

11. and, finally, for the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.

Shirley Taylor, bWe Baptist Women for Equality , Presented at the
Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women’s Rights Convention July 24, 2010 in Orlando, Florida

AFFIRMED BY THE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN COALITION AT THE SENECA FALLS 2 EVANGELICAL WOMENS RIGHTS CONVENTION
JULY 24, 2010 IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Under Much Grace Blog: As Christian Women Unite For Freedom From The Evangelical Caste System, I Repent for Using the Term "Complementarian"

2010-07-15T09:52:00.000-07:00

Under Much Grace Blog: As Christian Women Unite For Freedom From The Evangelical Caste System, I Repent for Using the Term "Complementarian"

Patriarchy Leads to Abuse. Period.

2010-07-05T07:12:00.000-07:00

As a formerly battered Christian wife who is alive only by supernatural intervention ( you can read about that in the first chapter of my book which is posted at www.WomanSubmit.com ), it is my profound belief (backed up by studies and statistics) that strongly held attitudes of male supremacy are largely responsible for domestic violence. That is why I work so hard to raise awareness of both issues within the Christian community.

Registration is still open for the Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women's Rights Convention to be held in Orlando in a few weeks. It is a free conference. Please come and bring some friends if you can. ~~jocelyn

http://www.senecafalls2.com/

Q & A With Jocelyn Andersen About "Woman this is WAR!"

2010-07-01T17:38:00.000-07:00

What is Woman this is War! about? Woman this is WAR! is about change. Women are second class citizens in most churches and many homes. This is not only un-Christian and un-Biblical but it is emotionally and spiritually detrimental to all involved, and sometimes physically dangerous to women and girls.

Can you elaborate on that statement? How can it be healthy and beneficial when evangelical leaders call men who love their families but have no desire to rule over their wives, "wimps?" And harmful prejudice against women is encouraged when Christians are taught that the underlying motive in the heart of every woman is to dominate men. Studies are showing that aggression and violence is increasing in young boys as well as college age young men and it is being connected with strongly held beliefs about gender roles. Sadly, the evangelical church is the primary propagator of this harmful paradigm. Complementarian teachings are often interfering in otherwise happy marriages and creating problems where previously there were none. The Church is pitting husbands and wives against each other. This must stop.

You sound like a feminist; isn't feminism opposed to Christianity and Biblical teaching? The definition of feminism has evolved over the years but at its most basic is simply "advocating for social and political equality for women."

The earliest definitions of the word were derogatory, and it is the fact that Webster's Dictionary first defined feminism as "the 'cult' of advocating for social and political equality for women" that is largely responsible for the stigma still attached to the word today. Language unarguably plays a large part in defining cultural attitudes.

There is no evidence that Christian feminism can be connected with secular feminism in any way. It is not a spin-off. Anti-feminist author Mary Kassian admits this in her book, The Feminist Mistake. It is a sad fact that evangelical historians and authors have ignored and even grossly misrepresented significant Christian initiatives in the many movements for women's rights. Committed Christians, both women and men, have been instigators in the various movements for women's rights from the very beginning. For instance, four of the five women who organized the Seneca Falls Woman's Rights Convention in 1848, were Quakers. Christian involvement in women's rights spans oceans and continents and can be traced to the 17th century. The first feminist is said to be a Christian. I write about her in my book too.

Christian women have a rich heritage in advocating for equality of the sexes; and it is a heritage we should be proud of.

What about women in the Church? The complementarian teaching that men should lead and women should follow cannot be substantiated with scripture. This teaching actually comes out of paganism. There are no scriptural prohibitions against women teaching or leading in either the Old Testament or the New. In Woman this is WAR! I cover this question in a great deal of detail.

Your title accuses the church of aligning itself with caste and slavery in regards to women; how can this be justified? Because it is true. Many evangelicals teach that women are born to subordination for the simple fact that they are born female. Complementarians teach that there is nothing a woman can do to rise above the fact of her birth. This is caste. As far as slavery is concerned, many of the arguments used to keep women in subjection are identical to the arguments used by slaveholders in attempts to prove that slavery was divinely mandated by God. I recently spoke with a young complementarian who still believes slavery was mandated by God and was beneficial to the slave in many ways! Unbelievable! In the book, I draw many parallels between the attitudes of 19th century slaveholders and those of 21st century traditional role religionists and complementarians.

It sounds like you cover a great deal of historical background in your book: Yes, Woman this is WAR! is a treasure trove of historical information relevant to the issue and should be of interest to anyone researching not only the Christian aspects of the history of women's rights but also Black History. Some prominent figures in the movement for women's rights were former slaves, and also, some prominent African Americans who played a large part in freedoms so many enjoy today were devout Christians.

http://www.womansubmit.com/

The Development and Practice of Patriarchy

2010-06-28T04:05:00.000-07:00

Watch this video for an eye-opening exposé by **Cynthia Kunsman of a movement that is making alarming inroads into mainstream Christianity http://www.vimeo.com/3224305

**Cynthia Kunsman is a featured speaker at the Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women's Rights Convention to be held in Orlando, FL next month http://www.senecafalls2.com/

Where In the Bible...?

2010-06-22T03:58:00.000-07:00

God's "Design" for men and women. Where in the Bible can that word or even the concept be found? Can someone produce a scripture that specifically uses the words "God's Design" in reference to men and women? And God blessed them and said unto them...have dominion.

On Father's Day, the pastor preached about "roles" for men and women. Where in the Bible can the word "roles" be found? Can someone produce a single scripture containing that word?

He talked about the "authority" given to man over woman. What scripture says man was placed in authority over woman? You cannot serve two masters...We have one Lord even Christ....

He preached that man was woman's protector. Where does the Bible say that? Scripture please!

The congregation was informed that woman needs protection for far more than just physical reasons. She needs protection emotionally, mentally and spiritually. How frail woman is! What specific verse of scripture says that man is woman's protector? It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

http://www.senecafalls2.com/

Evil Woman

2010-06-09T03:52:00.000-07:00

"this woman is a kook - a radical femi-nazi with a chip on her shoulder the size of the full moon..."

MoveOnDotOrgg has made a comment on Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSLma46gWk&feature=email "this woman is a kook - a radical femi-nazi with a chip on her shoulder the size of the full moon. You have to ask yourself why she doesn't realize it's women who have abandoned thier homes and families trying to be...men? The divorce rate is obscenely high and the blame rest squarely on the laps of clueless feminists and thier misguided mindset. Who loses? The children with broken, divorced families."

What this person wrote is not an original or isolated opinion. It resonates with what is being taught by popular teachers throughout the evangelical church. What makes it even sadder, is that he chose a video of a battered woman in which to state his case. The slave-holding spirit truly is merciless and implacable.

Women are abandoning their homes trying to be men...? Listen to what is being said here as it is a mainstream evangelical sentiment. If a woman knows that she is created a free, autonomous, human being, she is accused of trying to be a man. Personal freedom and autonomy belong only to men? What does that make women? There is only one answer to that question. What do we call someone who is not free?

The slave-holding spirit is still alive and well within the evangelical and fundamental Christian communities.

Do not think the person who made such a vicious accusation against women holds an extremist view point. His position aligns perfectly with that of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) whose sympathizers, supporters, and various board members read like a Who's Who of conservative Christian leaders: Phyllis Schlafly, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, John MacArthur, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Paige and Dorothy Patterson, Joe Stowell, Al Mohler, Charles Stanley, Elisabeth Elliott....The list is impressive and extensive.

The blame for the destruction of families rests squarely on the shoulders of women? Women must be evil indeed. It must be so, because every person named in the list above and a host of others hold to the "evil woman" doctrine. God help us. Prejudice against women (even by other women) is extreme among conservative Christians--to the point of being fanatical.

But such viciousness against women is not found in scripture.

You say there is no resemblance between the vicious commentator and your favorite complementarian teacher? If that is the case, it is only because the really popular complementarians have learned to sugar-coat their venom. But the anonymous critic above is not interested in hiding his . . . and he is quoting some of them verbatim.

I seriously doubt the commentator above cares anything about anyone but himself. There is no hint of a compassionate disposition in his writing. His issue is not the preservation and wellbeing of families and children. Along with the CBMW and company, his issue is clearly that of male dominance.

God deliver us from slave-holding spirits.

What’s With Paul and Women?

2010-06-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

“The viper known as ‘the doctrine of male authority' has bitten the church,” says pastor and author Wade Burleson in the forward of Jon Zens’ book, What’s With Paul and Women?. Zens claims the church is leading the way in the suppression of women and has traditionally used 1 Timothy 2:12 as a way to do it. But he is convinced the scriptures do not support the practice. He writes, “This bottom-rung status of women in the post-apostolic age did not emerge because of a careful study of scripture.”

The gender bias with which 1 Timothy Chapter Two has been translated and subsequently handled by commentators becomes clear as Zens gently reasons with his readers to grasp what the passage (in the original language and within the context of the community to which it was written) really says.

In, What’s With Paul and Women? Zens presents an insightful, Biblical, interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, and his commentary on the rest of the chapter is certainly deserving of consideration from serious students of the Bible.

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Paul-Women-Jon-Zens/dp/0976522292

I Want to See Your Face!

2010-05-22T11:39:00.000-07:00

Let's get together. Let's meet face to face. Let's blend our voices outside the blogosphere. Plan to attend the Seneca Falls 2 Christian Conference. Register now. Reserve your room today. Who gets an Orlando, FL vacation for $69 a night? The conference itself is free.

For those who are not bloggers or speakers, one of the events at the Seneca Falls 2 Conference will be a time of interaction between conference attendees, the conference speakers, and a few other selected leaders via a panel discussion and Q & A session. Everyone will get a chance to actively participate in this conference.

Whether you are male or female, if you support equality for Christian Women, plan to attend this exciting event! Your presence will signal your solidarity with those who support the movement for change and will provide an opportunity to participate--in person--in the process.

http://www.senecafalls2.com/

Concerned Women for America is Not Concerned About Women

2010-05-08T08:48:00.000-07:00

On May 5, 2010 Concerned Women for America (CWA) released a media advisory informing the public that their Executive Director and Senior Fellow, Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, provided written testimony to the Senate Committe on the Judiciary during their hearing on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Her testimony consisted of informing the committee that the issue of domestic violence is nothing but a feminist political ploy. She wrote that for the "past 15-20 years, the women's movement has used the issue of violence against women to increase their influence around the world." http://christiannewswire.com/news/406313824.html

Crouse wrote that the numbers of actual violence are skewed. She's right. They are. The numbers do not even begin to reflect how many women are actually experiencing domestic abuse or violence. But that is not what she meant. She also wrote that "violence is...diluted when psychological and verbal abuse are thrown into the mix and differ in magnitude" from physical abuse.

Crouse, and Concerned Women for America are wrong. The magnitude of psychological and verbal abuse should not be underestimated. They are horrendous. Crouse wrote, "Physical violence is not to be tolerated, and VAWA needs to focus on ending those crimes rather than broadening the definition of violence to the point of meaninglessness." Meaninglessness? Domestic abuse is not meaningless. It is devastating, and it can be deadly. Women can and do commit suicide as a result of domestic abuse. The suicide of a verbally and psychologically abused woman is a domestic violence murder.

Suppose a verbally abused wife does not commit suicide? Does that make everything Ok? How many women who live under the strain of verbal and psychological abuse (in military settings it is called psychological warfare) experience significant deterioration in their physical and mental health, and live miserable, shortened lives as a result of the abuse? Abuse should not be a crime?

God help us.

"Dr. Crouse concluded, 'None of us likes to see anyone abused, and we all recoil at those situations where women and children are battered and assaulted. However, those who really want to help these women cannot continue to 'add on' to the list of abuses things that are regrettable and objectionable but not 'abusive'...'"

Psychological warefare is not abusive? How can Christians continue to support these "non-profit" organizations? Stop sending them money!

Crouse continued, "we must ensure that those programs that are funded really do help women, rather than merely increasing the federal bureaucracy and imposing further barriers between hurting women and those who are eager and qualified to help them." How does Concerned Women for America plan to support programs that help battered women? Do they fund any battered women shelters? If they do, it cannot be found on their website. They do not even deal with the issue of domestic violence on their website. It is not listed as either a "Core Issue" or a peripheral "Miscellaneous" issue. It appears that wife beating and domestic psychological warfare are not "Issues" at all as far as CWA is concerned, except in opposing efforts to help women who are victimized by these crimes. CWA consistently attempts to erect judicial and economic barriers between endangered women and those who have the authority and the qualifications to help them.

One of the purposes behind CWA is protecting and supporting the "Biblical design of marriage." The Biblical design of marriage, according to them, is defined by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), and consists of male authority and submissive wives--period. How can a wife submit and leave an abusive husband at the same time? What is CWA doing to help abused women? What can they do when they issue media releases saying that verbal and psychological warfare is not abuse?

Little real help for battered and abused wives will be found within radical complementarian organizations like CWA. And CWA is a radical complementarian organization. Its founder, Beverly LaHaye, serves on the Board of Reference for the CBMW, which is an organization committed to the absolute overthrow of the personal authonomy of all Christian women. In spite of the fact that Beverly LaHaye has been living a high profile life with CWA, and been busy in politics for quite some years, she and her husband, best selling author, Tim LaHaye, advise Christian husbands to practice economic abuse by controlling all monies earned by working wives in order to discourage female independence. Why in the world would they, or any organization connected with them, be concerned about domestic abuse? They promote it. It is part of their strategy for implementing what they call the "Biblical Design of Marriage."

Concerned Women for America may be the nation's largest public policy women's organization, but they certainly are not concerned about women.

~~~~~

"And they said Let us rise up and build So they strengthened their hands for this good work"

http://www.womansubmit.com/ / http://www.senecafalls2.com/

My Apologies Everyone

2010-05-07T17:40:00.000-07:00

The information I posted yesterday was incorrect. The subject matter is so relevant, though, that I have reposted it with the correct dates. My thanks to Shirley Taylor, of Baptist Women for Equality, for emailing me about the error.

Seventh Anniversary of Mass Exodus From Southern Baptist Mission Board

2010-05-07T16:02:00.000-07:00

The Seneca Falls 2 Christian Conference is an inter-denominational event, which should be of interest to all who believe the Bible teaches the priesthood of every believer. It should be of particular interest to Southern Baptists who, seven years ago today, witnessed the International Missions Board (IMB) lose 43 missionaries in one day due to pressure to sign the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.

Why not sign?

“Don and Angie Finley of Brazil, are two of the missionaries whose resignations were accepted by the IMB on May 7, 2003. They declared they were ‘not resigning because we have a problem with grassroots Southern Baptists’ or ‘because we have done anything wrong or have something to hide. When a Baptist missionary sending agency demands doctrinal accountability on the basis of a man-made document rather than on the basis of Scripture, something is wrong…When unnamed critics are taken seriously when they make vague, generalized and unsubstantiated accusations against doctrinally sound and spiritually committed missionaries, something is wrong. When denominational politics takes precedence over mission priorities, and missionaries themselves are made pawns in a denominational political game, something is wrong.’

"http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_19/pages/terminations.html

Rick Dill, a missionary who was fired along with his wife, Nancy, clarifies: "‘A small group of really vicious people are the ones who are making policy at the board,’ …The Dills outlined four concerns they have with the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message: Removal of the statement: ‘The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,’ from the 1963 version. ‘The center of our faith is Jesus Christ--God who became man, born of a virgin, crucified as atonement for our sin, raised on the third day, ascended to the right hand of the Father…All Scripture comes from him and can only be understood through him,’ Use of the expression ‘priesthood of believers’ instead of ‘priesthood of the believer.’ ‘Each of us stands individually before God,’ Dill said. ‘We are called to be his priests; his Spirit works within us individually as well as corporately, and finally, we will be called to account for our lives as his servants. Loss of that concept, not liberalism, is what killed the Christian movement in Europe…The priesthood of the believer was denied and taken away, and the clergy decided what you believe, what you do and when you believe it. They took the experience with God, that the Bible insists upon, completely away. That's the most dangerous thing that is facing us as Southern Baptists.’

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_19/pages/terminations.html
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/10_21/pages/imb.html

The Bottom Line

It is suspected that the “small group of really vicious people” making policy at the IMB were more concerned with female subordination than with anything else. Dill continues explaining why he and his wife could not sign the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message: “Insertion of language that a wife should ‘submit herself graciously’ to her husband, while ignoring ‘the injunction of Paul to submit to each other.’ Insertion of a statement that ‘the office of pastor is limited to men.’ In China, women pastor a majority of the churches,’ Dill said. ‘In Germany, we have a number of women who are Baptist pastors and do an exemplary job of service. ... Does this mean all of these women are serving out of God's will?’"

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/10_21/pages/imb.html

The Crux of the Matter?

If missionary wives did not agree to submit graciously to their husbands and forsake the priesthood of every believer in favor of a priesthood composed of only male believers, then missionary couples would no longer be supported by the Southern Baptist International Missions Board, and must either support themselves or come home.

On May 7, 2003, 30 missionaries resigned. 13 were fired. It was the “largest mass exodus in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board. ’We've never had anything close to this,’ said Alan Lefever, director of the Texas Baptist Historical Collection.”

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_19/pages/terminations.html

What happened at the IBM is an example of why Christians who support the priesthood of all believers –Vs- the priesthood of only some believers need to stand up and be counted. And we can do that by supporting the Seneca Falls 2 Christian Conference which will be held in Orlando, FL on July 24 of this year. Shirley Taylor, founder of Baptist Women for Equality, who says we’ve talked about it long enough, now it’s time to do something, has confirmed that she will be speaking at the conference. http://www.senecafalls2.com/

After the resignations and firings, the IMB disclosed that the 98% of foreign missionaries who did sign the document were not all in agreement with it. Some missionaries admitted they signed under pressure in order to keep their ministries. "We've talked with numerous missionaries who basically said, 'God called me here, and I'll sign in order to keep doing my ministry.' Additionally, you have 'yes' responses ranging from 'This is a wonderful statement of faith' to 'I can live with it.' … ‘Of the many disappointments and frustrations since the so-called 'conservative resurgence,' the firing of God-called missionaries is far and away the saddest day of all.," http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_19/pages/terminations.html

The Seneca Falls 2 Conference: What It Is and Is Not

2010-05-01T07:03:00.000-07:00

About the Name: The first women's conference was held in the United States on July 19-20, 1848, in Seneca Falls, New York. Four of the five organizers of the conference were Christians and the conference was hosted at a Methodist Church. It was a predominantly Christian led event.

About the Conference: This is not a "Women's" Conference. There have been too many gender-segregated conferences. It is time to come together equally—as followers of Christ. This is a "Christian" Conference for both men and women.

The Purpose of the Conference: We are not coming together to define the problem, that has already been done. The purpose of Seneca Falls 2 is to offer solutions and to present a united front in favor of gender-equality for Christian women. We believe that by doing so, we can encourage those who presently remain silent to add their voices to ours. We believe we can see change.

http://www.senecafalls2.com/

The Complementarian Giant

2010-04-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

The complementarian movement is huge. It is a well organized Goliath backed by organizations, denominations, seminaries, numerous conferences, authors, and money. . .lots of it.

It cannot be said that the phenomenal growth of complementarianism indicates the approval of God. There are religious cults that have been experienced phenomenal growth as well. Does that mean they are of God? Speaking of cults, the cultic overtones in complementarianism are unmistakable: Cults use dire warnings of woe or extravagant promises of temporal or eternal happiness to gain and hold the loyalty of members. Complementarianism does the same with predictions of familial and ecclesiastical disaster if women are given practical equality with men in the home and church. On the other hand, men and women are told that the closest thing to heaven on earth is in marriages where gender hierarchy is implemented. Cults claim their way is the only way. Complementarian leaders do the same when they accuse egalitarians of being in rebellion against God and blame equality for all manner of social problems.

At the True Woman Conference 2009, Mary Kassian connected gender equality with sparking the french revolution and the civil rights movement. She cited Rosa Parks as an example of an unbiblical woman. What is her view of Park’s part in starting the civil rights movement? She didn’t say, she simply continued quoting movements for “rights.” And in the process, she neglected to mention that Rosa Parks was a committed Christian who adored her husband but hated racial oppression based on inequality. Rosa Parks was right in not giving up her seat on the bus.

Kassian gave one example after another of secular feminism. What was her point? Where is the comparison between the Christian women and men who advocate for equality and the illustrations she gave? She chanted the complementarian mantras of gender confusion and lesbianism while never attempting to prove that Biblical feminists are immoral (she admits in her book, The Feminine Mistake, that no link can be found between secular and evangelical feminism). She displayed power point images with June Cleaver (the mother in the television series, Leave it to Beaver) representing true womanhood alongside an image of a scantily clad modern woman representing “feminism.” Kassian was careful to point out to her audience that the Mary (of the Mary Tyler Moore television series) was sexually active and on birth control (a one-time hint during a run of how many years?), but she conveniently neglected to point out to her audience how June Cleaver was portrayed as having a perfect life without the benefit of Jesus Christ in her life. How does that make June Cleaver an example to Christian women?

Kassian equated gender equality with women “rebelling” against “the males in their homes.” This attitude parallels that seen in homes where male abusers view attempts at equality, on the parts of their victims, as enemy action. Complementarian doctrine is the no different. There is no such thing as equal within that paradigm; it is either males in charge or females “rebelling.”

The recent Together for the Gospel Conference (T4G) drew 7,000 attendees from across the globe. The “…mostly young, mostly male crowd — reflective of the movement’s belief in male authority in churches and families — attended from around the nation and abroad, eagerly soaking up teachings and free books…The conference drew many Southern Baptists — particularly students from Southern Seminary, reflecting its role as nexus of the New Calvinism. Nearly 30 percent of recent graduates of Southern Baptist Convention seminaries who are now serving as church pastors identify themselves as Calvinists, according to a denominational survey.” (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100416/NEWS01/4170335/1008/news01/Confer... 4/24/2010)

With entire denominations adopting the council’s Danvers Statement, with the support of the inter-denominational Moody media empire, with seminaries, pastors, publishers and magazines promoting their agenda, the complementarian network is gargantuan. It is time for those who are serious about standing for gender equality for Christian women to stand together. That is the purpose of the Seneca Falls 2 (SF2) Conference. As Shirley Taylor said (who is going to be speaking at the conference), "It is time to put up or shut up."

Support the conference.

Announcing the Seneca Falls 2 Conference Tour

2010-04-13T12:12:00.000-07:00

The top ten Protestant denominations have approximately 179,183,430 persons claiming to be affiliated with them. Well over half of these are women.

That means at least 90,000,000 Christian women are subjugated within their homes and churches due to gender-role restrictions.

The Woman's Rights Conference hosted at a Methodist church 162 years ago, in Seneca Falls New York, only began the work. There still remains much to be done.

The first conference is scheduled for Saturday July 24, 2010 (location and details to be announced).To be notified of conferences coming to your area visit: http://www.senecafalls2.com/

Free At Last?

2010-04-09T10:25:00.000-07:00

The Woman’s Suffrage Movement, which culminated in the 20th century, won the right to vote for all white American women. Even after the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, black women still had to fight for their right to cast a vote. Now, in the opening years of the 21st Century, for the first time in the history of the United States, the American people have broken all precedent and elected an African American to the presidency. The African American male, though still dealing with racial prejudice, appears to have finally broken free from a cruel caste system based on the color of his skin. American women also seem to have largely broken free from a caste system based on their sex—all except many Christian American women…of any color.

This post is an excerpt from the book, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, & the Evangelical Caste System, by Jocelyn Andersen. The book is available for pre-order now. Pre-orders will be shipped 4-6 weeks before the book becomes available to bookstores.

Woman this is WAR! is scheduled for release on July 20, 2010 to coincide with the 162nd anniversary of the second day of the historic Seneca Falls Women's Conference held at a Methodist church in Seneca Falls, New York. It was a decidedly Christian event.

Visit the following links for more details:
http://hungryheart100.tripod.com/womansubmit/id10.html
http://www.senecafalls2.com/

Common Enemies

2010-03-28T17:09:00.000-07:00

The causes of emancipation for slaves and equal rights for women have fought common enemies in religion, law, public opinion, and the most implacable and powerful enemies of all in fear and prejudice...It is a prejudice that defines masculinity and femininity using subjective and unfair stereotypes, forcing men and women into molds God never fashioned for them, obliterating the individuality of all in the process. Only the redeeming love of our Savior can liberate men and women to relate to one another on equal terms without fear or prejudice. The ground is level at the cross. Jesus said we would know the truth and the truth would set us FREE.

Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, & the Evangelical Caste System

2010-03-15T09:09:00.000-07:00

One of the main tenets of complementarianism is the "evil woman" doctrine which holds that females are inherently antagonistic toward males—most particularly wives against husbands.

This theology, by default, arrays all men in defense of themselves against all women. In the eyes of the men and women who hold to complementarian doctrine, woman is the natural and most powerful enemy of man

“Woman this is WAR...,” takes a new look at old arguments traditionally used to keep men and women enslaved in illegitimate bondage based on sex. And just as the Bible did not condone the sin of slavery based on skin color, it also does not condone a slavery-like caste system based on gender.

HEADSHIP OR LORDSHIP? (1 Corinthians 11:3)

2009-06-19T10:59:00.000-07:00

If Adam had killed that snake, that would have been Male Headship

Shirley Taylor

Baptist Women for Equality

Headship –Vs- Lordship

A cornerstone of traditional role religionist theology is 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God." In this passage, most expositors lay a faulty foundation for all other study based upon the verse by confusing headship with lordship. What is the meaning of headship? What is the difference between headship and lordship? Can any human can claim “headship” over anything?

In Matthew 21:42, Jesus says, “Did ye never read in the scriptures the stone which the builders rejected the same is become the head of the corner this is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes? 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Matthew 21:42 are companion scriptures referring to the same thing, which is Christ in his role of “head.”

There is no end to arguments concerning what the Apostle meant by “head” in his letter to the Corinthians, but understanding what Jesus meant by “head of the corner,” in Matthew 21, is critical to understanding how Christ functions as “head” of the church. And until we gain a clear understanding of what is meant by Christ as the head, how can we begin to apply the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:3 to our human relationships?

The Greek word, kephale, translated “head” in both Matthew and 1 Corinthians, is used throughout scripture with different meanings depending upon context. In one verse, it may refer to a portion of the human anatomy, the physical head. In another verse, it may carry a metaphorical connotation with the responsibility resting upon the reader to interpret the meaning according to context.

Some say the metaphor in 1 Corinthians refers to authority. Some say it does not. But Jesus settled the question when He quoted the Psalmist who wrote of the Messiah as being the head of the corner. Jesus accused the Jews of not understanding that He was that cornerstone. The Bible Jesus read (the Bible of the early Church) was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and the Old Testament prophecy He quoted called Him the head of the corner—the kephale of the corner. The Spirit of the Lord, speaking through the prophets, and through Jesus Himself, used a building metaphor, “corner,” in reference to the headship of Christ. No one doubts that Christ is kephale of the corner, but how many understand what the corner itself is? And what does it mean to be the kephale of the corner? The apostle understood this perfectly. It is the English reader who often does not.

When a building metaphor is used in reference to Messiah as being the kephale of the corner, it means that Christ is a primary corner in a building. The word corner means angle.

Most structures have angles, but there is only one structure that can lay claim to a primary angle (head of the corner). And within that structure there can be only one head of the corner. A primary angle is an angle which connects directly with every other angle within the structure. That means every angle within that structure must originate and flow from a single angle. This is a critical concept to grasp in understanding relationship roles between all members of the Body of Christ. The Church of Christ is built of living stones with Jesus Christ Himself being the primary angle, better known as the Chief Cornerstone.

There are angles (cornerstones) in modern buildings, but no modern building has a place for a primary angle—a chief cornerstone. Therefore, most modern Christians have no concept of what a chief cornerstone is. The ancient Egyptians, however, knew exactly what a chief cornerstone was. They were experts at building structures in which the foundation was built from the ground up to finally connect with the primary angle at the top.

A primary angle is a capstone, and there is only one structure that utilizes a capstone, and that is a pyramid. A pyramid is a foursquare structure whose many angles (corners, cornerstones) flow upward to finally connect in a direct, unbroken, line to only one stone which sports four corners that connect with the entire structure into a one-of-a-kind unity found in no other structure on earth. The only kind of stone which can function as a primary angle or chief cornerstone is a capstone.

In Christ’s building, the sequence is reversed. The foundation begins with the primary angle—the capstone—who is Christ himself, and is built from the top down with each successive stone in direct connection with Christ who is the life of the entire building which is His body.

Ordinary structures have angles on each level just as a pyramid does, but ordinary structures have no capstone that connects each angle with every other angle creating the unbroken unity of structure found only in the pyramid. With its capstone, the only stone on earth which can be referred to as a chief cornerstone, the pyramid stands alone and majestic within the world of masonry.

Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone of the Church of the Living God. In Him we live and move and have our being. Like all buildings, the Church of Jesus Christ has many cornerstones, and the scriptures identify daughters as comprising the cornerstones which contribute to the building, nourishing, and edifying of the living stones which comprise God’s building. And like the pyramid, God’s building has only one primary angle, only one Head of the corner (capstone), and that is Jesus Christ Himself, the Chief Cornerstone.

The Headship of Christ is a direct reference to his function as the Head of the Corner. That function of the “head” is described clearly in Ephesians 4:15-16 which describes a human body using a building metaphor. In this passage the head is seen building and edifying the body. There is no mention of ruling: “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Ephesians 5:29 tells us that Christ’s Headship also includes nourishing the Church.

Christ as the Head of the corner is the only connection between the rest of the building/Bride/Church and the Godhead. And although there are many angles (corner stones) within the Body of Christ, there is only one Head (kephale) of the Corner. That is why Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.” There is no human mediator between individual believers and God Himself except the man (human), Christ Jesus.

Christ’s “Headship” consists of his mediatorship as well as his function of building (fitly joining together) and nourishing his Church. No other human but Jesus can stand as mediator between any other human and his or her God. It is Christ alone who sanctifies and presents His Bride to Himself without spot or wrinkle. No human husband has the power to present his human wife to Christ at the resurrection. Those who claim this is possible align themselves with the Sadducees who asked Christ who a woman would be married to in the resurrection when she had been married to seven different men on earth. Jesus rebuked them for knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God. He explained to them that there would be no marriage relationship between anyone after the resurrection. Who are we going to believe, Jesus, or those who claim that husbands will present and account for the actions of wives at the Judgment Seat of Christ? Wives are women men are married to, and Christ said no one would be married in the resurrection.

Christ is both our Head and our Lord. That is possible because He is God, but his Headship is not synonymous with his Lordship. Christ’s Headship is a direct reference to His function as the Head of the Corner in regards to building, nourishing, and edifying His Church. His Lordship is a reference to the universally encompassing authority that has been surrendered to the man, Christ Jesus.

It is common to hear the word “headship” used in regards to the relationship between men and women and most especially between husbands and wives. But to use the term headship as a term denoting authority synonymously with lordship in regards to any human relationship is heresy and blasphemy. Every Christian has only one Lord and that is the Lord Christ, our Head, from whom the whole body originates and is fitly joined together and nourished. It is no accident that the Headship of Christ is used in conjunction with building and body metaphors, because His Headship has everything to do with adding to, nourishing, and edifying the living stones that comprise His Building.

Both the Headship and the Lordship of Christ entail authority—because he is Jehovah. And although his Headship and Lordship are not synonymous, they are intrinsically linked. Separating the two would be as difficult as separating the soul and the spirit, but there is no scriptural evidence that the Headship of Christ has to do with anything save the creation of, building, and nourishment of his Body—which is the Church.

The Headship of Christ in creation is an immutable fact. It is not something we choose to submit to or not. It just is. Concerning His Lordship, during this age of grace, this time of favor, this time of “acceptance…,” at this point in time, we are given a voluntary choice as to whether or not we will submit to the Lordship of Christ. That will change in the future when every knee will bow, by compulsion, to acknowledge His Lordship and His identity as the Almighty—Jehovah, but the acknowledgement of the Lordship of Christ at that time will not necessarily result in eternal life.

Both the Lordship and the Headship of Christ are immutable facts. There is no salvation apart from him. He is the source of all life. He is the resurrection and the life. Jesus did not come to show the way. He came because He is the way. It is a blasphemous usurpation for any human to claim personal headship or personal lordship over any other human. Christ Himself initiated the act of his Headship in both creation and salvation. In creating and building His Church, he both initiated and continues to participate in the process of His “Headship.”

Can any man aside from Christ claim initiation or active participation in any act of headship? The kephale of the woman is the man. This is a simple fact of existence. This is simply information about the prepositional sequence which led to the wounding of the first human male’s body in order to form the human female. The fact that the man is the head of the woman is an immutable fact of creation, not something that can or should be play-acted out. The man had nothing to do with forming the woman. He did not initiate the act, nor did he participate in it. He knew nothing of his counterpart until woman was introduced to him by their creator.

In addition to being an immutable fact of creation, the Headship of Christ is also an ongoing, active process of salvation in the building and nourishment of his Church. No human, therefore, can claim “headship.” The fact that men are called “the head” of women in no way confers a position of “headship” upon them. That position is reserved for Christ alone. Men who lay claim to headship are usurpers striving to replace Christ in the lives of women. They are men who would be God.

Man is the head of woman only in terms of the origins of the human race at creation—the prepositional sequence of creation—not in terms of authority or even nourishment. Woman was an immediate creation of God just as the man was, but instead of forming her from the dust of the earth, she was formed from a portion of Adam’s physical anatomy. The reason for that lies in fact that the creation of the first man and the first woman was a type of the creation of Christ and His Church. Just as Christ had to die and sleep in death in order for the Church, His Bride, to be formed, so God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam while his bride was formed. This was a type of Christ’s death. Just as Christ had to be wounded for our transgressions in order for His redeemed Church to come into being, the first man had to be wounded in order for his bride to be created (the obvious difference being that the man had no power to redeem the woman. Therefore, there is no ground for a literal parallel to be made between Christ and all husbands).

The type presented in Genesis also explains 1 Corinthians 11:9, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” This verse literally reads, “Neither was the man created because of the woman but the woman because of the man.” The word translated “for” is a simple preposition, and the literal translation is clear that the verse is speaking of time and direction—chronological flow—with no connotation of authority. If chronological order denoted authority, then mankind would be at the bottom of the earthly pecking order, because he was created last.

The woman was created because of the man for the simple fact that she was taken out of man. If the man had not already been created, God could not have caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, open up his side, and form the woman. She was not created for the man, in the possessive sense. She was created because of the man in the prepositional sense (denoting movement, time, or direction). The man was created before the woman. Therefore he could not have been created because of her. Time and direction rather than possession and authority are the focus of 1 Corinthians 3:9.

It is the same with 1 Corinthians 11:3, The man is the head of the woman, Christ is head of the man, and God is the head of Christ, only in terms of prepositional flow (movement, time, and direction), not in terms of any authority or submission structure within the Godhead or marriage relationship.

The reference to God as being the head of Christ is a prepositional reference to his incarnation as a man. It is a reference to the human Son of God. It is not a reference to Jesus as Jehovah or to any chain of command within the Godhead. Jehovah was always the redeemer, and the books of Psalms and Hebrews record the time He became the Son. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells physically in our Lord Jesus. As God, Jesus Christ does not need a God. He is God. But excepting the stain of Adam’s sin, God became human, exactly like us, in order to redeem us. And that has everything to do with his Headship in the creating, building, and nourishing of his Church.

Jesus Christ, Yahweh Elohiym, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, who is revealed in John 1:1 as, THE WORD, is the creator of all things. And he created both the man and the woman with his own hands. That was an act of headship. The man had no active participation in Christ’s acts of headship in either his creation or that of the woman. And man has no part in any subsequent acts of headship either. Mankind, both male and female, is a direct creation of God alone. The fact that God choose to bring the woman into being through the man does not make her an indirect, or secondary, creation of God. Jesus created her with his own hands as well as He did the man. Her source of origin is Christ—not man, and she is, in every way—not just in her “feminine” aspects—created wholly in the image of God just as man is. There is no scripture that substantiates the heretical teaching that males reflect only male aspects of image of God while females reflect only female aspects.

The creation of male, female and the marriage relationship are types of the creation of, and the mystical union between Christ and his Church. Christ’s redemption and the creation of his Church was not an afterthought in the mind of God, or an “Oops they messed up. What can I do to back-peddle and fix things?” Our redemption was part of the cosmic plan from before the foundation of the earth. Although each human-being, individually, is a type of the plural Godhead (one of the ways we are each created wholly in God’s image is that we are plural beings), the creation of the marriage relationship and the physical, mental, and emotional differences between the sexes has to do with the mystery of Christ and his Church, and has no bearing whatsoever on our being created in the image of God.

This is worth repeating, the “types” represented by the man and woman provided in the creation account foreshadow Christ’s redemption. They have nothing to do with how mankind is created in the image of God.

When God said, “It is not good that man should be alone,” he was giving us a type of the longing of Christ for his bride. We read of that, prophetically, in the Song of Solomon. As previously stated, the deep sleep Adam fell into during the creation of his bride was a type of Christ dying for our sins. The Church could never have come into being without His atoning death. Adam’s awakening out of sleep was a type of the resurrection of Christ. The fact that the bride was taken from Adam’s flesh is a type of the creation of the church through the suffering of Christ’s flesh during his crucifixion. The woman being presented to the man was a type of Christ presenting his bride to himself without spot or wrinkle. The human husband will not present his wife to Christ. She will not be his wife in the resurrection. The woman being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh is a type of Christ not only giving His own physical life but of imparting a part of himself (His Holy Spirit) as the very basis of her formation. If a person does not possess the Spirit of Christ, that person is not a part of His Body—is not “bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh, and therefore does not possess eternal life.

The fact that the woman was created from the flesh of the man (that being a type of the creation of the Church through the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ), confers no authority upon men over women and gives man no legal claim to ownership of woman or primacy over her. This is a type of a unilaterally divine, and completely volunteer, cosmic love relationship, not a prescription for a bizarre, life-long, human role-play, which could only be shabby at best, between church-woman and her god-man.

The apostle connected the mystery of marriage with the “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” relationship between Christ and his Church. Humans simply cannot grasp or portray this mystical relationship in its fullness. Therefore, it is useless to attempt to flesh it out. It remains a mystical, completely voluntary on both sides, one flesh relationship which confers on no man a divine prescription of “headship/lordship over woman. That privilege is reserved for Christ alone. We have one master, even the Lord Christ, and all we are brethren.

Only the Headship of Jesus Christ could have brought mankind into existence at creation and then redeem the fallen race. If Christ is not our Head, not only would we not exist, but we could not continue existing. If Christ is not our Head; we can have no assurance of eternal life. If Christ is not our Head, we can have no access to the presence and power of God. No one but Christ can lay claim to Headship, certainly not puny men.

Jesus Christ, the Kephale of the Corner—of which there can be only one—builds his Church, one stone (soul) at a time. He adds cornerstones at each level—as He sees fit (He builds His Church. We do not), and the scriptures tell us that women will be cornerstones in His Church as well as men.

Saying that the man is the head of the woman is not the same as saying the man has “headship over” the woman. The first is correctly prepositional, the second heretically authoritative and possessive. Mankind has been given no authority that can remotely be referred to as “headship.” The 1 Corinthians reference to the man as the head of the woman is a direct reference to the manner and prepositional order of their creation which was a type of the great mystery of marriage having to do with Christ and his Church. It is not a reference to any authority/submission, “lordship,” structure between husbands and wives.

Concerning the chronological appearance of man, woman, and Messiah, the prepositional sequence of 1 Corinthians 11:3 is correct. And does the Bible say that any particular member of the Godhead is called the head of Christ? Isaiah tells us it was Jehovah who laid the Head of the Corner, and at no time in history has it ever been suggested that the name Jehovah applies only to “the Father.”

Therefore thus saith Adonay Jehovah Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation he that believeth shall not make haste

Because of the Angels...

2009-06-13T10:15:00.000-07:00

1 Corinthians 11:10 says, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

It is generally inferred and more than implied that because the woman was deceived, and sinned first, that females are inherently naïve, gullible, and more prone to fall prey to seduction than males; and that because of this, her perpetual consequence this side of Heaven—for her personal protection and for the good of everyone around her—is that from her birth to her death, she must be placed under male authority.

The words “because of,” in verse 10, are translated from the Greek word dia which is a primary preposition. A preposition is a word or phrase denoting movement of time or space. In other words, some movement or action of the angels has a direct causal effect upon the reason women ought to have power on their heads. When looking for answers, it is important to be certain that we are asking the right questions. And a good place to begin solving the mystery of 1 Corinthians 11:10, is to ask what prepositional link women have in common with the angels. What is the connection between women and angels that entitles women to possess power upon their heads?

Humankind has little in common with angels—either male or female—but womankind does have the singular distinction of one of her own being deceived in common with angels, and that deception having a devastating effect upon others of her kind. Was not the angel, Lucifer, deceived into thinking that he could be as God? The scriptures record that the highest ranking angel was deceived, sinned, and, subsequently, one third of all the angels were deceived and fell with him.

It is commonly assumed that, because Eve was deceived, all women are gullible and easily deceived, but does the fact that Lucifer was in deception mean that all angels are inherently gullible and must henceforth be placed under authority? No, it does not. The angels that sinned are fallen without hope of redemption, but the angels that did not follow Lucifer in his rebellion still have liberty. They are not penalized because of the sin of their fellow angels and continue to exist as free moral agents, without stigma. The angels who did not sin continue to possess the power to obey or not to obey as do all women.

Then why does the Bible say that a woman must be under authority because of the angels?

The truth is the Bible says no such thing. The Authorized Version reads, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head.” The phrase, “have power on her head,” is not synonymous with “under authority.” To understand what this means, we need to look at several words contained in this verse—have, power, and head.

The word have, in 1 Corinthians 11:10, can also be translated as “possess.” And indeed it is translated “possessed,” albeit in a negative sense, in Acts 8:7 and 16:16. But the negative connotation of the word in these verses has nothing to do with the word itself. The word “possess” has to do with ownership or control over. It has no inherent connotation of good or evil in and of itself. The important thing to notice in 1 Corinthians 11:10, is that it is the woman herself who possesses the power that is on her head. There is no hermeneutical reason for assigning the power that the woman herself possesses to someone else.

The next logical question is, what kind of power is it that the woman possesses? The word translated “power,” in 1 Corinthians 11, is also translated “liberty” in 1 Corinthians 8:9.

There is no good reason that 1 Corinthians 11:10 cannot be translated, “For this cause ought the woman to POSSESS LIBERTY upon her head. The text does not say over her head, but even if it did, the liberty, or authority, still belongs to the woman.

In the Bible, the word “head” can mean several things, but the meaning of “head” in 1 Corinthians 11:10, is universally recognized as referring to the person of the woman. Excepting Almighty God and legitimate legal authorities, it is the woman herself who possesses liberty—authority—over her own person. And the Bible connects this liberty with the angels. But which angels are being referred to in this verse? The angels referenced in 1 Corinthians 11:10, are not fallen angels. Woman is not being compared with Lucifer and his rebels here, but rather with angels who made the right choice and did not fall, the angels who, in spite of Lucifer’s personal deception and sin, and the fall of one third of their fellow angels, remain to this day completely autonomous, free, moral agents.

The angels that fell could not be redeemed, but the angels who remained loyal to God are not penalized for the wrongs others of their kind committed. God is not sexist or racist. Angels who did not follow Lucifer in his rebellion, continue to possess personal authority and liberty over their own persons without discrimination based on the behavior of fellow angels. Angels that did not fall are not considered inherently gullible or eternally penalized because one of their own was deceived; neither are females penalized by being bound under eternal male authority just because the first woman was deceived and fell into sin.

There is only one link between women and angels and it is the common history of one of their own falling into deception and leading others into deception with them. And as we have shown, the liberty of personal autonomy is not to be taken from them because of what others of their kind did or did not do.

Complementarians Not Traditionalists? Hogwash!

2009-03-13T08:14:00.000-07:00

Complementarian leaders claim they are not traditionalists when it comes to gender roles, however, I have been reading reams of their literature and can find little if anything in them to back that claim.

In the late 1980's The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) was founded. They released The Danvers Statement, and in order to soften the true nature of their hard line, traditionalist, theology in regards to gender roles, created the warm, fuzzy moniker "Complementarian" to describe themselves.

The truth is, complementarians are just as rigid, if not more so, than traditionalists. And there is only one major difference, that I can find, between evangelical traditionalists and complementarians in regards to gender roles, and that is that most traditionalists teach that female subordination is a result of the Fall while complementarians, along with fundamentalist traditionalists, teach that female subordination was mandated as part of the original creation.

So what is the real difference between the two? In practical application, virtually nothing. But it is worthwhile to note that evangelical traditionalists now recognize that their theology has always provided a loophole for New Testament Christians in removing the yoke of subordination from women while fundamentalist complementarian theology neatly plugs the hole. Since the late 1980's, evangelicals have been jumping the traditional ship by the boatloads and climbing on board the fundamentalist complementarian bandwagon in regards to gender issues.

Before 1987, most leading evangelical leaders, churches and seminaries were traditional, including the influential Moody Bible Institute. Another example is Beverly LaHaye, president of Concerned Women for America and wife of bestselling author, Tim LaHaye. LaHaye took the traditional position in her 1984 book, The Restless Woman where she carefully explained that males and females were originally created equal but that the Fall changed all that resulting in the ongoing subordination of women in rigidly prescribed "roles" for them in marriage, church, and society. Today, it appears LaHaye has traded traditionalism for complementarianism. She currently serves on the Board of Reference for the "Complementary" CBMW.

Complementary? Who gets complemented? Let's face it, in both complementarian theology and practice, it is the female--always--who complements the male; she completes him, she assists him, her calling is to help him fulfill his calling, etc., etc., so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

Putting the dynamics of such a relationship in perspective isn't very difficult. Take steak and Lea and Perrin's for example, what complements what? Does the steak complement the sauce? Or is it the other way around? What about French-fries and catsup? Do the French-fries complement the catsup?

Of course not! And in a "complementarian" marriage, the wife is always the sauce or the catsup, never the steak or the french-fries. So where is the "complementary" aspect? In practice, it does not exist. Why? Because in practice, in a true "complementarian" relationship, no one should be the steak or the French-fries, and no one should be the mere complementary condiment "completing" the main course.

In view of the uncomplementary nature of complementarian theology, I refuse to any longer refer to them by a title which I believe is deliberately deceptive. Therefore, I have created a title which I believe more accurately describes complementarians and all others of their ilk. From henceforth, I refer to all fundamental and evangelical male supremists as, TRADITIONAL "ROLE" RELIGIONISTS--TRR'S for short

Upcoming New Release: Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, & the Evangelical Caste System, by Jocelyn Andersen, is scheduled for release in 2010. Visit the following link if you would like receive a release announcement by email:
http://hungryheart100.tripod.com/womansubmit/id6.html

Quiverful

2009-03-07T04:17:00.000-08:00

In reading, Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, by Kathryn Joyce, I was fascinated that a self-described secular feminist and professing non-believer could write with such clarity and sensitivity on the Patriarchy Movement that has made major inroads within Fundamental and Evangelical denominations during the past few decades.

My next book, GENDER, SLAVERY, & the EVANGELICAL CASTE SYSTEM, (release date to be announced) has led me into extensive personal research into the Patriarchy movement, so I felt I was in a unique position to judge Joyce's research and conclusions. I found her research credible and that her conclusions about the movement closely aligned with mine.

Although she and I would most likely not see eye to eye in regards to the abortion controversy, I believe we are very much in harmony regarding many, if not most, aspects of the gender issue. And though the Patriarchy Movement may be only a possible threat to secular women's rights, it is a very real and present impediment to evangelical women's inalienable and God-given rights.

As I have already stated in my book, WOMAN SUBMIT!, I believe the Patriarchal theology most Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians adhere to is a threat to the physical safety and emotional well being of many Christian women. I do not believe domestic abuse or domestic violence will ever be resolved within the church until the gender issue is properly addressed.

I may not agree with everything contained within the pages of, QUIVERFULL..., but I certainly do recommend the book. I feel it was written out of a sense of valid concern and with integrity. I feel the facts concerning the Patriarchy Movement were presented fairly and accurately.

I was impressed with the lack of malice in Joyce's writing and thrilled to see the subject of Christian Patriarchy getting the attention it so desperately needs and deserves. As a Bible believing Christian, I am appreciative of the graciousness Joyce displayed towards the people and the movement she wrote about—a graciousness that I am certain will not be reciprocated by those who will feel threatened by her message.

Biblical Man Wants Fried Egg Sandwich

2009-03-04T06:53:00.000-08:00

"My wife was upset because I wouldn’t let her get her nails done. But, you see, Adam was in charge. The man has the rule over his wife. If a man wakes up at 3am hungry for a fried egg sandwich, then she has to get up and make it for him…”

I was not too sympathetic with what I was hearing from the man behind the pulpit. But as the speaker shared his views on what he believed constituted a biblical marriage relationship, my heart did go out to his wife. He unapologetically ruled supreme in their home, deciding the smallest details of their daily lives, even to the point as to whether or not his wife could have her nails done on a given day.

There was no question about her submission. And because she submitted meekly to his bullying, he was pleased to present his wife as a prime example of a Biblical woman. Even so, I was convinced that describing her as, “scared to death of him,” would have come closer to the truth.

When she was awakened from a peaceful slumber in the middle of the night and forced out of bed to cook her husband that egg sandwich, I wondered if she got up willingly, or did she feel like the live-in body servant he obviously believed she was? Did she joyfully and lovingly make that sandwich and present it to him while enjoying a few companionable moments with her spouse, or did she quietly, and, to all outward appearances, serenely set it on the table thinking, ‘There, I hope you choke on it!’

When he received that sandwich, did he eat it with relish and the satisfaction of believing that all was as it should be in his world? Would it have bothered him to know that his wife did not feel the same way as he did? And if she felt resentful and used at having her rest disturbed for no other reason than to satisfy his craving for a 3am snack, would it have been Christ-like for him to have blithely enjoyed that snack without giving a second thought to her feelings?

While recognizing and appreciating God-given differences between the sexes, this book will explore the Biblical appropriateness of assigning rigid gender roles to men and women within the home, church, and society.

This post is an excerpt from the book, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, & the Evangelical Caste System, by Jocelyn Andersen (release date to be announced). The book contains hundreds of references and helpful footnotes. Visit the following link if you would like to receive a release announcement by email:

http://hungryheart100.tripod.com/womansubmit/id6.html

Saddleback Church, Abuse and Divorce

2009-01-16T09:16:00.000-08:00

In a recent audio teaching posted to Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church website, Tom Holladay, one of their teaching pastors, stressed that the ministry at Saddleback does recommend separation in abuse cases but never divorce. He was emphatic that the Bible does not permit divorce in cases of domestic abuse.

I disagree with that opinion. The Bible Does Permit Divorce In Cases of Domestic Abuse, and I refer my readers to Barbara Roberts excellent book, Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery, and Desertion. Roberts presents a strong, articulate, and most of all biblical argument that God does indeed permit divorce in cases of domestic abuse.

Saddleback Church is dishing up typical evangelical fare on the subject of domestic abuse and domestic violence. In and of itself that is not surprising. But has it occurred to anyone to ask why a pastor who is on the extremely liberal end of the Southern Baptist spectrum, to the point of being denounced as heretical by many evangelicals, tows the traditional line, to the hilt, when it comes to domestic abuse and divorce?

Could the reason be that Saddleback Church also tows the traditional line in regards to the doctrine of male authority and female submission? Male authority which can still be maintained in a controlled separation but is seriously threatened when a woman is given leeway of any kind, for whatever reason, in ceasing to submit to an abusive husband by divorcing him? Is it any wonder then, that Holladay also inserted submission theology into his teaching on the subject of abuse by subtly reminding women of their duty to maintain a submissive attitude towards their husbands, although he tempers the inclusion by acceding that tolerating abuse is not a proper example of displaying an attitude of submission.

Nancy Leigh DeMoss, author and council member of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), does the same in her book, Lies Women Believe. Her advice to women in abusive marriages is to leave if they have to, but never, under any circumstances, consider divorce. If a separation must take place, counsels DeMoss, then during the separation, an abused wife is to maintain an attitude of reverence towards her abusive husband’s God-given position of authority over her—which, according to DeMoss, is not abrogated by the abuse.

Thankfully, Holladay did not go as far as Bruce Ware did in his presentation to Denton Bible Church, last year, by suggesting that women often bring abuse upon themselves by not submitting to their husbands.

No matter who is discussing abuse, either victims or church leadership, it seems the subject of submission always manages to slip into the conversation. We just cannot seem to discuss the one without discussing the other. Many victims know that abuse is the extreme end result of the doctrine of female subordination, while supporters of the doctrine acknowledge the fact that it must be carefully controlled or disaster can and often does come of it.

In the audio entitled, "What do I do if I am miserable in my marriage?" Holladay also gives a contradictory message to wives experiencing domestic abuse. While on the one hand, he clalims to believe that women are not required to submit to abuse, on the other he defines abuse as being beaten regularly (He stated that he does not consider a husband shoving his wife once as a good reason to separate). So by his own definition, he does expect wives to submit to verbal, emotional, economic, and even a certain amount of physical violence. I would ask Mr. Holladay how many beatings would have to take place in order to qualify as regularly?

Beaten regularly? What a horror of a life! Thank God that the Bible, along with the judicial powers that be, and the laws of the land, are not in agreement with the callous opinions of Tom Holladay and Saddleback church. God gives his blue print for deliverance from the evil man in Proverbs chapter two (see chapter five of Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, for a detailed study of that blueprint). There is no loophole in that chapter excepting abusive husbands or restricting abused wives from that deliverance. And I would call Holladay’s attention to the fact that a woman may not survive even the first beating. If she does survive it, what about the second? Which regular beating would he consider to be the most life-threatening, thereby recommending a separation at that point?

Tom Holladay is wrong. Shoving a wife is abuse and should not be tolerated. Beating a wife once, is one beating too many and should not be tolerated.

Saddleback Church recommends couple’s counseling to couples experiencing domestic violence. Couple’s counseling will not prevent further abuse and can prove dangerous for the victim. Couple’s counseling may indeed be helpful in marital situations other than abuse, but in the case of domestic abuse or violence, arrest and prosecution along with counseling for the abuser, geared specifically towards the abuse, has proven to be the most effective tool in deterring future violence—with the counseling part being the least effective, as studies in Florida have shown.

Holladay made no mention of legal recourse against the criminal behavior of the husband who regularly beats his wife, only the need for “healing.” Well, healing is not going to come without acknowledgment of the sinful, abusive behavior and genuine, heartfelt, repentance. Punitive consequences, like jail, are scriptural. This is criminal behavior we are talking about, not simply bad manners. In my own case, it was my pastor—not me—who called the police and had my violent husband, an associate pastor of our church, arrested.

Women can and do die from domestic violence. With three women dying every single day, over 1000 women dying each year, from the devastating effects of domestic violence, why are our pastors and religious leaders soft soaping this critical issue? Could it be for the same reason they always have, that if they step up to the plate and truly protect women from domestic abuse and violence they know they would be putting traditional "male authority” at risk?

Besides knowing the horrors of being on the receiving end of domestic abuse and violence first hand, I am in contact with far too many women who are suffering from long term, debilitating effects from assaults they received from their abusive husbands to take this issue anything but deadly seriously.

And the issue of “male authority” is at the very heart of it.

http://womansubmit.com/

Christian Activist Slams Victims of Domestic Violence

2008-09-30T10:08:00.000-07:00

If Phyllis Schlafly is not dedicated to an all-out assault against victims of domestic violence and the credibility of abused and battered women, she is making a very good show of it.

In spite of the fact that she frequently skews facts in her own articles minimizing, or ignoring altogether, violent incidences between spouses. Schlafly, attorney, political activist and founder of Eagle Forum, an evangelical watchdog organization, falsely accuses the American Bar Association of using false and misleading statistics in divorce cases where abuse or domestic violence is alleged--which they do not. It is Schlafly, in fact, who misleads her readers by deliberately providing them with false information. Schlafly cruelly slanders genuinely battered women by depicting them as making false allegations against their abusers.

When writing about domestic violence, Schlafly’s articles reek with tabloid sensationalism and deceptive journalism. One would think a veteran journalist who is an attorney as well as a prominent, well respected, spokesperson for Christian evangelicals, could be counted on to present her readers with honest, well researched facts. But the sad truth is that Schlafly has allowed her fear of radical feminists to color her perception of all women who do not fit into her very narrow view of what constitutes appropriate feminine behavior, which is topped by an obvious belief that any woman who takes legal steps to protect herself from an abusive spouse or physically violent relationship is merely a liar using the legal system in order to further her own devious, feminist, anti-family agenda.

Just one example (there are several) of Schlafly’s skewed portrayal of the domestic violence issue can be seen throughout her Town Hall article, "Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda," (August 2008). This article is rife with untruths which, considering her status as an attorney with access to much more legal information than the average researcher, can only be construed as deliberate deception and a misrepresentation of easily accessed facts.

In paragraph one of "Brave Judge...", Schlafly states, as fact, her opinion that restraining orders are unconstitutional, that abusive and violent husbands are non-criminals, and that most women who allege abuse are devious liars.

In paragraph two, she states, as fact, her opinion that jail sentences for restraining order violators are unjust. Need I point out that violating a restraining order is breaking the law? And those who violate them are well aware that they will be arrested as a consequence?

In paragraph three, she gleefully begins “proving” her points by introducing the Anibal and Vivian Crespo case (Crespo v. Crespo, FV-09-2682-04) in which Superior Court Judge Francis Schultz, ruled that Anibal Crespo’s rights were violated by his ex-wife being granted an unconstitutional restraining order against him. The case is thought to be headed to the Supreme court. It is interesting that Schlafly's description of the facts of the case differ slightly, yet (as we shall see) significantly from reports submitted by other sources.

In an analysis of the ruling, written by Mary Pat Gallagher, we find the following facts: “The ruling vacated a final restraining order that Vivian Crespo obtained in 2004 against her former husband, Anibal Crespo, based in part on photographs showing injuries he allegedly inflicted in March 2004 when he entrapped her arms in the electric windows of his car when she tried to talk to him about unpaid child support. Anibal was living upstairs from Vivian in a two-family home."

WCBSTV relates the following: Anibal and Vivian Crespo divorced in 2001 after about 17 years of marriage, but lived in the same two-family home in North Bergen: She was on the first floor with the children; he was on the second floor with his parents.

In 2004, Vivian Crespo obtained a final restraining order from a different judge after claiming that her former husband hit her face and pulled her arms when she sought the child support money. Anibal Crespo responded that his ex-wife attacked him while he was in his car and any injury she suffered came when he closed the car window to protect himself. As a result of the restraining order, Anibal Crespo had to move."

Schlafly describes the facts of the same case as follows: “Anibal and Vivian Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household when they had a fight, and Vivian asked for a restraining order. Anibal was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned Anibal from his own house and thereby separated him from his children.”

Am I the only one who finds little resemblance between how Schlafly relates the “facts” of the case and the descriptions given by Gallagher and WCBSTV?

Anibal and Vivian Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household?

Schlafly deceptively portrays Anibal and Vivian to her readers as divorced yet still living together. This immediately paints Vivian Crespo in poor light to most of Schafly’s readership which is primarily composed of evangelical Christians. Vivian is going to get little sympathy from that camp—and obviously none from Phyllis Schlafly who had to have known the facts of the case before writing her horribly misleading article. It doesn't take an attorney to know the difference between a "two family house," and the "same household."

Vivian and Anibal Crespo were not living in the same “household.” These facts are clear in news reports read by the public at large and in documents presented at legal proceedings.

"They had a fight, and Vivian asked for a restraining order…?"

It is indeed a sad day when a couple can have a simple argument and a restraining order is granted, no questions asked. However in the Crespo’s case, the argument was not simple. Vivian claims she was hit in the face by her ex-husband, and Anibal admitted to rolling up the electric window of his vehicle thereby entrapping Vivian’s arms. That was assault, pure and simple--regardless of whether they were arguing or not. Vivian’s injuries were photographable by the police. Police photos of her injuries were presented to the judge when she asked for protection from further assault.

Schlafly's statement, "They had a fight, and Vivian asked for a restraining order…" does not even come close to giving readers an honest report.

Schlafy plays on her readers sympathies by writing, "Anibal was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned Anibal from his own house and thereby separated him from his children…"

As an attorney, Schlafly knows that the granting of restraining orders do not carry an automatic sentence of being separated from one’s children. Parental visitation is mandated in cases where restraining orders are granted just as in divorce decrees. But this refrain of, “fathers being separated from their children by frivolous, undeserved restraining orders,” oft repeated by Schlafly, is a veritable mantra with men’s rights and father supremist organizations (the majority of which do a very bad job of masquerading as pro-family advocates).

Schlafly has written at length concerning her objections to the passage and renewing of VAWA, the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, which admittedly has some serious problems, especially within the family court arena. Unfortunately, she has allowed her writing on the subject of women’s rights and domestic violence to become extremely biased against families headed by abused (or formerly battered) women and single mothers. She has allowed herself to become the evangelical, feminine voice for groups who pose as pro-family advocates but are in reality, nothing more than men’s activists and father supremists dedicated to the continued suppression of women.

If these groups are indeed “pro-family,” why do their media releases, websites and commentaries reflect the same misinformation and sensationalism as is seen in Schlafly’s article dealing with Vivian and Anibal Crespo? She makes unproven accusations against women such as, “Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.”

Who says “too often?” Where is the proof of that? The facts are that false accusations occur no more frequently in divorce/custody disputes than in any other legal dispute. In fact a report by Bala and Schuman published in the Canadian Law Quarterly in 2000 revealed that when it does happen, it is fathers who are much more likely to level intentionally false allegations against mothers. Studies have also shown that fathers who level intentionally false accusations are usually batters or otherwise controlling and abusive.

Sure, there will always be men and women who abuse the legal system in making false allegations. But they are certainly not the majority, and in no way constitute the, “all too often.”

According to the S. L. Keilitz National Center for State Courts, up to 50% of contested custody cases involve domestic violence. In addition to that, studies have shown a high correlation between wife beating and child abuse--even sexual molestation. In spite of this information, mothers who dare to try and protect their children from abusive fathers are very likely to lose custody altogether. The percentages are staggering--70%. Yet Phyllis Schlafly along with men’s rights/father supremist groups continue to scream that restraining orders against batters are unjust and destroy families.

It is domestic violence and abuse that destroys families, not the act of seeking protection from the abuse.

As far as I am concerned, Phyllis Schlafly has become an avowed enemy of battered and abused women (and their children). In my opinion, she has seriously compromised and is well on her way to losing her credibility altogether, as a journalist, as a spokesperson for evangelical Christians, and as an advocate for the American family.

Should Wives Be Subject To Husbands in Absolutely EVERY Circumstance?

2008-08-08T05:46:00.000-07:00

Listen To Commentary

Do Wives Desire To Destroy Their Husbands As a Result of the Fall?

2008-08-07T06:10:00.000-07:00

An all too common interpretation of the portion of Genesis 3:16 that says of the woman, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband," is that all women (because of sin) have a natural desire to dominate and rule over their husbands.

Bruce Ware and John MacArthur of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood believe this is what the Bible teaches and (along with many others) are aggressively promoting this view to evangelical Christians today.

They base their entire argument on a comparison of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7 where sin is depicted as a lion crouching at the door (obviously in preparation for a kill) and his DESIRE is for (to destroy) Cain.

By extension, those who promote this view, must also believe that all wives have a natural tendency to desire the utter destruction of their husbands--not just to rule over them.

Does this argument hold water?

Listen to entire commentary here

Following the line of reasoning embraced by The Council On Biblical Manhood and Womanhood via both Bruce Ware and John MacArthur, in interpreting Genesis 3:16, when compared with the obvious context of the verse itself and with Song of Solomon 7:10, the answer is, "NO." The argument of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood holds absolutely no water. They are teaching false doctrine. Their very destructive argument simply perpetuates the curse that Adam embraced, God Prophesied, and that Jesus sets free from.

Let Your Women Be Silent in Church….1 Corinthians 14:34

2008-07-15T17:22:00.000-07:00

Although many theologians may say they believe the command for women to keep silent in church services. In practical application, they demonstrate that, in reality, they do not. You would have to search far and wide to find a single evangelical fellowship that actually adheres to this verse of scripture. I personally have never encountered one that does.

In how many church fellowships are women required to be utterly silent in all church proceedings? In how many Christian gatherings do we actually see women prohibited from praying out loud, singing any song—in the choir or otherwise, or forbidden to speak up in order to give testimonies, prayer requests or make announcements? The verse specifically says, be silent in church.

So, even though this verse is frequently quoted in defense of authority of males over females, it is otherwise ignored by the church at large including by those who conveniently use it, only when it suits them, in order to make a point.

The Bible record itself refutes the popular interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34. The scriptures do not prohibit women from speaking. We see women in the Bible who did not remain silent but spoke publicly in the name of the Lord, and their words were recorded in the scriptures: Miriam, Deborah, Anna to are just a few.

As far as church is Concerned, in the Bible we see:

That our sons and our daughters will prophesy (How many denominations teach that prophesy means to preach?)
Women prophets (Deborah, Hulda, Miriam, the four daughters of Agabus)
Women Bible Teachers (Pricilla)
Women Deacons (Phoebe)
A Woman Apostle? (Junias)

A Question of Submission....

2008-07-15T16:54:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 5:21-33 begins with a command for all Christians to submit to one another, and ends by explaining that the marriage relationship is intended by God to reflect the relationship between Christ and his church.

The relationship between Christ and his church is a completely voluntary love relationship on both sides.

Jesus said all men would know we are his disciples because of our love for one another. A husband who exerts authority over his wife, and demands submission from his wife, is not loving his wife and the marriage is not reflecting the love relationship between Christ and his church. Therefore, any husband who exerts authority over his wife and demands submission from her (and any leader who endorses such behavior) is not a disciple of Jesus.

We see this command again in 1 Peter 5:5 (all Christians are commanded to submit one to another). Does that mean that the right to exert authority and demand submission has been given to every Christian over every other Christian?

Most will agree that is a ludicrous notion.

So how can a theological conclusion be justified which claims that is exactly the case with husbands and wives?

Pastor Bruce Ware Claims Christian Wives Are Bringing Abuse on Themselves by Not Submitting to Their Husbands? Are They Really?

2008-06-27T09:52:00.000-07:00

I have already addressed many aspects of Bruce Ware’s Sermon in my book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, one of the chapters of which is entitled, Church Sanctioned Oppression. I go into the issue of gender roles and some of the reasons for abuse in the chapter entitled, The Eve Syndrome (and no, I do not blame unsubmissive wives).

I have also consistently addressed the main point of his sermon from my earliest interviews after the book was released.

Excerpt from interview:
Q. Why do you think men beat their wives? Do you believe the doctrine of wifely submission, as taught within many evangelical churches contributes to domestic violence among Christians?

A. Yes I do. The way this doctrine is taught and interpreted within many evangelical churches often leads men to believe it is their God-given right to exert authority over their wives, and this logically leads to problems with abuse when they attempt to assert this authority—especially with men who deal with unresolved anger issues.

I might also add that the way the doctrine of submission is commonly dealt with (within these same circles) effectively shifts the blame for the husband’s behavior from the husband and places responsibility for it squarely onto the shoulders of his wife. This happens when she is told that if she reacts submissively to his abuse, his behavior might change.

The message that women bring abuse on themselves by not submitting is not a new one, and I have maintained for quite some time that this view is quite common among evangelical leaders and has been transmitted to the evangelical church from its highest levels.

I believe Bruce Ware's comments underscore the fact that Christian Men and Women who desire to see a change in attitudes (which must precede change in actions) within the evangelical community regarding how to handle the issue of violence in the home still have a long row to hoe. That's why I invite both men and women to join the Dorcas Network. A network committed to equipping the Christian community in responding compassionately, effectively, and biblically to those experiencing domestic violence within their spheres of influence.

WOMAN SUBMIT! CHRISTIANS & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, is free for download at http://www.womansubmit.com/

Resources for Dealing With Abuse or Domestic Violence From a Christian Perspective

2008-05-26T09:02:00.000-07:00

THE DORCAS NETWORK, is a network of concerned Christian men, women, clergy and lay persons, dedicated to empowering all Christians to respond compassionately, Biblically and effectively to those within their spheres of influence experiencing domestic violence and/or domestic abuse. http://www.thedorcasnetwork.com/

In spite of a plethora of titles promising scriptural answers to Christian victims of domestic violence or abuse, most, in actuality, espouse a spirituality which is far from biblical. The four books listed below, however, come highly recommended by The Dorcas Network as truly biblical resources. They are written by authors who have experienced domestic violence and/or abuse and have survived by the grace of God to share the answers they found in his Word--the Bible.

These books are each complimentary to one another covering a number of scenarios within the "Abuse/domestic violence among Christians" arena. Together they provide well rounded, detailed counsel in advising not only battered and abused Christian Women, but also Christian leaders and individuals in responding confidently, compassionately, and biblically when domestic violence or abuse strikes close to home.

Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, by formerly battered Christian Wife, Jocelyn Andersen, is a great resource for Christian Women who are experiencing abuse and/or domestic violence and for those they are most likely to turn to for help, i.e., family, friends and/or clergy. It contains solid advice for biblical Christian Response to the social ill and sin of domestic violence. Available in the US, UK, and Canada. click here for more info

Would the REAL CHURCH Please Stand Up!, by formerly battered Christian wife, Susan Greenfield, is a detailed challenge to all Chrisitans in responding biblically when the issue of abuse and domestic violence among Christians presents itself up close and personally at the local church. click here for more info

Another excellent resource is Waneta Dawn's Behind the Hedge.

In this fictional account of an abusive marriage within a Christian home, Waneta Dawn has done an amazing job of exploring the dynamics of such a relationship and the destructive effects of it upon the entire family. It is written with God given insight, sensitivity and compassion.

The story portrays biblical guidance for women experiencing abuse that has not escalated into violence as yet. click here for more info

Response From Dr. Bill

2008-02-21T23:24:00.000-08:00

Below is a communication I received from Dr. Bill Maier (Focus on the Family Vice President and Media Spokesperson) in response to my blog post entitled Advice That Can Get a Woman Killed http://womansubmit.blogspot.com/2007/11/advice-that-can-get-woman-killed.html

~~jocelyn andersen

Hi Jocelyn,

My name is Bill Maier, and I’m a clinical psychologist at Focus on the Family in Colorado. I saw your blog posting about my response to a “Weekend Magazine” listener who had been abused by her husband. Your criticism regarding my “confrontation” advice was right on target and I’ve revised the column accordingly.

Here’s a link to the revised page:

http://listen.family.org/askdrbill/A000000380.cfm

I want you to know that I’ve challenged the evangelical church to acknowledge the issue of domestic abuse during several Focus on the Family radio broadcasts. Here’s a link to our web page devoted to the topic of physical and sexual abuse (from our TroubledWith.com) website:

http://www.troubledwith.com/AbuseandAddiction/PhysicalVerbalAbuse.cfm

Thanks for your commitment to this critical issue.

Bill

Were Gender Roles for Men and Women Established Before the Fall of Mankind?

2008-02-08T00:20:00.000-08:00

The importance of understanding what gender roles consisted of, if indeed there was such a thing as gender "roles" before the fall of mankind, cannot be underestimated when attempting to achieve an understanding of gender roles from a biblical perspective.

Evangelical leaders know this, and that is why the gender "roles," as seen in the first two chapters of Genesis are a frequent source of discussion and debate.

Understanding gender roles, as defined before the fall, is important for the simple fact that the entire body of conservative evangelical theology concerning this issue rests on what is contained within the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. And even though the biblical evidence is vigorously denied by many, the record shows that gender roles were radically different before the fall of mankind than after. In fact there is no biblical record of gender "roles" [as we understand them today] before sin entered the kosmos.

According to Pastor David L. Brown Ph.D., God has ordained a rigid caste system in regards to gender roles in which men assume the leadership "role" in the church and home, and women are to assume the support "role." He cites Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:20 as the basis for his conclusions. Brown contends that the scriptures which say there was not an "help meet" to be found for Adam ( so God was compelled to create one for him), prove the support role of women was established before the fall of mankind, and that Eve was created for the sole purpose of being an obedient, submissive, support person for Adam.

The writings of Pastor Brown reflect the general consensus of conservative, evangelicals in regards to gender roles within the Christian Church and home. "If man had not sinned," Brown declares, "he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness."

Pastor Brown has some serious flaws in his theology concerning original (un-fallen) gender roles in the following areas:

He assumes that the use of the words help and meet (meaning proper [or appropriate] help) in conjunction with the creation of woman implies she was created for the purpose of subordinate obedience to man
He assumes that the man was originally created to rule over other people, most especially his wife -Vs- receiveing a mandate to rule over the plant and animal kingdoms only.

In Psalms 33:20, the shepherd/prophet/king David, declared that the Lord was his "help." In this verse, he used the same Hebrew word "help" that was used in Genesis chapter two concerning the woman in relation to the man. Does this imply that David was to rule over God with wisdom and love? Or that God was to obey David with humility and meekness? God was to be a submissive, support person in helping David succeed? Is it possible that the word "help" can be used without any connotation of subordinate subservience? We see it used it that way many times in scripture. God indeed was David's help. And the scriptures are clear, that he is our help as well. But he is certainly not our subordinate servant.

The word "help," in Genesis chapter two in regards to the woman, has no implication of subordinate servitude whatsoever. And the word that follows it, "meet," simply means "proper" or appropriate. The argument can be made that Adam was also an appropriate help for Eve, for the simple fact that they were both humans.

In Genesis 2:20 (one of the verses used by Brown to prove that women were created to serve men), we are told that Adam gave names to all the cattle and all the fowls, but there was no appropriate "help" to be found for him. Why? Because there was no one else like him on the planet. The implication of this verse is clear; each of the animals, both male and female, already had an appropriate help--its own male or female counterpart. But the man did not have an appropriate help. He had no female counterpart. On the other hand, the woman came into being with an appropriate help already in place--her human counterpart, the man.

Was mankind (males in particular) created to rule over other men and women? The bible says humans (both male and female) were created in God's image and that both were instructed to have dominion over all the rest of His creation. We see no command given, in either the first or second chapter of Genesis, in regards to mankind ruling over any other human being. It is simply not there. The female human was given the same benefit as the male human concerning the privilege of subduing the earth by being given dominion over the plant and animal kingdoms.

Neither Genesis 2:18 nor 2:20 proves that the present gender role distinctions defended so fervently by conservative evangelicals were ordained of God before the fall. The rigid gender role, caste system, we see enforced among evangelicals today are nothing less than the result of sin. They have not been mandated by God but, rather, by men.

Advice That Can Get a Woman Killed

2007-11-24T03:22:00.000-08:00

Advice that can get a woman injured or killed real fast: Sit down and calmly inform your violent husband that unless he agrees to stop the violence and begin counseling you are going to leave him.

Fact: A woman increases her risk of death by 75% when she attempts to leave a violent relationship.

Fact: Even with a safety plan in place, in the event her violent husband responds negatively to the ultimatum, chances are minimal that she will make it to the door uninjured--if she makes it to the door at all.

Question: How many battered women out there have been physically prevented from getting out the door or had the telephone ripped out of your hands and violently destroyed before the violence was turned on you?

***

The quote below contains advice from author, speaker, Focus on the Family Vice President and media spokesperson, Dr. Bill Maier, to a battered wife in response to a letter for help he received just this year. Dangerous advice is hi-lighted in bold.

Begin Quote: My colleague, Dr. James Dobson, addresses the issue of domestic abuse in his book Love Must Be Tough. He believes the best approach is to force a crisis that confronts the problem head-on. Only then can it be treated and resolved. When you and your husband are both in a good mood, let him know that you have something important to discuss. Tell him that you love him very much, but that you are not going to allow him to abuse you any more. Tell him that you want him to get counseling for his anger problem immediately, and that unless he agrees, you are going to need to separate from him for a while. Given his past behavior, it's likely that he will beg for your forgiveness and promise that he will never harm you again. As much as you may be tempted to believe him, don't. Set a deadline for him to start counseling and stick to your guns. You also need to have a safety plan in place in the event that your husband responds negatively to this news. End Quote
http://listen.family.org/askdrbill/A000000380.cfm

Do Not Follow Dr. Bill's Advice! Do not depend on that safety plan to get you out of the house in one piece. Do depend on the fact that Dr. Bill's advice could get you killed.

Hypocrisy and Domestic Violence Seminars

2007-10-23T04:34:00.000-07:00

I recently posted an article in which I related the experience of a young mother who was asked to leave her church because her abusive, estranged husband appeared on church property during a church function and caused a disturbance.

This church is part of a large denomination which is very aggressive in promoting an image of being supportive to battered women, and less than one year after booting this poor woman and her children out of their fellowship..., this church is hosting a seminar on domestic violence!

While I rejoice that the congregation at large may be exposed to some good things during this seminar and possibly become better equipped to minister to battered/abused women, am I the only one to find this "seminar" to be the epitome of hypocrisy? Because unless it originated from an attitude of repentance for their shameful behavior when they were given a perfect opportunity to demonstrate compassion and did not, "hypocrite" is the only word that is applicable to each and every person supporting this event who did not support one of their very own when she needed them.

What's caught is more important than what's taught. And this church can hold all the domestic violence seminars they care to hold, but the fact is the ruling members know they are safe from having to deal up close and personally with the unpleasant reality of domestic violence. They are fairly certain they will not be called upon to actually help bear the burdens of abused and battered wives.

The experience of a young mother and her small children being kicked out of their church, at the request of a few--and the silence of the many--is proof enough of that.

That is why I have created The Dorcas Network. The Dorcas Network is not simply a function sponsored by a politically correct church leadership. It is a grassroots effort carried out by those who sincerely care.

Am I being uncomfortably blunt for some? I hope so. And I also hope and pray at least a few hearts have been moved and challenged to stand up and be counted.

In the very beginning of the movement to bring relief to battered wives, before the first shelter was ever built, it was the women themselves working together to form a network of safe houses for battered women. It was a grassroots effort then—just as bringing awareness and engendering compassion within the Christian Community needs to be a grassroots effort now.

Depending on our leadership to take the lead, in too many instances, has proven to be a bad decision. This is no time to drop the ball. This is not the time for complacency. The number of Domestic Violence deaths is steadily increasing. And the Christian community is obviously not yet equipped to deal with those who turn to them for help and support.

I exhort Pastors, Christian leaders and lay-people to get involved in this worthy effort. I exhort Pastors, Christian leaders and lay-people to refuse to tolerate politically correct hypocrisy.

If we are not an active part of the solution--we are part of the problem. Become part of the solution. Join the Network!

Jocelyn Andersen

What Positive Roles Can Churches Play In the Safety Planning Process if...?

2007-09-11T05:18:00.000-07:00

Question: What positive roles can Churches play in the safety planning process if the victim does not want to pursue assistance from the criminal justice system, but is willing to pursue assistance from her religious community?

Answer: I'm going to be honest and say that for starters, it would be good if churches were even willing to participate in the safety planning process to begin with!

Sadly, in so many instances, I have not found this to be the case. So number one, I would have to say, is to be willing to get involved in the first place.

Then extend help without attaching conditions. There were times help was denied to me (not necessarily by my church) because I would not meet someone's condition (i.e., I'll come get you if you promise never go back. Or worse, why should I come get you? You'll just go back.).

The process must begin with the following two things:

Willingness to get involved
Not attaching conditions to the involvement such as requiring the woman to seek legal remedies or never go back.

Demonstrate respect for the woman who is seeking help, and grant her the liberty of making her own choices without risking losing our support.

Do Large Numbers of Evangelicals Believe Women Should Shoulder Part of the Responsibility for Being Beaten?

2007-09-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

At least one conservative evangelical is honest about his views concerning women and domestic violence.

Below are the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson's comments in a media advisory released just today:
>>"Juanita Bynum's comments and actions prove that she's an angry, out-of-control woman. God wouldn't have her discard her marriage in order to promote the domestic abuse issue or any other phony cause," <<>>how can Juanita Bynum be the poster child for domestic abuse before we know the truth about her role in this altercation? <<>>two sides to every story and like too many domestic abuse cases the husband is being tried and convicted based on a one-sided account<<

I believe the Reverend Peterson may be a bit "over the top" in his attitudes concerning women and what he believes is the "role they play" in domestic violence. However, it might surprise some to find out that high-profile conservatives, Dr. James Dobson and Dr. John MacArthur, don't really disagree with him that women should shoulder part of the responsibility for being beaten. I have cited examples in my book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, where these evangelical leaders essentially agree with what Peterson is saying.

In his bestselling book, Love Must be Tough, Dobson high-lighted an example of a woman who, he believed, deliberately provoked her husband into hitting her, so she could show off her “trophy” (that’s what he called her bruises). He portrayed this woman as being a fairly typical representation of battered wives. He completely exonerated the poor, "uncommunicative" husband who inflicted the bruises (that was in the edition I purchased in March of this year. Dobson just released a new edition of that book in April. I do not know if he has changed anything in the newest edition). And John MacArthur came right out and said (in a recorded question/answer session) that many times, he believes the wife provokes the violent behavior of the husband.

The news reported that the attack on Juanita Bynum was perpetrated in a public setting. From what I can gather, there is little to no doubt that Bynum was physically assaulted by her estranged husband. Refraining from physical violence remains entirely within the realm of responsibility of the one committing the violence. There is no excuse for domestic violence regardless of the provocation or lack thereof.

Recipe for Violence Among Christians

2007-09-05T04:42:00.000-07:00

Contents of latest Media Advisory:

I just completed an interview with a Christian radio host in which a new ingredient, in addition to submission, patriarchy and blame shifting, has been added to the recipe for Domestic Violence among Christians -- 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 Dare any of you having a matter against another go to the Law...?

My position is, that any woman, Christian or otherwise, who experiences physical violence should, for safety's sake, take immediate action to protect herself. And this usually involves legal action. My interviewer was obviously not in agreement with this approach. He seemed to feel that the scripture which admonishes believers not to take other believers to court should be interpreted to mean that a Christian wife should not report assaults by her husband to the authorities at all, but rather to her local church leadership only.

For battered Christian wives, this is a very dangerous, life-threatening, interpretation of that scripture. It is an interpretation I am not at all in agreement with. I do not believe that particular scripture is referring to violent crime. And my interviewer conveniently left out the part that says... "but rather let yourselves be defrauded." Obviously this verse is referring to disputes over money or property--not to physical assault.

This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:1-2, leaves the door open for blame-shifting, an ingredient in this volatile recipe which transfers the responsibility from the one who is perpetrating the violence to the one who is being assaulted. Christian wives are commonly told that they are most likely provoking the abuse, and if they would react to their husband's abusive behavior more submissively, then he would change. Research has shown just the opposite, and blows this unbiblical argument clean out of the water.

The interview underscored the fact that, among Christians, domestic violence is not considered all that dangerous -- as if a Christian wife-beater is not as much of a threat to his wife as a non-Christian wife-beater. This idea is ludicrous, but very prevalent. The proof of that is seen in John MacArthur's statement that a wife should leave while the heat is on, but with the intention of going back when the heat is off.

When is the heat ever off? When is it ever safe for a battered wife to return to a violent home?

During the course of this interview, I was also asked about church discipline for batters. I agree that church discipline for members who commit violent crimes should be enforced, but in addition to, not as a replacement for, arrest and prosecution.

Jocelyn Andersen, author of Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence is available for comment or interview.
www.WomanSubmit.com

~~jocelyn andersen

The Status of Women in Non-Judeo Christian Cultures

2007-08-01T14:20:00.000-07:00

Many decry the Bible, the two religions based on the Bible, and more importantly, the God of the Bible and his Son, Jesus Christ, as being male-chauvinist and sexist. Injustices to women in Judeo-Christian societies are very often blamed on the influence of the Bible.

While it is true, that over the centuries, many have abused the scriptures in socially successful attempts to validate their own male-chauvinist and sexist attitudes, the God of the Bible is not a chauvinistic God, nor is the Bible itself a sexist book.

Even a casual comparison between what the Bible teaches and how historically non Judeo-Christian societies have treated their women shows that the most humane and dignified treatment women have ever received has been in Judeo-Christian societies.

Compare Ancient Israel to Ancient Athens
A comparison, for example, between the patriarchal, ancient Hebrew culture portrayed in the Old Testament, and the politically patriarchal, but radically Democratic, 4th and 5th century Athenian culture, reveals discriminations against Athenian women that have never existed in either the Christians or the Jewish cultures, either before or after the 5th century, and are not espoused by either the Old or New Testaments of the Bible.

Women in Leadership
Athenian women were completely and absolutely excluded from any type of tangible power. They were not even considered citizens of Athens—only males could be citizens and participate in politics and own property.

Yet, in the Hebrew culture, we read about women doing both. The Israelites at one point were governed by a woman.

This same woman was their political, military, and spiritual leader. Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, was prophet, Head of State, and commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel. The Bible records that in all of Jewish history, only two men ever held all three of those positions at the same time. They were Moses and Samuel. A chauvinistic God would never have allowed a woman to rise to such a position of prominence and power, nor would it have ever been recorded in a sexist book.

The Right to Buy & Sell Property
Although the hereditary rights of citizenship passed to an Athenian male through both his mother and his father, his mother actually possessed none of those rights. She was not considered an Athenian citizen, and besides the right to be involved in the politics of Athens, one of the most important rights of citizenship was the right to own property.

Since Athenian women were not citizens, they were prohibited from owning either houses or land.

There was no such prohibition placed upon the women of Israel. The Bible record reveals, in the book of Proverbs, a married woman who was also a shrewd business woman—and one of her businesses just happened to be the buying and selling of real estate.

We also see an example, in Joshua, of two daughters asking their father to deed them some valuable property, which he does. A chauvinistic God would never have allowed either of these two things to happen, nor would a chauvinistic book contain records of such things.

What about legal capabilities of Athenian women?
There were none. Below are a few examples:

Guardianship
A fourth century Athenian woman was under guardianship her entire life. If her husband died, she could place herself under the care of the guardian of her minor sons (she was not considered legal guardian of even her own children). If her sons had reached their majority by the time her husband died, she could choose one of them as her guardian.

She was considered incompetent from the moment of her birth until the moment of her death. During the course of her entire life, an Athenian woman never knew an autonomous moment.

On the other hand, Hebrew woman were never considered to be the property of their husbands or required to be under guardianship after marriage.

In the event of her husband’s death, a Hebrew women was not required to be placed under the guardianship of a male relative. She was the guardian of her own minor children.

Naomi
The widow, Naomi, had male relatives when she returned to Israel from Moab after her husband died. But both she and her widowed daughter-in-law lived alone. Life was not easy for them, but they were free to live independently.

The Widow
The Old Testament story of the widow who, with the help of a miracle, was able to pay off her husband’s debt thereby preventing her sons from being sold into slavery is another proof that Israelite women were allowed to live independently of men and also retain custody of their minor children in the event of the husband’s death. This widow paid off the debts and retained guardianship of her sons.

Anna
Anna, a prophetess in the Bible, was married for only seven years before becoming a widow. She was not required to return to the guardianship of a male relative after her husband died. Nor was she required to marry again. She chose to devote the rest of her life to ministry as a single woman. She ministered to God day and night in the temple. She lived a completely autonomous life. A chauvinistic God would never have allowed a woman to serve him in such a way, and a sexist book would never have contained Anna's story.

Personal Identity
As a rule, in 5th century Athenian writings, men were referred to by their proper names. With few exceptions, women were referenced only by their relationships to their closest male relatives. A woman was identified as so and so's mother, sister, daughter, etc.. A few Athenian women (related to men of note) are mentioned by their proper names, but by and large, even in legal proceedings where a woman may have been center stage, her proper name was not considered important. Therefore it was not even documented.

No such discrimination occurs in the biblical histories. If a woman was a main player in a biblical event, her name was recorded. Her closest male relative’s name may also have been recorded, but the woman herself was accorded the dignity of having her identity recognized separately from her male relative’s.

The number of biblical examples of this are too numerous to attempt listing them all, but just a few are: Miriam the prophetess and sister of Moses; Deborah, judge, prophet, commander-in-chief and wife of Lapidoth; Hulda, prophetess and wife of Shallum; Esther, cousin of Mordechai and Queen to Ahasaurus; Ruth the Moabitess who became the grandmother of King David; Naomi, wife, mother and mother-in-law to Ruth; Rahab the harlot; Rizpah, a concubine who took on a King and won. The examples can go on and on. A God who was chauvinistic and sexist would never have allowed the proper names of these women to be recorded. A chauvinistic book would never have listed their praiseworthy and heroic deeds.

Marriage
In 4th and 5th century Athens, marriage and motherhood was the fulfillment and ultimate goal of every Athenian girl. Sound familiar? No one can blame the Judeo-Christian influence of the Bible on that one. Athens was a polytheistic society which acknowledged many gods—but the God of the Jews and Christians was not one of them. The women of Athens were limited, in the extreme, in the choices they could make for their lives.

There are cultures even today whose women are as limited as the women of ancient Athens. There are modern cultures that advocate for the torturing and killing of women who fail to produce a male child for their husbands, and yet we see women who never conceived a child spoken of positively in the Bible.

Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments of the Bible is it even hinted at that the only avenue open to the women of Israel was marriage and motherhood.

There are women praised in scripture who either never conceived or whose personal choices led them never to become mothers. Esther is famous for rescuing her people from genocide. But there is no record that she ever became a mother.

If Anna, the prophetess, became a mother during her seven years of marriage, there is no record of it, nor is either her husband’s or her father’s name mentioned. We know very little of Anna other than it was her choice to live the remainder of her life, after widowhood, serving God as an unmarried woman.

A chauvinistic God would certainly never have allowed women to make such choices nor would these choices and have been recorded in a sexist book.

Negative Stereotyping of Women in Ancient Writings
In ancient Athenian writings, we see women negatively stereotyped on a consistent basis. Women were commonly described as drunkards, weak, fearful, vindictive, irrational, self-indulgent, etc..

Men, of course, are portrayed as just the opposite.

We see no such discriminatory stereotyping of women in the Bible. Equally as important, is the fact that men are not consistently described as being near perfect. The Bible records both the sinful and praiseworthy acts of both men and women.

In the Bible we see both men and women performing heroic exploits. In the Bible, we see both men and women behaving in both positive and negative ways. That kind of impartiality is rare to non-existent in any other body of ancient writings. That is because the Bible is not a chauvinistic-sexist book, nor is the God of the Bible a male-chauvinistic or sexist God.

Value of Muslim Women Today
Shall we take a look at modern day Islam and compare the value the Islamic sacred writings of the Koran and the Hadith place on women compared to the value the Bible places on women?

A Muslim woman is worth nothing aside from whatever subjective value her husband places on her. A Muslim husband can legally deny his wife the right to care for or breast feed a child from a previous marriage. There is no community property in an Islamic marriage, and a wife is completely dependent upon her husband for her daily sustenance. The Koran and the Hadith provide numerous instances in which a man can refuse to support his wife. It goes without saying that wife-beating is legal in Islam.

How about Hinduism or Buddhism?
What kind of rights do women possess in countries where these religions have dominated and helped shape the culture for centuries?

Suttee
It was the influence of the Bible that stopped the abhorrent Hindu practice of suttee [sati] in India where widows were burned alive on their husband’s funeral pyres.

Only in the last year or so have laws passed in India making wife-beating illegal.

No claim that the Judeo-Christian God is a male-chauvinist or that the Bible is a sexist book can be backed up by with facts.

The fact is that, although men and women are continually attempting to create God in their own image, the God of the Bible is not a male-chauvinist, and the Bible is not a sexist book.

Submission

2007-07-29T05:41:00.000-07:00

Is Christianity a male-chauvinist, sexist religion? Has God really given Christian husbands military-like authority over their wives?

New Testament Men & Women are Equal
In the New Testament book of Galatians, Chapter three verses 27 and 28, we read that God sees no status difference at all between male and female Christians. The scriptures plainly say we are all equal ("one") in Christ. We read in 1 Peter 3:7, that men and women are heirs together of the Kingdom of God.

New Testament Women Can Preach
We read in the book of Acts, that God’s daughters as well as his sons will prophesy. In some churches prophesying is limited to preaching. But preaching is preaching, so obviously, in spite of the many obvious chauvinistic and sexist interpretations of scripture, the New Testament places no prohibition on women preaching.

Although some men abuse the scriptures and use them against women in an oppressive way, Christianity, as the Bible clearly reveals, is not a male-chauvinist, sexist religion.

The "Authority" of Husbands
The entire Issue of the "authority" of husbands hinges on only one verse in the entire Bible. That is Genesis 3:16.

The very popular Matthew Henry Commentary, leading evangelical leader John MacArthur, and many other evangelical writers and leaders unfailingly refer back to this verse as the last word to any and all arguments on the subject. The general interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is based on the assumption that the married male was endowed by God with authority over his wife and given the right to demand submission from her.

Does the passage in Genesis 3:16 which says "and he shall rule over you," really mean that men were given a promotion in status within the marriage relationship because of sin? If that is what it means, then it would be the only verse in the entire Bible that definitively gives males authority over females.

Submit, Subject, Obey
Other verses which some hold to validate that interpretation of Genesis 3:16 are Titus 2:5, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 where wives are commanded to obey their husbands, be in subjection to their husbands and to be silent in church. These are verses which are also widely believed to bestow authority on the husband over the wife.

However, a close look at both the context and the Greek they were originally translated from quickly dispels any such notions.

All Christians are Commanded to Submit to One Another
The same Greek word, Hupotasso, that commands wives to be subject to their husbands in Ephesians 5:22, is used in Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5 to command all Christians to be subject to one another.

Has every Christian really been given a military-like authority over every other Christian?

Absolutely no one claims that to be the case. Indeed, it is ludicrous to even consider such a thing. Yet that is exactly how these passages are interpreted when it comes to the husband and wife relationship.

The very same Greek word translated, “submit,” in Ephesians 5:22 in reference to wives, is also used in Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5 in reference to all Christians, who are commanded to be “subject to” and to be in submission to one another.

That means the Christian husband is commanded in scripture to also submit and “be subject" to his Christian wife.

Have All Christians Been Endowed With Authority Over All Other Christians? Do All Christians Have the Right to Demand Submission From All Other Christians? As we have shown, the command to submit and be subject to one another applies to husbands, wives and extends to all Christians. This command for all Christians to submit to one another in no way gives any Christian the authority to demand submission from any other Christian.

There is absolutely no implication of authority being conferred on wives over husbands in Ephesians 5:21 or 1 Peter 5:5, and it is both interesting and very telling that virtually no one argues this fact. So why is it that so many claim that Ephesians 5:22, which uses the very same Greek word as verse 21, bestows a mystical, unquestionable mantle of authority over wives on Christian husbands?

Be Fruitful Multiply and Have Dominion….
The original biblical mandate, found in Genesis 1:27-28, was for all mankind (both male and female) to have dominion over the land creatures, the sea creatures, and every living thing that moved upon the earth. No mandate was given to either the man or the woman to exercise dominion over the other.

Old & New Testament Mandates After the Fall of Man
According to Jesus, in Matthew 22:36-40 the entire body of Old Testament writings can be summed up in two commands, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourselves.

The New Testament mandate for mankind is to place ourselves unselfishly at the disposition of one another—to prefer one another before ourselves, to refrain from thinking to highly of ourselves. Christian leaders are warned not to Lord it over their flocks. Jesus said in John 13:35 that all men would know we are his disciples because of our love for one another.

Demanding Submission is a Violation of Scripture
In light of those mandates, to demand submission from anyone (other than legal, judicial authorities) clearly violates the biblical command directed towards every Christian to be “subject to” (accountable to, at the disposition of, defer to) every other Christian. Therefore, the same limitations placed on wives and every other Christian in regards to submission, must be placed on the Christian husband in regards to his wife.

The marriage relationship is not exempt from the general biblical instructions Christians are given regarding all relationships—one of which is to submit ourselves one to another.

Women Keep Silent
The passage in 1 Corinthians where women are forbidden to speak in church is clearly in reference to a wide-spread local custom of the time and no longer applicable today. There are very few, if any, churches in existence today that, in actual practice, adhere to that custom. So there is no good reason to defer to that verse in defense of the authority of the husband.

Keep it in Context
It can be argued that the same Greek word, Hupotasso, translated obey, submit, and be subject to, also applies to children, to slaves and to government authority, so obviously this word has a variety of applications including a connotation of strict obedience and subjection in some usages.

All this tells us is, that the context in which this word is used, must be taken into careful consideration before coming to a conclusion as drastic and consequential as giving husbands the unilateral right to demand a lifetime of subjection from their wives, thereby depriving them of all autonomy and personal freedom.

Evangelical Views Converge
It is interesting that the various schools of evangelical thought disagree about whether or not males and females were originally created equal and given dual authority over the earth and over all creation. Some believe the Bible teaches this is the case and some do not.

Most evangelical views converge, however, in assuming that after the fall—because of sin, the man was given authority over the woman. It is generally agreed that the woman’s curse included more pain in childbirth, increased frequency of pregnancies /multiple births—and that her husband would rule over her by being promoted to the status of “head of the house.”

The man’s curse, it is generally agreed, had to do with working hard. He was told he would eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, because the ground was cursed as well.

Was Adam Given a Mandate To Rule?
No one can deny that the scriptures say, “…and he shall rule over thee.” But is that a solid basis for interpreting Genesis 3:16 to mean that Adam was given a promotion within the marriage relationship and received a mandate from God to rule over his wife?

It cannot be proven from scripture that Adam was given any such mandate.

The scriptures simply say that one of the consequences Eve would have to pay because of sin being introduced into a previously sinless creation, was that her husband would rule over her.

Adam’s ruling over his wife was a perversion. It was a curse. It was a consequence of sin—not a reward for it, and certainly not a command.

Patriarchy

2007-07-27T04:38:00.000-07:00

I am often asked if I believe patriarchy is responsible for spousal abuse and domestic violence. To a large degree, the answer has to be yes. But I believe the real question(s) should be, "Is the God of the Bible a male-chauvinistic God? And is the Bible itself a sexist book?

All ancient cultures were patriarchal cultures, and many cultures today still are, but it seems the Bible is singled out and blamed for many of the past and present prejudices and mistreatments of women simply because the Jewish culture, chronicled in the Old Testament, was also a patriarchal culture. Bible Definition of Patriarch In the Bible, the word "patriarch" is used only 4 times—all in the New Testament and all translated from the same Greek word, Patriarches, which literally means male ancestor or progenitor. Biblically speaking, the word patriarch encompasses no greater meaning than that.

The secular definition of patriarch is: The father and ruler of a family or tribe, a venerable old man, a bishop of the highest rank in the early Christian church, and patriarchy is defined as: a form of socialization in which the father is head of the family and in which descent is reckoned in the male line—the children belonging to the father's clan.

Feminist's view patriarchy as inherently oppressive and discriminatory towards women, i.e., male-chauvinistic and sexist, and rightly so, as historically, in practical application, that view has been well validated.

Women in the Genealogical Records: The Jewish culture, which is the culture the Old Testament of the Bible primarily chronicles, was a patriarchal culture. We see that the Jewish genealogies are primarily patriarchal—almost 100%. But they deviate from time to time to include women in the genealogical records. Although there is no law or command found in the Bible concerning family record keeping, it is obvious that the human race, as portrayed in the Bible, quickly turned from reckoning family lines through female kinship to the patriarchal method of socialization. Katharine Bushnell maintains genealogy was originally reckoned through female kinship, and she makes a good argument for female kinship and how and why it was overthrown.

Is the Bible a sexist book?

Definition of Chauvinist: The dictionary defines a chauvinist as one who puts his or her own gender on a pedestal, an irrational advocacy and love for one’s own sex, the minimization, status declassification, putting down, and belittling of the opposite sex as a whole. Sexism: A sexist is someone who advocates for and endorses chauvinistic thought and policy, implementing actual discrimination against the opposite sex.

Sexist discrimination is the culmination of chauvinistic thought, so logically, chauvinism leads to sexism. Do the scriptures put the male sex on a pedestal? Do the scriptures put the male sex on a pedestal and irrationally advocate for it while at the same time minimizing, putting down and belittling the female sex? The answer to that question is, no.

The Old Testament example is that women were not only equally citizens of the commonwealth of Israel just as men were, but were also well able and permitted to handle the responsibilities of leadership. Women are still afforded respect and opportunity in that culture. Deborah Golda Mier was born in Russia, grew up in America, and became the second female Prime Minister of Israel. The first was the Deborah we read of in the book of Judges.

In Deborah, we see an ancient example of a woman who held three major positions of authority in Israel. She held these positions simultaneously. Although she had a husband, she was the one who was Prophet, Judge (equal to our modern day heads of state) and Commander in Chief of the armies of Israel. Under her administration Israel lived in peace for forty years. In how many ancient patriarchal societies, besides the Old Testament Jewish culture, do we see a woman held in such high esteem that she serves as head of state, Commander in Chief of the army while also being recognized and deferred to as prophet to the nation? Look around the world today and count the number of women leaders in comparison to men. Even though, at this present time, there are more women in leadership than at any previous time in history, the worldwide ratio of men to women in leadership is still poor. Women are still not permitted to vote in many of today’s cultures. They are counted as citizens of their countries only in terms of possession but not in privilege.

God Created Men and Women Equal The Bible itself (aside from how it is interpreted and taught by traditional role religionists) supports the fact that God initially created male and female as equal in status. The Bible says that both men and women are created in the image of God. The discrimination we still see today, even in these modern and “enlightened” times, is a consequence of sin being introduced into God’s creation. Although God himself, in the third chapter of Genesis, predicted that oppression of wives by their husbands would be one of the consequences of the woman’s sin, Genesis 3:16 does not imply, nor can it be inferred, that authority over their wives has been bestowed by God upon all husbands. But this remains the popular interpretation of the verse.

The fact is, there are many examples in scripture that refute this interpretation and prove that God is not a chauvinistic God, and that the Bible is not a sexist book, but in spite of the weight of scriptural evidence against it, most theological arguments concerning male authority ultimately lead to Genesis 3:16 anyway.

Women in the Bible: Would a sexist book include books named after women—books which memorialize their praiseworthy and heroic actions? Would a sexist book include women in genealogical records? In scripture, there are repeated instances of praiseworthy and heroic actions of women being recorded. The record is there of women in ministry. These things cannot be denied. We read of women functioning as deacon, apostle and teacher. The first person to see Jesus alive and to preach the gospel was a woman. We see women in the highest positions of leadership in the Bible. The most dramatic, of course, is Deborah, but we see others as well.

Huldah, the wife of Shallum, was a prophetess. Although she was married, there is no indication that she was required to consult her husband when she served the Lord as prophet to the nation of Israel. That placed her on the same authoritative plane as Nathan, who was prophet to Israel during the reign of King David. The same goes for Deborah. There is no evidence that she was required to consult with her husband as she carried out her leadership responsibilities as Judge, Prophet and Commander-in-Chief. Some may argue that Deborah is the only example in the entire history of Israel of a woman holding that position, but the fact is, there were only two men in the entire history of Israel who held all three positions simultaneously, and these were Moses and Samuel. So we see that Deborah's leadership position superseded that of every male in the entire Old Testament with the exception of the two she held equal rank with.

A chauvinistic-sexist book would never have carried the stories of Huldah and Deborah. It is the biased interpretations of traditional role religionists that has given the Bible a bad reputation as a male-chauvinistic and sexist book.

Jocelyn’s next book: Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, & the Evangelical Caste System, is scheduled for release on July 20, 2010 to coincide with the 162nd anniversary of the second day of the historic Seneca Falls Women's Conference held at a Methodist church in Seneca Falls, New York. It was a decidedly Christian event.

Visit the following link for details:
http://hungryheart100.tripod.com/womansubmit/id10.html

Beauty for Ashes

2007-07-25T11:43:00.000-07:00

Just this morning I found myself feeling the sting of something that happened to me years ago, and that I thought I had gotten over and forgiven the offender for!

I was really caught off-guard when feelings of resentment and unforgiveness surfaced concerning this particular incident. I had to give myself a good shake and remember that I really do believe all things work together for good for those who love the Lord and are the called according to his purpose. All things--even the worst things.

I can thank him for the things that hurt and marvel that according to his great mercy and power I am even still alive (if I dwell on some things though, it can get scary). I have found that is the only way I can truly forgive. That and asking myself just what that person could do that would satify my sense of justice and settle it for me.

This answer to that of course, is that there is nothing they could do to make up for the pain and injustice. Nothing that would satisfy my soul. Only Jesus can give me peace on that one as I obey him in forgiving and be consciously thankful that he can take these awful things and through a power only he has, make something beautiful grow from the experience.

He truly does give beauty for ashes....

A Young Mother's Story

2007-07-13T17:58:00.000-07:00

Churches are failing abused women through a combination of bad advice, faulty theology and a Catch-22 where women are told divorce is not an option and yet held in contempt for staying in the situation and tolerating abuse...

That's how Bob Allen, managing editor of Ethics Daily began his very moving and powerful article/review of, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, published on July 13, 2007.
He showed himself for the advocate he is on behalf of battered women.

In fact, I have been moved more than once by the sincere compassion demonstrated by evangelical journalists like Bob Allen of Ethics Daily and Ed Thomas of One News Now.

Within the past week or so the story of a young mother was brought to my attention that had me spitting nails and reminded me all over again of why I wrote Woman Submit!

This young woman had escaped an abusive husband and, along with her small children, was attempting to rebuild her life.

She had found a church she really loved and threw herself whole-heartedly into being a part of the worship and fellowship activities there.

According to a fellow church member, with the exception of her children, "The church was all she had" in her life during the short time she been attending services there.

Now this was not a small narrow minded so-called "fundamentalist" church, but rather a very large church of one of the more "progressive" and modern evangelical denominations. In fact, the denomination in question has done several surveys concerning domestic violence and portrays a compassionate public image for women who find themselves in such circumstances.
The church member who shared this young mother's story with me did so out of profound regret concerning a decision the Church leadership made in regards to this young woman and her children.

His regret was such that he ultimately left that church for one he hopes would demonstrate more sincere compassion towards its members.

It is not uncommon for the spouses or former spouses of abused or battered women to not take the divorce or separation quietly. In fact, they rarely do. It may surprise the uninitiated to find out that the workplace is a common place for battered women to be killed or injured by their violent spouses or ex-spouses.

This young woman happened to be at church when her ex-husband showed up. Fortunately he did not harm her or anyone else, but before he left, he had made quite a scene, thoroughly humiliated her and possibly frightened a few other people as well.

I was not told the extent of the incident or whether or not police had to be called. All I was told was that after this happened, the young mother was summoned to the pastor's office and informed that this was not the right church for her. He felt certain she would be happier if she found another place for herself and for her children to worship and fellowship.

This large, rich (they presently have a $5,000,000 building project going on), "progressive" church dropped this young family like a sack of potatoes--like so much garbage.

One young woman and 2 small children were simply too much trouble for all the rest of the members, who had their lives "together," to deal with.

Yes, the churches are failing abused women, in more ways than we can imagine. It is a stench in the nostrils of God.

And what a breath of fresh air, what a shot of encouragment it is for me to cross paths with people like Bob Allen, Ed Thomas, Marvin Sanders, Tim Wildmon,Earl and Rachel Gooden, Arthelene Rippy, Ted Elm and so many others who are joining with me in what often seems like an uphill battle to bring awareness and hopefully help generate some compassion towards battered and formerly battered women who draw strength from something as small as our acceptance of them and maybe a willingness to be inconvenienced, just a little bit, on their behalf as they take the steps they need to in order to free themselves from the hellish minefield of abuse.

Christian Men's Movements & Domestic Violence

2007-07-13T13:29:00.000-07:00

Here is a question I was asked this week and my answer:

Q:In the early 1990s the Promise Keepers was founded and seemed to usher in a new Christian men's movement. .. I'm wondering how you view the rise of the men's movenment as it relates to domestic violence, keeping in mind the following statement from Tony Evans:

"Men, sit down with your wife and say something like this, ‘Honey, I’ve made a terrible mistake . . . I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim the role.’ I’ m not suggesting, Tony Evans says, that you ask for your role back, I’m urging you to take it back . . . there can be no compromise here. If you’re going to lead, you must lead . . . Treat the lady gently and lovingly, But lead!"

A: I have not kept up with the rise of the Men’s Movement, so I really cannot comment on that. I would like to comment on the statement by Tony Evans that men need to “reclaim” leadership roles within their families regardless of how their wives feel about it (isn’t that what he said?) If that is the message of the men’s movement, I can see how that could translate into domestic violence in some cases.

I cannot disagree that many men have seriously dropped the ball in regards to responsibility towards their families in ways that burden wives with taking on multiple roles of mother, father and breadwinner. But Evan’s advice for husbands to “take back” authority they perceive their wife has usurped from them is a recipe for disaster in a marriage where the husband is prone to domestic violence—and there are plenty of men who are prone to domestic violence in evangelical Christian churches.

Evan’s statement is not surprising to me at all. It reflects an attitude that is quite prevalent among evangelicals that if the leadership balance at home is restored to what they feel it should be, with the wife in proper submission to her husband, then most family problems would automatically be solved.

His directive is not so much dealing with the issue of men reclaiming leadership roles within their marriages as it is with men demanding submission from their wives. This is made quite clear by the fact that the wife is given no option in the matter and lines up perfectly with the way the doctrine of submission is taught and interpreted within many evangelical churches. It is statements like this that lead men to believe it is their God-given right to exert authority over their wives, and this logically leads to problems with abuse if they attempt to assert this authority—especially with men who deal with unresolved anger issues and are prone to violence.

I feel certain Dr. Evans would argue that he is not suggesting that men exert authority over their wives, but what else can he be suggesting when he tells men they need to “take back” the leadership role within their marriages whether their wives agree to being defaulted to a subordinate role or not?

Jocelyn Andersen

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

2007-06-21T08:23:00.000-07:00

Here are some questions I get asked quite frequently:

Q: Do you think the doctrine of submission is responsible for some of the domestic violence that is taking place in the church?

A: Yes I do

Q: Why do you feel this is true?

A: Nowhere in scripture do we find even a hint that husbands are commanded or even permitted by God to demand submission from their wives. Yet we do find in the Bible where ruling over their wives will be a sinful inclination that husbands will naturally lean towards. Ruling over his wife was not a command given to Adam in Genesis chapter 3, but rather a very negative "consequence" of the fall.

I believe unscriptural preaching and teaching on the subject which stresses wifely submission as the answer to all or most marital problems naturally leads to abuses on the part of husbands as they attempt to assert a sinful authority over their wives that the scriptures simply do not permit.

In times past, scripture passages dealing with wifely submission were interpreted so literally, and enforced to such extremes, that laws were passed which gave a husband the right to beat his wife with a rod “no bigger than his thumb.”

Also, the fact that wife-beaters within the church are rarely subjected to church discipline, while in some congregations women who divorce due to the abuse are subjected to church discipline, sends a subliminal message to husbands that wife-beating or abuse is really not all that bad.

Q: Why did you stay and tolerate the abuse?

A: Ah, there it is, the question of the century! I devoted an entire chapter of my book to that question. In fact, the question of “Why She Stays” is the number one question asked of women in abusive situations.

I found, during the course of my research, that I reacted quite typically to the abuse in my marriage. There is really no simple answer to that question, except the one the Bible gives in Genesis Chapter 3 where God tells Eve that her husband will rule over her and her desire will be for him. The ruling part was a consequence to both Adam and Eve—not a blessing for him and a curse for her. And the desire for her husband part explains why she puts up with it.

In my own case, there were many separations and reconciliations along the way as I attempted to resolve the problems within my marriage. It was just part of the process. And if we believe what the Bible says, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the abused/battered wife, especially the evangelical Christian wife, does not find leaving an easy thing to do.

Jocelyn

Male Supremist Attitudes Among Christian Leaders

2007-06-20T15:29:00.000-07:00

A recent radio interview with a well-known Pastor was about as interesting, revealing and extreme as they come concerning male supremist attitudes from a Christian perspective.

I was asked to field questions and comments ranging from, "Are you submitted to your husband?" Do you agree with the Bible that he is your head?", "Most woman are angered by the fact [that their men are weak and possessed by them] and they end up destroying men--even their own sons..." to "Women tend to control men, and men become violent because they do not know how to handle this..."

Whew! All I can say is Thank God for his grace in giving me complete peace and composure throughout that interview.

That interview absolutely validated observations I made in Woman Submit!, in the chapter entitled "The Eve Syndrome" concerning the fact that abusive men can be traced back to the Garden of Eden where we see Adam behaving abusively towards his wife with no inclination whatsoever to take personal responsibility for his own actions.

It also validates my conclusion that the scripture in Genesis that says, "...and he shall rule over thee," does not teach that Adam was given authority over his wife as a reward for his sin, but rather was merely stating the fact that one of the consequences of his sin would be that his behavior would change in the fact that he would become very dominating towards his wife--even abusively so in some instances.

The centuries have proven this to be true .

About the Author: Jocelyn Andersen is a survivor of many years of spousal abuse and domestic violence and is passionate about sharing the God-given insights that brought her out of a lifestyle of tolerating abuse into the blessed place of peace and victorious Christian living she enjoys today.

The Church Is Battering Battered Women

2007-06-06T09:17:00.000-07:00

Instead of asking me "Why I Stayed?" Why aren't leading evangelicals being asked why they are advising battered women to return to violent marriages!

As a formerly battered wife and the author of Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, I am asked -- without fail -- every time I am interviewed, "why didn't you just leave?"

My question is this, why aren't the people who are so incredulous that I stayed after being battered asking prominent evangelical leaders why they are advising women to return to violent homes?

Prominent Christian leaders who are advising women to try and change violent husbands--not divorce them, advising women to get away while the heat is on--but with the intention of going back into the home when "the heat is off", are not being called into account for doling out this very dangerous counsel. while the women who follow their advice are being battered twice--once by their husbands, and then again by the church at large which berates them for not abandoning their violent marriages in spite of the fact that they are following the advice of well known and highly respected, and trusted, Christian leaders.

These evangelical leaders are very prominent, Have huge ministries and are frequently interviewed on radio and television. Their best selling books are reviewed and generally touted as excellent.

If anyone wonders who some of these leaders are, take look into the archives of any Christian Radio show. I guarentee there will be at least one maybe more interiviews with them found there.

If you are still having trouble, read my book, where I name a few of them.

Woman Submit! Christians and Domestic Violence, Is A Book That Could Save Lives

2007-04-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6344021

AUBURNDALE, Fla., April 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The Christian woman whose spirit is being crushed and life endangered by domestic violence often deals with church sanctioned oppression through unscriptural counsel to submit to her husband regardless of the circumstances. She is faced with a unique burden and needs straight answers -- not unrealistic expectations or cliched, stereotypical platitudes. In the book Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, by Jocelyn Andersen, she will get straight answers, clear scriptural direction, and some tough challenges from one who has been there but is there no longer.

For additional information or review copy:

www.WomanSubmit.com

Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence

Available August 1, 2007

ISBN-13: 978-0-9794293-0-9, ISBN-10: 0-9794293-0-7

Paperback, $12.99,

156 pages, 5 1/2 x 8 1/2

Release Source

One Way Cafe Press, Media Relations

P.O. Box 1954, Auburndale, Florida 33823

(863) 614-0439

Experts want new definition of torture

2007-03-06T04:45:00.000-08:00

Steve H. Miles of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics... said findings "show that the severity of long-lasting adverse mental effects is unrelated to whether the torture or degrading treatment is physical or psychological." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070305/ap_on_re_us/torture_study

He said this in relation to a study on the effects of physical torture -Vs- the effects of psychological abuse that was launched in an effort to more clearly define what "torture" is. This is being done in order to not induce long-lasting adverse mental effects on prisoners.

I know from being in an abusive marriage that living with an abuser, even one who abuses predominently psychologically, is inflicting torture on his or her spouse. Living with a spouse abuser is like living in a concentration camp.

I came upon this realization while reading Corrie Ten Boom's book "The Hiding Place" in which she relates her experience in the death camp Ravensbruck. I related to so many of her experiences there, only the things I was relating to were taking place in the, so called, sanctuary of my own home, and my torturer was the man I was married to (no exaggeration here).

The battered/abused spouse is being subjected to "torture."

Why Do Men Feel Threatened By Women?

2006-12-07T05:07:00.000-08:00

Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood once asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women. He replied: "They are afraid women will laugh at them." She then asked a group of women why they felt threatened by men. They answered: "We're afraid of being killed."