Abuse in a Christian relationship

[PreachersWife2004]

The passages in the Bible that I am thinking of:

1) instruct wives to submit. While husbands are instructed to love and be like Jesus, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that wives' duty of submission is conditional on...anything on the actual husband's part.

Was Jesus' love for us conditional?

And in ALL of those passages, never once does it say it's okay for a husband to take his position in the household and abuse his wife. NEVER.

2) instruct wives not to leave their unbelieving husbands and to try to win them to Christ by submission, basically.

In context, those passages are merely pointing out that marrying an unbeliever doesn't then set up the right to divorce the unbeliever. They then go on to further say that the woman should show her husband the way by leading a Christian life.

Again, NOTHING about abuse.

I don't think the passages about submission provide enough safeguards against abuse. The system is easily manipulated.

The bible is actually REALLY clear on it: Husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church. That leaves NO ROOM for abuse. Christ didn't abuse the church.

Ephesian, which I consider to be the benchmark of marriage roles, never once implies that it's okay to be abusive in a marriage.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Bolding mine.

Not mine. I was not taught to respect someone in a position of authority just because they held the position. And more than once mom and dad supported me for calling out a teacher who was WRONG.

A bit different than mouthing off. Or at least I'd hope so.

I, too, had a knack for calling out teachers, but I didn't have to be annoying to do it.

 

[keith99]

Was Jesus' love for us conditional?

And in ALL of those passages, never once does it say it's okay for a husband to take his position in the household and abuse his wife. NEVER.



In context, those passages are merely pointing out that marrying an unbeliever doesn't then set up the right to divorce the unbeliever. They then go on to further say that the woman should show her husband the way by leading a Christian life.

Again, NOTHING about abuse.



The bible is actually REALLY clear on it: Husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church. That leaves NO ROOM for abuse. Christ didn't abuse the church.

Ephesian, which I consider to be the benchmark of marriage roles, never once implies that it's okay to be abusive in a marriage.

Bolding mine.

And how much did Christ love the Church (which is the people not the building)? So much that he gave up himself to be crucified to save them.

Seems to me that IF one looks at the whole picture the man has the bad side of the deal here.

Perhaps that is why so many ignore or minimize how the man is called to behave.

 

[keith99]

A bit different than mouthing off. Or at least I'd hope so.

I, too, had a knack for calling out teachers, but I didn't have to be annoying to do it.

I would change depending on how much I respected the teacher. From a pragmatic standpoint I probably went the wrong way most of my life. Unless ruder than rude a confident and competent teacher can deal with being called out on an error.

Ironically I once called out a professor I really respect. He was presenting a lecture on how to properly measure inflation and I was sitting in the back and doing the math. There was a problem, the answer cam out differently if you measured beer by the can vrs. by the sixpack. It was a 2 hour class and out of respect I pointed it out during the break. He then wrote down a more complex equation and said something like 'Would you want to teach this to this class'. I had nothing to say as I had seen the blank stares with the simplified version.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The passages in the Bible that I am thinking of:

1) instruct wives to submit. While husbands are instructed to love and be like Jesus, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that wives' duty of submission is conditional on...anything on the actual husband's part.

Actually, Ephesians 5:21 says "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

Bold is mine, and says they are to submit to one another. And what about the end of that chapter?

" 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

The husband has to love his wife as he loves himself and as Jesus loved us. The wife only has to respect her husband. She is not commanded to love him here. Which one of the sexes got the easier task???

[/QUOTE]

 

[Glass*Soul]

Was Jesus' love for us conditional?

And in ALL of those passages, never once does it say it's okay for a husband to take his position in the household and abuse his wife. NEVER.



In context, those passages are merely pointing out that marrying an unbeliever doesn't then set up the right to divorce the unbeliever. They then go on to further say that the woman should show her husband the way by leading a Christian life.

Again, NOTHING about abuse.



The bible is actually REALLY clear on it: Husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church. That leaves NO ROOM for abuse. Christ didn't abuse the church.

Ephesian, which I consider to be the benchmark of marriage roles, never once implies that it's okay to be abusive in a marriage.

The admonition to wives to submit is not phrased as being contingent upon her husband behaving reasonably toward her. Instead, she is told to submit "in everything" as the church submits to the Lord. That was pretty strong language, given a church in which martyrdom was a looming possibility.

So, granted, as one reads on, the husband does not get a free pass to commit abuse, but the wife is given no leeway at any point to submit only to behavior that is reasonable.

The point that it all works out OK if everyone does their part contains a very, very big if that the wife herself has no control over. The passage fails to even touch on the uncomfortable if of the abused wife. It's problematic--virtually placing abused Christian wives in an alternate universe in which the Bible's best advice for them is that their situation simply shouldn't exist--unless we adopt a hermeneutic that potentially changes how we view a lot of stuff in the Bible and feels uncomfortable to many Christians.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The admonition to wives to submit is not phrased as being contingent upon her husband behaving reasonably toward her. Instead, she is told to submit "in everything" as the church submits to the Lord. That was pretty strong language, given a church in which martyrdom was a looming possibility.

So, granted, as one reads on, the husband does not get a free pass to commit abuse, but the wife is given no leeway at any point to submit only to behavior that is reasonable.

The point that it all works out OK if everyone does their part contains a very, very big if that the wife herself has no control over. The passage fails to even touch on the uncomfortable if of the abused wife. It's problematic--virtually placing abused Christian wives in an alternate universe in which the Bible's best advice for them is that their situation simply shouldn't exist--unless we adopt a hermeneutic that potentially changes how we view a lot of stuff in the Bible and feels uncomfortable to many Christians.

I disagree. Verses 23-24 makes it entirely contingent upon the husbands behavior as being Christ-like.

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

"Now as..." shows the contingency.

Verse 27 also is appropriate....

and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless

"any other blemish" includes bruises, black eyes, and other results of physical abuse.

 

[Deidre32]

Sounds like the traits of narcissist personality disorder.

This.

When I was following Christianity, I dated an abusive guy, who claimed he was a Christian. He definitely used the Bible to support his abuse, if you will.

Very scary stuff. I hope more people leave these horrible relationships, and realize that they don't need to tolerate them.

 

[bhsmte]

This.

When I was following Christianity, I dated an abusive guy, who claimed he was a Christian. He definitely used the Bible to support his abuse, if you will.

Very scary stuff. I hope more people leave these horrible relationships, and realize that they don't need to tolerate them.

Nothing worse, than a psychologically disordered person, who believes they have God on their side.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Thank you everyone for all of these replies. I am very happy to see this issue is taken so seriously.

I was put through emotional manipulation at the church I grew up in. It took me a long time to realize that. It never even occurred at home, which was the weird part.

I'm glad I've broken free, but there are so many people who have not and need help to recognize this kind of abuse.

 

[Deidre32]

I disagree. Verses 23-24 makes it entirely contingent upon the husbands behavior as being Christ-like.

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

"Now as..." shows the contingency.

Verse 27 also is appropriate....

and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless

"any other blemish" includes bruises, black eyes, and other results of physical abuse.

Why should a man be 'the head' of his wife?

How does this bring about equality?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Why should a man be 'the head' of his wife?

How does this bring about equality?

Why should Christ be the head of a church? How is that equal?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I disagree. Verses 23-24 makes it entirely contingent upon the husbands behavior as being Christ-like.

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

"Now as..." shows the contingency.

Verse 27 also is appropriate....

and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless

"any other blemish" includes bruises, black eyes, and other results of physical abuse.

That would make her submission contingent upon the church submitting to Christ. That wouldn't help her situation, unless I'm missing something.

Also, the blemish aspect strikes me as being figurative, unless an elderly, wrinkled wife is not presentable. In fact, many abusive husbands insist that their abuse is due to some inadequacy in the wife's behavior. This insistence upon the wife somehow making herself blameless would only tend to feed that.

 

[Deidre32]

Why should Christ be the head of a church? How is that equal?

I don't believe as you do. So, we may never agree on this point.

 

[Syd the Human]

Why should Christ be the head of a church? How is that equal?

Well it is assumed that god is superior to humans, but we come from an idea that all humans are equal. But that could be incorrect according to the Bible. The reason this idea that men are superior to men always bothered me, since I had read that god loved all of us equally.

So are men more like Christ than women are? How so? Are men more kind, giving, loving than women are? Or are we basing god off the description of more vengeful like in the OT? I don't remember the particular verses, but I have a faint recollection (I could be wrong) that men are superior to women because of the adam and eve thing. If this is correct, why are women punished for something that happened way before they were born (assuming you think the genesis story is real and not just a story to describe the creation of the earth).

If you don't think that it is literal, what passages explained that men are superior to women?

That's a lot of questions.

Anyway, this does end up being a matter of opinion of whether men are more like Christ than women are to those outside the faith. So to me, the answer does not really matter, but I am curious.

 

[Messy]

Well it is assumed that god is superior to humans, but we come from an idea that all humans are equal. But that could be incorrect according to the Bible. The reason this idea that men are superior to men always bothered me, since I had read that god loved all of us equally.

So are men more like Christ than women are? How so? Are men more kind, giving, loving than women are? Or are we basing god off the description of more vengeful like in the OT? I don't remember the particular verses, but I have a faint recollection (I could be wrong) that men are superior to women because of the adam and eve thing. If this is correct, why are women punished for something that happened way before they were born (assuming you think the genesis story is real and not just a story to describe the creation of the earth).

If you don't think that it is literal, what passages explained that men are superior to women?

That's a lot of questions.

Anyway, this does end up being a matter of opinion of whether men are more like Christ than women are to those outside the faith. So to me, the answer does not really matter, but I am curious.

There's neither male nor female in Christ, but men have the role of the priest, the head, they have to protect the family, they are most of the time stronger unless they marry a body builder woman LOL. But some think that they now are better and can control their wife, but forget that Jesus gave Himself over for the church, He became a Servant, He washed the feet of the disciples. That's why it's so easy to submit to Him, He isn't bossy although He is Lord.

 

[Messy]

Lately a woman on another forum asked advice, she was in such a situation, but from a Dutch reformed church or something and I looked it up for her.

Bible Scandals - 4. Marital Abuse - bethinking.org

 

[Syd the Human]

There's neither male nor female in Christ, but men have the role of the priest, the head, they have to protect the family, they are most of the time stronger unless they marry a body builder woman LOL. But some think that they now are better and can control their wife, but forget that Jesus gave Himself over for the church, He became a Servant, He washed the feet of the disciples. That's why it's so easy to submit to Him, He isn't bossy although He is Lord.

So the christian loop hole to being the one in charge of the relationship is by being the strongest? Alrighty then *goes to the gym to get buff* JK JK, that stuff doesn't apply to me.

Also, what is a woman is naturally strong (it happens), will there be a contest to see who is to be the head of the household?

That sounds like a reality show.

TUNE IN NEXT TIME TO SEE WHO IS....HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD!!!!!! *applause in back ground*

 

[PreachersWife2004]

as a product of a marriage where the man was abusive and claimed to be a Christian, I can say that I never ever once thought I was supposed to stay with him because of what the bible said. I knew he wasn't doing the job he was supposed to be doing as my husband.

The bible is really clear, when you take it in its totality, about abuse.

 

[Glass*Soul]

as a product of a marriage where the man was abusive and claimed to be a Christian, I can say that I never ever once thought I was supposed to stay with him because of what the bible said. I knew he wasn't doing the job he was supposed to be doing as my husband.

The bible is really clear, when you take it in its totality, about abuse.

I am almost automatically on guard when someone tells me the bible is really clear on something...anything.

If it is so clear, why then do people disagree? Is everyone who disagrees arguing in bad faith while secretly convinced that the bible says exactly the opposite of what they are supporting, and clearly so? I think probably not. Were the men at my church being deliberately evil, laughing up their sleeves, lying, ignorant of the bible's content? I don't think they were. I think they were sincere, striving to be righteous, and spent lots of time reading their bibles.

Just a few days ago another poster told me to go read the bible for myself, as if that's all it takes, as if all I need to do is read it and I will agree with him. But I have read it many times, in its entirety, and have studied portions of it at great length. So he was wrong if that is what he meant.

As clear as a single verse, a paragraph, a story or a parable may seem to be, the bible as a whole can be enormously unclear. I think, I suggest, that realizing this needs to be a part of our hermeneutic on this and many issues.

BTW, I want to congratulate you on not remaining with someone who was abusive toward you. I admire that.