Fundamentalism and Wife Abuse: A Matter of Conscience

Fundamentalism and Wife Abuse: A Matter of Conscience May 13, 2015

a girl  silhouette behind a  transparent  paper

Yesterday my piece “Bible Believing” Pastors and the Enabling of Domestic Violence was published by Huffington Post. Shortly thereafter it was featured on

Shortly thereafter beganeth the outcry of complaints against me.


Well, whaddaya gonna do? You stand under a mass of flocking birds, you get crappethed upon. (I also got a lot of love and support, for which, as always, I’m grateful.)

Perfectly representative of the complaints I’ve received about my essay is the email below, just in. It says exactly what so many bold Defenders of the Faith have been saying to me that I thought I’d take a moment to address it:

I just read your article that appeared in The Huffington Post about the Pastor whose daughter was in an abusive relationship. One of the things you said to this Pastor absolutely infuriated me! You stated that because of the subservient teachings of the Bible that if a man wanted to beat or otherwise abuse his wife it was okay and that a woman would just “take it” or face hell. I happen to be a women who believes in marriage as the Bible states and no where in the scripture have I ever seen evidence that God has sanctioned this type of behavior from a husband toward his wife. It is absolutely absurd that you would associate that type of behavior with Biblical teachings! Husbands and wives are supposed to love, honor and respect each other, entreating each other in the same love that God has displayed toward the church. They are not supposed to abuse each other and no TRUE pastor would tell one of his congregants that she should just tolerate abuse or face hell. In such a case the “unbeliever” (which is the abuser, because no “believer” would justify that type of treatment toward their spouse since it is completely against the tenets of Christianity) needs to leave or the person being abused needs to leave. God NEVER intended for any of us to be someone’s punching bag!!

So, to be … in some magical way clearer than I was in my original post: Nowhere, not once, at any point, ever, did I write that the Bible sanctions a husband beating his wife.

Nor did I ever write that a Christian woman should just “take it or face hell.”

What I said was:

He [the Christian fundamentalist husband] is free to beat her [his fundamentalist wife] if he wants to, confident in the knowledge that, because of the way you trained her, [fundamentalist] pastor, because of what you made her believe about herself, she’ll take it. She’ll take it or (she believes) she’ll go to hell.

Look, fundamentalists: Rail and complain and struggle against it until you collapse, but the truth remains the truth. And the truth is that if you institutionalize the teaching that God has decreed that wives should submit to their husbands, then it is one-hundred percent inevitable that a lot of husbands so inculcated are going to feel as if they have God’s authorization to beat their wives. And, believing it their duty to practice “sacrificial obedience” (not to mention because they don’t want to go to hell for being “rebellious” Christians), a lot of women so inculcated are going to silently suffer those beatings.

That’s not me talking. That’s you talking. You believe that women were born to serve men. You believe that God wants every woman to be utterly fulfilled having no options in life besides motherhood and serving as her husband’s “helpmeet.” You believe that chief amongst those disciplines that should be practiced by the good Christian wife is that of “sacrificial obedience” to her husband.

No one is saying that those beliefs, in and of themselves, cause wife abuse. But any fool can understand that those beliefs are most certainly soil in which the evil weed of wife abuse very readily takes root, grows, and is cultivated.

Complementarianism (the view that the “created order” of roles for men and women is for men to be leaders and women to support men) fuels wife abuse in the exact same way that the vile Christian belief that black people are cursed by God (the so-called “mark of Cain”) fuels the KKK.*

That fundamentalism fosters wife abuse isn’t an issue between me and you, fundamentalist. It isn’t an issue between “progressive” Christians and “Bible-believing” Christians. It isn’t an issue between Christianity and “secular” society.

It’s an issue between you and your conscience.

And if it’s not, it sure as hell should be.

*From Wikipedia’s article, Curse and the mark of Cain: The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery.”

"For a start off, one reads them in the language & from the culture they ..."

Taking God at His Word: The ..."
"Why not? Some people have good memories of conversations and event that take place around ..."

Atheist and Christian argue about hell ..."
"So we're actually supposed to believe that the author overheard a conversation, remembered it verbatim, ..."

Atheist and Christian argue about hell ..."
"my ex boyfriend Peter and I.have been dating for 8 months, and we have been ..."

What does a woman mean when ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Andy

    I hope you sent this to everyone who criticized you. I’m going to have to remember to refer to it in the future, for I feel sure that at some point it will be necessary to.

  • BarbaraR

    Reading comprehension is not one of the fundie strong suits.

  • Patrick DeHoff

    Honestly curious: any research showing a higher rate of battered spouses identifying with more fundamentalist denominations? Don’t get me wrong, I hear what you’re saying and I agree that the common literalist mysgonisic is deadly dangerous. Just genuinely curious if there’s any research backing this up.

  • BarbaraR

    I have seen studies that indicate it is certainly no less prevalent, i.e.

    I would suggest that among fundamentalists, abuse is probably largely unreported due to the insular fundamentalist cultural mores: if a woman reports abuse, she is not a submissive Christian woman and her salvation will be in jeopardy, to say nothing of her entire religious community shunning her, her financial support disappearing, and the fear of divorce (which would also put her salvation at risk).

  • I can’t imagine such a study ever being too conclusive or even illuminating, insofar as an abused fundamentalist wife is singularly unlikely to report that abuse to any (as fundamentalists are wont to put it) “outsiders.” Your (very reasonable!) question is also not actually germane to my point here. That fundamentalism fosters wife abuse is, on the very face of it, undeniable. That is not, of course, the same as claiming that there are not (alas) tons of other awful rivers that lead to the fetid sea of women being abused all over the world. American culture, for instance, so radically and relentlessly sexualizes women and girls that … well, to borrow a statistic I used in this recent post: the number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488; the number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that same time (according to the FBI) was 11,766. That’s not just a concern for any one group, including religious fundamentalists. That should be a concern for all of us.

  • No, I’m afraid I haven’t done that. But if you would like to go on Twitter, and search for @johnshore and/or “John Shore,” and then start sending to everyone who’s bitched about me a link to this post, I sure won’t stop you!

  • I’m sure I have no idea what you mean. I’m sure while writing this post I didn’t have occasion to stop myself from chewing off half my face from the inside in order to stop myself from cracking any (unfair!–which is why I didn’t do it) jokes about homeschooling.

  • Patrick DeHoff

    Thanks for the reply. I definitely agree that a study would have a ton of limitations. The study BarbaraR linked below was illuminating.
    It is a very deep problem that the church must face. This issue (as well as your writings on acceptance of homosexuality) are major reasons why I now reject the fundamentalist philosophies I grew up with.

  • BarbaraR

    Don’t get me started on homeschooling. And stop chewing your face off from the inside unless you’ve been assured of a leading role in the next blockbuster zombie flick.

  • Oh. Cool. Thank you.

  • Kathleen Margaret Schwab

    I feel like saying thank you for being willing to see this connection, which i feel is so obvious. I was in evangelicalism so long, and sometimes felt like i was in an alternate universe where logical connections stopped happening.

  • But only because you were. 🙁

  • Andy

    Ack! I saw some of the things they said to you and now my face hurts and I think I died a little inside.

    There’s just no reasoning with some people.

  • Liar! Heretic! Vain, heathen, evil ear-tickling antichrist!!!!!!

    whoops. sorry. reflective response.

  • Matt

    Damn, so my crack about unaccredited fundie schools is still not cool? At least I wasn’t alone in my thought!

  • BarbaraR

    “Ear-Tickling Antichrist” would make an awesome band name.

  • Pretty soon I’m going to be launching a Kickstarter campaign thing to help me launch/publish my novel. Maybe I’ll offer as a premium a T-shirt that says, “I helped an ear-tickling antichrist publish his debut novel.”

    Hmm. Maybe not.

  • Elsa

    I think that it’s not so much there is more abuse, but that the women stay longer because they believe they have to, and because they are counselled to pray more, submit more, search their hearts for how they have disrespected their husbands etc..

  • Elsa

    Thank you for not making a crack about homeschooling. Many homeschooled kids, like mine, are very articulate and well-read, and even believe in science.

  • Oh, for sure. I know just how true that is. Homeschooling is a real mixed-bag. Just like public schools are, of course.

  • Shiphrah99

    It’s a pretty good epithet. Over on Slacktivist we have a particularly stupid troll who makes a lot of typos. My personal favorite is “binary doe snot,” which has become my new fave swear word.

  • Slacktivist! The greatest blogger who ever blogged ever, anywhere, about anything. Fred makes the rest of us look like … well, binary doe snot.

  • Shiphrah99

    I love Fred, but I gotta tell you that I love his commentariat even more. It’s true: my friends DO live in my computer.

  • No, no: unaccredited fundie schools are TOTALLY game. They are … the worst things in the world. (this post, etc: … )

  • When I launched the NALT Christians Project, Fred was one of the very few Patheos bloggers to actually QUIT worrying about competing with/desperately imitating one another, and actually make a video for it. It’s the best.

  • Elyse Frances Enger

    These are a bunch of articles about narcissism. Many abusers are narcissistic and sociopathic. They enjoy having power over other people, even go as far as abusing powers to serve their own selfish ends.

    So the point is that we should watch out for narcissism in a “Christian” context.

  • Your description sums up what happened to me (not only shunned, but kicked out) when I left my ex after years of emotional abuse, and I know I’m not the only one.

    After she left him, my friend’s ex husband was visited (by the church) in prison (for attacking her) and they never checked on her even though she was suffering from physical trauma. (Note: different church)


  • Sue Bonner

    Years ago I attended a church that crammed “wives submit to your husbands” down our throats. It was so bad that I used to joke that the husband was the head of the household but if anything goes wrong it’s the wife’s fault. Headship was defined not as male responsibility but as male privilege. As someone who spent time in the military this drove me crazy. It taught me that authority can be delegated but responsibility never can be. In the Navy if a ship sinks the Captain is automatically court martialed. This is because the Captain is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on the ship. In the church I attended men were never held responsible for their actions. If a man was acting like a scoundrel the wife was just supposed to “submit more.” Basically, roll over and take it. Supposedly we would be judged by God when he died, but there was nothing anyone could do here. Thankfully I got out of that church and after a period of time started to recognize that for the theological garbage that it was. Leadership with out responsibility is a contradiction in terms.

  • Bones
  • LWinPA

    A few points…
    1 – “Fundamentalist” and “Evangelical” and “Mainstream” are not the same thing. Even within each of those three groupings, there is a very wide range of beliefs and teaching. Painting ALL “fundamentalists” as condoning abuse or even conditioning their wives and daughters to be abused is akin to using a very wide brush when only a very fine tip pencil/pen is needed.
    2 – The term “headship” does NOT mean “probably abusive” in any sense…. although this article might lead you to believe otherwise.
    3 – “Submitting” is not the same thing as inviting abuse. It just means I’ve chosen to allow my husband to be the boss. I get a ton of input? But if my husband and I have opposite opinions on a route to take for our family I choose to graciously allow him to take the lead. Come to find out? He’d MUCH rather make a joint decision than go it alone… so we end up compromising a lot… but my submitting to him certainly has never led to him abusing me in any way! Quite the opposite! It has instead led to him seeking my opinion more often on more issues.
    Concluding: This article makes me uncomfortable because it assumes the worst and seems to paint ALL Bible believing people in a very negative light. Ie: if you believe the Pauline texts, you’ll end up like this… and this is BAD! Unfortunately the misunderstanding/misuse of terms (whether deliberate or not is questionable) in this article seems to avoid the more positive/helpful/mainstream interpretations in favor of a sensational title. Sad.

  • Andy

    And as I said, that’s a band name waiting to happen.

  • AtalantaBethulia

    What those of us who are familiar with these circles are saying is that there are certain patterns and traits and mindsets that create the right recipe that encourages and nurtures abuse. This is one of them.

    That complementarian relationships exist that are not abusive does not mean that these teachings cannot and do not create an environment ripe for abuse to occur.

    Headship creates hierarchies which it seems to us that both Jesus and Paul preach against. It’s also ego-enhancing rather than ego-diminishing.

    If folks mutually agree to live their marriage in this way and it does not cause harm – that’s great. In the same way that choosing an Amish way of life is great if that’s how you want to live. But as a woman who grew up under this teaching, I know first hand how it is very easily abused in multiple ways, and that it is but one expression of the larger foundational principles of Authoritarianism and Patriarchy prevalent in these groups and denominations. And it is hardly much of a choice when one is taught that to NOT choose this path is to go against God and the Bible.

  • Lisa Peters Price

    Thank you for this.

  • Sharla Hulsey

    Yep. A friend of mine was in an abusive marriage. When she finally left him and filed for divorce, their fundamentalist church disfellowshipped her. Not HIM, only HER. I’m delighted that some marriages in which the husband us the head and the wife submits are mutually loving and nurturing. But there are too many where there is abuse, too many fundamentalist church leaders who send women back to abusive husbands with instructions to “be more submissive” because “God hates divorce.” I suspect God also hates abuse, probably even more, and if divorce is necessary to put a stop to abuse, God is not going to condemn that divorce.

  • LWinPA

    Then why not write about Authoritarianism and Patriarchy … and leave off painting all fundamentalists with the “These guys are abusive and are conditioning their women to accept it!” brush? It seems to me that you’ve assumed a lot of behaviors… based on your personal experience. While this is understandable… you should also understand that personal experience does not necessarily reflect a broader pattern. You grew up under this teaching… so did I… but our outcomes seem to be quite different. Perhaps your outcome is not the ONLY one … or even the most prevalent one… to come from this upbringing. Food for thought.

  • BarbaraR

    painting all fundamentalists with the “These guys are abusive and are conditioning their women to accept it!” brush

    Please show where John wrote that.

  • Guy Norred

    Since someone I know has put a post on facebook asking for recommendations for home school curriculum and I feel the need to suggest that perhaps something not from PCC (which is all that has been pointed out) might be a good idea, would you have any recommendations? I don’t expect much I say to be considered, but I would like to try.

  • lrfcowper

    I’m trying to parse what “binary doe snot” is supposed to be. “Binary does not” comes to mind, but doesn’t strike me as sufficiently insulting / ranty. But maybe in context…

  • AtalantaBethulia

    1) I haven’t assumed a lot of behaviors. I witnessed a lot of behaviors and have studied this culture most of my life. And by paying attention, I and a lot of other people from within this culture have noticed the same patterns of things. Also, when one applies an understanding of human psychology to the matter, the connections between beliefs within a culture and actions within that culture are quite clear.
    2) I never claimed this was my outcome. I explained how I understand how these teachings and beliefs contribute to an environment ripe for abuse.
    3) That we both grew up under this teaching and have different perspectives doesn’t mean anything relative to reality. Subjective perspective is not reality. When I was within in it, I was as sure as you are that it was not harmful.
    4) I never claimed that there was only one outcome. On the contrary, I acknowledged that different outcomes exist. That doesn’t change reality: this teaching can contribute to harm, which should give pause to reconsidering the teaching, why it exists, and the harm that CAN and does come from it and why.

    A comparative analogy:

    Some people have squirted lighter fluid on an active fire and never had the bottle explode in their hand.
    Other people have squirted lighter fluid on an active fire and had the flame travel up the stream of fluid and explode in their hand.
    For this reason the lighter fluid company warns people of the risks and advises against squirting lighter fluid on an active fire.

    But you would have us continue squirting lighter fluid on active flames because it didn’t happen to you.

  • Shiphrah99

    Yes, “…binary does not” was what he meant to type. Not insulting or ranting in itself. But “doe snot” is silly and making it binary even moreso, ergo something meaningless to snarl. /shrugs/

  • Guy Norred

    To be clear, I am trying to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she actually wants her children to be well educated.

  • LWinPA

    Please check the title? Fundamentalism and … ?

  • Elyse Frances Enger

    You are ignoring the real truth about domestic abuse and narcissism; it is inextricably linked. Same with sociopathy. “Christian” narcissism disguises itself in holy and righteous forms while meting out injustice.

    Do you remember Warren Jeffs? He was the self-proclaimed prophet of the FLDS, and he sexually abused his young wives. When the facts came to light, he was sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. His personality checked a lots of boxes in the DSM-V diagnostic manual for narcissitic personality disorder.

  • AtalantaBethulia

    Exactly. The combination of character traits common to fundamentalism not only attracts narcissists, I believe it creates them.

  • BarbaraR

    Yes, that is what the title reads and it describes the contents of the article. It does not state that all fundamentalist men are abusive and are conditioning their women to accept it. it IS speaking of the entire fundamentalist culture as actually practiced, which enables abusive men to continue their behavior without fear of being held responsible, and which makes abused women believe their entire relationship to God will be severed if they fight back in any way.

  • “no TRUE pastor would tell one of his congregants that she should just tolerate abuse or face hell”
    “no “believer” would justify that type of treatment toward their spouse”

    Oh dear, the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy rears its ugly head again. Such binary thinking isn’t really helpful here.

    Will hell freeze over before they make logic and critical thinking a part of baptismal/confirmation training?

  • One reason why it is discussed in this manner, is that abuse is much more common than people assume. It is quite possible that people with abusive tendencies are drawn to that sort of religious setting, because it allows them permission to act shabbily towards spouses and children, knowing full well, that the odds of their being blamed for their bad behavior is fairly low.

    Since leaving my own abusive marriage, I have encountered many people, men and women, who’ve been abused by lovers or spouses and several who’ve suffered under parental abuse. The rate of the religious setting leaning conservative/fundamentalist has been quite significant.

    Yes, it happens in other religious settings, but when one looks at the statistics, religion plays a factor when it comes to how abuse is addressed, or not, who is considered at fault, advise on exiting abusive relationships, and support for victims. Frankly the church has a horrific history, and the more conservative the pastor/congregation the less the odds that a victim can look to them for aid.

    Speaking out for all, saying this is wrong, pointing out where the problem shows itself to be more common than others and factors as to why is needed. We need to stop sweeping this epidemic under the rug, or diminishing it, because it is not happening to us. I shocked my co-workers to the core when I confessed I had left my ex and why. They had no idea what I’d been enduring. Most people living with abuse do so silently as the shame and guilt heaped upon us by abusers and religious culture make it nearly impossible to be otherwise.

  • I’m not a t-shirt wearer, but a coffee mug? Hell yeah. Id sip from that.

  • LWinPA

    My heart breaks for anyone who has lived through the experiences you describe… and the experiences described in the article… However…

    I was raised in… and married into… what most would classify as a “fundamentalist” culture. But I would NEVER condone the behavior described in this article… Nor would any of my acquaintances/friends/family condone it. Perhaps I am more fortunate than most… but I doubt it.

    My life experience leads me to question whether the abusive behavior described in this article is MORE prevalent in “fundamentalist culture” (whatever that is would need a much firmer definition for purposes of any objective study certainly…) than it is in society at large.

  • AtalantaBethulia

    The issue isn’t whether it is more prevalent in fundamentalist culture than society at large. The issue is that it exists at all within a Christian community and why.

    I wonder if you might address my lighter fluid analogy.

  • LWinPA

    It exists because everyone (even fundamentalists, even Christians) who lives on earth is still human.

    To paraphrase a common saying… “Sin HAPPENS”.

  • AtalantaBethulia

    You seem to not be willing to consider how religious teaching can contribute to a problem. Why is that?

    Do you think exposure to violence and sex in media contributes to attitudes about violence and sex and violent and sexual behavior in society?

  • LWinPA

    You seem to not be willing to consider that religious teaching may not contribute to a problem. Why is that?

  • AtalantaBethulia

    I have considered it and the evidence speaks against that conclusion. Both John and I have referred to the evidence. I would be happy to go over it again.

    If you would be so kind, please see again my lighter fluid analogy.

  • not even then, i think.

  • Guy Norred

    The point isn’t that the abuse is condoned but that the abused has been conditioned to silently accept it. This may or may not be backed up by the community (as has been pointed out there ARE examples of instances when it HAS been backed up by the community, but….). The example that started this whole discussion was one in which an authority figure didn’t condone the abuse–wanted to end the abuse–but found himself able to do little about it because the object of the abuse felt it was her duty as a Christian and a woman to accept it.

  • AtalantaBethulia

    Worth noting would be that if we did write about authoritarianism and patriarchy it would be to address a broader issue than the more specific one of complementarianism – which –I hazard a guess– would also likely be perceived as using “a broad brush.”

    But since you suggested we discuss it, Patriarchy and Authoritarianism are traits common to Fundamentalism of all stripes, not merely to Christian Fundamentalism. They, like other fundamentalist traits, are also found in the other two Abrahamic faiths. These traits are the underpinnings of complementarian beliefs. These are among the traits that lead to a hierarchical church, family and social structure, and have led to things like (but not limited to) the prohibition of women from the clergy and church leadership, strict gender role assignments to men and more particularly women, dress and modesty codes particularly more so for women, the concept of womanly submission (not just in marriages but in the church and to male leadership in society), to the ways in which married couples can engage in sex, when and how often. These beliefs affect women’s lives in many ways from the amount and type of education they receive to the types of employment they are encouraged or permitted to pursue to whether or not they are permitted to work outside the home, to what kind of clothes they can wear and in other societies whether or not they are permitted to drive or travel alone without a chaperone. It affects the type of person they are permitted to date and marry. It affects the dynamic of relationships, friendships, and the marriage itself – all in a limiting fashion, and in a limiting way that is not also imposed on men. It affects how women are treated when they are raped. It affects how children are treated when they are molested. It affects what happens to their abusers -both legally and in the religious society. It affects teachings on who bears responsibility for when men have sexual thoughts and feelings about women and experience lust. It allows laws to be written that incorrectly say that husbands can’t be held responsible for raping their wives because marital rape “doesn’t exist.”

    Authoritarianism and Patriarchy are what perpetuated notions such as the Divine right of Kings and are why female children continue to be marginalized in a great deal of the world and suffer in greater numbers from gender selective pregnancy terminations and infanticide. It’s why inheritance laws only until more modern times in more egalitarian societies more beneficially favored male children. It’s why only within the past 45 years or less, women have been able to get their own credit from banks. It’s why women were once unable to own property and vote. Because inherent to Authoritarianism and Patriarchy is the basic belief that women are not as good as, smart as, or capable as men… to lead, to be decision-makers, to be independent, to influence society, to be responsible for property or money or voting, to be trusted to give testimony at trial or in matters of any significant import outside of child-rearing and “womanly things.”

    Until modern science discovered how reproduction actually works, women were understood by men to be merely vessels for the child that men planted in the fertile soil of their wombs – believing that all human potential came from the man and women were merely incubators: Thus the erroneous religious belief that “spilling seed” upon the ground was tantamount to murder. We weren’t perceived as even being equal contributors to the production of offspring.

    Authoritarianism and Patriarchy are the poison roots of the tree that is Religious Fundamentalism. They are both born of ego and a deep need for control. These pillars are ego-enhancing, and such an ego-enhancing belief system (rather than an ego-deflating one) creates people with fragile egos who, in order to maintain order and control in their lives, exert their authority over weaker members of the hierarchy as an unhealthy coping mechanism: pastors over congregants, men over women, husbands over wives, women over children, believers over unbelievers.

    Ego, referred to in this way, is about maintaining what one thinks about oneself and one’s in-group on how things are supposed to be and often involves putting oneself first before others. Most of the problems with ego occurr at a subconscious level, such that a person who lacks self-awareness can’t even see this about themselves – they are oblivious to their behavior, how it affects other people, and what their underlying motivations truly are. Others have described Ego as Edging God Out. And people who have studied this have found that when we are operating from a place of self-protection, defending our ego, it blocks our ability to show compassion to others –to see things from other points of view– to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes nearly every. single. time.

    I once was in your shoes, LWinPA, but I learned to see from new and different angles. I hope that you will too and that perhaps by engaging in this exchange, we both will have a better understanding of each other … and why we who used to be in fundamentalism see the problems inherent to Authoritarianism and Patriarchy and its associated extensions.

  • All you have is your life experience, of which you’ve been fortunate to have had a safe, happy one. To have a life partner where there is mutual trust, respect, and compassion is a gift I wish for all couples. However I am pretty sure that there are at least three women (likely more) in your current circle of acquaintances who’ve not been so fortunate. It is a sad reality. Something about our culture fosters and encourages this type of behavior. As the majority faith here is Christian, and the more fundamentalist ones tend to use the bible to perpeturate a male dominant culture, there is responsibility that needs to be addressed, responsibility that as of yet, these perpetrators do not seem to be willing to address.

    For those of us who’ve experienced violence at the hand of a partner, for our sisters, friends, daughters and granddaughters, it needs tobe addressed and stopped.

  • Paul Julian Gould

    Hell, John… I’d take one of those T-Shirts and wear it “loud and proud.”

    But I’m kinda weird that way…

  • Paul Julian Gould

    2-sided deer boogers? Works for me… but then, I’ve got a small list of seriously nasty insults with nary a cuss-word in a carload, so there’s that… {*chuckle*}

  • Nick Waltz

    So you cover the Fudamentalism aspect of this…but what about “Progressive” theology like Tony Jones abusing his wife and currently trying to lawsuit her into bankruptcy?

  • Um … I’m one guy with a blog (who barely has time to post anything on it at all). When I get a staff, so that I can cover more stories, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, if you’d like to write a story about Tony Jones, please do, and I’ll seriously consider publishing it here. (God, it’s amazing what people find to complain about.)

  • Shawn Cassidy

    Um….not a complaint, a question. It would have been perfectly valid to mention him in your article, and it was a general question since you are posting on a “progressive” blog

  • Do you really think that I can’t go into my Disqus moderation panel and see that you and “Nick Waltz” are the exact same person?

    Annnnd welcome to the noble, truth-championing online fundamentalist Christian, everybody. This is the constant of online fundamentalists: attack; change profiles; comment in support of that attack; fail to realize how transparent and sad that is.

  • I would rather all the Christians like you (who have worked out your husband/wife relationship in a non-abusive way) be offended at this article as long as it reaches even just one woman who is being abused based on the same theology.

  • We shouldn’t care whether we are painted with a broad brush or not, if we are living the life Christ has called us to.

  • Exactly, and many of these churches also teach that a woman should not work outside the home or, if she does, that she should stop working and stay at home once she has children.

    No money of your own and fear of losing your entire social & spiritual support system buy going against the church and leaving is a pretty strong incentive to stay.

  • Andy

    I’d put it on the shelf next to the “My boss is a Jewish carpenter” mug.

  • Guy Norred

    Susan Cottrell just posted this that I think ties back to this post.