Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence

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."

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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....

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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/

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?

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)

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.

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/

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

The real questions, and the real issues surround patriarchy are these: 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.

Dictionary Definition of Patriarch
The secular dictionary 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 View
Feminists view patriarchy as inherently oppressive and discriminatory towards women, i.e., male-chauvinistic and sexist. Historically, in practical application, that view has been 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 Jewish culture portrayed in the Bible adhered to the patriarchal method of socialization.

The Real Issue
But the real questions, and the real issues, I believe, are these: Is the God of the Bible a male-chauvinistic God? And is the Bible itself 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 the 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 Deborah.

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 fallible humans) 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 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
Huldah, the wife of Shallum, was a prophetess. Although she was married, there is no indication that she was required to consult her husband as 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.

Deborah
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 Prophet, Head of State (Judge), and Commander In Chief of the armies of Israel.

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 they 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 Moses.

A chauvinistic-sexist book would never have carried the stories of Hulda and Deborah. It is the faulty interpretation and behavior of error-prone humans that has given the Bible a such bad reputation as a male-chauvinistic and sexist book.

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.

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