A Woman’s Place; a Carpenter’s Place

Mark 6:4-6 “Jesus said unto them, ‘Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.’ He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith.”

Women have a lot in common with Jesus. His hometown folk said, “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn’t this the carpenter?” And even though they knew He did miracles, they were more interested in keeping Jesus in his place.

Similar things happen to women. People who claim to be Christians say, “But she’s a woman! Don’t listen to her! God doesn’t call women to ________ (fill in the blank with anything except domestic work). This too is submission tyranny. It is part of the culture of males devaluing women. This devaluing, along with male authority teaching, is part of the cause of domestic abuse.

Jesus could not do many miracles in his hometown. They only allowed him to be a carpenter. How many miracles are women blocked from doing here in the US because they are only allowed to work in the kitchen? I think of the many women who are blocked from working in God’s kingdom at home in spite of God’s calling on their lives. Some of them go to the mission field and do many miracles there. Gladys Aylward, for example.

How many women live their whole lives prevented from serving in the way they were called? How many miracles are denied to this world because women are kept in their place? How many more people would come to Christ if women were allowed to serve according to God’s call, instead of according to the limitation males place upon them? Could it be that hearing the gospel from a woman’s perspective and in a woman’s words would “click” with some people who are not open to the gospel message from a male perspective? How many souls are being doomed because women are kept in their place?


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Thankful for God’s Provision of Divorce

Christians often lament the high divorce rate, meaning the filing of papers in the court and the approval granted by a judge that makes a couple legally divorced. But to many women, divorce is a God-send, a blessing, a deliverance from death, and a gift of life. I am one of those women. I thank God for divorce. I thank Him for MY divorce. I needed it for my sanity and health. Painful as it was, my daughter needed it in order to have at least one place where she could know and connect with truth instead of being submerged in an environment of fear and lies that was so confusing it made learning and loving close to impossible.

I look at Galatians, my favorite book of the Bible, and see how free God wants us to be. 5:1

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Complementarian teaching entangles women in the yoke of bondage to husband authority. Paul tells us to steer clear of bondage. Granted, Galations is talking about circumcision. But the principle of liberty in Christ applies to the bondage males are attempting to force upon women. (In case you didn’t notice, I refuse to call them men. Behavior and teaching that results in bringing women into bondage is 100% unmanly.) Galations 2:3-5:

But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Note that Paul did not submit to the false teaching of circumcision for even an hour. Likewise, we should not submit to the false teaching of husband authority for even an hour. The Bible clearly teaches husbands to be a living sacrifice to their wives. Not once are they told to rule or overrule their wives. Paul said the bondage of circumcision was subverting the truth of the gospel. Their gospel was “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be circumcised, and you shall be saved.” Today the gospel is: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and subject yourself to your husband and you shall be saved.” (Although complementarians would never admit this. But notice how much guilt and condemnation they try to heap on wives who refuse to submit to being sinned against by their husbands.) Both the bondage of circumcision and the bondage of husband authority make salvation something to be acquired by works--by the flesh--instead of by faith in the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus.

In addition, the latter destroys the gospel message that Christian marriages are supposed to represent to the world. Marriage is supposed to symbolize the sacrificial love of Christ for the church, and the church’s response of willing and joyful yielding. Instead, because of the husband authority doctrine, many “Christian” marriages represent a ruler demanding obedience, often by throwing thundering rages, combined with lightning swift unpredictable, irrational, and threatening behavior and/or spiritual arguments to keep his subjects cowed into submission. These marriages actually symbolize Satan and his followers instead of Christ and the church.

Thus, I am so very thankful to be out from under Satan-like bondage, and to be free. I have been liberated to serve Christ unhampered by my husband’s nastiness, his sudden irrational and threatening verbal/emotional and occasional physical attacks.

I praise the Lord that my daughter and I have been set free.
Glory be to God!

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

How to Take a Fresh, Unbiased Look at Scripture

“It is very important that leaders and lay people alike take a fresh look at scripture and stop projecting their preconceived notions or traditions onto it.”

The above quote was part of a response I wrote to Rebecca who commented on my blog. see entire post and comments here

How does one go about keeping their biases out of their research and interpretation of scripture? How can one be assured that he or she is not listening to an evil spirit instead of the Holy Spirit?

I cannot give a one-size-fits-all answer to this question, but I can share what has worked for me.

I prayerfully take the issue in question before God, confessing, “Lord God, there is some disagreement about this issue/passage, and I want to know what YOU meant by it, what YOU want me to do or believe. I confess, Lord, that I really hope your answer is ______, but I choose to let go of that. I lay down my will and my preference. Lord, I am willing to believe and practice what YOU tell me, either way. Help me as I study this. Lead me to related scripture and help me to fully understand the context. I am yours, Lord God. Protect me from the wiles of the Evil One, and do not allow him to speak to me or influence my thinking or conclusion(s).”

After praying, I begin to study. Sometimes it is helpful to read several different views of others—especially if I was taught to refuse to even look at or consider other viewpoints. The idea with this step is to get an overview, to see if verses relate to the subject and reasoning—verses other than the ones I have been taught are applicable.

Other times I get the sense that looking at the views of other humans will get in the way of hearing what God wants to tell me.

One such instance is the verse “Be ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down on your wrath.” As far as I know, no one else has the interpretation of this verse that I do. I believe my interpretation came from God. My interpretation is “When you are angry do not sin. Shine a bright light on your anger until you know the cause, and then work to solve the problem.”

I see this as being similar to shining a bright light on a sliver. You could just forgive yourself for getting the sliver and forgive the sliver for being there, and go to bed and try to forget it. But in the morning the sliver will still be there and may even be infected. On the other hand, if you shine a bright light on the hurting area, and dig around until you find the cause, dig it out and put appropriate salve on the wound, you can then go on your way with little to no pain at the sliver site.

Sometimes I am afraid that what I find will tell me I am totally wrong. Since I do not want to accept the one viewpoint, I acknowledge there is rebellion in my heart, so I confess that to God, and ask Him to cleanse my heart and take it away. I do not want to rebel against God.

One such time was when I was researching for this blog using only Strong’s Concordance. I was studying verses in I Timothy concerning husband and wife, and 5:14 came up. As I started on this verse, I became aware that I did not like the interpretation I had been brought up with—that a wife was to stay home and stick to domestic duties. I stopped and gave that to God and told Him if that was what He meant, I was willing to accept that. I was surprised—and delighted—to find that “guide the house” (#3616) actually means “be the head of the house,” and it is specified that this “head of the house” means ruler of the family. It appears the KJV translators had a bias.

When I looked up the parallel verses for the husband, “one that ruleth well his own house,” I found when you look at the words the word came from, the meaning Strong’s gives the word ruleth (#4291) is the FIGURATIVE meaning, not the normal meaning. The meaning of the originating word is “fore: in front of, prior to,” (which reminds me of the view that the word “head” likely is referring to the fact that Adam came into existence before Eve) and stand—“to stand before.” And the meaning of house is “dwelling.”

So the phrase is actually “to stand before his dwelling.” But the translators used the figurative and by implication forms to arrive at “ruleth well his own house,” which our patriarchal leaders interpret as having authority over his family. Yet, they fail to note that another implied meaning of rule is “maintain.” In other words, the phrase could be saying “maintains well his own dwelling.” In this case, since the KJV translation uses the implied and figurative meanings, I distrust the translation. In fact, when he adds “having his children in all subjection,” one questions whether children were included in the previous phrase at all. If they are, Paul was being redundant. Verse 5 “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he TAKE CARE OF the church of God?” agrees with my suspicion that the meaning God intended is to “maintain and care for,” NOT to RULE.

I notice that “guide the house” for wives, which means “be head (ie: ruler) of the house” is neither implied nor figurative. While the phrase for husbands which is translated “rule the house,” is actually figurative or implied. I end up seeing much more authority for the wife, than for the husband in I Timothy, which is contrary to what I was taught all my life.

My study and conclusion of this passage, ended up strengthening what I had already seen in other husband-wife passages. Because of the interpretation of church leaders, I thought the I Timothy passages disagreed with Ephesians 5, and I wasn’t sure how to handle that. But prayerful study showed me the two passages agree; there is no command to husbands to rule their wives.

Again, I stress, it is very important to lay aside your own preferences and will about a passage, and to diligently seek what our Almighty God wishes to communicate in His love letter to us. When I lay down my wishes, and surrender my heart to God, it doesn’t matter whether I was right or wrong. It only matters that I go forth in obedience to Him—even if it means my family will condemn me, as happened another time.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com for information.

The Huge Complementarian Arsenal of Weaponry

Some argue that the complementarian view does not promote domestic violence, that it is the individual who misuses the doctrine who is choosing domestic violence. They point out that egalitarians can be just as abusive as complementarians. On the surface, this is true. A man can claim to be egalitarian and still abuse his wife. However, because he is not using God and scripture to justify and enforce his authority, the abuse he uses is more likely to lack a wall of support that is as thick and imprisoning as the Great Wall of China. Without the “God says wife submit” argument, it is much easier for women to recognize the behavior as abuse, rather than as God-given authority to husbands and as a non-negotiable commandment to wives to submit to their husbands.

Having said that, I want to point out that wives who do not have Ephesians 5 rammed down their throats, still have a difficult time recognizing domestic abuse and dealing with it. In other words, domestic abuse is difficult enough for women to get a handle on, without adding teaching that demands the absolute subjection of wives to their husbands.

Christian doctrine, itself, makes recognizing abuse and dealing with it wisely very difficult to achieve. Even without the husband authority and wife submit no matter what doctrines, the love unconditionally and forgive and forget and turn the other cheek doctrines all work to prevent a Christian woman from confronting the domestic abuse early enough to both save her marriage and make it a loving one that symbolizes Christ and the Church. (The no-matter-what part is denied, of course. But who gets blamed for abuse? The wife, who they claim failed to submit. So even though they SAY the doctrine is NOT no-matter-what, in reality, it is exactly that.)

Those who teach marriage, for example, tell wives to be loyal to their husbands and not talk to others about their husband’s failures. This rule aids husbands in their quest to control their wives and does nothing to help a woman figure out how to deal with her marriage difficulties. Wives who stay silent, are more likely to try to perfect their own behavior, are less likely to recognize their husband’s behavior as abuse, and are more likely to stay in their abusive marriage longer, harming themselves and their children. This rule also harms husbands by allowing the abusive behavior and beliefs to become more and more entrenched in the minds of the husbands as well as in the minds of everyone in the family.

Christian wives whose husbands are abusive, constantly turn the other cheek and forgive and forget, but it does not make their marriages better. Instead, it makes them progressively worse. Abusive men see Christian behaviors as weaknesses, and tend to “go for the kill” or to “kick a person when she is down.” Thus, the Christian behavior of the abused wife tends to make her husband MORE abusive.

On top of that, Christians add the authority/submission doctrine. It is so pervasive, that some women who read my novel, “Behind the Hedge,” had a difficult time comprehending that the husband’s behavior in the beginning was abusive. The doctrine is so entrenched, that abuse is often seen as the husband’s right because he is the “authority.”

When a husband demands that his wife submit because God commanded it, no matter how idiotic and hurtful his demands, it is so difficult for wives to think through the mass of confusing messages, to be able to differentiate whether his demand is contrary to scripture, to know who to believe, that many wives have to literally throw out the submission doctrine in order to make sense of what is happening in their marriages. Even then, a church-house full of finger-pointing people makes it very difficult for a woman to deal wisely with the reality of her own broken marriage.

For those who do acknowledge the abuse and act redemptively to deal with it, they frequently face rejection from their whole church, while their abuser is accepted with open and welcoming arms. This drives many of them away from their churches and away from their primary support. This fact, makes wives think long and hard before taking steps to hold the abuser accountable.

So although egalitarian husbands can also abuse, they lack a huge arsenal of weaponry that complementarian husbands have at their disposal: their own beliefs, church doctrine, church pressure, church discipline of the wives, their twisting of scripture, the wife’s own belief that she is required to submit, along with her guilt if she fails to submit, or even the self-blame if she submits but her husband is still not happy.

It is my contention that the church would have much less domestic abuse and domestic violence among her people if she taught egalitarian, submit to one another and husbands love your wives as a living sacrifice, doctrine.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Benefits that are Mere Pottage

Ok, I get it. Males have a vested interest in forcing women to stay married, even to abusers. Think of all the benefits they would lose if they encouraged abused wives to leave and even divorce their husbands. Their OWN wives could decide to divorce them for some made up infraction. (according to them and their viewpoint.) And then they wouldn’t have anyone to cook their meals, to wash their clothes, to order around, to raise their children, to put down so they can feel superior, to clean their houses, to dump the work load onto.

To keep this benefit, they will twist scripture and repeat the twisting over and over—like the mainstream media—in order to keep at least one foot securely on the head of their own wives, ready to crush their wives at the slightest “provocation.” The other foot they keep on the heads of Other Male’s Wives, so their own wives won’t get any ideas about freeing themselves from oppression.

The males are at war, practicing terrorism in their own homes and churches. And just like Obama, the majority of women continue to deny it. The truth is just too horrific to handle.

A study says 44% of women have experienced some form of domestic violence in their adult lifetime. That is nearly half of all women, and it assumes the women know what domestic abuse is. Yet women remain in their rose-colored glasses, still insisting that wife submission will heal marital woes, still blaming the women, still insisting if males just become Christians or rededicate their lives to the Lord, they will stop abusing their wives. Yet the very church doctrine the males rededicate themselves to teaches husband authority and fosters abuse.

With church doctrine like that, I can see why so many woman reject both their churches and Christ. Why belong to Christ, if doing so brings the same misery one could expect when one belongs to Satan?

Why do our churches act as if the fruit of the Spirit applies only to women? Do they not know that those who do not bear Christ’s fruit, are not connected to the Vine, and if they are not connected to the Vine they are spiritually dead? Why does the church act as if the command in Romans 12:1-2 applies to women only? When are males going to start being a living sacrifice, being kind and forgiving? When are males going to stop picking out the scriptures they can twist into domination commandments, while ignoring the clearly spelled out Christ-like behaviors they are commanded to practice?

Why are women in these churches still marrying? With a prognosis of life-long misery, it makes more sense to utilize the sperm bank if one wants children. Then a woman never has to worry about her husband using the children to control her, about her husband turning the children against her, or about her husband damaging her children. Frankly, feminists have legitimate arguments against males, and very good reason for despising Christians.

What are we as Christians going to do about it?

Oh, of course! The usual! Males must maintain their benefits at all costs—even at the cost of their own salvation. They, like Esau, are selling their birthright for a bowl of pottage.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Submission of Women Required for Survival and Profit

There is another group that relies on woman submission for its survival—similar to the Christian community. No, I am not speaking of the Muslim community, although they also rely on woman submission for survival.

“For SURVIVAL?” you ask.

Yes, survival. For many Christians, wife submission is right up there with salvation in importance. The good and godly behavior of husbands is dependent upon the submission of the wives. After all, they say husbands are wired to be leaders and the authority in their homes. According to the rhetoric, a husband doesn’t feel like a man if his wife doesn’t submit. Church would have to be cancelled because many husbands would be in jail for committing domestic violence when they tried to enforce their authority. Like as not, the pastors would be in jail, too, since clergy and faith leaders are the number 1 perpetrators of spousal abuse. Apparently, without the submission of wives, many husbands are incapable of producing evidence of having the Fruit of the Spirit. Without fruit, there is no church. Unless we have all female churches.

Another group has a similar dilemma. They, too, rely on female submission. Without it, a whole billion dollar industry would collapse.

The industry? P*rn.

In April I saw this article by Shane Ersland in the Daily Iowan that pointed to the submissive roles of women in p*rn films:

“An Expert Says Women’s submissive roles in p’orn films adversely affect today’s society.” Robert Jensen showed “The Price of Pleasure: P’ornography, S’exuality, and Relationships” at an event sponsored by the University of Iowa sociology department and by the Women’s Resource and Action Center. He pointed out that p’orn is used by men to pleasure themselves. Ersland commented that females in the film were “often put in disrespectful and submissive positions.”

Both Ersland and Jensen are right, men pleasure themselves at the expense of women. But this is not only true of the p*rn industry, it is also true in so-called Christian families and churches.

Something is dreadfully wrong when both the p’orn industry and churches rely on the humiliation and submission of women in order to survive. Both groups do little to nothing to combat the degradation of women. Prostitution also uses the submission and degradation of women. Similar to pastors who insist women must remain with their abusers, pimps lock women into their degrading lifestyles, and p*rn makers refuse to hire or pay women who insist on respectful depictions of women.

How does the submission of women profit these industries? The p*rn and prostitution industries make huge monetary profits and are rife with male power. Similarly, the church industry profits with huge gains in male power for both clergy and for husbands, and also profits with monetary benefits. Without submissive wives bearing children and bringing them to church, there would be no next generation(s) for pastors to fleece.

Could it be that if pastors did not emphasize the submission of women, MEN would refuse to come to church and put money in the offering plate?
According to Mark Driscoll, who emphasizes wife submission, getting men into the church is everything. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSrZVF3FEUQ ) Driscoll says if a pastor gets young men into his church, he gets the men, their wives, their children, and their money. If you don’t get the men, (meaning if you only get women and children?) you get nothing.

In order to get the men, then, women must submit so the family will stay together and go to church. Apparently Driscoll thinks a divorced husband is less likely to bring his children to church--and part with his money.

So one could say the men running po'rn industry, the prostitution industry, and the church are all vying for power and for men's money. And the submission of women is required to achieve that goal.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

The Parable of the Divinitys Explained

Jesus spoke in parables. Sometimes it was to hide the meaning from those who would misuse it, and other times it was to make the point in a way that people could better understand. It seemed many people could not comprehend heavenly truths any other way. They could not see the forest, because the trees were blocking their view.

As I consider the many authors who have written before me, those who are battling alongside me, and then look at those who dig their heels in even harder and refuse to hear the message, it seems the trees are blocking the view of many church folk today, too.

Perhaps the previous parable along with the meaning in this post will help make a difference.

Mr. and Mrs. Divinity represent God. Genesis 1:27 says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Male and female together are the image of God.

The last name, Divinity, represents God’s whole family.

The twins, John and Jane, the older children, represent church leaders and also parents. Ephesians 5, along with other passages command us all to submit to one another. Romans 12:10 “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love, in honor preferring one another…”

The younger siblings, Tom and Sally, represent a young married couple. They, too, are told to submit to one another, to honor one another.

The Divinity house and property represents wherever God places us on this earth, and includes the jobs He gives us to do.

The cabin represents both Heaven and the way of escape that God has promised to us. I Corinthians 10:13-14 “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.” If we do not flee the temptation to do other than what God has commanded, we risk becoming idolatrous.

The incorrect statements of John and Tom represent the reasoning of men who claim to be obeying God’s commands, but twist the scripture so that it is more to their liking, giving themselves full authority over women, their wives in particular.

John’s increasing declarations of authority, and urging his brother to take authority, represent the current trend of leaders taking authority in many churches, and urging husbands to take authority contrary to God’s command to husbands to love self-sacrificially and to present their bodies as living sacrifices, not being conformed to the world’s hierarchical way of thinking (Romans 12:1-3).

Tom’s increasing declarations of authority represent the escalating abuse some husbands inflict on their wives.

Tom’s statement that Jane is not his boss and that he does not have to listen to her, represents the attitude of many church men that all of us should not listen to women, nor allow women to influence us, but instead should suspect them of leading us astray. Also, they insist we should only accept new ideas/biblical truths from males.

The feast in the cabin represents both our heavenly reward and our earthly reward. Job, for example, was rewarded after God had tested him.

Over all, the parable points to the evil that men are committing against women in both church and home today, in spite of God’s commands to neither rule like the Gentiles, nor elevate themselves like the world does.

Like in the parable, God does provide a way to escape. By insisting that wives live with rules that are contrary to God’s word, (elevating husbands to a place of authority and superiority which belongs to God alone), husbands force wives to live in idolatry. If a wife chooses to do a sinful act that her husband is demanding of her, that is obviously sin. But church leaders fail to recognize that wives who are forced to live as inferior to their husbands are also disobeying God. That disobedience is both idolatry (putting husbands and church leaders above God) and sin.



Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

The Parable of the Divinitys

Mr. and Mrs. Divinity knew it was time to test their children and that their children needed to learn to appreciate them more, so they decided to go on a three-month mission trip to encourage a number of churches. Before they left they gave instructions to their children.

“Jane and John,” Mr. Divinity said, “You are the eldest, so we are leaving the two of you in charge. It is your responsibility to make sure your younger siblings are taken care of and that the house and yard are well tended. We left you with some phone numbers if you should need help.”

“It is very important that you love and respect one another,” Mrs. Divinity added. “You are to make sure Tom and Sally listen to you and do what you ask. Make sure that they get along with each other and treat each other with respect and dignity. You all are our children, and when we come home we want to hear that each of you valued your siblings highly. Tom and Sally, obey the twins and don’t fight with each other.”

“Mrs. Divinity is right,” Mr. Divinity chimed in. “It is very important to us that you all choose behavior that is becoming to a Divinity. Each of you make sure you care about the needs and feelings of each of your siblings and try to find solutions that keep the peace and are satisfying to all of you.

Mr. and Mrs. Divinity kissed their children good-bye and left for their mission trip.

As soon as their conveyance was off the property, John announced, “Since I am the man, you all will have to answer to me. Tom and Sally, if you want to do anything, you have to come to me. Is that understood?”

“But John,” Jane protested, “our parents left us both in charge. They made us both responsible.”

John snorted, “They weren’t thinking; it isn’t possible for two people to be in charge. This place will go to hell in a hand basket if the kids listen to you.”

“John is right,” Tom said, putting his hands on his hips. “We MEN know better than you GIRLS,” he curled his lip on the last word.

“But Tom,” Sally whispered, “what about loving each other and acting as is becoming to a Divinity?”

Tom shoved his younger sister causing her to fall down. “THIS is behavior that is befitting to a Divinity. “You be quiet and do what we men tell you to do.”

“John,” Jane frowned, “what you and Tom are doing is not right. I will have to report to our parents.”

John laughed. “You go right ahead. See if I care.”

That set the tone for the days ahead. John and Tom sat around playing games and meeting with friends and demanded that their sisters clean the house, care for the yard and garden, cook food for them and their friends, and wash their clothes.

One day John went off with his friends, and young Tom took the opportunity to be meaner to Sally than usual. He pulled her hair, kicked her shins, threw juicy mud balls at her, making her clothes all muddy, and pulled off the heads of both her dolls.

Sally went crying to Jane.

“Tom, that behavior is NOT becoming to a Divinity!” Jane said sternly. “You will apologize to your sister at once.”

“You aren’t my boss,” Tom stuck his tongue out at her. “I don’t have to listen to you.”

“Then you will not get any supper. I will not allow that kind of behavior in this house.”

Tom snorted, “We’ll see what John says when he comes home.”

When Tom came home, he took both Jane’s and Sally’s supper and gave it to Tom. “You girls are NEVER to boss us men!” John shouted. “Is that understood? WE are in charge here. WE are the Divinity men! If we see either of you helping yourselves to ANY food for the rest of the night, we will lock you in the basement. Now get busy and clean up the house!”

Jane and Sally quietly washed the dishes and went to bed hungry.

The next day Jane stepped outside to work in the garden and overheard a conversation between Tom and Sally, who were in the sandbox.

“Why do you and John treat us so badly?” Sally asked in a small voice.

“We aren’t treating you badly,” Tom sounded kind. “It’s actually you and Jane who are being nasty to us. You keep questioning our authority, even though our parents left us in charge.”

“Tom Divinity!” Sally said. “You know that is NOT true. Our parents left John and Jane in charge because they are older. Since they are twins, Jane is just as old as John.”

“But they told Jane she is responsible to keep up the house and take care of us men,” Tom explained. “We are following their rules; we didn’t make them up. You and Jane are the rebellious ones. John told me we would have to report you to our parents if you keep bucking our authority like you do. Our parents told us to get along. They will not be happy with you and will punish you severely.”

“That isn’t what our parents said, Tom.”

“Yes it is. You can try to interpret what they said differently to get out of doing what you were told, but in the end you will be disobeying and disrespecting our parents. Now go get me a big glass of water. I’m thirsty.”

Jane ducked out of sight as Sally started toward the house. She hadn’t realized John and Tom were comparing notes, or that they had gone so far as to decide their parents had given them authority. She thought about what to do as she hoed the garden and collected vegetables for supper.

Then she remembered the list of names and numbers their parents had left with them. She went in the house and called one of the numbers, then yelled out the door and asked Sally to come in and help prepare supper.

“Go get the picnic basket, Sally,” Jane said when Sally had come inside, "and then I want you to go pack some clothes for yourself. We are going to a cabin our parents provided for us if things get too ugly.”

Sally’s eyes grew big and round. “Our parents provided a cabin for us?”

“Yes. Leaving is the best we can do to get along,” Jane explained. “We have to behave as is becoming to a Divinity, so we have to leave for awhile. John and Tom were told to treat us with respect and love, but they are not. The longer we stay here, the less they behave like Divinitys. Our parents told us to take care of you and Tom. Since John and Tom are not allowing me to obey our parents, I must take you to a safe place.

That night, while the brothers were asleep, Jane and Sally crept out of the house with clothes, food, and enough money to buy more. They walked all night until they came to the cabin their parents had provided. They found the key in the crotch of the tree, and let themselves in.

The cabin suddenly flooded with light and their parents rushed forward to hug them.

“Father, Mother,” Jane said, “what are you doing here? I thought you were across the country by now.”

“We were,” Mr. Divinity said, “but when we saw what was going on at home, we knew you needed us here to comfort you.”

“You saw?” Sally squeaked.

“Of course,” Mrs. Divinity said. “We always keep our children under surveillance.”

“But why didn’t you come stop them?” Jane protested.

“It was important to test you all,” Mr. Divinity explained. “We wanted to give all of you a chance to see if you really loved us, or if you were just pretending.”

“Well, done, my daughters,” Mrs. Divinity led Jane and Sally to the next room, where a table was beautifully set and loaded with a thanksgiving feast. Mr. and Mrs. Divinity kissed their daughters and seated them at the table, then loaded their plates with food, and encouraged them to eat their fill.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

“In Everything” Christianese, Part 2

As discussed in part 1, Ephesians 5:22 and 24, “Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord…Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything,” have been interpreted to mean “no matter what” in Christianese. Specifically, they have been interpreted to mean “submit if he is abusing you, obey when he is nasty and sinning against you.” The result of this Christianese, is that the church is commanding wives to REWARD husbands for disregarding all of Ephesians except the directions to wives. This encourages sin.

According to the context of Ephesians, those words to wives mean wives are to submit to the sacrificial love of their husbands. If they do not, then the other passages about submitting to one another and getting along in church would also mean our churches are to be ruled by those who are the most demanding and sinful. After all, the demanding and nasty ones are the very people who will never give in, therefore, the godly ones are required to give in and submit to sinful behavior. (This may actually be the problem in many churches today—that the godly leaders are submitting to the sinful leaders.)

Submitting to one another does NOT include submitting to sin or allowing sinful and selfish behavior. Rather, just like we have to accept the gift of Christ’s salvation, so a wife must accept the gift of her husband’s sacrificial love. When he says, “Honey, you look tired. Please, go get ready for bed. I’ll wash the dishes and put the children to bed,” she is to submit to that. She may want to protest, “But Dear, you are tired and worked hard all day, too. Those are MY responsibilities. I feel so bad leaving those things for you to do, I cannot submit to you.” But the passage tells her to submit to sacrificial love, even as she does to Christ.

I recall a sermon Chuck Swindoll preached about the letter to Philemon. Chuck suggested that Paul wrote that letter “tongue in cheek,” meaning in a humorous and ironic way to get the point across. Paul played with the meaning of Onesimus’s name and his unprofitable behavior. On the one hand Paul refused to command Philemon to accept his slave as a brother, and asked Philemon do so voluntarily as receiving a gift from Paul, since he is Paul’s son in faith and Paul would have liked to keep Onesimus with him. Yet at the end of the letter he said he is coming to visit, suggesting if Philemon treats Onesimus harshly, Paul will be coming to hold him accountable. Although Paul writes kindly, he tells Philemon to treat his slave well, especially since his running away ended up in bringing him to Christ.

There is similarity in the letter to the whole Ephesian church, where Paul tells wives to submit in everything and as to the Lord and in his actions of sending Onesimus back to his owner. Just as Philemon may have thought when his slave returned, that he had the right to beat his slave severely, husbands tend to think they have total power and domination rights over their wives because of Paul’s words to wives. Paul’s next words say to both husbands and to Philemon that this supposition is false. Paul asked Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother in the faith, as Paul’s own son, and asks husbands to treat their wives with self-sacrificial love, even as Christ loved the church so much He gave Himself up for her.

It is time churches teach ALL of Ephesians correctly, that abusive, controlling, and authoritarian husbands turn from their wicked ways, be transformed by the renewing of their minds, align their beliefs with scripture, and treat their wives as daughters of God, and joint heirs with Christ and worthy of all self-sacrificial love, gentleness, and respect.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

“In Everything” Christianese, Part 1

Sometimes a biblical passage is explained repeatedly to the point that the passage begins to take on a meaning other than that stated by the biblical text. Ephesians 5:22 and 24 are an example of this phenomenon. “Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord…Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

In Christianese, the words IN EVERYTHING and AS TO THE LORD mean: submit when you disagree, submit as if you are the stupid one, submit when he is being nasty to you and/or to your children, submit when you know what he is insisting is unwise, submit when you know it will ruin you both financially, submit when he’s walking all over you and taking advantage of you, submit when his demand is hurting or even harming other people, submit when he is demanding that you break a promise or contract, and etc.

The context of the passage is in the whole book of Ephesians. Chapter 4, for example tells us to walk worthy of our calling, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love. Endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Our actions are to build one another up, to edify the body of Christ, to behave in such a way as to promote peace with one another. Husbands are to love their wives self-sacrificially as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. This is in keeping with those earlier verses. The passage also reminds us of the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.

Yet those words to wives are lifted out of their context and spun to mean something else entirely. The way they are spun nullifies the words to husbands and wipes out the whole of Ephesians for husbands in relation to their wives, and replaces it with a doctrine of domination and authority over their wives. It is as if Ephesians is written only to wives, or as if every passage has an exception clause—“except toward your wives.”

Ephesians 4:1a-3 would read, “I…beseech WIVES to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with YOUR HUSBANDS in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Ephesians 5:1-2 would read, “Therefore, be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, EXCEPT TOWARD YOUR WIVES, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us…”

Many husbands—backed by their pastors and entire congregations—behave as if the false paraphrases above are what the Bible actually says, and that only the directions to wives, from which they derive husband headship and authority, are applicable. They think AS TO THE LORD and SUBMIT IN EVERYTHING mean a wife is to submit NO MATTER WHAT the husband does or demands, since we submit to the Lord in everything.

But they fail to take into account that since the Lord NEVER behaves sinfully, nor acts selfishly, this verse cannot possibly mean “no matter what,” unless Christians are willing to make sin acceptable. There is no way she can submit AS TO THE LORD when her husband’s behavior is selfish, mean, or sinful. A husband whose behavior is not Christ-like, is following the lead of his father, Satan. To require a wife to submit to a man who is following Satan, in essence is requiring her to submit to Satan. In order to submit AS TO THE LORD, she must submit to self-sacrificial, Christ-like love.

They also fail to recognize that because husbands are told, in addition to the rest of the commands in Ephesians, to love their wives self-sacrificially even as Christ loved the church, that the command to wives to submit IN EVERYTHING and AS TO THE LORD, when read in context, means that a wife’s submission is to be in response to her husband’s Christ-like behavior. She is NOT to encourage sin, even if her husband is not saved. If EVERYTHING has any other meaning, the wife is being forced to encourage her husband to disregard all of Ephesians, except for those verses to the wives.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Forget and Suffer vs Remember and Reject

Remembering how other individuals treat us is an important part of making decisions and of staying out of danger. Yet many Christians throw human interpretation of forgiveness at people. By insisting that they forgive and forget, Christians abuse them yet again and cause them to put themselves in harm’s way.

This is especially so for wives who suffer abuse from their husbands. The ultra pious pressure wives to forgive and forget. They tell a wife who is still grieving the loss of her marriage, still trying to accept that the man she married doesn’t cherish her after all, that she SHOULD forgive and maintain relationship with her abuser. They tell her if she holds him at arms length, she hasn’t really forgiven him.

So she takes a phone call from him, and he berates her for half an hour. She hangs up, feeling shaky, confused, and scared. But she focuses on forgiving and forgetting. She blames herself for not handling it better.

This is contrary to scripture. Titus 3:10 “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Abusers tend to be divisive. Their repeated reviling creates conflict and splits up marriages.

2Timothy 3:1-5 “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.”

This passage describes many abusive husbands. Instead of controlling themselves, they put all their focus on controlling their wives. Their behavior is pure treachery. They led their wives to believe they would love and cherish them, but instead they turn on them and attack them.

How does the Bible say we are to respond? HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. There is nothing about forgive and forget. There is no exception clause saying “except when you are married to him.”

When a married man chooses the above behaviors, HE is the one who has broken the marriage covenant. Without loving behavior there is no covenant. It has become null and void. Unless he repents in sincerity and truth. And few abusers do.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Is Forgive and Forget Biblical?

Those who place emphasis on forgiveness often say one must forget for it to be real forgiveness. This week a woman told me about her struggle to forgive her abusive ex-husband. As soon as she decided to forgive him, the memories of all he had done overwhelmed her. She thought that meant she had not forgiven him. She said it took 2 years for her to be able to forgive and forget. (Yet, she must still be remembering, or she wouldn’t have mentioned it to me—not even from the forgiveness angle.)

I want to know the book, chapter and verse that tells us to forgive and forget.
I checked the concordance, and did not find those words together anywhere. In fact, I find principles that suggest it is unwise to forget. Proverbs 22:3 and 27:12 “A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.” Even though we forgive, it may be stupid to forget.

Consider this unlikely situation: While at work, your boss tells you and a coworker to go to another area of the building. You get on the elevator with your coworker, and she walks in front of you presumably to punch in the number of the floor you are headed for, and with all her weight, steps on your foot with her spiked heel. She apologizes and you forgive her, even though your foot hurts, and when you check it later, you have a bruise. But you put the incident out of your mind.

A week later the boss sends you and your coworker on another mission, and she does the same thing, and again apologizes, calling herself a big klutz. You forgive her again, and berate yourself when you can’t put it out of your mind the first 2 days. “It was just an accident,” you scold yourself, “forget it!”

Two weeks later during another elevator trip with her, you again get your foot nailed by her spike. This time, she apparently lost her balance and fell against you, and her spike landed on the very spot that is still hurting from the last time. You forgive her again.

Now, if you are too stupid to see that this is a pattern you need to make sure you do NOT forget, and that you either need to ride a separate elevator or keep a large briefcase between you and the spike-lady, and that you need to report her to the boss (or to whoever deals with assaults at your workplace), and to the police, you will keep getting hurt by your coworker.

Remembering how other individuals treat us is an important part of making decisions, of staying out of danger. Yet many Christians throw human interpretation of forgiveness at people, and by insisting that they forget, influence them to put themselves in harm’s way.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Forgiveness, Trust, Restitution, and Reconciliation

The truth about forgiveness is that it does not erase our pain. Instead, we choose to bear the pain and release the one who caused it by no longer demanding payment from them and by letting go of our anger and refusing to seek revenge.

Consider a person whose loved one is killed by a drunk driver. Will forgiveness actually take away the pain of loss? Will the person stop missing their loved one? Hardly. That pain will be there for many years. Forgiveness in this case means the person is not going to try to get even, but chooses to let go of all anger, resentment, bitterness, and malice against the person.

Does forgiveness mean the person is going to try to protect the drunk from the consequences of his behavior? No. To do so would actually be a disservice to the drunk, and may result in another unnecessary death at his hands. However, testimony against the drunk must be truthful and neither understated nor embellished. It is the responsibility of those who administer the law to punish the drunk.

Therefore, while forgiveness does not seek revenge, neither does it protect from consequences. Further, although a person who forgives may have to distance herself from or even divorce the one who wronged her, she will not administer punitive consequences by her own hand, unless that is actually the harmed person’s responsibility because she is the offender’s parent, or otherwise carries the responsibility to punish the wrong-doer.

How does forgiveness look in real life? In the case of unpaid debt, the wronged party may choose to stop associating closely with the one who did the harm, and may even take steps to hold the wrong-doer accountable by reporting him to the authorities and testifying in court if needed. However, the wronged person will not slash the wrong-doers tires, spray paint hateful words on his garage, nor leave key scratches in the paint on his car. Instead the wronged person will pray for his/her trouble-causer, and with a loving attitude do what he/she can to restore him to right thinking/behaving if opportunity arises and if it is safe to do so. Here I add that what is safe for one person, may put another at risk. For example, it may be safe for a large man to associate with an abusive husband, but totally unsafe for the abuser's wife to associate with him.

When the person says he is sorry, the wronged one can express forgiveness and cautiously offer relationship if it is safe to do so, leaving room to back away again if the repentance is not genuine. However, in some cases, especially when there has been repeated harm done as in domestic abuse, a person can accept a statement of apology, extend forgiveness, and remain distant until such time as trust is reestablished through the offender’s restitution and long-term trustworthy behavior.

In the case of domestic abuse, the abuser is often the first to point out that if the abused party does not take him back into her full good graces, she has not forgiven him. This is totally false. In actuality, the ball is in the abuser’s court. Because of his repeated trampling on his wife, he must not only show that he will no longer stomp all over her, he must take responsibility for his behavior by paying restitution.

Lundy Bancroft, in his book “Why does he DO That?” puts it this way. (I repeat this in my own words without looking it up recently, so I may miss some points and add thoughts that are my own.) The harm done by domestic abuse is similar to the harm done when a man cuts down his neighbor’s beautiful shade tree. Most abusers think an “I’m sorry” will make the relationship OK again. But it does not. How does the neighbor know if her prize rose bush is safe from her neighbor’s chain saw? In fact, although it is impossible for him to restore the shade tree, he must do his best to restore as much as he can. He must buy as large a shade tree as he can find to replace the tree he cut down, it must meet with his neighbor’s approval, and he must hire a tree moving service that plants large trees to plant it. He must water and feed the tree faithfully for several years to make sure it survives and grows. Since even this does not restore his neighbor’s property to its original condition, he must look for other ways to make amends, to beautify his neighbor’s property or benefit his neighbor in a way that the NEIGHBOR deems appropriate.

This obviously requires genuine repentance, humility, loving concern for his neighbor, and an attitude of selflessness. When these qualities and actions are missing, it is impossible to restore the type of trust that brings true reconciliation.

Only when the abuser makes full restitution and shows himself trustworthy over a long period of time—at least a year—can he expect his wife’s pain to begin to diminish and her physical and emotional ailments to begin to heal, which will allow her forgiveness to grow into trust and then into reconciliation.

Instead of pushing the wronged party to forgive, trust, and reconcile, it is high time we push the offender to take responsibility, pay restitution, and BE consistently trustworthy for the rest of his life.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Forgiveness—What it is and Isn’t

Christians say much about forgiveness. They teach it is the eraser that cements all kinds of relationships. People often believe forgiveness erases offenses, restores trust, brings reconciliation, eradicates emotional pain, heals illnesses, and makes everything hunky dory.

But is this true? Can forgiveness do all of the above?

Well, what IS forgiveness? There is so much conflicting information about it, that I have struggled to know what it is, let alone how to apply it. I finally came to a conclusion based on biblical teachings about money. Using a concrete item makes it much easier for me to understand the concept, which also clarified for me what forgiveness can and cannot do.

Jesus told a parable about forgiving a debt, so I, too will tell a parable.
Imagine that you came to me, jobless and wanting to invest in a business that would provide for your family, and I loaned you $100,000.00 (One hundred thousand dollars). It took me 40 years of scrimping and self-denial to save this money so I could set it aside for retirement. It is also all I was able to save. But seeing your distress, I loaned it to you so that your family would not go hungry, and with the agreement that you would pay me interest so that I, too, would benefit from the exchange.

The first year was interest and payment free, per our agreement, and the second year you made two monthly payments, and then stopped paying altogether. It soon became clear that you had used up the whole $100,000 and now your fledgling business had failed to get off the ground. Then I find out you squandered the money, using most of it for “research” that was actually self-gratification and entertainment. You never did open your business. And now you not only had no money left, I also understood that you didn’t have the morals to be able to work enough to repay it. I could choose to forgive you or choose to remain angry and frustrated the rest of my life as I keep hounding you for payment or telling everyone what a horrible person you are. (I do believe there is room for sharing our grief with a few trusted confidantes, but it is important that we do not emebellish the wrong that was done to us.)

What does it mean to forgive? It means that I do not expect you to repay the debt. It is forgiven. Therefore, I let go of the anger and frustration I felt toward you. However, I may need to take some time to grieve my loss.

Does it mean I trust you? If you have shown yourself untrustworthy, absolutely NOT! Does it mean I am reconciled with you? No. Does it mean I do not deal with emotional pain? NO. In fact, I will have to deal with major emotional pain because I have just suffered a HUGE loss. My entire retirement savings are gone and cannot be recovered. Because of this, I will be unable to retire—ever. My income was low enough in my working years that my social security will never be enough to live on. I will live in pain, still working hard years after I am too frail or ill to keep working. Or I will stop working and constantly be scraping the bottom of the barrel for the rest of my life, forced to choose what needed items I must do without.

The pain I suffer will be so severe I may end up grieving my loss for the rest of my life. It will always be a factor in my life circumstances. Even at a tiny 2% interest on the $100,000, I will bear the loss of $167 a month for the rest of my life. That hurts! It is not small change to me.

Yet Christians teach that if I forgive you, my pain should be gone, and I should be your good friend. They seem to deny that friendship requires trust—a trust that is earned. In fact, they would urge me to be so foolish to loan you money again, if you are still in need and I am able to save enough to loan. This, my friends, is not forgiveness, it is stupidity and foolishness.

The forgiveness pushers fail to understand that it is each person’s responsibility to BE trustworthy—to earn trust. I take that back. They fail to understand that it is each MAN’S responsibility to BE trustworthy. They have very little problem demanding trustworthiness and perfect submission from women.





Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Authors of Fireproof Seem to Claim Forgiveness Would Save Abusive Marriages

Another comment by the Kendrick brothers, that Catherine’s “bitterness” is the result of her failure to forgive Caleb on a daily basis, seems to suggest that the marriage of Caleb and Catherine would not have degenerated if Catherine had forgiven her husband daily. This belief is frequently voiced in the Christian community and needs to be examined. Does a spouse’s forgiveness stop her abuser from escalating his abuse as is commonly believed? Many people quote Proverbs 15:1 “A soft answer turneth away wrath; but grievous words stir up anger.” Is this verse always the case?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think forgiveness is great and necessary, and a soft answer does turn away wrath in many cases. But is this true in abusive marriages?

To find out, I want to follow through on what their reasoning would produce. Remember, I personally have been abused and for years did my best to forgive and believe the best of my husband and also responded with a soft answer. Other abused women report experiences similar to mine. Yet none of us claim to be perfect. Thus, I want to imagine what the results would be if a wife WAS able to forgive her abusive husband every day.

Let’s start with Caleb saying he wants to withhold a third of his income to save for his boat and that he pressures Catherine into agreeing to this. According to Brothers Kendrick, Catherine should forgive him for being so self-centered and for not seeing her needs. So let’s say Catherine sacrifices her needs and even tries to help him save for his boat. She forgives him, loves and serves him, while she sees him in the best possible light as an unselfish man.

Caleb sees her love, service and forgiveness as his due, and takes his 2 days off doing whatever brings him pleasure. (This has been his pattern for 6 years of marriage, according to the writing of the Kendrick brothers.)

Catherine comes home from work on his second day off, picks up Caleb’s mess, buys groceries, cooks his dinner, dares to take his clothes to the dry cleaners while the food cooks, all the while thanking God that she has such a wonderful husband and again forgiving him for leaving all the work to her. At the dinner table, Caleb complains that the roast is tough and the lettuce hasn’t been cut fine enough. Catherine forgives him, and brings out the dessert, which he tells her is not to his liking, either. After dinner, she struggles with resentment, but chooses to forgive him. She sweetly gives herself to him that night, and he uses her, giving nothing in return. Catherine cries herself to sleep, and when she wakes in the morning, again chooses to forgive her husband and love him unconditionally.

This becomes a normal part of Catherine’s life. Her husband puts her down and expects special service every day, justifying his behavior by emphasizing how much he contributes with his pay check and with saving people’s lives. Catherine forgives him, and acts like a normal wife would by telling him how her dad has to work so hard to help her mom because the wheel chair and bed are not right for her mom, but Caleb dismisses Catherine’s concern, saying it is their problem, so Catherine drops the issue as a good Christian wife is taught to do.

Catherine tries to do all the little things to encourage her husband, to raise his self-esteem, and he continues to get nastier. (Bruce Ware and followers would blame Caleb’s nastiness on Catherine because she is not submissive enough, but in real life once abusers get what they want, they soon raise the bar and increase their demands. This seems to be caused by a mix of believing they are entitled to get special service and special privileges that their wives do not have and by a desire to feel a sense of power over their wives.)

After a year goes by, Catherine is secretly crying herself to sleep every night, while Caleb is getting everything he wants, and becoming discontented that he doesn’t have more or get even more service from his wife. He would like her to stay at home so she can do more for him—especially on his days off, but he also wants her to continue bringing in her paycheck, so he can buy his boat sooner. He asks her to cook meals for him to eat while she is at work, and she complies with that request, too.

Catherine keeps forgiving her husband, and doesn’t keep a record of all the things he does to hurt her every day, yet her inner pain keeps growing. She makes a bigger effort to forgive him, thinking that is her problem, but she ends up bursting into tears at work. She tries to control and hide her tendency to cry, but it slips out at times.

When Gavin makes his overture at work, she tells him how wonderful her husband is, which results in Gavin leaving her alone. Everyone thinks Caleb and Catherine have a wonderful marriage.

After another year, Catherine stops going to sleep after being intimate with Caleb, but instead gets up to finish all the tasks she is expected to do, trying to be as quiet as possible so her beloved husband can sleep soundly. She uses this time to pray for her husband, focusing on seeing him in the best possible light. These extra hours of work result in her getting fewer and fewer hours of sleep. Less sleep plus the stress of being continually trampled on by her husband makes her prone to “catching” every cold and flu that goes around, and she develops physical diseases as well. (In a recent study women who had suffered recent domestic abuse were more likely to have been diagnosed with a wide range of diseases and disorders:

The women who reported violence were nearly six times as likely to have been diagnosed with substance use disorders, the researchers found, while they were at nearly five-fold greater risk of "family and social problems." Their risk of depression was more than tripled, while anxiety diagnoses were nearly three times as common among these women.
Other diagnoses that were more common among recently abused women included low back and neck pain; sprains and strains; sexually transmitted diseases; lacerations, bruises and scrapes; urinary tract infections; chest pain; and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

See http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2009-10/13/content_8783419.htm
to read the entire article.) She goes to the doctor for her many maladies, and the doctor recognizes symptoms of depression and prescribes anti-depressants.

Caleb thinks the anti-depressants are not necessary and refuses to pay for them, which leaves Catherine with yet another expense she can ill-afford. She tries to cook more from scratch to save at the grocery store, but time is an issue, so she tries buying cheaper cuts of meat so she’ll have funds to buy some precooked meals. Caleb complains about the cheap meat, so she is forced to skimp on clothing for herself, wearing them until they are noticeably worn out, and getting fewer haircuts. Caleb gripes that she is letting herself “go to seed,” so she tries to find other ways to stretch her income.

There never is a solution. Catherine is always viewed as the problem, and over time she also believes if she could be more perfect, Caleb would be happy with her.

The prescription doesn’t help. One day when Catherine’s heart is breaking because of her husband’s recent “verbal unkindness,” (John Piper’s term) she focuses so hard on trying not to cry and on trying to get rid of her anxiety and the fear she still feels because Caleb overwhelmed her by threatening her with his fists and screaming in her face that she steps in the street without thinking and a car hits her and kills her. Everyone thinks it was an accident. No one suspects suicide, since they believe her marriage to Caleb is so happy. A few blame the anti-depressants. But no matter, Catherine is dead and everyone feels so sorry for her husband who “adored” her.

A second possible ending is that one day threatening her with his fists wasn’t enough, and Caleb gets his bat and hits her with the same viciousness he used on the garbage can. Caleb either breaks her jaw and fractures her eye socket, or hits Catherine so hard she falls and hits her head on the counter, killing her or putting her in the hospital for a long time.

The point I’m making is that in both Fireproof and in the Love Dare and in the Kendrick Brother's commentary there is a complete lack of teaching about a wife confronting her husband and holding him accountable for sin. Instead they say when Catherine confronted Caleb she may have been disrespectful. In other words, they suggest wives shouldn't express anger or disgust to their husbands concerning their behavior. With their repeated comments about Catherine's “bitterness” and lack of forgiveness and trust, they apparently would have us believe an abusive marriage will become healthy if the abused wife will just forgive and love unconditionally. If she will get rid of her bitterness and completely die to self. But they picture Caleb being REJECTED when he "dies to self," not TRAMPLED on, screamed at, threatened, punished, and assaulted—perhaps even killed.

Indeed, it appears to me the life they picture for abused wives is a life-time of degrading slavery and cruel punishments, neglect, overwork, and imprisonment, coupled with a spirit of forgiveness and service on the part of the abused wife which amounts to voluntary self-degradation. The Kendrick Brothers compound this by neglecting to clarify that it is the abuser who must use the Love Dare.

Once again, the focus is on finding yet another way to condemn the abused wife. When are Christians going to hold abusers accountable, instead of transferring that accountability onto abused wives?

Think about it: Does forgiveness stop emotional pain? Does forgiveness heal a person who is a paraplegic because of being hit by a drunk driver? Does a victim's forgiveness stop an abuser from abusing? Are marriages that end in assault and murder (till death do us part) more righteous and godly than those that end in divorce to avoid assault and murder? Is divorce a bigger sin than murder and spousal abuse?



Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Authors: Fireproof intended for ALL Marriages, Not Just Abusive Ones

Now that I dissected the Fireproof movie, I wanted to see what the authors intended, so I listened to their commentary. I came away from my first listen-through amazed that God used the Kendrick brothers to say so much that they never intended to say. LOL! Isn’t God great! What a sense of humor He must have!

Alex and Stephen Kendrick prayed about this movie, and wrote what they felt God was directing them to say. Yet what they thought they were saying and what they actually said are not necessarily one and the same. The Kendrick bothers wanted Caleb and Catherine Holt to represent any and all marriages. They wanted the relationship to be so bad in the beginning so that those in the worst marriages could identify, and so good at the end so that every couple between the two extremes could identify with Caleb and Catherine’s marriage. However, in doing this, they made the movie about couples who are dealing with abuse, something Alex and Stephen Kendrick never intended.

According to their comments, they tried to put their own viewpoint into the movie. Their criticism of Catherine, for example, stood out to me. One of the brothers commented that a wife who loves as she should would assume the best about her husband until it was proven otherwise.

I find his criticism unwarranted. After all, Catherine HAD been believing the best of her husband for six years, until it became clear that he was ruled by selfishness. We get a peek into their lives AFTER Catherine has finally admitted to herself that Caleb does NOT have her best interests at heart. Caleb had ALREADY shown her over and over again for a number of YEARS that she could not assume the best about him.

The brothers repeatedly kept referring to Catherine’s “bitterness.” On the one hand they kept talking as if her “bitterness” and mistrust were out of line, but on the other, when they commented how Caleb, like many husbands, thought he could make up for years of trampling on his wife with one dinner and a few kind gestures, they point out that it takes much more than that to rebuild trust. On the one hand, they seemed to say wives should forgive and then be so stupid as to hide their heads in the sand and pretend all is well even though it isn’t, and on the other they said husbands have to consistently continue with loving behaviors for a long period of time—possibly even two to three years—before they can expect their wives will trust them again. What the authors refer to as “bitterness,” is actually mistrust that is based on reality over time.

Several statements in their comments, when put together with the Evangelical view of marriage do not add up.

First, they point out that Caleb and Catherine were going in 2 different directions and did not have joint goals. The problem with this is that when evangelicals hear that, the blame would immediately be placed on Catherine, who was not getting behind her husband to support him and submit to him.

But wait! Do they really think the Holt family goal should have been saving for a boat, like Caleb wanted? According to Christian doctrine, Catherine should have hardened her heart about the hospital equipment her parents needed, and joined her husband in his selfish pursuit of a leisure-time boat. The Kendrick brothers don’t go so far as to say that. But that is the conclusion a Christian wife—especially an abused Christian wife—would draw from their statement, since they do not point out that Caleb's goal is taking him in the wrong direction. If they omitted specifying this because they thought scriptural principles make it obvious, they underestimated the effect of their statement on both abused wives and on their counselors, who tend to elevate the "wife submit" doctrine above most other scripture, except those acts that are CLEARLY sinful, (Piper's words) like killing, stealing, and adultery.

The end result for abused Christian wives who hear the Kendrick brothers saying a couple should be going in the same direction, would be a wife who drops her own desire to help others, so that she can "do the right thing" and support her husband in his goals. Her husband would end up free from confrontation about his selfishness. Because he would feel entitled to get whatever his heart desires, sermons on self-sacrifice would go over his head. In his mind, his income-producing job and his contribution of 2/3 of his income to support his family IS self-sacrifice and so much servitude that no more should ever be required of him.

It is usually the wives who listen to and do what pastors recommend in self-sacrifice to make their marriages work. If Catherine did as the Kendrick brothers recommend, Caleb would have had everything going his way so much that he never would have come to the place of having to choose between divorce or trying the love dare, nor would he have had any reason to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

More on the Kendrick brothers commentary in the next post.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof, What’s Right About it, Part 6, Conclusion

The main problem with Fireproof is the interpretation of those who view the movie. For the most part, the necessary and correct details ARE in the movie, but they are either too subtle for most Evangelical Christian viewers who know little about domestic violence, or they are downplayed by the screenwriters. Keep in mind, the screenwriters knew their audience would largely be Evangelical Christians, so I’ll leave it up to you as to whether the fogging-over of the issues was intentional.

First, notice that the word “submission” is not used once in the movie. Perhaps this is because the couple does not claim to be Christian, even though they have Christian values. The writers got it right when they left “submission” and “authority” out of the movie. They rightly do NOT indicate that Catherine’s “non-submissive” behavior, her forthright and truthful comments, and her confrontive speech is the factor that is destroying the marriage and driving her husband to porn addiction, lack of love and respect for her, and trampling on her. Instead, it is clear that her behavior is a RESPONSE to her husband’s selfish use of her and his lust after other women.

Next, notice that the writers deal compassionately with Catherine’s responses to the doctor who is wooing her. There is some truth to the counselor’s words that if a husband treats his wife right, she will bloom, but if he mistreats her she will wilt. We can see that in the scene where Catherine wilts when Caleb abruptly slams the cupboard door, turns on her with his savage words, and threatens her by punching the air with his fists stopping just short of her nose. We also see where she blooms with the positive attention of the doctor.

The writers use the “on-the-job flirtation” to show abusive husbands that they are literally driving their wives into another man’s arms, rather than to blame it on the abused wives. I commend them for this compassionate stance. Although the abused wife is accountable to God for her behavior, the writers show that when a husband mistreats his wife, he also carries the responsibility for putting her in the position to be seriously tempted to become an adulteress.

Another thing they got right, is when they refer to Caleb’s parents’ marriage. Caleb’s impatient and contemptuous attitude toward his mother seems unwarranted, until a viewer puts it together that she was the abuser up until 2 years ago. She was so hard to live with, that her husband was planning to leave the marriage. Because she was the abuser, SHE had to be the one to implement the Love Dare. If her husband had used it, she would have continued to walk all over him.

Next, notice that the word “abuse” did not appear once in the movie. Not once. Why? I would guess it is because their target audience had largely rejected that word. The writers replaced it with the word “trample” when Caleb confesses to Catherine that he has trampled on her for 7 years.

Replacing the word “abuse” with “trample” has at least 3 consequences, some positive, and others detrimental for their audience.

1. The movie would not be rejected by those who reject the veracity of the claims of wives who say their husbands abuse them in non-physical ways.

2. Because the word “abuse” is not used, many viewers are unaware that the story is about a couple whose marriage is being destroyed by Caleb’s abusive behavior and porn viewing. They can consider his actions to be “verbal unkindness” as John Piper has labeled non-physical abuse. This downplays the seriousness of the abuser’s sin, making it very easy to blame the wife for non-submission, which, as mentioned above, the writers did not do. However, since respected Christian leaders, like Bruce Ware, have told huge audiences it is the wife’s non-submission that causes husbands to get angry, it would be easy for viewers to draw the same conclusion.

3. Those who do not recognize the abusive behavior of Caleb, and the abusive behavior that is inferred about Caleb’s mother’s previous behavior, nor that Catherine has already been loving for six years, assume the statement toward the end that either gender can apply the Love Dare, means that either spouse—even the abused spouse—can successfully and safely implement the Love Dare. This is very dangerous.

The result is that the Evangelical community pushes abused wives to apply the Love Dare, which further damages marriages that are already close to beyond repair, and puts abused wives and their children at serious risk for their mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health.

Considering that it was Caleb and his mother, the trampling, abusive ones, who used the Love Dare, the movie DOES tell viewers that the person who has been violating his spouse is the one who must use the Love Dare.

Besides these assumptions made by viewers, there are two major problems with the storyline itself. One is the assumption that a person who becomes a Christian and uses the Love Dare will stop trampling his or her spouse. As I pointed out in an earlier post, men who choose to abuse, often see scripture as permission to increase their abuse. There are some men, however, (like Gary Smalley, Paul Hegstrom, and Joel Davisson) who have seen their sin, and taken steps to cherish, sacrifice for, and honor their wives.

A second problem is the assumption that the abuser’s heart-change will be fairly quick, or within 40 days, and does not need to be time-tested for a year or more. Even though Caleb says “you can have all the time you need,” the story still has Catherine making up her mind in a very short time. This, however, may be because it is fiction. To hold the interest of the viewers, writers frequently have to condense the time-line of the story. Indeed, I had to do the same thing with my novel, “Behind the Hedge,” and will likely have to do it again with the sequel. Like the writers of "Fireproof", I, too, have to hope my audience will gain enough truth and insight from my story that they will refrain from forcing a compressed time-line on hurting people.

A third problem arises after the church gets it right and pushes the abuser to try the Love Dare. Although the story does show Caleb trying to use the Love Dare manipulatively and without genuine love, which is typical of abusers, a problem arises because of the church’s emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation. Many pastors and Christian counselors would join the abuser in pressuring the spouse to accept the abuser’s/trampler’s half-hearted change as genuine and urge her to forgive and forget, instead of first making sure the abuser has a genuine heart transformation, and that he will stick with it. They fail to understand the necessity of making the husband deal with the consequences of his sin, by making it HIS responsibility to WIN her trust and respect, instead of HER responsibility to forgive and take him back without proof of his trustworthiness.

In Conclusion, it is important for Christians to understand that the Love Dare is to be applied by the spouse who has been nasty and “trampled on” his or her partner, NOT by the abused spouse. It is also important that church pastors and lay people, educate themselves about domestic abuse, including behaviors and thought patterns that are typical to abusers, and stop pushing the wrong solutions on hurting people.



Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof, Part 5, Making Sin Funny

Another theme throughout the Fireproof movie that troubles me is when Caleb takes his anger out on the garbage can. This is minimized by making it funny because the neighbor catches him in the act. The truth is Caleb’s physical violence on the garbage can is a warning sign that he is dangerous and could turn that violence on his wife. In fact, when he screams in her face, he IS using violence against her.

Further, if lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one’s heart, then beating a garbage can, with which you are not angry, instead of beating your wife with whom you are angry, is the same as beating your wife in your heart. Caleb’s dad does make this point, but it was not put together with slugging the garbage can. I John 3:15 says “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Caleb’s screaming in his wife’s face until he induced her to fear and provoked her to tears also show hatred in his heart, which John says is murder.

It is no wonder emotional/verbal abuse so frequently escalates into physical violence, and far too often ends in murder. It is because murder was in the heart in that initial verbal assault. Indeed, beating the garbage can with a baseball bat, kicking the dog, putting a fist through the wall, and etc. all suggest the person has murder in his heart.

Neither the act, nor the embarrassment for being caught in the act is a laughing matter. It’s not just weird. It’s not comedy. It’s a warning sign that a dangerous and violent man lives next door. In fact, if a neighbor who witnesses that behavior would guess that the man is abusing his wife, 95% of the time he would be correct.

If he is a mature man, as John Piper defines masculine maturity in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," he would also take steps to protect his neighbor’s wife by calling the police. Her very life may depend on her neighbor’s report. The neighbor would also use the experience as a reminder to research domestic violence and use that knowledge to help him (and perhaps his family) develop a relationship with his neighbor(s) that will permit him to influence his neighbor to develop respectful and caring attitudes toward women. That action would have the likely side effect of strengthening the neighbor’s wife’s inner sense that her husband is indeed out of line, that he has broken the marriage covenant, and that she needs to be firm in requiring respect and cherishing from her husband.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof: part 4, Salvation is No Deterrent to Abusers

Whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just
….think on these things.

With their story, the writers of Fireproof teach that when a man is saved and gives his heart to the Lord, he will stop being selfish and nasty to his wife and will genuinely love her instead. Yet many “saved” husbands, who make a profession of faith, are just as selfish and abusive as Caleb, the man in the movie. How Caleb responded after becoming a Christian is opposite of how real-life abusers usually react to becoming Christians or to rededicating their hearts to the Lord. And here is where the church is culpable.

If an abuser-turned-to-Jesus read Ephesians 5 on his own, it is possible the Holy Spirit would convict him to love his wife self-sacrificially. But both historically and currently church males have pulled one phrase out of Ephesians 5—“Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord”—and in their hearts deleted the rest of Ephesians 4 and 5 so they could emphasize wife submission.

On top of that they conclude that the Bible’s statement that the husband is the head of his wife, means he is her authority and leader or ruler, even though Ephesians 5 tells a husband he is to be his wife’s loving, self-sacrificial servant, like Christ is to the church. The abuser who dedicates his life to the Lord, therefore, by his association with the church, gains ammunition, which he considers to be the command of God, to use against his wife. In this way, he adds spiritual abuse to his arsenal of control tactics. And he does it with the church’s blessing.

Although the Love Dare works with abusive Caleb in a fiction (fantasy) movie, would it work with real life abusive husbands? I doubt it. A real-life Caleb is very unlikely to try the Love Dare unless he is desperate to keep his wife from divorcing him, so church folk push ABUSED WIVES to apply the Love Dare. This invariably gives the abusive husband more power to destroy his wife and requires the wife to yield more of herself and her wishes—including her dignity and what is reasonable, which further destroys the wife and children, and harms the husband.

When abusers do get desperate enough to use the Love Dare, they use it as a tool—a manipulation—to gain control of their wives. Most of them are so used to getting immediate gratification that they have no patience with the Love Dare, and give up in the first week or two, as Caleb wanted to do. Because Caleb was urged to keep at it, and also told he was at the hardest part and that he was doing just enough to get by, he stuck with it, more to prove himself to his dad, than because he loved his wife.

If they do stick with it, abusive husbands do it with the intent of appearing to change for awhile in order to manipulate others into giving them what they want. After they succeed, (in Caleb’s case, he wanted his wife to drop the divorce proceedings), they return to the previous demanding, selfish, nasty and abusive behavior—often within six months.

So what will happen with Caleb and his wife? Caleb will go to church and hear that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. But for every time he hears that, he will hear that wives are to submit to their husbands at least twice if not thrice as often. He will hear church people condemn wives whose husbands are nasty to them, saying or implying "If she would submit, he wouldn't abuse."

Depending on which church he chooses, he will hear that he is to be his wife’s authority. With Caleb’s previous thinking that stemmed from his belief that the purpose of having a wife is to have someone who will set her own needs aside and focus her attention on helping him get what he wants, it would be the most natural thing in the world for Caleb to place emphasis on wife submission, and return to his previous nasty behavior. Except this time he has more ammunition, given to him by none other than the church. That would be the end of his self-sacrificial love for his wife.

He may stop beating up the garbage can and screaming in his wife’s face. Why? He would not need to. All he would have to do is take her to a church that emphasizes wife submission and husband authority, and he’d have the equivalent of the pastor and the whole congregation screaming in her face that she MUST submit.

Although the Love Dare may work in marriages where the couple has grown cold or grown apart, it is very unlikely to work in the long term in a marriage where the husband abuses his wife. Because the church does not emphasize “husbands submit to your wives,” it is possible the Love Dare would work in the long term if the WIFE was the abuser and gave her heart to the Lord.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof: part 3, The Minimization of Sin

I am also troubled by the fact that Caleb’s behavior was labeled “selfishness” thus minimizing (making an action or thing appear very small and inconsequential compared to what they actually are) his abuse of his wife. This is troubling to me because so many pastors avoid the use of the word “abuse” unless it is a physical assault. With a popular movie like “Fireproof” actually SHOWING what John Piper calls “verbal unkindness,” I am troubled by the minimizing that both Piper and Fireproof use when referring to domestic abuse. This minimization results in wives not realizing they are being abused and that they are in danger. The common knowledge I had 20 years ago, was if my husband hit me, that was abuse. The real truth is that shoving me up against the wall and pinning me there while he screamed in my face was physical abuse, too. And all the nasty stuff my husband did was abuse as well and was made more powerful because of his previous physical attack. Piper, the authors of Fireproof, and others, fail to realize that ONE physical attack makes it clear to the abuser’s target that ANY “verbal unkindness” is a threat that the abuser may repeat the physical attack. Abuse does not need to be “regular” to be devastating. Giving her “the look” which reminds her that he will hurt her if she doesn’t please him, can be just as abusive and traumatic as his actually doing it.

Caleb admits to being selfish and to trampling all over his wife, but doesn’t mention that he also abused her economically and emotionally, that he isolated her by limiting her access to money and what it can buy, he intimidated and threatened her and tried to coerce her into being his slave. He also minimized his own behavior, denying that any of the fault was his, while he blamed her for everything. He also lusted after the women on the porn sites, (and probably in real life) which is another form of adultery, which is also abuse and implies that his wife is not good enough. All of these are abusive behaviors that are aimed at coercing or dominating his wife, at using or discarding her for his own ends, at disregarding her personhood and her humanity.

The writers of Fireproof did a good job of showing a textbook abuser in action. However, their choice of an abusive character, their minimization of Caleb’s abusive behavior together with their statement at the end that a wife can implement the Love Dare and save the (abusive) marriage, suggests to abused wives who view the movie, that they, too, should deny and minimize their husband’s abusive behavior, and if they use the Love Dare, their abusive husbands will start treating them right. As stated in Part 1, this is extremely dangerous. By using an abusive character, it suggests that divorce for abuse is totally unnecessary (possibly sinful) and that the failure of the marriage is the abused wife's fault because she refused to love and sacrifice enough.

Additionally, this movie tells anyone an abused wife goes to for help, that if she would just do the Love Dare and stick with it, no matter how long it takes, her whole problem would go away. Even worse, they may PRESSURE her to do the love dare and stick with it. If she refuses, they are likely to hold her at arms length, shun her, or even drive her out of their church.

Frankly, if the writers had not made Caleb an abuser, the story and its use of the Love Dare may have validity. But as it is, the story appears to claim that if the victim will minimize her husband’s sin and apply the Love Dare, she will likely save her marriage. Therefore, many will likely pick up the implication that if she refuses to apply the Love Dare, she is in rebellion to God, to her husband, and to church leaders as well. Thus, instead of holding the abusive sinner accountable, they contort the truth in order to hold the woman he targets for his bullying and abuse accountable. This makes the church a conspirator in her abusive husband's sin.



Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof, part 2, Putting Pressure on the Person who has Given Everything

Not only is Fireproof based on a faulty premise, as discussed in part 1, it also claims that an abusive person will respond positively to loving behaviors. The second problem with Fireproof, is that it claims that either the husband or the wife can successfully implement the “Love Dare.” Yet, the Fireproof story itself shows how impossible this would be. While Caleb pays the mortgage and car payments, he withholds a third of his income in order to save for a boat. He has $24,000 saved, which gives him the means to buy flowers for his wife and pay for a wheel chair and hospital bed for her mother.

His wife does NOT have those discretionary funds at her disposal. She takes a full time job to be able to pay all the expenses Caleb refuses to cover, and does not have the money to pay for a wheel chair and hospital bed for her mother, who has suffered a stroke, nor to have the door painted or shelves put in the closet. Although Caleb is on duty as a fireman for 24 hours, and then has 48 hours off, he refuses to help with household tasks. His wife is spread thin with her job, household chores, and with helping her parents every weekend. Caleb has plenty of time to relax, to view porn on the computer, to have a social life, to exercise. His wife’s social life is limited to her lunch hour and the weekends when she helps her parents, and she is constantly working.

The Love Dare asks the reader to invest in his or her spouse, to give them a gift, to do special things for them. Yet, these things have been the very things Caleb’s wife was doing for six years. Finally, the seventh year, the year the story focuses on, she has quit doing all those loving extras because they are resulting in her husband becoming MORE selfish, not less selfish, and Caleb is frustrated and angry at her “lack of respect” for him. If making his dinner, washing his dishes, washing his clothes, putting flowers or candles on the table, etc. didn’t bring forth love from Caleb in all those years, the likelihood of the “Love Dare” being successful when Mrs. Caleb tries it is nil. Yet church leaders claim if a wife is loving and submissive like that, her behavior will induce her husband to love and cherish her.

Nothing could be further from the truth—especially if the husband is abusive. This is an extremely important point that church leaders do not seem to comprehend. Abused wives in particular are usually spread very thin. Since they are trying like everything to regain the love their husbands once appeared to have for them, they are focused on doing all those extras, on being so perfect their husband will have no reason to gripe and call them names and tell them they are worthless nobodies. Usually, wives do this for quite awhile before they begin to realize that their husband is taking advantage, using them and making ever more ridiculous demands to regain that sense of wielding power over another.

I must add here that it is the voluntary submission of the wife—submission to avoid an ugly denigrating attack—that causes abusive husbands to attack their wives, either physically or non-physically. When the wife showers her husband with loving and submissive behaviors, many abusers consider that a weakness and "go in for the kill," to thoroughly establish their power and control. Other times an abuser begins to think she is doing it by her own choice, not because of his coercion. Therefore, if her actions originated from her own choice, he is no longer in control. Since she is being so perfect, he must change his rules for her, even if he has to resort to the ridiculous, in order to regain that sense of dominating her. If an abuser has any inner prompting to feel ashamed of himself and change his ways, he tends to quickly squash it and be even more vicious to silence that inner prompting.

This is opposite of what church leaders teach. Bruce Ware, for example, has stated that it is the non-submission of the wife that induces her husband to attack her. This may be the case occasionally, but most of the time, the wife is bending over backward to keep her husband and home happy, and her husband abuses her because he is frustrated that he lacks a FEELING of domination over her, or conversely, because he does feel that power and believes his power gives him the right to attack her for whatever reason he makes up.

It is time to stop pressuring the person who is already doing all she can, and start pressuring the one who is doing next to nothing.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof: Part 1, the Faulty Premise

I watched the movie “Fireproof” again, and the difficulty I had with it before has increased, along with the conviction that if I had tried it on my husband, it may have “worked” and “saved our marriage,” but it would not have provoked my husband to love or respect me, and would have destroyed me. Indeed, his abuse would have increased, as it already had in the years I tried to do all the loving things church leaders recommend that wives do for their husbands. The only way it would have worked in our marriage, is if my husband had committed to loving me with a genuine love. As it is, every time he behaved the least bit loving, I responded with the same. Often the loving behavior was a set up to get me to trust him enough so he could jerk the rug from under my feet and totally humiliate me. As Mrs. Caleb in “Fireproof” did, I also learned to treat any nice behavior from my husband with suspicion. Not once has that suspicion been unwarranted.

But now a closer look at the movie:

First, the premise of the movie is that either spouse can save their marriage by using the Love Dare as a tool. This spouse must commit to loving their spouse unconditionally, no matter what their partner does.

This is just plain bad theology based on a half truth. While it is true that God loves us unconditionally, it is not true that He protects us from the consequences of our behavior. The Bible speaks of God divorcing his wife, Israel because of her continual rejection and whoring after other Gods. The Bible is also clear that even though He loves us unconditionally, continued rejection or advantage-taking or sin will be rewarded with Hell fire. Yet the Love Dare requires that a spouse refuse to confront his or her husband or wife for any behavior—including sinful, selfish, or evil behavior against the spouse—and be all “loving” and nicey-nice instead. If the book and movie limited that to 40 to 80 days, that would be one thing. But the whole idea is that this unconditional love is to go on until one of the spouses dies, regardless of whether the recipient of that “love” chooses to respond with loving behaviors in return or finally grows to “deserve” it.

Because of the abuse scene in the movie, where Caleb screams in his wife’s face and denigrates her, the premise of the movie also implies that a person who is abused should try the “Love Dare,” and implies that they would be successful at “saving” the marriage. However, the “Love Dare” is sold as an ideal that a person should continue to implement even though the initial 40 days did not bring about positive change. This is VERY DANGEROUS for abused spouses. Not only does it ignore the fact that one of the characteristics of abusers is that they see loving behavior as a weakness, and when they see weakness, they mount an attack to totally destroy the “weak” person. In other words, if the selfish spouse is also an abuser, his wife would be quickly damaged by even TRYING the “Love Dare.” And if her belief in the rightness of the “Love Dare” is strong enough to convince her to stick with it, there is a very high likelihood that she would be destroyed through illness—often a mental illness like anxiety or depression, both known for shortening lives and/or being extremely debilitating--or through violent death at the hands of her husband. And the resulting destruction to the children would continue generation after generation, resulting in more abuse and/or murder, or more depression/anxiety/nightmares.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Some Men Get It

Several hundred men at the University of Missouri-Kansas City walked a mile in heels to make a statement against rape and sexual assault. http://www.kmbc.com/news/21072643/detail.html. Granted, they are making a statement to their peers and to show support to women, not beating up rapists or helping an abused woman find housing, but it is more than many Christian “leaders” like John Piper or Bruce Ware would do. Perhaps Mark Driscoll, who loves the dramatic, should wear pumps when he preaches, so he could walk a mile in women’s footwear and learn to respect them.

Speaking of walking in someone else’s shoes, Piper, Ware, Driscoll, and others with abused-wives-must-endure rhetoric, should do a spouse swap with the wives they blame or refuse to defend. The abused wives and their children would live with one of the preacher’s wives, and the preacher would live with the abusive husband. The husband who uses “verbal unkindness” against his wife, should treat the preacher to frequent daily doses of verbal dumping, and meanwhile the wife and children could have a few weeks of blissful peace apart from their dictator. Perhaps after 2 miserable weeks walking in the shoes of abused wives, the preachers would change the lyrics and sing a different tune.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

The Hypocrisy and Immaturity of John Piper

The recent uproar over John Piper’s answer to the question, “What should a wife’s submission to her husband look like if he’s an abuser?” (See http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-7071), has largely focused on biblical principles Piper’s recommendations violated, as well as his seeming ignorance about the dynamics of abusers, their behavior and their relationships, and the effects of the abuse as well as the behavior of those the abuser targets—usually his wife and children. The comments did not compare what he said in his answer with what he has written elsewhere.

In the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which he co-authored with Wayne Grudem, Piper’s views are radically different from his answer to The Question. Piper wrote Chapter 1, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity: Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible.” Piper believes “Mature masculinity expresses itself not in the demand to be served, but in the strength to serve and to sacrifice for the good of women.” He goes on to explain that leadership is not a demanding demeanor, but rather moving things forward toward a goal. He emphasizes that the husband is to love his wife like Jesus loved the church when He gave himself up for her. (Italics are Piper’s.) Piper apparently classifies abusive husbands as immature, since they demand slavery from their wives and consider it unmanly to be anything but the top dog,.

His 3rd point defining mature masculinity is that it “does not presume superiority, but mobilizes the strengths of others.” Piper’s definition again classifies abusive husbands as immature, since they are notorious for exalting themselves and abasing their wives.

His 5th point, “Mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance,” also classifies abusive husbands as immature, since they are known for demanding the final say in the most ridiculous instances and some demand the final say in every instance.

His 9th point is that “mature masculinity recognizes that the call to leadership is a call to repentance and humility and risk-taking,” and his explanation emphasizes that a responsible man must be careful and humble in his leading. Here again, Piper's definition labels abusive husbands as being immature, since their carefulness is to manipulate, deceive, lie, demand, or whatever it takes to be in control of their wives. And humility is non-existent. Except perhaps for an abuser’s occasional show of repentance when he fears he will lose his reputation or even lose his wife. He may be “humble” when he asks other controlling and abusive men how to win over his wife in a particular area, but it is not a true humility since one of his core beliefs is that he is superior to his wife, even if she outshines him in every way.

Another point Piper makes is that “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women…” He states that this sense of responsibility is for “women in general, not just for wives or relatives.” Piper uses the illustration of a man walking along the street with a woman, who may be his wife, his sister, his friend, or a total stranger, and “an assailant threatens the two of them with a lead pipe. Mature masculinity senses a natural, God-given responsibility to step forward and put himself between the assailant and the woman. In doing this he becomes her servant. He is willing to suffer for her safety. He bestows honor on her. His inner sense is one of responsibility to protect her because he is a man and she is a woman.”

Since abusers fail the mature masculinity test in the above statements, we have to conclude Piper considers them immature. But why would he refuse to do anything to address the issue? Why would he tell wives to endure for a season, until their abuser “smacks” them? On the one hand he seems to deny that a pattern of “verbal unkindness” is domestic abuse, but on the other, his mention of a husband “smacking” his wife suggests he does know that “verbal unkindness” sometimes escalates into physical violence. According to Piper’s own view of mature masculinity, his refusal to protect the wives in his congregation until AFTER a physical attack from their own husbands, classifies him with those whose masculinity is IMMATURE.

If Piper really believes these statements that he wrote, he should be telling abused wives to alert him as soon as they recognize abuse so that he can confront the abuser with training on how to be a mature husband. Instead of drawing the line at physical abuse, he should teach his congregation that unkind verbal assaults are absolutely NOT ACCEPTABLE. But he doesn’t. Instead he allows the abuse to go on and on and on—apparently for as long as the abuser does not resort to hitting his wife. He does NOTHING to protect her until AFTER she has been assaulted.

Piper’s own written words when held up next to his answer to the question, “What should a wife’s submission to her husband look like if he’s an abuser?” classify him as one with immature masculinity. And his written statements along with their implication that HE is a mature man who would step in to protect women, when put side by side with his spoken answer, expose his hypocrisy.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Part 4, Who or What is responsible for the destruction of the family? Imprisonment = Marriage?

Many church leaders declare that the break down of families began with the rise of feminism, specifically when women started going to work outside the home. As discussed in part 1, one reason is that when men and women who are not married to one another are in the workplace together, there is an increased temptation to sin. This is blamed on the women, instead of on the husbands whose hearts are not committed to loving their wives. Another reason for placing the blame on the women’s movement, is that if a woman did not make an income, she would be less likely to leave her husband simply because she would be financially unable to care for herself and her children. In other words, Christians with the “blame women’s liberation” viewpoint, want to imprison women and children in hostile and miserable environments for the sake of preserving “the family.”

Their viewpoint seems to be that as long is there is no separation or divorce; the family is intact and the marriage is not destroyed.

But is this true?

First, what makes a marriage? Is it not the keeping of the vows? Is it not the keeping of oneself for the other, to love and to cherish in sickness and in health, for better or for worse till death parts them? If this vow is not kept, the marriage covenant has been broken. If the offending party does not repent in both word and action, the marriage is destroyed. Even if the offending party “repents” in word and action, if he/she repeatedly returns to the sin, the marriage is still destroyed. Why? Because there has been a major betrayal and trust has been broken and the person who broke the trust is not doing what it takes to reestablish trust. In order for a marriage to work there MUST be trust—trust that the other party has his/her spouse’s best interest at heart, not just his/her own.

Many would contend that “for better or for worse” means that a wife must stay married no matter what her husband does to her. But that argument is taking those words out of their context. The earlier phrase “to love and to cherish” requires that “for worse” is not to be done by the hand of either spouse. The worse is to be from sources outside the couple’s control. (Abuse is not outside the perpetrator’s control.)

Some would contend that a wife who does not submit to her husband’s every command and wish is not “loving and cherishing” him, and that SHE is breaking up the marriage, yet forget that him making demands is neither loving nor cherishing and that by making those demands he has already broken the marriage vows.

So is it the wife in the workplace, whose income allows her freedom from a broken down marriage that is causing the breakdown of the marriage? No. It is the prior too-frequent and ongoing non-cherishing behavior that broke down the marriage. Divorce is admitting and resigning oneself to the reality of what has already occurred and is the status of the marriage. Divorce creates a safety zone for the harmed person(s), consequences for the offending spouse, and makes public and legal what is already the truth.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com