Patriarchy Leads to Abuse. Period.

From Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence: Patriarchy Leads to Abuse. Period..

Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence The false doctrine of female subordination to male authority lies at the very root of domestic abuse and domestic violence among professing Christians. The premise is despotic and abusive in and of itself. Domestic Violence among Christians will never be eradicated until gender equality for Christian women is acknowledged and practically implemented.

Patriarchy Leads to Abuse. Period.

As a formerly battered Christian wife who is alive only by supernatural intervention ( you can read about that in the first chapter of my book which is posted at www.WomanSubmit.com ), it is my profound belief (backed up by studies and statistics) that strongly held attitudes of male supremacy are largely responsible for domestic violence

By Jocelyn Andersen 

I agree totally. The fruit of domestic violence should be enough to convince Christians that readings of Scripture that claim a divine requirement for Male Headship are wrong.

Of course fear that people will realise this is one reason why so many Churches try to hide domestic violence (typically another response is to blame the victim - if only she had been more submissive this would not have happened).

Comments

[Tim Chesterton]

I dunno. My Mum and Dad hold a traditional view on this and there's never been any abuse in their marriage. I'd agree that patriarchy can lead to abuse, but not that patriarchy leads to abuse - period.

[Dave]

Tim,

Firstly, I take your point.

From my reading I suspect there is significant difference between the US Evangelical model and the traditional British model.

The US model seems to have been (and still is) far more aggressively taught and enforced.

From my experience with older UK generations there were some expectations such as the wife not working (at least not a full career) and there would have been defined roles (homemaker vs breadwinner). But I don't hear people talking about this being something that the UK churches spent much time teaching or enforcing - it was simply the societal norm and one that not everyone kept.

[Kristen]

I don't think "patriarchy leads to abuse-- period" means "patriarchy leads to abuse in each and every case." It means that patriarchy opens the doors wide to abuse, and whosoever will may enter.

Slavery didn't lead to abuse in each and every case-- there were kind masters who didn't abuse their slaves. But the institution of slavery did, in a general sense, lead to abuse. I think that's what Ms. Anderson is getting at, in terms of patriarchy.

[Dave]

Kristen and Tim,

To take the slavery example Kristen gives.

Even if you have a wonderful owner isn't slavery still abuse? At the end of the day you are not free, you are not equal. In other words you cannot treat a slave so well that it is not abuse to be a slave.

So as far as I can see it would be true to say "Slavery is abuse. Period".

Should patriarchy really be different? Yes, there seem to be many patriarchal marriages where people are happy but isn't the system of patriarchy itself abuse as slavery is?

For some might the lack of awareness that they are not equal and not free be a sign of abuse?

I don't want to make the jump that all patriarchal marriages are abusive in terms of physical abuse. But equally I do want to say

a) physical, spiritual, emotional abuse is more common in patriarchal marriages.

b)if you are not free to be equal then isn't that a form of abuse? ("image of God abuse"?)

[Shirley]

Patriarchy wasn't taught in the US until the 70's or 80's. We never heard the word 'submit' to your husbands and certainly never heard of this concept of a male covering or male headship that is being fostered on us today. Like you said, we understood that the husbands were responsible for working to bring in the money, and that the wife took care of the home. That was a cultural concept before people quit farming in the 1940s. Farm women worked in the fields every bit as hard as their husbands.

Thank you for speaking up for women.
www.bwebaptistwomenforequality.wordpress.com

[Shirley]

I meant to say, That was a cultural concept AFTER people quit farming in the 1940.

[Dave]

Shirley,

Thanks for that update and for your encouragement.

[Bene D]

There have been some excellent US blogs come online which looked clear-eyed at abuse in patriarchy.

Quivering Daughters is a good jumping off point.

[Tom]

"(typically another response is to blame the victim - if only she had been more submissive this would not have happened)"

Absolutely disgusting. The churches and people you attack (John Piper, Driscol, Warnock, New Frontiers etc.) have never said this. All of them have preached against domestic violence, all of them have said clearly that women in violent relationships should leave.

I am a Methodist who has benefited from the ministries of New Frontiers and Driscol and I find your constant mud-slinging completely un-Christian. You do not have to agree with what they say but at least you could be honest about them.

[Tom]

If you want to see what Mark Driscoll really thinks of Charuvinism try these 4 short clips on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Q6qPZrQhI

If you want to know if he thinks women should stay and be submissive in abusive relationships try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCDWN2FSV38

As I say, you don't need to agree but at least be honest before trying to imply their ministries lead to abuse.

- Tom

[Dave]

Tom,

You are leaping to 10 kinds of conclusions without properly reading.

One false conclusion is that you have mentioned names that I did not mention in this post. So you are putting words in my mouth.

Secondly you clearly do not know that there are Churches where this kind of teaching is normal. I know women who have not been supported by their Churches when they experienced domestic abuse. I know of specific instances of Churches denying abuse, not supporting women suffering from abuse and telling those women to submit more/better as it is their fault for not being a properly submissive wife. I cannot give any details for what I hope are obvious reasons of confidentiality. Even Mark Driscoll in one of the clips you point to recognises that there are Churches teaching this stuff.

Thirdly, you are making a false conclusion. If a someone is preaching against domestic violence and that women should leave abusive relationships then it does not mean that it is safe to preach male headship. All you have done is try to deal with the potential consequences of your teaching male headship.

Fourthly, linking to Mark Driscoll on chauvinism is scary. Consider some of his other teaching such as 42: More on Driscoll and Sex where I refer to Mark Driscoll boasting about telling a woman she must give her husband oral sex in order to bring him into the Church. A good example of chauvinistic patriarchal teaching that is abusive.

You have seen some of my other stuff on the ways male Headship is abusive and dangerous (you even commented on some). See

• My Wife...
• The forgotten victims of male headship
• Included or Injustice
• The dangers of power in Male Headship

Secondly, in your eagerness to disagree you have missed the point. Nobody is accusing people such as John Piper & Adrian Warnock of preaching for domestic violence.

The evidence is plentiful that patriarchal relationships (relationships that are deliberately not based on equality but on unequal power relationships are more prone to abuse). Adrian and other supporters of male headship argue two things:

a) that different roles do not mean inequality. I totally reject this. The very basis of male headship is about who makes decisions for whom, it is about power.

b) they claim that even if power is not equal there will be no abuse if the man does male headship properly ie loves his wife and submits to Christ. This places the safety of the woman in the hands of how good a disciple the man is. If he gets it wrong then he can be forgiven, but at that point she has been abused. It also ignores unbelievers, should every woman who is married to a man who is not a believer, or who leaves the Church submit to someone who is not wielding power through proper Christian discipleship? What about couples where neither are Christians, does male headship apply or only when they become Christians in which case becoming a Christian means losing your equality for a woman - a very strange idea.

I agree that the people you mention do not want to see domestic violence or abuse. However, from the stories I have heard, from my reading and reflection I am convinced that teaching male headship does put women in vulnerable positions where abuse is more likely.

Also as I argue in an earlier comment there is an argument that telling anyone that they have to be in a relationship under the power of someone else (as in a sinful human being) is by its very nature abusive.

[Chris J]

Apols if this thread is old but i have only just come across your excellent site. Having researched spiritual abuse for some years I have no doubt whatsoever that the "Apostolic Ministry of Men" is responsible for a significant amount of abuse. I do not know if the "Equality Act" (Oct 1st 2010) will diminish this bizarre behaviour of a number of Pastors partic those in NFI. The key issue here is the personalities of the leaders, Pastors and Elders.Sadly men with a narcissistic personality disorder will be attracted to church leadership in the same way as paedophiles swarmed to the Catholic Church. Of course not all Priests paedophiles etc but the attraction will be there. If you know you are always right and can blame everything on others as narcissistics do then having God on your side is a powerful ally. Sadly NF uses poorly trained pastors, does not vet personality and as far as I can see does little to check the behaviour. Remember it is decent Jesus loving people who get damaged by religious abuse. They too believe in the annointment of leaders and it takes a lot to break away especially as these terrible leaders "Know" what is Gods will for you and threaten removal of salvation etc. I have many case studies now. We really do need a government body to oversee religious practise. Remarkably financial opaqueness goes with this perverse religious behaviour including large sums going to "in" male leadership as well as tax evasion. I can only suggest if you are a victim of these terribl people, seek help - I am pleased to discuss, and do some research on the finances of your church.