If a Christian marriage is to reflect Christ and the church - if a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church...and if the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church...
what does that mean? What are the Biblical references for Christ (and God the Father in the Old Testament) as husband?
How do Christ the Son and God the Father relate to the church and to Israel?
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.
For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but nourishes and cherishes it,
just as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh."
This mystery is profound, and
I am saying that it refers to Christ
and the church. (Eph 5:25-32)
Can wives be "sanctified" by their husbands? Maybe not, but they can be saturated with Scripture. She can be loved and cherished and nourished, with Christ as his model.
For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
For the LORD has called you like a wife
deserted and grieved in spirit, (Isa. 54:5-6)
For a short time, the Husband had turned His face from His bride. She had been faithless, yet He redeemed her.
"Hallelujah!For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen,
bright and pure"— (Rev. 6-8)
The bride of the Lamb...
You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you. (Isa. 62:3-5)
You shall be called "My Delight Is In Her..."
In the New Testament, it was John the Baptist who recognized the Bridegroom:
You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ,
but I have been sent before him.'
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom.
The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him,
rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.
Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:28-30)
God presented Israel with a graphic picture when He told Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute - knowing that she will act as prostitutes will act...and that he will bring her back.
"Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
"And in that day, declares the LORD,
you will call me 'My Husband,' and no longer will you call me 'My Baal.'
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,
and they shall be remembered by name no more.
And I will make for them a covenant on that day
with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land,
and I will make you lie down in safety.
And I will betroth you to me forever.
I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice,
in steadfast love and in mercy.
I will betroth you to me in faithfulness.
And you shall know the LORD. (Hosea 2:14-20)
There is a Biblical reason to see a Christian marriage as a reflection of God the Father with Israel and of Christ the Son with His bride, the church.
For I feel a divine jealousy for you,
since I betrothed you to one husband,
to present you as a pure virgin to Christ."
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning,
your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere
and pure devotion to Christ. (1 Cor. 11:2-3)
How can the church expect to be treated by her Bridegroom?
...He is her refuge, (Psa 61)
...He stands up for her (Psa 94)
...He nourishes and cherishes her (Eph 5)
...She trust in His steadfast love (Psa 52)
...He speaks tenderly to her (Hos 2)
...He is merciful and full of loving kindness (Tit 2)
...He will wipe away tears (Isa 25)
...He makes her beautiful (Isa 60)
...He carries her sorrows (Isa 53)
...He came to serve (Matt 20)
...He restores her soul, He leads her in paths of righteousness (Psa 23)
Sue
I believe that the leadership of the husband is not in the Bible. I can't find it anywhere.
Spiritual abuse is when you tell someone to put themselves under an authority whose measure is other than the moral good. Gender-based authority is as useful to society as putting short people under the authority of tall people, or black people under the authority of white people. It has no moral good. Therefore, to obey this kind of authority is abuse.
I am not telling anyone to put themselves under any authority except what is actually in the Bible and what is morally good.
Ellen
I believe that the leadership of the husband is not in the Bible. I can’t find it anywhere.
This is my "surprised" look.
I am not telling anyone to put themselves under any authority except what is actually in the Bible and what is morally good.
Wrong. You are telling everybody that you can find that will listen to your soapbox that they should accept YOUR interpretation, regardless of what they see in Scripture.
When you have the nerve to tell another person - on their own blog - "Don’t tell other people to live in male authority" - that is (whether you have to intellectual honesty to admit it to yourself or not) an attempt to put them under your spiritual authority and tell them what they may or may not say on their own blog.
This puts YOU in the position of telling ME what I may or may not believe and teach on MY own blog.
Yes. Spiritual abuse and control is what you are after.
And I am not signing off on your abuse or your control.
Sue
I'm sort of like a woman whose family was killed by a drunk driver pleading with someone not to serve drinks. I admit it can't be done. Too bad.
Ellen
You are an abusive bully. The abuse that you suffer does not give you permission to abuse anybody who disagrees with you.
While I sympathize and empathize with your past and while I condemn abuse, I refuse to submit to your attempted abuse of me.
Just as abuse of alcohol does not justify a ban of a God-given substance that is not condemned in Scripture, neither does an abuse of a wife justify the denial of the godly leadership that I believe Scripture most accurately represents.
I will not submit to your abuse.
Sue
You are an abusive bully.
Ad feminam.
Ellen
Actually, if I were saying that your arguments are wrong because you are a bully, you would have a point.
I am saying that you are wrong AND a bully. Totally separate, but both correct
Ellen
All this means is that I will continue to dialog, but will not allow you to bully me into silence.
Charity
How are you defining bully, Ellen?
Ellen
Answers.com
1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See synonyms at intimidate.
2. To make (one's way) aggressively.
To go to another individual's personal website and attempt to tell them to not teach something is overbearing.
To continually do that is aggressive.
To admit that "I’m sort of like a woman whose family was killed by a drunk driver pleading with someone not to serve drinks. I admit it can’t be done." is to admit aggression and to be proud of it.
And to indicate that you do not even care by adding "Too bad." is insensitive to the feelings of the person who feels bullied on their own website.
Charity
Ellen, maybe you didn't notice that it was me, Charity, that asked how you're defining "bully" not Sue.
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that you invited us to come here and comment. I'm sure I wouldn't have found your website otherwise.
Personally I do not think the word "pleading" connotes aggression or overbearingness. However I hear that you feel threatened by Sue's comments that you have invited.
I'm not sure you welcome my comments, but I found your use of the word bullying strange. I now understand that you feel threatened.
Ellen
Charity, comments are welcome here.
The attempt to tell me what I may or may not say on my own blog (Sue's direct statement, "don't tell..." is not.
What Sue does is not "plead"
Ellen
Let me add: do I feel threatened? No. I do not.
Do I believe that Sue is attempting to intimidate others into backing down from their sincerely held religious beliefs? Absolutely I do.
But I am not intimidated and I am not threatened. And I will continue to teach and say on my blog that which I believe until Scripture and the Holy Spirit convinces me otherwise.
In a personal space, I get the impression that others believe that Sue can tell me "don't tell..." (what I can say on my own blog) and that I'm also told how I am supposed to feel about it.
Charity
Thanks for your reply, Ellen.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I certainly perceive what Sue is doing as pleading. You feel it differently (to clarify: I understood that you felt intimidated because of your use of the word bullying - if you don't feel intimidated, I still don't understand your use of that word). I don't perceive her to be giving you orders, but asking you. The problem in the written format is that tone of voice doesn't come across.
Of course you are free to write whatever you want to on your own blog. And it is my understanding from your answer to me that you welcome comments.
Sue
I’m sort of like a woman whose family was killed by a drunk driver pleading with someone not to serve drinks.
I spent last night listening to a missionary's wife telling me about her rape by locals and isolation, living for years on the mission field. She never told her Christian husband because she could not be sure of his support.
This man is adulated by his congregation now. She refuses to go public.
Yes, I plead the case of deeply damaged women.
I admit it can’t be done
I also recognize that what I am trying to do cannot be done. One cannot make those who have no empathy have empathy. I am not directing this comment at any particular group. I am discouraged by the overall lack of empathy.
The church does not want to know the broken history of this woman's life. She is one more silent woman.
Ellen
Abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not sin
Ellen
Charity, "bully" is both a noun and a verb - it describes the one doing the bullying, not the one who chooses to stand up or to cave in.
Standing up is the only way to stop it.
Ellen
The church does not want to know the broken history of this woman’s life. She is one more silent woman.
The saddest part is that she never gave them a chance to prove them wrong.
A terrible sin was committed against her and NOW
1) her husband was never given the chance to support her and now
2) her church is not given the chance to support her AND
3) it is assumed (perhaps a false accusation) that they don't want to know.
Charity
Ellen, I'm afraid I don't understand you latest comment to me. Of course I understand that bully is a noun or a verb... I don't understand what you mean by the rest of your comment.
Ellen
It simply means that a bully is a bully, whether somebody stands up to him/her or not.
A bully who is allowed to continue bullying will continue. A bully who is stopped will stop (at least in the arena where bullying is not allowed).
Ellen
Want to add...you said,
Of course I understand that bully is a noun or a verb…
I didn't want to take it for granted. I am learning a foreign language and those nuances can escape me. I believe that English is not your first language so I added that (meaningless) comment
Charity
The point I was making was that your accusation of bully appears to me to be a subjective one.
Objectively I do not think that Sue's comments can be taken as bullying, but as pleading as she herself pointed out, with the comparison she gave.
So I asked you what meaning you were giving to bullying. The answer you gave me led me to understand that you felt intimidated because you used words like "agressive" and "intimidating". When I echoed those words back to you, you suggested that I was trying to tell you how you should be feeling and denied feeling any of those things.
Now, there's nothing wrong, in my view, of feeling those things. However if you do not feel them, I cannot see why you use the word bully to describe Sue.
Ellen
Is an abuse any less of an abuser because he(or hse) is not abusing ME? No, they are still an abuser.
Is a gambler any less of a gambler if I call his (or her) bluff? No, they are still a gambler.
Is a bully any less of a bully because somebody stands up to them? No - their tactics are still that of a bully.
However if you do not feel them, I cannot see why you use the word bully to describe Sue.
Oh...I "feel" as though Sue is attempting to bully me into backing down. I simply refuse to be intimidated.
Every school yard has a bully - they learn who will allow themselves to be made targets and who will not. That does not mean the child is any less of a bully; they are only more selective about who they bully.
You notice that Sue is not denying it.
Sue
A terrible sin was committed against her and NOW
1) her husband was never given the chance to support her and now
Sorry, my mistake, she did tell him recently, 18 years later, after they had left that country.
2) her church is not given the chance to support her
No, the church as a whole does not know. They feel that she is a potential drag on the stellar performance of her husband. He has not told anyone privately I guess. He accepts every position offered to him. He wants public service and recognition.
She also does not want her children to know. She didn't tell her husband earlier because he had not been and still is not sympathetic to her concerns.
3) it is assumed (perhaps a false accusation) that they don’t want to know.
They do know my story. They divide men into the Christian men who are the "heads" of their wives, and the non-Christian men who are not worthy to be "heads."
This man has never hit his wife. He is an outwardly exemplary Christian in every way and will enter a new ministry with much pomp and ceremony this weekend.
This is how I see it.
1. Complementarianism does not make unkind men kind.
2. Egalitarianism does not make unkind men kind.
3. Egalitarianism makes women less dependent on their husbands than complementarianism. It enables women to more easily survive the unkindness of their husbands.
It is certain that some Christian men and women will experience severe abuse. How can we best arm men and women against the abuse of their spouses?
We know that we cannot force all husbands or wives to be loving. This woman was in a mission all her life. Because of the enormous shame and lack of empathy expressed to her she did not get help until recently. This is a very common story. How can we prevent things like this?
I think women need to learn to be more whole in themselves, and that means that they do not see the husband as an integral "head" but understand this language metaphorically. Women need to have women in leadership, women who model strength and right action and a connection to the Lord, independent of the husband.
How can we stem the pain?
Sue
Ps I am not denying being a bully because that word has no connection to who I am. No one who knows me would make any connection between that word and me. I really have no need to protest something like that.
Ellen
Sue, I had doubts about whether you would even stop to consider how your treatment of others on-line would come across. You do not surprise me.
Ellen
He wants public service and recognition.
My husband was like that as well. And complementarianism had nothing to do with it. So it hardly makes your case.
It does NOT make your case.
This is a very common story. How can we prevent things like this?
We could start with honesty. With our spouse. That's one thing that this woman didn't give her husband. Make that two things.
Trust...honesty.
and (remember the topic of this post?)
Teach young men to love and lead their wives with Christ's love and leadership as their model.
Stop making our young men into pussy cats. Let them be men.
Expect them to be men of God, not wimps of the world.
Ellen
Sue, another thought.
There are two ways that you could have gone.
"Wow...my words must really have offended Ellen - maybe I should examine myself. Perhaps I could even be a little more aware of how I could be coming across."
Or
"That's not me. I don't have to worry about that."
Sue
Ellen,
I have repeated told you how your words have deeply hurt me. You don't blink, so why should I.
I have said explicitly,
"When you say .... that hurts me because ....."
You completely ignored this.
However, you outright accuse me. I am just going to ignore it.
My husband was like that as well. And complementarianism had nothing to do with it. So it hardly makes your case.
That was my case. I have explicitly said that complementarianism does not make men cruel, violent and negligent. They are this way because they are human, as are women. These unhappy characterisitics are evenly distributed to Christians and non-Christians.
Complementarianism ensures that the wives of men who are emotionally and physically cruel will be more vulnerable to their husbands. This means more liklihood of physical and emotional damage.
The definition of complementarianism is that women are more vulnerable to their husbands so this cannot be denied. The question is, to what extent should women try to protect themselves and their children from damage and now is this best done. I think this is an equal concern of both of us.
We could start with honesty. With our spouse. That’s one thing that this woman didn’t give her husband. Make that two things.
I do know the reason why. It is valid. The rest of the story is beyond belief terrible. It is unbelievable but I know the people involved and I know it is true. There are some things that can never be told in public and these are some of them. It is such a terrible story that anything that you and I know pales in comparison and I do not say this lightly. I say it respectfully.
The husband will be in a very visible and high profile position with very high profile complemenrarian leaders. I simply do not see anyway that anything can be done, and the very competent counselor who is involved has not been able to give any better counsel either.
In some cases, it is best for the woman, (or man, if that is the case) to disappear overnight and go into hiding or begin life over somewhere else. I really don't know what else can be done. I can't tell you anymore. Sorry, but think worse than we already know about.
Given that these things happen in complementarian homes, how can women be protected. I personally do not see the local church as the answer. It can contribrute but it is only one peice of the puzzle.
Women need other women in positions of leadership. They need permission to disobey their husband. They need permission to get help. They need permission to take up life on their own. They need permission to leave their husband without making the reason public. They need permission to make the big decisions on their own.
Sue
Given that these things happen in complementarian homes, how can women be protected.
What I mean to say is that these things can happen in any home, including complementarian homes.
Sue
What really stands out for me is that this woman is with a very competent counsellor and has experienced unusual cruelty in her life and your first reaction is to criticize her.
That really makes me feel uncomfortable. Above all I plead for an attitude of tenderness towards those who are deeply damaged by the power of someone else in their life - man, woman or child.
Ellen
I have repeated told you how your words have deeply hurt me. You don’t blink, so why should I.
That is because you ask me to walk away from deeply held religious convictions and continue to refuse to back up your request with Scripture.
I go to Scripture. I do not find a leadership vacuum in Scripture.
I will remember to blink the next time I go your personal blog and tell you specifically not to tell people something. Oh...Right. I don't go to your blog and tell you what to post.
What really stands out for me is that this woman is with a very competent counsellor and has experienced unusual cruelty in her life and your first reaction is to criticize her.
Are you telling me that she WAS honest with her husband? That she was open and trusting?
Since you do not know how I treat those who come to me, I trust that you will trust me to treat real live people face to face with
Ellen
(continued...)
That really makes me feel uncomfortable. Above all I plead for an attitude of tenderness towards those who are deeply damaged by the power of someone else in their life - man, woman or child.
The are damaged by abuse and the abuse of power, not the power in and of itself.
Unless you can supply Biblical references that tells me that power is the problem, not sin and not the person, I will ask you not to accuse power (not the sin and not the person) on my personal blog.
At least be intellectually honest and blame the person, not the structure.
Ellen
Sue asked, "This is a very common story. How can we prevent things like this?
My answer: by being honest about it.
Sue's response: That really makes me feel uncomfortable.
Some questions before we go any further:
Why does the expectation of honesty make you uncomfortable?
If honesty makes us uncomfortable, what hope do we have to prevent abuse?
Why does expecting a woman to be open and honest about abuse make you uncomfortable?
Do you want women to be uncomfortable with openness - do you want them to hide their abuse?
Honesty is required. Openness is required. Without it, the abused one remains in silence. That thought should make you feel uncomfortable.
While you may find silence comforting, I do not.
Sue
What makes me uncomfortable is this.
When women are beaten and raped, they frequently do not tell for some very valid reasons. The last thing they need is to be accused of not being honest. The fact is women are frequently silent on issues of rape and violence. So should we criticize them for being fearful. Is that a useful approach?
Yes, I do think power is the problem. That is why Jesus modeled how to give up power. That is the message of the gospel IMO.
Sue
I feel sick. Why should a woman have to paint the picture of her rape in public in order to justify herself? Why should people have to make the cause of divorce public? Why should a woman have to expose herself to everyone?
She suffers injustice. There is not always justice on earth. Women need to get out of their heads that men have authority over them. At least then a woman could live a whole life. Why should men have priority? Why would God want a woman, beaten and raped and unsupported by the Christian men in her life, to feel that men have authority over her?
Being honest is no guarantee of getting justice.
Because no one else can solve these problems and put a woman's life back together, she should be taught that she has as much right to make decisions for her life as anyone else. What right does a man have to make a decision for his wife?
Ellen
So should we criticize them for being fearful. Is that a useful approach?
Is she here?
Do you continue to tell you to tell lies of omission?
Ellen
Sue, you said that she never told her husband If that makes you sick, then it seems you have a rather warped view of "one flesh"
you said, Sorry, my mistake, she did tell him recently, 18 years later, after they had left that country.
She waited 18 years for honesty toward her husband.
If you manage to wrest "public" out of that one-flesh relationship...?!?!?
I'm advocating that a wife be honest with her husband (instead of waiting for 18 years). I'm sorry you disagree.
Ellen
Yes, I do think power is the problem. That is why Jesus modeled how to give up power. That is the message of the gospel IMO.
Scripture please?
I belong to a sovereign God who is in control of the universe. I belong to the Word by whom all things were made.
I belong to the One who upholds the universe by the word of His power.
Christ never ceased to be God, in all of His power and glory.
He was a servant-leader, He was always in control.
I am sorry that you have a such a small god.
Sue
I am grateful that Jesus was a man or sorrows and acquainted with grief.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Men should imitate Christ and not seek power.
Ellen
I am grateful that Jesus was a man or sorrows and acquainted with grief.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
agreed. But He was still God. He still had authority.
Nobody took His life, He laid it down.
Men should imitate Christ and not seek power.
Christ didn't have to seek power. He had it from eternity, He had it on earth and He will reign in eternity.
And women are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
Do you advocate for women to commit lies of omission to their husbands for 18 years? Do you not think that a husband would find it helpful to know that his wife had been raped?
Ellen
Do you believe that Christ became "not God" while walking on earth?
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Yes. And God is the head of Christ. That is an old debate.
Ellen
I might add - it is this example of submission to the Father that makes (to me) the concept of submission to authority not a "dirty word" to be suppressed.
This is a passage that shows authority and submission within the Godhead. It becomes difficult to teach that authority is bad, because you just taught it within the Godhead.
Sue
Do you not think that a husband would find it helpful to know that his wife had been raped?
I regret that you cannot imagine the reasons why women don't tell their husbands why they have been raped. It is usually because they don't feel loved.
Sue
Never mind. I now know why people don't tell others about abuse. It is clear.
Ellen
Never mind. I now know why people don’t tell others about abuse. It is clear.
Sounds like a very thinly veiled innuendo. And from your previous writing a thinly veiled accusation. Another false one at that.
I'm pretty much done here. I would like to say that I find it stunning that you would say that lying to your husband (in the face of a lack of abuse on his part) is okay.
Why would a woman lie to her husband about being raped? We only have her side of the story, but every complementarian man that I know would have dropped everything to get her help. Women don't get help because they don't reach out.
I guess that's okay with you.
Ellen
Oh. And, since this post is far, far away from the topic of loving a wife the way Christ loves the church, I'm closing comments.
Ellen
Okay...comments are now opened.
Then answer: Why do you advocate a woman lying to her husband about abuse by an outside party? You are defending a betrayal of trust.
Ellen
And I'm assuming that you also support the lies of omission of a husband to his wife?
Seriously...I find that supporting this sort of untruths to be - in a Christian context I have no words!
If a woman who had been keeping this secret from her husband came to me, I would not support lies! I would gently counsel her that she needed to be honest with her husband. No confrontation of the past, but a clean slate for the future.
I can only imagine the feeling of being betrayed that the husband must feel - as well a being robbed of the opportunity to support his wife! Would he have supported her? He will never, ever have the opportunity to show her, will he - her dishonesty robbed him of that.
It is entirely possible that he withdrew from her as a result of her withdrawal from him - we all know that as human beings we remember event differently - this is not an accusation of lying about the reason for lying or about the withdrawal of her husband - it is merely an observation of the human brain and I would not take her side because of her "femaleness" without hearing both sides of the lie of omission.
A Christian defending a lie like this?
Ellen
testing...1...2...3
yes. comments are on