A Helper

If it were not for the King James Bible, we probably wouldn't even have the word some people have chosen to use as the description of woman's place in the world. "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.' " (Genesis 2:18) And I wouldn't have just read a book called "Created to Be His Help Meet." The author, Debi Pearl, and her husband have founded a ministry on their interpretation of Scriptures having to do with family and home. I read a great many different types of books: for education, enlightenment, edification, and entertainment. It necessarily follows that I'll run across those with which I cannot agree. This book is just such a book.

First of all, "help meet" is not a term God used for the woman He planned to make, and it is something of a mistake to call her that. This is more than mere semantics. "Meet," usually a verb, takes the form here of a modifier to describe the kind of help: one that was suitable for him, comparable to him, an appropriate counterpart. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my reference books indicate that the word used implies similitude. She would be like him. Adam had just finished naming all the animals—quite a task!—and he surely must have noted that all the living creatures had company with others that were similar, if not completely alike, in nature and habits. He alone was without a companion. He apparently was ready for verbal communication, calling out the name of each kind of animal, but they did not answer. We can assume that none had the power of speech except the Satan-serpent who was superior to all the rest. Eve was made "for" Adam for the same reason Adam was formed by God for Himself—for relationship. Although made from Adam's side, she too was in God's image.

The author says women are not partners with their husbands but were created to serve and satisfy him, and "God's ultimate goal for you is to meet your man's needs." In her role as a Titus 2 woman (the older women teaching the younger to love their husbands, be keepers at home, etc.), she lays out for women everywhere her description of a help meet, accompanied by Scriptures which, if followed, will assure a "glorious marriage." Apparently, when some women read this book, a fire is lighted in their hearts and they say, "Oh yes, I see! This is my calling!" If that is how one understands Scripture and the whole of God's plan—not just Genesis—then that is what she should live out. Serving a man does perhaps suit the gifts and temperaments of some women—and the men married to them.

But I submit that when others read, a different kind of fire is lighted in them and they say, "This is not us." (Note: not just me, but us.) Both readers are right. If both follow the path God has laid out for them, they do not need to make a pronouncement that encompasses every woman everywhere in every era. As I see it, the whole submission/silence/obedience issue is laid out along a continuum. It extends all the way from the non-person who is subsumed by her husband and the woman who lets herself be abused because she has no rights in her own personhood to the couple who see themselves as equals more alike than different, as true partners and companions. It is not up to me to decide where somebody else should be on that line of many points, and certainly not to declare that The Plan of God for Marriage looks the same for everybody.

The Proverbs 31 woman, long held as the ideal, probably nowadays is not seeking wool and flax for spinning; she does not dress in fine linen and purple, nor make garments and sashes to sell. Not having any maidservants, it is not necessary for her to make provision for them. She is not likely to be into real estate, buying and selling fields and vineyards. Those who hold this Scripture up as the standard will explain that we are not to take this old description literally, but are to use the principles therein. My point exactly. The wife may be a teacher or a waitress or a bank president, with a husband who is proud of her achievements and influence. He is not necessarily active in city government either; in fact, he may be the at-home parent with a grateful, wage-earning wife. I know a number of women who have/had a ministry calling even before marriage, and the husband-to-be pledged a supporting role, financially and spiritually. This is not being weak or effeminate. He is protecting and providing for more than just the woman he is asking to marry him; he is charged with some of the responsibility for her effectiveness in ministry as well

The Apostle Paul admonished wives' obedience so that the Gospel would not be shamed, but that was then. Those who try to lay the template of masterful husband/obedient wife on today's society are more apt to bring discredit to the Gospel, I think, than the couple who genuinely care for each other's welfare and don't pay a whole lot of attention to who is being "served" at any given time. (I actually know people like that!) It is no small thing to be a help or "helper," whether it happens to be the husband or wife. The Holy Spirit is a Helper, yet nowhere is He pictured as a servant to us or beneath us in any way simply because He is our helper. It is just as mistaken to consider the helping woman an inferior being who was created solely to serve a husband—or by extension, men in general.

Marjorie

Another Bad Word: Submission

This post was first published on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog on September 1, 2008, and is no longer located there.

Yesterday I stated that to people who misunderstand it, “authority” is a bad nine-letter word. Here is a ten-letter word, also with terrible meaning for many people: submission.

Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” Perhaps you didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.

The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we often use is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, "Women, be like Jesus."

We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) Some women bristle at the idea of being called weaker, but face it: females lack, usually, the size, the strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger: His prayers will be ineffectual.

Submission was not meant to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure. It was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’" (I Peter 3:8-12)

That sounds like a happy home to me.

Marjorie

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

The Mind of Christ

In my experience as a Christian, I have often heard the Scripture quoted, "We have the mind of Christ," and unfortunately, sometimes that was interpreted as though it read, "What I think is the way Jesus would think." This statement was then used as the compelling reason to require cooperation, obedience, or specifically for women and children, "submission."

The meaning of this verse is clearer in its context and in a modern translation: "Isaiah's question, 'Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?' has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit." (I Corinthians 2:16 MSG, emphasis mine) To have "the mind of Christ" is to make God's priorities our own and to seek the fulfillment of His purposes. "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done."

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . " Does that sound like one person making demands of another to conform to his/her wishes? Does that seem to prescribe a hierarchy of importance and value? The mind of Christ is expressed in humility and the heart of a servant: "You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8 NLT)

Charles Sheldon, the Topeka pastor who wrote "In His Steps" over a hundred years ago, challenged his congregation to follow Jesus as a moral example. The resurgence in the 90's of "W.W.J.D." led many to give thoughtful consideration to Christian behavior—a very good thing—but it is a mistake to think that clear direction will come with trying to figure out what He would do if He were here in the twenty-first century. Why should we not just get right to the heart of the matter: What is Jesus saying to me and through me now? How is Jesus in me wanting to act?

Seeking the mind of Christ for oneself does not imply that there will be no corporate guidelines for Christian behavior. Families have rules; churches and other organizations have regulations. But to claim the authority of Jesus Christ over others without having His attitude is presumptuous, inconsiderate, and dangerous.

Marjorie

You might like to read some further thoughts on "hierarchy", posted in my "Finding the Faith Way" blog. Click here.

Scripture marked MSG is taken from The Message. Copyright © 2003 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group. Scripture quotation marked NLT is taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.

Genny's Story - 6: Staying--or Leaving

To read all previously published parts, click on "Genny's Story" in the labels column at the left. Note that entries appear in reverse order, the most recent on top.

Genny explains why she was so long in dealing with her situation

Marjorie: I know there can be many factors keeping women in traumatic situations—fear of being alone, financial instability, the children, just plain uncertainty. But maybe denial is what keeps a lot of women in their abusive homes.

Genny: Yes, I think so. But giving it up is really hard. The truth can be very difficult to look at.

M: And why is that?

G: Lots of reasons. People's opinion of you, not wanting to expose the person you have loved, feeling like a failure. But for me, the huge obstacle was a whole group of religious issues. I was very active in our church. Jim was less involved, but still much loved and respected. People actually admired our marriage! I just couldn't stand to humiliate us both by admitting that anything was wrong. And even though he was very wrong in his treatment of me, I had no desire to ruin his name among our church friends. I think our pastors would have been understanding and compassionate, and I can see, looking back, that there may have been a couple of other friends I could have turned to. They say to me now, "I wish I had known. I wish I could have been there for you." But many people in our church still have very conservative beliefs about the marriage relationship. I'm not sure they--especially Jim's friends--would have been that openhearted. First of all, some wouldn't have believed it was true, and secondly, some surely would have blamed me. I just wasn't ready for that. So you can see that this was an area of real conflict for me.

M: You know, Genny, I may have some readers who, like you, have strong ties to conservative churches, and these men and women may feel that what you have described in our earlier conversations about submission and servitude is indeed a wife's role. What would you say to them?

G: Throughout Scripture, I believe, women as well as men are invited into relationship with God. Even the creation passages can be understood in ways that do not relegate women to a secondary place. In the New Testament, it is the clear expectation that both men and women will live lives that display the fruit of the Spirit and represent the cause of Christ well. The "woman passages" that seem so troublesome in Paul's letters almost certainly spoke to a particular problem in a specific church. They do not present a view of women that is consistent with his teachings or his relationships as defined in other passages.

The Apostle Paul is very clear that in Christ, there is no male or female, bond or free, and so forth. Nowhere does he teach that submission is one-way, that is, women--and wives in particular--to men. It just is not there. Submission to each other is one of the ways that love and honor are expressed between husband and wife. Before Paul speaks about the responsibilities of women and of men, he says, "Submit to one another, or be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ." Or put another way, "Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another."

M: And now that we've brought up religious beliefs—if and when it becomes clear that a woman, specifically a Christian woman, cannot survive in her abusive situation, what options do you think she has?

G: She has all the options that there are. Let me name some. First of all, there is just leaving, one or the other of the couple decides to move out, or maybe they can even decide together that would be best for everyone. But do not delay if your safety is threatened. Get out of there--now! And use every means, every legal avenue available, to ensure your peace and well-being.

There is just toughing it out, the worst option of all, and any more I don't even consider it a viable one. There is so much more to life than just waiting for your husband to die! Several years ago—and I have forgotten the source—I ran across, in a national news magazine, the personal account of an abused woman whose husband was killed in a highway accident. In the article, she stated that she was glad he was dead. A storm of angry letters was the response. "How dare she say such a thing?" "How can she be so cold-hearted?" "That's the same as murder." And so on. How preposterous is it for us to tell someone how they should feel? She didn't kill him even though she may have wished that he would die; she was just relieved and grateful that he was gone.

M: So waiting and wishing might be an option, but it's not a very good one! What are other possibilities?

G: Well, as Christian women, we don't want to consider murder as an option, but a great many good church folk think divorce is almost that bad. There's always a big laugh when someone says of their marriage, "Oh no, we never ever considered divorce. But murder? Oh yes, many times!" So are we to conclude that murder would be preferable to divorce? It's supposed to be a joke, but it is so not funny, because divorce is, in fact, one of the options. Yes, I am aware of church regulations, and I know many women who say, "Divorce is absolutely not an option." Then for them, it is not an option. But when a woman asks whether divorce can be an option, she probably is thinking, "Yes, I know it is, but what I'm really asking is, Will God be mad at me? Or, Will I go to hell?" I am convinced that God is more concerned about relationship than law. I cannot believe that He is pleased with someone—man or woman—being trapped in a non-marriage where the bond is already irreparably severed.

Some churches take the position that there are only certain "Biblical permissions" for divorce, usually citing adultery and abandonment. Well, how do we define those? Is adultery only an extra-marital affair, or could it also be conscious emotional entanglement, unfaithfulness at the heart level? Is abandonment the term for physically deserting one's spouse, or does it apply also to the person who may be present in the home but has long since forsaken his vows? These questions are something only the woman herself can decide, but she must be aware that if she makes a decision counter to the church "rules," she may then have to form a different church connection.

M: And what if the woman believes divorce is absolutely not an option?

G: There are other alternatives. Even if a woman feels she dare not divorce, she perhaps could consider separation—legally separated so as to make clear the financial and custodial issues. Sometimes that even provokes the husband to file for divorce, which is another possible outcome.

Then there is annulment, which actually does not dissolve the marriage but declares that it never existed. This has been misused sometimes to remedy general unhappiness with one's spouse, but still, it is a valid legal action. Each state has laws governing annulment just as they have for divorce; most generally those deal with fraud, concealment of facts, or the incapacity to enter into marriage. This sounds strange, I know, but it does happen.

M: Options aren't really "solutions," are they? It must be extremely difficult for a woman to sort out all of this alone.

G: Yes, so add to the reasons you gave for why women stay, "paralysis." They just don't know what to do. Regardless of what an abused woman chooses to do, finding her way is likely to be traumatic. Leaving a marriage is not going to be pleasant, easy, quick, or cheap. It can even be dangerous. Some men become vindictive; they threaten, harass, stalk, do damage, or even inflict physical harm. But when staying is no longer possible, she simply has to leave. I cannot emphasize too much: Get wise professional counsel.

To be continued.

Genny's Story - 2: "I Didn't Call It Abuse"

To read all previously published parts, click on "Genny's Story" in the labels column at the left. Note that entries appear in reverse order, the most recent on top.

Genny experienced an abusive marriage. She tried very hard, she says, to please her husband.

Marjorie: But did you ever want to give up and just leave? Why did you stay?

Genny: I loved him, and I trusted him to love me. I guess I believed that if he just knew how hurt I was—because I did try to tell him—that he would understand. He did tell me he was glad I was not quarrelsome and that I had a tender heart and was so forgiving. But I don't remember a single one of those times that he told me he was sorry. He might act a little better for awhile, but then he would repeat the same cycle of abuse over and over again.

M: You've said, '"abuse." That's a very strong word. Why are you calling what you experienced abuse?

G: Because of what it did to me. It beat me down until I was not the same person any more, almost not a person at all. He took away my singing, he took away reading and sleeping and enjoying mealtimes. He took away my financial freedom and my own opinions and personal interests. He took away feeling at home in my own home. He took away the pleasure of intimacy. He took away the person I was and tried to make me into his "little woman."

M: And how did that make you feel?

G: At first, it wasn't too bad. I was able to tell myself, "Well, if this is all it takes to make him happy . . ." But the problem was, that didn't make him happy. The demands increased until they seemed to encompass every part of my life, and I was struggling to hold on to my identity. I remember thinking and even writing down my desperate thoughts, "If I do this—this whole 'please the master of the house' thing—I won't know who I am."

M: But you let this happen? You didn't set some boundaries about how he could treat you?

G: No, not really. You see, in the beginning, I wasn't calling it abuse. It was just a rough start at being married, I thought, and it would soon get better. It not only did not get better, it got lots worse. I didn't set appropriate boundaries because I didn't understand that we can do that. That we have to do that. The only thing I knew was to be silent and "submissive."

M: Uh-oh. That sounds familiar. You learned that—where?

G: At my mother's knee. And the church I grew up in. Women were "just" women," you know what I mean? But that was a very powerful idea because it was put in terms of this is what the Bible teaches. This is what God commands. Wives don't tell their husbands anything. They ask. And they listen. And obey.

M: What kind of boundaries might have been appropriate for you to set?

G: It doesn't really work to tell someone, "You can't speak to me like that," because in fact they can. It may be better to say, "You can continue to yell if you want to, but I am not staying in this room to listen." Not much is gained by demanding, "Stop being so critical," because that leaves the choice up to someone else. You might say, "If you continue to criticize this meal, I am going to leave the table." Instead of just remaining silent while her husband continues to rant about something that displeases him, a wife might say, "I would like to continue our discussion of this later when we're both calmer." Or "I won't discuss this with you alone any more; I will talk only in the presence of a counselor."

But be forewarned: Boundaries are almost sure to be pushed against and tested, or even ignored. I read Boundaries by Henry Cloud and John Townsend too late for it to be very helpful for my marriage, but it's not too late for the other relationships where I am learning boundary-setting.

To be continued.