I write from a complementarian perspective, that is the view that I believe most conforms to Biblical teaching.
So, I can easily tell you that the solution to spousal abuse is not to eradicate or even discourage Godly men from leading their families in Godly ways.
First, we can look at preventing it. Well, perhaps first we have to define it.
The U.S. Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner."
Okay...let's define "abusive behavior". Here is a rather extensive list of behaviors that may (or may not be, depending on the couple) abusive.
The only one that I have any issue with in general is "pressures you to have sex". In normal circumstances, this is covered in Scripture, we are not to deny our partner. NOTE: IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. If a wife denies her husband because she thinks sex is "icky" and they haven't had sex in months, it's time for her to grow up and realize that she is a grown up with a husband who has grown up desires for his wife.
If we can accept this list as pretty inclusive, we can move on to preventing it.
It's more than "don't do this list of stuff." It's a good list, but following lists merely leads to legalism.
"If I don't do the things on this list, I'm a good husband." No. No.
What we need to do is to What Godly men need to do is to teach young men growing up and older men who need to be taught HOW to be Godly leaders in their home.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (Eph 5:25-28 - ESV)
This is sacrificial love, a love that leads a man to put the needs of his bride before his own. A love that would allow a man to lay down his life for the love of his life.
The word "sanctify" is used - is it inappropriate to use that word in context of husband and wife? Consider the second definition (per Strong's)
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
a) consecrate things to God
b) dedicate people to God
Imagine a marriage where a man is taught that in order to love his wife in a Godly way, he is to be ready to die for her; he is to be ready to give himself up for her. He needs to keep his bride away from profane things, protect her, dedicate her (and their marriage) to God.What would such sanctification look like? He would bathe her in Scripture, lead her in righteousness. LEAD her, not send her.
Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. (Col 3:19 - ESV)
The KJV says, "be not bitter against". One of the meanings (per Strong's) says "- the word for bitter means: to visit with bitterness, to grieve (deal bitterly with)
What if (in term of how a husband can love his wife) this is understood to be "do not grieve your wife, do not deal bitterly with her". What would that look like?
What is love?
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
>Love never ends(1 Cor. 11:4-8 - ESV)
If this is the standard of "love", if men are taught that this is the standard by which to treat their wives, this would be a huge step in preventing abuse. How can you be abusive toward another person that you are striving to love with love such as this?
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7 - ESV)
My friend did a study on this (perhaps we'll hear in the comments)...I am asked, "have I bestowed preciousness?" Do I feel as though I am honored as a co-heir?
Men should pay careful attention - if they do not live with understanding, if they do not show honor as co-heirs in Christ - their prayers will be hindered.
If that consequence does not make men who claim to be Christians sit up and pay attention...well, it should.
I believe that if men were taught (and held to this teaching) that to be in a marriage meant the commitment to love with this kind of love, many, many marriages would look a lot differently than they do; you cannot be abusive while loving with this kind of love.
Wayne Leman
you cannot be abusive while loving with this kind of love
Amen! Thanks for emphasizing this, Ellen.
Molly
Elen,
This is a great post. I'm not a comp, obviously, so I differ here and there, but you've presented a picture of male leadership that is SO much more in line with leadership as defined by Jesus. I can really get behind much of what you share. Honoring someone as a co-heir, as you said, really takes the wind out of the sales of an "I'm in charge, and you're here to be my servant" attitude, doesn't it?
Warmly,
Molly
Leigh Ann
Ellen, you stated all of that beautifully. This is what my husband strives for and I am a blessed woman. Of course that doesn't mean it happens every second of every day, but he is working on it just as I am working on being the wife that I should be. This is also what our church teaches and I am so thankful for it.
Thank you for sharing.
Ellen
I guess that the day that I am a perfect wife, I will be able to demand the perfect husband. Until that time (when I am a perfect wife), if I am married, love will have to cover a multitude of sin.
Suzanne
If this is the standard of “love”, if men are taught that this is the standard by which to treat their wives, this would be a huge step in preventing abuse.
If employers were taught to be fair to their employees this would be a huge step in preventing abuse in the workplace.
Maybe then we would not need bylaws and regulations for every little thing. We could depend on people being fair.
Ellen
As far as the world goes, I cannot expect those who do not have the light to act as though they do.
Within those who call themselves Christians, we can know them by their fruits. I cannot look at a person who won't forgive and believe that the Father will forgive them (by the way, if we forgive as the Father forgives, there is a case to be made to withhold forgiveness and restoration from those who will not repent).
If you (generic you) have not love...you are nothing. Abusers don't know how to love and they are nothing.
Sue
Abusers may attend church every Sunday of their life and act like everyone else in that church. They do not wear the fruits of their unrighteousness out in church. Then may abuse their young children in the home, isolate and restrict their wives, and physically and emotionally violate those under their power.
Nobody sees this except the people held for one reason or another under their power.
I do not know why you bring in forgiveness. In fact, the violent abuser is hardly ever known statistically to change his or her behaviour permanently. I think they can, but the only way this can be done is by totally removing from them a sense of their own entitlement to the submission of another person.
I mourn deeply for the abuser, and I call to account the teachers of unrighteousness for assisting abusers in being caught in the snares of their own weakness. I believe the church and everyone who teaches unilateral submission will have to account for this at the judgment seat of Christ.
The pity I have is now for the abuser, the one who thought that he or she had the right to demand of his or her partner, who thought they were entitled and were not able to understand that they were not entitled to the submission and obedience of another human being.
This is the ultimate grief and distortion of humanity, to be an abuser.
But, the church, instead of repenting for its position, repudiates the abuser and casts him or her out. The church needs to cast the log out of its own eye first and then the speck out of the eye of the abuser.
Ellen
Which is why I bring in forgiveness. I do not believe that if an abuser is not repentant that a wife is required to "forgive and forget".
I think they can, but the only way this can be done is by totally removing from them a sense of their own entitlement to the submission of another person.
That does not necessarily follow. You replace the sense of entitlement with a sense of responsibility. You deal with the sin, not the structure.
I believe the church and everyone who teaches unilateral submission will have to account for this at the judgment seat of Christ.
It's a very good thing that the majority of complementarians teach mutual (but different) submission and consider spousal abuse sin and many of them teach that abuse or neglect is a Biblical grounds for divorce.
😉
Sue
Oddly an abusive male might already be extremely responsible. He might be responsible for almost every breath his partner takes. He might be always there, always in charge, always in control. He does not need a lesson in being responsible, he needs a lesson in the concept that those who he is controlling have the right to make a few tiny decisions for their own life. He will never give that up. He will always believe that it is his responsibility to make decisions for his wife unless he is explicitly told not to.
He needs to be told not to be more responsible but to allow his partner to make some of her own decisions. He needs to be told that she does not need to "obey" him. He needs someone to tell him that in words of one syllable. Every minister needs to preach this sermon - "your wife does not have to obey you."
Ellen
In other words, he needs to be a complementarian, taught to love his wife as Christ loves the church. And he needs to be held accountable.
Ellen
Here's the thing.
Doing away with Godly leadership will not stop abuse any more than doing away with the priesthood will stop pedophilia.
Sue
That is what I mean - complementarians need to remove the word "obey" from the wedding vows.
Ellen
That is what I mean - complementarians need to remove the word “obey” from the wedding vows.
How about if we say that if it's my wedding, I get to pick?
Sue
Well, I would say that no one should teach it. However, it would be like the veil for Muslim girls in France. Unless it is against the law, girls will be violated or ostracized for not wearing the veil.
So a young woman would be influenced to promise to obey and only later realize that she is now ordered to never go for counseling, never speak to the minister privately, never tell another living soul that she is being hit.
She may be called a b***h and a wh*re for talking to her girlfriend about her marital problems. This is typical.
So, in all, I do not think it is wise for any Christian woman to promise to obey, especially since it is not biblical.
It is extremely dangerous, also for the children. For example, what if the wife is driving and the husband orders her to pass another car, and she refuses. Then he starts to yell at her all those words, and she hesitates and drifts into the oncoming lane, and he is still yelling at her to obey. She tries to pull over but there is someone behind. In the end he hits for not obeying faster. If she had been trained to obey instantly she would have made it around the truck in the first place. So the next time she must obey him immediately and pull out in front of the oncoming truck - that is the promise to obey.
What if they have two children and they are down by the water, and she is holding one child and she asks him to look after the other child and he won't because he has told her that she must never ask him to do anything, anything at all, that as wife she can never ask him anything, so the child falls in the water, and someone else pulls the child out, because God is good.
Don't ever ever promise to obey, or let anyone else make that promise.
Sue
Well, I would say that no one should teach it. However, it would be like the veil for Muslim girls in France. Unless it is against the law, girls will be violated or ostracized for not wearing the veil.
So a young woman would be influenced to promise to obey and only later realize that she is now ordered to never go for counseling, never speak to the minister privately, never tell another living soul that she is being hit.
She may be called a b***h and a wh*re for talking to her girlfriend about her marital problems. This is typical.
So, in all, I do not think it is wise for any Christian woman to promise to obey, especially since it is not biblical.
It is extremely dangerous, also for the children. For example, what if the wife is driving and the husband orders her to pass another car, and she refuses. Then he starts to yell at her all those words, and she hesitates and drifts into the oncoming lane, and he is still yelling at her to obey. She tries to pull over but there is someone behind. In the end he hits for not obeying faster. If she had been trained to obey instantly she would have made it around the truck in the first place. So the next time she must obey him immediately and pull out in front of the oncoming truck - that is the promise to obey.
What if they have two children and they are down by the water, and she is holding one child and she asks him to look after the other child and he won't because he has told her that she must never ask him to do anything, anything at all, that as wife she can never ask him anything, so the child falls in the water, and someone else pulls the child out, because God is good.
Ellen
Sue, what are the statistics - of abused women, how many have vowed to obey in their wedding vows vs. how many have not (or are not even married)? Please prove that the word "obey" creates abusers.
And then back to the post...please tell me how teaching men to love their wives as Christ loves the church creates abuse.
Sue
I believe that if men were taught (and held to this teaching) that to be in a marriage meant the commitment to love with this kind of love, many, many marriages would look a lot differently than they do; you cannot be abusive while loving with this kind of love.
I am saying that I have been in this mind of church all my life, and I know women and children abused by their fathers who were some of them ministers.
So, know, their marriages do not look very good.
Sue
Let's try that again.
"I am saying that I have been in this kind of church all my life, and I know women and children abused by their fathers who were some of them ministers.
So, no, their marriages do not look very good.
I am starting to laugh at my own typos. A little comic relief.
Ellen
Sue, speaking of not reading posts, I had asked,
Sue, what are the statistics - of abused women, how many have vowed to obey in their wedding vows vs. how many have not (or are not even married)? Please prove that the word “obey” creates abusers.
And then back to the post…please tell me how teaching men to love their wives as Christ loves the church creates abuse.
Sue, abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not.
Sue
Sue, what are the statistics - of abused women, how many have vowed to obey in their wedding vows vs. how many have not (or are not even married)? Please prove that the word “obey” creates abusers.
I don't know. About one in five, according to the typical stats. Abuse overall, is one in five. It cannot be divided out properly by believing Christian and "obedience vowing Christian". Most complementarian scholars admit that abuse exists equally across the board. However, most abuse among non-Christians is associated with alcohol.
Egalitarian Christians do not have a separate statistic. But from what I have seen concerning divorce, which is more easily measurable, it is most common in the more conservative denominations, Baptist, I believe are the highest of all groups, Christian or non-Christian.
Sue
And then back to the post…please tell me how teaching men to love their wives as Christ loves the church creates abuse.
It doesn't actually do anything either way. It doesn't cause people to abuse and it doesn't prevent it. But telling the couple that the wife is to submit unilaterally creates the single most identifiable correlate to male violence there is - that of male enititlement.
Ellen
I don’t know. About one in five, according to the typical stats. Abuse overall, is one in five.
Source, please?
But telling the couple that the wife is to submit unilaterally creates the single most identifiable correlate to male violence there is - that of male enititlement.
It is a very good thing that complementarianism doesn't teach unilateral submission, then, is it not?
I am very glad that complementarians teach mutual (but different) submission.
Ellen
On your comment on divorce:
are you saying that you have a statistic that says that Baptists have a higher divorce rate that non-Christians? (it is quite possible, I have not seen that broken down by denominations)
Question: Do these statistics take into account the number of non-Christian who have been long-term domestic partners that are not marries and break up?
What is the percentage of Christian couples that are living together married vs. not married?
What is the percentage of non-Christians that are living together married vs. not married?
These numbers skew the stats.
Sue
Then you don't mind not putting "obey" in the wedding ceremony, because that would definitely give the those who witness the wedding the wrong impression.
A man might go home and beat his wife for not being obedient because she had moved to the right instead of the left when he told her which way to go, from his angle of course.
Ellen
Actually, in considering wedding vows, I'd like something like,
I will be a daughter of Sarah, praised for obeying her husband, who she called "lord". I vow to submit to my husband as the church submits to Christ, in everything.
A man might go home and beat his wife for not being obedient because she had moved to the right instead of the left when he told her which way to go, from his angle of course.
I probably shouldn't serve food either, since there might be somebody present who is a glutton.
Are you really so fear based and irrationally / emotionally driven that you think that merely hearing the word "obey" would drive a man who are not already an abuser to abuse?
Sue
are you saying that you have a statistic that says that Baptists have a higher divorce rate that non-Christians? (it is quite possible, I have not seen that broken down by denominations)
No, I don't, I must have made that up. Sorry. 🙂
It says that of the listed denominations Baptists have the highest level.
I may have gotten statistics from somewhere else before but I can't find it.
I don't think the stats are all that good either way. You really cannot identify who goes to church and who doesn't.
However, if one third of all submissive Christian women are going to end up divorced, they should look out for their own future employment and pension and not sacrifice their own goals for their husband.
Sue
This is what I read, but I can't see how this could be true. It is from the link above.
By religion, Jewish and born-again Christians have the highest divorce rates at 30% and 27% respectively, followed by other Christians at 24%.[5] Even more revealing and disturbing is the finding that atheists and agnostics have the lowest incidence of divorce at 21%.
Ellen
I think it's from Barna.
non-denoms are not included - Christians not affiliated with a denomination are first, then Baptists.
The other thing about Baptists (especially SBC) that there are many more "members" than actually participate.
However, if one third of all submissive Christian women are going to end up divorced, they should look out for their own future employment and pension and not sacrifice their own goals for their husband.
It's a good thing, then, that most complementarians (vs patriarchs) don't discourage education.
Sue
But they have to give up a higher education and a job if their husband leads them in this direction, they have to submit themselves to their husbands as the church to Christ, in *everything.*
Sue
There is no evidence that being submissive is going to preserve a marriage, and if one does end up divorced, and one has given up a job for the husband then it is harder to get back on one's feet.
Better teach a mutual and similar-looking yielding and hesed kindness for both partners. A reciprocal habit of deferring to one another.
Ellen
Sue, there is also no evidence that being rebellious is going to preserve a marriage.
Better teach a mutual and similar-looking yielding and hesed kindness for both partners. A reciprocal habit of deferring to one another.
This habit of yielding does not rule out godly leadership.
Remember, the hesed that Abraham appealed to was manipulative; to get Sarah willing to be pimped out.
Appeal to hesed is no protection against abuse either.
Sue
Remember that when Sarah called Abraham "lord" she was being derisive of his impotence. You want to include that in public wedding vows. "Oh, you silly old impotent man, how are you going to take pleasure!"
Remember this also, submitting to any kind of abuse, verbal or otherwise reinforces and rewards abuse. Standing up to abuse, which you so nicely call rebellion, is the only way to survive. Going for help or leaving is called "rebellion" by the abusive husband.
Ellen
Standing up to abuse, which you so nicely call rebellion, is the only way to survive. Going for help or leaving is called “rebellion” by the abusive husband.
No, I have said that women in abusive situations should get out.
But, if in normal, loving situations, a wife is not submissive (unless you are teaching that only husbands have to be mutually submissive), then a lack of submission is rebellion.
In abusive situations, getting out IS submission - to the abusers spiritual need for accountability. There is also a point (that is between them and God_ where an abused person needs to obey God rather than man. Even if it IS rebellion to a man, being submissive to God first is more important.
I don't really care if HE calls it rebellion or not, you can call a "cheeseburger" a "chef's salad", that doesn't make it any more healthy.
If I have not been clear on my condemnation of abuse, I do not know how much more there is to say.
We simply disagree about whether or not loving, Godly leadership is a form of abuse.
Sue
What I am saying is that rebellion should not be last resort and an aid to getting out. It should be from the first day established that the wife has an equal role in decision-making. Then the last resort should not be necessary. This is prevention. Make it plain from the beginning that the contribution to decisions are equal. That is why the vow to obey is so evil. Because the wife has no resort. She must obey up until things get really bad and then she can leave. What kind of way is that to have a marriage. She can never go to a counselor without leaving her husband first.
Lu-Lu
"We simply disagree about whether or not loving, Godly leadership is a form of abuse. "
You have summed that up nicely, Ellen.
Ellen
That is why the vow to obey is so evil.
Demonizing those who disagree does not make your case.