I linked to the list of abuse patterns - the question arose whether or not the simple (and perhaps solitary) act of preventing one who you are in a relationship with from doing something that they want qualifies as "abuse".
I say "no." I believe that you must look at the motive behind that prevention. If someone prevents you (generic you) from doing something that you want to do for reasons such as the good of a group, or for your own good, I don't think that you can rightly call that abuse.
If you (generic you) are routinely kept from doing something that you want to do for the sake of control, then I think you need to exercise great caution in that relationship.
We should (I believe) recognize that some people really thrive on structure and when they have certain restrictions, kept from doing something that they want to do, have a feeling of safety within that close structure. That's not what I write about today and falls under the "if it works for you, go for it" category.
If a man follows you around when you're out with your sister, insists on driving you to work (or school) and goes through your purse to find your cell phone in order to find out who you've been talking to...that's controlling.
If, on the other hand, a man prevents you from eating chocolate peanut butter cheesecake at Cheesecake Factory (my absolute favorite) or butter-garlic mashed potatoes at Rock Bottom (they are SO yummy!) - you would have fallen for that temptation had you not had the accountability...and he knows that peanut butter is the fastest route to an asthma attack and potatoes make your knees hurt...that is not abuse.
Last semester I was sitting next to a young women in the computer lab. She was talking to me while we were waiting for "stuff" to come up. She was talking about her current boyfriend that she's thinking about breaking up with. I recognized some from that list and (since we were sitting at computers) I brought up that website and showed her the "controlling" list.
"That is SO him!" We talked about patterns of abuse, patterns of control and what the signals might be that should send up red flags. Ultimately, she needs to make that choice, but what we need to do is to make sure the information is easily available so that every woman knows what it is that she is looking for.
The best way to prevent domestic abuse it to avoid being in a relationship with a person who will abuse you.
That was an easy statement. Implementing that could be one of the hardest things to figure out how to do.
Teaching girls young how to spot abusers before they have a serious relationship is one way.
***We teach about birth control in high school, we teach about HIV, drinking, drug use and smoking, diet and exercise. Why can we not teach young women how to identify young men who show those signs exercising the level of control that sends up red flags?
Teaching young men how to relate to young women in a healthy way is another.
***NLP teaches me that there are two angles to reaching a goal - a negative and a positive:
- Having a goal ahead of you that you want to reach for
- Having a bad thing behind you that you want to get away from
We can have the goal of "don't be an abuser" or we can have the goal of "be a Godly husband".
"Don't be an abuser" comes with a list of "don'ts"
- don't hit your wife or girlfriend
- don't be controlling
- don't follow her around
- don't be angry
- don't be selfish
"Be a Godly husband" comes with a list of "dos"
- do love your wife as Christ loves the church
- do be ready to give up your very life for her
- do be selfless
- do be humble
- do be kind, gentle, faithful, honest
- do have Christ as your example of a husband
- do be a servant-leader
There are three ways to come at teaching young men:
-We can give them a "negative goal", which does nothing to encourage positive behavior
- we can give them a "positive goal", which offers no solutions when abuse does occur
- we can blend the two. People sin. Abuse is sin. As much as we attempt to teach that it is wrong, it will happen. We need to teach young men that abuse is sin. We need to make it clear that if they are abusers, the church will discipline the abuser and the law will be involved.
We need to make it clear to young women that Godly leadership is NOT sin, that there are very high goals set for men in leadership positions (and that includes husbands) and that it is sinful for that leadership to be perverted into abuse. We need to communicate very clearly that it is a good and right thing to confront sin and to get the church leadership (and law if needed) involved.
Sue
The problem is that when only two people are deciding between themselves what is right, the church teaches that the male has the greater right to decide. This one simple statement endangers the morality of the decision. The male can pull out the trump card, he does not need to argue the greater morality of his position.
Gender-based authority undermines morality-based authority. They are at cross purposes.
Young women are endangered if they are taught gender-based authority. They need to be taught that there is ONLY morality-based authority.
Ellen
We disagree, because I believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
We agree that abuse is sin.
Godly leadership is not sin.
Ellen
This one simple statement endangers the morality of the decision. The male can pull out the trump card, he does not need to argue the greater morality of his position.
Husbands, live with their wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with them of the grace of life, so that their prayers may not be hindered.
Sue
You have not responded to my question. Either morality is king or gender is king. For you gender, for me morality.
Ellen
No, for me it is both-and. For you it is either or.
For me it is Scripture saying that a wife should submit to her husband and for you it is "yeahbutstill"
Sue
The only way it can be both and is if it can be empirically proved that gender-based authority and morality-based authority coincide. This means that morality is related to gender, that the male is more moral.
It is not logical to believe
1. Men and women are on an equal footing in their morality
2. Moral authority belongs more to the male than to the female.
I believe in morality based authority and in mutual submission between male and female.
Sue
The only way it can be both and is if it can be empirically proved that gender-based authority and morality-based authority coincide. This means that morality is related to gender, that the male is more moral.
It is not logical to believe
1. Men and women are on an equal footing in their morality
2. Moral authority belongs more to the male than to the female.
I believe in morality based authority and in mutual submission between male and female.
You believe that I take away from scripture, but our most defined disagreement is over the vow of obedience of wife to husband. I claim it is neither scriptural or moral.
Ellen
You have not responded to my question.
Sue, there is no question mark in this comment thread. You have not asked any question for me to answer, so please DO NOT start with false accusations so early in the thread.
You are not asking questions, you are preaching your political agenda.
Nor have I used to word "obey" or "obedience". We agree that there is a difference.
I stand on Scripture.
A wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
Nor did you answer my question (which was a yes or no question) - or if you did answer with a yes or no it has not been approved yet.
Do you believe that the commitment to obey is always unconditional?
Ellen
I believe in morality based authority and in mutual submission between male and female.
I believe in morality based on Scripture. Abuse is sin. A wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. A husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church.
That is Scripture.
Leigh Ann
Nothing to add. Just wanted to say that this is a very good post. To often the topic of abuse is shied away from with the thinking that if we teach about being a godly man it will all take care of itself. But some people can, because of various situations, not realize that what they are doing is abusive and not loving the wife and dwelling with her according to knowledge.
Sue
You are right - I didn't pose a question, not did I see yours.
Your question -
Do you believe that the commitment to obey is always unconditional?
To God yes, but often we perceive this through our conscience.
To another human being, never, and this is why one should never make a vow to obey. You only obey under conditions and since these are not spelled out in marriage it is wrong for a woman to vow obedience to her husband.
My question -
Is authority based on gender or scripture?
I would say it cannot be both because men do not have greater access to the truth of scripture than women. You cannot link maleness to moral authority or to the teaching of doctrine or scripture.
Ellen
If the commitment to obey anybody but God is not unconditional, then why do you demand unconditional obedience from women who have made a commitment to obey (other than it fits with your agenda to assume unconditional obedience?
Is authority based on gender or scripture?
Again, you're assuming that it's an either-or when it is not necessarily the case.
When Scripture says that a woman should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and the husband should love his wife the way Christ loves the church...
that is not either-or...
that's a yes...it's gender and yes...it's Scripture.
Ellen
You cannot link maleness to moral authority or to the teaching of doctrine or scripture.
Define "moral authority"...a subtle shift of language can make a big (and sudden) change of meaning and tactic.
Sue
If the commitment to obey anybody but God is not unconditional, then why do you demand unconditional obedience from women who have made a commitment to obey
For the simple reason that when wives make a vow it implies unconditional obedience and husbands can ask for unconditional obedience and the marriage contract and ceremony do not specify that it is unconditional obedience.
I believe that making the vow of obedience expresses the intent of unconditional obedience to the husband in front of others. If the wife does not have the intention of giving unconditional obedience she is a hypocrite and if she does give unconditional obedience she is abused. There is no other option.
Gender and moral authority cannot properly be equated or linked in any way. Moral authority is our highest guide in decision making. Moral authority for some is their understanding of the scripture, for others God speaks to their hearts and conscience in addition to scripture. God never gives preferential guidance to the male for the female. Every example in scripture denies this. God never gives his intentions for the wife to the husband.
People should believe what they like about submission but they should never model the belief that maleness is more moral than femaleness.
Ellen
For the simple reason that when wives make a vow it implies unconditional obedience
No more so than a direct commandment to children to obey their parents implies unconditional obedience.
If a parent asks his child to murder somebody should the child obey?
Your argument simply does not follow.
Nobody here said that. If you need to make that false accusation here in order to further your agenda, so be it...but it does not fly.
What is in Scripture is an order based on gender. Order does not mean morality. It simply means order and a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church.
Scripture.
Sue
My agenda, as you put it, is to keep people from being hurt in some very terrible ways. If women are in even the slightest way influenced to believe in male authority they are more vulnerable to every kind of abuse.
Ellen
If women are in even the slightest way influenced to believe in male authority they are more vulnerable to every kind of
abuse.
I also have the agenda of keeping women from getting hurt, but my methods don't involve undermining Scripture.
Unless you can show me in Scripture the specific wording to the effect of "likewise, HUSBANDS submit to your WIVES as the church submits to Christ"
or
"likewise, WIVES are the head of the HUSBAND as Christ is the head of the church"
NOT the general "submit to one another" because we both know that it is possible and even required at a person in authority submit to the needs of those under him. Christ did.
Unless you can prove FROM SCRIPTURE that male leadership is evil, you have no Scriptural leg to stand on and your agenda uses worldly methods, not Godly ones.
WATCH THIS. The whole thing...with sound. And AFTER you watch the whole thing. Please answer: is the father a leader, or is he submissive? AFTER you watch, please.
Sue
Ellen,
I don't believe anything negative about men except that they are not better than women.
Unless you can prove that men are more moral than women you create a tension between gender-based authority and morality-based authority. We have each chosen which one we will put first. It is an either-or situation since men cannot be equated with morality.
I have said enough for this thread.
Ellen
(Shrugs)
I maintain that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and that a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church.
You say that either
1) such a structure is evil (making God a liar)
or
2) that you and I speak of two different things and that you do believe that Scripture treats a husband and wife differently in terms of the way they submit to one another - that the structure that Scripture speaks of (a wife's submission as the church submits to Christ and the husband's love as Christ loves the church) is good and Biblical.
I do not base my beliefs in the world's definition of "moral", but rather in God's teaching of authority IN love, vs. your belief of authority INSTEAD OF love.
Sue
Authority IN love must be a moral authority, not an authority based on gender. You and I both believe that morality trumps maleness. For me that is the foundation of every interaction, not just an opt our clause.
Sue
- not just an opt out clause.
Ellen
Authority IN love must be a moral authority, not an authority based on gender. You and I both believe that morality trumps maleness. For me that is the foundation of every interaction, not just an opt our clause.
I just don't believe that gender neutrality trumps Scripture.
Sue
I don't believe in gender neutrality at all. I simply don't believe that maleness trumps anything at all.
Ellen
I believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
If you have a problem with this unilateral Scriptural reference, please refer me to the Scripture that says..."and in the same way, a husband should submit to his wife the way that the church submits to Christ"
Scripture does treat specific instructions to wives and husbands differently.
Sue
But in Clement the word submit meant to show respect and gratitude. In that respect a woman may be the grateful recipient of the provision her husband makes for her (if he does). I seek to disassociate submission from both authority and obedience. Submission is a voluntary grace.
That is, clearly anyone can submit to anyone. But nobody should be required to obey something that is not a moral authority. The government has created laws on a moral basis, to the benefit of society. But the male, does not by virtue of being male have any moral value whatsoever. However, if his authority is based on morality, then the female also may have the same morality-based authority.
Ellen
Yes, clearly anyone can submit to anyone. The question is whether Scripture treats husbands differently than wives and whether or not the scope of the church's submission to Christ is limited to "respect and gratitude".