Open Letter to Egalitarians

David Kotter of the CBMW Gender Blog has blogged about Mike Seaver's open letter to egalitarians. As usual, public comments are not allowed in response on the Gender Blog, however you can privately email your comments to David. Or you can comment on Mike Seaver's post.

You Don't Have to Exercise Your "Rights"

Jesus once said to his disciples:

Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. (John 13:12-17, TNIV).

In this passage, Jesus does not deny his authority over his disciples, but he makes it clear that he has laid aside whatever "rights" he might claim in order to serve them in profound humility. He then tells us that we will be "blessed" if we follow his example.

Complementarians assert that husbands have the "right" to expect their wives to submit to them, and egalitarians vehemently challenge any such notion. We can, and do, debate these assertions ad nauseam, but whatever theological position we adopt, our course of action as Christians is clear: we are to follow Christ's example of laying aside whatever "rights" we may legitimately claim.

For example, a recent comment thread has focused on the question of how a wife should respond when her husband wants sex and she doesn't. If they're arguing and she's feeling hurt or misunderstood, should she yield her body to him when her heart is not in it? Should she feel guilty for feeling used, objectified, or even violated? Scripture clearly teaches that husband and wife both have authority over and rights to each other's bodies, and that we should not deny each other except for a limited time and by mutual consent (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), but how do we live that out in a way which does not result in frustration and pain?

This is a very real problem, and I am tempted to deal with the ethical dilemma which the wife faces in such circumstances. But my focus here is on the cause of the dilemma: namely, the husband's demand for sex. Eliminate the husband's demand, and you largely eliminate the wife's dilemma.

Now, I'm not saying that the husband should never want sex; only that he should never demand it. According to the Bible, I have the "right" to my wife's body; but I want more than just her body. I want her passion, and I'll never get that by making demands. Consequently, if I exercise my "right" to sex, I strip sex of everything which makes it most enjoyable.

Note the degree of self-interest in that last paragraph. It is my desire for passionate sex which drives me not to demand perfunctory, half-hearted sex. I know that if I am a gentleman and I wait until my wife is just as passionate for me as I am for her, what we experience together will be well worth the wait. A gift which is given freely and enthusiastically means far more than one which has been coerced in some way.

The same thing applies to other forms of submission. When Lisa and I don't see eye to eye on something, I might be able to "get my way" by playing what I call the "submission trump card." But would I really be "getting my way"? I want more from my wife than grudging resignation to some unilateral decision. So I don't make unilateral decisions, and I never play the "submission trump card". Rather, I seek unanimity, I ask her perspective, I encourage her to pray that God would reveal his will to both of us. I'll talk more about how we make decisions in another post, but for now, my point is that whatever my "rights" may be, wisdom and love dictate that I set those "rights" aside for the sake of not riding roughshod over my wife.

Complementarians and egalitarians differ over what they see as the husband's and wife's proper "rights" and "roles." I do think it is important to consider those questions, because we need to understand the proper framework in which to interact with each other as husband and wife. Yet whatever conclusions we come to about rights and roles, Christ's example is clear: we are to lay aside our "rights" for the sake of washing one another's feet. His promise is that we will be "blessed" when we do.

Will Positive Examples Be Taken Seriously?

In a recent thread, several people gave accounts of marriages which are problematic in some way. There were stories of several so-called "complementarian" marriages in which the wife is not able to make any decision without running it past her husband. There was the so-called "egalitarian" marriage in which the husband showed no impulse to protect, support, and cherish his wife in her time of need. There were seemingly "model" marriages which can only be described as whitewashed tombs. And, of course, there were the horror stories of abuse. After several of these negative examples, one commenter opined that she wishes she had more positive examples to cite. Another replied with the following hopeful plea:

Maybe there are some folks with "beautiful marriages" reading this who could lead the way?

On the whole, the institution of marriage is in a state of disarray today. Divorce, marital infidelity, and domestic violence are rampant, and there does not appear to be much appreciable difference between Christians and non-Christians. Anecdotally, we all know plenty of broken homes and miserable marriages; and we can think of few marriages we can genuinely describe as "beautiful." Beyond that, we all know too many families which appeared to be "perfect" but which suddenly seemed to implode. Who can blame us, therefore, if we grow cynical and wonder if any marriage is truly happy?

Then there are our suspicions that no marriage on the other side of the complegalitarian divide can really be happy. If I claim that my "complementarian" marriage is a happy one, at least some egalitarians will dismiss that claim. "Of course you think it's happy! You're the one with all the power. But your wife is likely in a state of quiet desperation." If my wife were to write in and tell you what a wonderful marriage she has, those same egalitarians will assert that she is somehow deceived, ignorant of what true freedom and equality feels like, afraid to speak out, or trying hard to convince herself that she really is happy. Conversely, if a male egalitarian talks about how wonderful his marriage is, many complementarians will suspect him of just settling for the easy way out and abdicating his leadership. Or if an egalitarian woman describes her happy marriage, those same comps will suspect her of somehow "running the show".

All of these suspicions and stereotypes can make it difficult to cite positive examples of marriages that work. But it seems to me that comps and egals would find much common ground if we actually began talking about how to have a successful marriage. I have long contended that there is not much visible difference between a good complementarian marriage and a good egalitarian marriage. I have read moderate comps and moderate egals say essentially the same thing in the comments on this blog. I have also read comments by hardline egals who cannot accept that it is possible to have a complementarian marriage in which the husband leads without becoming authoritarian; and comments by hardline comps who cannot accept that an egalitarian marriage can function well without one person clearly being in charge.

If we spend all our time reacting to the hardliners, we'll do little to improve the state of Christian marriage. But if we set aside our assumptions and prejudices long enough to consider some positive examples, I think we'll find there's much about which we agree.

I've been married to Lisa for fourteen years. During that entire span, I've been blessed to be able to work at home, and during almost that entire span, she's been a stay-at-home mom and homeschooler. That means that she's had to deal with my presence more than most women who have been married twice as long. Yet rather than smothering each other or growing tired of each other, we have become incredibly close.

We've certainly had our conflicts, and some of them have gotten ugly. There have been times when we seriously wondered if our marriage would survive. Thankfully, those times have been relatively few and far between. And when we've had them, we've eventually swallowed our pride, repented, and worked through them.

Aside from my relationship with Christ, my marriage to Lisa is my greatest source of happiness. I regard being her husband as my highest "calling" and most important "vocation." I've seen that by the power of the Spirit, a husband and wife truly can die to self and live for each other, and that when they do, they can experience rich delight and inexpressible joy.

Lisa and I have forged what we see as a "beautiful marriage" in a complementarian framework, and I would love to write about how we interact with each other on a daily basis, how we work through the times when we don't see eye to eye, and how we view authority and submission. I wonder, however, if any such discussions will be taken seriously. Will the examples I give be regarded as a valid working out of complementarian principles? Or will they be viewed with suspicion and summarily dismissed? Am I able to reach across the aisle to find common ground upon which to build "beautiful" Christian marriages? Or is my only option preaching to the choir?

Preaching to the choir certainly is easier, but that's not why I participate in this blog.

CBMW on abuses of male headship

On this blog we often discuss ways that men abuse women. The CBMW strongly supports the idea of male headship in the home, which they equate with male authority or leadership. But CBMW opposes abuses of such male leadership. There is an important article on the CBMW website by Steven Tracy titled I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship.

After reading Tracy's article, feel free to comment on it here.

As a personal note, I continue to question equating headship with authority. I do not find any biblical passages which teach that a biblical "head" has authority over its body or person over whom it is the head. We have mentioned this many times on this blog, but feel free to comment on it, as well, here.

A Little Levity

In the interests of lightening things up a bit and hopefully giving every one here a good laugh, I hereby submit the following anecdote.

Today I was at a book display and I picked up When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy by John Piper. While I was reading the blurb on the back cover a salesman told me how much the book had meant to him personally. He also told me that he is the worship leader at his church, and as such he felt uneasy about carrying that book around. After all, some people might wonder why their worship leader would not "desire God" and be full of joy.

I then told him about a similar experience of not wanting people to see a book I was reading.

When I was in college, I was trying hard to understand these often inscrutable creatures known as women. I had read a good book by Elisabeth Elliott called The Mark of a Man, and decided to see if she had written anything else on the subject of men and women. The book I found was entitled Let Me Be A Woman, and it was basically a series of letters to her engaged daughter.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and felt it was even better than the book she had written for men. However, carrying the book around was indeed problematic. After all, what are people supposed to think when they see a young man walking around with a book entitled Let Me Be A Woman?!

Stepping Into Someone Else's Shoes

As a kid, my mother always encouraged me to try to "step into someone else's shoes." In other words, she wanted me to try to see things from someone else's perspective, even if—or rather, especially when—I didn't agree with them.

Since I've become a Christian, that impulse to try and understand where other people are coming from has been reinforced by my belief in the image of God, the sensus divinitatus, and the radical depravity of humanity. The Bible teaches that we are all created in the image of God, yet we are all radically and pervasively sinful. Consequently, every one of us has the capacity to commit the most heinous acts of evil. Yet God's restraining power, our innate "sense of the divine," our conscience, and various external constraints help to keep our sinfulness in check, so that none of us is as completely wicked as we have the capacity to become.

The resulting combination of Biblical theology and motherly wisdom has led me to look at the victories and failures of other people and to do my best to understand and learn from them. I do this because of Paul's injunction in 1 Corinthians 10:12: "If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!"

In the recent discussion of abuse, I've naturally had in mind the people in my family who have suffered and endured abuse of various kinds. By God's grace, I have never personally had to suffer the kind of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse which some readers of this blog have endured. Yet each of those forms of abuse has been suffered by various members of my family, and so I am well acquainted with the devastating and ongoing effects of such abuse.

One of those family members endured continual emotional abuse and occasional physical abuse from her husband for more than fifty years. Trying to understand the internal workings of that fractured relationship has taught me much about the ambiguities of abusive relationships.

First, I've tried to put myself into this woman's shoes. In spite of being encouraged to divorce her husband by pastors, friends, fellow church-goers, and even her own children, she chose to stick it out until death finally took him earlier this year. Some of her motivations for doing so were unmistakably Christ-like and incredibly noble. Yet as far as I can see, she also chose to stay because of her own insecurities (most of which are the direct result of being told how worthless she was for so long). Then there are the motivations which could even be described as selfish or sinful. There's an element in which her identity became tied up in the martyrdom of her marriage. She may have been afraid that if she left him, she would shatter her sense of identity, lose the sympathy and admiration of others, and render meaningless the years of abuse she had already endured.

Similarly, her coping mechanisms were a mixed bag of godly and fleshly reactions. On the one hand, this woman showed Christ-like devotion to her husband, even when his declining health would have given her the perfect opportunity to neglect or to punish him for a lifetime of mistreatment. On the other hand, she developed a pattern of passive aggression which helped contribute to the ongoing strife. She also had a habit of telling people outside their marriage about his latest stream of invective and insult. Given what she endured, who can blame her for such things? Yet if everything that does not come from faith is truly sin (Romans 14:23), it is not unreasonable to conclude that these fleshly coping mechanisms, while understandable, are nevertheless sinful.

Lest I be misunderstood at this point, let me reiterate that my relationship with this family member is an extremely close one. Words cannot express my admiration and affection for her. Yet as I have tried to understand her reasons for staying and her methods of coping, I have come to the conclusion that some of them were godly and some of them were sinful. Some of them were noble and others were pathetic. We can learn much from her victoriousness in suffering, but we can also learn much about what not to do.

As for her husband, I also try to put myself in his shoes. I try to understand how a man could be so ugly to his wife and yet remain faithful to her for fifty years. This man was intelligent, personable, at times charming, at times selfless and sacrificial, a good father to his children, and a doting grandfather to his grandchildren. He could be tender to his wife moments after he told her she was stupid, and he appeared to be completely oblivious to the contradiction in it all. I have seen abusive relationships where the man would be intentionally sweet and tender in order to keep his wife confused, hopeful, and loyal. I can honestly say that this man seemed to show no such cunning. He simply seemed blind to the fact that there was anything wrong with the way he treated his wife!

How does one begin to understand such a man? One can gain insight from his childhood and upbringing. One can see how his failures in business and his feeling that he was never given the respect he deserved fed his need to tear down his wife. One can look at his wife's various sins and shortcomings and see how they could certainly be a source of frustration to him. Yet ultimately, none of these things can be used to justify his cruelty. Whatever the contributing factors, this man repeatedly chose to surrender to his sinful nature and to abuse the woman he had vowed to love and cherish.

When I try to stand in this man's shoes, I can only go so far. As much as I may be able to sympathize with his various frustrations in life, his abusive actions are an absolute mystery to me. I come away from the exercise of standing in this man's shoes with the following conclusion: our capacity for sin is profound, and "there but for the grace of God go I."

Sadly, this is just one of the abusive relationships in my family, and so I have other sets of shoes I've had to try on. In every case, considering these relationships fills me with rage toward the abuser, hurt for the abused, and a poignant sense of how tangled and destructive these relationships really are. There is no easy way to "fix" or undo the hurt which has been done. It seems the best I can do is to learn what I can so as to avoid inflicting such hurt and confusion on those I love.

I've written all this not because I enjoy talking about it, but because I think the way comps and egals discuss the subject of abuse is generally unhelpful. We make such sweeping, dogmatic assertions about it that we continually misrepresent the awful, confusing reality of it. When someone speaks of abuse as a sinful response, we assume they mean that the abused is therefore to blame for their abuse. To correct that, someone else will speak as if the victim in an abusive relationship is practically without sin, which of course is an oversimplification as well. Then of course there are those helpful barbs which go something like, "if you teach this then you are complicit in the abuse." The end result is that we talk past each other about an incredibly difficult and painful subject, engendering animosity and suspicion on both sides.

Frankly, we can do better, and we can start by trying to stand in each other's shoes. If we stand in the shoes of the people with whom we disagree, we find it harder to assume that they are intentionally twisting Scripture and teaching falsehood. If we try to understand their motivations for teaching as they do, we may just conclude that they are merely misguided and confused rather than deliberately malicious and cruel. And if we reach that point, we may just be able to reason together from Scripture without becoming abusive ourselves.

What Can We Say About Abuse?

In my last post, I tried to give us a little perspective regarding Bruce Ware's recent comments that men sometimes respond to women who challenge their authority by becoming abusive. I hesitated to write such a post for fear that some might charge me with encouraging or otherwise enabling abuse, but I hoped to offer some balance to the discussion. I have to say that most of the comments on that post, including those which took issue with it, were charitable and civil. I sincerely appreciate that.

In this post, I'd like to talk a little more about the issue of abuse to consider what we can and cannot legitimately say about it. I hope that by doing so, I can help both sides to better understand each other.

Let's start with what we agree on.

First, both complementarians and egalitarians would agree that physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse are always sinful and never deserved. I don't care how difficult, obnoxious, hateful, and downright evil someone is, no Christian should resort to beating or berating such a person. I can find nothing in the Bible which prescribes that we give someone a good beating or tongue-lashing. (Okay, there are those proverbs about rods for the backs of fools, but we're not told to wield those rods ourselves.)

Consequently, no abusive husband can justify his violence by pointing to his wife's obstinacy. Whatever her sins may be, if he resorts to abuse in any form, he is sinning and will be answerable to God for such sin.

As I wrote yesterday, abusive men do not merely abuse when they feel challenged. Very often, they abuse even when their wives are walking on eggshells trying not to cross them. An abusive husband may abuse merely to remind his wife that he is in charge, or because he is irritated that she submits to him out of fear rather than out of love (how's that for irony?), or simply because he feels he has no control over other areas of his life. The terrifying reality of abuse is that the abused has absolutely no control. Even perfect compliance is no guarantee that the abuse will stop.

We must therefore work hard to make it clear to battered women that they must get out! Not only is it necessary for their own safety, it is actually the loving thing to do. It is the only way their husbands will have any hope of being made to see their own sin. Accepting abuse does nothing but reinforce it, and taking a beating is not the same thing as Biblical submission.

Now, having said all that, I think we need to be careful not to go to the other extreme and pretend that abusive men abuse in some kind of vacuum. An abusive man certainly does not need to be provoked in order to resort to abuse. But can he be? Is it never the case that he resorts to abuse in response to some sinful action on the part of his wife?

Please understand me, I have already said that no act, no matter how sinful or ugly, justifies an abusive response. Nevertheless, abuse is sometimes a response to sin on the part of the abused. It is an illegitimate and damnable response, and it is never just a response, but there is a sense in which we can legitimately speak of it as being a response.

It is foolish to pretend otherwise, and I think it's here that egalitarians sometimes do battered women a disservice. One of the reasons battered women stay in abusive relationships as long as they do is that they frequently blame themselves for provoking their husbands. They know when they have been selfish, or manipulative, or spiteful, or obstinate; and in their guilt over their part in the conflict they excuse their husbands' abusiveness! Such women do not need to be told that they have "done nothing wrong." Frankly, they're not likely to believe it. Rather, they need to be told that no matter what they've done wrong, it does not excuse their husbands' abusiveness.

As I see it, complementarians like Ware need to go the extra mile to make sure they don't give the impression that abuse is always a response to some prior sin on the part of the woman. Conversely, egalitarians need to stop implying that abuse is never a response to some prior sin on the part of the woman. The reality is that as sinful men and women, we are all prone to wound without provocation, to respond in sinful ways when provoked, and to lash out whenever we feel out of control. Such a vicious cycle of sin begetting more sin can only be broken by the power of the Spirit and the "more excellent way" of Christ-like love.