I have question for everyone, and would love to hear from theories.
For some reason I started this huge fire storm with my article about John Piper and how his ignorance is killing children. I have dealt with a number of families, and their children within those families. The children it seems are the silent victims.
There are a number of churches that are truly coming around, and realizing their error when dealing with domestic violence.
I have found in part it was due to them participating with this dynamic within their church. First being relieved at what seemed to be true repentance, but once the hard work to truly allow God to change the mindset of the abuser? All Hell breaks lose, and they quickly found themselves sitting their stunned wondering where that 'true repentance' went!
What happened to the tears and 'I will never do that again?" The 'I want to CHANGE!" It was to overwhelming for the abusers. Just like real life is, and they responded in the way they always do unfortunately.
HOW do you reason with a person that is acting and thinking irrationally?
They got a good TASTE of what this family deals with, and instead of waffling over it they forged ahead. This is by no means easy waters, and its heart breaking.
Cheryl Schatz had an article that I found via Dave Warnock. I have to wonder how John Piper got from point A to point B. The subject it seemed was: do we deny women more opportunities than the Bible denies them?
I dealt with a couple one time. They were sitting in front of me, and she said, “He learned from you that I have to get permission from him for everything I do.” I said, “Really? Like what?” And she said, “To go to the bathroom! He won’t let me leave the room without his permission. If I get up and walk out of the room, he says, ‘Hey, you’re supposed to ask me first.’”I had to giggle. YEP a women that has a husband that demands she ask permission to go the bathroom (which he recognizes as sick) is thinking, "What kind of ministries might a woman do?" (Shakes head) I think I can safely say that is the LAST thing on her mind! I think most would have him address the man's sick nature, and deal with ministry later don't you?
That’s not because the man values complementarianism. That’s not complementarianism. That’s sick! So we do deny women things that we shouldn’t deny them, if we’re sick.
Now the person asking this question is probably not going there. They’re probably thinking, “In the church, what kinds of ministries might a woman do?”
Why he would think ministries at this point would be her first priority when she brings up a sick situation like that? If she seriously was using that as an example, then why didn't he mention there is other work to do here besides what she was asking? I mean would either of them be qualified for ministry at this point? I'm sure the person that ASKED the question may NOT be the person in the example, but the example he gave? That is ONE as to WHY they do ask about this! On a side note? Strange example to use for this lesson I have to say. It shows the blinders as to how he won't deal with the sick portion, but goes on about roles of women in ministry. THAT makes it even stranger!
IS SEPARATION GOOD OR BAD AT THAT POINT?
If the victim is separated at this point the church has a better chance of helping this family.
Why do I say that?
Abusers get scared when they are called out - no matter HOW nicely - and they will refuse to return to the church that they say 'claims' to want to help (physically or emotionally). They want to hide their sin in the darkness, and they will use force to keep it there.
Its like Chris Brown, and how he feels the people that are upset at what he has done are just 'haters'. They don't take his 'change' at face value, and he just LUMPS everyone together as those that don't like him anyway. He doesn't need to explain himself. You take what he says at face value, or you are the enemy or 'hater'.
Abusive people do actually believe this - its a coping mechanism for them.
If the couple is together, and he gets uncomfortable with something when help arrives?
You have a better chance of seeing that family LEAVE the church. He will do things to isolate the family from that help. In his broken state you are a threat to his authority!
I think we all realize that type of authority may not be what John Piper's church is thinking, but this is what he is hearing sadly. Its like the 'sick' man he speaks of. The example he gave the man he speaks of clearly didn't grasp it did he? Yet he goes on to speak of roles in ministry?!?!
The sick man will rebel if someone is actually STRONG enough to go into details regarding the sick mindset. The abusive person's anxiety level will go up, and feel attacked...and if they are NOT separated?
The family will either stop going to that church all together, or find another place to worship that doesn't 'hate on him'. You see how he tries to avoid his accountability? Its to much for him to bear!
Most of the time when he does stay? Its because the church supports his side of the story hook, line and sinker. In the example above? He will stay because the pastor thinks she is more questioning her role in ministry.
He will do this separation (or a better word is isolate them) from others in all kinds of situations he sees as a threat. It could be friends that see the dangerous dynamic, family who see it, neighbors, etc. If they feel victims are getting support at their job, organization they volunteer at. They will slowly isolate them from the support. THAT includes threats that the children may bring into the dynamic as well.
Remember evil likes to hide in the darkness!
The abuser may not be totally evil, but he does have a root of evil within him. What the bible say about that root? They prefer that to stay in the darkness. GOSH wonder why that would be huh?
ENDURE OR FLEE THE EVIL
One aspect for her enduring is truthfully what? Fear. That is the reason BEFORE you knew about the behavior or asked about it. The chances of this being a first time isn't very likely.
One aspect of WHY you want her to flee besides safety? Chances are VERY good the next day he will find ways of talking her OUT of calling the church! He will weep and be mournful, or plain use intimidation to make her silent. Remember the motive of evil - keep it in the darkness.
Another aspect that people can't grasp for some reason for their reason for enduring before they tell the church - they want an intact family. YES she does want the same thing YOU DO, but are you going to help that FEAR she feels regarding him go away?
The 'wanting of a intact family' kind of slaps the theories of how they are listening to ugly supporters that just want to break up families huh?
It doesn't fit the 'making excuses so they can leave' crowd either.
Fear at times keeps them there, and fear is normally the reason they want to flee.
The blinders on the biblical roles is a sense of confusion when you get mixed messages on what to do with that fear.
She is only getting HURT, and it is not sin if she endures his wrath for a season.
Its much more than HURT. Take the blinders off and see the real reality. I would assume with most people if you are being verbally and physically attacked by a stranger you would be more than HURT wouldn't you? Now look at the situation again - this is the person that is your spouse! Its MUCH more than HURT!
You hear churches speak on how are to speak out against sin, but then you are told to endure it first.
Why?
The ROLES within the marriage is why! That is confusing because of the contradiction!
You are told you don't understand the word of GOD, and those ROLES that were God ordained, etc.
That's not answer - its a diversion!
Why do they get so many questions about submission? They tend to contradict themselves to much.
The blinders on roles seem to help them THINK it should make sense to them and the rest of the world.
They have the parrot talk for those that don't agree. YOU don't know the WORD OF GOD! No. You don't have ears to hear! You completely MISSED your opportunity to address SICK behavior, and used blinders to talk about women in ministry!
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
The children in most cases love both of their parents. That doesn't change when separation happens, but there is alot of confusion for them. I'm sure people will point out all kinds of reports about that. How about we look further inside the world of the children.
They don't have to be told what the abuser is capable of. In more cases than not if they feel safe enough - they will tell you.
When they don't feel safe? They will leave you small hints here and there.
Alot of times they are scared to say to much because they know they will feel the wrath of the abuser when they find out. Loyalty to them is safer than speaking out. Look at history it happens with adults as well! Its safer to go along with the 'authority' in their life, and say they are on their side than to step out and risk the wrath. They have fear as well.
Slamming the victim at times they know will give them a reward when visitation times comes. Speaking OUT against the abuser will hand them wrath. You can't stop visitation legally, or refuse it in most cases. Supervised visitation is not easy to get either if that was the next suggestion. Those may not do much for the fear anyway.
Remember!
There are times where there is out right denial, and they are no different than alot of others. We see that in Chris Brown's mother, and you might see that in others that deny alcohol or drug issues with a family member.
Those in denial get MAD when you poke holes in their world. Why is that? FEAR!
The children want to love both parents, and they care for both parents. That would be quite normal!
What do you do when one hurts you for their own personal reasons, and it has nothing to do with discipline for example. They see this person raging in their home over a cup left out, or they witness belittling, mocking, name calling, and just plain contempt? They might see items thrown, walls punched, doors kicked in, or screams of pain from their other parent in a different room. They might see the man REMIND her she is to ask permission EVEN to go to the bathroom!
They have a different kind of fear. Its on a childlike level, and we are missing helping when we only see ROLES for their parents!
People don't stop to think of the children's worlds when they use 'roles' as excuse to NOT see bad advice out of ignorance.
You are telling those children that the abuser's world is the safer one, and WHY would you wish to give them that impression?
Think about that for a moment. Remember as John Piper stated - its SICK!
THE BIBLICAL ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN
You know WHY I wrote the John Piper article, and placed my focus upon the children's viewpoint? I see the blinders on when it comes to roles. If we can GET the focus off the biblical roles for a moment, maybe someone can see the cruel world that the children are forced to deal with.
You know what happened with the comments? It was diverted back to roles of the men and women. We were told we don't UNDERSTAND God's word, and we need to stop right there to think about that.
How John Piper is a nice man, and he studies the word of God. How is a good preacher and friend.
That has nothing to with anything.
I'm sure he is nice, and all the rest. Does that mean he can't have a blind spot? He can't possibility have that debit at all? That's nonsense! Drop the blinders and hear what people are saying - you have a blind spot if all you can think of is biblical ROLES in marriage!
You can have your ROLES, and see the truth at the same time. It doesn't change ANYTHING! Its not a THREAT to any ROLE!
Why is it being taken like it is?
What they can't seem to grasp is their contradictions in the teachings.
John Piper has written, and you can see videos on how women are to submit to their husbands...they submit unless they are asked to sin.
I think most people would agree about NOT submitting to sin part as the exception.
The reason he is asked questions all the time about submission is his contradictions to that statement.
Now that's one kind of situation. Just a word on the other kind. If it's not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.
If people are told of a story of someone raging at them, and hitting them most would have no problem with telling that person to find a way to safety.
When you have a wife in the picture? Its just hurting her - God's daughter - and she is not required to sin if she endures this.
Why is it sin (or not recommended or given as counsel) to find a way to safety in her case? Why is avoiding the hurt by the sinning party making her sin?
That has nothing to do with roles, and has everything to do with 'that makes no sense AT ALL!'
If a stranger was doing this to her in the presence of her children? Does she not find a way to safety, and ask for help - or is that sin as well and she should endure that and seek help from the church?
Is it only her ROLE to endure that from her husband? Why?
Take the blinders off and SEE how that doesn't make any sense!
In Matthew 25:14-30 the servant buried the masters money - did nothing with it - and returned it to him upon his return.
Notice, the servant did not do any outright evil, such as stealing the money, but then neither did he do anything good. He did nothing and he got nothing good accomplished. His Lord condemned him as a "wicked and slothful servant".
If John Piper is not concerned about HER finding a way to safety, and would feel it is a sin if she does not endure this?
What about the children? What GOOD is she doing allowing them to live with that dynamic? Is that a true aspect of the protection of children that God calls for?
Get off your biblical roles for a moment and THINK about that aspect!
Ephesians 5:8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness. Hmmm. It doesn't say endure it does it? How would you have 'nothing' to do with it? Does standing there and enduring it look like 'having nothing to do with it'? Does enduring it RATHER EXPOSE THEM fit the scripture? No.
One who is silent when there are those around him in sin becomes a partaker with them (Eph. 5:7).
Jesus warned "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Mt. 12:30).
In the fight against evil there is no middle ground, no gray area, no neutrality . Those who are not actively and vigorously working and fighting against evil are helping evil to triumph.
When good men do nothing, they are no longer good.
Many have the mistaken notion that good is merely the absence of doing that which is wrong. Not so!
One is good not merely because he does no evil, but because he is actively working for what is good. "Let him eschew evil, and do good" (1 Pet. 3:11). James explained, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17).
Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do nothing. Stand up and be counted, speak up against evil and speak out against evil men and their sinful deeds.
You do not do that by enduring the sin, and calling the church AFTER it is over because John Piper told you that is how it is to be done. It goes against God's word!
I honestly don't think John Piper, and his followers that posted about 'roles' in the face of children in danger - STOPPED long enough to study themselves! Don't tell others they didn't study the word of God well enough, and maybe we should HUSH!
You see if you take the blinders off, and look at the bible it does speak about resisting evil - not enduring it for a season. You can get to safety - you TAKE that opportunity! You enlist HELP!
Take advantage of the victims fleeing due to fear! Support them! Protect THEM! Don't tell them to ENDURE for that evening or a season!
Take the blinders off - it has nothing to do with ROLES! It has to do with GOD'S WORD! Take off the rose colored glasses, and DEAL WITH THIS! When someone mentions her husband commands that she ask permission to leave the room to go to the bathroom? How about we go further than mentioning its sick! We don't need to deal with roles of woman in ministry at that point! We need to address the SICK behavior!
WHY is that so hard to understand?
If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates.
Subscribe Now!Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it:
8 comments:
Another good post, Hannah.
You are so right about the blinders.
Here, and different places I have visited, there are these commentors who defend this teaching with such fury, and yet with such ignorance.
Paul said somewhere about a group of people that they didn't lack zeal for God, but their zeal was not paired up with a true understanding of God and His nature.
Their blind spots and blinders make them see the world in such a limited scope that their message and their preaching is only death to those already dieing.
It's the sick that need a doctor, not the well. They keep preaching what may work in a healthy marriages and get irked and indignant when we point out that their methods are no help to the sick. Their methods actually bury the sick deeper in their illness.
Keep up the good work.
You are being heard along with the other voices pointing out error.
Glad to see you posting on imonk.
His site is another example of people finally taking this cancer within the church seriously.
It's another example of people realizing that Tinker Bell band-aids simple aren't going to heal this serious illness.
Mara R.
Mara:
I appreciate your support!
I wonder at times if they use the band-aids at times because they are overwhelmed by how deep that cancer goes. Its not just women and children that are effected. Its not easy to take a stand like this one, when you realize that most of your church goers will be hesitate to stand behind you in support. They have to remember that may be a similar feeling to the followers of Christ after his death when they walked into town to spread the good news.
They took their beatings, whippings, etc. They were even killed for their beliefs. Darn scary I'm sure! The church members? lol chances are they aren't going to stone you! It may bring heated debate, etc. You may lose members and tithes. You may lose respect in some areas, but you will gain it in better ones.
The bible asks us to be the Good Samaritan, but they want them to endure things first...and they will play that role in the morning. Ugh! They are missing their opportunity and the point...and sadly I don't think they even see that!
Fear and peer pressure - what a lousy excuse! Its strange to see how they feel they are the healthy ones. lol I must be missing something!
Hannah,
I have real trouble with your posts about John Piper. I've already written privately to you and it is clear we disagree. But I am now begging you publicly to stop addressing these issues in such a personal way.
It is okay to criticize the practices and beliefs held by (unnamed) abusers. It's okay to point out and criticize the practices and beliefs of (unnamed) people who inadvertently, ignorantly, or deliberately are acting as allies of abusers. But to name an individual as guilty of same is dangerous indeed, when you are basing your allegations on fairly flimsy evidence such as excerpted snippets from audio or video tapes of that person. I think you are making unfair deductions about Piper on the basis of pretty flimsy evidence.
It seems to me that you are so against the concept of male headship that you are seeing wicked distortions of it where such distortions may not exist. Leading complementarians such as Piper have carefully defined and delimited the definition of male headship in such books as "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". Complementarian male headship, Biblically defined, is not abuse, and it does not support or condone abuse.
Granted, there are many people who misconstrue male headship to justify abuse, but to label Piper as one of them is unfair and very wrong, in my opinion.
Hannah, as one who wants to see more justice and biblical righteousness in how the church handles domestic abuse, just like you do, I beg you not to denigrate Piper or any other individual unless you have much more solid evidence. Danni Moss's approach (where she only names names once there are genuine legal procedures (laying of charges in a public court, finding guilt after a court hearing, etc.) is a much better approach.
I worry that comments like yours are only serving to polarize the complementarian / egalitarian debate even more than it is already. Both sides seem pretty unable to hear each other accurately, a lot of the time. And you do the anti-abuse Christian lobby no service by inflaming stereotypes like this. Saying this stuff about Piper will likely only make the complementarian camp less likely to pay attention to genuine requests that they look more closely at the real problem: how there is a big gap between their rhetoric and what is being actually practiced by many who purport to be adhering to their complementarian teachings.
In addition, I beg you, Hannah, please suspend your assumption that complementarian doctrine is the big bogeyman, and be more open to the idea that the problem may not be complementarianism per se, the real problem may be misunderstanding and wicked misuse of the teaching of male headship.
Hannah,
I came to your site to link to John Piper's u-tube and saw Barb's comment. I am writing here to inform anyone who reads her comment that she later changed her mind. You will find a lengthy comment from Barb detailing the error of Piper's utube clip on Cherly Schatz's blog, the one that Hannah linked to in the original Piper article. It is either at the end or near the end of the comments.
I personally explained to her how an abused woman would hear Piper's response and what the effects would be on abusers who hear it, and that it is damaging to the entire church.
I am sorry I did not see this comment before.
The good news, also, is that last I heard Barb was considering changing from comp to egalitarian.
So keep writing, Hannah. Don't be afraid to stand up and speak out when the John Piper's of the world make horrid statements that permit and encourage domestic abusers to continue their evil, and that silence women from getting help. Very good call, and such on-target scripture verses!
Eph 5:11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
One who is silent when there are those around him in sin becomes a partaker with them (Eph. 5:7).
You have my vote, Hannah!
Waneta
why would you have to "personally explain[ed] to her [Barabara] how an abused woman would hear Piper's response"?
I have just clicked on Barbara's name above, and looked at her blog, and she is a survivor of domestic violence herself.
I think her post above is very wise and biblical, in that the practice of naming individuals needs to be done very very cautiously indeed, [and it isn't necessary really to name as we discuss principles] and I think she was right in saying that the cause of Egal/Comp discussion can be harmed by the way we handle things sometimes.
We must be very careful indeed to take things said in full context.
Anonymous: I respect Barbara, and there are times in which we disagree. I think we are both fine with that. She has changed her viewpoint on some things since she wrote what she did above. I'm sure I have also on things. Life happens that way sometimes.
We all view things differently at times due to our season of life - among other things of course! I think different viewpoints help the world go around, and makes it a better place. I think we agree more than disagree.
John Piper took the video in question down with no explanation at all. In it he felt it was okay for a spouse to even take a smack one night. The man didn't even address abuse, but when on this strange trail of speaking of 'group sex', etc.
He caught some flack for it I'm sure, and that is why the video was removed. Normally, people will give an explanation, or correct the error. He did none of the above. He lit up the blog world - and media with his comments. Instead of addressing the concerns? He made it disappear as if it never happened. Is that biblical? (giggles) I think not!
Those people do need to be called out public-ally. He has been approached privately, and silent was the response. He was approached many different ways, and he again never responded at all.
What he said was taken in full context, and his advice was downright dangerous. Its irresponsible for a man that knows he has many people that listen to every word he says to NOT correct his error, and leave it alone like he did. He would have others to name their error, repent, and turn from it. Why it is he is silent? Its Hypocritical of him.
It is necessary to call out leaders and their principals when what they say can get people killed. What he said to victims would make them marinate in pain. He doesn't seem to understand why, nor does he take the steps to understand.
So, YES there are times in which names need to be mentioned along with their chosen principals that they make the decision to speak about. Removing his speech, and the transcript from his website does NOT send the biblical message that you mentioned.
This has nothing to do with egal/comp. Silence, diversion, and making things disappear are against biblical principals. When you approach softly, privately and within a group - and you get no response? It is biblical to call them out.
Does that mean the man has nothing good to say ever? No. In his position he has the responsibility to lead by example. I would hope silence when found in error wouldn't be one of them. He has the opportunity to show humility, and sadly he chose the worldly, fleshy, and cowardly way out.
That is a huge character flaw Anonymous 5. There is so much more than just the principal of his error towards how to handle domestic violence. John has no issue calling others out, and he needs to put his big boy pants on as he asks others to do.
Anonymous #5,
Did you also notice that Barbara "later changed her mind"?
I had to explain because she was defending Piper for telling abused wives to go home and endure abuse "for a season." He offered no solace, no support and told wives to only stand up for themselves if their husbands were asking them to CLEARLY sin--as in having group sex--otherwise they were to obey their husbands. Furthermore, he did NOT tell the wives to call the police after having been "smacked" by their husbands, he told the wives to call the pastor in the morning. He dismissed how wives were being demeaned by their husbands, he over-taught husband authority, WAY under-dealt-with the seriousness and sin of domestic abuse, and Barbara supported him, saying that Piper was being biblical. The wives who heard him would realize they could not go to John Piper for help, and would continue to blame themselves for their husband's behavior, which would further increase the damage to wives and the abuse from the husband. It is that kind of teaching from the pulpit that causes women to leave Christianity altogether taking their children with them, and some of them become athiests.
As far as naming individuals, when the person who is supporting sin is a popular teacher who is in the public eye, who has authored many books and is featured on the web alot, if we don't speak out, who will stop them from destroying lives? A huge part of complementarianism is to disregard anything women say, unless it furthers the male-authority agenda, so it is pointless for me, a woman, to approach them personally. In fact a group has already asked the CBMW for an apology for their family-destroying doctrine, and got no response. MEN have pointed out the biblical error of the husband authority teaching, and the complementarians respond by claiming God and Jesus have a complementarian-like relationship. Given all this, it is important to warn the sheep. When a powerful wolf is bringing destruction to the flock and is nipping at their heels, we don't tell the flock to beware of wolves "out there" somewhere, we warn them of the specific wolf that is endangering them so they can flee from that wolf. I am not calling Piper a wolf, but his teaching that supports the wolf-abuser and tells the abused to do nothing to protect themselves is extremely dangerous and even life and health-threatening. In wolf-sheep terminology, he is telling the sheep they are being overly concerned about the wolves that are growly, baring their teeth, and preparing to pounce. He's even telling the sheep to do nothing about it until after the wolves pounce. So it is imperitive to alert the church about a specific danger, because it is specific, in the same way Piper and others are bringing it to the church--in books and on the web where everyone can see, so Christians can see the false teaching, the sin, and steer clear of the ditch where wolves are drooling, waiting to attack.
Furthermore, I totally disagree with the notion that we must tone down our stand against sin, that we ought to make it sound as if some sin is acceptable in order to win the sinners. The way husband authority is taught, even when they call it "loving leadership," "servant-leader," etc, the focus is still husband authority, and the words are aimed at appearing gentler and more godly than the doctrine actually is. Husbands end up being god to their wives and to themselves. That is sin. Also, wives end up squelching and burying their God-given gifts in order to further their husband's agenda, submit to their husband, or whatever you want to call it. That, too, is sin. (I'm not saying submitting is sin, but submitting to the point of burying talent is sin. That is putting husband ahead of God.) That is burying one's talent, which Jesus spoke against in the form of a parable, making it clear God does NOT reward such behavior and takes away the other talents a person has. (Wow! this is why we have whole churches of women with no talent other than home-making.) Complementarians are claiming that husband authority does not elevate the husband above his wife, but if you check the meaning of authority, it does. They should be teaching husband responsibility and sacrifice, not authority. Responsibility (I am NOT talking of the "responsibility" to make the final decisions!)and sacrifice are not so palatable to many men, while authority feeds the desire of many men for self-importance, to be king, to have what belongs to God alone, and that results in many men using the husband-authority doctrine as permission, encouragement, entitlement, and commandment to seek and even demand their own ends at the expense of their wives and children.
Lastly, although a woman is abused by her husband, she may not fully understand the underlying control tactics and attitudes that undergird and facilitate the abuse. Many think physical abuse is a one-time, or occasional episode. They don't realize that abuse, just like the squares in plaid fabric, or the flowers in a print fabric, is woven through the entire fabric of the couple's life, and it colors the existence of the whole family. When a man's foundational belief is that he has the right to control his wife, even his behavior that appears to be loving is chosen with the goal and/or expectation of controlling his wife.
Now Barbara understands more about abuse than that, but she denied that handing husbands authority over their wives, fosters domestic abuse. There are studies that verify this. A prison study for example, randomly chose some people to be the criminals and others to be the guards. The "guards" became abusive even though they were not instructed to be, and the "criminals" got so mentally sick they had to stop the study way earlier than planned. If it was that bad for what was supposed to be a short study with people randomly assigned to certain roles, can you imagine how bad it is when a whole society orders one gender to be the controllers and the other gender to be the controlled? Indeed, similar to the study, women who live with controlling husbands have many more illnesses than non-abused women. A recent large study using women from the same insurance group showed women who suffered domestic violence and abuse suffered many more illnesses than the non-abused women, some of them mental, like anxiety and depression, and some of them physical and apparently unrelated, like bladder infections. Controlling behavior of one adult over another is toxic. It is sin. It destroys. Even in cases of adults with mental illness, the persons who has to be responsible for the mentally ill have to be careful to not become controlling. And yes, some women are controlling, too. But church leaders do not claim that the Bible commands wives to take authority over their husbands.
~Waneta
Post a Comment