Church Lies

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Most of the time when someone quotes Philippians 4:8, they skip the first two items on the list, true and honest. They focus on noble, lovely, and good report, but delete what is true and honest. Instead, they lie to themselves, and to others.

Was this what the writers to the Philippians intended? Did Paul refuse to look at the ugly? Did he refuse to look at and deal with sin? Did he say their sin was good, was the fault of someone else, or wasn't there at all?

Actually, there are a number of passages where Paul rebukes those who are sinning, a passage where he defends himself against those in the church who are bad-mouthing him. In order to write those passages, he had to spend some time thinking about things that are neither noble, lovely, pure, just, or praiseworthy.

Yet, so many in our churches refuse to look at domestic abuse and what causes it. Last week I told a woman that I am working to fight domestic abuse, and she accused me of wallowing in abuse. Her pet phrase seemed to be, “God is in control, just trust Him.” I told her that is not particularly comforting to the person who is suffering for years and years at the hand of her abuser. She kept wanting to put a spin of “lovely” on everything, and at the same time throw accusations at anyone who looked ugly sin in the face long enough to try to stop it.

Why was it so important to this woman to deny domestic abuse, to blame me for working to bring the freeing truth in God's word to the church's attention? Why did she insist God had not called me to this ministry?

Is it not for the very same reason that the church in general refuses to deal with the issue? And so many that say they are dealing with the issue, put a large portion of their pressure on the abused wives, not on the controlling and abusive husbands. Some say an abused wife may separate from her husband, but she must still subject herself to him. (What an oxymoron! And how ridiculous and blind!) So many churches tell abused wives they are not allowed to divorce their husbands. Some say they are not allowed to separate from their abusers. The bottom line is that the sin of domestic abuse is denied by so many pastors, or blamed on the wife. Other pastors don't deny domestic violence and abuse but they deny its severity, cost, and damage.

Isn't it time the church stops skipping over the first two items on the list? When are pastors going to be honest with themselves, with their congregations, and with abused wives and children? When are they going to STOP dening that domestic abuse is a serious problem? How long are they going to keep on condemning women who have left their abuser? (One woman I know is still being condemned by the church she left because she divorced the man who nearly killed her several times.) How long are they going to claim there is no domestic abuse in their church, while studies have been showing that one in three women have suffered domestic violence in their lifetime--including women in church. In fact, at least one survey showed that 50% of women in church have suffered abuse from their husbands. When are pastors going to teach their congregations to offer friendship and support to abused women, instead of the cold shoulder and/or accusations and discipline?


When will the lying and dishonesty stop? Domestic abuse/violence is neither lovely, nor praiseworthy, but that it is among us is true and honest.

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.

Husband Authority Doctrine of CBMW Supersedes Salvation

When pastors, churches, and organizations like CBMW elevate their doctrine of husband authority to the extent that wives are given no recourse when their husbands sin against them and their children, when husbands are not held accountable for verbal, emotional, spiritual, and power attacks against their wives, when wives are blamed for the sin of their husbands, it is clear the doctrine of husband authority has surpassed and become a priority above the doctrine of salvation.

When husbands obey only one verse in the entire book of Ephesians, and demand that their wives focus on obeying two verses in Ephesians, the husband authority doctrine has clearly reached the level of heresy. Husbands and pastors who insist on this heresy have become idolaters, who covet power and authority that belongs to God alone.

This is rebellion against God.

The command to husbands is to love their wives self-sacrificially, as Christ gave up himself for the church. Romans 12:1 calls it “a living sacrifice.” “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

Instead of sacrificing for their wives, the husbands rule over their wives and demand that the wives do the sacrificing. Instead of bearing the fruit of the Spirit, the husbands bear the fruit of darkness.

The fruit of abusive husbands is anger, wrath, clamour, covetousness, idolatry, bitterness, malice, railing, swift to shed blood, violence, easily provoked, unkindness, unloving, self-centeredness, puffed up, impatience, evil speaking, unforgiveness, hatred, lust, rebelling against God, respecter of male persons, despisers of women, oppressive, vile, blasphemous, lover of evil, lying, deceptive, manipulative, without mercy, murder, twisting the scriptures, the list could go on and on.

By listening to the reports of the wives, it is easy to ascertain that the husbands have put themselves above God.

It is time CBMW and those who embrace their teaching, put God above husbands. It is time they insist that husbands who do not have evidence of the fruit of the Spirit when they are behind closed doors be excommunicated from their wives, their children, and their churches.

Ephesians 5:11-13 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.”




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

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