[I recently read a provocative essay on the Danvers Statement and Bruce Ware's recent comments about abuse, written by complementarian Southern Baptist, Cindy Kunsman RN, BSN, MMin, ND. I have copied her essay in full, below, with her permission, because I think it raises some fascinating questions and observations that (may or do) merit concern. You can find Cindy blogging at Under Much Grace, and can read the essay in it's original form here: Losing Sight of Our Purpose (Part IV): The Subtle Implications of Legal and Moral Code. ---Molly]
A recent, previous post discussed CBMW and the “Rationales” of the Danvers Statement, a document that seeks to elucidate what the Bible teaches concerning gender. Just as thethe laws of a society codify the beliefs of that society and thus reflect its morality, so I believe that CBMW hopes to set a standard for the church concerning the issues of gender. Though this body does not establish formal laws, it presumes to seek to clarify Biblical standards. They define specific moral standards through their teachings as a guide for conduct, much like civil laws do within society.
Individuals within a society indirectly understand the relationship between law and morals and often confuse it, believing that the law, at least to some degree, defines what is moral. Civil laws, though they are based upon a moral code, cannot be assumed to be moral within a pluralistic society. The abortion laws present an excellent example of how the law has a subtly misleading and detrimental effect on beliefs over time. People infer that because the act is declared legal (not punishable under civil law), the act gains a level of legitimacy as a result, making previously clear moral distinctions ambiguous.I believe that Bruce ware’s irresponsible, provocative statement in a sermon at Denton Bible Church paves the way for just such a subtle misunderstanding by those with abusive tendencies:
“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that
threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the
ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to
become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought
to as men in their homes and in churches.”
He follows quickly with a statement that Christians should follow the ideal plan that God designed, that of a husband who loves his wife as Christ loves the church and a wife who submits to her husband with gladness. As with many of Ware’s similarly provocative teachings, he believes that his declaration of his ideal model somehow relieves him of the consequences of his earlier statement. The mention of abuse in this manner not only sensitizes the listener to rightfully and logically anticipate abuse in some cases, but it also alleviates man of full responsibility for his actions.
Not unlike a law which people subtly misconstrue to represent right moral action, this statement lends a subtle quality of legitimacy to spousal abuse by making man’s immoral action contingent upon the performance of another. It externalizes man’s locus of control, legitimizing a “victim of circumstance” mentality that “passes the buck” to the woman, subtly implying that woman is morally culpable for man’s action. The husband’s headship becomes at least partially if not completely contingent upon his wife’s submission. The demands of ideological hierarchy reduce Christian marriage to a legalistic, cause-and-effect arrangement of keeping score.
Here are my specific contentions with the subtleties of Ware’s statement:
1. It creates a false dichotomy of choice between either aggression or passivity.
Ill feelings towards one’s spouse to such a great degree as to move a man to abuse are inevitable consequences within all marriages. The Danvers Statement and Ware himself both frame the relationship between husband and wife as a naturally contentious one, defined in the Fourth Danvers Affirmation: “In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.”
There are no VIABLE alternative courses of action available to fallen man apart from these offered both by Ware and the Danvers Statement. I assert that the enmity that God put between the serpent and the woman has been divisively redirected to the position between husband and wife. We are told that the fallen man has options, but the likelihood of opting for an unviable choice other than aggression or passivity is highly unlikely by definition. There are multiple logical fallacies at play in this assumption.
2. The act of abuse is not strongly defined or qualified to be unconscionable.
Though the Christian ideal is presented after the justifiable choice of abuse for man in a sinful state or less than ideal circumstances, this does not eradicate the concept from the mind or understanding of the listener. Abuse is a pejorative and word that creates emotional arousal.Imagine that you hire an attorney to write a threatening letter to someone, but you do not want to be perceived in a negative light. By stating that you never intended for the letter to be sent, you can push the limits of the situation while also enjoying all the benefits of the threat. The recipient has the option of trusting your profession of intent, and in some cases might be required to render to you the benefit of the doubt, or the alternative aspect of simply accepting the receipt of the letter as conveying the intended threat.
I believe that this represents a similar situation wherein intentional vagueness and implied assumption subtly convey anticipated aggression, but Ware can also deny his own culpability for encouraging the negative choice. He did not directly advocate abuse, but he did imply that it was an inevitable consequence in some instances.I believe Ware relies on these same techniques to claim that the Father in the Trinity is not of greater authority than the Son, but he applies the loaded language terms or slogans of “ultimate” or “supreme” to differentiate the Father’s authority from that of the Son. He then claims that “ultimate” and “supreme” do not equate to “more” or “greater” authority for the Father in comparison to the Son, but these unique and novel definitions are not honest and true to the common, accepted understanding of the terms.
3. The Christian ideal of hierarchy serves as the only viable means of transcending the inevitable and unavoidable contention within the husband-wife relationship.
Even the regenerate Christian man must work to master the Christian life through devotion, discipline, study and experience. Until such mastery of the Word of God can be obtained, the Christian experiences that which is common to all marriages, regardless of whether they are Christian. So the Christian can and likely should anticipate the justifiable desire to abuse, because both Ware and Danvers frame the elements in this manner. This is a double bind.
4. CBMW teaches that the woman’s role is a passive role, but then presents this passive (and characteristically feminine) role as the only viable alternative to abuse.
The passive/feminine choice suggests an option that is highly undesirable if not repugnant to the man. In terms of gender stereotype, the role of abuser or aggressor provides the most masculine option of the two presented. Ware offers no additional examples of an assertive response, so the listener is encouraged to choose the violent option as opposed to taking no action whatsoever. This is a double bind.
5. Man MUST choose a corrective course of action in order to manage his wife’s undesirable rebellious behavior.
His role as leader anticipates action, but the responsibilities of his hierarchical role as family leader REQUIRE a response. He is compelled to choose some form of discipline in order to fulfil his own God-ordained gender role within the marriage, but he must also act in the best interest of his wife by correcting her. And the wife is required to submit.
6. The paradigm assigns the first cause of the husband’s frustration to the wife by requiring submission, but this is contradictory.
If the marriage relationship is characterized by the heated tension between these two parties, it is incumbent upon the woman to somehow avoid the first cause to circumvent the potential for abuse. The paradigm requires that she somehow miraculously act against her own character within marriage (while very human like the husband mentioned previously, lacking mastery of the skills that will provide for her own safety). She is deemed as both the causative agent as well as the curative agent. The greater burden of culpability for the man’s actions falls to her and not the more powerful man of authority. She becomes his external locus of control. This is a double bind.
My Concerns in Broader Perspective:
The Southern Baptist Convention does not condone spousal abuse, and as we noted in a previous post, it makes strong, definitive statements against it. I also do not believe that Bruce Ware added his statement into his teaching as a guidepost and primary point. But he did convey that message whether or not he intended to do so, and abusers and victims alike will understand the indirectly spoken and unwritten rules. He was merely echoing the the Fourth Davnvers Affirmation in the context of the example of a marriage, idealistically presuming that born-again Believers would be restrained by the Holy Spirit of Love.
But the statement was uttered, and I am not surprised. It is a logical conclusion of what Danvers presupposes, an assumption that is not Biblical.What would you call that which seeks to break asunder what God has joined in marriage and called blessed? Considering the enmity that God placed between the serpent and the woman as a component of the proto evangellian (the first promise of our Redeemer), I would call it that which is motivated by the influence and spirit of “anti-Christ.”
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and
her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.” Genesis
3:15“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Matt
12:34“Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which
cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man… But those things which proceed
out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.”Matt
15:11-18“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that
which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth
forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth
speaketh.”Luke 6:45“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of
life.” Prov 4:23The above essay was written by Cindy Kunsman and can be found in full by clicking here.
“I believe that this represents a similar situation wherein intentional vagueness and implied assumption subtly convey anticipated aggression, but Ware can also deny his own culpability for encouraging the negative choice. “
Has anyone seen anything written or spoken where Ware has attempted to clarify what he said on abuse at Denton?
Lin,
Kate Johnson spoke with him before her open letter was published. I understand that he claims that his words were taken out of context and that he stands by what he taught there.
YOur post is excellent and very well describes the problems inherent in Ware’s teaching.
“The Danvers Statement and Ware himself both frame the relationship between husband and wife as a naturally contentious one, defined in the Fourth Danvers Affirmation: “In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.””
This is at the root of the problem I have with comp teaching. This is a total misinterpretation of the consequences of sin in Genesis 3. The consequence would be that the woman would turn away from God and look to her husband and he would rule over her.
This is exactly what the mainstream comps teach women to do. They are, in effect, teaching wives to live out the consequence of sin! Of course there is contention! Of course there is confusion on roles, rules, etc.
There is no confusion when one is seeking Christ in all things.
Unfortunately, I checked out Kunsman’s site and I will not return there…as I will not return to any site that features the “mental burqa” logo.
Molly,
Thanks for sharing that!
Ellen,
Why won’t you visit a site with the “mental burqua”? Why does that bother you? It should bother you that the attitude exists in the first place that people need to call attention to it. The patriarchalists would like to shut down any dissent and shield their followers from any alternative viewpoint. It wasn’t until the last few years where this issue has been addressed out in the public. It used to be that boards were shut down in order to keep free discussion from taking place. As it is now, the patriarchalist blogs are heavily moderated and give an impression to their readers that is just not so.
Molly,
Thanks for posting Cindy’s article on Ware’s statements concerning abuse. It is interesting that the SBC just published statements concerning abuse that seems to totally contradict what Ware said.
Corrie, have you seen the photo of the little Christian girl who was walking home from school and attacked by the people you are comparing complementarians to? Her head is sitting beside her body.
Have you watched the beheading of Daniel Pearl on video?
Have you seen the photo of the back of the cab where a father killed his daughters?
No, regardless of what you might want to believe, complementarians really do not advocate killing their daughters because they wear blue jeans or stabbing their sisters because they visit dance clubs.
As I said on my blog (and I took the photos of the several beheadings out of the post)…you all won’t care.
I get offended when I see other “so-called” Christians comparing supposed spiritual siblings with abhorrent things.
I have spoken up when I’ve been in places where egals have been compared to abortionists. It’s not necessary or true. It’s flat out false witness and should not be tolerated.
I disagree with Roman Catholics are many core doctrines…yet I was on an anti-Catholic site that was using false research to make claims against Roman Catholics. I corrected it.
It’s not about “mental burqa”…it’s about “raca”.
CBMW (as far as I know) is not offering 2 for 1 specials on honor killings.
I will also add: I remember not very long ago, on this forum…a woman was scolded for wearing a head covering while she was on vacation.
A personal conviction of a head covering is apparently not acceptable for another woman to have, and is worthy of chastisement. That interchange was revealing to me.
The reason that I will not return to websites that carry that logo is not because I believe that women should be forcibly subjugated…I do not believe that.
Rather, that logo signifies (to me) a deeply seated disrespect for the deeply held religious beliefs of (who they claim to hold as) a spiritual sibling.
Connecting complementarians to the religion on honor-killings? I simply choose to not return to sites that do so.
My concern is that the teaching of the subordination of women in America is a bad testimony to other countries where women contract AIDS from their husbands, where women are treated as chattel, where female infants are aborted at a higher rate than male infants. All teaching that females are subordinate to males, or are not in the image of God in the way that males are, a la Ware, contributes to a female life being lost somewhere else.
Sue, I do not believe that very many complementarian women get AIDS from their husbands. Confront adultery. You are looking at the wrong target.
Ellen,
When Stephen Lewis got back from Africa and was speaking about how women in Africa contract AIDS, he broke down in sobs and could not continue for several minutes. Something similar happened when the World Vision exec leader spoke.
I am not saying that men in Africa are complementarian. I am saying that the teaching that women are subordinate to men explicitly and directly contributes to situations where women contract AIDS from their husbands, where girls do not have the same opportunities as boys for education, where female foetuses are aborted, where women and girls are violated and assaulted in their own homes in India, and where women and children live in poverty because of lack of literacy, training and earning power. All teaching that women should accept subordination is complicit. You cannot teach, on a world scale, that men be should be unselfish and hope to be successful. That is impossible. It cannot be enforced. However, one can put in place policies and training for women to have equal rights.
Sue, even if complementarians walked away from their conviction on this matter, abuse would not end.
Has intimate abuse in North American decreased since the advent of feminism? No.
Is abuse limited to heterosexual couples? No… in fact, statistically, the highest rate of intimate abuse occurs in lesbian couples (both females, so it’s rather difficult to blame men).
It is difficult to blame godly, loving male leadership in the home and church for glti violence.
It makes more sense to teach loving interaction, regardless of conviction on leadership, than it does to “throw the baby out with the bath water.
Target violence, not leadership.
I must admit I was quite struck with the whole “mental burqa” concept. As a matter of style, it is my kind of provocative. However, it might be TOO provocative…
On the issue of whether patriocentrists really control and dehumanize women–I’d really have to take Kunsman and et. al’s word for it. I’m quite ignorant about what goes on/can go on in the fringes of, well, the fringe of religious fervor in America, but I do know that if an idea can be conceived, someone else is probably already putting it into practice somewhere.
But I wouldn’t say that the fringe has anything to do with being complementarian–that’s really reaching, IMHO. As much as I criticize aspects of CBMW and company, I have to agree with Ellen that they are NOT advocating what Kunsman is fighting against. Ware is not teaching a Christian version of Islamic sharia!
If ever he does, I’ll be one of the first to denounce that right off.
Ellen,
Since I am someone who happily puts a “fight the mental burqa” button on my blog’s sidebar —
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com —
I would like to express that the button is not meant in ANY way to oppose women who choose to cover their heads or anything of the sort.
The “fight the mental burqa” is speaking out against the growing movement of hard patriarchy, seen in the conservative homeschool movement (the hyper-patriarchal leaders there are now being recommended by more “mainline” conservative groups like Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, etc) and also in Roman Catholic circles, etc.
This movement truly believes that women were born to be ruled from birth to death, that a daughter is to be a helpmeet to her father until she is married (ONLY to a spouse that he approves of), that a wife is like a garden and her husband is like the gardener, responsible for everythign that is in her garden, she was made a “copy of a copy” and not as pure of an image-bearer as the man, and the list goes on.
A commenter recently mentioned that the word “patriarchy” was derogative. That may be true in his circles, but it’s not true of the patriarchy camp that I came out of. Patriarchy is alive and well and resoundly cheered for, spoken of as Biblical and highly regarded.
This camp truly has more resemblance to Islam (or to fundamentalist Mormans) than to much else, especially in regards to teaching children and women to obey their authorities without question. Indeed, a female patriarchy leader and her blog commenters were furious over the children being taken from the fundamentalist Morman ranch, while in the same breath posting about how it’s right to try and oppose “equal rights” for groups they deemed sinful (gays, etc).
The only difference in most respects between a fundamentalist Morman and a patriarchalist is simply that the Fund. Mormons believe in more than one wife. Other than that, the man is the one who speaks for God in the home in both camps, both groups believe that God is Male, both gruops believe that a woman’s purpose is to be/do whatever her husband decides her purpose is, etc.
She has no rights, accept those she is given by him (this is true of the fundamentalist Mormon, the fundamentalist Muslim, and the Christian patriarchy camp). And she is taught that any thoughts of rebellion on her part will be judged by God—that a righteous spiritual state is to be in complete joyful submission to her husband at all times, and that anything else is sin.
I could go on, but I’m hoping to emphasize the point that there is NOTHING offensive meant about “fight the mental burqa” logo because it is NOT in any way speaking against thecomplementarian framework as represented by Letitia’s recent posts. It’s about fighting off the mental burqa of patriarchy, the burqa that told me that I was rebellious and that I should not question my husband, that whatever my husband said was God’s word to me, that I was literally designed by God from birth for the sole purpose of bieng my husband’s helpmeet (aka, subordinate assistant in whatever it was he decided I was to help him with), etc.
It is very much a burqa, no less confining than the physical kind, perhaps even more so, because your own thoughts are suspect and you are in a continual state of self-doubt and dependancy.
Hoping this helps clarify. I have heard you speak negatively in the past about the patriarchy movement, and so want to make it very clear to you that the mental burqa is not speaking about the kind of complementarianism that Letitia writes about in her post, but about the increasingly popular patriarchy movement.
Molly, then there should be a tag line under it stating “fight hard patriarchy”.
Even the hard patriarchy guys I’ve read don’t advocate stoning a woman for riding in a cab without a family male present.
ellen,
Perhaps Molly, Cindy Kunsman, et al. are worried that hard patriarchy, or “patriocentrism” as I’m learning some call it, is trending toward such extremes and might arrive there in a matter of years. In which case, I would be worried too.
Sadly, my close friend has a husband who routinely accuses her of adultery and has dragged her before the mission board with drummed up evidence that never proved anything. For 30 years she has lived with this. They were missionaries in a Moslim country and she feels that he was adversely affected by this, although clearly his abuse was also pathological. You don’t have to be hysically stoned to suffer.
I do not find anything that men or women suffer from their partners to be funny or excusable. I do not find any teaching that the wife is not functionally equal to be funny or excusable.
Let’s stop making light of the real suffering of real people, whether male or female.
Letitia, I understand, but it would be helpful if they made the distinction, either under the button or on it.
Many of the sites do not and many of folks here state that they do not believe in “soft comp”.
Especially since complementarianism has been compared to Islam on this site – it is difficult to know where the distinction is.
On the other hand…I would not ask anybody to take the button down. I just make it clear that my own opinion is that there are not very many (even extreme) patriarchy types who kill their women for talking to the wrong men.
Ellen,
What she said.
When most of the fundamental tenants are the same (between Christian patriarchy, fundamental Mormanism and fundamental Islam), we have a problem.
So…we have a problem.
I realize that hard-line patriarchy hasn’t been everyone’s experience here. But in my little world, it was more than an experience. And this movement is making frightening strides forward.
Depending on your circles, you’ve either seen it or you’re totally insulated against it. For me, it’s been a major player in my life and in the lives of people I know. I feel no guilt working against it (which I don’t view as working against it so much as I think I’m working *for* the liberation of captives that Christ came to set free).
Warmly,
Molly