Sunday, May 29, 2011

Keeping Vows

Some complementarians like to use the account of Abigail and Nabal as support for their argument that a wife should never leave her husband, even if he is abusive. They claim that if the abuse is as bad as the woman says, that God will intervene and either change her husband or smite him so he dies, as He did with Nabal—unless it is God's will that the wife endure abuse for a reason that only God knows. With this reasoning—and it is man's reasoning—they make it clear that according to them, in order for a wife to be obedient to God, she must do nothing to protect herself or her children from harm at her husband's hands.

There are several problems with using Abigail and Nabal to make this point. First, there is no indication that Nabal was abusive to Abigail. Often when a man is abusive at home, he is seen as a pillar of society in public. But in this case, Nabal was known as being churlish and evil in society, and we have no indication what he was like at home. When Abigail told him she had fed David and his men, there is no suggestion that he yelled at her, cut her down, or beat her.

Second, Abigail did not submit to Nabal's every wish or command. In fact, when she went to David with food after Nabal had denied food to David and his men, according to complementarian teaching, she rebelled against Nabal and against God because she did not submit to her husband's authority. In other words, the way Abigail managed to stay married to Nabal was by NOT submitting to him at times.

Third, it appears that Nabal did not live in the same house with Abigail at least part of the time, which could have made it easier for Abigail to stay married because she would have had to endure less of her husband's churlishness, yet had a number of servants to get things done. We know at the time of the account that Nabal was in Carmel sheering sheep, instead of at home in Maon. We also know that Nabal had a lot of property in Carmel, which would have given him good reason to be away from home frequently. Because of our own culture, we could assume that Abigail went with her husband to Carmel, but since he was out working all day, he didn't find out about the busy beehive of food preparation and loading onto asses that happened at his wife's direction, nor about the envoy of asses that left his property, even though it could have taken quite a few hours and been hard for either Nabal or his men not to notice if they were anywhere in the area. Or we could assume that Abigail stayed behind in Maon while Nabal was in Carmel. But if Abigail was in Maon, why would David have been coming against her, instead of against Nabal in Carmel? Especially since we know David knew Nabal was in Carmel. Further, I Samuel 25:36 tells us that Abigail went to Nabal and found he was holding a feast at his house, and that he was merry and very drunk, so she waited until morning to tell him what she had done. Now it seems if they lived in the same house, the servants would have had a limited amount of time to prepare Nabal's feast in the hours after Abigail left with the asses loaded with food, and before she returned in order for her to not have known he was throwing a party fit for a king. Also, if Nabal's feast was held in a house the couple shared, it is unlikely the writer would say the feast was “in his house.”

Fourth, God does not always deal with regular people in the same way that he deals with people he has chosen and anointed for a task. David was God's anointed. Therefore, God sometimes extended extra blessing to those who helped David, and extra trouble to those who gave David trouble. Consider all the trouble Saul dealt with, probably because of his attempts to hunt down David, God's anointed, and kill him. Consider also the widow of Zarephath, who fed Elijah, God's anointed, during a famine when she was nearly out of food, and as a result neither her meal, nor her oil ran out until God sent rain. Yet, there were many other widows during that famine who received no help from Elijah. Recall the curse of leprosy that came on Miriam for her action against Moses, who was God's anointed. David was blessed for not harming Saul, who was God's anointed.

Clearly, there is a biblical pattern of blessing for those who bless and protect God's anointed, and curse or harm for those who harm God's anointed. So God's smiting of Nabal was because of his refusal to aid David, God's anointed, and had nothing to do with Nabal's treatment of his wife.

Fifth, there is a problem with complementarian logic that would require a person to remain in harms way. There are many biblical examples of people who got out of harms way. David fled from Saul, even though he had agreed to play music for him. Paul fled those who would kill him. Lot did not deliver his visitors to the demanding men at his door. Elijah fled from Jezebel. And Jesus didn't stick around to let the people throw him over a cliff, either.

Would any of these complementarians demand that a person remain with the church they had vowed to be faithful to, even after they realized the leader was taking them down a wrong path and would require them to drink poison, or otherwise harm themselves in any way? Would these complementarians demand that a person remain in a church where they are being sexually, physically, emotionally, or spiritually abused by a leader in that church?

Yet, somehow they would have us all believe that marital vows are more binding for women than other vows or agreements, even if keeping those vows leads to our illness or death, as is the case with domestic abuse and domestic violence. It is a known fact that chronic stress increases one's likelihood of getting cancer and other diseases. Recent research has shown that women whose husbands are abusive have much higher rates of illness than non-abused women do, even illnesses like bladder infections that seem unrelated to abuse. And these same complementarians seem to disregard the vow the husbands made before God and man to love and cherish their wives.

I want to know, why are church leaders focusing on wives keeping their vows and submitting, but only giving lip service to husbands truly loving, cherishing, and sacrificing for their wives?

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

10 comments:

  1. In Western countries, abuse is illegal. According to the Bible, God wants us submissive to the authorities of the land.

    I would argue that an abused woman has- not merely "permission" but- biblical OBLIGATION to report abuse of herself or the children to the authorities!

    "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." 1 Peter 2:13-14

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Waneta, Thank you for writing your blog. It has been very helpful. Your question of "I want to know, why are church leaders focusing on wives keeping their vows and submitting, but only giving lip service to husbands truly loving, cherishing, and sacrificing for their wives?" has been a question I have wondered about for a very long time. The second one I wonder about is "Why are most of the females in church leadership focusing on wives keeping their vows and submitting to their husbands rather than teaching them how to hear God and how to become the women He created them to be. Blessings, Song

    ReplyDelete
  3. Waneta,very true. Can I perhaps add something to your point of Nabal being killed because he was against God's anointed, David?

    Some people think that "touch not God's anointed" mean: "My pastor/ husband was anointed by God to lead me, so I should not speak against him, even if he does wrong." It means the opposite - if you are a child of God, you are the anointed and nobody -not pastors or husbands or whoever - should touch you in harm!
    Your readers can get the detail here: http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/touch-not-gods-anointed/

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are right Charis, in western countries women DO have the obligation to report abuse--it is a crime. People who commit a crime against 1 person, will likely commit crime against others--and it often gets progressively worse if the person is not stopped.

    But even in non-western countries, God's law supercedes man's law. "We ought to obey God rather than man." We--even women--are the temple of the Holy Ghost. For some reason, men justify beating, chewing out, threatening, etc women. Would they consider beating or desecrating a temple or church building? Of course not! Yet women--human beings, temples of the Holy Ghost--are seen as less valuable than brick and mortar. Even in countries where wife mistreatment is not illegal, and where women's voices are silenced, women need to find some way to work toward obeying God's laws/standards, instead of mans.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Song, thank you for your encouraging words. You raise an excellent question. I think Jocelyn Andersen provides some answers in her new book "Woman this is War." (available on Amazon & via Jocelyn @ www.womansubmit.com) When you look at history and the shakey ground women in Christian leadership are standing on, it becomes apparent that women know they will lose their leadership positions if they do not maintain and teach male beliefs. In other words, they know where their bread is buttered, so they don't rock the boat. Don't you love my mixed metaphors? Most women in leadership are not in the top positions. They are NOT free to teach/preach or counsel according to conscience or the Word of God. If they did, they'd lose their leadership positions, their influence, and would probably be disciplined, sidelined, and blackballed as well.

    I'm beginning to think we need an all-women-led denomination. Remember the days when women were not allowed to go to college? Wasn't it only after they started women's colleges that the all-male colleges started allowing women to enroll?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Some people think that "touch not God's anointed" mean: "My pastor/ husband was anointed by God to lead me, so I should not speak against him, even if he does wrong." It means the opposite - if you are a child of God, you are the anointed and nobody -not pastors or husbands or whoever - should touch you in harm!
    Your readers can get the detail here: http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/touch-not-gods-anointed/"

    Retha, you make a very good point. (And Danni Moss has been coming to my mind lately. It is nearly the 1 yr anniversary of her passing to glory.)

    A few bible examples helps clear this up, too. Notice that David didn't refuse to talk bad about Saul. If David had denied the truth, he would have been killed long before he became king. And all those men he had with him who were also in hiding to save their lives, they couldn't possibly been talking among themselves about the goodness of King Saul!

    The "touch not the Lord's anointed" teaching applied that way is more of the Phil 4:8 mis-teaching. It leaves out the first item on the list. It's like trying to make a cake without the first and main ingredient--flour; the main ingredient is missing and that will cause the whole cake to flop. In the same way, when we leave out the main ingredient "truth," sin reigns in that group. Jesus said a little leaven, meaning sin, leavens the whole lump, it tends to spread to the whole group.

    After reading the link to Danni's page, I want to point out that even if a person insists that the Ps 105 passage is speaking of prophets and priests as God's anointed, they also need to remember that in the OT, God's anointed ones were few and far between because the Holy Spirit had not come to the people yet, He only indwelt a select few. Even if David and the prophets and priests of the OT had extra-special anointing of the Holy Spirit, we also have the extra special anointing of the Holy Spirit today. The very scripture they use to say pastors/leaders are to be treated with special deference that allows them to sin with impunity, also has hidden in its depth the reason they are protected--because of their infilling with the Holy Spirit, which is what we as lay-Christians have today. It's time pastors and husbands stop talking bad about us and falsely blaming/accusing/abusing us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. wanetta abused women face fearful daily questions need answers to trust and believe 24-7-365 must care/listen our free global SPREAD THE WORD TALK WITH THE LORD program inspires daily talks catch they need your help with first question our blogs help g hubbard po box 2232 ponte vedra fl 32004 http://talkwiththelord.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I will note that any reading of the Abigail and Nabal story that finds fault with Abigail, does so in contradiction to the text. There is absolutely no indication in the text that Abigail has committed any fault at all. David calls her "blessed" and says she has saved him from taking his own revenge. It is Nabal who is found to be at fault. It's a mistake to read stuff into the text that isn't there-- and this is one instance where there is simply nothing in the text about Abigail's fault, unless one reads it in.

    - Kristen

    ReplyDelete
  9. Welcome G Hubbard!
    Yes, abused women do need encouragement to keep faith in God while they deal with the abuse they face. They can use reminders that the abuse is not from God, that God does NOT favor their abuser, nor excuse or justify the abuse in any way. God sides with the oppressed. When women lose faith, it is usually because the church has betrayed them by siding with the abuser. Any help/encouragement is welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kristen,
    "I will note that any reading of the Abigail and Nabal story that finds fault with Abigail, does so in contradiction to the text. There is absolutely no indication in the text that Abigail has committed any fault at all."

    I agree with you 100%. And I disagree with complementarian teaching, which if correct, would make Abigail into a non-submissive rebel, which the Bible makes very clear is NOT the case.

    "...according to complementarian teaching, she rebelled against Nabal and against God because she did not submit to her husband's authority. In other words, the way Abigail managed to stay married to Nabal was by NOT submitting to him at times."

    The bible calls this righteous.

    ReplyDelete