Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Subverting the Gospel—Husband Authority

The following comment came from “Rose” in response to my post “Husband, Give Yourself up for your Wife.” Since my response was going to be lengthy, I chose to publish it here, rather than in the comment section.
Your arguments are the extreme opposite of "wives submit to your husbands." You want husbands to completely submit to their wives. When, in actuality, if people stop being feminist and read the text for what it is, you realize that both are supposed to happen. Wives are supposed to give their husbands leadership over the family (examples would be allow him to make big decisions for the family WHILE STILL making her opinion known, trusting him to lead the family spiritually just like Jesus leads us) and the husband is supposed to give himself up for the wife (examples would be putting her first in his life under God and serving her in this way). I am a woman myself and completely rebuke the feminist ideas because they are not biblical. Instead of getting offended that your husband is supposed to lead you and your family, accept it as a wonderful gift from God and a blessing and act of servitude from your husband as he does his absolute best to make sure the best comes for your and your children.

The only truthful statement in this entire comment is: “…both are supposed to happen.” Rose got that part right. Both husband and wife are to submit to one another. This blog is focused on the tyranny of one-way submission that is taught by so many who claim to be Christians. Although complementarian preachers may tell husbands to love their wives, when the preachers are asked to deal with unloving husbands, they blame the wives instead. Basically then, their teaching about husbands loving their wives self-sacrificially is meaningless, and husbands know this. Wives find out about it when they go to their pastors for help after being abused--usually for a long time--by their husbands.

The rest of Rose’s comments are based on falsehood. “You want husbands to completely submit to their wives.” Although this statement is true, I do believe it is biblical for husbands to completely submit to their wives, that is not what Rose meant. From the context it is clear that she meant to say that I think ONLY husbands are to completely submit to their spouses. I never said that, nor do I believe it, and no egalitarian or Evangelical Feminist believes that, either.

The next false statements are: “if people stop being feminist and read the text for what it is…” and “Wives are supposed to give their husbands leadership over the family…” If one reads the text for what it is, one finds that husbands are NEVER told to lead their wives, and wives are never told to give their husbands leadership over the family. Never. In fact, when one checks the concordance for “guide” in I Tim. 5:14, one finds the translators chose the wrong word. They should have chosen “rule.” Paul was telling young women to get married, bear children, and RULE their homes. They were to be the “head of the house.” Husbands are never told to do that. If wives are told to rule their households, why would they "give" that rulership to someone else? Those who are church leaders are to manage their children, but nothing is ever said about husbands, even those who are church leaders, managing their wives. Rose, you need to read the text for what it is. You don’t even have to be a feminist to see the truth that is there.

Rose also says: “Instead of getting offended that your husband is supposed to lead you and your family, accept it as a wonderful gift from God and a blessing and act of servitude from your husband as he does his absolute best to make sure the best comes for your and your children.”

Rose, I am not offended when a husband practices loving self-sacrifice as he is commanded. But I have one leader, Jesus, and I reject any others. When a man—even one who is my husband—attempts to take the place of Jesus in my life, I will—rightfully—get very offended. I will be offended that he is practicing exactly what Jesus told him not to do, lord it over me, and that he is trying to convince me to agree with his twisting of scripture. I refuse to live by his scripture-twisted rules. As Paul stated in Galatians 2:5, I will not yield to him, I will not be put in bondage, no, not for an hour, because that would subvert the truth of the gospel.

The Bible DOES say, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God,” and then shows how that is done. Wives, by submitting to their husbands, and husbands by loving their wives self-sacrificially. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, is said about husbands ruling or leading, being the authority over their wives, making the final decisions, nor about wives giving their husbands those privileges or entitlements. All those directives are entirely MAN-made doctrine.

And that man-made doctrine has the very damaging side-effect of CAUSING domestic abuse and domestic violence. It harms everyone it touches, including Rose.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Joyful Submission

Having been an abused wife, I cringe every time I hear or read that wives are required to submit joyfully to their husbands. In my mind it means to be joyful when I am humiliated by my husband, joyful when he orders me around, joyful when he mistreats me, joyful when my husband mistreats my child, joyful when he destroys my things, joyful when my husband threatens me. It is the ultimate in domestic abuse because it not only demands that wives both permit themselves to be abused—submit to abuse and abuser—and accept the justification husbands, pastors and church folk put forth to force wives to tolerate the abuse, it also demands that wives be happy—joyful—about being violated by their own husbands who promised to love and cherish them.

The fact that this is the experience of so many wives, leads me to examine whether “joyful submission” to one’s husband is biblical. Does the Bible ever command wives to submit JOYFULLY?

First, I look up the word “Joyful” in the concordance to see if it is ever connected to “submission.” Out of 25 occurrences, nearly all of them are about being joyful to the Lord for some marvelous thing He did. Exceptions are Esther 5:9, when Haman went home joyful because he thought he was promoted, Ps 113:9 when the barren mother has children (and is rejoicing in the Lord), and 2 Cor 7:4 when Paul is joyful in tribulation. Unless one concludes the teaching of “joyful submission” is talking about abused wives being joyful when their “Christian” husbands bring them tribulation, it is an entirely man-decreed doctrine that tells wives to leap for joy as they dump their brains down the garbage disposal and rush to allow the very thing they know will ruin their family. It is foolishness.

Picture it: When the husband overturns the table, dumping the pot roast, peas, mashed potatoes and apple crisp on the floor, along with shards of glass from broken glasses and plates, all doused liberally with water and milk, all because he thinks there is too much salt on the peas, the wife is to submit joyfully. Exactly HOW does that look? Will she be singing Amazing Grace or There is Power in the Blood? But that is being joyful to God and will likely provoke her husband to whack her across the mouth.

Perhaps a John Piper moment is what they mean. “My dear husband, I love you very much and joyfully submit to you. I am so sorry the peas were oversalted. I will joyfully make sure they are salted just right in the future. (as if anyone could guarantee that!) I am so sorry to have caused you such distress. What would you have me do now? Shall I clean the mess off the floor or cook you another dinner first? I will gladly do whatever you want.”

Gag me. What a syrupy bunch of hogwash. And why do the husbands who make such messes require their wives to clean them up?

God never asks wives to submit joyfully to their husbands. To say that He does, is to say that He demands that wives grovel at the feet of their husbands and be joyful at their own humiliation. This is a picture of a subjugator and his vanquished foe, not of a love relationship. It has no place in a marriage that is to be a symbol of our loving sacrificial Christ and the reciprocating church.

There is not a single verse in the Bible telling wives to submit to husbands who mistreat them. Slaves are told to submit to harsh masters, I Peter 2:18, but wives are NOT told to submit to harsh husbands. In fact, husbands are told to not be harsh to their wives. (Col 3:19, NIV)

Sapphira buried her brain with the excrement and agreed with her husband to lie to God about the proceeds of the sale of their property. She didn’t even do something that was “clearly” sin, like group sex, as Piper taught. She told a “little white lie” and God held her accountable with her life.

The demand that wives submit joyfully is a demand that wives put their blessing on being mistreated, and even sin joyfully because it isn’t “clearly sin.” BOTH THESE are wrong. While we are to “bless those that persecute us, bless and curse not,” we are never to put our blessing on the sin of persecution, nor on sin. Joyful submission is blessing the sin, because anytime a wife is required to submit against her better judgement, and then pushed to be joyful about it, there is sin involved on the part of the husband.

When husbands love sacrificially and make decisions WITH their wives instead of for them or in opposition to what wives think is best, wives ARE submitting to their husbands, and they don’t have to be told to do it joyfully.

Even worse, it is HUSBANDS who are told to be joyful with their wives. Ecclesiastes 9:9a “Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity.” Once again, a command or recommendation to husbands has been twisted and misconstrued to apply to wives.

We should be hearing, “Husbands sacrifice joyfully for your wives, for that is genuine love and will bring out the best in your wives.”

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Complementarian, Hierarchicalist, or Traditionalist

John Piper and Wayne Grudem write a preface (1991) for “Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.” Here is a telling paragraph:
“A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.”

These are great-sounding words. But do Piper and Grudem live up to them?

First, their so-called equality is limited to salvation and that we are equal in the eyes of God. But they refuse practical equality in the eyes of man. Theirs is equality in name only, not equality that makes any difference in a woman’s earthly life nor that lifts women from the status of “lifetime servants to/slaves of men.” Although they reject the term hierarchiacalist, saying it overemphasizes structured authority, structured authority is exactly what they teach. This authority is so important, that Piper advises wives whose husbands practice “verbal unkindness” toward them, to endure it for a season, and when the husband smacks them one night, to call the pastor in the morning. Talk about minimizing husband-supremist behavior! Most folks would call that traditionalist at the very least, since it winks at selfish and abusive male behavior, and it would not be stretching it to call it hierarchicalist.

Second, although they give lip service to the scriptural command to husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially, that is not what they push. When a wife is mistreated, their first focus is for her to be more submissive. Piper claims to not allow physical abuse, yet tells wives to wait until they are physically abused to report it to a pastor. In other words, he DOES allow physical violence and it is unclear what he will do if a wife calls him in the morning. Will he thoroughly question her about her submission or will he actually hold her husband accountable?

Note that the term “mutual interdependence” is not the same as “mutual submission,” but the context of the paragraph--"equality," "overemphasis on structured authority," and "challenge traditional patterns of behavior"--leads one to believe Piper and Grudem are speaking of mutual submission. Wayne Grudem believes “mutual submission” except for “mutual consideration and deference,” is unscriptural, He says:

“Within marriage an egalitarian view tends toward abolishing differences and advocates “mutual submission,” which often results in the husband acting as a wimp and the wife as a usurper…”
Grudem claims in Chapter 10 of “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” that husbands are never told to submit to their wives, denying that Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God,” means that the husband is also to submit to his wife. But he claims that “Wives submit to your own husbands” means that husbands have an authority and leadership position, even though the Scriptures never state that husbands are to take authority over their wives, nor command husbands to be leaders of their wives. So even though, husbands are commanded to submit along with everyone else, Grudem denies that this includes a submission to their wives that is equal to the submission of wives to their husbands. Grudem reasons that “Submission acknowledges an authority that is not totally mutual.” Meanwhile, he ignores the “submission” that husbands are called to when they are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it.

Interestingly, Paul Hegstrom, in “Angry Men and the Women Who Love Them,” agrees that the submission of husbands and wives is not mutual, because the submission required of husbands is more demanding than that required of wives. He says:
“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. I Pet. 3:5-6 in essence says that the wife should not be terrified, fearful, or full of anxiety in a godly home. The passage as a whole speaks to the man with a mandate of creating a very safe place where she is not terrified or living in fear and anxiety.”

Which are we to believe, those who subtract submission for husbands from scripture and add an authority that is never mentioned or those who point to the scriptures that state that submission and sacrificial love is required of husbands?

And what of “mutual interdependence” that Grudem and Piper believe is so beautiful? Apparently, they think making wives totally dependent on and obedient to their husbands is beautiful, and that husbands depending upon their wives to serve them and do whatever the husbands want is beautiful. And, of course, getting together to make babies when the husband so desires, is beautiful, too.

This arrangement APPEARS beautiful for husbands, but their prayers are being hindered. As Paul Hegstrom points out, when a man rebels against the principles of loving self-sacrifice toward his wife, (IE a greater submission than her submission) “his prayers will be hindered and cut off, and he will not be able to pray effectively (1 Pet. 3:7).” And wives have to LIE to themselves to convince themselves it is beautiful for them, too. Many a wife who has been freed from the grip of complementarianism, admits that although she told others she was happy, she actually was NOT happy.

It is no wonder Grudem, Piper, and the rest of the complementarians are “uncomfortable” with being called “traditionalist” or “hierarchicalist.” Thieves don’t like being called thieves, either, and con-artists reject being called con-artists, too.

But even the choice of “Complementarian” is a lie. As Piper and Grudem say, the word “suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.” The word does indeed suggest those things, but the complementarian doctrine emphasizes neither equality nor beneficial differences. The doctrine is primarily about the authority of men—husbands in particular—and the submission and subjection of women, with special emphasis on wives. The correct term to define those with Grudem’s and Piper’s so-called complementarian doctrine is Hierarchicalist. It is the Egalitarians who practice true Complementarianism.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See

Monday, May 10, 2010

Absolute Authority Brings Death

BALTIMORE—For more than a week, Ria Ramkissoon watched passively as her 1-year-old son wasted away, denied food and water because the older woman she lived with said it was God's will.
Javon Thompson was possessed by an evil spirit, Ramkissoon was told, because he didn't say "Amen" during a mealtime prayer. Javon didn't talk much, given his age, but he had said "Amen" before, Ramkissoon testified.
~From Monterey County, CA, The Herald 2-24-2010

Although Ria Ramkissoon in the story above was submitting to and obeying a cult leader, marriages where both spouses belong to the same church, and the entire denomination pushes husband authority, and when both husband and wife repeatedly hear teaching that not only grants authority to the husband, but also demands that he wield that authority (some say by force if necessary,) they could easily wind up in the same tragedy that the Ramkissoon family did.

Submission Tyranny kills. When anyone is told they have the right to absolute rule, except for orders that are “clearly sin,” (From John Piper's answer session on “How to submit to your husband when he is abusive,") the stage is set for tragedy. Those teaching this rule apparently have little to no understanding of how domestic violence works, or of its effect on the one(s) who are ruled.

First, the ruler starts with a belief that he has the right to control his wife, and the wife, also believing he has that right, bows herself to that rule and tries her best to subject herself to her husband—no matter what.

Next the ruler-husband imposes rules that are just at the edge of nonsensical, and his partner yields to him, even though those rules do not seem right to her. After all, she has been commanded from the pulpit to submit to her husband in everything, whether or not she agrees with him.

After he has gained that ground, the ruler-husband revels in his power for a time, but soon his sense of supreme power wears off and he goes for another fix. He tries something reasonable, and his wife doesn't protest at that. So he increases the demand to something more ridiculous than his previous nonsensical demand. His wife reasons with him, and he tells her she must submit. She again insists that what he is demanding is over the top, and he tells her if she does not do as he says, she is rebelling against God, which is as the sin of witchcraft, and it is clear that all witches go to hell. So the humiliated wife yields to a demand that feels totally wrong to her, but which she is unable to categorize as sin.

This pattern continues, with the ruler-husband's demands increasingly becoming more and more absurd, and the wife feeling she has no recourse but to do as he says. After all, is sending their son to bed without supper, because he left a sock on the floor, sin? Is it sin to yield to her ruler-husband's demand that she act out the porn he has been watching? It isn't adultery—exactly--so it must be ok, even if she cries herself to sleep afterward, and continues to feel awful days later. Is it sin to throw out a complete setting of dishes for eight because her ruler-husband declares she must because a plate got a chip? The Bible doesn't address that directly, but it feels so wrong she asks their pastor about it. He tells her to submit to her husband, so she puts the whole set in the garbage, even though she really likes the design and it feels all wrong to her.

One day their son leaves his tricycle outside overnight, and her ruler-husband commands that the son is to go without food all day. The wife doesn't feel right about this, but she has already asked the pastor about things she feels are wrong, and the pastor supported her husband. She doesn't want to embarrass herself again. So she obediently keeps food from her son for that day. She gets more and more uneasy as her husband continues to demand that their son be punished for his neglect of his tricycle, but she is so deep into subjection, that she is unable to discern at what point her ruler-husband's demands become sin. Is there anything in the Bible about it being sin to make a child skip meals? She doesn't know, and she can't think straight; the issue is so worrisome. She cannot ask their pastor, and by now she is afraid the state would charge her with child neglect. But she cannot see her way clear to disobeying her husband, either. She knows from earlier times how he will rant, throw things at her, and possibly beat her. And their pastor will say it was her fault for not submitting. So she looks on in horror as her son fades to skin and bones and then dies. Later, as she looks back, she still cannot determine at what point she should have stood up to her ruler-husband and risked the lives of the whole family when that provoked him to rage.

Complementarians seem to think that this scenario is impossible in Christian settings. I want to go on record telling them it is very possible. I, personally, did many things I should never have done, because I was taught that is what a wife is required to do. I, personally, was unable to think straight, went to the pastor for help, and was advised to submit to my ruler-husband.

I am not proud of these things. Although the Bible is not specific about those individual demands, they violated scriptural principles. It wasn't until I separated from my ruler-husband and his over-powering ways that I began to be able to reason correctly, and to know for certain that the feeling that those things were wrong, was correct.

Wives submit to your own husbands is not a command that overrides all other biblical commands. We are also commanded to be good stewards, to behave in loving ways toward others, to bind up the broken-hearted (rather than help a ruler-husband oppress the broken-hearted), to obey the laws of our land (as long as we are not disobeying God).

Frankly, John Piper is wrong. Wives must obey God rather than man. And the demands of the ruler-husband does not need to be “clearly sin” for them to be wrong in the eyes of God. Sin is not limited to sexual sin, nor to what Piper thinks are obvious and gross sin. “Little” sins, like “verbal unkindness” are just as much sin as things that are “clearly sin.” In fact, the “verbal unkindness” of abusive ruler-husbands is aimed at getting the wife to agree she is worthless and inferior. If the wife agrees with that, she is also sinning. Indeed, the belief that they are inferior and worthless is a hallmark of abused wives.

Not only is husband authority a sin that leads to death, it is also a sin that FORCES the wife to sin in spite of her best intentions and efforts to remain righteousness. It is sin that is CAUSED by subjection to her ruler-husband.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See

Saturday, May 8, 2010

The Love of a Husband

Many Christians put so much of their attention on the submission of wives that they leave a huge void concerning the love of husbands for their wives. Furthermore, the statements of popular leaders like John Piper, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and John MacArthur who emphasize husband authority, excuse the unloving behavior of husbands and place the blame for the husband's abuse on his wife, give the impression that husbands do not need to love their wives at all, that the focus of husbands should be to insist that their wives submit to them. Where exactly is this command in scripture? Besides the command of the Gentile king in Esther, it is NOT in scripture at all. Complementarian doctrine is taking men off the narrow way and into the ditch.

What ARE husbands told to focus on? They are to love and sacrifice for their wives. Since when is demanding obedience either love OR sacrifice?

So what does a husband's love look like? First, consider what a man does to interest the woman on whom he has set his sights. He calls her a bad name, right? He tells her she's a lousy cook, or that her hair is full of cooties. Absolutely not! A woman who is treated like that, is likely to have nothing to do with him. If he persists in such behavior, she will likely tell him a home-truth or two that will have him slinking away in shame. Does he approach her and tell her that God told him she is to submit to him? Of course not! She'd rush away from him as fast as she could or laugh in his face. Yet, this is how husbands presume to “love” their wives.

So how DOES a man convince a woman to date and marry him? He speaks respectfully to her, he treats her as he would like to be treated, he shares his thoughts and feelings with her and listens to her thoughts and feelings as well. He becomes her friend, her companion, someone she can rely on, and she returns the favor. He begins to include her in his plans, making decisions together; first for what they will do on a given day, and much later where they will live and how they will raise children.

Yet, once they are declared husband and wife, the husband changes his behavior. He no longer makes decisions WITH her unless he wants to. He makes decisions FOR her, and orders her to follow them. He stops loving her and starts ordering her—but insists his ordering her is loving her. He shifts his entire focus from loving and winning her to dominating her. He calls this possession and smothering of her spirit love.

Men do this in varying degrees. Some through belief in the complementarian view alone, maintain a “trump card” that they can pull out at any time. Even if they rarely use that card, it is still there. The inequality is still a form of domination. Others go a step further and expect their wives to get permission for nearly everything: how money is spent, whether she can go anywhere, what they will eat and when, what her role is, and how many children they will have, and what she will believe of the scriptures. Still others use verbal, emotional, and spiritual abuse to keep their wives humiliated and subjugated. And then there are those who use physical violence in addition to verbal, emotional, and spiritual abuse to keep their wives under their control.

These husbands protect their wives from others, but don't consider that the person their wives most need protection from is their husbands.

Basically, husband, go back to courting your wife. Even though your wife says she doesn't want to make a decision, encourage her to start thinking about what she would decide if given the opportunity, but do not force her to make a decision. If you withheld from her the freedom to make choices, she will need time and encouragement to grow in this skill. Talk to your wife and listen to her, like you did when you were courting—or even better than you did when you were courting. Treat your wife as you would like to be treated if you were her. Although you will have to ask her for the details, many behaviors are common knowledge. Would you like your input scorned or ignored? Of course not! Then don't scorn or ignore or brush off her input. Would you like to be treated as less important than she is? Of course not! So stop treating her like she is less important or less valuable than you are.

Honor your wife. This is not limited to telling her flowery words, giving her roses, chocolates, and jewelry, or honoring her on Mother's Day. Honor her by listening attentively to her thoughts,ideas, and feelings--even when they are complaints about your behavior. Don't silence her. Discuss how money and time will be spent and make decisions together. When you don't agree, don't pull out the trump card and expect her to do it your way. Instead, keep brainstorming for ideas until you find one that works for both of you. When you have a deep abiding love for your wife, you will be concerned that she is satisfied, that decisions do not hurt her.

And don't forget to sacrifice for your wife. Put your own needs and wants aside so that she can go back to school, go on that trip, or anything else she believes would be beneficial to her. Stop thinking all the cooking,housework and child care is her job. Pitch in. It is your job, too. Do your own laundry if your wife agrees that would be helpful, and throw the boys' jeans in with your own. And PLEASE do NOT wash light and dark colors together!

A husband who enjoys fellowshipping with his wife, is likely to have a wife who enjoys fellowshipping with him. Real fellowship requires trust, friendship, and equality in both everyday life and in your social and spiritual lives. Give your wife the gift of equality in every area. Never assume you know better than she does; perhaps YOU are the person who lacks information. Talk it out, research together, decide together.

Lastly, read I Corinthians 13 together—perhaps once every 4-8 weeks. Does your wife feel safe enough to be honest with you and tell you if the chapter describes you? If she doesn't feel safe (and you may have no way of knowing) and/or if the chapter does not describe you, you need to improve in loving your wife and in giving her preference over yourself. In fact, it is best to presume that you always have room for improvement in loving your wife.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

God as Parent 101

God is our father. He told all of us to submit to one another; wives to submit to their own husbands and husbands to love their wives so much they will sacrifice for their wives. Complementarians don't seem to understand that their focus on wife submission and husband authority is in itself a sin that would be punishable if their own daughters did it.

Consider: if you the parent gave directions to 2 of your children. You told your daughter to set the table, and your son to vacuum the dining room floor. While your daughter sets the table, your son doesn't even bother getting the vacuum out. Instead, he critically watches his sister's every move.
He says to her, “Mom (or Dad) told you to HURRY UP and set the table.”
Your daughter replies, “She didn't tell me to hurry. She just said to set the table. And she told you to vacuum the floor.”
“No, she didn't,” your son says, “she told me to make sure you do a good job, and do it fast. Now get a move on!”

Which of the children pleased you, the parent? The one who was obeying you, or the one who made himself into a god, added to your words to your daughter, and ignored and disobeyed your instructions to him? Would you allow your son to get by with disobeying you?

Sadly, quite a number of complementarian parents WOULD allow their sons to get by with such behavior, and they'd make their daughters accountable for their brother's behavior, and tell their daughters to vacuum the floor after dinner, too.

However, if the behaviors were reversed, and the daughter was the one who had not obeyed, who had added to the directions for her brother, and focused on his work instead of her own, she would be punished.

Sadly, those same parents encourage their sons to focus on wife subjection, change the command of God for husbands to “authority,” instead of love and sacrifice, and mistreat their wives, sisters and mothers.

The disobedience to God begins at childhood, when parents hold girls responsible for obeying, but dismiss the disobedience of boys, saying “boys will be boys.” Some parents purposely raise boys to take charge of and assume superiority over others—especially girls—instead of taking charge of themselves and considering others better than themselves. Meanwhile, they raise girls to assume the mantle of slavery, obedience, and inferiority to males.

It is as children that boys learn to disrespect women and girls, and believe themselves to be so superior that domestic abuse is the natural manifestation of their strongly taught and deeply engrained belief.

But God is not mocked. Children who disobey Him, will reap what they have sown.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Husband Submission to Wife Prohibited

Within marriage an egalitarian view tends toward abolishing differences and advocates “mutual submission,” which often results in the husband acting as a wimp and the wife as a usurper.
~Wayne Grudem, editor of Biblical Foundations For Manhood And Womanhood

Grudem is right. The Bible says NOTHING about husbands submitting to wives. At least, not in so many words in Ephesians 5.

However, I Peter 5:5 says “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, ALL of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble.”

Now, for Grudem’s view to be correct, we must conclude Peter is only talking about males in this directive. MALES are to be subject one to another and be clothed with humility [toward one another only]. It is unlikely this was written to females only, because that is not specifically stated. And he most certainly could not be ordering males to submit to females, particularly NOT husbands to wives. Since males were considered the superior gender in the New Testament era, and since Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood also consider males to be the superior gender, we must conclude the Bible, which was written by males, was primarily written to males, except when otherwise stated.

Ephesians 5:21 says “Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God.” This must be speaking to males only. After all, the Epistle to the Ephesians was written to the saints at Ephesus, and no females, particularly, wives, could EVER be saints. Therefore, the book MUST have been written to males, except for Ephesians 5:22-24, of course. That was most definitely written to wives, since it orders them to obey their husbands.

Furthermore, isn’t there a verse in the Bible (can’t think where it is located) that says: “The Lord sayeth, husbands, keep your wives in all subjection. Let not submission to your wives be known among you, for it is not seemly for a husband to submit to his wife. He that submitteth to his wife shall have his part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. Rather, let the husbands rule their wives first with tongue lashings, cursings and threats, and then through withholding of money and friends and forcing them on the marriage bed, and then through smiting with the hand. If the wife refuse to subject herself to her husband, let the husband bring it to the church, and let the church rebuke her. If she still puts on the cloak of Jezebel the rebel, let her be considered a heathen, and let no one have anything to do with her.”

Oh, yes, you can find that in the book of Ahasuerus 1:22

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge," a novel about a wife who discovers traditional marriage advice doesn't always work. See