But He Never Hit Her: An Anonymous Guest Post

So many people think that abuse is hitting. I thought so growing up. Now I know better. It is one form of abuse, but not the only one. For years, I watched and listened as my dad abused my mom without ever laying a hand on her. He never cussed her out. Even if I had understood the concept of verbal abuse, I probably would have said what he did wasn't *that* bad.

Now I see that he didn't need to do that. He held her hostage emotionally, spiritually, mentally and financially to such an extent that he never needed to cross those tangible lines of physical violence.  He controlled her in other ways.  His put downs and sarcastic barbs, his raging silences and a host of other tactics battered her spirit without the discomfort he would have experienced from bruising her body.

She walked on eggshells all the time, fearful of failing him yet again and triggering another freezing withdrawal or scornful tirade.  He talked and talked and talked until she would have given in on just about anything.   Even though he was the one in control of the finances, it was always her fault that there was never enough money for her needs--those always had to be put off just a little longer.  But he still got his computer stuff. 

It wasn't bad all the time, though.  There were enough good moments to make her feel crazy.  Maybe it really was her fault.  It had to be.  He wasn't a bad person--in fact, he had the respect of the people around him who were convinced that he was a wonderful, Godly man.  If only she could just try a little harder and not set him off with her stupidity, her slovenliness, and all the ways she hurt his feelings.

The good times would last just long enough to convince her that it really was getting better.  The previous explosion was a low point, but she was probably exaggerating it a little, and anyway, he wasn't going to do it again.  We would all hold our breaths for a few days, and then, just as we started to relax, something triggered him again.  It was enough to give us mental and emotional whiplash.

That is the lesson I learned of what marriage looked like. And that is the filter through which I interpreted my own husband's actions, even when his motives were entirely different. I took in my dad's control tactics as the way to "win", but at the same time learned to feel helpless like my mother, because that is what I saw and felt then. Those lessons are hard to unlearn.

It could have been worse. I know that, for both her and for me. I didn't repeat the cycle of marrying an abuser. But my mind was still locked into playing out some of the same scenarios. To ascribing the same motives to my husband, and of myself alternating between the roles of aggressor and victim. I've spoken with the same contemptuous tone of voice that my father used. I've reenacted her passivity. Most of all, I've come to the realization that I have no idea what a healthy marriage looks like. I haven't spent enough time around one.

So now I'm trying to figure out how to teach my daughter differently. How do I model a healthy marriage? How do I help her to know what an abuser looks like? How do I navigate relationships with my parents now when the abuse continues unacknowledged?

No, he never hit her. But the scars are still there, for all of us.

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Who is in the driver's seat in your marriage?

Whenever there is discussion of mutual submission, the bottom line for many is: who makes the final decision? 

Perhaps it is a question of temperament.  Speaking for myself, I am very unselfish about things that don't matter to me.  I will happily defer to my husband when it comes to decisions about cars, electronics and other things that I have no interest in as long as they work.  I certainly don't consider myself a shrew.  But on things that *do* matter to me?  Well, there is a reason that my mom owned copies of The Strong Willed Child in both Spanish and English!  Giving in simply isn't in my nature.  I was sincerely worried when I was younger that I would never find a man that I would genuinely be able to submit to.

The idea of a husband being able to pull a trump card and overrule me simply because he is a man felt wrong, unfair and silly, because it is wrong, unfair and silly.

On the other hand, I would have despised a weak man who gave in resentfully or was intimidated by me.  I wanted us a partner whom I could respect, and who would respect me.  It sounds pretty basic, but I have seen a lot of marriages where it isn't the case, and many churches that are both terrified and enraged by the very idea.

In a mutually submissive relationship, most day to day decisions are made by whoever has the interest, aptitude and responsibility.  So I don't need permission or direction from my husband, just as he doesn't need permission or direction from me, in our own areas of responsibility.  Things like my appearance, activities during the day, care of the children when I am with them, spending money and so on are up to me.  Because we love each other, we are courteous and discuss big things like major purchases and even little things, just because we are both interested.  But neither dictates to the other.

But what about the big issues?  What if there is a major life decision that needs to be made and you disagree?  Inaction until unity.  We both belong to God.  We both love Him and each other.  He led the people of Israel with a fire and a cloud.  He will lead us, too.  So we wait, we pray, we listen and consider.  If necessary, we talk more.  Until there is clear direction from God, we stay where we are and hold off on a decision. 

What if inaction *is* a decision?  Simplistic advice that evades the tough questions provokes uncontrollable eye rolling for me, even if I am the one giving it.  I get that some things are time-sensitive, and that a choice to maintain the status quo *feels* like a decision.

Quite frankly, inaction until unity will only work if both partners are committed to finding a solution.  If they are trying to use this as a tactic to control each other, it is not mutual submission.  If they are determined to work together and seek God, I believe that they will eventually find a solution that satisfies both of them.  Often that will look like a new idea that neither had considered before.  Other times it may look like a change of perspective, as one finds new information that leads to agreement with their partner.

It is *not* a case of one winning and the other losing.  Nor is it a case of both losing (compromise).  If one or both is unsatisfied, it isn't unity. Mutual submission means that both the husband and wife are submitting to each other.  They are acting unselfishly and seeking to find the best for each other.  Rather than trying to impose their own way, they are both exercising their energy and purpose to find God's way for their family.  That may mean at times that they stand in each other's way to prevent going down a wrong path, but ultimately they find unity and act out of love.

Coming soon:  Submission and Abuse

Image credit: jbguess

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership

Just like with gentle discipline, the issue of wifely submission usually boils down to two questions: 1) Is it Biblical? and 2) Does it really work?  We have talked about the Scripture in the previous posts, and I am happy to address it more if you have more questions about a specific passage, but let's go ahead and talk about how the popular notion of spiritual leadership tends to play out in every day life.

Ironically, I see a lot of simmering resentment, disappointment, shame and anxiety in my sisters who are convinced that the husband is meant to be the spiritual leader in the home.  It is a perilous thing to allow others to define what "being spiritual" really means.  Is it something he proves by taking the family to church every Sunday? Directing the family in devotions every morning?  What if he only does it once a week?  Is that enough?  Does he need to lead the family by praying aloud before every meal?  Discuss deep theological topics with his wife on a regular basis?  What if his standards are more worldly than yours?

Who is *really* pulling the strings in this family?

The advice from the wife-only-submission camp is pretty consistent: if you are submissive enough, then you can manipulate him into doing whatever he is supposed to do.  If he is indifferent, or at least not taking the initiative to guide your family spiritually the way you want, all you need to do is submit more, honor him more, satisfy him sexually more, pray more and then (and only then) will he be able to fulfill his masculine destiny as head of the household.  (It is really all your fault, you see).

It becomes an elaborate, role-playing strategy game.  To complicate it even further, the rules that the wife creates are typically unspoken, and the rules that the husband sets are frequently subject to change, not to mention the fact that he is also the referee.  Ultimately, if he doesn't fit into the  man-made spiritual leader box, then she is disappointed and resentful that he isn't fulfilling his obligations, and he is frustrated and resentful of her manipulation and disapproval.

The pressure on the wife is public as well as private.  If his spirituality is her obligation, then his choices reflect on her, too.  She may feel as though she has to cover for him and invent excuses or at least speak rather evangelastically about his spiritual state in order to honor him sufficiently and to protect herself.

Churches talk a lot about being "unequally yoked" in marriage relationships.  But what they fail to realize is that expecting the husband to always be the one to initiate everything spiritual is actually putting an unequal yoke on the couple. 

Some people are more private about their faith than others.  Some fit much more easily into the stereotype of "leader".  Sometimes during different seasons in our lives our roles may change.  Mutual submission means that you don't have to squeeze into someone else's perception of gender roles and what a relationship with God and each other looks like.

There is a breath of freedom in not trying to jam your family into someone else's mold.  You don't have to seduce your husband into a particular response by carefully x-ing off all the little boxes in your checklist.  You can share feelings and needs openly and honestly.  If you are both spiritual partners, then it you can each lead according to your giftings, callings and convictions.

Instead of trying to force your husband to lead the way you want him to, you can lead together.

Coming soon: But Someone Has to Make the Final Decision! or, Inaction Until Unity

Image credit: x-ray delta one on Flickr

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Wifely Submission, Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands

I searched all over for vintage photos of couples who looked happy.  I know they didn't smile in photos then, but even going by their eyes, nearly all the wives all looked resigned or scared.  Maybe they were following a less accurate translation?

When it comes to difficult Scripture passages, whether it is verses about the rod or about submission or anything else, one of the hardest things to do is to set aside our own cultural baggage and preconceived notions about what the text really means.  I suspect that God likes to challenge us.  To play hide and seek, in a way, so that we will look for Him more earnestly.

I believe that Scripture is holy, and that twisting it to make it more palatable to our own way of thinking is incredibly dangerous.  I have seen first hand the terrible damage it does to families and societies when it is warped and misused by those who want to justify their own sinful nature.  And that is especially true when it comes to the issue of Biblical submission.

Parts I, II, III and IV of this series looked at the issue of wifely submission in passages on Creation, the Fall, the Curse and the Gospels.  Over and over we saw that God's design was for unity and mutual submission.  Which is probably why people consider Ephesians 5 to be the big guns of the argument for hierarchy within marriage.  So let's take a look at it:

"Be filled with the Spirit, while you are supporting one another out of respect for the Anointed One, wives with your own husbands as to the Lord.  The man is the source of the woman just as the Anointed One is the source of the assembly.  He himself is the protector of the body.  Just as the assembly is a support for the Anointed One, so let the wives be a support for their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as the Anointed One loved the assembly.  He sacrifices himself to make the assembly sacred and to cleanse it with baptism by the spoken word.  He did this so he would have a a sacred and unblemished assembly, an assembly held in high honor, without stains or wrinkles or any flaws.  Husbands are obliged to love their own wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his own wife loves himself.  No one hates his own body, but provides for and cares for it, just as surely as the Lord provides for and cares for the assembly, because we are the members of his body.  The Scriptures say, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two will be a single body."  This is an important hidden secret truth.  But I am referring to the Anointed One and the assembly.  So to get back to the subject - each one of you is to love his own wife just as he loves himself, so that the wife is able to respect her husband." ~ Ephesians 5:21-33 The Source

Wow!  That clears up just about everything right there!  But before going back into it, let's talk about the, er, source.  That ain't the KJV.  We all know that if John the Baptist used the King James Version, then it's good enough for us, right?  Except that he didn't, and neither did Paul or any of the other Biblical authors.  God has not changed since the Bible was written.  His Word is forever.  His character and His design for relationships have not changed. 

The English language has changed, though, and so has Biblical scholarship.  We have access to much more material than the KJV translators had.  We have a much better understanding of the Biblical languages thanks to that material.  Because of that, we are able to get a more accurate picture of what the Bible really said to the first people to read it.  And it turns religious patriarchy on its head.

The Source is a treasure trove of information, with extensive notes on the Greek texts and the most accurate translations of them available.  Let's break down a few of the key words in this passage:

According to the notes in The Source, hupotasso, the word translated here as "to support", and in many other translations as "to submit", is most often used as "to be attached" and "to support" (p. 338).  Even if you use the mistranslation of "to submit", the verse "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands" does not occur in ANY known Greek text!  This is a case of the early translators reading their own ideas of patriarchy into the text.  The idea of support is not only more consistent with Greek usage, it is also much more consistent with the rest of the Bible.

Also, the Bible *does* clearly state is that it is to be mutual.  Look back at the beginning: the instruction to both husbands and wives is to support (or if you insist, submit) to one another.  In other words, the husband is also called to support/submit to his wife! 

It then goes on to beautifully illustrate the mutuality of the relationship--we are not independent of each other.  Man is the source of woman (taken from his body).  The word used for head in this passage does NOT imply authority in Greek, just a physical head.  Much like the head of a river is the source of a river, not authority over it. 

The verses about the husband loving the wife once again speak of the importance of echad--unity in the relationship.  But an incredibly important part of the last verse that is that subjunctive form in the Greek that is sadly omitted from some English translations: the husband is to love his wife just as he loves himself so that the wife is able to respect her husband.

I fully believe that wives are to submit to their husbands, in the sense of unselfishly supporting and caring for them.  I also fully believe that husbands are to submit to their wives and unselfishly support and care for them.  That is who we are supposed to be as believers.  Look at Phillipians 2.  How much more should that apply to the intimacy of a husband and wife!

Ephesians 5 is a beautiful passage about family relationships and what it means to love and support one another as we love God.  It is not about hierarchy of men over women, or even husbands over wives.  There are other Biblical passages to examine, too, but so far the trend is pretty clear.  God's Word doesn't change:  the picture from the very beginning is of oneness, not separateness.  Of both partners supporting and submitting to each other, not of one ruling the other.

*************************************

For another look at Ephesians 5 from the standpoint of mutual submission and Hebraic thought, please check out this link: http://theluttonfamily.com/mamadomain/ephesians-5-and-what-it-says-about-submission.html

Image credit: josefnovak33

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Wifely Submission, Part IV: What God has Joined Together

What does Jesus teach about Godly marriage?  As with many other topics, He was succinct.

Jesus answered, "Haven't you read that he who created in the beginning made people male and female and said, 'for this reason a person will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two will become a single body?  Thus they are no longer two but a single body.  So then what God has united, no one is to break apart!" ~ Mt. 19:4-6 The Source

Jesus was reinforcing God's original design.  Unity.  Echad.  Plural oneness.  There is no tearing asunder into a strict hierarchy here: for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and become the spiritual leader of his family, and his wife shall joyfully obey.  Nope.  Jesus' focus was on two becoming one.

Holding hands, shared vision.  <3

Joining together brings a picture of both partners moving in the same direction at the same time, a mutual coming together.  Not a picture of one partner dragging a lesser partner.  Not even a picture of one partner leading a willing follower.  What I see in a Godly marriage is both partners joining together in seeking after God.

It is also interesting to note that every time the disciples looked for hierarchy and recognition of their position over someone else, Jesus blasted that notion to smithereens.  He told them over and over with words and actions that trying to decide who was over another person was missing the point entirely.  Instead of trying to dominate, they should serve each other with humility. 

I know a lot of people want to establish hierarchy in marriage.  They want to insist that men be over women.  I suspect that they, too, are grasping at a worldly model.  There is nothing in the Gospels to indicate that Jesus wanted marriage to be a hierarchy.  His goal was oneness.  Joining together.

What about different roles?  I have heard some argue that while both man and wife are equal in value, they have different roles.  The problem is that they then go on to define those roles for all men and women.  And somehow it turns out that the role for men is always over the woman. That whole separate but equal thing?  In my experience, it is pretty much the same as it was for racists fighting the Civil Rights movement--an empty platitude for maintaining the rights of one group over another while claiming not to.  If one has power and the other doesn't, it isn't equal.

The bottom line to me is that from Creation through the Gospels, God's design is for shared vision and unity.  There is no indication whatsoever that His plan involves a hierarchy--everything that we have looked at so far would indicate that the idea of only the wife submitting is a distortion of God's image.  But wait!  What about Ephesians?  Other passages in the New Testament?  We will tackle those soon.  ;)  In the meantime, let's focus on what true unity means, and rejoice in being joined together.



Image credit: nessa k on Flickr

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Wifely Submission, Part III: The Fall

Image credt Cliff1066 on Flickr

Part I and Part II talked a little bit about God's original design.  The Biblical account of creation paints a picture of the husband and wife as members of an equal team.  Both were made in God's image, both were given dominion over creation.  The Biblical term for Eve is that of "ezer kenegdo"--an equal, opposing power; a valiant ally who meets her husband face to face with a shared vision.

Then sin entered the picture, and distorted everything, especially marriage relationships.  Eve was deceived and listened to the Serpent.  Adam went along with it, then started shifting blame to Eve when God confronted them.  Then comes the curse on the ground and the Serpent, and God explains what some of the ramifications will be: much harder work for everyone.  Men will have to work much harder in the fields, women will have to work much harder in childbirth (it is exactly the same word as used to describe Adam's toil--there is no mention of pain in the original).  And they will have to work harder in marriage, as well--now man (who wouldn't even accept responsibility for his own choice to eat the fruit) is going to take over woman's choices and rule over her.

There is a very interesting discrepancy in the interpretation of these verses.  Many view the idea of man ruling over woman as a command.  I have even heard some claim that women should never have epidurals or other forms of anesthesia during childbirth because it would be avoiding the pain.  Somehow, though, I have never heard of anyone teach that men should never use any tools or machinery that might make farming easier.  Regardless of their views on wifely submission, all the guys I know seem to feel no pangs of conscience whatsoever at using tools of any sort that make their lives easier.  Even--gasp--riding lawnmowers!  Oh, the depravity!

Isn't one as ridiculous as the other?

Seriously, though, we are left with an extremely important question.  Despite the results of the the Fall, we are Christians, redeemed from the Curse.  With all of the other horrible distortions in our world created by sin--such as sickness of both soul and body--we feel justified in fighting against the darkness.  Christians are taught to pray for healing, and to seek health and restoration.  Why then would we believe that we should fight to uphold and strengthen sickness in marriage relationships?  Why should we want to further the results of the curse in our lives?

What does the rest of the Bible say?

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Wifely Submission, part II: Before the Fall

Once I began to re-examine everything I thought I knew about wifely submission, I went all the way back to the creation account in Genesis.  It was puzzling to find some things that were seemingly ignored, and other things that I thought were there required a broad ability to read into things, to say the least.

First of all, Genesis 1:27 proclaims that both men and women are created in God's image.  Stop and think about that for a moment.  Women are created in the image of God.  Not men are created in the image of God and women are an afterthought.  God is not a man.  Sure, we use masculine pronouns to refer to Him and His physical body was male, but He is Spirit.  The Bible uses unmistakeably feminine imagery to describe God in several places--talking about the God who danced in the act of giving birth to us, giving images of us nursing at God's breast.  In fact, the name El Shaddai can be a reference to God's breast nurturing us. 

(The song is not totally relevant, but I love it, so I am including it anyway. Bonus :)

I had been taught that the very order of creation demonstrated the hierarchical nature of God's design:  Man was created first, then woman.  Of course, if you are determined to find significance there, animals were created before man, and I have never heard anyone claim that the Bible teaches that people were under the authority of animals.

But what about the fact that woman was made as a "helper"?  We tend to think of a helper as a subordinate.  Surely that means that woman is meant to be under the authority of man, right?  Except that the Bible frequently uses the same word to describe God.  He is our help, our strength, our power.  Nowhere is it ever implied that God is under our authority!

The Hebrew phrase that is used to describe Eve is 'ezer kenegdo'.  Far from being a term of inferiority or even subordination, this is a phrase that emphasizes equality of position.  The 'ezer' part is that of strength, help and power.  'Kenegdo' refers to being face to face.  It can even mean opposition!  Looking at this from Hebrew makes it clear that man and woman are a team.  Woman is a source of strength and help, and if necessary, can be help that opposes--one who helps stand in the way and opposes a wrong direction.  I love Crystal Lutton's descriptions, "a valiant ally", one who is "face to face with a shared vision."

It is clear that before sin entered into the picture, God's design was for man and woman to complete each other, to rule together.  Both were created in His image, and there is no hierarchy between them.  Then what happened?  The Fall.  That messed up everything, including God's design for relationships.  But His desire, design and purpose, don't seem to include a hierarchy in marriage.  Did that ever change?

To be continued

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

Wifely Submission, part I

Do I have a rebellious, Jezebel spirit?

Growing up, I secretly feared that I would never find a man to marry.  I was saturated with the teachings of Elisabeth Elliot, Bill Gothard, et al on wifely submission, authority and gender roles.  I understood without a doubt that I would need to be a submissive wife.  The problem?  Finding a guy I would be willing to submit to.  Even with ones that I liked a lot and was very attracted to, I knew that I could not joyfully trust them to make the final decision on something if we disagreed.

I have always been one to choose truth over relationship.  I knew that if my own relationship with God and my own intelligence were leading me one way and my husband disagreed that I would have a very hard time submitting.  I certainly couldn't see myself doing it in the prescribed method of a cheerful attitude and docile respect.  No, I was honest enough with myself to realize it would be with me digging my heels in and arguing all the way.

I tried really, really hard to believe all of the teachings that I was given.  My mother reminded me countless times that I had to respect the husband's position of authority and his right and responsibility to exercise it, even if I didn't feel respect for the person or the decision itself.  I knew Gothard's teaching that the one under authority could make a Godly appeal.  If it was denied, she could suffer for doing right (of course, this only applied if what the husband was requiring of her was blatant sin, not mere stupidity).  Otherwise she should cheerfully submit and be confident that somehow, even if the husband made a bad decision, her submission would be counted as righteousness and God would bring some good of it.

My doubts persisted.  Carlos was the first and only man I met who I trusted enough to think that I would be able to submit.  To my surprise, he believed that the Bible taught mutual submission, and that we were to submit to each other.  HUH?  That was the beginning into a deeper look at what the Bible really teaches about wifely submission.  What I found shocked me.

To be continued.

Image credit: x-ray delta one on Flickr

********* 

Read the whole series :)

Wifely Submission Part I

Wifely Submission Part II: Before the Fall

Wifely Submission Part III: The Fall

Wifely Submission Part IV: What God has Joined Together 

Wifely Submission Part V: Wives, Submit Yourselves to Your Husbands 

Wifely Submission Part VI: Spiritual Leadership 

Wifely Submission Part VII: Who Makes the Final Decision?

But They Look So Happy!

Image credit masochismtango on Flickr

News about the Duggars’ newest baby has spawned a number of online arguments. One of the most frequent comments was about how cheerful their family is, especially the children; how Michelle is a great mom who doesn't yell. Life must be working for them, because the kids are well behaved and look happy. Sounds reasonable, right?


I might believe it, if I didn't know what I know of Gothard/ATI, the Pearls, and S. M Davis. One of the creepiest things about their teachings is that happy is the only acceptable emotion. Not only must children be perfectly compliant at all times, they must also look cheerful at all times.


The Duggars are deeply enmeshed in ATI, (Gothard's homeschooling program) and ATI takes allegiance very seriously. It isn't a vague statement of beliefs that you sign so your kids can take the courses. It is several pages of in-depth info that covers what kind of music you can listen to (no Christian rock), the kind of TV you may watch (mainly Christian DVDs), the way you must dress (those jumpers are about modesty), the kind of punishments the parents must use (spankings), and more. It isn't just a curriculum--it is a lifestyle which delves into family finances, child planning and every other detail.


One key idea teaches the importance of a joyful countenance and a light in your eyes. This is a measure of how mighty you are in spirit. Not only that, it is also an indicator of your respect for authority. Bill Gothard explains in the Basic Seminar session on How To Relate to Four Authorities that if you look unhappy, you are publicly shaming your authority. In parenting, that means that if the kid looks unhappy, it is a personal offense against the parents. He also teaches that unhappiness is the result of ungratefulness, and that anger comes from not yielding our rights to God. This boils down to the idea that if you are not cheerful, you are not pleasing God.


The Duggars also strongly recommend S. M. Davis in their Family Favorites link under Solving Family Problems. Although he is perhaps not as well known as Gothard or the Pearls, his teachings are similar. Along with the strong insistence on father rule and corporal punishment, he is adamant that not only must the child immediately obey without question, but that it must also be done with a smile.


In advising parents of young children, he says, "They need to learn to obey what you say, do it right away and do it with a smile. Maybe that is a statement that you should have your children memorize and even hang in your home. ‘Do what I say, when I say and with a smile.’" A few lines later, he repeats it, "After all, isn’t the goal immediate obedience with a smile? If it isn’t that, it isn’t obedience, and the child has won." (Quite a contrast to Jesus' parable of the two sons in Matthew 28!). 


There has long been a lot of speculation about whether the Duggars use the controversial punishment methods taught by Michael and Debi Pearl in To Train Up a Child (TTUAC). The Duggar’s website includes it along with a glowing recommendation. Considering that some of the other recommendations list personal details about how the materials were used by the family, I cannot believe that it was randomly included on their site without their approval.


Pearl's writings contain many nauseating anecdotes about how children (even infants) who expressed unhappiness or anger following punishment, were hit even harder and longer until they were ‘cheerful’. One of these examples is found in Chapter 13 of To Train Up a Child:

"My nine- and eleven-year-old daughters came in from a neighbor's house complaining of a young mother's failure to train her child. A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened, clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down damnation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby's face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, "What can I do?" My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, "Switch him." The mother responded, "I can't, he's too little." With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, "If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.""

A seven month old. Hit with a switch for crying. How twisted is that?

He goes on to add, "Bad attitude is pure bad. For as a child "thinketh in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23: 7)." "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23)." If a child shows the least displeasure in response to a command or duty, it should be addressed as disobedience. If a child sticks out his lip, you should focus your training on his bad attitude. The wrong slant of the shoulders reveals a bad frame of mind. Consider this a sign to instruct, train or discipline. A cheerful, compliant spirit is the norm. Anything else is a sign of trouble."

So it isn't just verbal disagreement. A "wrong" slant of the shoulders deserves punishment. Children are taught from babyhood to always be cheerful, or else they deserve a spanking. As they grow older, it is not just the fear of a spanking that causes them to keep smiling. It is the sincere belief that they are sinning with ungratefulness, rebellion and more if they don't present a happy face.

You know the whole fake it till you make it idea? It is pretty effective. I am sure that there are plenty of times where the kids are genuinely happy. There are many good things in their lives, and I do believe that the kids are loved. I am not saying that it is all a sham. I do strongly suspect that the habit of "joyfulness" is so deeply ingrained that denying "ungodly emotions" is automatic by now.

If you repeatedly ignore a feeling of satiety and force yourself to continue eating, eventually it becomes very, very difficult to even recognize when you are full. In the same way, those who have come out of cultures where they must always present a calm, smiling face, often go through a phase where they can’t even recognize which feelings are authentic and which ones have become nothing more than a conditioned response. If you are under observation or threat of punishment all the time, such emotional repression becomes an essential defense mechanism to protect yourself.

A very telling question is, "Do they laugh?" Yes, they smile often. But how often do they lose themselves in a deep belly laugh? What other emotions do you see openly displayed besides peace and contentment? Do you see spontaneous outbursts of any strong feeling, even joy? Or is every response carefully contained? Do they ever flip a switch? Go from distress to instant calm?

Self control is admirable, of course. But so is healthy self expression. Suppression is not. Consider how the Bible portrays emotion.  Jesus wept. He even cried to the point of bloody tears.  He got angry, threw over tables and chased people out of the Temple. There were times when He sounded suspiciously close to exasperation with the disciples. David, the man after God's own heart, yelled and raged, cried and despaired. Read the stories of the heroes of faith- they argued, tantrumed, got discouraged, and felt afraid. They were open and real with their big emotions, even when they looked messy.

Part of our job as parents is to give our children healthy ways to express all of their feelings, not to punish them for having the feelings in the first place.  Expressing intense feelings in safe and appropriate ways is a skill that requires practice.  We must model speaking the truth in love.

For many people who follow Gothard, Davis and the Pearls, there is incredibly strong pressure to be a salesperson witness. Your countenance is your sales pitch testimony, and if you present an ugly picture to the world, it is a public shaming of your parents and ultimately your God. Are you going to be the cause of people in the world turning from Christ?

I have heard women who are part of this mindset justify staying in abusive relationships because "it would look so bad for a Christian to divorce". As if God would rather you live a damaging lie and deceive others than expose the truth that even families who claim Him are not perfect. (Shhhh. Maybe He won't know that your marriage is really broken as long as you don't sign divorce papers! It is the letter, not the spirit that counts, right? Oh, wait...) Please check out Families Where Grace is In Place or Grace Based Living to read more about living free from curse-filled relationships.

I believe that God values wholehearted authenticity over superficial perfection. As C. S. Lewis expressed so powerfully, "until we have faces" and remove our veils, we will not have the relationship with God or others that we were meant to experience. Such honesty and vulnerability is often uncomfortable, both to demonstrate and to witness, but it is vital. 

He is truly a God who is our Rock, the anchor for our souls. He is big enough to handle our fleeting emotions, even the messy ones. He can take our deepest questions. We can pour out anguish, discouragement, loneliness, petty annoyances, frustration and anger, knowing that His arms are everlasting and that He has promised to wipe away all tears from our eyes.

Jesus didn't say, "...or I'll give you something to cry about!" Instead, He said, "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." He doesn't condemn us for our feelings. He comes alongside us and comforts us. He doesn't punish us if our smile slips.

So when I hear someone say, "But they look so happy!" I can't help but think, "Of course they do. They know that happy is the only acceptable emotion in their world. But is it really happiness when you aren't allowed to express anything else?"

If you are interested in more of what life is really like for someone growing up under Gothard and the Pearls, there is a wealth of information and stories at:


No Longer Qivering
Commandments of Men
Darcy's Heart-Stirrings
Enigma
Love, Joy, Feminism
Permission to Live
Recovering Grace
The Eighth and Final Square
Why Not Train a Child?
A Quiver Full of Information


Reference:
Davis, S. M. (2011) www.solvedifficultfamilyproblems.com. Difficult Young Child Help
Duggars, J and M. (2011) www.duggarfamily.com. Duggar Family Favorites and http://www.duggarfamily.com/content/amazon_blitz
Gothard, Bill. (2011) http://embassyinstitute.org/speakers/gothard Basic Seminar Session 04: How to Relate to Four Authorities.
Pearl, Michael. (1994). To Train Up a Child. No Greater Joy Ministries.

 ***Note***This has been edited from the original post to correspond to the version that I wrote for Home Educating Family Magazine.  Both versions were written before Mrs. Duggar's miscarriage.  Although I disagree very strongly with their position on many things, particularly corporal punishment and patriarchy, I believe that the loss of any child is a tragedy, and they have my very deepest sympathies. 

Authority, Submission, Control and Discipline

Do you ever have ideas tickle at the edges of your mind, just barely out of reach?  I have a lot of those right now, and it is frustrating.  Mamapoekie's recent post on discipline brought some things to the surface, but it is an issue I am still working through, so this post may be "in progress" for quite some time.

Much of my dislike for punitive parenting boils down to its dehumanization of children. Babies and children are assigned a status similar to pets, or even lower. Reading authors like the Pearls, Dobson and Ezzo gives the idea that children are little more than unruly toys for the parent, meant to provide some measure of satisfaction, but who should be ruthlessly quelled if they ever become inconvenient or show signs of thinking for themselves. First time obedience, with a happy heart, (lest the parent feel embarrassment or distress at coercing an obviously unhappy child) becomes the goal. The child's actual feelings are irrelevant as long as the facade is preserved.

Many of the proponents of punitive parenting base it on Scriptural passages. They justify it by claiming a parent's position of authority over the child. It is no surprise that many of those who follow this also believe strongly in wife-only submission. Pretty much the only difference between the status of the child and the status of the wife is that the wife may outrank a pet, at least barely.

In both cases, followers are quick to assert that it doesn't actually play out like that, because the benevolent dictator (the husband/father) is a nice guy who truly cares about his inferior subjects. Therefore, his rulership will always be benign.

I don't believe that the presence or absence of male genitalia automatically confers superiority or better decision-making ability. And although I have heard that acknowledged by Gothard and some other teachers of wifely submission, they generally follow it up with some nonsense about the submissive wife gaining some obscure spiritual reward by following her husband into a wrong decision. Quite frankly, I find that absurd.

Some leave a rather empty caveat that she is not required to sin, but defining sin can be rather difficult. Does mere selfishness and pride on his part constitute sin? Apparently not, according to the teachings. Certainly, there is no recourse if he is not living up to his end of the bargain, just as there is no recourse for children whose parents use "authority" as the basis for justifying their own desire for convenience and ability to control others.

I have actually seen some of these marital relationships that were, in my opinion, healthy. However, in reality, they practiced mutual submission. Regardless of whatever they called it, when walking it out, they made decisions as a team. The wife's opinion, feelings and thoughts were valued, and not just as a mirror of her husband's. Decisions were made by whichever was most informed or best suited (by inclination, experience and talent, not genitalia). The goal was true unity and harmony, not compliance.

I can see many parallels in my relationship with my children. My goal is not obedience. My goal is harmony and helping each of us reach our potential. I see myself as a facilitator for them, equipping them with any tools that they might need as they grow. There are times when I am better informed or equipped to make certain decisions (like whether or not they can play in the street and other safety and boundary issues). There are also times when they teach and lead me. Always, their thoughts and feelings are just as worthy of respect as mine or any other human beings.

I can feel the outrage at this view of discipline by many of my religious brothers and sisters. But I ask you to consider something. What does God's authority look like in your life? Is it about coercion? Or is your obedience something that you freely give? Is it really a choice that you have? Does God allow you to disagree with Him, even going your own way if you prefer? How does He deal with talking back? My own experience is that because of my love and trust, I choose to follow His direction.

I also find that many times He encourages me to discover the giftings and skills I have, and to develop new ones by giving me freedom to pursue my own choices. There are many areas where God does not always (or even usually) give me specific directions, not because He doesn't love me or care, but because it is part of my growth process. He has guidance in place for my protection and for the protection of others. Always, He is more concerned with my heart than with any outward professions of compliance.

The obvious difference is that I am not God. My knowledge and goodness are limited. For me, this is all the more reason that I should guard myself from using "authority" as an excuse to control my children. Sure, there are times when it may be necessary. But far more often, my place is washing their feet, listening and loving and trusting. Jesus had strong words about those who would vie for status over others. Following His example of grace and freedom means encouraging them to exercise their own autonomy as much as possible within boundaries of safety for themselves and others. If I truly believe that being the greater (in authority) means being a servant, then my position looks very different from many models. My authority means that I have the responsibility for giving my children what they need to reach their full potential, and to respect and value where they are right now.