Theology of an Abusive Marriage

By Danni Moss
Copyright protected, all rights reserved

Much of the abuse in my marriage had its roots, or at least it’s excuse for continued existence, in the theology of marriage and family taught in the churches where both my husband and I grew up.  These were almost all Baptist churches, some fundamentalist Baptist churches, and a very few non-Baptist churches.  The reason I am naming these churches is because, while this theology is extremely common in fundamentalist Baptist churches, it is not limited to this subset. 

Throughout most of our marriage we were in a Southern Baptist Church and during our first separation our counselor was an elder in our church who was also a LMFT and Christian counselor.  During our second separation we received counseling from a trained counselor who attended a Charismatic (full gospel) church and had exactly the same theology of marriage.  I also want to make clear that the application of this theology does vary.  While I believe this theology is biblically inaccurate, not everyone reaches the conclusion in their personal practice that these theological distinctives excuse behavior which some view as godly but which is abusive.

The theology of an abusive marriage has its fundamental basis in the view that the husband dominates the wife.  The word “dominate” would never be used in real life – it sounds just as bad as it is. 

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. ~~~ Gen. 2:18

The assumption is made based on this verse, that “man” means human of male gender. At this point, since there was no female, man was just “mankind,” the human species. I believe it is more accurately understood to mean that individual humans are not generally suited to solo existence (though the Word elsewhere says that some individuals have been created for celibacy); we humans are created to function most fully and satisfactorily in pairs where the two individuals make a more complete whole than did the two separately.

In my abusive marriage, this verse meant that the wife was created to meet the needs of and complete the husband in a marriage. This was specifically taught to the women in the Bible college I attended and I heard this concept taught in sermons about marriage. In my marriage, my husband literally believed that the purpose of my creation by God was to complete him and meet his needs. This meant any other purpose for my existence was secondary to this primary purpose.

Another assumption that came out of this theology was, since I was created to complete my husband, in any place he was “incomplete” I was supposed to naturally and supernaturally be the answer and fulfillment of his lack. So, if he didn’t finish a project, it was my fault because I was supposed to complete him (without being told, too; since it was supposed to be a supernatural or automatic function I should have “known”). Any area of weakness in him was my responsibility to make up. The result of this belief was that everything was automatically my fault.

Another bit of theology was taken from Gen. 3:16:

and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The church taught that “thy desire shall be to thy husband” meant the wife would always want to dominate the husband. But then the second part of the verse was the antidote to that problem because the husband would have to “rule over” the wife to keep from being ruled by her.

The belief that “thy desire shall be to thy husband” meant a desire to control him was based on the use of the same Hebrew word translated “desire” in Gen. 4:7, where the verse is completely convoluted and turned inside out to mean that Satan “desired” to control Cain and that the wife would “desire” to control her husband in the same way that Satan desired to control Cain.

The first problem with this interpretation is that you really have to twist the verse around to reach the conclusion that Gen. 4:7 is using the word desire to mean Satan desired to control Cain. The second problem is making that interpretation (desire = desire to dominate and control like Satan) analogous to the use of the word “desire” in Gen. 3:16. The word “desire” simply means a strong longing. The same Hebrew word is also used in the Song of Solomon 7:10 and obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with an evil desire to dominate or control.

So, if you go back to Gen. 3 and take out the supposition that “desire” means a Satan-like desire by the wife to dominate her husband, it makes far more sense to see that, as a result of the Fall, while the wife would have a great longing for her husband (for her husband, for his attention, for his time, for him to meet her needs that he could not meet; as opposed to having relationship with God as her foremost “desire”) the husband, after the Fall, would erroneously attempt to dominate and control the wife, instead of providing for, treasuring, valuing, and protecting her.

The affect in my abusive marriage of the misunderstanding of the word “desire” in Gen. 3:16 was that anything I did or said was seen as me desiring to dominate or control my husband. Any time I had a thought or opinion that differed from his I was attempting to dominate and control him. So any personal thought or opinion of mine that wasn’t in complete agreement with his on every slightest subpoint was “corrected” — either through the calmly irritated harangues that lasted until he quit being irritated about it – could be 20 minutes or could be 2 hours, and it would be frequently revisited later and never forgotten or forgiven – or through screaming, swearing rages.

Then we get to the New Testament teachings about marriage. Interestingly, when you read the Word, almost all the passages in the New Testament about marriage speak to both the husband and the wife, and the admonitions include statements equating the marriage relationships to the relationship with Christ (husband) and the church (wife). The Christian marriage is supposed to conform to a higher standard. Divorce should never happen in a Christian marriage because a marriage in the image of Christ and the church would never be “separated” – the two partners would never be separated in their relationship, something that happens long before a couple gets a legal document expressing the reality of their relationship that already existed prior to the legal decree.

One of the complaints of those who object to things like the SBC resolution on marriage is that the church tends to focus almost exclusively on the submission of women in Christian marriage. I’ve heard preached that if only the wife would submit to her husband in all things he would be free to lead her. I was told many times by many people if I would just submit to my husband in all things he would be free to obey his part of Scripture and I would stop provoking him to ungodly behavior. There are several theological and logical problems with this belief.

First, is the Biblical mandate for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up His LIFE for it. Christ is the initiator in the relationship between Himself and the church. Christ loved the church and gave up His life for the church before the church submitted itself to Him. In fact, I would suggest that the church is enabled to freely and completely submit to Christ because we can be confident in His perpetual attitude of humble and unaltered love and service toward us.

Christ also loved the church and continues to love the church, regardless of the church’s behavior or choices. Thank God for that! Jesus would never and has never launched into swearing rages (or any spiritualized equivalent) because the church displeased Him, much less because the church “burnt his breakfast” (or the spiritual equivalent). The only thing that makes Christ angry in the Word is spiritual adultery. And in an interesting additional correlation, spiritual adultery is the reason why the church can be removed from the tree into which it was grafted (Rom. 11:24) — a spiritual divorce, just like God divorced Israel for spiritual adultery (Jer. 3:8).

I believe the idea that a wife’s lack of submission is a valid excuse for a husband’s failure to follow his Biblical responsibilities goes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of Gen. 3:16. Under what theological logic can it be right that a man’s anger, rage, profanity and physical violence is excused if he feels he is being provoked by his wife or children? Even if his accusations are based in reality his behavior is inexcusable. NO ONE ever said that to my husband (completely overlooking the fact that someone who was using another’s behavior as an excuse just might also be creating the accusations against that person out of whole cloth in the first place). And the fact that the church teaches an imbalanced version of submission adds to the offense.

What does it mean when the Bible says for wives to submit to husbands? The church teaches submission as subjugation, though it denies that interpretation because it sounds just as bad as it is. Submission is supposed to be completely putting your will and personhood under the control and domination of another. If you’re a lucky wife, your husband won’t use his rightful position of dominance to hurt you. He will be a benevolent dictator. But this view is completely contradictory to the teaching of the Word. The Word specifically says:

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. ~~~ Mt. 20:15-28

This is Jesus’ model! There is no excuse or justification for domination or dictatorial control, benevolent or otherwise.

Another Scripture that’s taken to mean more than it does is the bit in I Peter 3 about a wife obeying her husband even if he is disobedient to the Word, using the example of Sarah with Abraham. There are multiple factors to consider here. First, remember the culture where women were chattel and had no standing or protection without a husband. But even larger than that, when the Word talks about husbands being disobedient to the Word, using the example of Sarah, there is no indication that we are to follow our husbands into disobedience that puts lives in danger or requires that we deny or defy God or cease to follow our personal relationship with God.

People use Sarah as a positive example and say that Sarah obeyed Abraham even though he gave her into an adulterous relationship. Again, look at the reality of the day. Abraham told Sarah to claim to be his sister because he knew Abimalech would take her, by force if necessary, and would kill Abraham to remove him from his position as her husband. Now, I don’t think Abraham handled this properly. But it could be that, in claiming Sarah as his sister Abraham was attempting to protect her (and himself – which in turn also would protect her because without him she would be at the mercy of whomever was most powerful). Abraham was disobedient to God, doing it in his own strength. But he may have thought he was choosing a “lesser” evil and buying time to fix it. By allowing Abimalech to take Sarah into his harem, Abraham had time to work out something to get her back. He couldn’t do that if he was dead. Abimalech would not have taken Sarah sexually immediately after putting her in his harem. There would have been a process of time required first.

For modern Christian theologians to suggest wives are to submit to “disobedient” husbands who are bringing STD’s into their home, or physically abusing their children, or subjecting them to systematic abuse (which will kill given enough time) is taking one verse out of the context of the whole of the Word and violates the heart of God which is always for protection of the abused and afflicted.

This abusive husband is not merely disobedient. The Word says that a man who does not provide for those in his own house has “denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” (I Tim. 5:8 ) The “Christian” husband who abuses his family (“provide for” includes all the types of provision a husband is responsible for, not just monetary provision) has denied the faith.

There’s no ambiguity there. But just in case you don’t get it, God goes on to say this man is “worse than an infidel.” We think of “infidel” as meaning “pagan” or “heathen.” That’s not what it says. Infidel comes from the same root as infidelity; another word for adultery. This same Greek word is used elsewhere in the New Testament to speak of unbelievers (I Cor. 7:12-15, II Cor. 6:14-15, Rev. 21:8 ) to whom believers are not maritally bound if the unbeliever will not live with the believing spouse in peace (I Cor. 7).

Where is this teaching in the church??? I’ve never, not ever, heard one preacher teach that an abusive husband has denied the faith and is considered by God to be an unbeliever, even if he thinks he’s prayed the magic mantra prayer and has his eternal fire insurance in order. I don’t know of any pastor who would dare (not to say none exist; I just don’t know of any). This truth is at least as important, if not more important, than the Bible’s teaching on submission.

To leave out this consequence of a husband’s unbiblical domination is a profound error of doctrine and practice and leaves wives and children in danger, something God WILL hold the church responsible for. The Bible also says that God will not hear the prayers of, or receive the offerings of, husbands who treat their wives this way. (Mal. 2:13-16, I Pet. 3:7) The idea that a man’s exemplary service to God could negates the reality of, or consequences for, his abuse of his family is against Scripture.

Advertisements

41 Responses

  1. Any action plan can backfire if discovered. It’s the risk taken. To me, if someone is abused to the point where they would employ such desperate tactics then discovery is the least of their worries. No doubt it would likely escalate things. Isn’t the chance of discovery still worth it, to prove the allegation? Is doing nothing and accepting the status quo any option to healing? I suppose these are questions each person must answer for themselves. If one refuses to step out of their comfort zone, then is it fair to just bring a blanket allegation to clergy and just expect them to act off the cuff? A lack of evidence of any kind makes it tough for clergy to act. “He said/she said” is not nearly enough to implement a Matt. 18 or I Cor. 5 process. Everyone is still innocent until proven guilty.

    • What you say is true.

      What I recommend to people is to keep a log. Even this is dangerous. So there are a variety of ways to try to secure it.

      Another benefit to keeping a log is that it helps victims begin to see how pervasive the problem is. When you are in it, you become numb to all but the “big” stuff.

      A log is still “he said/she said” but it gets to the point of ridiculous when it is months and months of documented incidents. A log also helps document the intersection of where there are witnesses. There are more than we realize. And when clergy can go back to Joe or Jane and ask whether they saw “such and such” relatively minor incident, in isolation, it can add up to a comprehensive picture.

      One thing about this with which I have found victims have a hard time is that they feel guilty about “tattling.” This is another issue they have to deal with. This is not tale-bearing. This is about righteousness and justice. It is important for those reasons.

      — Danni

  2. Interesting blog post and discussion here.

    I find myself thinking of my experience as a nurse wherein the standard is based entirely upon the patient’s perception. What is pain? It is what the patient says that it is. As a caregiver, I cannot promise that any condition will be pain free, and it is impossible to take away all pain. But each person is different and must be met where they are. We do our best to quantify and qualify pain. Rate it on a scale of 1-10, figure out the patterns and the quality (stabbing, aching, etc). What we do is work with the person to achieve a level of comfort that is tolerable for the patient. The person should be able to do what they need to do, such as walk or care for themselves with as much pain control as possible it is a balance. Each person is unique, and no one plan works for each person.

    I also work with those who have experienced trauma, supporting family members as their loved ones experience health problems, etc. If the family functions well, the patient does better, so if a spouse is having a problem, the nurse needs to make sure that the spouse receives optimal support if possible, given the healthcare setting. But trauma is interesting. What may be a traumatic experience for one person might not be traumatic at all for another. It is again something that the traumatized person says it is, and it is based on perspective.

    What I see happening in many churches, having migrated around among different denominations following my own spiritual abuse experience is that churches are often quick to tell hurting people that they have no right to perceive a certain thing or to feel a particular way. Something that I’ve seen feed this discounting of women is the teachings that women exist for the sole purpose of supporting men and that they must submit to whatever behaviors and treatment to which their families subject them.

    Many churches turn that into an actually agenda that pits male headship against the responsibilities that men bear in regard to women. When there is inevitable tension from ambiguity and the very messy business of human relationships becomes heavy, unfortunately, many pastors and churches choose sides. What amazes me is that in churches that tend to follow the Danvers Statement, there is no ambiguity. The fault nearly always falls to the woman, and so often. Rather than protecting the weaker vessel, certainly not all, but many churches leave the woman without support. Or while these women are under tremendous stress and are made to be very emotionally vulnerable, they have a demanding extra burden of proof to overcome which adds to the stress of an already painful situation. Submission becomes a panacea for every marital problem in so many complemenarian settings that I’ve observed as a result., and churches that ascribe to some of these beliefs that force the gender issue often automatically assign blame to the woman.

    Part of that is promoted by the groups like CBMW is that people become sensitized and do feel forced to pigeon hole every kind of conflict in terms of submission and gender roles. Unfortunately, for many, it does become a panecea that does not help or heal. It doesn’t automatically resolve all conflict and it doesn’t remove the natural tensions that come along with intense relationships. I think many people today seek easy answers to problems, but it’s been my experience that forcing the hierarchy of gender creates more opportunity for abuse and exploitation than it avoids.

    I’m grateful to God that, despite some very rough years of longsuffering (7, in fact) that the pains and problems of life imposed, I have not experienced any time where I was not honored and loved, so submission has been a simple. But I am respected, and I think that each of us is focused on living up to our own responsibilities out of love more than we are focused on the relationship structure or what either of we think we are owed in the relationship. I made a covenant before God to submit to my husband as unto the Lord, yet I’ve never heard a charge, a demand or even a reminder of this from my husband in the near 20 years that we’ve been married. We love and care for one another, and I am grateful to God that I’ve never even had to grapple with these issues of gender in my marriage as so many others have.

  3. Firstly, bless you, Cindy K, for the care and compassion you obviously give. I’ve spent a lot of time in hospitals and was always happy to receive the care and compassion I got. Not all the time and not from every practioner but those who did, I was overjoyed by them and made safe by their comfort. I see that in you.

    You said, “I think many people today seek easy answers to problems, but it’s been my experience that forcing the hierarchy of gender creates more opportunity for abuse and exploitation than it avoids.”

    That rings true but perhaps in a different way than you implied. Yes, I think people look for the easy answers. One motivation is perhaps their unwillingness to look at themselves. To exam oneself may be because it is a threat to their self-concept. I certainly see indications of this in my wife as she blames, blames, blames me. The important parts are 1) if that is true, she will stay captive to thoughts of inadequacy (because it’s too threatening to her to consider she might have a hand in how our marriage got this way); 2) it will perpetuate the belief that men are to be avoided.

    As for forcing the hiearchy of gender, it goes both ways. My recent experience involves our Deacon Board who I had asked to become involved in resolving this stalemate in my marriage. After hearing my concerns, after telling me I was very articulate, after feeling a releif that finally I could expect some aid…they simply said my wife is to avoid any relationship with me, this without addressing any of my concerns!

    I dare say that I am convinced it is there perception that I (man) is the threat because of the basis of gender. Yes, they have acted in response to misperception(s) achieved through conventional wisdom that the man is the threat to woman. In so far that they refuse to discuss the matter further, that is my conviction.

    Aside from my personal affairs, I have known clergy, counselors, etc who act first on the idea that the woman in in peril at the hand of the man. CAPP, CPS, etc act in this manner. This colored perception they call, “to err on the side of safety” but it’s highly detrimental to discovering the true nature of the problem as much as it is detrimental to the realatonship. I’m all for protection but this sort of bias presents no positive outcome yet does yield a negative outcome.

  4. …detrimental because, in the former, it gives creates avenues for increase in stress and hardship to the individuals and the family. Also, it prevents to a real extent a viable path to real recovery. It is another barrier which needs to be surmounted.

    In the latter, because it often further diminishes a reuniting of the family members. It artificially prolongs the time it takes. In the meantime, folks feel they need to endure in high frustration. It makes them weary and beaten down. This especially in light that it is a bias and misperception which instigated these kinds of detriments.

    • Interestingly, your comments actually underscore what I say frequently, and said in my comments to Happy in this same thread… lack of spiritual maturity and discernment in the church is hurting both men and women. By reducing this to gender roles – either way – people get lost in the shuffle. This is not about gender rules (spelling deliberate) or about gender stereotyping. This is about righteousness and actually functioning as the church was designed to function as a body.

      I’m sorry you are dealing with this!

      — Danni

  5. Most noteworthy evangelical leaders endorse CBMW and The Danvers Statement. This includes Dennis and Barbara Rainey of Family Life (he is on their board) and Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Yes, some unbalanced elements WITHIN the evangelical community misconstrue CBMW and the Statement to mean something it clearly does not. This is no call to castigate the whole organization or to mischaracterize it. Actually, CBMW does MUCH to “free” women into the divine roles that the Bible holds forth for them. It validates them! We should never allow the misuse of an instrument meant for good to color it as something bad. The exceptions to the rule should never be given credence as the norm. The platform of CBMW is balanced and basic Biblical theology as it pertains to gender roles.

    Those who cleave to Feminist Theology and equalitarianism will naturally have issues with CBMW.

    • “Most noteworthy evangelical leaders” does not necessarily equal a ringing endorsement of anything to me. An entire group can be led astray, especially as they get excited about something they see their peers also getting excited about, that looks great on the surface, falls in line with centuries of church tradition, and isn’t going to get anyone’s denomination in a twist. All the big names in the book aren’t enough to win my support, because I’m looking at only One for approval.

      I’m not saying that to say I’m automatically suspicious of something everyone else approves of. But I do question something which bases its validity – using just the statement you have made here – on the support of “all the big names.” That is not a strong-enough endorsement. God says take it back to the Word and the Holy Spirit for confirmation — not to Dennis and Barbara Rainey (with whom I have some issues similar to Fireproof based on personal experience which I will not go into here), Dr. James Dobson, et. al. I believe that appeal as authority is fallacious.

      I think it is equally unsupportable to make a blanket judgment that anyone who does not agree with CBMW and the Danvers Statement is unbalanced – which is what you clearly imply, whether or not that was how you meant your statement. People who truly love and serve God will always have differences of opinion and belief. To call someone unbalanced because they have a variance of belief from yours, or from James Dobson’s, CBMW’s, etc. is both personally judgmental and expressing an unstable ability to make sound judgments of the spirit.

      You, of course, would find CBMW and the Danvers Statement to be rock solid – as you have clearly stated you agree with that theology. You have clearly indicated you are a complementarian. This tendency to identify oneself by labels always raises alarms for me – because we are to be first followers of Christ – not Paul, Appollos, or any other -ism, -ist, -ian, etc. It is also automatically, by default, divisive – which God specifically warns against.

      Another logical failure is your persistent linking of egalitarian thought with Feminist Theology by default. This is what you and others in the radical complementarian circles have taught avidly and there is no dislodging the determination. My objections to the mis-logic have already been stated. If you link them assumptively you make people assume evil of egalitarian thought by simple aversion to the idea of radical feminism. This is an injustice to your theology as well as to sincere believers who feel that God has led them to a different understanding of the word – and are in no way believers in “Feminist Theology.” And it is not yours to be making that judgment – especially when you do not know the theology of the people involved so you literally have no way to make such a statement.

      In further support of the fact that you have a vested interest in CBMW, and in defending it from all comers, it has not escaped my notice that your ID is a link to CBMW. It is unlikely you are just average Joe who thinks it is a helpful organization. So let’s don’t be coy about that.

      Just to be clear, I am not upset or angry. But I’m not going to curl up in a corner and surrender the floor because you came on my blog and stomped around in big boots. I am merely stating clearly and precisely what I see are the fallacies in what you are saying – and this is my blog. As I said before, I will stand up for what I believe is right and true on my own blog.

      — Danni

  6. I certainly am not here to tell you right from wrong, Danni. I WILL step up to the plate and defend those that I see as being willfully or even ignorantly mischaracterized. They need to have a voice. I could care less if I am the minority voice on your site. This ole boy has a thick hide ….. but also a soft heart.

    It is certainly your priviledge to deny the obvious links between the equalitarians and Feminist Theology. But, one need only to examine the evidence you provide on your site to see the partnership. Many of your comments and your links show that coupling.

    To give credence to the well-earned reputations of pro-family and pro-marriage leaders within the Christian community is not at ALL to be misconstrued into meaning we follow them instead of Christ. Again, we see the mischaracterization. Honestly, it is BECAUSE of their adherance to basic Biblical Christianity that they are to be recognized. Hebrews 11 is replete with honors given to the heroes of the faith …. men and women alike …. who fought the good fight of the faith and stood tall against the enemy. It is entirely Scriptural to recognize heroes.

    • 😉

      I had to smile – if you and I were talking face to face, it would probably be clear that we were having a friendly disagreement. You and I will not see eye to eye.

      However, there is much we do agree on.

      I would have to say, you are here to tell me right from wrong, or you wouldn’t be going through my posts attempting to correct me. But I don’t take offense to that, because nothing I believe that I write about here do I hold with a personal agenda. I believe I have learned at Jesus’ feet, at great personal cost, and I will stand up for it. I’m willing to admit where I flub – it has been known to happen – lol! – but for the most part, the message of this blog is what God has put on my heart. You’re not going to shake that.

      One reason I deny the links, personally, between egalitarianism and Feminist Theology is because I haven’t studied anybody’s theology to get to mine. I don’t believe in Feminist Theology because I don’t even know what it is. Nor do I care to. I do know I’m not even remotely a feminist. In fact, when a long-time friend of mine read your original comments and she about fell out of her chair laughing. She said, “Well, he obviously doesn’t know you!”

      I prefer to get my theology from the source instead of out of a can. I don’t get my theology from other people’s blogs either. I have linked to ones where I have seen other interesting posts – not because I agree with all their theology, because I don’t evaluate or “vet” everyone else’s theology in blogland. That would get beyond ridiculous. I’m not going to get into that. I link to blogs and websites that have valuable resources, including completely secular ones.

      I don’t even like the terms “complementarian” and “egalitarian” because of the issue of division into “-isms.” But I also understand the terminology and it’s use, which does apply as far as it goes. Where I seriously object is then tying those terms into completely divisive theological camps, and throwing people out with whatever bathwater has gotten their theological shorts in a twist.

      I didn’t say not to give honor where due. You used the approval of specific leaders as vouching for the validity of CBMW and the Danvers Statement by the fact of their position of credibility – not just stating they were great leaders. My objection was to using their credibility to “ride” the validity of CBMW and the Danvers Statement on. You have misconstrued what I said about what you said. My reasoning was accurate.

      — Danni

  7. Now, Danni …. please don’t get your theological panties in a twist (sounds kinda disrespectful when put into the feminine ….. huh? LOL!).

    When one endorses a certain theological platform, then of course their credibility is at risk! It should be! The validity and basic Biblical concepts as set forth by CBMW and the Statement IS tied to the credibility of it’s endorsers.

    Family Life and Focus on the Family are stalwarts of the faith. So are the other reputable organizations endorsing CBMW. They have established their intergity, Danni.

    • Sorry, I don’t see Family Life or Focus on the Family as pillars of the faith. Organizations and movements are temporary and manmade. They are human. They are not pillars of the faith. Viewing any organization or individual as a pillar of the faith is dangerous.

      This results in church tradition taking on equal value to Biblical authority. CBMW is not to be questioned because it has been vetted by Family Life and Focus on the Family. That is walking right up on the doorstep of idolatry. Note – I did not say it was idolatry, so don’t say I did! But we do have a bad habit of that in Christianity – and it does become idolatry.

      In saying that, I am not saying the Family Life or Focus on the Family, or CBMW or any other organization is worthless. I am saying we have a very dangerous habit in Christianity of holding our icons a bit too dear. And I’m not willing to use the endorsement of an organization to “prove” the validity of another.

      — Danni

    • LOL! I started to type “theological panties in a twist” and decided to make it a little more generic, actually. I wasn’t thinking of you in particular.

      — Danni

  8. So, Danni ….. does this mean you are willing to set aside Gola’s “Divorce Hope” site or Charis’s “Wifely Submission” blog used to validate your views?

    Do you see where your comment could be seen as disengenuous ….. at best? Or perhaps as a double standard?

    Danni, if we are both honest we will freely admit we will link to whatever site validates our views? I’ll admit it …. will you?

    • OK, I read back through the original article to attempt to see where I had used Gola’s site or Charis’s site to validate my views expressed here. Neither site influenced anything written here.

      Interestingly, the reason both sites are linked is because I found information there which was identical to what God had shown me. I don’t think I’ve ever found a site where I agreed with everything.

      However, I treat all sites the same as I would Focus on the Family, Family Life etc. – I hope I don’t adopt anyone else’s theology as my own blindly. I’m human and can’t say I wouldn’t, but I sure don’t want to. I don’t accept all of anybody’s anything. As I’ve said before and will say many times again – none of us can possibly get our theology completely accurate because the human mind is incapable of comprehending the mind of God. We are always responsible to take everything back to the Word and the Spirit for confirmation.

      The purpose of a blogroll is to point out resources – not to say “hey these guys are icons of Christianity.” So I’m not quite sure where that’s a double standard. Why wouldn’t I admit to linking to blogs that validate or support or otherwise bear on what I’m writing? I don’t think I’ve said otherwise.

      If there are blogs linked from here which are blatantly into Feminist Theology (whatever that is), there again, at this point, I’m not overly concerned. Like I said, a blogroll is not intended to be a statement of endorsement of their entire theology. If that was the case I couldn’t link to secular resources, etc. – and that’s just not going to happen.

      — Danni

  9. Danni, you are dodging …. with all due respect …..

  10. No – I typed that before I saw what you had written.

    Going back to read..

    — Danni

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: