Wife Beating “Christians”

This post grew out of research I did because of some of the comments on my Manosphere post. I realise the men who do this are unlikely to be reading this blog, but the sad fact is wives (and children) in YOUR church are being abused. The more of us who accept this fact, the better our churches will be at dealing with this great evil. We have a responsibility to the women in our church, and being informed is the first step to living that out. Please share this with Christian leaders.

How common is abuse among churchgoers? Several studies, including those done by Christians, have found wife abuse is just as common among those who attend evangelical churches as the general public. This means abuse happens at least once in 1 in 4 Christian households.

Please don't © Ambro | freedigitalphotos.net

For a better look, consider a study the Methodist church of Canada did in 2000 when it mailed surveys to 1,000 ministers and lay workers. It found more than 1 in 8 of the women had suffered domestic violence at the hands of their husband. Of those, 54% experienced it for up to five years, 21% for 10 or more years, and 9% said the abuse was still going on. Additionally, 19% of all respondents (male and female) said they witnessed domestic violence as children.

The best-case scenario I could find calculated 5% of protestant churchgoing men are currently abusing their wives physically. Keep in mind all of these numbers are based on those willing to admit abuse – in some cases anonymously, in some not. If we assume some who are being abused don’t admit it, the numbers are worse.

Several studies find Christian women less likely to report abuse and women with strong Christian beliefs stay in abusive relationships longer. The silver lining in all of this is the inverse relationship between a man’s church attending frequency and his likelihood of abusing his wife. Men who attend weekly have a much lower rate of wife abuse than those who attend sporadically.

For years, feminists have blamed patriarchy for wife beating. Early poorly done studies seemed to support the idea that being more patriarchal did mean more wife abuse, but recent, better-done studies show something different. Patriarchy is not the cause of wife beating, but it does give wife beaters cover. Men in strongly patriarchal groups are more likely to feel justified in using physical force against their wife, wives are less likely to report abuse, and if abuse is reported to the church the chances of anyone doing anything are lower.

One big problem is most pastors have no idea how common abuse is. Additionally, most pastors lack any training in how to deal with suspected or reported abuse. When 6,000 pastors were asked how they would counsel a woman who came to them about spousal abuse, they gave some shocking answers:

  • 26% said they would tell her to submit to her husband no matter what.
  • 25% would tell her it was her fault she was beaten – for failing to submit.
  • 50% said submitting to some violence was better than getting a divorce.

I urge all of you to read John Shore’s Why Pastors Struggle With Confronting Domestic Violence. Shore shows why we think this can’t be happening in our church, and how abusers can sit next to us without our having a clue. It’ is an eye-opening read.

For pastors, I strongly recommend Pastor Jeff Crippen’s Letter to Fellow Pastors. He starts:

The evil of domestic and sexual abuse is in our midst. By “our,” I mean our conservative, Bible-believing churches. Churches just like the one I have pastored for nearly 20 years now. We are not doing well in confronting the perpetrators nor in effecting justice and kindness for their victims.

None of us learned about this evil in seminary. As a result, we are largely blind to it. Lest you think that you surely would see it if it were in your church, and that for the most part your church is free of it, let me assure you that those very thoughts reveal our blindness. The evil of domestic and sexual abuse either was – is – or is going to be in your church. And even more frightening is the confirmed fact that when it comes to your congregation, you (like me in the past) will not deal with it rightly, if you even see it at all. None of us would like to think that we would ever be an ally of evil against an oppressed victim. Yet this is what will indeed happen in your church and ministry unless you prepare yourself.

Pastor Crippen goes on to discuss the rules their church had, and how they believed these rules were biblical. As various abuses were revealed in their church, he started to study the issue. This resulted in some realisations and changes:

Over time, and by no means at my own doing, we came to realize that we had created an environment in our church that was abuser-friendly. Evil-friendly. We, as leaders, had encouraged our men to lord it over their wives and families rather than loving them. We had created an environment that was unbiblically oppressive to women. Myself and our elders, over some period of time, began to realize this – by the Lord’s mercy in showing us – and we began to make some changes.

Evil men took advantage of well-meaning rules, using them to justify and hide horrible abuse. Is the same happening in your church?

Most of the stats I gave here can be found in one or more of the following articles:

Domestic Violence within the Church: The Ugly Truth – Christian News, Commentary
EAGLE’S WINGS GLOBAL – DV & the Church
PATRIARCHY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: CHALLENGING COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

Links may be monetised
Image Credit: © Ambro | freedigitalphotos.net

Shop AmazonShop to give links page
We are donation supported – thanks for your help!
Where we’re going – Contact us about speaking

35 Comments on “Wife Beating “Christians”

  1. There will always be bad men in our midst.  It’s a fact of life and yes, we should do all we can do to stop men beating their wives.  We’ve personally given shelter to battered women, worked in women’s shelters and I’ve also played enforcer to those who couldn’t quite control themselves.

    One other thing you forgot to mention is that every recent study shows wifes abusing men at the same frequency.  You cannot look at arrest records.  Police are required to take away somebody and no matter who the guilty party is they are taking away the man.  Look at survey’s given to men and women and you’ll see every recent one has women abusing their husbands at the same or slightly higher clip.  You also forgot to mention that 70% of CPS cases involving children the woman is the guilty party, so you might want to paint a fuller picture of what is actually going on in the homes where abuse is taking place.  The man already has the penal and legal system against him, don’t rush to judgment and get the facts before making judgement.

  2. @High Country (probably should be posted on the Manosphere day). The Bible does not say we will ‘win’. it just promises that God will honor our obedience. That includes obedience in wives submitting to their husbands, or husbands submitting to God, even in a woman-dominated world (and even when that does not seem right or fair):
    My take: Many husbands, like the character Percy Wetmore in The Green Mile, are quick to understand the power that comes with their positional authority as Husband. They relish that power. They wield that power like a weapon and use it to lord over their charges, to belittle them, to abuse them. They relish the respect that is required to be given them from their charges. However, they misunderstand their positional authority. They convince themselves that they are entitled because of something in themselves, not because that very respect is required and demanded to be given them.
    However, like Wetmore, they also underestimate the inherent worth, power, and abilities of their charges. Many of those charges are crushed under these tyrants and lost. Others of these rise up. But, like the movie character John Coffey, they are ultimately condemned – and rightly so – for defying the positional authority of the tyrant. Positional authority always wins, even when positional authority is wrong. That is what positional authority is.
    Consider Jesus. In his position as God With Us, Jesus was bestowed with positional authority and power to do all things. To judge. To condemn. Yet, he himself said he did not come to judge. He told the woman by the well that he did not condemn her.
    Maybe, back in the ‘50s when the world was perfect, if husbands had truly been Christ-like, had died to themselves, offered themselves as living sacrifices, and humbled themselves, then we would not have the RadFem issues we have today. Or, perhaps, because men are men, are sinners with evil in their very nature, completely unable within themselves to attain and live out the perfection of Christ, just perhaps, God has seen fit to empower women to rise up as a better help-mate, to live together with a man, not to impinge upon or hamper his positional authority, but to aid him and support him as an intelligent, equally valued, co-creation of God. And, maybe, just maybe, if man saw the inner beauty, abilities, and power of women, they could earnestly seek to honor God’s creation and, thereby, be more willing to humble and sacrifice themselves for it the way God intended. And, maybe, if women saw Christ-like men who were dying to themselves, who were loving and honoring women the way Christ loved and sacrificed himself for the Church, then women would not feel the need to fight tooth and nail with men over authority.
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Col 1:15-20
    “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phil 2:5-8

  3. @High Country (probably should be posted on the Manosphere day). The Bible does not say we will ‘win’. it just promises that God will honor our obedience. That includes obedience in wives submitting to their husbands, or husbands submitting to God, even in a woman-dominated world (and even when that does not seem right or fair):
    My take: Many husbands, like the character Percy Wetmore in The Green Mile, are quick to understand the power that comes with their positional authority as Husband. They relish that power. They wield that power like a weapon and use it to lord over their charges, to belittle them, to abuse them. They relish the respect that is required to be given them from their charges. However, they misunderstand their positional authority. They convince themselves that they are entitled because of something in themselves, not because that very respect is required and demanded to be given them.
    However, like Wetmore, they also underestimate the inherent worth, power, and abilities of their charges. Many of those charges are crushed under these tyrants and lost. Others of these rise up. But, like the movie character John Coffey, they are ultimately condemned – and rightly so – for defying the positional authority of the tyrant. Positional authority always wins, even when positional authority is wrong. That is what positional authority is.
    Consider Jesus. In his position as God With Us, Jesus was bestowed with positional authority and power to do all things. To judge. To condemn. Yet, he himself said he did not come to judge. He told the woman by the well that he did not condemn her.
    Maybe, back in the ‘50s when the world was perfect, if husbands had truly been Christ-like, had died to themselves, offered themselves as living sacrifices, and humbled themselves, then we would not have the RadFem issues we have today. Or, perhaps, because men are men, are sinners with evil in their very nature, completely unable within themselves to attain and live out the perfection of Christ, just perhaps, God has seen fit to empower women to rise up as a better help-mate, to live together with a man, not to impinge upon or hamper his positional authority, but to aid him and support him as an intelligent, equally valued, co-creation of God. And, maybe, just maybe, if man saw the inner beauty, abilities, and power of women, they could earnestly seek to honor God’s creation and, thereby, be more willing to humble and sacrifice themselves for it the way God intended. And, maybe, if women saw Christ-like men who were dying to themselves, who were loving and honoring women the way Christ loved and sacrificed himself for the Church, then women would not feel the need to fight tooth and nail with men over authority.
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Col 1:15-20
    “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phil 2:5-8

  4. Trying But Not Convinced  

    You are doing what most christian modern men do, you do not recognize the sin nature of women.

    My wife is the most loved woman on the planet.  She is told she is loved.  She is shown she is loved.  I sacrifice and am tender and gentle.  But I am also a strong leader and will not relinquish the role God has called me to.  My wife is my helpmate in every sense, but that is what she is my helpmate.  She’s the world to me and more important to me than myself, but she is my helpmate.

    You and Paul seem to set every thing up on linear line with strong headship on one end and “servant leadership” on the other.  It doesn’t work that way.  Both can be true.

    If you and Paul could answer me one thing, just in regards to the American church because that is what we all seem to be discussing.  Why at the same exact time that women “rose up” to become all that they can be do we see our churches tank?  Our morals as a nation tank?  Life was not perfect in 1950 or 1850.  Nobody is making that claim.  LIfe was hard and always will be hard this side of heaven.  There is still to this day the fall and that it does to our lives.  If indeed, right now in our churches the right balance is struck in gender roles, then why is our church so impotent?  Why are people leaving the church in record numbers?  Why in your own church is there so few new believers.  Why is the divorce rate, despite what Paul claims, higher than ever in the church?  Why are over half of our church ladies on anti-depressants?  Why do all of our church kids grow up in day care’s so mom can work?  Since we’ve “liberated” women why have there been 60 million unborn murdered.

    I got a kick out of the posts Paul’s wife and Forgiven Wife made on the manosphere comments, like having a drivers liscense or who signs for it is a biblical concept and important to the Kingdom of God.  Because a woman can’t get a driver’s license on her own we are impeding the kingdom of God?  You’ve got to be kidding me.  You all seem to be making the mistake about the difference between what makes us feel good in the moment and what makes us feel good for eternity.  Trust me, how one obtains a driver’s licsense doesn’t make the top million on that list.  

    Paul crack’s me up.  He with his own words shows what is important to him.  “I don’t think women want…”  Ummmm, it isn’t about what women want.  Or men want.  It’s about what God wants.  I don’t always want the responsiblity of headship, but you won’t ever see me slacking off because it doesn’t feel good.

    See the problem is you talk about sacrifice, and love and being all you can be but you are so barely scratching the surface of those things.  You think I’m being shallow and throwing the yoke onto women, when I am doing the furtherst thing from that.  You are at milk my friend and I have moved on to solid foods.  God calls men and women to great responsiblity of sacrifice, love and “being all they can be”, but there is certain roles for both.  I will both be the unquestioned, strong leader of my family and home and also the sacrificial, loving husband who lays down his life.  My wife will be the obedient, respectful and loving wife who is also valued above all else and shown that in both word and deed.

    Yes, I believe women should not vote. Her husband’s vote should be what matter’s to her, otherwise she should not of married him.  Should be under their father’s protection until they are married.  Does that make me a hater of women or not believing in who God made them to be? No!  My wife, daughter and mother will tell you there is no greater champion or protector of women than I.  I will move heaven and earth for them and lay down my life for them.  They are told this and shown this.  But that does not mean I will give up the command of our churches, our families, etc.  That is not God’s ordained way.

    What you and Paul do not realize is what you are teaching as maturity is realling allowing both men and women to remain in immaturity in their faith and in their relationship to each other.  You think I’m trying to lord it over, my wife would tell you exactly the otherwise.   I’m the first in line to sacrifice, but I also know what God has spoken in His Word and I will not waiver from that and hold myself and her to that standard, with God’s grace and mercy when we fail.

    I challenge you.  Do what I said.  Read and watching nothing but your Bible for six months.  If you come back to me and tell me I am wrong I will give you my blessing and what have you lost?  But I tell you, you will not be the same man and you will realize that Paul and other modern teachers have spent far to much time listening to each other and the most recent survey than saying what the actual Word of God says about such issues.

  5. @High Country:
    Thank you. Your post just made this so much easier.
    Again, facts: At my church, only men serve in the pastorate and it is growing in new believers. Hence the multiple campuses. My church preaches and lives out the Gospel by demonstrating God’s love both inside and outside the walls of the church. Sometimes that involves ministering to women who work and alsoo women contemplating abortion. By reaching out in love, real lives have been saved. Strange, though, they don’t spend much time talking about the roles of women. How can that be?
    Considering that women in the history of the world did not have the right to vote before it was permitted in the USA, your argument is an anachonism. I think much of your argument is an anachronism and a distraction to the true mission of the church which is to preach the Gospel: that we are all more sinful than we can possibly admit, even to ourselves, but that God loves us more than we could ever dare to imagine, which is why He sent his Son to make the ultimate atoning sacrifice for our sin.
    I am not interested in debating with you the subjective conditions that women experience in your household or whether they feel loved, or your personal beliefs on what, in history, caused this or that. The world God created is complex, a fact that Jesus, himself, demonstrated in how he angered the anti-woman establishment by presenting his resurrected self first to a woman and in how he treated women of his day. Incidentaly, spiritual milk can also be observed when a person takes a small piece of scripture and tries to use it to justify a larger view that is not proportionately represented in scripture.
    I hope you have a wonderful day. It has been fun sparring with you. I will pray for you and your family, in all seriousness, and I hope that when we reach Heaven you and I can have an ‘a-ha’ moment and a laugh over this.
    (Unless, of course, you do not believe in the true Gospel that says even a mdern, emanicpated woman like me can go to Heaven?

  6. High Country  So you want to defend men by saying woman are just as bad,
    or worse? Hardly are strong defence – ENEN IF IT WERE TRUE, which it is not.
    I’m sure you can find some handpicked data to support your
    claims, but they are totally bogus is you dig at all. If we take a very, very,
    broad definition of spousal abuse that ignores intensity, you may be right. If
    a wife slapping her husband is counted the same as a husband breaking several
    of his wife’s bones, then MAYBE women abuse just as much, although I doubt it.
    If you look at injuries bad enough to go to the hospital men are far, far, far
    more abusive and destructive. The same is true if you look at deaths – husbands
    kill their wife more often than the other way around.  Yes, both men and women are killed by their
    spouses, but it’s not even close.
    Yes, women do abuse their kids, but again your claims are
    bogus, and based on bad crunching of raw data. If you look at 100 men who care
    for kids and 100 women who care for kids, you find that far more of the men are
    abusive. In reality, more women than men care for children. Using your 70%
    figure for women, and then adjusting for who is actually doing caregiving, we
    find that men are the abuser about 65% of the time. If we then consider that
    women generally care for more children than men, the numbers are even worse.
    When you do all the math, it turns out men are more than ten times as likely to
    harm a child as women. Beyond this, we should really look at the kind of abuse
    as men are far more likely to cause significantly greater physical harm, and
    much more likely to commit sexual assaults.
    I am sure you are just repeating numbers you have heard, not
    intentionally misrepresenting reality. However, at some point this data was
    manipulated to say something false. The manosphere is very good at this, both
    by intent and ignorance. It does not take much digging to find why their claims
    are false, but sadly, truth is not the goal of most who descend into the
    manosphere. I find it very irresponsible to repeat these lies, as it gives
    abusive men cover. Please, stop coving
    for monsters!
    All of this said, I knew a husband who was abused by his
    wife, and she did try to use the system against him, with limited success. I am
    not denying that women abuse and that the system is slanted, but you have exaggerated
    several magnitudes beyond reality.

  7. Trying But Not Convinced  Excellent comment!
    Not all men are/were as you say, but those who were not ignored those who were. All that is required for bad men to abuse women is for good men to do nothing, as it were. I have been guilty of that in the past, but I refuse do keep doing it. That is what this post is about, trying to get other good men to see the problem and commit to doing what they can – starting with not giving cover to those who are abusive.

  8. High Country Trying But Not Convinced  Please explain what you mean by this:

     “You are doing what most christian modern men do, you do not recognize the sin nature of women.”

    What is the sin nature of women, and how does this relate to men and sin?

  9. High Country Trying But Not Convinced  Again with the not
    recognising the sin of women thing! Why is it when men’s sins are exposed on a
    blog for men that some men react by yelling about the sin of women? Not that it
    is new, when God confronted Adam with his sin, he blamed his wife. That this
    comes up in comments on a post about wife beating is particularly troubling.
    You seem to think
    women “rising up” is what killed the church. I would say correlation
    is not causation. If you do some study you realise the church was in big
    trouble long before the feminists came on the scene. When the Gospel stopped
    being the only thing, the fall of the church was inevitable. We stopped
    thinking the Gospel was the answer and started trying to make the world a
    better place by trying to enforce what we thought was good and right. I see it
    as far back as the temperance movement. Christians decided they were going to improve
    by imposing their morals (not necessarily the Bible’s morals, BTW) through protest
    and laws. Blue laws were another example of this – trying to force all
    Americans to follow what we thought they should do. Of course, Jesus never
    called us to do this, but apparently, we thought we knew better than Jesus did.
    Like all well-intentioned departures from God’s truth, it did not end well.
    Why are people leaving
    the church? Because the church is not what God called it to be. Gender issues
    are a part of this, but not the only issue and hardly the biggest. Jesus said
    they would know us by our love, so when a church is lacking in love for even its
    own members, it’s not surprising people leave? Many stayed for a long time
    because it was important for their careers or social status to be a member in
    good standing at a local church. I spent most of my live in the Bible belt, and
    plenty of folks in church had no use for God, they just had to get their card
    punched. This kind of thing gave the church a false image of being strong and
    healthy long after it had stopped being either.
    I am no fan of day-care,
    and I certainly think abortion is wrong, but I see the church as partly to
    blame for the prevalence of these things. They would have happened regardless
    of what we did, but we failed to give the world a biblical alternative. We
    became salt that had lost its saltiness, and we were trampled underfoot.
    You seem to be under
    the impression I have not spent much time in my Bible. You would be wrong. Actually,
    I was closer to what you preach in the past, and it was reading my Bible that
    changes me. Not TV, not some preacher (we did house church for a decade) not
    some feminist literature, THE BIBLE. However, I did not just read it; I set
    aside my preconceived ideas and all the theology I have been taught, and I dug
    to find out what the Bible actually said. Turns out much of what religion said
    was there was not. Turn out Jesus is radical, not safe. Turns out we have added
    things to God’s Word, and ignored other things. We have made minor points huge
    and turned big point into footnotes.

  10. ForgivenWife High Country Trying But Not Convinced  

    Most modern christian men, like Paul, believe (although they won’t admit it) that women are morally superior to men.  They do not believe in the damage women do to the church, men, kids or even other women.  

    Many women admit this.  People like PeacefulWife, Lori Alexander, Sunshine Mary, etc.  It’s everywhere in teaching of the modern church and it’s ripe to it’s fullest in Generous Husband’s teaching.

  11. In response to Paul’s below statement-
    You argue like a woman.  Seriously. First, you totally dismiss my first sentence or two .  About admitting that men do abuse.   And neither was my arguement about making men seem better because women do it also.  My post was that many men get blamed for abuse that is not their doing or even defending themselves.  Your line of thinking is so linear it’s scary.  How about saying before you jump on a man and accuse him, get a little info first.  Things aren’t always as cut and dried as they look from Paul’s mind where men are evil and women are good.
    First, you recognize your belief that men are much worse sinners.  It is throughout your writing and even though you say you don’t believe, once again you prove it with your own words.
    Second, google the dang survey’s before you smash them down.  Give me a break.  It isn’t rocket science.  Sorry, I’ve heard to many admit to hitting their men with frying pans, fists, kicks let alone the legal system by charging them falsely because they know the police will do exactly what you did and convict them despite their innocence.  The survey’s are legit.  Look at them you darn fool before you open your mouth. It’s pure arrogance you speak from.  You also don’t realize men who are beat up by their wife’s don’t go running to the cops.  They no there is no upside and only downside.  They are either a wimp or arrested.
    Same with the sexual assualts and child abuse, you don’t even acknowledge your own bias that men are the ones doing this.  For example, two college kids get drunk and have sex.  Next day she files rape charges.  And it sticks because she wasn’t in a right frame of mind to give consent.   And he was?   You might have seen the recent college video of the college girl who was taped on a smart phone receiving oral sex from a man with lots of men around.  She was smiling and receiving, but he is still charged with rape.  You totally do not account for your own bias, let alone the legal system or law enforcement.  All your stats are based on a system that arrests men.  Do you not deny that a man and woman can do the same crime and yet women have a fraction of the conviction percentage and when they are convicted they do a fraction of the time?  You are the one misrepresenting reality, but it’s to painful to your worldview to admit it.
    Your child abuse stats are straight out of your ass.  Totally falsehoods and does not even come close to the truth.  Man you have some serious problems.  A million women a year can kill their unborn but you think they have a problem smacking around the unborn, are you nuts!
    Like I said, you totally do not get the sin nature of women.  Yes, men have it too.  But we have just as many women going around doing just as much damage.  It wasn’t true in 1950 because there was social constraints on women.  There are none.  We live in an age where a woman can do and say anything and get away with ten times more than a man.  Your way of teaching does not put the sin constraints on women that are needed.  I’m the first in line to keep them on men, but women need them also and your way of thinking blows that out of the water.
    God have mercy on us.  I can’t believe we let men like you lead us.  You worship women.  You are the ultimate white knighter and you are doing women no favor.
    I’m thankful we have women like Peaceful Wife, Lori Alexander and Sunshine Mary out there telling women the truth because if we trusted in men like you to lead us we’d be screwed.  You have to acknowledge and deal with the sin nature of women, just not men if you want to have a successful marriage or church. 
    I get it you are talking to men, except you are not.  Everyone that has commented outside of you and me are women.   The other men that read go home to a sinful woman.  You have to deal with the fact that they are dealing with a sinful woman whose curse is that she wants to control her husband.  If you can’t understand that that is one of the cornerstone of understanding gender roles we are screwed.  Just like if this post you must acknowledge that men can become tyrants.  The problem is, I acknowledge that while you can only acknowledge the other in some type of mystical far off way that does little harm in the real world.
    You don’t understand the harm women are currently doing to marriages and the church because men like you won’t step up and call sin, what sin is.- See more at: http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2014/02/13/wife-beating-christians/#comments
    – See more at: http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2014/02/13/wife-beating-christians/#comments

  12. Trying But Not Convinced  
    It sounds like your church has a pretty good handle on gender roles at least in the church if only men are serving in the pastorate (although that doesn’t say that women aren’t teaching men or in authority over them).  Could that be why you don’t have to spend a bunch of time talking about them?

    We don’t spend a bunch of time talking about them either, because we have this little book the Bible that is pretty cut and dried in what it says about them.  It kind of answers the questions so there isn’t much debate.  Any talk about them is just encouraging and enforcing what that Book says.

    I do believe of course women are going to heaven, but you seem to think that your broad statements about Jesus and how he treated them, which in fact He had very little interaction with them and not much to go on.  I admit fully and gladly that Jesus set some things right that were wrong with women in His day, but His teaching was not even close to what we see happening in our churches.  Not even close.  

    What my emancipated woman do you do with with submit, five times over, including submit in EVERYTHING?  What do you do with I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man?  What do you do with headship?  Most churches don’t teach it.  Those that do don’t enforce it but it’s some vague thing that they are willing to backpedal on the second it becomes uncomfortable (ummm….Paul).

  13. High Country ForgivenWife Trying But Not Convinced  There’s a difference between challenging the concept of female moral superiority and saying that people don’t recognize that women sin at all. And again, how does this relate to male sin?

    How did women get the power to damage the church in the first place? I just don’t see this. I’ve read those women’s writings, and I simply don’t see this–although I am approaching their writings from a different perspective than you are and am paying attention to different things.

  14. ForgivenWife High Country Trying But Not Convinced  
    Nobody said women don’t sin at all.  Not even Paul, as much as he thinks they are superior.  

    We were talking about the manosphere.  I acknowledge men sin and severly.  I am definetly not arguing against that.  Paul’s problem seems to be with putting the same gravity on woman’s sin, which the manosphere does which you will find nowhere else except with the three ladies I mentioned.  Which is why he has such a problem with it.  Every christian blog around uses harsh language and judges men much harder than women, much harder.  Heck, half of the women’s blogs are how to fix your husband blogs and have very little to do with their own gender.  But the manosphere comes up and deals on the same level with women as men have been dealt with and everyone gets their panties in a bunch.

    You cannot.  I repeat cannot, lead a marriage or a church if you do not recognize the depth and gravity of woman’s sin.  Which Paul does not.  Nor does the modern church.  Hence the reason for the manosphere and my comments.  I’m so sick of this, Oh if only men where what they were suppose to be then we’d be what  were supose to be.  Um no, Christ was perfect and still most reject Him.

  15. Regarding the post itself, I agree that victims have often kept quiet about domestic abuse because of misconstrued and wrongly taught messages about submission. Submission is not about being someone’s doormat.

    Violence in a marriage is sinful, not biblical, and I pray that churches and Christians will be willing to intervene and seek healing for those involved. Thanks, Paul, for bringing up this topic.

  16. High Country  As you have once again stooped to calling me a liar, calling me names, and telling everyone you somehow know my secret motives which I never share, I am done. I like to discuss things, not scream at others. If that makes me a woman in your mind, so be it.

  17. TheGenerousHusband High Country
    If what you mean is I did the same thing you did the all the men in the manosphere, except you expect us to take, but you won’t…then yes, that makes you a woman.  You want to call others out and tell us what the Bible says but when someone does that to you you take your football and go home…yes, that makes you a modern woman.- See more at: http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2014/02/13/wife-beating-christians/#comments

  18. I want to touch upon the things that were said:
    1) women being happier now than in ages past: 
    The study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that while post-war era happiness surveys found women were noticeable happier than men, the difference had eroded to ‘zero’.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-1189894%2FWomen-happy-years-ago-.html&ei=O9H_UvjWHYrmoATb6IHQDA&usg=AFQjCNF5LMgnPQIuseAhx_jxMoeRmq9tCg&bvm=bv.61535280,d.cGU
    Another saying women’s happiness has dropped every year for forty years straight:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html
    2) Men being abused by women:
    This study puts it at 40% but said it could be higher http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
    This study says men are just as likely, or slightly more to be abused by their spouse:
    http://www.thelocal.se/20131008/50656
    Here is a study that shows women actually abuse more:
    http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
    3) the Divorce rate is way higher, approx 61% higher than in 1960.
    http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/main/u-s-divorce-rates-and-statistics-1037.shtml
    4) A no fault divorce is not good for cases of abuse.  That is a “fault” divorce and was recognizable as a divorce before no fault.
    5) As to women abusing children, the statstics are as follows:
    61% of reported child abusers in UK are women. In US, it is 58%. In Australia, its 73% 
    Another states: but we can see from the US that the actual incidence of violence, with the exception of sexual abuse, is higher from women and mothers than from men and fathers. In addition, moderate or severe injury is more often the result of abuse from women than from men. The death of children from violence is largely a crime of women. http://fact.on.ca/Info/info_vac.htm
    One last one states: Of the reports, 45.2% of the perpetrators were male and 53.6% were female.
    http://www.safehorizon.org/index/what-we-do-2/child-abuse–incest-55/child-abuse-statistics–facts-304.html

    The church related issues on how Jesus treated women, how Paul treated women, when & how much the church changed the treatment of women after them is not something you google but something you learn from many, many old dusty books.  Paul Bylerly can say what he says but not prove anything because he can’t give you a link to it, so he get away with it.  The bible is very clear on it’s teaching, and it is either Truth or it is not.  It is very clear on male and female roles.  I went to seminary and read all those old dusty books and studied church history.  You go read for yourself, but do not trust Paul Bylerly on this.  Either take the Bible at it’s face value or do your own research.  Read about men about Abraham, Elijah, David, Paul and Peter and see if that jives with who Paul Bylerly is.  

    Jay Dee, first you don’t respond to my statement and don’t even acknowledge that you completely misquoted me.  Second, you make a highly inflammatory statement about how I treat my wife.  Which my wife busted up laughing over.  To quote her, “He has no idea.”  You should be ashamed.  Lastly, I never said I wasn’t open to learning.  I said you were not going to convince me there was no hell.  I went to seminary Jay Dee, I pastored, I own a dozen Bibles.  Ply that on your more susceptible customers, but not me.  I thought better of you before that last remark.

    Paul, You said I called you a liar.  You tell me what I said that was a lie and I will go back in your own blog history and find the exact words.  It won’t take me but a few hours.  Man up and tell me where I misquoted you.

    You both speak to much.  It’s a problem with many bloggers.  I can remember Jay Dee’s internet fights better than he can.  I can remember Paul’s sentences better than he can.

    I will repeat.  You are both too influenced by the world and modern christianity and not enough by scripture.  I agree the manosphere has it faults and than 3-5% of men beat their wives, but you told about 25% of the story and don’t want anyone telling the other 75%.  Men (and women) if you are reading this dig further, please. wan- See more at: http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2014/02/11/the-manosphere/#comments

  19. High Country Interesting reading, thanks.
    1) I would note that on the first study, the authors said,
    “Women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true
    happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses.”
    The second study says men are happier, both compared to the
    past and to women. This does not seem to fit with your claims about how
    horrible life has become for men. What it suggests is that the men of
    manosphere are a small, disgruntled group that skews from the majority. You can
    tell me that most men are too stupid to know they are unhappy, but then I could
    put that back on what you say about women. I do not see a win for either of us
    in your data. In reality we cannot really prove this one either way. I think we
    are all less happy now, and feminism is a part of why that is so. However, women
    are safer now than in the past – but then so too are men for the most part.
    2) You continue to lump all abuse into one category. If that
    seems sane to you, then yes, by that measure you are right. If you take things
    like degree of abuse, permanent injuries, or death into account, then women
    have it far worse.
    3) The divorce article is excellent, it points out many of
    the bogus ways these statistics are done, some of which I have mentioned in the
    past. You can pretty much get any number you want, depending on how you do it. I
    do not see the numbers you gave in that article you linked to. It seems the
    best numbers, according to the article, put the high point at 2001, with rated
    dropping slowly since then. Much different from what I said, but still going
    down. Personally, I think much of that drop is due to fewer people getting
    married.
    The most troubling thing in the whole article was this
    “Barna, a born-again Christian, dolefully admitted that the areas of the
    country where divorce rates were highest are frequently the areas many
    conservative Christians live.” If feminism is the cause of divorces, that
    means feminism is having a greater effect on Christians than non-Christians. You
    may say that is so, but I doubt it.
    They also said divorce is more common for those who are less
    educated. I certainly see that.
    4) I agree, no-fault muddies the waters. There is also the
    fact that couples who live together and split do not show up as divorces, while
    the spiritual and emotional devastation is just as bad. If you include those
    who live together, the ‘divorce’ rate is huge. This I very much put at the feet
    of feminism; the whole promiscuity = freedom thing has been a disaster for men
    and women. (Of course most of the manosphere is all for promiscuity, which is
    one of my problems with it.)
    5) I have explained why this is technically accurate but
    does not mean what you imply. If you look at hours a child spends with men and
    women, the rates of abuse are far, far greater for men. Women “win out” because
    they spend more hours with children. If those numbers make you feel good, go
    for it.
    You say “The death of children from violence is largely a
    crime of women” and give a reference. At that site, I read that “Women are
    responsible for 43 percent of the deaths of children under age 12 who are
    killed by identifiable persons.” So, men are doing 57%. If we then look
    at the fact that more children are under the care of women than men, the risk
    factor is significantly higher for men.
    6) I agree the Bible is clear. Unfortunately, we have obscured
    the Bible with religion that contorts the Bible to support what it wants to be
    true. Your dusty old books certainly support what you think, as they were
    written well after Christianity has been heavily modified. If you can read the
    Bible without the filters, you find all kinds of things you never saw before,
    and it goes way beyond the roles of men and women. The changes in the church did
    not start in the last century; they started in the second century.  
    7) Calling me a liar: When you say I do not believe what I
    have clearly stated I believe, you are calling me a liar. You have done this several
    times. You also tell others that I believe something, even though I will not
    admit it. How about you tell everyone what you think, and let me tell them what
    I think? It really does work out better. (BTW, if you really think you know my
    mind better than I do myself, you need help.)
    8) I find it hilarious that you think I am so influenced by modern
    Christianity. Does ten years doing house church sound as if I am following
    modern Christianity? When we started TMB we were blasted from all sides by
    CHRISTIANS who said we should not do what we were doing. I am many things, but a
    product of modern Christianity is not one of them.
    9) Thank you for doing more talking and less name-calling, I
    appreciate it.

  20. TheGenerousHusband High Country  
    You still bias the facts.
    1) Women are not safer now.  There is no stastic that demonstrates this.  There are more rapes, more abuse cases, etc NOW vs. then.  100 years ago, if you said anything bad about a woman who was not a prostitute your face (as in was getting punched) was in jeopardy from random strangers, let alone her family.  It is your myth that they are safer.  

    You also did not read the articles correctly.  It very clearly pointed out that at the end of WW II women were happier than men by a fair margin.  Now they are less happy then men.

    Your implication is that patriarchy was good for men and bad for men.  My assertion is exactly the opposite.  Patriarchy protected women and men carried far more responsiblity and work load.  Something you have repeatedly denied.  Every old man and woman I have ever spoke to for the last twenty years (80+ years old, so now between 80-120 if they were still alive) says men worked far harder.  Men still do, but that is something you also deny.

    I am not in this for my happiness, but for God and for my wife.  Therefore your assertions about patriarchy are damaging because they inverse of what you believe is true.

    2) Still not reading thru everything.  I will except your stat that 5% of men are abusive.  I will admit that for every 3 women that die, 1 man dies.  Men are stronger.  What you deny is the fact that thousands and hundreds of thousands of men are wrongly accussed, arrested and suffer consequences when they are not only innocent but being abused themselves.  To say nothing of having the strong arm of the legal system abuse them for them.  You do not live in reality to the damage women do to men.  You are great to read if you woman is damaged goods (was abused, etc).  I expect that is where you come from because I know you have said Lori was abused in some way.  What you do not realize is that is a very low percentage of the population and your advice to many men is not only not helpful, but hurtful to their marriage.

    3) It’s really easy to figure out the percentage of divorces and where they are in relation to when no fault came on the books.  2.2 people per 1000 were divorced per year in 1960.  It is now 3.8, a 66% rise.  Those are real people, with real kids. They are not stats.  Don’t forget 2/3rds of all divorces are iniatated by women.  Happiness is not the end all be all.  You seem to attribute happiness way to much in correlation to who the man is and what he does and not enough into the current state of what women are doing.  Working, anti-depresents…there is a culture in and out of the church of being uncontent.  Yes, it’s taught by the media, but it’s also taught by the churches and those who teach our women.

    4) Then don’t say something like no fault divorces were good for cases of abuse.  This is patently false.  Abuse was always an out.  No fault has no upside, especially for men.  Do you not deny the bias in the legal system all the way from criminal to divorce, to child custody to ailimony?

  21. TheGenerousHusband High Country  CONT
    5) This is where your bias shows thru so very easily.  It takes men to make kids.  There are just as many men as women in the country and in many countries more men than women.  You drop a huge percentage of the population just to make the figures say what you want them to say.  If men wanted to beat kids, they have just as much access to them which seems to be what you are arguing against.   If you can’t figure out how crazily you are biasing this Paul, you don’t realize who biased/sick in this area you are.  You don’t realize how deeply you have this ingrained men are worse then women thing in your head and you will make stats say whatever you want, even if you have to manipulate them to do so.  I get it, Lori was hurt at one time but you cannot take that out on every man out there.  I have just as many who are hurt by women. I don’t think you understand the depth of how this effects your writing and ministry.  It shines thru all the time.

    6)Paul, I come from an non-christian home.  Was saved in the Free Methodist church, attended a Methodist seminary, pastored in a free methodist church which is a woman pastoring and egalitarian denomination.  You can’t tell me I’m biased because of my upbringing or schooling.  The Bible is very clear on gender roles and it is you twisting them, not me.  You say things as they are fact but do not give scripture to back it up. I have no problem with women teaching other women, women teaching children.  I am very pro-woman in marriage.  My wife is my help mate in every sense.  Her opinion is asked constantly.  She is great with money and handles 75% of the finiances.  She is loved, treated kindly and respectfully.  She knows I’d gladly die for her.  She gets sick of me telling her how much she is loved and how great she is.  But she also knows I will run/manage this house.  You put a strong headship on one end and love/generosity on the other.  They are not exclusive and I would argue looking at God and Christ and their qualities they are actually very intertwined and VERY closely related.  You do throw headship over the bus.  You are much more comfortable with generosity (I don’t use the word love because we don’t have the same definition of the word).

    7) Paul, did you not do this to me and every manosphere reader?  Did you not do this to me in your very reply to me.  Say something I said was not true.  You have a different standard when you are treating someone vs. how they are treating you. Either own up to not saying bad things about others who also read their Bible and love their wives or expect & receive the same treatment in return and don’t take your football and go home.

    8)Every, home based or not, is based on who is doing the teaching.  Most of the cults (not saying you are a cult by any means) start off as home based.  The books you share and your intrepretation of scripture is very, very liberal/modern by history standards but you don’t acknowledge that but state what you believe as fact.  My great grandfather, a very godly man and loving husband would have scoffed at much of your teaching but you don’t acknowledge this.  You call him and millions/billions of men like him wrong in their beliefs and you right.  Can you not see how that not only offends many of us but has you coming across completely arrogant?

    9)You did a lot of name calling in this post and it’s comments.  I would not throw the first stone, unless you are without sin.

    I’ve been kicked of manosphere sites for talking earnestly about loving your wife as Christ loves the church.  I know they have their faults, but you do also in spades.  You also, intentionally or not keep including the christian manosphere sites with those that are not.  There is not a single christian manosphere site that encourages guys being players and having casual sex and shame on you for saying so.  
    – See more at: http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2014/02/13/wife-beating-christians/#comments

  22. High Country TheGenerousHusband  While looking up some facts on this, I came across BTW, an interesting history of American families at http://bit.ly/MnXxgf. The note that the man as
    breadwinner and wife as homemaker is not the long-standing tradition we think.
    It was not until 1920’s that this was the case for the majority of Americans.
    They say the family of the 50’s was a “historical aberration out of line with long
    term historical trends.” They also said, “Throughout American history, most
    families have needed more than one breadwinner to support themselves.”
    The article talks about a near panic over a growing
    awareness of wife beating and child abuse that occurred in the early 1800’s – clearly
    this is well before feminism! It also talks about the growing divorce rate in the
    mid to late 1800’s.
    World War II had a huge negative effect on the family. It
    was a time of the greatest increase in out of wedlock pregnancies in the
    history of the country, and a massive increase in divorces. All of this before feminism.
    The war put many younger wives in charge of their families, and put many older
    wives to work in factories. Feminism did not do these things, the war did.
    The 1950‘s were not as we think. Only 60% of children spent
    their childhood in a male-breadwinner, female homemaker household. The age of marriage
    for women dropped to 20, a change that resulted in a massive increase in
    divorces in the 60’s. The 60’s also saw it becoming increasingly difficult to
    sustain the middle class dream on a single income, and many women who went to
    work did so because their husband could not earn enough for the lifestyle they
    wanted.
    Much of this I knew, but I had not put it together in my
    mind. The 50’s family that the manosphere holds up is not what they say it was.
    It was not as widespread as they claim, and it was a short-lived aberration in
    400+ years of American history. It looks to me like most of the changes we see
    in the 60’s and 70’s were set in motion decades earlier. Feminism may have
    promoted and helped those changes, but they did not cause them. They were just
    riding the wave!

  23. TheGenerousHusband High Country  

    NO, NO, NO!  Do you honestly believe everything you read?  

    Second, you totally did not address a single point.

    You can find garbage like that article everywhere.  What you will not find is this in newspapers or books of the time.  It’s all written by folks 200 years after the fact with an agenda to prove.

    No, women were not “housewives”.  Men worked long, long hours in the fields and women worked around the house.  Yes, she did sewing and sold eggs, etc.  She did not hold down a job in town.

    Paul, the fact that you think you are going to find this stuff on the internet makes me wonder how gulliable you are.  Anything pre-1950 the internet doesn’t have squat on.  Pick up journals of preachers.   Pick up old newspapers.  Read some old authors. 

    Listen, you do your ministry but stick to the point.  You are far to biased on this subject.  I am a man the realizes the horrible sin nature of men.  Were we seperate it is I can see it in women also.  You cannot.  You also pretty much don’t recognize the way men like Abraham, a man who 
    God thought was so faithful he created a nation and His people after Him, how he handled his family and wife.  You also don’t recognize that about just about every other man in the OT, from Noah so faithful God saved him and his family while sparring no other, to David a man after his own heart in whose line Christ was to come from.  You cannot jive your idea of manhood with these men (and others) who God called faithful and righteous.

  24. High Country TheGenerousHusband  1) Since 1973, rape is down 80%. This despite the fact the
    report rate is up. (http://bit.ly/1lUncK4)
    Since 1976, the rate of women being killed by their husbands
    has dropped from 1.4 per 100,000 to .08. (http://bit.ly/1jHG5l6)
    You will also notice the rate of death for husbands has ALWAYS been lower than
    for men.
    All forms of violence against women have dropped since 1993(http://1.usa.gov/1cK9uTV), including violence
    by an intimate partner (http://bit.ly/MY7gdl). Also, notice on the first link
    the odds of men being hurt by an intimate partner are a much smaller part of
    the total than for women. Further down you will see that non-fatal violence on
    a woman by an intimate partner is down for all women other than those who are separated,
    which is over all down but not as steady as for married, divorces and never married.

    By the way, patriarchy is not nearly as historically common
    in America as you may think, and not as good for women as you say. See my other
    comment on the history of the family for a link.
    2) Hundreds of
    thousands of men are arrested and punished when they are the victim.
    Really? I do not deny it happens, I mentioned a friend it happened to. What I
    argue is your extreme numbers. I am always upset when someone is wrongly
    accused, but making it bigger than it is does not help anyone.
    You seem to think women being abused is somehow a rare
    thing. You would be wrong.
    3) Yes two thirds of divorces are initiated by women. That proves
    nothing. It could mean they are bored and want out, or it could mean they are
    scared and want out, or it could mean they or their husband had a string of
    affairs. I am tired of this fact being used as if it proves something, because
    it does not.
    As to happiness, all I said was “most women were unhappy
    with some aspect of their”. I am not the one that turned it into a battle over
    who is more happy. Like you I do  not see
    happiness as our goal in life.
    I certainly agree with you on the culture of being
    discontent. I expect it of the world, but would like to see the church do more
    to expose that and teach truth. Frankly, I see churches buying into and
    promoting that going back to at least the 50’s.
    4) Abuse was an out IF YOU COULD PROVE IT! Male police and
    courts might reject it, and as I said before one state requires there to be
    multiple proven cases.
    Yes, there is a bias towards the mother. I’ve seen that up
    close, and in some cases the mother certainly was not the better parent. On this,
    you and I agree. The idea that a mother is always best for the child wrong. I
    would say it is true more often than not, but there are more than enough
    exceptions to make such a starting place bad for kids. I’ve seen both bad moms
    and bad dads, and I do not want the kids with either. I’ve seen women who use
    child support to buy fancy clothes, and I’ve seen men who are always a week
    late with child support just to spite the mother. Vindictiveness knows no
    gender boundaries.
    5) It takes men to make kids? Really? I will need to research
    this and get back to you.
    You want to do the numbers by total population rather than
    those who actually care for the kids, and you accuse me of cooking the numbers?
    I don’t know if you cannot grasp the reality of do not want to, but either way
    we are not going to make any progress on this.
    6) Glad you have no problem with women teaching women. Paul
    had no problem with women teaching men. So who has change from Paul, you or me?
    My wife knows I run/manage our home. That you doubt that
    means nothing to me.
    I do not see headship and generosity at opposite ends, but I
    do not see headship as you see it.
    7) Yes, I have disagreed with you on a number of points. I assume
    you believe what you say, so while you may be speaking things that are not accurate,
    you are not lying. You on the other hand keep telling me I believe something other
    than what I have said. If you see those two things as the same then I have no
    idea how we are going to communicate on deeper issues.
    8) I have no doubt your grandfather, or most Christian men
    of his time would scoff at much of what I teach, and contrary to what you suggest,
    I have never denied that.
    Yes, I think millions of people who have followed religion
    rather than Christ have some things wrong. I have done that too, and no doubt
    am still doing it in many areas. I do not see how seeking and sharing truth
    makes one arrogant. I think the crusades were wrong and not in any way
    biblical, doe that make me arrogant?
    10) Yes, there are Christian manosphere sites. It seems to
    me, from the outside, that most of them are into the whole enemy of my enemy is
    my friend thing, which is not biblical. I am always concerned when I see Christians
    teaming up with non-Christians to advance a cause. I do not recall Jesus
    advising this, or any of the disciples doing it. Why then is it a good plan for
    us? This, by the way, is just one example of our following religion over Jesus.
    We think we know better, of we think the situation is so drastic that we are
    justified in doing it differently than the Bible tells us to do it. Then we
    wonder why it ends badly.

  25. High Country TheGenerousHusband  No, I do not bveleive everything I read. But nmeitehr do I ingore tnhings just because I do not agree with them. I study to find truth, even when it turns out the truth is not what I once thought.

    Enough of that I already knew (some of it you will see in my comments recently) that I suspect it is mostly accurate. I’ve marked it for more study.

    If you think women did not work long hard hours in the field too you really need to study history.

    I posted that separately, so calm down and go read the other response.

  26. TheGenerousHusband High Country  
    Paul had no problem with women teaching men?  Now you’ve gone completely off the rails and are in direct opposition to scripture.

    You and I are never going to agree on this.  Men I caution you to not follow this man.  Much like I would caution women not to let Sheila Gregoire anywhere near there marriage.  Not because either is a bad person, but because both have far too many “man” issues to be teaching about marriage.  And that Paul is why your teaching does not reach more men.  It is why the manosphere and my grandfather oppose much of what you teach.  You say we are following “religion”.  I say we are following scripture and you interpret scripture too much thru your modern lense.

    I will stop bugging you in your comments.  I have finally decided to start my own blog and it’s main theme will be pointing out to NOT follow you and your CMBA blog members.  I will not charachter assinate, but I will quote you in detail to prove exactly what you say you don’t believe.  I will do the same on the manosphere blogs I believe to not be Christ and scripture centered.  We need a man site that is the equivelent of PeacefulWife and Lori Alexander…and neither you or the manosphere is doing it.  I wish I could say you don’t drive me completely nuts and believe me fearful of the church’s future here in America.  I want to be in christian unity and be at peace, but with you I cannot agree.  I’m not even sure I can be civil.  I want Christ to be glorified but I am afraid you and I are coming from far too different places of understanding both scripture, men and women.

  27. High Country TheGenerousHusband  So are you saying Priscilla was not a woman? That would open a whole new can of worms! And what of the “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel”? Did the only contend when no men were present? 

    I know the verses you base your belief on, and the lack of context required to get there. I used to read it that way too, then I realised that context and an understanding of the culture of the time was necessary to understand what was being said.

    Does it concern you that what you say Paul is teaching conflicts with that he allowed without any comment? This would mean he taught one thing and lived another. Maybe that is what men named Paul do?

  28. TheGenerousHusband High Country  

    I hope those reading this (I hope there are folks still following) see what lengths you are willing to go to make scripture say whatever you want.  Acts 18, first she is not mentioned without her husband ever in scripture.  So he was there.  Second, it was not a church setting.  Most likely sitting down over a meal and discussing things.  

    Second, my wife contends by my side for the gospel everyday of my life.  Doesn’t mean she teaches men.  Means she teaches women and children while I teach men (and women and children).

    You could multiply this very obscure passage by 100 and you wouldn’t have anywhere near the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2.

    Cultural…holy smokes.  That’s the cop out every feminist uses.  Cultural.  That is why the American and Western churches are doomed.  Crap teaching like that.

  29. High Country TheGenerousHusband  She is also named first. Any idea what that meant, especially then?

    So we should interpret the Bible without any clue as to the cultural context in which it was written? How does that work? You will be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would consider it unimportant. Did your seminary professors teach you to interpret a 2000 year old Eastern text based on what our modern Western world thinks?

    I could point you to plenty of explanations, but I’d be wasting both of our time.

  30. TheGenerousHusband High Country  
    The key passage on the women pastors issue ishttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12, which reads, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” At its face, this passage is abundantly clear. Paul restricts women from teaching or having spiritual authority over men. While it is not explicitly laid out in the text, the focus seems to be on the concept of pastoring/shepherding. A pastor’s duties are primarily teaching and leading. It is this shepherding role over men that God, through Paul, restricts to men.
    There are several lines of argument against this interpretation of the women pastors issue inhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12:
    (1)Women were uneducated at that time, and therefore not qualified to be teachers.The passage nowhere mentions education. Education is not mentioned as a qualification for church leadership inhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%203.1-13orhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.6-9. If education was a requirement, few, if any, of Jesus’ disciples would have been qualified.
    (2)Paul was only dealing with Artemis worship at Timothy’s church in Ephesus.The context, and all of 1 Timothy for that matter, nowhere mention Artemis or the prominence of women in the worship of Artemis. If there was a problem with women usurping authority over men in the church in Ephesus, Paul would have addressed it directly.
    (3)Paul is referring to husbands and wives, not men and women. Wives are not to teach or have authority over their husbands.The Greek words could refer to husbands and wives, but the context indicates otherwise. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer? Are only wives to dress modestly (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.8-10)? The immediate context indicates that men and women in general are the subject, not husbands and wives exclusively.
    (4)There are women in the Bible who served in ways that contradict this interpretation ofhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12.Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe are the most commonly given examples. Ultimately, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are meaningless to the issue, as Paul is addressing leadership in the church. Leadership in old covenant Israel is not the subject at hand. In regards to Priscilla and Phoebe, the New Testament nowhere describes them serving in a way that contradictshttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, discipled Apollos in their home (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2018.26). Phoebe is simply identified as a servant/deaconess of the church (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%2016.1).
    (5)http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28says that men and women are equal in God’s eyes.Men and women are absolutely equal in God’s eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject ofhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are absolutely equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject ofhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Bothhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28andhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12are absolutely true. They do not contradict each other.
    If education, culture, or marriage are not the reason for the restriction on women inhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12, what is the reason? The answer is given in the next two verses: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived” (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.13-14). The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family (seehttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%205.22-33). Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be “helpers” to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.

    So, what exactly does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. By this definition, the role of teaching pastor/shepherd is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%203.1-13;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.6-9). Church leaders are described as the “husbandof one wife,” “amanwhose children believe,” and “menworthy of respect.”
    Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%201.8;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Peter%203.15). Women are encouraged to teach other women (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%202.3-5). Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women seem to excel, far beyond men, in some of the spiritual gifts and fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%205.22-23). Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts God with which blesses women.

  31. TheGenerousHusband High Country  
    The key passage on the women pastors issue ishttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12, which reads, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” At its face, this passage is abundantly clear. Paul restricts women from teaching or having spiritual authority over men. While it is not explicitly laid out in the text, the focus seems to be on the concept of pastoring/shepherding. A pastor’s duties are primarily teaching and leading. It is this shepherding role over men that God, through Paul, restricts to men.
    There are several lines of argument against this interpretation of the women pastors issue inhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12:
    (1)Women were uneducated at that time, and therefore not qualified to be teachers.The passage nowhere mentions education. Education is not mentioned as a qualification for church leadership inhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%203.1-13orhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.6-9. If education was a requirement, few, if any, of Jesus’ disciples would have been qualified.
    (2)Paul was only dealing with Artemis worship at Timothy’s church in Ephesus.The context, and all of 1 Timothy for that matter, nowhere mention Artemis or the prominence of women in the worship of Artemis. If there was a problem with women usurping authority over men in the church in Ephesus, Paul would have addressed it directly.
    (3)Paul is referring to husbands and wives, not men and women. Wives are not to teach or have authority over their husbands.The Greek words could refer to husbands and wives, but the context indicates otherwise. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer? Are only wives to dress modestly (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.8-10)? The immediate context indicates that men and women in general are the subject, not husbands and wives exclusively.
    (4)There are women in the Bible who served in ways that contradict this interpretation ofhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12.Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe are the most commonly given examples. Ultimately, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are meaningless to the issue, as Paul is addressing leadership in the church. Leadership in old covenant Israel is not the subject at hand. In regards to Priscilla and Phoebe, the New Testament nowhere describes them serving in a way that contradictshttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, discipled Apollos in their home (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2018.26). Phoebe is simply identified as a servant/deaconess of the church (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%2016.1).
    (5)http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28says that men and women are equal in God’s eyes.Men and women are absolutely equal in God’s eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject ofhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are absolutely equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject ofhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Bothhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%203.28andhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12are absolutely true. They do not contradict each other.
    If education, culture, or marriage are not the reason for the restriction on women inhttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.11-12, what is the reason? The answer is given in the next two verses: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived” (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%202.13-14). The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family (seehttp://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%205.22-33). Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be “helpers” to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.

    So, what exactly does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. By this definition, the role of teaching pastor/shepherd is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Timothy%203.1-13;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.6-9). Church leaders are described as the “husbandof one wife,” “amanwhose children believe,” and “menworthy of respect.”
    Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%201.8;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Peter%203.15). Women are encouraged to teach other women (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%202.3-5). Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women seem to excel, far beyond men, in some of the spiritual gifts and fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%205.22-23). Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts God with which blesses women.

  32. TheGenerousHusband  
    Pulled from: http://www.compellingtruth.org/women-pastors.html

  33. TheGenerousHusband  
    That is pulled from.http://www.compellingtruth.org/women-pastors.html

    But there are much more in depth looks at it that thoroughly disprove what Paul Bylerly is saying.  Feel free to go look at the Greek Words also, easily done by a simple google search.  But of the upmost importance is verses 13 & 14 in 1 Timonthy 2.  Paul’s states exactly what his reasoning (God’s reasoning) is and it has nothing to do with cultural.  It has to do with women being created to be helpmates and the fact that Eve was deceived.  Paul Bylerly wouldn’t tell you this though because it does not fit his agenda.

  34. High Country TheGenerousHusband  Yes, I have heard all these things and more. They seem
    rather convincing if you listen to them in a vacuum. However, if you dare to study
    the Scriptures to see if these things are true, you find
    problems.
    Rather than cutting and pasting a lot of stuff here, I am
    going to point to resources from a couple of my friends who have studied,
    prayed, and written on this issue a great deal. I mention they are friends
    because I am vouching for them. These are intelligent well-read individuals.
    They are also humble servant leaders, and they are very serious about their
    walk with the Lord.
    ·Women are not allowed to teach. Really? http://bit.ly/1bCuyRx – A great overview on 1
    Tim 2:12.
    ·Understanding “I do not permit a woman to
    teach…” http://bit.ly/1grKt4p – A closer
    look at one aspect of 1 Tim 2:12.
    ·Eve was deceived… http://bit.ly/1dXIdgp
    – A closer look at one aspect of 1 Tim 2:12.
    ·Women teaching and gnosticism http://bit.ly/1ga1H4f – Another possible way
    to translate 1 Tim 2:12.
    ·King James had it right… http://bit.ly/1eFGqg6 – A better understanding
    of 1
    Cor 14:34-36
    ·How Jesus defied convention in his dealings with
    women http://bit.ly/1lXIUNg – A better,
    more in depth look at something I mentioned earlier.
    ·The hemiplegic body of Christ http://bit.ly/Mq9imw – How our umbilical
    understanding of women is hurting and limiting the body of Christ.
    ·WOMEN AND THE EARLY CHURCH http://bit.ly/1dADntW – It was not how most of
    us were taught it was.
    ·What’s with Paul and Women: Unlocking the
    Cultural Background to 1 Timothy 2 http://amzn.to/1gJpMk4
    An excellent book by Jon Zens. I highly recommend this for anyone who really
    wants to dig into this.

  35. High Country TheGenerousHusband  And a late addition. New Light on Paul and Women http://bit.ly/1bYRAMY
    This article by Jon Zens is outstanding. It shows the importance of understanding the times and the people. What Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not his words, but quoting the Talmud, and then mocking it and what it said. 
    Part of that passage says “as also saith the law”. Thing is, the law never says that. This should be our clue, but those who want it to be true just pass over that and keep going.
    Note that Paul does this in other places – he quotes common wisdom and show it is wrong. In dealing with the gnostics he quotes their saying “food for the stomach and the stomach for food”. 
    Paul could be sarcastic, and when we miss that, we end up missing what he said. Those who read him back then would have understood his words were a quote just as we would know something like “Where’s the beef” is a quote.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: