I’ve been catching up on my reading, and just this weekend got around to perusing the summer 2007 edition of “E-Quality“, the online journal of Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization of which I am an enthusiastic supporter. This past summer’s issue focused on the church and domestic abuse, and included this short and stirring piece by Gerald W. Ford: Tolerating and Staying: How a theology of female submission contributes to the prevalence of women tolerating and staying in violent situations.
One of the classic feminist critiques of traditional Christian theology has been the troubling tendency to glorify suffering. Too often, women who are being abused are told that their suffering is redemptive. They are encouraged to stay with violent partners, often with the suggestion that by continuing to endure pain and abuse, they are being more “Christlike.” In this short piece, Ford argues that this is a profound distortion of the Gospel:
I frequently hear women, and a few men, who say that they are suffering in their marriage but they see it as suffering for Christ. They stay because they can view their suffering as something they are doing for the greater cause; it’s what Christians do, they say. Yet suffering is not the core of Christianity, it is only an experience which will sometimes accompany the true core of Christianity, which is the Christ-like life. To be like Jesus may include suffering, but it also includes much more.
We must ask the question of whether Jesus suffered always, or if he had some boundaries of his own for when, for what cause, and how much he would suffer. A review of the Gospels will reveal many situations in which Jesus did not suffer silently, did not allow abusive behavior to go unchallenged, and gave his followers instruction to move away from rejection.
The idea of Jesus “having boundaries” seems anachronistic, but Ford builds his argument on Matthew 10:12-23, where the idea of the Great Commission begins to appear. Ford doesn’t say as much as I’d like him to, but I’m struck by these two verses and what they might mean for women in abusive situations:
If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town… When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Reading that this weekend was galvanizing. I’ve known this passage for years, read it dozens of times, but never thought of its implications: we are not called to endure persecution silently. We are allowed, and indeed, commanded, to leave violent situations. When partnered with an abuser, it is not our role as Christians to suffer silently, praying that God will change a violent temperament. Persecution for the sake of justice may indeed be inevitable — the Gospel makes that clear. But persecution in one’s own home, whether by parent or spouse, is never God’s will. Suffering at the hands of a spouse is not Christian martyrdom, and Matthew 10:23 makes it clear that sometimes, we’re called to leave.
I am aware that many in the church still regard divorce as a sin. But I think that sometimes the failure to divorce can be sinful as well. When we stay with an abuser, or someone who is chronically unfaithful, our willingness to remain in relationship with them validates and affirms their behavior. If we don’t show a cheater or an abuser that there are consequences for their repeated failures then we fail in one of our key spousal roles: to be a witness to and a facilitator of our partner’s continued spiritual growth. Indeed, by staying in a violent or chronically unfaithful relationship, we make two errors: we fail to hold our partner accountable, and we fail to value ourselves as God values us. If we believe in God, we must believe He loves us. If we do not love ourselves enough to prioritize our own safety and our own right to pursue happiness, we tell God He’s made a mistake about us and our true worth.
Ford writes that we need to “come to grips with the fact that theology affects lives.” That makes very good sense. Those of us who call ourselves Christians must realize that how we interpret Scripture has a very real impact on those around us, particularly those who look to us as role models. For centuries, priests and pastors have used Bible verses to encourage women to stay in abusive situations, counseling them that their suffering is part of the Christian life. Those of us who value women’s lives, women’s bodies, and women’s happiness have an obligation to interpret Scripture more responsibly. And a responsible and sound interpretation of the Gospel tells us that when we’re being physically or verbally abused, the best course is to flee.
really, no pun intended, but this hit home. i have never thought of that verse in that light. thanks for flipping the switch. it means quite a bit.
If you are interested in reading more about this, you should check out the book Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering and the Search for What Saves Us by Rebecca Ann Parker and Rita Nakashma Brock. When the Happy Feminist posted about wifely submission awhile back, one of the commenters (Chalice Chick) recommended this book. I bought it and found it extremely insightful. Although I do not endure physical abuse on a day-to-day basis (though it’s happened before — it’s rare, but it does happen), my mother always says the she must “pray for my father” and hope God changes him. I don’t think she realizes that her response - or lack of one - contributes to why I am quite skeptical about identifying myself as a conservative Christian these days.
Another thing: I was looking through Brio’s “Dear Susie” advice column a couple weeks ago. Girls frequently write to her about dressing modestly. In every case, Susie (the editor in chief) writes that it is our responsibility as girls to dress in a way that won’t cause “our brothers to stumble.” I don’t think that they realize that the same thinking is used to rationalize abusive behavior. If a man is sexually harassing us, then it is our fault, because we should have dressed more modestly. In other words, it is our responsibility to ensure that we don’t get harassed, same as it is our responsibility to pray for our perpetrators and hope for the best. All of it discourages male accountability and encourages female martyrdom.
I love “Proverbs of Ashes” and wrote a long post about it in 2003, on my now defunct and lost “blogspot” blog. Perhaps the wayback machine can find it…
And as for Brio… sigh. May the girls who read it go through the same trajectory that you did, Sarah.
Awesome post.
For centuries, priests and pastors have used Bible verses to encourage women to stay in abusive situations, counseling them that their suffering is part of the Christian life.
I think that’s a great example of the sort of problems that happen when a religion gets institutionalized and starts denying regular people their connection to God and ability to understand writings and teachings for themselves. If a person has been taught that only her priest or pastor has access to God, that only an elite class can understand scripture, she is forced to accept their damaging interpretations even against her own intuition and knowledge. That causes two layers of problems: the direct damage of the flawed interpretations, accompanied by a nice helping of confusion, guilt, and self-doubt when those ideas don’t make sense and/or cause problems.
“Indeed, by staying in a violent or chronically unfaithful relationship, we make two errors: we fail to hold our partner accountable, and we fail to value ourselves as God values us.” This is victim blaming. While the idea that one should stay in a violent realationship, because divorce is wrong is disgusting. However, to say that not leaving an abusive situation is a sin is also disgusting. Do you realize how much this rings of “Why doesn’t she just leave?” It’s not always possible to leave, and it’s never the victim’s fault. There have been recent studies that came out which showed that the chances of a victim being killed go up if they leave. Often abusers are so good at abusing that the victim doesn’t realize that they are being abused, and often thinks they deserve the inhumane treatment. “If we don’t show a cheater or an abuser that there are consequences for their repeated failures then we fail in one of our key spousal roles:” No, the abuser fails, Hugo. It’s not up to the victim to make the abuser face consequences. It’s up to the abuser to not abuse.
catsc, that’s a fair criticism — I think I’d rewrite it this way:
“Indeed, by failing to help an abused person to leave a violent or chronically unfaithful relationship, we make two errors: we fail to hold the abusive partner accountable, and we fail to value the abused person as God values them.”