On Thurs., April 28, 1757 John Wesley made the following entry in his diary:

I talked with one who, by the advice of his Pastor, had, very calmly and deliberately, beat his wife with a large stick, till she was black and blue, almost from head to foot. And he insisted, it was his duty so to do, because she was surly and ill-natured; and that he was full of faith all the time he was doing it, and had been so ever since. [1]

          The account contains no record of any sort of protest, and yet Wesley’s own compassion is evident. Like many another Christian, he is caught between the desire to honor the ministry of another clergyman and his own sense of social justice. Wesley’s description reflects his discomfort and dismay at the abuse that the woman has suffered, but what sort of questions did he pose to an abuser who acted out of religious conviction and upon the advice of his pastor? Did he ask how this accorded with the command for a husband to love his wife and cherish her? Did he dare to criticize that pastoral advice that had been given or to question a theology that justified the abuse?

          Two hundred and fifty years have passed since Wesley made that entry, and the dilemma still remains. To-day we stand at a critical crossroad. Increasingly there is an acknowledgement that a major contributing cause of domestic abuse is a societal acceptance of male dominance and an accompanying sense of entitlement. Males have a right to control their intimate partners, or so it is supposed. Lundy Bancroft maintains that the common characteristic of abusers is their fundamental mindset, and to this we have an opportunity to address ourselves. ?” Evangelical theologian John Stott used to say that the church needed to engage in a double listening: with one ear to the needs of contemporary society and with the other to the Word of God. We have come to a juncture of one issue where this double listening and reflection is incumbent upon the church of Jesus Christ.

          The abuse of women appears to be growing at an alarming rate. In America some fifteen hundred women are slain yearly at the hands of their domestic partners, about half of the number killed on September 11, 2001. Many others are permanently maimed, and far more bear deep emotional scars. More critical yet is the harm done to children, both those who suffer actual abuse and those traumatized by the presence of abuse in their homes. Research shows that children are far more aware and far more deeply impacted than  parents often imagine.

          Though it is sometimes fashionable to blame the victim, the basic responsibility must be placed upon those who abuse. Lundy Bancroft declares that it is because of a fundamental mindset shared by perpetrators. The root lies in the offender’s concept that he has fundamental possession of his intimate partner, and from this arises the trunk of the tree: entitlement. Out of this trunk branch forth the various forms of abuse that ensure the victim’s compliance with his wishes. We must observe that in some ninety percent of cases, the victim is female and the offender male.  Douglas Gaudette, director of the Family Safety Project of Caritas Holy Family Hospital puts it more bluntly: “Patriarchy is the breeding ground of abuse.”

          Concerned Christians involved in intervention programs are well aware that a misinterpretation of the biblical concepts of “headship” and “submission” is a major obstacle in working with Christian batterers and victims. Jesus warned about the destructive effect of bringing a wrongful message and added “by their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:15-16). We need to think this one over.

          Even though earnest Christians deplore the atrocities of domestic abuse, they simply do not know how to handle the scriptural statement that man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3). It is time to deal with the issue forthrightly, to lay out the concerns, both theological and practical, and to move forward to new understandings. In point of fact, the same First Corinthians passage also says that God is the head of Christ. The Greek-speaking Church Fathers were quick to point out that this meant not superiority but rather similarity, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equal in goodness power and love.  So too woman, as drawn forth from man, is of the very same substance “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” – not inferior having but the same intellect, the same emotional capacity, the same personhood and longing for God.

          There are certain contemporary theologians who comprehend that if they maintain that women are subordinate to men, to be consistent they must also say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinated to the Father. Recently a new theological seminary has been established to propound precisely this view. We are entering a time of theological crisis, especially as it impacts family life. Of course there is a need again to ask what the Bible really says, and not what some popular guru says.

         Ty and Barb Schroyer, directors of a Christian model of the Duluth batterer intervention program, are anxious to have a biblically-based discussion that will face the dilemma so often faced in support and intervention groups. How are caregivers to deal with the concern that clients express about headship and submission? How can we be both faithful to the scriptures and faithful to the wounded. Are we betraying offenders when we do not offer a corrective interpretation affirming the full equality of both male and female and their full right to respect, dignity and decent treatment?

         The time has come for us to step into the ring. Sometimes we have just made polite noises because we didn’t want to “rock the ship.” We don’t want to alienate believers, but neither should we allow them to engage in, ignore abusive behaviors justified by faulty theology.

         This is the basis for our planned panel at the August 7 event, in which there will be an honest discussion of the problems created by patriarchy and also of the theological challenges that must be met. We seek to bring about an interchange between representatives of biblical and theological thought along with the practical evidence, frustrations and sometimes desperation of care givers and healers. We say that praxis flows from theology, but we have usually sidestepped the issue of patriarchy. The results of remaining are simply too costly.

         Why do we plan such a feature at an event that we hope will be attractive to secular caregivers? Because we are being told that they are desperate for such an interaction. They do not know how to cope with the religious batterer or the victim who insists that she must submit to the mistreatment no matter how vicious. Here, as at many other points, we believe that the scriptures can bring healing rather than harm and that there are many ways in which we can serve the secular DV community as we are faithful to the wounded and faithful to the Word.

[1] John Wesley, vol. 2 of The Complete Works of John Wesley, 7 vols. (Albany, OR:  AGES Software, 1997), 450.