Domestic Violence in the Bible? - podcast
Download: Domestic Violence in the Bible? - podcast
(Note: Right-Click / Save Target As...)
Domestic Violence in the Bible? - PDF
Other FNT's you may be interested in
| ||||
Topic(s) for this FNT
Data Protection Act 1998: By providing your personal details you agree to allow the Evangelical Alliance to contact you by mail, email, telephone or SMS text message in connection with its charitable purposes. The Evangelical Alliance does not make personal data available to external individuals or organisations.
Domestic Violence in the Bible?
13 March 2009
167 women are raped every day in the UK; 1 in 4 women will be the victim of domestic violence at some time in their life. And in a recent poll, 1 in 7 people think it's ok for a man to slap his wife or girlfriend for wearing revealing clothing in public. A similar number think that women who nag their husbands deserve to be hit. Moreover, it is expected that all of these statistics may get worse during the recession.
I hope you'll agree that this makes alarming reading. That's precisely why this week the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has launched the largest ever, cross government, public consultation on violence against women and girls. Whether we agree with Smith's proposals or not, we all have a responsibility to address these issues.
If we're honest, the Church has often been pretty bad at tackling domestic violence. There are numerous stories of churches that have not believed women who have reported violence, and of pastors who have abused their wives. An article in Christianity Today estimated that 1 in 4 Christian couples will experience at least one episode of physical abuse within their marriage. Christians are in no way immune from this problem. Even worse, some people have tried to argue that violence against women is justified in the Bible. And I suspect you've had friends tell you that the Bible is anti-women and misogynistic.
One of the common passages that has been abused to justify violence towards women is Ephesians 5:22, "Wives submit to your husbands." Yet what proponents of this verse usually fail to notice is that this call to submission comes in the wider context of verse 21, "Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ." What's more, in the Greek, verse 22 doesn't actually use the word submit, rather it is implied. Given that verse 21 calls everyone to submit, submission in this context becomes about mutual respect, care and love, rather than power and domination. Or as Philippians 2:4 puts it, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." The Ephesians passage then goes on to instruct husbands to, "Love your wives as Christ loved the Church," which can only mean laying down his life for her in humble service (Mark 10:45).
Of course there is also the problem that in the Old Testament there are numerous places where violence towards women is mentioned and some have assumed that because it's described, God must endorse it. Yet just because the Bible may give us an account of a situation or event that happened, this does not mean God automatically approves of it. So for example, in Genesis 19, just because Lot offers his daughters to the men outside his house, that does not mean he was right in doing so. And even though the Bible later goes on to describe Lot as righteous (2 Peter 2:7-8), it doesn't mean that he was righteous on this particular occasion. In fact often these stories can highlight just how different God's standards are from our human, fallen and broken reality.
If humans are broken, then do we just accept that this is the case and that Christians won't be immune from it? I don't believe so, for while we may recognise that this world is not going to be perfect until Christ returns, we can strive to live to his standards, praying that with the help of the Holy Spirit we might achieve this. It means that in our own relationships - whether with colleagues, friends, spouses, family or neighbours - we seek to "submit to one another." And it means that we should affirm the government's efforts to tackle domestic violence, speaking out on these issues and not burying our heads in the sand. Jesus knew our world was broken, and that's precisely why he came to redeem it, to reconcile us to God, and to each other. And he calls us in turn to model this reconciliation, healing and redemption to a hurting and broken world.
Susannah Clark, Public Theology Researcher
Latest comments
:
(The views below are the authors', and not necessarily those of the Evangelical Alliance.)
| Written by Jethro on 18 March 2009 at 10.34 |
| One of David Young's problems with us Evangelicals is that some of us use the Bible like a book of rules, all equally applicable and authoritative, except when we don't like them. His point about Abraham is perfectly correct. It was a terrible thing to be prepared to kill his son out of imagined religious duty and it doesn't help when we just turn our faces away from that fact. A good case could be made for this family tree being a succession of highly disturbed people, rather than a series of great examples for us all to follow. Lot, for instance, as DY alluded to, thought it was OK to give his two virgin daughters to the men of Sodom to satisfy their lusts on. That passes without comment too. Surely we aren't supposed to find a way of justifying that? The thing that I find fascinating is that flawed as they are - some of them sufficiently so to be candidates for being locked up at Her Majesty's pleasure, the story is that God did not write them off. Now there's a challenging example to try to follow! |
| Written by Jethro on 17 March 2009 at 17.12 |
| DY, You said,"What you cannot demonstrate is that the text itself says anything other than what a historical/linguistic analysis would show." Isn't that simply tautological? If your starting point is the belief that the text can only show what a historical/linguistic analysis would show, then obviously that is all it will show. On the other hand, if you believe that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, as Christians do, then the Old has to be read in the light of the New. Of course it is only Christians that do that. Another tautology! It's like saying that only atheists believe there is no god. That's two tautologies in a row. I'm taking your point that Christians do that to the text because "they want to" as meaning as distinct from "having to" otherwise it would have been three in a row and you would have wone this weeks' award for going round in circles. |
| Written by David Young on 17 March 2009 at 10.13 |
| The OT does not have to be measured against Jesus, or anyone else. It is only Christians who impose that on the text, and then only because they want to. What you cannot demonstrate is that the text itself says anything other than what a historical/linguistic analysis would show. This much is cut and dried: if I heard a voice in my head telling me to kill someone, I would seek psychiatric help. On the issue raised earlier, do any of you remember when it was fashionable for various feminists to object to the seaside show Punch And Judy on the grounds that it trivialised violence towards women? I was wondering recently whether they ever objected to The Muppet Show, as Miss Piggy's response to anyone who she found offensive was to knock them out. Something tells me the television companies did not have to hire extra staff to handle the switchboards in the complaints department. |
There are 11 additional comments for this page.
Comments for this article are now closed
EAUK.org






