“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

Part 3, Who or What is responsible for the destruction of the family? Denying Domestic Abuse

Many pastors and powerful men declare that the break down of families began with the rise of feminism, specifically when women started going to work outside the home. Let’s take a closer look at this claim. If their claim is based on the divorce rate, then they would be correct. The divorce rate has risen since women joined the workforce in the 1970’s, But is a couple staying together versus divorcing a true measurement of whether a family is “broken,” or has “broken down?”

Is a couple who remains legally married, but has the proverbial tape down the middle of the house, with each partner living on his/her side, married in any way besides the letter of the law? What about the couple who lives in constant conflict because the wife makes her living as a prostitute against her husband’s wishes? Or the couple where the wife cries herself to sleep every night because her husband repeatedly commits adultery, neglects her by refusing to allow her basic medical care, food, clothing, or love, or abuses her with verbal, emotional, spiritual or physical assaults? Or the couple where one is a drug or alcohol addict to such an extent that he/she offers nothing to the marriage? And what about the family where the wife is aware her husband is sexually abusing one or more of the children? The families in these examples are definitely “broken down.” Remaining legally married may make these marriages legally “intact,” but they are not intact in spirit. These couples are relationally divorced. Furthermore, a child living in any of these situations experiences acute and long-term pain and damage, and cannot develop normally.

Yet the “blame the women’s movement” crowd is the same one that makes a big deal about adultery, but denies the seriousness of domestic abuse and domestic violence and refuses to deal with it, except to tell abused wives to go home and submit to their husbands. Consider John Piper, who expects wives to wait until they are physically abused before they ask their pastors to hold their husbands accountable. (see http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.html) By the time her husband has physically assaulted her, what wife can ever trust him to not assault her again?

With the high percentage women who experience abuse from their husbands, wouldn’t it be logical to expect that DOMESTIC ABUSE is one of the biggest causes of divorce? Wouldn’t it be logical to focus on stopping abuse in order to have healthy and loving families rather than having wives and children who are emotionally and spiritually bruised and so shredded their physical health declines?

So instead of focusing on imprisoning abused wives in their damaging marriages, wouldn’t it be more logical and effective to focus on stopping domestic abuse—even the verbal kind? Instead of assuming that most divorces are caused by the women’s liberation movement, why not examine what is going on in homes that would cause wives to want to be liberated from their husbands? Indeed, if a husband loves his wife instead of controls her, if he follows Christ’s example and lays down his life for his wife, why would any woman want to liberate herself from marriage to a man who showers her with such deep and abiding love?

Considering that so many pastors and churches refuse to hold the husband who abuses his wife accountable, and refuse to teach husbands to love their wives instead of rule and control them, could it be that the pastors who do this are responsible for the high divorce rate? And the individuals in churches increase the divorce rate by pressuring wives to submit and stay with their abusers, instead of pressuring husbands to love instead of control their wives.

In so doing, pastors and churches also contribute to the loss of membership. Their behavior drives women and children away from churches, and some are even driven away from God. But that is another subject.


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 2, Who or What is Responsible for the Destruction of the Family, The Lies

I am discussing the rhetoric of many church leaders who declare that the break down of families began with the rise of feminism, specifically when women started going to work outside the home. Is this claim valid? In part one I pointed out that when a wife is held accountable for her husband’s sin, this leads to the destruction of their family because it frees the husband to sin without consequences.

There is another cause of the break down of the family, and that is the collection of lies mixed with scripture-twisting that is told to both husbands and wives by pastors and faith leaders. Both spouses are told that a husband feels like less of a man if he is not in control, and urge wives to yield all control to their husbands. Husbands are told that a home (wife) controlled by the husband is a godly home. Wives are told they will be happier if they submit IN EVERYTHING and that husbands will respond with a deep and abiding love for their wives. Furthermore, wives are directed to expend energy in thinking of ways to please their husbands, whether it is to cook his favorite foods or to be an exciting bed partner, and that these behaviors will entice husbands to love their wives even more.

The problem with these lies is that they teach husbands to sin, by claiming both he and his wife should consider his “natural” desire to control her as something other than sin. Each of us has our hands full controlling ourselves. Each of us must grow to control our tongues, for example, which no man can tame, and to bring our actions under the control of the Holy Spirit. No one can do it for another. It is a full time job for each individual. So how can we expect a wife who is being chewed out by her husband, who obviously cannot control his own tongue, to give herself over to his evil control?

These lies also urge wives to sin by committing “husbandolatry,” a term coined by Jocelyn Andersen. A wife should be putting her energies into serving and pleasing God. A portion of that does go to her husband, but serving her husband (and children) should not be her entire focus.

The lies also offer false hope to women and a false sense of Godliness to men. Indeed, the home (wife) controlled by the husband IS a godly home, with the husband being its god. Scripture teaches husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church, self-sacrificially, laying down their lives for their wives. No scripture commands husbands to rule their wives, with the exception of King Xerxes’s edict before Esther became queen. (Are Christians really going to obey the edict of a Gentile, drunk, and ungodly king?) Yet pastors and churches make a big deal about husband AUTHORITY, which is not scriptural. In fact, the same verses in I Timothy that say a bishop or deacon should be a husband who rules his household well, also prohibits him from violence and commands him to be gentle and peaceable. This suggests the very first person he needs to take authority over is himself.

Wives have been grabbing onto the “Submit no matter what” doctrine as if it is a lifeline. Wives whose husbands are indifferent or abusive toward them have been taught that if they submit, their husbands will love them. But they do not realize that a husband who chooses to verbally assault his wife, hates her. When she submits to his “This is a crisis; we have to do something immediately” speech, (sounds Obama-esque) when the situation is neither a crises, nor is his solution the answer, he ends up hating her even more. The result is that his contempt and abuse of her will increase. Her submission to his stupidity ends up completely killing off any love for her he may have left. And the husband’s belief that his selfish demands make him more Godly, destroys his love for anyone but himself.

So who or what is responsible for the break down of marriages? Whoever is teaching these lies. A wife’s submission is to be a response to her husband’s love. His demands carry with them an unspoken (sometimes spoken) “You are garbage if you do not do what I say,” that insists that she sin by adopting her husband’s false assessment of her, rather than adopting Christ’s assessment of her. (You are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. And etc.) Sin begets more sin, and “sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” including the death of the couple’s marriage.

The over-submission may appear to work—for awhile. But in the long run, a husband cannot respect a wife who does not respect herself enough to refuse to submit to him when he insists she jump into the manure lagoon.



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 1, Who or What is responsible for the destruction of the family? Mis-assigning responsibility

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. Is this claim valid? How would women in the workplace have anything to do with the breakdown of the family?

One way is that their presence and close work association tempts men to commit adultery. In essence, the church leaders are blaming working women for the sin and weakness of men. This is one of those Adam claims, “The woman you put in the office with me did tempt me and I did sin.” However, Christian men know it is foolish to blame God, so they focus all the blame on women. Instead of saying “I must keep my pants up, I must keep my pants up, I love my wife, I wouldn’t do this to her, I love my wife, I wouldn’t put her through such pain and humiliation, this woman probably has habits I can’t stand, so I won’t go there,” men choose to pursue the pleasure of the moment and deal with the consequences later.

If we were to follow this logic through to its obvious conclusion, if women are to blame simply because they are in the presence of men who they are not married to or related to, we would have to agree that the Muslim men are correct when they make laws prohibiting women from going out of the house unless they have a male relative to escort them. Furthermore, if men are actually that weak and frail, the women would have to be covered from head to toe when they do go out to protect the men from lusting after them.

Some groups are close to making such requirements, but seem to realize the ridiculousness of going as far as the Muslim men do. Interestingly, these restrictive laws do not prevent Muslim men from attacking and raping women. True to form, the men cannot hold the weak rapist accountable, so they hold the woman accountable and kill her even though she was always covered from head to toe and always had the proper male escort when she left the house.

The companion reason for blaming the women-to-work movement, is that too many women stray from their husbands to commit adultery with a man in the work place. Tellingly, the “blame the women’s movement” crowd blames the wife when her husband strays, because according to them it is her responsibility to keep his pants up. But when the wife commits adultery, or has an affair of the heart, her husband does not get blamed for failing to meet his wife’s needs. Instead the wife gets blamed again.

Could it be that the real problem is that the wrong person is held accountable for sin? If the wife is held accountable for her husband’s sin as well as for her own, doesn’t that encourage husbands to sin, since there is no punishment nor accountability for men? If husbands become used to freedom to sin without being held accountable, isn’t it likely that just like with leaven, the sin will grow until it overtakes the man and his whole life is ruled by the evil one, until he destroys his family?

So then who or what is responsible for the destruction of the family? Isn’t it those who claim wives are responsible for the sins of their husbands? Isn’t it those who claim a husband is to control his family, but when he sins, his wife is to blame? If a wife is to be accountable for her husband’s sin, she would have to control him. But this is not allowed to wives. They are to SUBMIT, not control.

This leads us to the next cause of the break down of the family.


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

Introduction, Who or What is responsible for the destruction of the family?

Many pastors and powerful men declare that the break down of families began with the rise of feminism, specifically when women started going to work outside the home. A number of groups have arisen to push women to stay home and submit to their husbands. Educated Christian women are pushing this viewpoint, getting up in front of crowds to tell women how detrimental the women’s movement is, when they themselves are profiting from the movement and are unlikely to stop their careers and limit themselves to the sphere(s) they are insisting are the only biblical choices for women. The anger and blame toward career women and toward women who point out how scripture is being twisted so that all the responsibility for submitting is placed on wives and none on husbands is becoming ever more loud, insistent, and belittling. For example, Take the following comment from Anonymous, who replied to my “Hijacked Christianity” post:

you take away and add to scripture, you are aligned with satan and must seek forgivenness, for women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church, this is why your evil feminist perspective is part of the destruction of the family and you are in great delusion or are a planted wolf, i shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you. May Jesus forgive you.

The writer apparently assumes that husbands are already “treating their wives as Christ treats the church,” and that it is the “evil feminist perspective” that is causing wives to be nonsubmissive and that results in the destruction of families.

It is time to examine this claim.

What makes a marriage? What breaks it down? How would women in the workplace have anything to do with the breakdown of the family?

I will examine these more closely in the next posts.


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

A Husband’s Greater Requirement

Paul Hegstrom has come to the same conclusion I have. Husbands are required to submit just as much as wives are. In fact, Hegstrom says greater submission is required of husbands, because they are to lay down their lives for their wives.
As Paul Hegstrom puts it on page 115 of Angry Men and the Women Who Love Them,

Scriptural submission is just as great for the husband as it is for the wife. Eph. 5:25-28 reminds us that as Christ died for the Church, a man should give his life for his wife. A childish, abusive man will spiritually abuse his wife by telling her that she has to be subjected to her husband in everything. He does not realize that a husband's mandate is to literally be willing to sacrifice his life for her. Which is the greater submission? The greater submission is for the man.

Hegstrom points out the same things I did in my July 6, 2009 post, “Itching Ears, part 12 (Cut off Prayers of Husbands).” Husbands are to live considerately with their wives, “

...intelligently recognizing the marriage relationship, honoring the woman as physically weaker, recognizing the equality (joint heirs of grace), one in the same mind (united in spirit), sympathizing with his wife, loving his wife, compassionately, courteously, tenderheartedly, humble-mindedly, never returning evil for evil, never returning insult for insult, never scolding, never given to tongue-lashing, never berating, always blessing, praying for his wife’s welfare and happiness, praying for his wife’s protection, truly pitying (empathizing), truly loving.

If a husband will follow this pattern, the family will be blessed as a unit. If a man rebels against these principles, his prayers will be hindered and cut off, and he will not be able to pray effectively (I Pet. 3:7).

From this research in God’s Word, it is the author’s conclusion that the only prayer that God hears from a man who abuses his wife and family is the prayer of repentance. All other requests are hindered or denied because of God’s hatred of violence.

This is serious! God means business! The man who adds to scripture and gives himself authority over his wife and demands submission from her, while at the same time deleting his own submission role, will not have his prayers answered.

So if he prays for safety as he travels, God will not hear. If he prays for blessing on his business, God will deny his request.

This is not feminism. It is scripture.

Hebrews 10:30-31 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


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

Adding to & Taking From Scripture

Anonymous is right about adding to and taking from scripture.

“You take away and add to scripture, you are aligned with satan and must seek forgivenness, for women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church, this is why your evil feminist perspective is part of the destruction of the family and you are in great delusion or are a planted wolf, i shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you. May Jesus forgive you.”

However, her/his finger is pointed at the wrong person(s). Those who teach that “head” is referring to a husband’s authority or leader role, are both adding to and taking from scripture, and in doing so, start the process of domestic abuse in many marriages. I Timothy 3:4 says a man who wants to be a bishop must be blameless, “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” Notice the surrounding verses that prohibit the chewing out and beating behavior of abusive men. Also notice that nothing is said about ruling his wife. In fact there is no such command in the New Testament. The command to rule one’s wife is given by the sinful King Ahazuerus, a Gentile, as a way to save face when he commanded Vashti to present herself to his banquet hall of drunken men and she did what was right and refused. And in I Timothy 5:14, according to Strong's Concordance, the KJV directive to wives to "guide the house" actually means they are to rule or be the head of the family. So to say that a husband is to rule his wife is to ADD to scripture.

The command to husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, is the correct definition of “head.” When people skip over this teaching or when they exchange it for another by emphasizing the wife’s submission and de-emphasizing the husband’s loving self-sacrifice, they are TAKING FROM scripture.

The entire Submission Tyranny blog points this out. People can call it feminism if they choose, but that makes the Apostles Paul and Peter into feminists, too, since they are the ones who wrote those scripture passages. And since they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those passages, that makes God a feminist, too.

After all, Jesus started the ball rolling in regards to feminism when he spoke to the woman at the well and offered her living water, (the men with him were horrified that he would talk to a woman, and a Samaritan at that!), when he sided with Mary when she washed his feet with her tears and poured expensive perfume on Him, when he told Martha Mary's learning from Him would not be taken from her, when he healed women as well as men although the surrounding culture despised women as mere property, when women were the first to witness the empty tomb. The men in Jesus's culture used, ignored, or treated women with contempt and blame, as they did with the woman who they brought to Jesus claiming they had caught her in the act of committing adultery. Surely she wasn't committing adultery alone! Why didn't they bring the man, too, if the pair was caught in the act? Jesus set the record straight by not heaping blame-for-two on a woman, and by teaching, serving, and respecting women as well as men.

The people who are adding to and taking from scripture are those who set aside the scripture, and replace it with their own male-superior, husband-authority 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

Scripture Abuse: Evil Feminist

Someone, who calls him/herself "Anonymous" left an example of scripture abuse on my “Hijacked Christianity” post (Feb. 15, 2009). I re-read the post to see what was so threatening. Basically, the post says that biblical manhood is self-sacrificial and that biblical womanhood does not put husband and his demands ahead of God, that doing so is idolatry, or as Jocelyn Andersen calls it, "husbandolatry." Remember that when a husband uses this type of scripture abuse against his wife, it is a form of domestic violence, since in trying to control her, he is demeaning her and violating her. This form of abuse can easily lead to physical violence. Instead of publishing it on the comment form, I chose to publish it in this post.

“You take away and add to scripture, you are aligned with satan and must seek forgivenness, for women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church, this is why your evil feminist perspective is part of the destruction of the family and you are in great delusion or are a planted wolf, i shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you. May Jesus forgive you.”

I wonder who Anonymous is. His/her comment is fascinating. On the one hand she/he appears to agree with me, except I would say WIVES are to submit to their HUSBANDS and HUSBANDS are to love their WIVES self-sacrificially as Christ loved the Church, instead of referring to them as men and women. On the other hand, the writer says I am aligned with satan and have an “evil feminist perspective.” Considering that I at times quote scripture and at other times misquote it to show how others misinterpret it, the writer’s condemnation is extreme. Reread the post yourself. http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/02/hijacked-christianity.html
It is pointing out that Christian teaching about husbands and wives is out of balance, that if we are going to have a doctrine that teaches wives to submit to their husbands no matter what, then we must have a companion doctrine that teaches husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially no matter what. Otherwise, wives are put into bondage and husbands make themselves into gods, which is hijacking Christianity.

Notice the name-calling that the commenter embedded in action phrases: “aligned with satan,” “evil feminist perspective,” your…perspective is part of the destruction of the family,” “you are in great delusion,” “or (you) are a planted wolf,” “I shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you.” All of them are either popular phrases used from the pulpit or by husbands to control wives. All of them either suggest or outright declare damnation for the woman who believes scripture teaches that the biblical command to husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially as Christ loved the church, has at least the same level of submission and surrender required from the husband as is required from his wife, and perhaps more (as some men, like Paul Hegstrom, claim).

The husband in my novel “Behind the Hedge” used such phrases, calling his wife Jezebel, and suggesting she was rebelling, which is as serious as using witchcraft. The aim of the comments like this is to coerce women/wives into giving up their God-given authority in the family structure. Yes, authority. I Timothy 5:14 “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” The Strong’s Concordance says “guide the house” means to be “head of the family.” Unlike Ephesians 5:23, Strong specifies that “head” in the definition of I Tim 5:14 means “rule.” The term comes from another word that means “master of the house” or “goodman of the house.” The word “head” in reference to husbands in Eph 5:23 does NOT mean rule.

In addition, as a previous commenter pointed out, the word “keeper” is referring to “guard” or “guardian,” and is not referring to cleaning and cooking. So when wives are told to be keepers at home, they are told to take an authority position.

Apparently the person who commented above, using condemning scriptural terms and hot-button words to express him/herself, feels threatened when scripture is rightly divided and the result is that wives and women are raised to a place of equality beside men, or men are lowered to a place of equality beside 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

Itching Ears, Part 18 (The Missing Commandment)

II Timothy 4:3-4 NIV For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

One of the most devastating passages The Church of the Itching Ears uses to keep women in bondage is Genesis 3:16:

Unto the woman he (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Because of their itching ears, they conclude that God is commanding husbands to rule over their wives. When the result of this teaching is domestic violence, we must re-examine our interpretation of scripture. The result of that examination shows that there are major problems with this interpretation.

First, nothing is said in this passage about this ruler behavior being passed on to future generations, yet multitudes of generations later, men still extrapolate from this that because God says this to Eve, that God is saying it to every wife.

Second, they act as if it is a command to the husband. Compare this verse with Genesis 2:16, “And the Lord God COMMANDED the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Notice the clear statement that God commanded these things. For verse 3:16 to be taken as a commandment, it would have to say:

Unto the woman God commanded, saying, Thou shalt make thyself exceedingly sorrowful and thou shalt multiply thy conception; thou shalt make thyself sorrowful when thou bringeth forth children; and thou shalt place all thy desire upon thy husband, and obey him as his slave and let him rule over thee.

But Genesis 3:16 is not a command. It is a prophecy! It is prophesying of the effect of sin on Adam and how that sin will effect Eve. Remember, Romans 5:12-21 states that sin entered the world by one man, Adam. Some would declare that sin came though Adam AND Eve, but scripture says sin came through ADAM. Genesis 1:27 specifies when MAN means both male and female: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Since there is NO specific spelling out that the word Adam in Romans is referring to both Adam and Eve, and because the text is saying sin and death came to all men by ONE man, and that through ONE man, Jesus, many are made righteous, I have to conclude that sin and death came through Adam, not through Eve. As someone explained, God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree; He did not command Eve. The words Eve spoke to the serpent are likely those Adam passed on to her, and they are not accurate. If Adam indeed passed on to Eve an inaccurate account of God’s command, something about the way he said it would sound “fishy” or ridiculous, which would give Eve reason to lack that absolute conviction of its validity, making her vulnerable to the serpent’s questioning. God knew that, and would not hold Eve accountable for having received sloppy reporting.

Third, there is no command to Adam to rule his wife. Genesis 3:17

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of the wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of they life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The Church of the Itching Ears adds:

“And God commanded Adam, thou shalt rule over thy wife all the days of thy life.”

Or

“A new commandment I give thee: thou shalt rule over thy wife and increase her sorrow.”

God never tells Adam to rule his wife; instead He tells Eve that Adam will rule over her.

Nowhere in the Bible does God tell men to rule their wives. But there are many passages The Church of the Itching Ears uses to try to SAY God is commanding husbands to rule their wives. But actually, the statement is a prophecy of the sinfulness of husbands. As the bride of Christ (and that includes men who follow Christ) purity, sinlessness, and Christlikeness is our goal. Husband authority, power and control over his wife misses the mark and must be rejected both as doctrine and as action.





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