Ah yes, the issue of domestic violence and abuse is back in
the news, and, as before, Evangelicals are having a terrible time making a
morally and rationally coherent statement.
To those not following it, Paige Patterson, president of
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and notable Southern Baptist, got
caught (again) advising women to stay in abusive marriages. Hey, I
mentioned him five years ago. This is nothing new, and is a feature of the Complementarian movement.
As I have pointed out, the issue is control.
If men have a right to expect obedience, then it follows that they have the
right to use some means - either force or other abuse - to compel it.
In the wake of this, notable patriarchist Russell Moore
(who, to his credit, as been one of the few voices in the SBC standing against
Trump and White Supremacy), published a response in which he claimed that abuse
was the same as “abandonment,” and thus a “biblical” reason for divorce.
I mention Moore
here, because I’m afraid that what he is saying is pretty much bullshit. I will
explain in a minute.
A much better response has come from Beth Moore (no relation
to Russell), who was willing to say what should be obvious, which is that
Patterson’s teaching is based on misogyny. And this point is connected to why
Russell Moore is missing the real issue.
The best response I have read so far is from Morgan Guyton,
in his post entitled No,
The Bible Does Not Condemn Domestic Violence.
Guyton is absolutely correct. However, he doesn’t go quite
far enough in my opinion. Any discussion of what the bible says about divorce
is completely and utterly futile until we actually acknowledge the elephant in
the room:
The bible was written
during a time in history where it was assumed that men owned women and their
bodies; and that this was the natural, proper state of society because women
were congenitally vastly inferior to men.
This is where we must
know our history in order to understand things. So, let’s get that part right
first.
***
During most of human history, in most places, including in
the West, women were the property - the chattel - of men. They could be bought,
sold, given in marriage, pimped out, raped, and even murdered by their husbands
(or fathers before that) with impunity.
This includes all of
the times in which the books of the bible were written.
I have already written about the legal
status of women in the Old Testament. But the 1st Century CE wasn’t much
better. Aristotle’s view of women as malformed, defective men was the
assumption of Roman society, and women were - as in the OT - the chattel of
men.
I won’t expand on this too much more - go ahead and read my
post above - or grab a history book.
One of the things that this meant in practice was this:
Women had NO right to
a divorce.
Seriously. Find me one place in the bible where it talks
about women giving a man a divorce.
Of course they don’t, because they had no such right in the law. Divorce was
what a man did to a woman when he no
longer wished to support her financially. So, when you see “divorce,” you have
to understand that. A divorce was a MAN sending a WOMAN away, without any
financial obligation to her. If he did that to her, it meant she either starved
or became a prostitute.
That is the real meaning of “divorce” in the bible.
As you can see, it bears little resemblance to our modern
society.
But wait! It gets better!
Women lacked divorce
rights well into the Victorian Era!
This is where it helps to have gone to law school. You learn
some really, um, interesting things. First, how about William Blackstone? (1765)
By marriage, the husband and wife are
one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is
suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated
into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is
therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert,
foemina viro co-operta; is said to be
covert-baron, or under the protection
and influence of her husband, her baron,
or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a
union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights,
duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak
not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot
grant anything to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant
would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be
only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that
all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the
intermarriage…
The husband also, by the old law, might
give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her
misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of
restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is
allowed to correct his apprentices or children; for whom the master or parent
is also liable in some cases to answer.
Interesting, yes? A woman ceased to be a person upon her
marriage, and he had the right to use violence on her.
Now, let’s talk about divorce, because this is important to
our discussion.
A woman could not
divorce her husband except for abandonment.
A lot of people don’t understand this. One reason is that
they do not understand the meaning of “adultery.” Historically - and in the
bible - adultery is as follows, and no more:
Adultery was sexual
intercourse between a man and a woman who is married to another man.
Some things which were NOT considered adultery historically
or in the bible:
a. Sex between a married man and an unmarried woman.
b. Sex between a married man and a prostitute.
c. A man taking a mistress and having a second family with
her.
d. A man marrying a second wife (although this would
eventually be the crime of Bigamy.)
You see the problem here? If a man cheated, it was only
adultery if the other woman was married.
That is, if she was another man’s property.
Adultery was a crime against property - which is why in the 10th Commandment,
it was forbidden to covet a man’s house, slave, beast, or….wife.
So, that is why, a woman whose husband was unfaithful had no legal recourse. She just had to take
it.
But wait! There’s more!
Abuse and violence
were NOT grounds for a woman to divorce her husband.
I think this is a missing piece in this discussion. Paige
Patterson isn’t saying anything that would be shocking to the average
Victorian. Back then, a woman by law
had to stay and be beaten. Sure, she could try to get help from law
enforcement, but then (as now in many churches), she would have been asked what
she did to deserve a beating. If she had been anything other than perfectly
compliant and submissive, well, she deserved it. And, she would, in any case,
have been sent back to live with her husband after he was punished.
Oh, and it gets even better!
Divorce in the bible
doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Let’s start with this: During the time the Old Testament was
written, a man could choose to stop having sex with, cohabiting with, or
showing affection to his wife anytime he wanted. Not just that, but he could
marry another wife - or six if he could afford it, take a concubine, rape his
slaves, frequent brothels, and in general, act as though he wasn’t married to
her.
But he still had
to financially support her. He
couldn’t throw her out and let her starve.
THAT is what a divorce was. Divorcing a woman meant you were
no longer financially responsible for her - she was on her own. What this meant
in practice was that a woman who had been divorced had limited options. Her family
might take her in if they believed the man was at fault. She could try to find
a man who would marry her or take her as a concubine. She could become a
prostitute. Or she could starve.
So whenever you see a discussion of “divorce” that refers to
the Torah, that is what we are talking about. Whether a man could cut a woman
off without support.
To be clear, this means not just stuff you see in the Old
Testament (although this understanding puts a totally different spin on the
passage in Malachi used to bludgeon women who wish to leave abusive
marriages….) It also means that wherever you see Christ discussing divorce in
the gospels, He is discussing the Torah - and that means divorce means the
above.
What about the New Testament? Well, a few things change. The
biggest one is that, by law, Roman citizens could have only one formal
marriage. The reason was simple: one’s marriage was for producing legitimate offspring, who would be
citizens like their parents, and inherit any property. Marriage was all about
property and status. Not love. Not sex.
This did not mean that the Romans believed in monogamy for
men. Far from it. Rather, they took from the Greeks a view of “a woman for each
purpose.”
To quote Demosthenes:
“For this is what living with a woman
as one's wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the
members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands
as one's own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the
daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be
faithful guardians of our households.”
Concubines were common, prostitution was rampant, men could
rape their slaves (both male and female), and men really could do pretty much
anything they wanted sexually, as long as they didn’t mess with another
citizen’s wife or unmarried daughter. Because of the distinctions of class, a
man who wanted to be with a woman of lower class couldn’t marry her. She would
be a concubine, and he would marry someone of appropriate status to bear his
children and inherit his property.
Divorce was actually fairly liberal in Roman law, and it was
apparently common among the upper classes. However, while MEN could divorce
their wives with few restrictions, WOMEN did not gain the right to divorce
until the 2nd Century.
So, again, with the exception of polygamy (which
non-citizens still engaged in throughout the Empire), all of the Old Testament
rights that men had carried over. In fact, if you read the New Testament, the
one truly obvious change from Roman mores is that St. Paul frowned on prostitutes. I was kind
of surprised to re-read the NT, and realize that concubines aren’t really
mentioned at all. Even polygamy seems to merely disqualify one from church
leadership. And “slaves submit to your masters” looks a bit different when you
realize that that meant submitting to rape.
When you actually read it with the cultural context in mind,
you realize that the one thing scripture doesn’t do well is give clear
direction for how marriage should function in a culture where women aren’t seen
as property, and the sexual double standard is mostly unspoken rather than
written into our laws.
Let me be clear, then, regarding what “biblical” divorce
really means:
1. Women could not
divorce their husbands under ANY circumstances.
The very idea that a woman had this right would seem as
foreign to anyone living in the times the bible was written as the idea of
speed limits for motor vehicles. You cannot find any reference to grounds for a
woman to divorce for the same reason
you do not see a 55 mph speed limit - the very idea was not even on the table.
2. Men were permitted
to seek sexual satisfaction outside the marriage - they just had to support
their wives.
And yes, this includes the New Testament, which says a lot
less about male sexual morality than we were taught.
3. Men were fully
permitted to beat their wives.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe domestic violence is a
serious sin, and a crime, and inconsistent with the Christian faith. But legally, during the times the books of
the bible were written, it was legal,
and culturally acceptable. Period. You can’t sugar coat it.
4. It was assumed
that men owned women, because women were inferior.
This is the key. Since women were the property of men, the
idea that property had rights was as silly as saying that oxen had rights, or
wine had rights. They didn’t. Thus, it would have been equally anachronistic
for us to find rules in the bible based on the idea that women had these
rights.
So, if you were to take the theonomic approach to scripture,
in a truly honest manner, I do not believe there is any conclusion other than
to say that the bible does not in any way permit women to divorce their
husbands. Rather, they should acknowledge their legal status as chattel and act
accordingly.
Do I believe this is the meaning of the bible? Hell no! But
that is the conclusion if you use a theonomic
approach.
***
Back to Paige Patterson, Russell Moore, and Morgan Guyton.
Patterson and Moore share what I have termed the “theonomic” approach to the
bible. Let me elaborate.
Theonomy is an approach to the bible which treats the bible
as “God’s Little Instruction Book™” for humans. It means searching scripture
looking for rules to apply to our lives, to our churches, to our relationships.
In the case of marriage and divorce, that means searching
the bible for RULES telling us how our marriages should work, and when - if
ever - we are allowed to end them.
I spent time in Bill Gothard’s cult. Key to the movement was
an idea called “theonomy,” which was coined by Rousas Rushdoony. What it meant
in the most extreme case was that our civil laws should be based on the rules
of the bible - including the Old Testament.
People like Rushdoony, whatever their faults - and these
were many - at least had one virtue: consistency. They honestly followed their
assumptions to the bitter, cruel, evil conclusions which logically flowed from
their approach to scripture.
The Patriarchists at least understood what Evangelicals
refuse to see: many - indeed most - of the rules found in the bible only make
sense if you re-create the culture in which they were found. Specifically:
You cannot truly
enforce the rules related to gender and gender roles unless you re-create a
culture in which women are chattel.
It does no good to try to figure out what the “biblical
grounds for divorce” are, unless you understand the legal and cultural system
in which they arose.
And that system did not permit women to divorce. For any
reason. Because they were property.
Paige Patterson and Russell Moore, therefore, are both, in their own way, being dishonest.
But Moore is
being more dishonest than Patterson.
After all, Patterson is closer
to how someone in the 1st Century CE would have understood marriage. Heck,
Patterson is closer to how someone in the 19th Century would have understood
marriage and divorce. To wit, a woman had to stay and be beaten.
Guyton has it right on that score, by the way.
I think Guyton might have gone further and admitted that the
bible makes no provision for women to end marriages. Ever. But his point is
otherwise correct.
***
This is where a theonomic approach is so poisonous.
Searching a book written in a time when women were legally considered chattel
for rules about when women have rights will inevitably result in conclusions
consistent with the idea that women do not, in fact, have rights.
Russell Moore has to tie himself in theological knots
because he knows deep in his
conscience that it is cruel and wrong to make women stay and suffer abuse.
Somewhere, in his moral self, he understands that the only morally decent answer
is that women should be free to leave an abusive marriage. I think Moore is a fundamentally
decent person and wants to do the right thing.
But, on the other hand, his theology binds him to a
theonomic approach to the bible - at least when it comes to marriage and sex.
So, he has to muster all of his sophistry to make the bible say what it
certainly does not.
There is a better way.
The first part is to let go of the belief that the bible is
intended to be God’s Little Instruction Book™. That is, in fact, the most
harmful way to read the bible. Rather, it is better to acknowledge that
everything you read about marriage and divorce in the bible was written during
a time in which women were chattel, and this arrangement was justified by a
belief that women were vastly inferior to men.
That is the
foundation on which ALL of the so-called “Biblical™” teachings on marriage,
gender, and sexuality rest.
If you assume that foundation is correct, then the rules
make perfect sense.
If you reject the foundation, then the rules seem,
unsurprisingly, rather nonsensical.
For purposes of this post, I will limit the discussion to
the rules surrounding divorce. (But make no mistake, the ENTIRE edifice of
sexual rules rests on the foundation of misogyny. The ancients had no illusions
about this like we do, and thus no need to lie to ourselves about it. That is a
topic for another post…)
If you truly believe that women are inferior to men (in a
similar way that small children are inferior to adults) and you believe that
men own women, their bodies, and particularly their reproductive system, then
the “biblical” rules for divorce make perfect sense.
Women do not have the capacity to make their own decisions,
so a woman has NO right to end a marriage. (Although, if her husband refuses to
support her, she kinda has the right to seek support from another man,
perhaps.)
Women do not own their own bodies - those belong to the
husband. Thus, she has no right to have sex with another man. (And can be
killed for doing so - that’s in the law. A man who finds his wife in bed with
another man could kill both of them - and it wouldn’t be a crime.) However, she
doesn’t own him, so he could sleep around without any recourse on the part of
his wife. Likewise, if he chose to beat or otherwise abuse her, so what? She
was his property. No different than, say, kicking the couch.
Once you acknowledge that the rules were written with the
assumption of a misogynist society and legal system, then you can actually
think morally and reasonably about them. You can’t just apply those rules to
our modern understanding of the equality of the sexes or the autonomy of women.
If you try, you have to go back to the old misogyny. Once the foundation has
crumbled, the rest falls - and neither Moore nor Patterson understands that.
The Patriarchists are actually closer to honest. They don’t quite say that they believe women are
inferior, and that they are owned by men. But they come oh so close to saying
it outright - and in practice, they mean the same thing.
***
Imagine instead of using the theonomic approach, we start
with the assumption that men and women are equal, and that they each own their
own bodies. Once you start with that, it is easy to think ethically and
rationally about the implications. If men and women are equal, then neither has
a privilege when it comes to entering or ending a marriage. What is good for
the goose is good for the gander. Since each owns their own body, each is
entitled to the dignity of being free from abuse of any kind. If one spouse
fails to treat the other appropriately - and this includes more than just physical violence - it includes mental, emotional, verbal, and financial abuse - then the abused spouse has every right
to protect him or herself and end the marriage. That is the result that Russell
Moore knows in his heart and conscience is right. But because he is wedded to
theonomy - and patriarchy - he must engage in pretty obvious mental
convolutions to avoid cognitive dissonance.
It isn't just about hitting your partner...
it's a whole constellation of behaviors meant to control and assert ownership.
In case it isn’t obvious, I despise the theonomic approach
in general. I think all it is in practice is an attempt to find a new Torah - a
new law to follow. The idea of being led by the Spirit, engaging our reason and
our empathy, and walking by faith - that’s really terrifying to fundamentalists
(and the vast majority of Evangelicals are fundamentalists
these days.) It’s easy to just parse the words of the bible looking for rules
to follow - and impose on everyone else. It’s much harder to wrestle with what
“love your neighbor” looks like in the actual world we find ourselves in.
I’ll confess, I find this really puzzling.
We should not be
surprised that the bible reflects the misogyny and injustice of the cultures in
which it was written.
The authors of the bible wrote to the cultures of their
times. This is a surprise? That’s why you find tribalism and slavery and
genocide and all that. It was in the water, so to speak. Times change, and
humanity has - to a significant extent - grown
less violent and more concerned with human rights over the last few thousand
years. The writings of St. Paul
(to cite one example) were pretty radical and progressive by Roman standards.
But not so much today. Now, what was shockingly empowering has become a club to
beat women back into submission. It breaks my heart that my faith tradition has
lost its way like this. Christianity should be - like it once was - ahead of
the curve rather than behind it on human rights.
None of this is meant to condemn the bible, which I still
find to be a glorious and inspiring book. It is we who have misused it in a way
it was never intended to be used – as an instruction book.
***
It should be no mystery why Evangelicals/Fundamentalists are
having difficulty these days. Their theological edifice rests on the belief
that the bible was literally dictated by God, is perfect and flawless in every
way, and speaks directly to us in our time and culture. And, as a result of
this, that it is intended to be a new Torah for us - an instruction book for
life, marriage, sex, and everything. Except for the “love your neighbor, feed
the hungry, welcome the immigrant stuff. That stuff isn’t literal or binding.
But I digress.
To lose the certainty
of an instruction book is terrifying to Evangelicals. Their morality is tied up
in legalism of two kinds. First, that one must believe the right things or burn
in hell for eternity. Second, that God has spelled out every facet of our lives
that is connected with our genitals. What we do with them. And what having a
particular set dictates about how we function in relationships, church, and
society.
Thus, morality in marriage is about what your genitals
dictate for your life. Have one set, and you are in charge, and God speaks to
you directly. Have another set, and you are called to suffer and put up with
abuse, always submitting to the superior person with the other set of genitals.
The question of divorce isn’t about protecting the vulnerable. It’s about maintaining
a certain hierarchy.
Legalism is easy. Truly ethical thinking is hard.
Particularly I ethical thinking. It requires self sacrifice, rather than mostly the sacrifice of others. It is
no accident that women are leading the resistance to the (mostly) men pushing
the theology of abuse. Powerful men are unlikely to be victims of domestic
violence and abuse. And they would have the full support of their congregations
if they took action to end the abuse. But they have zero empathy - not really -
for vulnerable women. It’s all about how things fit with their theological
structure.
***
I have been an attorney for 18 years. During that time, I
have worked with victims of domestic violence. I have also handled divorce
cases. This experience has significantly changed my perspective on divorce.
I believe that divorce is not a problem in itself: it is a
symptom of greater problems. In the case of abuse, divorce is a symptom of that
abuse, every bit as much as the broken bones and bruises on the face. It is as
much a symptom as the psychological damage to the victim - and the children.
Divorce is like the vomiting caused by food poisoning.
Telling a person when they can divorce and not is like telling someone when
they can puke.
This doesn’t just apply in obvious cases of violence. For
most of us, we will never see what goes on in a marriage. There is always more to the story. (We attorneys
hear a lot more than we would like to know, to tell you the truth. In
particular, I have a really hard time looking at pastors the same way after
some of the cases I have had. And in seeing “godly” women the same way too.)
Even if we could observe a marriage
over the course if years - as a fly on the wall - I doubt we could really
understand the dynamics.
Thus, I firmly believe that we have no right to sit in judgment on whether people should divorce or
not.
Here is just one
story - I have heard a number like it. And others not like it, but unique
in their own way. Tolstoy was at least half right: unhappy families are each
unhappy in their own way.
Back in the day, before my former pastor went (in my view)
off the rails, he had some good things to say about marriage. One of those was
that we spend so much time telling people not to divorce - and way too little
time teaching them how to love each other in marriage. I agree. And part of
that is making it clear that abuse has consequences, and one of those
consequences is that the abuser is evicted from the marriage. Without the
ability to escape, preaching against abuse is toothless. I haven’t seen many
abusers change. And the very few I have, it was because they lost everything:
their marriage, their children, their job, their freedom. And in those cases,
the marriage was still over. And it needed to be. Because some damage cannot be
fixed.
Unless and until Evangelicalism stops trying to find ways of
squaring the misogynistic view of marriage from the past with our present times
and culture, it will become increasingly irrelevant. I have mentioned before
that I believe American Christianity is on the verge of losing most of its
youth. This will be a reason why. Why should
my children want to embrace a tradition which is 100 years behind the culture
on supporting the basic human rights of women? They aren’t stupid, and they
don’t think women are inferior.
Why on earth would
they wish to go back to the injustices of the past?
Something to think about...
***
If you want to read more about my perspective on how to interpret the bible in light of ancient culture, I recommend my series on Christianity and Culture, and the second installment on the Bible and Culture in particular.
***
Please read my comment policy before commenting. In particular, for posts like this, I really am not interested in getting lectured on what YOU believe the bible means (which generally means some set of talking points I have already heard over and over during my 40 years as an Evangelical.) I've heard it. I've dealt with the aftermath of failed Evangelical marriages. You are not going to somehow explain it to me in a way that I have never heard before, or that you are special enough to convince me to return to my past beliefs.
I also want to be clear that I will delete ANY comment that has some form of "marriage was created to give us a picture of Christ and the church." I already blogged about that. I believe men and women are equal PERIOD, and that taking St. Paul's metaphor about sacrificial love in ANY way that even implies that men are to rule women is exactly the problem I am talking about here.
***
If you want to read more about my perspective on how to interpret the bible in light of ancient culture, I recommend my series on Christianity and Culture, and the second installment on the Bible and Culture in particular.
***
Please read my comment policy before commenting. In particular, for posts like this, I really am not interested in getting lectured on what YOU believe the bible means (which generally means some set of talking points I have already heard over and over during my 40 years as an Evangelical.) I've heard it. I've dealt with the aftermath of failed Evangelical marriages. You are not going to somehow explain it to me in a way that I have never heard before, or that you are special enough to convince me to return to my past beliefs.
I also want to be clear that I will delete ANY comment that has some form of "marriage was created to give us a picture of Christ and the church." I already blogged about that. I believe men and women are equal PERIOD, and that taking St. Paul's metaphor about sacrificial love in ANY way that even implies that men are to rule women is exactly the problem I am talking about here.
Great post!
ReplyDeletewell written and eye opening. God bless.
ReplyDelete