Posted on 07/11/2008 9:59:16 AM PDT by Between the Lines
One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.
Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.
"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.
In North Texas for a series of sermons at the church on "Biblical Manhood & Womanhood," Ware described his "complementarian" view as what "Southern Seminary as a whole represents."
Commenting on selected passages from the first three chapters of Genesis, Ware said Eve's curse in the Garden of Eden meant "her desire will be to have her way" instead of her obeying her husband, "because she's a sinner."
What that means to the man, Ware said, is: "He will have to rule, and because he's a sinner, this can happen in one of two ways. It can happen either through ruling that is abusive and oppressive--and of course we all know the horrors of that and the ugliness of that--but here's the other way in which he can respond when his authority is threatened. He can acquiesce. He can become passive. He can give up any responsibility that he thought he had to the leader in the relationship and just say 'OK dear,' 'Whatever you say dear,' 'Fine dear' and become a passive husband, because of sin."
Ware said God created men and women equally in God's image but for different roles.
"He has primary responsibility for the work and the labor and the toil that will provide for the family, that will sustain their family," he said. "He's the one in charge of leadership in the family, and that will become difficult, because of sin."
Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women "shall be saved in childbearing," by noting that the word translated as "saved" always refers to eternal salvation.
"It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as--for the most part, generally this is true--as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men," Ware said. "Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."
Ware cited gender roles as one example of churches compromising and reforming doctrines to accommodate to culture.
"It really has been happening for about the past 30 years, ever since the force of the feminist movement was felt in our churches," Ware said.
He said one place the "egalitarian" view--the notion that males and females were created equal not only in essence but also in function--crops up is in churches that allow women to be ordained and become pastors.
Ware said gender is not theologically the most important issue facing the church, but it is one where Christians are most likely to compromise, because of pressure from the culture.
"The calling to be biblically faithful will mean upholding some truths in our culture that they despise," he said. "How are we going to respond to that? We are faced with a huge question at that point. Will we fear men and compromise our faith to be men-pleasers, or will we fear God and be faithful to his word--whatever other people think or do?"
Ware offered 10 reasons "for affirming male headship in the created order." They include that man was created first and that woman was created "out of" Adam in order to be his "helper." Even though the woman sinned first, Ware said, God came to Adam and held him primarily responsible for failure to exercise his God-given authority.
Ware also said male/female relationships are modeled in the Trinity, where in the Godhead the Son "eternally submits" to the Father.
"If it's true that in the Trinity itself--in the eternal relationships of Father, Son and Spirit, there is authority and submission, and the Son eternally submits to the will of the Father--if that's true, then this follows: It is as Godlike to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is Godlike to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority."
What do 90% of abused women have in common? They just won’t listen.
The husband is called to love his wife. If he is abusing her, he is not loving her. It’s that simple.
These two issues should never be tied together, correlation does not mean causation..
Men dont abuse their wives because they dont submit they who do abuse do it because they are sinners and we can not lay the sin of one even remotely close to the feet of another..
Sounds very Islamic.
After listening to such a thing, I might write a letter to the editor in that town telling the jerk just what I think of his “scholarship.”
“He has primary responsibility for the work and the labor and the toil that will provide for the family, that will sustain their family,” he said. “He’s the one in charge of leadership in the family, and that will become difficult, because of sin.”
Unfortunately, most men in this day and age will not heed this part of the deal. They want their wives to be lead by them, to do 99% of the housework and also hold down a full time job to help them out with the bills. Best of both worlds. Same can be said for women. I have seen women who are housewives/homemakers complain because their husband won’t do the dishes. You don’t have a job! Why should he do the dishes?
I don’t mind being a helpmeet in my family, and taking on all the responsibility of the household chores, but my husband had best figure out a way to feed us all. Most men of my generation want the benefits of leading without the responsibility of being the breadwinner. And they all point back to their women’s lib mothers. “My mom worked”.
Face it. If you are a normal woman and your man hits you, you are gone. Many abused women were abused as children so they associate abuse with love. I remember a woman telling me that it was better to be hit than ignored. She was docile to her husband and defended him but she sure didn’t mind yelling at my ass when we showed up in the ambulance.
I don’t think that “being abusive” is a manly Christian way to respond to one’s familial authority being challenged. It implies physical violence which there is no place for in a marriage.
Assertiveness would be more appropriate, no?
Unfortunately there are also women who are empowered by being beaten, as weird as that sounds. Their husband is remorseful and guilty for awhile and its a sick game of queen for a day.
Spousal abuse would be way down if only men would be men and TAKE charge rather than cowering and then blowing a gasket when things go too far. If you are male - be a man for goodness sake. Don’t be a sensitive metro sissy. Women do not respond well to that crap at all. Men, it is our responsibility to keep the home safe and worry free for its occupants. YOU burden the load BY yourself FOR yourself. I promise you if that’s done, things will work in your favor much more often.
What a lot of Hooey...
What do you tell an abused woman with two black eyes? Nothing, somebody already told the b!%@# twice.
*Sorry. I couldn’t resist. That’s a horrible joke. I know.
Abuse is not sanctioned within a Christian marriage.
And yes, more women in the world should stand up to abuse the very first time it happens. If you allow your spouse to hit you once and get away with it, you have given him permission to continue.
The problem is these women are not thinking logically, many of them are locked in codependency and cannot live a life without the abusive spouse.
Women can be doing everything her husband tells her to do...
She still gets beaten...
If the man is a Christian, he will act like it..
Read the Book of Hosea...
It’s all about control...,
A man does not need an excuse to abuse his wife...
Having seen about a zillion domestic battery cases come to court, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of wife or girlfriend beating cases that come to court are cases where the guy got drunk and got mean. A lot of times she was drunk too. A good 75% or more of those cases involve alcohol.
I have zero tolerance or respect for men who abuse their women, women who for whatever reason tolerate it, or preachers who spew stupid stuff like this.
That said, I can think of several women in the public eye that I’d like to smack upside the head.
I never met those men. Most of them only became contrite when they got caught. Now there were some women who stayed in abusive relationships because they got pity for it. They were always the victim.
I remember going to a call and the woman had a shiner. She swore she ran into a door. At one point, her husband (drunk) shouted from the other room “I bet you keep that mouth shut next time”. She looked stunned. The Paramedic said “Next time, call a cop instead of an ambulance”.
For the most part, if you call the cops on your man for beating you, you are losing the trailer and the truck and maybe the kids. So they don’t call.
Something the article doesn’t touch on is how the incidence of abused men figures into the situation.
I don’t find that funny.
Amen. No Christian has an excuse to abuse another. It’s a shame anyone claiming Christ would point fingers at his spouse and blame her for his sin. Of course, it is one of things Adam taught us, isn’t it?
“Islamic like”? Not at all!
God calls husbands to love their wife as God loves the church.
God sacrificed his only begotten Son for the church, mocked and abused by sinners, tortured unmercilessly, hung on a cross naked in front of all – in order to save us through faith. That is an exceptionally high standard to conform to.
Men are called to love their wife by subordinating their own desires in order to promote the well-being and happiness of their wife. There is no room whatsoever for abusing this authority or “lording” it over their wife. With authority comes even greater responsibility.
All that follows is from the following link...
Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Reading of Genesis Posted by Denny Burk under Christianity , Theology/Bible
On Sunday, Dr. Bruce Ware delivered one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard. His address was the second of a Complementarian series of sermons being hosted by Denton Bible Church (the first address is here). The message is deeply biblical and powerfully delivered. The audio is available from DBC’s podcast, or you can listen to it below.
The substance of Ware’s address consists of ten reasons “why we should affirm that God designed there to be male headship” in the original created order. In essence, Dr. Ware explains how Genesis 1-3 teaches male headship as a part of God’s pre-fall creation. Here is a summary of the ten reasons:
1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).
2. The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8).
3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).
4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).
5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).
6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).
7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).
8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).
9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).
10. The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).
There is much that I could say in commending this sermon, but I want to focus here on one thing that I really appreciated—Dr. Ware’s method. Dr. Ware explains the meaning of the Genesis creation accounts not only by appealing to the historical sense of the text, but also by reading it in light of the apostle Paul’s comments on Genesis. Thus, Dr. Ware moves back and forth between Genesis and Paul’s writings to explain the creation accounts.
The theological and hermeneutical presupposition undergirding Dr. Ware’s approach is worthy of note. Dr. Ware assumes that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is normative. In other words, Dr. Ware treats Paul’s interpretation of Genesis as an authoritative and binding interpretation. This is not a presupposition that characterizes the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Most critical scholars treat the New Testament and the Old Testament (and the individual books within them) as if they represented different and sometimes contradictory theological perspectives.
Unfortunately, this critical way of reading the Bible has infected much of what passes for evangelical scholarship. Some evangelical Old Testament scholars have bought into the interpretive assumptions of their guild so much that they no longer feel any need to understand how the Old Testament’s message fits into a canonical unity with the New Testament. For them, the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is a problem for the NT scholars, not the OT scholars.
Dr. Ware’s presentation offers a reading of the Old Testament that takes the New Testament’s use of the Old very seriously. For this reason, not only is Dr. Ware’s interpretation of Genesis countercultural, but so is his hermeneutic.
I saw a study one time, maybe 20 years ago, where they had volunteers give a "subject" electric shocks for getting answers wrong. The "subject," who was behind a one-way mirror and couldn't see the person shocking him, was actually an actor pretending to be shocked.
Anyway, the volunteers were all given drinks, vodka tonic with a twist of lime. Only half the drinks were virgin, and half had booze. Half of each group were told they were getting just soda, the other half were told they were drinking booze. So there were 4 groups of volunteers: drunk and told they were, drunk and told they weren't, not drunk and told they were, not drunk and told they weren't.
The ones who were meanest with the voltage were the ones who were sober, but thought they had vodka. The ones who were the most merciful were the ones who thought they had soda, but actually had vodka.
The upshot from that study: alcohol doesn't make you mean and nasty. It actually mellows you a bit. Your expectation of how you can behave when you believe you have been drinking is what "makes" you nasty!
Since he prefaced his comment with "One of the reasons...", I don't think he intended to lay blame for all abuse on the woman.
He clearly called the man sinful for abusing his wife, so even where the wife is non-summital, he doesn't seem to be laying the entire blame on the woman but rather seems to be saying that a sinful act of a woman in being non-submittal, can be a trigger for an inappropriate and sinful response from a man.
And I found this. Bruce Ware sermons online
Danny, a man does not have any excuse to commit a crime (a felony) in his own home against his wi8fe...
Assault is a felony...
A man is commanded by God to love his wife and to give his life for her as Christ loved His Bride the Church and died for her..
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband. Ephesians 5:25-33
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 1 Peter 3:7
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Thanks you for exptessing your objections using clasical logic — something the knuckleheads at whatever “school” obviously don’t teach or spell even if you gave them the “L”, “O”, “G”, “I”, and “C”.
(My rantings gets raves!)
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
I agree with you. And I bet this preacher does too.
I don't believe that this preacher was implying that non-submission of women gave men an excuse for assault, despite the way the article sounded.
In my relationship with my fiancée, my task is to gently **lead** her, NOT to impose my will on her. The
“The husband is called to love his wife. If he is abusing her, he is not loving her. It’s that simple.”
And the Baptists seems to have missed that fact completely.
I don’t buy any of it.
The stuff about the husband being the leader is based on the husband’s position of protector of the family by virtue of his greater physical strength.
The apostle Paul extends this to being the spiritual protector as well, because Eve was deceived, revealing a spiritual vulnerability that the stronger male did not succumb to.
In no place are we to assume “boss.” We are to assume PROTECTOR of the Family.
How many Baptists have you checked with?
My family and extended family are both Southern Baptist. And we all have discussed the teaching that a husband should love his wife, with much detail.
In fact, I have never met a Christian who believes that violence of any kind is sanctioned.
Jesus called us to love one another as we would love ourselves. I actively live this principle daily... loving my husband is an action that I do, and he does the same for me. Loving someone is giving of yourself to another. And this type of all-encompassing love cannot survive within a marriage where someone is being abused.
I find this Biblical teaching to be very powerful within my Christian marriage.
Just because a pastor in Kentucky can spout off nonsense does not mean that the Southern Baptist convention has accepted his false teaching.
You paint Baptists with too broad of a brush.
If the husband Loves his wife Just as Christ loves the Church then she will submit to his Authority.
OK. Its a “Nuke the whales!” joke. But I’m OK with you not laughing.
Men never get the kids unless the woman is a crack addict and a proven abuser.
I think most studies have shown women to be just as abusive as men, more so with kids. But men hit harder and do far more damage.
People in abusive relationships should get out.
” Men never get the kids unless the woman is a crack addict and a proven abuser.
I think most studies have shown women to be just as abusive as men, more so with kids. But men hit harder and do far more damage.”
Yes they do. If the woman has no money to fight the lawyers. Seen it over and over. No, most women are not as abusive as men are. Check your facts not to mention logical observation. Just as women are not predators as much as men are. Men and women are different, have you noticed?
Do not use potty language or references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
I'd say 90% or more of the parents I see talking to their children like dogs, trying to jerk thier elbows out of socket, and making the kid cower like a whipped pup when they come at them are women. Been to Walmart lately?
I agree with you Danny, he did not IMO imply that it was an excuse at all. His point was that the sins of both, can sometimes be boiled down to the sin of one. Sin is sin, there’s no differentiating between felony sin and misdemeanor sin. A man who covets another man’s wife, even only in his heart, is every bit as sinful as a man who abuses his wife.
No doubt this portion of the sermon is meant to disuade some abused women from believing they did nothing wrong.
***The word “some” in the previous sentance prevents someone from using this against me to imply that I said ALL abused women did something wrong***
Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.
Sin is defined by the 10 Commandments, not the Pauline Epistles.
PING!
“After listening to such a thing, I might write a letter to the editor in that town telling the jerk just what I think of his “scholarship.””
Right. But you have to listen first.
Please: skip the title, read the whole article, and (I’m serious) find the direct quotation from Dr. Ware to which you object.
I've never seen it once. Not once in twenty years. The woman gets the house, the kids, the car, and child support. Even when my friend's wife abandoned the family for a love tryst and showed up 18 months later, she got more than half and child support.
If there is marriage there are shared assets, any lawyer the man can afford, the woman can afford in spades, because the woman's lawyer knows that they have the winning hand.
And the current first rule of all ugly divorces is for the woman to accuse the man of abuse. Something that he will naturally be assumed to be guilty of.
******************
That's happening to someone we know. What a disaster.
We may have been given only a portion of the sermon, in this biased review.
True. And the study, amusing as it was, probably screened out people that had a real problem with alcohol. Chronic effects on the personality of being a drunk, as well as the way maladapted types tend to drink more, were not in the study. I just thought, at the time, it was interesting that thinking you had been drinking seemed to give you cover to behave cruelly, especially if you were actually sober!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.