How Some Churches Shame Their Members

Tweet

Zelophehad's Daughters

Originally appeared in 2010 at Quivering Daughters.com

An acquaintance of mine asked me what I knew of some of the ideas that neo-patriarchy had about unmarried women living alone. I explained that some sectors within patriarchy maintain that Numbers 30 requires unmarried adult women to have an assigned male overseer who is accountable for her and her affairs. Others in these circles maintain that all woman require a male as her a protector at all times to remain both spiritually and physically safe. Some actually extend this concept to support their idea that a woman who works outside the home (for a man other than father or husband) commits a form of adultery by serving the vision and efforts of another man.

Tweet

A Wife Calls Abuse Down On Her Own Head? And "Spawn For Salvation" (Salvation Through the Womb And Not The Cross)

Harper's Weekly Mar 6, 1875

 The other day, I received an email with a link to Denny Burk's blog. I wish I were in a better place to be able to discuss this topic, but I am absorbed by another matter. Oddly, it is peripherally related to this subject, a topic also mentioned as an example by a very ignorant person offered in a comment to justify Ware. 

 When I'm in a better frame of mind and reference, I may share my opinions and evaluation of this. I very well may not need to do so. The wise women who are responding to this on Burk's blog, a couple of whom I boast as dear friends, are doing a stellar job. Oh my! Women thinking again? I don't think that the zealous, hard complementarians like that kind of thing too much. Skirts and theology don't mix, and it's taboo in some circles to suggest that committed, Bible-loving believing women can challenge a theology professor. (Where are all the qualified men who should be doing so?) The discussion there, when last I looked, concerned how a woman's behavior calls down physical abuse on her own head, somehow making the man less culpable if not somewhat helpless against circumstances. And I cannot remotely begin to address this issue now. Feel free to read the

Bruce Ware has further delineated his ideas on the subject of women, submission in marriage and abuse. I've heard some similar ideas from Russell Moore, but the statements were not this straightforward. (It makes me wonder if the faculty at SBTS are even permitted to disagree with one another or whether they are all just required to read from the same, authorized script. This should never be confused with the "authorized verson.") So it seems that my joking that I Timothy 2:15 would replace John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 for women only was not so far from the truth.

Tweet

A Man Does Not Answer For The Sins Of His Wife: She Is Her Own Moral Agent and Her Own Possession ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

One of the most disturbing things that I’ve heard in recent years is this whole idea that men somehow atone for their sins of their wives or will somehow answer for his wife’s shortcomings before God. I believed that this odd belief was just confined within the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement and patriocentricity, but when I lectured at a Southern Baptist Seminary a few months ago, I had several young men approach me to explain why I believed that they would not stand before God to give an account for their wives’ actions when they themselves one day stand before God to give an account of their lives. I never dreamed that anyone outside of this aberrant, spiritually abusive belief system would embrace such an idea. One can even easily find an example of this at Homeschooling Today Magazine concerning the editor and his wife. The editor declares that his responsibilities include “sanctifying his wife.”

Tweet

The Role and Value of "Ishah" in Marriage ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Within the patriocentric movement, women who are unable to bear children or families that, for whatever reason, have not been able to comply with the moral imperatives of the ideology are often relegated to shame and are treated with disdain by followers. Because the movement focuses so heavily on the importance of large families and the concept of “militant fecundity,” the value of woman as “ishah” becomes diminished. Read what Maurice Lamm wrote concerning barrenness in marriage.

Tweet

Consequences of a Husband Compelling His Wife Into Intimacy Against Her Desire ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

From Pgs 138 -141:

When conjugal relations are the result of compulsion, sexual intimacy is robbed of its essential holiness. It makes the blending of bodies and personalities inhumane. True, the tradition does counsel the spouse to yield if at all possible, but if that does not occur, the Halakhah has no tolerance. It is nothing less than “domestic rape.” The Talmud says, “He who coerces his wife will produce unworthy children.” The Rabbis go so far as to say that in such ugly exploitation of his wife, a man is considered morally, though not legally, to have cohabited with a harlot and to have produced a child who is akin to a mamzer. [mamzer: conception resulting from fornication]

Tweet

Sensitive Appreciation of the Sexual Union ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

Many patriocentric groups such as those that follow Bill Gothard's teachings, the Shepherding/Discipleship movement and the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement advise wives that they must submit to all of their husband's sexual demands and timings as their wifely duties within marriage. Expanding upon the previous blog post that discusses the orthodox Jewish understanding that it is actually the woman who holds this right within marriage, note what Lamm states about the active and willing participation of both parties within intimate relations within marriage.

Wives within the patriarchy movement are encouraged and counseled to "endure" their husband's sexual desires, even if they are repulsed or caused physical discomfort as an act of service and worship unto God. According to Lamm, this is not the case in orthodox Judaism and was never the case, as "onah" (sexual intimacy when procreation is not an issue or goal) must always be an intimate encounter wherein both parties participate very willingly and with full willingness and interest.

Tweet

Sex As A Married Wife's Right and A Husband's Duty ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

When I opened this series of posts considering the writings of Rabbi Lamm, I mentioned how an elder's wife borrowed the book and never returned it. I believe that she did so because the information Lamm communicated about a woman's sexual rights within marriage strongly contradicted the male hegemony that is promoted by the submission teachings of men like Bill Gothard which were relied upon quite heavily in our church.

Two of the women with whom I shared Lamm's book had husbands with obsessive and pathological appetites for sex to such a degree that the women expressed great shame and embarrassment, to put it mildly. One husband's obsessions were so great, his means of “physiologically medicating” unpleasant emotional states, that the couple eventually sought counseling for sex addition for the husband and healing for the wife who felt much like a prostitute.

Tweet

A Woman's Independence and Marital Rights ("The Jewish Way")

Comparing patriocentricity to the practice of Orthodox Judaism according to Rabbi Maurice Lamm in “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage”

I've mentioned my prior experience with the now familiar expression of “Submit to me, Woman” in previous blog posts. This phrase and example, more than any other in my judgment, reflects the servile tendencies that the patriocentric teachings promote with marriage. I've overheard husbands say this thing to wives when I've been on the phone with friends, and my friends have also lamented about how this served as the ultimate “trump” in arguments with their husbands.

Tweet