Submission Tyranny, in Church and Society

Servant Leader: Doublespeak for CHIEF

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:24:00 +0000

Most Christians likely think the term servant-leader came from the Christian community as a biblical picture of what Paul specified husbands are to be toward their wives. But it didn't. The term came from secular society, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/10/servant-leadership.asp, specifically the corporate world. “The term servant leadership is attributed to an essay written by Robert Greenleaf (1904-1990) in 1970.” Servant-leader is a business model that one third of Fortune 500 companies utilize to help the CEO and a corporation's leaders appear more caring and less dominating. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400054737/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=28656304287&hvpos=1o1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=158581367188997095&hvpone=11.37&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4e9zd27n4i_b So Christians have latched onto the term to help husbands APPEAR more caring and less dominating. The truth is, both the CEO and the husband who claim to be a servant-leader, are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their purpose is to control the organization for their own gain, at the expense of the wife and the employees.

In the Christian community, the term is used to promote the idea that males are humble servants of their wives, even while they lead their wives, make the final decisions and generally take authority over their wives, frequently for the benefit of the husband. This humble-servant idea is promoted and spun to make illegitimate authority look godly and biblical.

Illegitimate authority? Yes. A husband's authority over his wife, according to Jesus, is illegitimate.

What does the Bible say about servant-leadership? Specifically, nothing. Nothing is said about leadership. However, plenty is said about authority and about being a servant.

The words of Jesus speak best on the subject. “25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Matt 20:25-27 KJV

"25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—“ NIV

Jesus hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. These men want to be the PRINCE and exercise authority or dominion over their wives. They want to be the first, the greatest, the CHIEF. They are not interested in being the leader, because a leader must first walk the path others are to follow, a path of service and genuine caring and love. They want to be CHIEF, so they can command their wives to walk a path they themselves never set a foot upon. And the only time they stoop to serve, is when they want to con her into believing they genuinely love and care for her, so she will stoop even lower to provide extra-humiliating service to the CHIEF.

Instead of servant-leader, as they want their wives (and even themselves?) to believe, a more honest term is “CHIEF.” And if they must include the word servant, the term should be in reference to the couple: “Servant-CHIEF.” Indeed, complementarianism teaches wives to be the servants and husbands to be the chiefs. Better yet, “CHIEF-servant,” since authority-husbands believe their will and their way always come first, while their wives are secondary at best.

But Jesus said it is NOT to be this way. When He said those who want to be chief must be the servant or minister, He was not referring to being the most important preacher or teacher. By “minister” He meant to serve the needs of the other. He was NOT referring to the “service” of leading. In His day, He was referring to the service of washing someone's dirty feet. In other words, doing the jobs that are so humbling that no one wants to do them. That could mean cleaning the toilet, wiping the urine-spattered floor around the toilet, cleaning the shower including the grimy oil ring off the tub, washing the dishes including the gross ones, being the passenger instead of the driver, scrubbing the bug, bird, and tar spatters off the car, changing the baby's diaper when poop has leaked everywhere. Being a servant also means watching the movie she wants to watch and giving her the working remote control most of the time while you cook dinner or do other household responsibilities.

Being a servant is setting aside authority, even the authority that is spun to make it appear as “loving servant leadership” and taking responsibility as a servant instead. That is what Jesus commanded. The only way to be a servant-leader is to lead by example—the example of being a servant. The example your spouse is to imitate. Husbands, it is time to imitate the examples of your wives, who have been the genuine SERVANT-leaders.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

The End of the Long Winter

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Sat, 03 May 2014 05:06:00 +0000

Response to Shirley Taylor's "Something is About to Happen"

Something wondrous has been happening. A side effect that the CBMW did not consider possible as they pushed women underground, snowed on them and iced them forever into slavery and silence—or so they thought. But similar to how bulbs and roots gather strength in the winter and push out shoots and bloom when the time is right, and similar to how sap flows within trees while they appear to be dormant, so has the “sap” been flowing virtually unseen in the lives of a growing number of women. Women have been gathering strength to shoot forth and bloom and no weed-killer complementarians devise will shut them up.

While complementarians have been silencing women and forcing them to lives in the lowest level of the caste system, not allowing them to speak in churches, forcing them to remain with abusive, destructive husbands, the women have been studying the word and writing what they find. Gary Smalley once shared that although he began as a one-on-one counselor, he found that speaking to groups was more effective and reached more people, that video tapes reached even more people, and that writing books was the most effective and reached the most people. Without intending to, complementarians have kept lowest-caste, spread-thin women from doing the busy-work of pastoring, thus freeing them in the small time they have available to do the most effective work of all—write books.

Women from all over the world can “hear” other women “preach” via books, no matter where they live. Women are not limited to those in the local congregations; their work and outreach goes global.

True, complementarian male pastors also write books and their work goes global. But in their effort to silence women by hanging the most time-consuming work around women's necks and refusing them a pulpit, complementarians inadvertently directed women to the one door complementarians left unblocked—the most effective means of communication—especially for the small amount of time women have available to pursue their own interests—like communicating truth for women from God's Word.

So all these years, while women have been silent in the churches, the roots and bulbs have been growing underground, gathering strength and power to spring forth in glorious freedom in Christ.

Daughters have been prophesying—via books and blogs. Women and men have stopped hanging onto every word of the men behind the pulpits and instead are listening to the teachings in books and blogs, teachings that make far more sense than what was being taught from the pulpit, teachings that agree with what we know of the heart of God.

Joel's prophecy has become true and the power of God is becoming increasingly evident: “And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will pour forth of my spirit upon all mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Increasingly more daughters are prophesying, and a ground swell is growing, similar to the power of an avalanche or a tsunami, with the power to destroy the evil doctrine that is holding men, women, and the entire Christian community captive to that rotten and divisive caste system teaching that has been inflicted upon the church all these generations.

Praise God! Indeed, all things do work together for good to those who love God and who are the called according to His purpose. Rom 8:28. What the complementarians meant for evil, God meant for good—to bring freedom from oppression and a voice-heard-by-all to women.

The long winter is nearly over. Spring is beginning to burst forth.

Glory be to God.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Keeping Women in Their Place

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 05:16:00 +0000

Women. Are they equal with different roles, or are they equal with a variety of callings as men are equal with a variety of callings? How does God see men and women?

We know Jesus chose a woman to be the first missionary to Samaria. And the first people she brought to Jesus were men. Was she outside her role to bring men to Jesus? If Jesus chided her for it, no one recorded that.

We know the risen Jesus showed himself first to a woman, waiting until John and Peter went away. And he commissioned her, too.

And Jesus did not rush to Martha's defense and tell Mary to hurry to the kitchen and do women's work instead of listening to the teacher like the men were doing. Instead, Jesus said what Mary had chosen would not be taken from her.

Looking at the life of Jesus, this idea of women's roles being limited by God to being servants to their husbands doesn't fit.

Perhaps the words of Paul in I Corinthians 12 will help solve the disagreement. Does the role that some say is for women only, make them of less value? How did Paul see the church?

I Cor 12:21-26: “And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour, and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need, but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”

Reading that in “God's Word” translation: “An eye can't say to a hand, “I don't need you!” or again the head can't say to the feet, “I don't need you! The opposite is true. The parts of the body that we think are weaker are the ones we really need. The parts of the body that we think are less honorable are the ones we give special honor. So our unpresentable parts are made more presentable. However, our presentable parts don't need this kind of treatment. God has put the body together and given special honor to the part that doesn't have it. God's purpose was that the body should not be divided but rather that all of its parts should feel the same concern for each other. If one part of the body sufferes, all the other parts share its suffering. If one part is praised, all the others share in its happiness.”

What does this mean? Who are the more feeble or weak and who are the less presentable? Haven't complementarians indicated women are the weak and unpresentable? Women are NOT to be where they are seen, in front of the congregation. Instead, they are to take their places behind the scenes. And in spite of their behind-the-scenes positions, they are still equal to men in the eyes of God. Where they serve has no impact upon their value.

To make this better understood, consider which parts of the body are considered unpresentable or weaker, and which are “comely” or presentable, so they do not need special honor given to them? Aren't faces and hands the parts that are seen in public? So eyes, ears, noses, mouths, cheeks, etc are those that get behind the pulpits. And armpits and anuses are the parts that remain hidden, along with digestive systems, thyroids, adrenals, the endocrine system, livers, etc. So complementarians have said God decrees that males can be faces and hands, while females are the more disgusting and dishonorable parts. Ok, that is well and good. All parts of the body are equally needed.

So why are the anuses, armpits, endocrine systems, digestive tracts and livers complaining? Could verses 24a to 26a have the answer? “God has put the body together and given special honor to the part that doesn't have it. God's purpose was that the body should not be divided but rather that all of its parts should feel the same CONCERN for each other. If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts share its suffering...”

Could the whole problem with complementarian rules be that one part of the body is suffering and the other part is “rubbing their nose in it?” In body-speak, the anuses are in pain over the sandpaper that is being used as toilet paper, and the hands and faces are replying, “That is how God ordained it to be. It is your role.” The armpits are in agony over the antiperspirant that is being used, and the hands and faces are replying, “Submit to us! Stop rebelling, you Jezebel! That is the way God ordained it. Stop trying to take the role of the hands and faces.”

Complementarians are saying if a person does not have penis and testicles, they cannot be part of the hands or face; the Spirit only gifts those with breasts and vaginas to do anus and armpit type work for the kingdom. Many women are saying they have NOT been gifted to be an anus. They have been gifted to be a mouth; God made that very clear to them. But those who claim they are the comely ones, whether they are or not, insist the Spirit does NOT gift females with mouth-gifts.

So who does one believe? Those who say women can only be anuses, armpits and guts, or those who say God has called them to be feet or hands or mouths? Does anyone have the right to tell another what God did and didn't say to them? What if the men in Samaria had told the Woman at the Well, that of course Jesus would not have said those things to HER, a mere WOMAN, and ignored all she told them? Samaria would never have had a sweeping turn to the real God.

How many people have not come to God, have not been able to connect the dots to be able to come to salvation through Jesus because men have forced women to be anuses, armpits and guts? And on top of that, those same men used sandpaper, harsh chemicals, and poison to keep the anuses, armpits and guts “in their place,” resulting in hampering the message of the vessels God had chosen to proclaim His message, His way, a way that the hearers could understand and to which they could relate.

Is the church today--the people who have accepted Jesus as Savior--half the size it would have been if women had been respected, if their cry of pain had been heard, and if women had not had their wings clipped so they could not proclaim the gospel as God had called them to proclaim it?

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

When Differing Roles Become Inequality

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:45:00 +0000

There is an on-going difference of opinion between egalitarians and complementarians about the equality of men and women, or the lack thereof. Complementarians argue that men and women are equal, but have different roles. Egalitarians argue that the differing roles ARE inequality.

Some questions for all to ponder: are slaves equal to their masters? Are children equal to their fathers?
What causes people to be equal or unequal?

We are told to not be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers," II Cor 6:14-18, so we know inequality is possible. In the case of unbeliever with a believer, the inequality is in the choices each would make. If Paul intended the will of the husband to be sovereign, why bother to tell Christians to avoid marrying unbelievers? "Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness? Can Christ agree with the devil? Can a believer share life with an unbeliever? Can God's temple contain false gods?" As long as the husband is a Christian, his wife would be obligated to obey her husband and these questions would not apply. The wife would have to agree with her husband whether she wanted to or not.

However, the above passage makes it clear that Paul expected wives to have choices, to be involved in decision-making. If it was only a token giving of her opinion and then the husband could make the final decision, this command would still not apply. Paul expects wives to have the freedom to choose for themselves, to have an equal say and to not continually set aside their own wishes to obey their husband instead.

So what does make people equal? Is it merely stating that God says men and women are equal, therefore husbands and wives are equal, but husbands can still tell wives what to do and the wives must obey? Are nurses equal to doctors? Do patients believe the nurse is equal to the doctor? Do patients respect nurses as much as they respect doctors? Are employees equal to their employers? Are the poor equal to the rich? Are the poor respected as much as the rich are respected?

When do relationships become unequal?

Isn't it when one person or group is given more respect than another person or group? James 2:1-13 points out how sinful it is to respect the rich more than the poor. Yet complementarians respect and favor husbands more than they respect and favor wives. They assign husbands more influence and more respect than they assign to wives. They assign husbands and males more "rights" to have things their way than they assign to wives and females. Complementarian pastors tell wives to have their say and then lay down their rights to cause their preferences or beliefs to come to pass. They also tell wives that if their husbands abuse them, it is because the wives did not submit sufficiently. In other words, they accuse wives of not laying down their will so the husbands can have their will fulfilled. Is not that basic inequality and basic loss of respect? Are not men as well as women to follow Jesus's example of not grasping at equality and instead choosing to lay aside one's own will for the sake of another? When husbands also lay down their will for the sake of their wives, then the relationship is equal, with equal influence and equal respect.

In regard to equal but different roles, I keep seeing the picture from the movie "Ever After" where Cinderella went to rescue the slave that had been sold by her step mother. The step mother owner and the slave certainly had different roles, and the roles were quite similar to complementarian husband and wife roles, with the slave doing all the obeying and the step-mother/master doing all the commanding. The slave was penned up in a moving prison, that was on a cart pulled by horses. He could see through the bars, but had no way of stopping the horror that was happening to him. That slave's plight is similar to the plight of married complementarian women. Is the person who has no freedom to choose where she will go or what she will do next, an equal of the person who makes the decisions for her? Is a person who is an equal in the eyes of God, but an equal in name only in the eyes of humans truly an equal? And when a wife is denied the freedom to remove herself from mistreatment, is she his equal? Isn't she more an equal of animals who have no choice in their lives? That is similar to the horse, Black Beauty, who had no choice over who bought him, or how he was treated.

Isn't a complementarian wife more of an equal to a child who has been beaten or verbally smeared by a bully, or who has been whipped and/or chewed out by his dad? The equality is in name only, like a dad is equal to his ten-year-old daughter whom he spanks and sexually abuses as often as he pleases. The child's role is to obey and suffer abuse, but the child is still equal to her dad, according to complementarian insistence. The dad's role is to have his way with the wife and child, and that is considered equality to complementarians. Just like complementarian wives, the child can cry and complain all she wants, but it will make no difference, except perhaps that her dad/husband will use that as an excuse for being even more cruel.

Complementarians will claim this is a straw-man argument, that their roles do not include permission to abuse. Yet, until they stand firmly against husbands abusing their wives, punish and discipline the abusive husbands and offer protection and support without judgement to wives, they DO support domestic abuse. And their insistence that husband and wife are equal while they support the abuser, is equivalent to claiming that a sexually abused child is equal to her daddy/abuser. In both cases the abused is robbed of dignity and power, of respect and influence.

Equality is measured by the power one possesses to influence the outcome of what happens in life. Complementarian wives, similar to nurses, children, and animals are commanded to turn their power over to another. Some complementarian men give that power back and the result is equality. But many complementarian husbands do NOT give the power back and the relationship is one of master and slave, of upper caste vs lower caste. And the church has largely been siding against the slave, lower caste and supporting the power of the master and upper caste, even to the point of punishing the wife-slave for her master-husband's cruelty toward her and their children.

As Jane Doe has pointed out, when the church insists that wives give up their power and turn it over to their husbands, the wives become powerless like little girls, and the marriage bed like the relationship between a pedophile and a child. The wife's role of giving up her power and the husband's role of taking his wife's power plus keeping his own, result in extreme inequality. This is not mere difference of roles. This is a difference of respect and the difference of power to effect an outcome.

When complementarians refuse to allow husbands any lattitude to use any form of abuse against their wives, whether verbal, emotional, mental, spiritual, physical, psychological, social, or sexual, when they teach that husbands are sinning against their wives when they attempt to control them, school them, and take authority over them, then and only then can complementarian roles be anywhere close to equality.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Submission, Obedience, and Authority

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:38:00 +0000

Finally I think I can spare a few minutes to blogging, without missing some super-important deadline. A number of folks have written comments, some of them in response to old posts, which no one else is likely to see. So I have decided to publish them and my response as posts. I do apologize for the long delay in publishing the comments. Life has been and continues to be overwhelming & hectic. I am doing my best.

Madcan commented on Institution ofSubmission—As to the Lord. I will put madcan's comment in red, and my reply in black.

In order to support your view of "submission," you have conveniently chosen to highlight Jesus' footwashing as an example of submitting as to the Lord. Jesus washed the feet of the apostles because he gladly chose to submit to Father! His submission (obedience) to Father was motivated out of his love for Father, to fulfill the mission Father had for him, and to make Father look great through his mission.

Likewise, a husband is to gladly submit to the Father by doing things for his wife. They may be status-lowering chores that no one wants to do. Just as Jesus was motivated by love for the Father, so also husbands are to be motivated by love for the Father, as well as love for their wives.

Surely you do not imply that Jesus had no love for those He served? Do we as Christians only serve others because of our love for God? Wouldn't that make our service condescending and cold? I Corinthians 13 says if we do all kinds of noteworthy things, but do not have love (for others) we are like a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, and we are nothing.

Your comment sounds like IF Jesus loved us, He ONLY did so out of submission to the Father. If that is indeed what you are implying, you likely also believe that John 3:16 means that God the Father so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, who does not love us, or who didn't love us enough to die for us, himself. If Jesus only died for us out of submission to the Father, Jesus cannot be equal with God, for God is Love. But Ephesians 5 says Christ did love us--so much that he died for us. Christ did not die for us because of love for the Father, but because of love for US!

Your focus on the submission of Jesus to the Father (putting Jesus in a dress, as Cindy puts it) paints Jesus to be stupid. The submission you have been taught that goes on in the heavens leaves no allowance for the Father to submit to the Son. So the Son would never suggest anything because God forbid the Father should ever submit to the Son. That leaves Jesus as a mindless slave, not equal with God in authority, nor in power (if the Father gave Jesus-as-God power, He can also take it away). That makes Jesus into a liar; Jesus and the Father are not one, they are two. Obviously, Jesus cannot be the liar. Therefore it is the “doctrine” that is false.

The view you are pushing says that the Father orchestrates and decides everything, while Jesus' role is to love and obey the Father, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit while "equal" with Father, (as you put it) are His puppets. Are you not aware that the God Jesus was obeying while on earth as a man, included Himself? He and the Father and the Holy Spirit, as 3 in 1, together love us and together chose to redeem us. If Jesus only came to die for us because Father ordered it, that invites doubt about the Father's love for us, since He wasn't willing to die for us Himself, but sent His Son instead. It also brings doubt about the Son's love for us, since He only came because He was commanded to come. The fact is, the triune God loves us so much the 3 in 1 together chose the plan of redemption. I believe the Word offered to come to earth and die for us, otherwise it is difficult to claim His love is of any depth at all. Making Jesus into the Father's stooge so that men can make wives into the stooges of their husbands devalues the love of our triune God and devalues salvation and redemption to the point they are practically worthless. Anyone can order their servant to do the hard stuff. If that is the pattern, why didn't Jesus order one of His disciples to be His stooge and do the footwashing? Oh, right, because of His love for Father. Why is that not comforting?

As you are aware, there were numerous other instances when Jesus instructed, corrected, and directed his disciples with the authority that Father gave him. This authority did not negate or contradict his submission to Father through acts such as footwashing; both authority and humble acts of service are two sides of the coin that men are called to live out.

Yes, I am aware that Jesus did instruct, direct, and even correct at times. However, it was with His own authority. Although Jesus was here as a man, He was also God. He simply HAD authority because of He was and is God. Where is/are the verse(s) that call men to authority over their wives, to instruct or correct their wives? Men are commanded to love and serve their wives, but never to teach, instruct, correct, or order them, any more than wives are commanded to teach, instruct, correct or order their husbands. We are all to edify one another as well as submit one to another.

Allow me to state the obvious -- men are not women. Jesus chose twelve men to be his disciples. Jesus chose men for HIS reasons. We can offer our opinions as to why he didn't choose six men and six women, but our opinions don't matter. God's ways are often too deep for us to understand; we do well to default to trusting him and accepting his ways as holy and right.

Actually, Jesus never even suggested that women could not preach or teach the gospel. Jesus chose women, too. They also followed with the disciples and supported Jesus financially. Did you notice how He did not choose to appear to John and Peter when He rose from the tomb? But after John and Peter left, He appeared to Mary, whom He sent to be the very first Gospel-teller. There was no gospel until after he rose from the dead, so she was the first. He gave that special honor to a woman. He also commissioned the woman at the well, who spread the news to her whole village, including the men. Jesus told parables that included women, so obviously he was speaking to women as well as men. Contrary to popular teaching, Jesus valued women, honored them, included them in establishing his church. He did NOT order Mary to help her sister, Martha, but protected her freedom to learn along with the men. Jesus did not establish a male-favoring gospel—humans did that.

My point? There are enough scriptures that teach us that wives are to submit to their husbands (as to the Lord). I urge God's people to accept the simple message he has given us through his word -- it is his will that wives submit to their husbands IN EVERYTHING. That submission includes both humble acts of service and obeying the instruction, correction, and direction (authority) given by God through the husband.

And there is where you are wrong, madcan. Submission and obedience are not the same. Wives are never commanded to obey their husbands. Submission suggests choice, not a master/slave, or command/obey relationship. When a husband is not behaving toward his wife in a loving, Christ-like way, he is sinning against her. There is no way Paul would recommend that a Christian put her stamp of approval on sin by facilitating it. According to the doctrine you appear to support, a wife must obey what her husband commands her, unless it is clearly sin. But you fail to understand when a husband sins against his wife, even though he may not verbally be commanding her to sin, non-verbally he is commanding her to degrade herself, which is sin. (Do not call good evil; as a redeemed person, she is good.) Submission means she does not need to choose to obey a sinful demand against herself. As she would with any Christian, she must rebuke the sin to get rid of the leaven that will spread to her and cause her to sin.

The only part of Jesus husbands are told to copy is that of love and sacrifice. They are never told to copy His lordship. Neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter command husbands to take authority over their wives. Instead, the Ephesians 5 instructions to husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, sounds similar to Romans 12:1-2, that of offering oneself as a living sacrifice—for their wives. As his equal, a husband owes his wife respect. As a servant of Christ's, he owes his wife love, cherishing, and submission.

This blog is not a place for debate. That is not my calling, and I find the exercise pointless. It accomplishes nothing. There are other bloggers who may choose to discuss or debate, you can do your debating there. The few times I choose to publish a debater's comment and reply to it are those where I think the exercise can enhance the message God has given me to proclaim.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Rebellion Against Submission

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:59:00 +0000

Pastors (and others) often comment how women hate the “S” word, submission, and remind women that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. They say GOD instituted social order and the role of wives and women is to submit to the AUTHORITY of husbands and men. They claim GOD ordained it to be so from the beginning of creation. They emphasize that women must bow to the command from God, and label women who stand up for what they believe is right as self-seeking egoists, disobedient to God, feminist, rebellious, and so on. Some presume that any time a husband abuses or even beats his wife that it is because she was not submissive.

But could it be that women who cringe at the “S” word are not rebelling against God at all? Could it be they are actually rebelling against the misuse of scripture? After all, women are notorious for having a strong gut sense that something is wrong, but they often cannot specify what is not meeting the “smell” test. The fact that pastors, husbands, and even female speakers emphasize the “command” to wives to submit makes it even more difficult for women to put a finger on what it is that is wrong with the command to women to submit. But they do know the teaching makes them feel extremely uncomfortable. Many women force themselves to go against that sixth sense that God gave them for their protection, and make themselves submit even though they know they are agreeing to a wrong, stupid, or even ridiculous choice.

The first thing women notice, but can't put a finger on, is the incongruity of having to submit to someone who flaunts their supposed God-given right to authority. On a gut level, they know that someone with real authority would have no need to flaunt it. Not only would that authority just be present and not emphasized, but also the person with authority would behave in such a way as to inspire trust, respect, admiration, and a sense that the person with authority loves, cares, and makes sensible decisions that favor the wife instead of himself. Wives who cringe about submission don't have husbands who put them first.
The second thing women notice on a gut level, is that husbands are also commanded to submit. Paul tells husbands and wives to submit to one another, and then goes on to tell wives to submit to their husbands. On some level, wives KNOW those directions to husbands are basically “husbands submit to your wives in the fear of God.” Yet, since pastors don't teach that, most wives can't put their finger on what doesn't add up. Men who have understood the real message of Ephesians 5 tell us the command to husbands requires much more laying down of self-will and self-service than the mere command to submit that is given to wives. It is the husbands who are to love so deeply that they leave father and mother and CLEAVE to their wives. It is the husbands who are to love so deeply, who are so besotted, they lay down their lives and die daily for their wives. Wives who cringe about submitting, know on a gut level that something important is missing, but they can't put a finger on it.

The third thing women notice on a gut level, is how scripture is being used to abuse them. The verses about submitting one to another are glossed over, the verses about wives submitting to their AUTHORITY-HUSBANDS are emphasized, and the verses about husbands loving so deeply that they die daily for their wives are covered up. The translators helped with this one. Since the passage tells us all to submit to one another, where is the verse that tells husbands to submit to their wives? Women know it is there, but they cannot put a finger on it. Check out the word “ought” in Strong's concordance. “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.” This command is taught with the emphasis one would use to say “One ought to change the bed sheets every week.” or “One ought to mow the grass every week.” or “One ought to keep their check book balanced.” Many people don't do these things with that kind of regularity, so the “ought” contains little power. But the biblical “ought” has a different meaning, which women understand on a gut level without ever having looked it up. #3784 “from the base of 3786, through the idea of accruing. to owe, fig, to be under obligation, (ought, must, should) mor. [which I guess means moral] to fail in duty:...” The meaning of ought is much closer to our “MUST.” So the phrase would read “So MUST men love their wives as their own bodies.” It is not optional husbands, it is a commandment, a requirement, a debt that keeps accruing.

The fourth thing wives notice is that nowhere are husbands commanded to take authority over their wives. Pastors say the command to wives to submit to their husbands infers that husbands have authority over their wives. Yet in the preceding verse, husbands are also told to submit to their wives, so that would infer wives have authority over their husbands. Should wives flaunt their authority, too? They claim that the husband as “head” gives him authority, but wives know on a gut level that this does not add up. If being “head” gave husbands authority, wouldn't the commands to husbands spell out to take authority over their wives? Instead the command is to love, sacrifice for, and cherish. The husband authority doctrine reeks too much like a skunk in the garage.

Once again, that sixth sense women have is correct. They ought to be cringing at the submission teaching. Their sixth sense is telling them the real rebels against God are the men who insist on being the authority over their wives. They find it grinds them the wrong way to admit the pastors who insist on husband authority are abusing scripture, are likely hateful and controlling to their own wives.

On some level, women know that the more insistent a man is that his wife submit to him, the more obvious it is that he is disobedient to and rebelling against God. It is his job to love, sacrifice for, and cherish his wife, not to rule her. These days it is husbands who are rebelling against God, who have that Jezebel spirit they talk about, who have a slaveholding spirit similar to witchcraft. These women need to stand up and do what is right, to not give in to wrong, not even for an hour.

Galatians 2:5

“To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Loss of Submission to the Commandments of Scripture

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:01:00 +0000

Rather than publish this comment by “Anonymous” where no one would see it on the

"New Coalition Demands Apology from CBMW" post, I decided to make a new post of it. I am inserting sentence numbers and beginning each sentence on the left in order to refer to the quote.

“(1) As is generally the case this issue is driven by the confusion of a chaotic culture the has not only redefined terms but has lost the ability to critically consider an issue from the truth of Gods Word.
(2) This issue is bogged down by decades of misinformation, bias, revisionist history, and the loss of submission to the commandments of Scripture.
(3)All of this cloaked in a humanistic/religious hybrid ideology that ultimately seeks to cast off anything that would fly in the face of supposed liberties to express our own sinful egos.
(4) While there is no doubt that sin has caused many a man to flex his authority in sinful ways that in no wise removed the Biblical mandate of a created order that sets call a man to lead lovingly and a woman to submit honorably.
(5) While I could go on an use a great deal of textual proof I would suspect that it would simply be met by the standard talking points of those who seek to remove any point that may be antithetical to their unbiblical stance so I will simply say that no argument will stand against He (Jehovah God)who has the dictate the roles of men and woman in the home and in society.
(6) Sad to say but such rebellion is common in those given over to their own pursuits above the glory of God.

My comments: I agree with sentence 1. Our Christian culture HAS redefined the terms and as the above commenter shows, has lost the ability to critically consider an issue. From the statements Anonymous makes, it is clear he or she is incapable of critically considering the issue based on the truth of God's word.

I agree with sentence 2 as well. I have been surprised again and again at how even the trusted King James Version—the version that is the kindest to women—has a BIAS against women. If a person looks up individual words in the concordance from those apparently anti-woman passages, they will find repeated efforts to downplay the authority God gave to women and to increase male dominance. In I Timothy 5:14, for example, Paul tells Timothy that he wants young widows to marry, bear children and to be the absolute rulers of their homes. (Despot) But the translators of our current versions lost their submission to the commandments of scriptures and substituted their own commandments instead of scripture, saying wives should merely guide or manage the house. That revision and the history of that revision is what Anonymous is championing—along with many other revisions, like the one spun off Genesis 3:16, where--based on what a woman stated in the 1970's, even though they say any teaching of women is to be rejected—complementarians use illogic and misinterpretation to claim God said women desire to dominate their husbands and therefore husbands must rule their wives.

Unbelievably, I agree with sentence 3, too. Complementarianism is indeed a religious hybrid ideology. It is religious because it cannot be backed up with scripture. Complementarians claim that although in the Genesis account God never tells Adam to rule Eve, that the Genesis account sets up roles for Adam to be the ruler and Eve to be the subject. Yet scripture clearly says both Adam and Eve were to rule the earth. No one is commanded to rule the other. Although Eve was to be a helper for Adam, so was God. Since God being Adam's helper does not make Him subject to Adam, neither does Eve being a helper make her subject to Adam. Complementarianism also ends up being humanistic when one considers that it does the same thing as most humanist teaching—only the group it seeks to free to do their own thing is males. Complementarian teaching is quite humanistic in its results. Although teachers and pastors do not SAY husbands can follow their whims at the expense of their wives, they commonly do not hold husbands accountable when husbands sin against their wives, and instead hold the wives accountable for the sinful behavior of the husbands. Humanistic doctrine does the same thing, charging those who would hold the sinner accountable as “intolerant” and “judgmental,” thus allowing the sinner freedom, license, and justification to keep on sinning, and silencing and condemning the one sinned against. Complementarianism is mere religion; it follows neither God's commands, nor Christ's commands, nor Paul's commands. The one command it does follow is the command of a pagan king.

I cannot agree with sentence 4, and already made points against it in my statements above. Although it is true that “sin has caused many a man to flex his authority in sinful ways” Anonymous failed to point out that a man who “flex(es) his authority” toward his wife is already sinning against her. There is no “Biblical mandate of a created order that sets call a man to lead lovingly.” Adam was not commanded to “lead,” rule, or take authority over Eve, nor are husbands commanded to do so in the New Testament. That is totally the revisionist doctrine of men. Although men are told to love their wives, they are never told to lead them or rule them. So the “the loss of submission to the commandments of Scripture” is one Anonymous emphatically endorses with his or her 4th sentence, and with his or her 5th sentence as well.

Anonymous gives no scripture to back up his/her statements, which is probably best, since there aren't any. And I have used textual proof to back up my points. I agree with part of the second half of sentence 5: “no argument will stand against He (Jehovah God).” That part is true. The roles Jehovah God dictated are roles of equality. There is neither male nor female Gal 3:28; both Adam and Eve were given dominion over the earth. Jesus told his disciples they were not to rule over others. Jesus did not include an exception clause in his commandment. Jesus did NOT say they were not to rule over others—except for their wives. That rulership junk is what the GENTILES do. Not so with you, Jesus said.

And that leads us into sentence 6, which is so true: “Sad to say but such rebellion is common in those given over to their own pursuits above the glory of God.” That is exactly what complementarians are doing. The men rebel against God, and both do and teach the opposite of what Jesus and Paul taught, and have the audacity to call it “scriptural commandments.” Complementarians do indeed rebel and pursue their own ends rather than the glory of God. The men insist that women follow them rather than obey God. Women are to doubt, discredit, and set aside the working of the Holy Spirit in their own lives and instead listen to and obey their husbands and pastors. So the men insist that their wives rebel against God, too. The men set themselves up as gods to be revered above God. And they do it by twisting scripture, leading many astray.

They keep their women on the same level as children, thus making the words of Jesus apply to the men, and also to the women who teach such things. Matthew 18:6 “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” “Offend” is talking about causing a person to lose, or nearly lose, their salvation. “Little one” is referring to a new believer, or to a believer who is still relying on the milk of the word and does not have the skills to rightly divide the word of truth. Many complementarian wives fall into this category because from young up they are taught to deny the truth they find when they rightly divide the word of truth and to deny the leading of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, most complementarian women are kept as “little children” much like in some cultures women were kept as little children via foot binding. Complementarian teaching seeks to hobble Christian women so they will never grow up and never be able to rightly divide the word of truth. Without this hobbling they cannot teach women to follow and lean on men rather than follow and lean on God.

Can a woman who feels guilty if she does not obey her husband or obey her pastor—so guilty that she wonders if she is saved, can she really be saved? Her salvation is based on her commandments-of-men works rather than on faith. Her salvation is also based on a lie that is not backed by scripture. She is taught that the commandments of men ARE scripture, and she cannot allow herself to admit they are not. So she obeys men rather than God. The apostles said the opposite, “we ought to obey GOD rather than man.” She is led astray by complementarian teachers, and Jesus said that is so terrible it would be better for those teachers to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Apparently the woe coming to them is so great they are better off dead so they cannot lead more people astray.

Matthew 18:7 “Woe unto the world because of offenses! For it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!” Jesus is declaring the same woe for those who lead “little ones” astray as he did for the scribes and pharisees who also turned people away from heaven and focused on the commandments of men.

In closing, it is ironic that complementarians would use the commandment to husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, into a command to husbands to rule their wives. They can tack on “lovingly” all they want, but husbands still are not commanded to take authority over their wives. The authority given to husbands is over themselves; to bring their thoughts captive, keep themselves in check and to love their wives as their own bodies. That is called authority over themselves and SERVICE and servanthood toward their wives. That servanthood is SUBMISSION to their wives, not authority. Indeed, the introduction to that section tells us all to submit to one another. Husbands are to submit by loving their wives as they love themselves and as Christ loved the church—by service and sacrifice. The fruit of the spirit spelled out in Galations 5:22-23 should be evident in the behavior of husbands toward their wives. Jesus said “by their fruit ye shall know them.” Husbands who rule their wives are not showing the fruit of the spirit. If they are not kind, patient and loving to their wives, and don't treat their wives as they themselves would like to be treated, that suggests they do not belong to Christ. “If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9b

Instead of obeying the command given, they teach and practice a side of Christ that men are commanded to NOT emulate—the lordship of Christ. The lordship of Christ is reserved for Christ alone. Christ shares it with no man. Both men and women, wives and husbands are subject to the lordship of Christ, whether Christian or not. Scriptures never give males lordship over females. Both males and females are given lordship over evil spirits and over the earth. Both husbands and wives have a type of lordship over each other, I Corinthisans 7, but one does not have more lordship than the other, and neither have a lordship that emulates Christ's absolute lordship over others. We are all subjects and children. Christ alone is Lord. To teach otherwise is to rebel against God and scripture.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Women Catch Men

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:25:00 +0000

If women were to copy the example of those who insist husbands are to take authority over their wives, we would be chasing men. After all, Jesus, himself declared, "Fear not; for henceforth thou shalt catch men." Luke 5:10 KJV

Notice that Jesus did not command us to chase men, nor did he command us to catch them, but it is implied, right? That is the reasoning complementarians use. When Paul says "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ, wives to your own husbands," complementarians say that implies husbands are to take authority over their wives. Even though the only command in the whole Bible that tells husbands to take authority over their wives was issued by a pagan king. (so those men are NOT Christ-followers, or Christians, they are Ahasuerus-followers, or Ahasians.)

If that is so, they should not have a fit when women chase, and catch, men--even if the action is in disobedience to other scripture. Actually, Jesus never said women are not to chase men, so we have less prohibition against chasing men than men have against ruling over women. After all, Jesus explicitly commanded to NOT take authority over others; that is what the gentiles do. Matt 20:25-28.

So from here on out, I will catch men. Jesus said so.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Wives Submit to Your Husbands For

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:24:00 +0000

What a radical word--“for.” Before Jesus and Paul, the rule was simply “wives obey your husbands, no reason necessary.” But Paul, radical as always, gave a reason. FOR the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. For every wife, her husband was her head, her source.

Consider: in Paul's day, marriage was NOT like it is today. Girls married quite young. Their husbands were selected by their parents. These parents did not choose young boys for their daughters; they chose men who were financially able to care for them, men who had established businesses, who had enough money to provide a home and the necessities of life. So most likely, girls of 14-16 were marrying men of 21-30, or even older. These men truly were their source. The basic avenue for the young brides to continue learning was through their own husbands. Although they may still socialize with their peers and older women at the well and at other public places, and they may interact with their parents, they now had responsibilities in the home provided by their husbands. For some brides, the responsibility was to begin taking over the management of the household staff, (big job for a young newbie.) and for other brides the responsibility was to fit into her husband's family's home and pull her share and meet expectations there, while others may have shared living quarters with the bride's parents or lived in a basic, humble dwelling if their husband could afford it.

Consider: these brides were newly wed at the very same stage in life that current teens are rebelling against their parents, wanting to try new things, thinking their parents are foolish, and old fashioned. These young women may have barely known their husbands, much less liked or loved them. But their husband was now their source of shelter, clothing, food, and knowledge. Indeed, Paul in one passage tells wives to “ask their husbands at home.” Husbands were not to maintain their wives as child-brides, but were to provide them with knowledge along with everything else--possibly even business skills.

This makes the command to husbands all the more profound: “Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it: that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.”

Sometimes the best way to understand a passage is to notice what is missing. Paul did not say, husbands rule your wives, nor did he say husbands train your wives, nor did he say husbands take authority over your wives, nor husbands use your wives, nor husbands discipline your wives. He SAID husbands LOVE your wives, sacrificially. Care deeply for your wives and their welfare. Paul goes on to say “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.”

In other words, a husband is to cherish his wife, like he cherishes himself. It is in that context, that a wife was to submit to her husband, her source. Like a flower turns to the sun for what it needs to survive and grow, so also a wife turned to her husband for what she needed to survive and grow. Paul said as the church looks to Christ to survive and grow, so also a wife is to turn to her husband to survive and grow. Ephesians 4:15-16 “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, Christ: FROM whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

Even as the church turns to Christ, who is the source of energy, growth, and nourishment, so also the young bride turned to her husband for nourishment and growth. Paul's word picture does not show a master whipping, scolding, or starving a slave, but instead shows our Master, Christ, growing us via love, supply, and blessing. It is this route husbands are to follow.

But why stress a husband's requirement to love and supply when the post is about wives submitting? We cannot have one without the other. If a wife is to be a symbol of the church, then the whole of her job must be included. Just as the church is to flee from a fake christ, and refuse to follow him, so also a wife is to refuse to follow a fake husband. A husband who acts as a lord and master instead of laying down his life and preferences in his wife's behalf is a fake husband. He is a fraud.

In John 10:5 in speaking about sheep and using them as a parable/metaphor of himself and the church, Jesus said “A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.” This stranger, Jesus goes on to say is a “hireling,” who does not care for the sheep. In other words, the hireling brings harm to the sheep. Paul uses Jesus's tender care for the church to show what husbands are to do. In putting these together we can extrapolate that a husband who rules and takes authority, rather than loves and provides food and growth, is also a hireling and stranger. He is NOT a real husband, and his wife should flee from him, because he destructive. He is not her life-giving source.

Wives submit to your own husbands, FOR the husband is the source for the wife. When the “husband” acts as dictator, he is NOT her head or source. He is a fraud and a thief. The reason for her submission no longer applies.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Are You Sure?

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:45:00 +0000

This is addressed to pastors, like John Piper, and church folk who heap guilt and sit in judgment on women who report their husbands are nasty. Are you sure your conclusions are correct?

Are you aware the details she has told you are ONLY the tip of the iceberg? Have you asked for the whole story? I mean the WHOLE BIG STORY? The one that will take her hours and hours to tell? Do you have a real sense of what a day, a week, a month, a year is like for her? Do you know how often she cries? Do you know how often she covers up with makeup the fact that she has been crying? Have you asked yourself how hard it is for her to not break down in tears in church? Have you considered why she keeps to herself? Why she acts strange at times?

I think of Susan Greenfield's book "Would the Real Church PLEASE Stand Up!" where she tells us how weird she had to behave because her husband required it. Have you considered that the things you are blaming on her, may actually be because of her husband?

Have you considered that her husband is sinning against her daily? Major sins, not minor ones. Have you considered that her husband's life shows ZERO fruit of the Spirit at home? (Even though he acts like a saint in public.) Do you care that her husband's behavior suggests he may NOT BE SAVED?? (Jesus said we'd know them by their fruit; my paraphrase.)

Are you aware that when her husband APPEARS to show the fruit of the Spirit, he is conning her? And conning you?

Considering the misery he puts his family through, are you sure they will be able to stay faithful to God? Are you willing to have that abused woman leave her husband and your church and take her children with her?

Are you willing to be responsible before God for driving an oppressed woman and her children away?

Are you sure God tells husbands to take authority over their wives? If so, list the verse(s).

I repeat: Are you SURE?

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Authority and Power, Part 3: The Irony of Husband Authority Reveals a Cover-up

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:07:00 +0000

In the world of men one frequently sees competition for power. In sports, for example, one man faces off against another to show greater strength, brawn, stamina, skill, and even intelligence than his opponent. Wrestling is a good example of this competition. In wrestling, combatants are divided into categories based on weight. If a 200 pound man pinned a 300 pound man to the floor, that would be a major victory. In that case, the 200 pound man would be seen as virile and desirable for his strength and cunning. He would be admired, and considered powerful. But if the the 300 pound man pinned a 200 pound man to the floor, it would be small victory for the heavier man. In fact, he may be seen as less than manly, as lacking in strength and prowess for agreeing to such an uneven match.

Strangely, these rules are scrapped in complementarian homes and churches. Not only are husbands considered manly when they triumph over an opponent who is smaller and lighter weight than they, but men are also given much latitude to do what they want to TAKE authority over their wives. In the world of men, the size difference between husband and wife (in most cases) would prohibit the man from attempting to overpower his wife—if she were a man. But somehow, the husband who does not control his tiny wife and dictate to her how things shall be, is seen as lacking in manliness. Complementarians would see it as unmanly—and even cowardly—for him to pick a fight with a man who is the size of the man's wife, but it is manly for him to pick a fight with his wife. If he picked even a verbal fight with a smaller man, he would be seen as a bully. But if he picks a verbal fight with his wife, he is seen as taking his rightful, God-given place and as standing up as a man.

Weird. Illogical.

Wait! One way that could be logical is if men feel more threatened by women than they do by smaller men. More specifically, that they feel more threatened by their wives than they do by smaller-sized men. Now this possible conclusion flies in the face of the testimony of many women who are actually doing their best to submit to their husbands, and then their husbands respond by attacking them either verbally, physically, or any other way. In spite of that contradictory reasoning, we'll consider it anyway. Why would a big man feel intimidated by a female half his size, who is submitting to him and serving him?

Someone has suggested that a woman's ability to conceive and bear a child is so far and above what a man is capable of doing, that men feel inferior and inadequate and have been trying to compensate for their own lack through claiming power and authority—and even superiority—over women. Men cannot bring forth life, no matter how hard they try. For much of history, they have claimed that women are more sinful, less intelligent, less valuable than men. Men often glorify the male erection, claim they are “penetrating” the woman and that their seed also penetrates the woman's egg, thus claiming superiority and power-over for themselves. Yet newer research says the egg blocks sperm it does not want, swallows up the sperm it does want, and then blocks all other sperm from entry. In the same way, it could be said that the woman “envelops” the man, for no one claims to “penetrate” a sleeve or a sock. Perhaps many men are afraid that their posturing is a thin veneer that their wives will easily see through, so they work harder by erecting a wall of power and authority to protect their non-existent superiority, hoping if they make the wall appear thick enough their wives will not attempt to knock on the door, since that would cause the wall to fall down.

Another possibility is that men feel intellectually inferior to their wives. Believable or not, a number of men have confessed to feeling such intellectual inferiority, and therefore they throw the first verbal punch to prevent damage to themselves. Other men have claimed to feel so soft and mushy toward their wives, that they are like teddy bears, totally pliable in the hands of their wives. Therefore, they create conflict in order to steel their hearts and be less pliable. Never mind, that the requests of their wives are entirely reasonable. Being men, they believe they should refuse most of their wife's requests in order to show their power and authority. To these men, their wife's request that they pick up a quart of dish soap when they are going to the deli at the grocery store anyway, is a threat to their manhood. Even though the request is reasonable and sensible, these men interpret it as the wife usurping authority over her husband, and that it should not be tolerated—except that it is a financially sound request which is advantageous to the entire family. So these men apparently feel trapped into yielding to the requests of their wives, when they believe they should be asserting their authority by refusing.

Yet, complementarian leaders claim God is the author of this foolishness. In other words, since many men feel inferior to their wives, or think they are too yielding to their wives, God has decreed (so men say) that men should take authority over their wives. So men twist themselves into pretzels to claim superiority, by any means they can dream up—while denying they are doing so. And they claim the right to whatever means necessary to dominate and control their wives—unless it is illegal according to the state—even though if the same were applied to their relationships with other smaller-sized men, they would be seen as bullies.

Frankly, not only have they made God, our true authority, to appear like a fool, they have done all they could to replace Him with themselves to hide their feelings of inferiority, and have brought shame to the name of Christ, and by extension, to the name “Christian.” Even the Gentiles can see through the veneer and know “husband authority” is ridiculous.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Authority and Power, Part 2, The Author of Authority

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:01:00 +0000

To read previous articles, see:
http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2011/07/authority-and-power.html and

http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2011/08/authority-and-power-part-1.html

Before going further into authority and power, more must be said on the Author of authority and power. As a man, Jesus stated, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." Matt 28:18 KJV. Or "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." NIV The words power and authority are synonymous in this case. Jesus has both.

Some claim this verse is saying it is God the father, the supreme authority, Who gave Jesus some lesser authority, leaving Jesus eternally submissive to the Father. But other references negate that teaching. For example, in Genesis 1:26 we're told "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth...'" The meaning of God here, is plural. This is NOT the supreme father God telling the lesser God what to do, nor is it the lesser God asking permission from the supreme father God to to make humans. According to the text, our plural God spoke in unison. Jesus said He and the Father are one, and Genesis backs that up. They are so one, they think and speak in unison. John says the same thing. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Jesus also referred to Himself as I AM.

Therefore, the Matthew 28 statement must mean that all power and authority were given to Jesus in His human form. Indeed, scripture bears that out. He healed the sick, raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, and delivered the captives from demons.

The fact of Jesus's many miracles is so common place to us who were raised in Christian homes and heard those accounts from young up, they bear emphasis. Not one husband, who claims God gave him authority can heal the sick or raise the dead—unless the Holy Spirit gave him that gift. Jesus DOES have all authority and all power. He has all authority and power in heaven right now, had all authority and power when he was here in human form, had all authority and power as part of the plural God-head before He came to earth as a baby, and will have all authority and power throughout eternity. His authority is so great, He spoke the cattle into existence and put the planets in motion, to name just a few of His capabilities.

It is important to focus on the authority and power of Jesus, because He is our ultimate authority. He spoke for the entire Godhead when He was on earth. It is His words we need to follow. If anyone teaches anything different from what Jesus said, or appears to teach something different from what Jesus said, we MUST double check the meaning. Indeed, with Jesus being the ultimate authority, His teaching is far more important than the teaching anyone tells us Paul taught. Paul, himself, wrote that anyone who lays a foundation other than Jesus, who teaches things opposite of, or not in line with what Jesus taught, is a deceiver.

On this eve of the election, as people cry out to God that their favorite candidate(s) will win, as they come in humility before God as they recall the verse: "If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14, are they really repenting? What are they saying? I've heard things like: "We need to repent for the abortion, and homos*xuality in our nation." But they refuse to look at the sin in the pews of every congregation. The sin of replacing God's authority with the authority of men—especially husbands. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus, God, or even Paul, command husbands to take authority over their wives. Nowhere. Yet, entire denominations and churches teach husband authority. They excuse husbands who do not cherish and sacrifice for their wives, and who beat, browbeat, or manipulate and threaten their wives, because they have replaced God's authority with the authority of men.

The first and greatest commandment is "Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, with all they soul and with all thy might." This means we are to put God first. According to what Jesus said, we prove our love with our obedience, (if you love me, keep my commandments). Husbands claim God has given them authority over their wives, but there is no such command from God or from God's spokesperson in the Bible. In fact, in the Genesis passage quoted above, God gave humans--both male and female--dominion over all the earth and the creatures on it. God did not give males dominion over females. Women have equal authority and dominion along with men, but men are putting themselves above God, and insisting their wives put husbands above God, too. This is the greatest sin in the church. It is wholesale rebellion against God.

The second commandment is like unto the first commandment, Jesus said: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." There is nothing loving about a man dictating to his wife (his neighbor) and insisting on his own way. Nor is there anything loving about the whole church insisting that wives give husbands their own way, so that husbands do not have to demand obedience. That is still the husbands insisting, and lording it over their wives--even though they are doing it collectively. Furthermore, Jesus gave explicit directions to NOT take authority over other able-minded adults. Jesus said: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Jesus taught us to love and serve, NOT to take authority over others. Men sin against God and against their wives when they take authority over their wives. And women sin against God and against their husbands when they follow their husband's dictates, thus putting their husbands before God.

THIS is the major sin of which the people who call themselves "the church" need to repent.

Jesus said "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt 15: 8-9 Jesus has the current "church" pegged. People raise their hands and claim to be close to God, while they are actually following the commandments of men.

The very first of the ten commandments is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3. Yet the "church" has put males—husbands--before God. The church is following the authority of men, who can neither raise the dead nor heal the sick, rather than the authority of God--who has the power and authority to throw them into hell.

Could the current decline of our nation be caused by the rebellion of the so-called church against the authority of God, rather than because of society's abortion or homos*xual practices? Indeed, Peter supports that thought. "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." How can men expect God to answer and honor their prayers when they are living in rebellion against Him, by replacing Him with themselves? As Shirley Taylor puts it in the book she is writing, husbands have become the little golden calves of the church. If men don't dethrone themselves, God, Himself, will grind them to powder.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Authority and Power Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:22:00 +0000

What is AUTHORITY? Daniel Webster says

“power or right to command or act; dominion, control; a person or persons exercising power or command; generally in the plural (the civil authorities); government or governmental agency; a reference source or expert in a field to support a fact, opinion, action, etc; a ruling; proof; justification; credit or credibility; (a work of no authority); assurance (to speak with authority).”

So according to Webster, a person with authority exercises power or command and also has the RIGHT to command and have dominion and control over.

If Webster is correct, a person who has the “right to command,” also has the right to TAKE authority over another person. If this is so, we cannot accuse a person with authority of being “controlling,” since authority carries with it the right to control and exercise power or command. This is likely why complementarians both deny that domestic abuse/violence is present among their families and at the same time blame the wives for the abuse and violence they receive from their husbands. After all, if the husband has the RIGHT to control his wife, when there is any discord it must be the wife's fault because the husband has all the rights and the wife has none—except when there is danger the state may step in and charge the husband with criminal behavior, or when he is demanding his wife perform some act that is CLEARLY taught against in the Bible. This is per John Piper's statement, with which many other complementarians agree.

Isn't it ironic that for years, centuries even, husbands have had rights automatically granted to them just because they are male and just because they are married and male. It is also very telling that they hate the word RIGHTS when it is applied to women. Although the men have had rights via authority all these centuries, both the right of self direction and the right of ruling their wives, they say rights are evil when women want the right to choose the direction of their own lives. Never mind that women are not asking for the right to rule their husbands, only for the right to stop their husbands from ruling over them, so that God can be their leader and authority. As Shirley Taylor has pointed out, when the Israelites wanted a king, God told them they didn't need a king, they had GOD to lead them. In the same way, wives don't need a "king" either. They, too, have GOD as their king. Yet, according to the anti-feminists, women should have no rights. Not the right to live according to their conscience, not the right to follow God's leading, and not even the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" they should be ruled by or led by their husbands. And if their husband chooses death for them, that is fine--tragic, but fine. She must have done something to provoke him--like not submitting to/obeying her husband. Ironic. Rights have now become evil—unless men have them and they are called authority.

So what is POWER? Since a part of authority is power, "power or right to command or act;"it makes sense to know what power is. Webster says

“Ability to do or act; capability of doing or effecting something...Great or marked ability to do or act; strength, might, or force...the possession of control or command over others; dominion, authority, ascendancy, or influence; legal ability, capacity, or delegated authority; one who or that which possesses or exercises authority or influence...”

According to Webster, in the context of authority, power means FORCE, strength, might—someone who is capable of making things happen via control over others.

Notice the word “force” that is associated with power. It suggests that the person with authority also has the right to force and enforce. If this is so, the word authority carries no restriction on enforcing the will of the one with authority. In other words, by commanding husbands to take authority over their wives, complementarians also command them to force and enforce their will upon their wives. In Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, page 79, Dr. Tony Evans advises husbands to

"...say something like this:"Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role."

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back."(Italics by Dr. Tony Evans.)

Although Tony speaks of a husband LEADING the family, it is clear from the context, in spite of his attempt to "nice it down," that he is teaching husbands to take authority over their wives, families, and communities. He tells husbands

"...there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead. Be sensitive. Listen. Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!...Stop making your wives set the spiritual tone for your household. Assume the task of getting your family to church, and behave like a leader when you get there."

Now we are all commanded to be servants, to provoke one another to love and good works, but where are males commanded to be leaders or to take authority over others? Leadership is well and good, as long as it is not TAKEN or coerced and as long as people follow because they want to, instead of because they are brainwashed or bullied into following. But the complementarian teaching is for men to TAKE authority/leadership over, for women to follow and give up their own leadership capabilities and even the knowledge and wisdom that God has given them. This appeals to the baser drive of many men; the drive to dominate, to be king. If Evans does not mean it as a dominating "role," he should have chosen the word "serve," which does not carry the idea of domination or the raising up of oneself, but rather the laying down of oneself for the benefit of others.

The complementarian teaching that husbands are to take authority over their wives, puts them in tension with the governmental authorities, whose authority is superior to that of individuals. Governmental authorities categorize rape, physical control, beating, and physical harm as a crime, punishable by jail time, fines, etc. Governmental authorities, via domestic violence shelter workers, also categorize non-physical control tactics as a crime, however, these are only chargeable in court if there are witnesses or other evidence to verify that serious harm was inflicted by the use of dominating/nasty behavior. Otherwise, non-physical controlling behavior is seen as a red flag, alerting the person thus used to the presence of danger.

Notice also that one of the definitions of power is

“the possession of control or command over others; dominion, authority, ascendancy, or influence.”

Ascendancy? According to Webster ascendancy includes dominance, superiority and predominance. But complementarians claim their authority teaching does NOT include superiority, that husbands and wives are equal with different roles. That sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Ok, complementarian husbands have the role of dominance, superiority, power, controller, and commanding ruler. That IS what authority means. If that is not what complementarians mean, they need to choose a different word. But even “leader” and “head” as they use those words include superiority.

And if dominance, superiority, power, controller, and commanding ruler, ie authority over, is the husband's role, what does that leave for the wife? Dominated, inferior, controlled by another, obedient subject. That falls far short of equality, and it includes far more than “roles.” In fact, male superiority and female inferiority have been touted by males for centuries and used to keep women “in their place.” So why are complementarians denying that their husband-authority teaching has anything to do with an underlying (and not so underlying) belief in male superiority and female inferiority?

The site Gods Word to Women @ http://www.godswordtowomen.org/edwards.htm
includes quotes from Gene Edwards' book The Christian Woman set Free. The quotes are telling and show that the male attitudes of male superiority and female inferiority have been with us for centuries and are still governing Christian men today.

From Part One of The Christian Woman Set Free by Gene Edwards

Who Started the Mistreatment of Women
Praise be to God that he has not created me a Gentile, a woman, or a hog. —Hebrew Prayer

The courage of a man is shown in his ability to command. The courage of a woman is found in obeying.
—Aristotle

By all means get married. If you get a good wife, you will be happy. If you get a bad wife, you will become a philosopher.
—Socrates

Women are those who fell prey to their irrational, emotional side, and are therefore incapable of reason and making rational choices . . . moreover as irrational beings, women may not always know what they really want, and so it is the man’s domain to decide for them.
—Plato

We have courtesans for our sex and pleasure. We have young slave prostitutes for our physical use and we have wives to bring up legitimate children.
—Demosthenes

Do not admire your wife’s beauty . . . from the time women are fourteen years old they think of nothing and aim at nothing except going to bed with men.
—Epictetus

Even the most virtuous of women is a witch.
—Oral Jewish Law

Woman is a temple built over a sewer. It is contrary to the order of nature and of the law for women to speak in a gathering.
—Saint Jerome

Because of you we are punished by death . . . because of you, women, the Son of God had to die.
—Tertullian

Men should not listen to a woman even if she says admirable things or if she says saintly things. They are of little consequence since they come from the mouth of a woman.
—Origen

A man may marry again if he has divorced his sinful wife because he is not restricted in his right as is the woman, because he is her head.
—Ambrose

By herself woman is not of the image of God. The man, on the other hand, alone, is the image of God.
—Augustine

For a man to go to a woman for advice is like going to the lowest kind of animal to seek advice.
—Chrysostom

Woman is defective and misbegotten.
—Aquinas

The wickedness of women is greater than all other wickedness. A dragon is more curable than the familiarity of a woman. Avoid them like poisonous animals.
—Pope Innocence III

There is no gown or garment that worse becomes a woman than when she would be wise.
—Martin Luther

All women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior to the male.
—Calvin

To make women learned and to make a fox tame work out to the same end. Educating a woman or a fox simply makes them more cunning.
—King James

The quotes which you have just read may cause a reaction in you; nevertheless, these words did not move me to write this book. But the quote on the next page did! In fact, having heard the next statement, I went home and started this book!
—Gene Edwards

You would not let an eleven-year-old child stand up in a meeting and talk. Then why should you allow a woman to speak in a meeting?
—A statement made in a Christian conference in the twenty-first century

These quotes speak for themselves, and there are many more that we hear in current church life and in complementarian writing, although a greater effort is made to hide the male superior/female inferior beliefs. And so far we've only addressed the dictionary definitions which include , “power or right to command or act; dominion, control; a person or persons exercising power or command.”

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Authority and Power

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:57:00 +0000

We hear a lot about authority these days. Do folks who claim to have authority have legitimate authority? Where does authority come from? What does it mean? How do we know if a person who claims to have authority actually has authority? Can just anyone proclaim, “I have authority!” and from that moment he or she has authority? Or does a person gain authority because another person declares it to be so? Or can a person just “take” authority over another without that person's consent? And if a person takes authority over another adult in that way, (ie: takes authority away from the other person) what prevents it from being stealing? And why does authority always have to be over another person? Why is there so much emphasis on wielding authority over others, and very little emphasis on applying authority/control over oneself? What is it about genitalia that gives 48.3% of the adult population the mandate to take authority over the other 51.7% of the adult population? (for every 100 men, there are 107 women) What are the limits to authority? Does having authority over another adult, carry with it the right to school, punish, coerce, force, or enforce? If so, who gives that right and where is that mandate written? Is power synonymous with authority?

I plan to address these questions in a series, exploring what the Bible says about power and authority. I will conduct the study based on the foundation that God, I AM, is the supreme authority, the author of all, and that all authority comes from our triune God, and that God is the author of the Bible—as it was originally written. This study will also rest on the belief that Jesus, being a part of the God-head, taught with God-endowed knowledge, wisdom, power, and authority when He was on earth in human form.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Honor to Whom Honor is Due

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 04:11:00 +0000

Over the years I've heard complaints from several men that they are not honored on Fathers Day like women are honored on Mother's Day. A secular man complained that stores don't print fliers that are 100% intended as gifts or discounted items for fathers, that they always include several pages of women's and children's items. But they print 100% female-interest ads for Mother's Day, with not a single item that a man would want to buy for himself. The man also complained that his son never honored him on Fathers day like he honored his mother on Mother's Day. A church-going man complained that the sermons on Fathers Day never praise dads and say how wonderful they are, but instead they are sermons telling dads how to be better dads and husbands. Yet, just a few weeks earlier the same preachers, praised mothers without a hint of suggestion on what mothers could do better. Instead, the Mother's Day sermon also included exhortations to husbands to be more loving and honoring.

The men are right: stores do include female-interest items in their sales fliers for Fathers Day, and omit male-interest items for their Mother's Day sales fliers. And preachers do brag up moms and exhort dads. Children do tend to be closer to their moms than they are to their dads, and honor moms more than dads.

This isn't always the case, though. When dads/husbands give selflessly of themselves, when they don't brag themselves up, they tend to be honored by their wives and children. Households where there is reason to quote the proverb “Man works from sun to sun, but woman's work is never done,” are households where the husband/father is less likely to be honored on Fathers Day. And households where husband/father takes authority over his wife, makes decisions for her rather than with her, are households where the man is less likely to be honored.

Perhaps surprisingly, this reaction of mothers and children is biblical. Jesus, himself, said it in Matthew 23:12

“And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

Dads/husbands who declare their word is law, are exalting themselves. When they come home from work and expect to be served, they are exalting themselves. When they declare their authority is a God-given role, they are exalting themselves, making themselves superior and their wives inferior.

Jesus said, “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” On Mother's Day, children, pastors, and businesses are proclaiming that it is their mother who served them. It is their mother who connected with them and established a closer relationship. It is usually their mother who cared for them when they were sick and listened when they needed someone to care, who kept working after Dad sat down to watch TV, read the newspaper, or went to bed. No amount of “Me Tarzan” posturing makes anyone great. Instead, it is genuine caring and selfless serving that makes a person the greatest among us.

If men want to be honored, they need to stop thumping their own chests, and start genuinely caring about their wives and children. And after they've started caring, they need to keep on caring and cherishing and serving, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. And if they are angry because they haven't been honored after 2 days or a month of serving, they need to admit their motivation was not based on love, but was based on self-gratification and self-adulation, which is hard for others to miss because the stench is so strong. Instead of focusing on the error of those who aren't honoring them enough, they need to refocus on getting their hearts right, to genuinely loving their wives and children, to serve and benefit their wives and children instead of themselves.

After they have genuinely humbled themselves without tooting their horn, and served because of having the best interests of others in mind, then they will be exalted. Jesus said so. But by that time it won't matter, because they aren't doing it for praise; they are doing it because of God-like love.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Respect of Persons

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:53:00 +0000

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” James 2:1-4

In spite of the principle clearly laid out in James 2:1-4, complementarians teach respect of persons based on sex. All we need to do is change a few words in James, and it is easy to see that the principle fits for gender, too.

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with strong muscles and male equipment, and there come in also a dainty woman with female equipment; and ye have respect to him that hath the male genitals, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; and say to the dainty woman, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” James 2:1-4

By putting women in a secondary place, they, too have become judges with evil thoughts. Only, they excuse it by calling it roles; rightful, God-decreed roles. I suppose the wealthy could say that, too. Because they are wealthy, they deserve greater respect, and they have a different role than the poor or the middle class. The wealthy should make the rules, after all, they are smarter than all the poorer folk, how else could they have amassed so much money? After all, doesn't Proverbs 22:7 say “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender”? Aren't those God-decreed words, too? Why haven't churches made a doctrine out of them, and decreed that the wealthy are to rule the poor?

Yet, that is exactly what they have done to women. Just as is prophesied to Eve in Genesis 3:16 “thy desire to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” is what pastors and husbands are doing to wives, and decreeing that it is to be so by the command of God. And they add to it by twisting the scripture and claiming that a passage that indicates that Eve would crave the cherishing she at one time got from Adam, actually means she wants to rule over him, and therefore all husbands should take control over their wives. They sound quite Ahasuerus-esque.

Yet, they do not make absolute rules and insist that the rich shall rule the poor, even though that pronouncement is in the Bible, too. In fact, they could bolster their teaching with Proverbs 18:11a “A rich man's wealth is his strong city” and Proverbs 18:23b “but the rich answereth roughly” and Proverbs 14:20b “the rich hath many friends,” just as they bolster “Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord” with “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church” and by head they mean authority, in spite of the fact that the context of the passage does not convey that meaning, and instead conveys the meaning of sacrificial servant or source who pours himself out for his wife's benefit, which is spelled out to husbands just a few verses later. And the verse that introduces the passage tells all Christians to submit to one another. Just like the verses I quoted from Proverbs, they ignore the phrase directly before or after the one they choose to emphasize, as well as other verses in the same passage.

And they definitely ignore the many verses that are commands from God, even those spoken by Jesus, that we are NOT to take authority over others like the Gentile sinners do.

“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Since they insist on exercising dominion and authority over their wives, according to Jesus, they are like the “princes of the Gentiles” and not disciples of Jesus. I realize that sounds harsh, but Jesus said it, not I.

Jesus also said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words...He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings” John 14:23-24. Are men who claim to follow Jesus actually going to follow a twisted interpretation of Paul's words, instead of following the straightforward words of Jesus?

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Scratched Record

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 15:41:00 +0000

Remember when we had those large disk records? When one got a scratch, you'd hear the same words over and over again. Until you moved the needle beyond the scratch, those words would repeat over and over, wearying you, annoying you, until you finally got up to do something about it. But if you had a seriously scratched record, you'd soon end up with words repeated over and over again, and you'd have to stop what you are doing and address the problem again—and again.

We have another type of record that is repeating over and over again. We've been addressing the “scratch” one episode at a time, and now the “record” is doing those repeat episodes with increasing frequency. Unfortunately, society loves the record and doesn't want to get rid of it. Even though it is beyond flawed, beyond damaged, and is damaging more and more “listeners,” society insists on keeping and playing the record daily, 24/7. And some folks deny that the record is damaged and causes major damage. They insist that every married couple must own a record and play it all the time. They claim that the flaws in the record are actually problems with the player, not with the record, and therefore the record must not be destroyed.

So what is the “scratch” in the record? A big one that we keep hearing in the news is unfaithful politicians. These politicians are a small group who are elected to office, because voters think they are of high character, high integrity and also will promote the voters' values. Yet over and over again, politician after politician is discovered to be having an “affair” or doing sexual misconduct. What is causing these poor choices that betray their family and constituents? According to John Edwards, a recent politician in the news, the fame and power went to his head. He became accustomed to having anything he wanted. And apparently women are included as things in the “anything.”

But notice that John Edwards is not the only man who thinks he has the right to have anything he wants. The people he claims gave him money to hide his extramarital affair apparently encouraged that mindset. The other politicians who choose to satisfy their urges have the same belief system. So also do the many men—including complementarian Christian men—who make use of pornography and/or prostitutes. Note the common denominator: men misusing women as a commodity to satisfy their selfish urges.

But adultery is not the only “scratch” on the record. Domestic abuse and domestic violence are another scratch where men are also misusing women. This is a "scratch" that our society didn't even start to deal with until about 35 years ago, and that large portions of churches still do not deal with today--except to blame the misused women. Men who chose to control or abuse their wives and children also believe that as “the man,” they are entitled to have whatever they want, including the right to control their wives, even if their demands make no sense or they just ordered the opposite a minute ago. For many of these men, the belief in their right is so strong, they believe they can do anything necessary to enforce their “right,” including beating their wives, and some even go as far as murder.

Both of these types of “scratches” have the same source, which is the grooves in the record that result in the same accompanying and overpowering drumbeat for every song that plays. What is the accompaniment? (Hear the drum beat):

...Husband authority, male authority, absolute husband authority, husband is final decision-maker, the man is to be in charge, the family must do what the man says, the man is not to be questioned, husband is in charge, if the man wants sex the woman or child must deliver, if the husband hurts the wife it must be her own fault, if the man sexually abuses his child the wife must be at fault, absolute husband authority, male authority, husband final decision-maker, wife must give husband what he wants, husband is smarter & wiser than wife, if husband plays with another woman it must be his wife's fault, husband can do no wrong, husband is the authority, if husband is not happy it is wife's fault, if husband is not happy wife is not submitting, husband must have what he wants, husband is in charge, husband authority, husband authority, THE MAN is in charge, the MAN is not to be held accountable, the man is the authority...

With these the-man-is-in-charge grooves being the ruling theme in the entire “record,” and with a lack of consequences for their behavior, men easily believe they have the right to whatever they want. Until the ruling theme of the societal “record” is corrected in both society, in church and in the Christian community, we will continue to endure repeated and frequent scratches in the record. And those scratches, even the invisible scratches, will continue to cause damage to whomever the scratches touch—often lifelong damage that repeats in generation after generation.

It is high time the church repents of its bias against women, its favoritism toward men, aligns itself with authentic bible doctrine, and becomes the leader in ridding our society of the scratch-prone grooves that are directing males toward sin.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Remembering Danni Moss

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:07:00 +0000

Nearly a year ago, Danni Moss passed from this life to the next. Born April 27, 1964, she lived 46 years and 1.5 months before she died on June 13, 2010. I believe it was the abuse she suffered at her husband's hand that took her life. When she was still with her husband, the Lord impressed upon her heart Proverbs 18:21 “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” From that verse and a vision, she knew if she did not free herself from the destruction of her husband's words, she would die. Although Danni did leave her husband, she did not get away from him soon enough; she did develop cancer, and cancer killed her. The medical profession has known for years that chronic stress greatly increases the likelihood that a person will get cancer, that chronic stress hinders the immune system from fighting off illness and disease, and a recent study has shown that women who have been abused within the past year have much higher rates of illness, and those who were abused up to 5 years ago still have higher rates of illness and disease than women who were never abused. So medical research has shown that the verse God impressed upon Danni's heart is true. Her husband's tongue spewed out death and killed her.

I miss Danni. Her strength, her faith and connection with God and the truth of His Word were (and are) such an encouragement to me. Please join me in praying for Danni's daughter, who I believe is 8 now, and last I heard was sent to live with her dad, the same man whose tongue spewed out death to Danni. Danni's adult sons, her siblings, and her parents also need our prayers. People who have lost loved ones tell me the sense of grief and loss hits them harder in the days approaching the anniversary of the loved one's death. And remember to pray for man who was Danni's good friend, and for Danni's ex-husband, too. I won't tell you what to pray, except to request that you ask God to show you how to pray for Danni's family and loved ones.

Danni's blog, Because it Matters, is still up, thanks to her family and to Wordpress, and I encourage everyone to reread what Danni has written. Perhaps you want to start with her 3-part series, “Sticks and Stones: Why Verbal Abuse Kills” The following link provides links to all three parts: http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/articles/abuse-in-the-christian-home/sticks-stones-why-verbal-abuse-kills-series/

I invite anyone who cares to do so, to share how Danni has made a difference in your life.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Keeping Vows

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Mon, 30 May 2011 01:04:00 +0000

Some complementarians like to use the account of Abigail and Nabal as support for their argument that a wife should never leave her husband, even if he is abusive. They claim that if the abuse is as bad as the woman says, that God will intervene and either change her husband or smite him so he dies, as He did with Nabal—unless it is God's will that the wife endure abuse for a reason that only God knows. With this reasoning—and it is man's reasoning—they make it clear that according to them, in order for a wife to be obedient to God, she must do nothing to protect herself or her children from harm at her husband's hands.

There are several problems with using Abigail and Nabal to make this point. First, there is no indication that Nabal was abusive to Abigail. Often when a man is abusive at home, he is seen as a pillar of society in public. But in this case, Nabal was known as being churlish and evil in society, and we have no indication what he was like at home. When Abigail told him she had fed David and his men, there is no suggestion that he yelled at her, cut her down, or beat her.

Second, Abigail did not submit to Nabal's every wish or command. In fact, when she went to David with food after Nabal had denied food to David and his men, according to complementarian teaching, she rebelled against Nabal and against God because she did not submit to her husband's authority. In other words, the way Abigail managed to stay married to Nabal was by NOT submitting to him at times.

Third, it appears that Nabal did not live in the same house with Abigail at least part of the time, which could have made it easier for Abigail to stay married because she would have had to endure less of her husband's churlishness, yet had a number of servants to get things done. We know at the time of the account that Nabal was in Carmel sheering sheep, instead of at home in Maon. We also know that Nabal had a lot of property in Carmel, which would have given him good reason to be away from home frequently. Because of our own culture, we could assume that Abigail went with her husband to Carmel, but since he was out working all day, he didn't find out about the busy beehive of food preparation and loading onto asses that happened at his wife's direction, nor about the envoy of asses that left his property, even though it could have taken quite a few hours and been hard for either Nabal or his men not to notice if they were anywhere in the area. Or we could assume that Abigail stayed behind in Maon while Nabal was in Carmel. But if Abigail was in Maon, why would David have been coming against her, instead of against Nabal in Carmel? Especially since we know David knew Nabal was in Carmel. Further, I Samuel 25:36 tells us that Abigail went to Nabal and found he was holding a feast at his house, and that he was merry and very drunk, so she waited until morning to tell him what she had done. Now it seems if they lived in the same house, the servants would have had a limited amount of time to prepare Nabal's feast in the hours after Abigail left with the asses loaded with food, and before she returned in order for her to not have known he was throwing a party fit for a king. Also, if Nabal's feast was held in a house the couple shared, it is unlikely the writer would say the feast was “in his house.”

Fourth, God does not always deal with regular people in the same way that he deals with people he has chosen and anointed for a task. David was God's anointed. Therefore, God sometimes extended extra blessing to those who helped David, and extra trouble to those who gave David trouble. Consider all the trouble Saul dealt with, probably because of his attempts to hunt down David, God's anointed, and kill him. Consider also the widow of Zarephath, who fed Elijah, God's anointed, during a famine when she was nearly out of food, and as a result neither her meal, nor her oil ran out until God sent rain. Yet, there were many other widows during that famine who received no help from Elijah. Recall the curse of leprosy that came on Miriam for her action against Moses, who was God's anointed. David was blessed for not harming Saul, who was God's anointed.

Clearly, there is a biblical pattern of blessing for those who bless and protect God's anointed, and curse or harm for those who harm God's anointed. So God's smiting of Nabal was because of his refusal to aid David, God's anointed, and had nothing to do with Nabal's treatment of his wife.

Fifth, there is a problem with complementarian logic that would require a person to remain in harms way. There are many biblical examples of people who got out of harms way. David fled from Saul, even though he had agreed to play music for him. Paul fled those who would kill him. Lot did not deliver his visitors to the demanding men at his door. Elijah fled from Jezebel. And Jesus didn't stick around to let the people throw him over a cliff, either.

Would any of these complementarians demand that a person remain with the church they had vowed to be faithful to, even after they realized the leader was taking them down a wrong path and would require them to drink poison, or otherwise harm themselves in any way? Would these complementarians demand that a person remain in a church where they are being sexually, physically, emotionally, or spiritually abused by a leader in that church?

Yet, somehow they would have us all believe that marital vows are more binding for women than other vows or agreements, even if keeping those vows leads to our illness or death, as is the case with domestic abuse and domestic violence. It is a known fact that chronic stress increases one's likelihood of getting cancer and other diseases. Recent research has shown that women whose husbands are abusive have much higher rates of illness than non-abused women do, even illnesses like bladder infections that seem unrelated to abuse. And these same complementarians seem to disregard the vow the husbands made before God and man to love and cherish their wives.

I want to know, why are church leaders focusing on wives keeping their vows and submitting, but only giving lip service to husbands truly loving, cherishing, and sacrificing for their wives?

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Are Complementarian Women Next?

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Thu, 26 May 2011 08:14:00 +0000

A face book page calls on Saudi men “to beat Saudi women who drive their cars in a planned protest next month against the ultra-conservative kingdom's ban on women taking the wheel.” http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.57e2385fa5eae620b459b4dacd967745.971&show_article=1 Another case of submission tyranny. But that's over there. It can't touch women here in the United States, right? Think again.

When Sandra Day O'Conner wrote the Supreme Court opinion, and based it on European law, she opened up Pandora's box of atrocities, which includes tyranny against women. Consider: only a few years after O'Conner's written decision, judges are beginning to allow Sharia law in their court rooms, including laws that restrict and punish Muslim women according to Sharia law. http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/ and http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/email-archives/2282-judge-orders-muslims-to-follow-sharia-law. In other words, the Muslims who are pushing for Sharia law are wielding an ever larger influence in the United States as well as in Europe and other western countries, and many nations are making concessions and allowing Sharia law to be practiced alongside their own, and even superseding their own.

In addition to Muslim pressure, complementarians are pushing to repeal rights that have been won for women, including the right to vote, the right to obtain a restraining order against their abusive husbands, etc. (do your own research. I refuse to provide links to their sites.) Similar to radical Muslims, complementarians also believe women should stay in their homes (with the exception of women like Mary Kassian, Phyllis Schlafly, & etc who go around teaching other women to stay in their homes and defer all money-making and decision-making to their husbands) and that husbands should maintain strict authority over their wives.

Added to these pressures, many voices are blaming Israel for disallowing citizenship to Muslims who live in Israel, which I presume includes banning them from the right to vote. In other words, in trying to vilify Israel for restricting the Muslim influence from taking over in that country, liberals in the US, are laying the groundwork to allow Muslims full citizenship and voting rights in the US. All it would take is a concerted effort by both Muslims, complementarians, and other anti-women-freedom groups, most of whom believe in producing large families, to raise up a huge block of voters to overturn the current laws that protect and give rights and freedom to women.

The bottom line is that our constitution, our declaration of independence gives the rights of equality specifically to men, not to women.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, black men were not included as being equal, and later it was decided that a black man could be counted as half a person. Women were not included in that equality statement either. In fact, women were not allowed to vote until 1920, 144 years after our nation was formed. Although Amendment XIX (19) was ratified in 1920, it only states

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Nothing has ever been written into the law or constitution about the inalienable right of women to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nor about their God-created equality.

With that lack of protection in our foundational laws, and with the growing pressure from Muslims and complementarians, with liberals pushing to allow illegal aliens citizenship status and to not block the corridor from Mexico, (or claiming that it is already blocked, when it is not,) with the children of illegals (some of them could be Muslim, Sharia-loving illegals) being granted citizenship if they are born in the US, the door is wide open for a takeover that would allow radical Muslims and/or complementarians to fill over half the seats in the house and senate, and for a radical Muslim or radical complementarian to become president within one generation. (perhaps sooner).

Indeed, even in the United States, which is purported to be the land of the free, women's status, freedom, and protection from tyranny is heavily dependent upon the mercy and goodwill of men. As recent as April 9, 1923, in Adkins vs Children's Hospital, just 2.5 years after women had won the right to vote, the court decided that the 1918 minimum wage act for adult women was “an unconstitutional interference with the liberty of contract.” # 11 of
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0261_0525_ZS.html
It took 14 years for that law to be overturned in “West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish” http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0300_0379_ZS.html . As recently as 1893, just 118 years ago, the supreme court decided that "a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband” http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html (bottom 1/5 of page) and as recent as June 29, 1992, a whole 99 years later, that the court concluded in the Pennsylvania case regarding abortion rights that “A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.”

If women are not seen as having these inalienable rights from God, but instead have received them from men, those rights can also be taken away by men.

But laws of our country aside, how many complementarian husbands deny their wives the right to drive when and where the wives choose? How many Christian homes in the USA have the same prohibitions against women driving that the Saudi's do? How many more husbands, in the name of husband authority, will inflict that rule upon their wives in the coming year? And how many so-called Christian husbands beat their wives for driving their cars? Perhaps the Christian community would do better to focus on those in their own pews, instead of worrying so much about radical Muslims. After all, they have much more influence in their own pews than they do among Muslims.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Complementarian Equality

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Wed, 25 May 2011 02:18:00 +0000

Complementarians claim that they do believe in equality of the genders, but that men and women have different roles. However, their behavior says they do NOT think men and women are of equal value. Complementarian Phyllis Schlaffly is a lawyer who works with father supremest groups to repeal WAVA, the Women Against Violence Act, which allows women to obtain a restraining order to protect themselves from their abuser. Apparently, Phyllis thinks the right of men to maintain authority over their wives through threats, verbal assault and physical punishment ought to be protected, even though their wives are afraid for their lives and frequently the wives who are afraid of their husbands do end up severely battered or even murdered by their husbands. Schlaffly claims it is unconstitutional to inflict a restraining order on a man without finding him guilty in a court of law.

On the other side, people like Bruce Ware suggest husbands would not beat their wives if wives submitted. The first thing pastors tell wives who complain of being abused by their husbands, is to go home and submit to their husbands. In other words, Ware and friends prejudge wives as guilty without a trial.

When couples go to pastors for counseling, pastors tend to focus on wife submission. Only after they have been working with the couple for 6-12 months or more, and see that the wife is actually submissive and docile, do they even begin to suspect the husband may be at fault. By that time, they have helped produce such an extreme imbalance in the marriage, it is frequently beyond saving because their intervention has taught the husband that he is lord, king, master, and god of his wife, and the husband is unwilling to relinquish his entitlement and privilege.

So on the one hand, complementarians refuse to believe a man is guilty of abusing his wife until the truth is so obvious they can no longer deny it. On the other hand, they refuse to believe the wife is NOT guilty of insubordination and insist she must be at fault, until the truth is so obvious they can no longer deny it.

Just how is this presupposition equality? Clearly complementarians believe men are more righteous, more believable, more right than their wives, and their behavior is more justifiable. Complementarians also believe wives are liars, untrustworthy, selfish, unrighteous, unscrupulous, rebellious, God haters, men haters, & etc., and their behavior is NOT justifiable. And these beliefs continue in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I repeat: how can they claim their teaching/belief is equality of the genders? Doesn't this show a belief in male superiority and female inferiority? In fact, this shows they do NOT deal with men and women, husbands and wives, with anything remotely resembling equality. It is NOT just about differing roles. It IS about inequality and about MAINTAINING that inequality.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

The Joyful Submission of the Plush Doormat

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:57:00 +0000

Mary Kassian's claim that complementarian teaching is misrepresented by non-complementarians, and the misrepresentation is what is argued against, and thus is a straw man (woman) argument, says a lot about Mary Kassian, and possibly about her husband, close friends, and her church, but not much else. See Hannah's article: http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2011/04/fannie-feminist-and-other-scary-straw.html The fact is, complementarians are not just insisting that wives become doormats, (although they deny subjection makes a wife into a doormat) they are pushing wives to joyfully make themselves into plush, comfortable-to-walk-on doormats, or even into plush, beautiful, priceless Persian carpets specifically designed to give husbands tread-on pleasure.

Kassian seems to have forgotten that most, if not all, of the Christian women who write against patriarchy and husband authority were in fact greatly harmed and even devastated by that very teaching. They know it was caused by husband authority beliefs because their husbands told them so—frequently—often ranting while they did so. These wives did as was taught and demanded of them, and suffered for it. They know many women have been killed by their spouses, and that their own lives have been spared. Their writing and arguments are clearly NOT straw-woman arguments. They KNOW what they are talking about because they lived it and fought to free themselves from the suffocating grave-clothes of complementarianism, of wife denigration, of husband privilege and elitism. And the men who fight complementarianism, also experienced the harsh realities of homes where the doctrine was pounded into the victims' heads.

Kassian's argument that complementarianism is misrepresented, suggests that either she is not very submissive, or that her husband makes most decisions with her and not for her, which is not the experience of those real women her argument misrepresents and ends up denigrating as non-existent straw women. It also suggests that most couples she knows, also do not practice what complementarians teach via pulpit, books, articles, Bible study, Sunday School class, and peer pressure. So while she, herself, does not practice what she preaches to the point that it is foreign to her, she still demands that other women joyfully make themselves into plush doormats and plush priceless Persian carpets for their husbands' to denigrate, manipulate, & dominate for their own pleasure and comfort.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Preserving Marriage & the Family

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:41:00 +0000

My primary goal in fighting domestic violence and submission abuse is to preserve marriages and the family. I want married couples to be able to stay together “as long as they both shall live.” How does one go about trying to preserve the family? If a person is complementarian, the primary focus is to maintain husband authority via wife submission & obedience. It seems to me, this is preserving the husband's authority, but does nothing to preserve the marriage or the family.

If one wants to preserve the family, each member of the family must be strengthened and encouraged to be all they can be, to use their talents for the benefit of both family, community, and society. Demanding that wives dumb themselves down and weaken themselves so their husbands can appear strong and manly and maintain authority, does not preserve wives. Nor does it preserve husbands. Nor does it preserve marital bonds. The divorce rate is just as high among Christians as among non-Christians, and some say it is higher among Christians than among non-Christians. It looks like the harder churches push husband authority, the more Christian wives choose to divorce.

This phenomenon makes perfect sense, since it is well known that a husband's belief in his right to dictate to his wife, his belief in his entitlement to have his way at his wife's expense and against her will, his belief that these privileges give him the right and justification to punish and train his wife, to expect service from her are the very beliefs and system of beliefs that are the foundation, the motivation, undergirding domestic violence and domestic abuse, whether verbal, emotional, spiritual, physical, or all of the above.

Ordering wives to stay married does not preserve marriages, nor does it preserve families. If you keep food in a jar, but the seal is broken, that food is rotten and full of bacteria. We could say the food is dead. It is garbage and we throw it out. In the same way, an abusive marriage that is kept in the “jar” of stay together no-matter-what, is rotten and dead. The seal of love and do-to-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-to-you has been broken, and the marriage is contaminated. In Jesus's words, those marriages are “whited sepulchers, full of dead men's bones.” We know the interior of those marriages are contaminated and rotten because the children from those marriages are 2-3 times more likely to have abusive marriages themselves. (If I recall the rate correctly. It may be higher than that, but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

In my work against domestic violence and its foundation of husband authority, I am fighting for the committed loving relationships that are pictured in the Holy Bible. I am fighting to preserve LIVING marriages, LIVING families, that are holy to the Lord. I am asking husbands and wives to obey what the Bible actually says and teaches, rather than follow the doctines of men. I am asking, begging Christians to reexamine the Word to see if it actually teaches husbands to take authority over their wives, or if that is a teaching inserted into the text by men.

I am specifically asking those with relatively good husband-authority marriages to examine the Word. Your marriage is working because the husband is choosing to share his authority with his wife. Please consider the many wives whose husbands do not share their authority. These wives live with continual pain and devastation of their being and lacerations to their dignity, because their husbands place themselves as god, and above God to their wives and children.

With the rate of women who have been abused by a male partner in her lifetime having risen to one third of women, (up from 1 in 4) and with some studies suggesting the figure is closer to one half of women, isn't it time those who claim to follow Christ pay attention and prayerfully study the Word? Instead of relying on translations, use the concordance. I believe the Authorized King James Version is closest to the original text. Having looked up words in the concordance and then comparing what I learned with what other translations say, I find many translations insert into their texts husband authority that is not there in the Authorized King James Version or in Strong's Concordance.

What I have learned gives a far different picture of God's attitude toward women than is usually taught in many churches. And this knowledge fits like the missing pieces of a puzzle. Instead of a loving God who constantly stomps on women and cannot be bothered with their plight, I find a loving God who required husbands to divorce their wives rather than desert them or kick them out, so that their wives would be free to remarry and find fulfilling lives with loving husbands. I found the rules of divorce were decreed to protect women. This is a totally different side of God than my church taught. And it matches the love and compassion Jesus showed toward women.

Please, search the scriptures to see if this is so. And purchase books like “Behind the Hedge, A novel,” to have a better understanding of what goes on in husband-authority homes, how that belief system effects the whole family and even friends and the extended family. God bless you in your prayerful research.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Development of Joyful Streets and the Future Mudmats of Sovereign God

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:31:00 +0000

Societies all over the globe have a powerful rule that is foundational to all other rules: each person should contribute to society as much as they are able to contribute, and according to their talents. Those who refuse to contribute are considered bums, lowlifes, thieves. If one cannot contribute money, he or she ought to contribute labor, creativity, brainpower, or prayer. Jesus, himself, taught this principle: each of us are to use the talents God has given us and through them develop even more talents.

Here in the United States, our culture agrees with Jesus's teaching. Even the elderly and disabled are expected to contribute to the best of their ability. Nursing home directors instruct nurses and aides to refrain from doing things for elderly and disabled residents that they can do for themselves. Through experience they know if those with limited ability are not allowed to practice what they can do, they will lose that ability as well and become totally dependent. Thus, they hire activity directors to help keep their residents learning, developing, and as active as possible.

Similarly, parents are advised to encourage their children to do things for themselves. If a child can button his own shirt, a parent is to refrain from doing it for him and praise him for his accomplishment. If a child can feed herself, the parent is to let her do it, even though she makes a mess. After all, it is through practice that a child develops motor skills, and adds skills that require more dexterity, more strength and coordination.

Parents are also advised to increasingly turn more and more decision-making over to their children. From what clothing to wear, to what food to eat, to what item to buy, to what schooling to pursue and what job to take, to how to handle money, children must develop decision-making muscles, too. Through practice and experience, children develop the skills to make good decisions. Thus each generation equips the next generation to make a positive difference through their development of decision-making skills and through their development of mental, physical, and/or financial labors to contribute to the good of society.

But one group does not follow this principle. That group demands that certain members within the group must remain as labor-class children. These members are prohibited from developing and practicing their talents—unless those talents are part of a very limited list of allowable talents. If these certain members have the non-allowed talents as part of their inherent beings, or if the talents developed due to life circumstances, they are to bury their talents in the ground.

This group claims to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet pays no attention to Jesus's teaching that the person who buries his or her talents in the ground is wicked and God will punish that person by taking away the other talents that he or she has.

These select members are also commanded to give up any decision-making skills they may have developed, and are to become dependent on other members in the group to make decisions for them. Because they are allowed no goals, no right to make decisions of their own, these members that are selected to remain as children often are drained of the energy required to do the menial, labor-intensive tasks that have been assigned to them. They are denied the liberty and pursuit of happiness that our country was founded upon. There is a high degree of mental depression among these child-ordered members. Therapy is usually aimed at getting these members to accept and embrace their perpetual dependent, child-labor filled lives, to get them to focus on helping the other members in the group to reach their dreams and goals, to make their backs like a street to be walked on, (Isaiah 51:21-23) while denying they are doing so. Rather, they are taught to joyfully make their backs like a street to be walked on, that if the members they are dependent on choose to beat and abuse them, it is because they have not made their backs flat enough. Indeed, becoming a part of the street for others to walk on is to be considered their God-decreed role in life. But if they call it anything other than wonderful, a blessing, satisfying, and fulfilling, they are labeled as selfish, rebellious toward God and the roles He established.

If these members who have been chosen for perpetual child labor were part of a small hidden group of several thousand people, this group would be outraged. But since these disadvantaged mudmats are more than half the adult population of the group, their plight goes largely unnoticed. Those who do notice and speak out, are vilified, and many books, some of them slender, some of them fat, are written to deny what these courageous folks are saying, to deny that half of their members are being forced to bring punishment on themselves by burying their God-given talents in the ground.

Indeed, the mudmats do lose their talents and their ability to make good decisions, and many of them believe they have no value apart from the person who is stomping across their backs, leaving layer after layer of mud as a show of his absolute authority over and ownership of his human mudmat.

Isaiah 51:21-23 tells us what our Sovereign God will do about this:

21 Therefore hear this, you afflicted one,
made drunk, but not with wine.
22 This is what your Sovereign LORD says,
your God, who defends his people:
“See, I have taken out of your hand
the cup that made you stagger;
from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,
you will never drink again.
23 I will put it into the hands of your tormentors,
who said to you,
‘Fall prostrate that we may walk on you.’
And you made your back like the ground,
like a street to be walked on.”

According to this passage, God will defend his afflicted ones, in this case, his daughters. He will take that cup, the goblet of his wrath, and put it into the hands of their tormentors. Husbands, are you sure you want God to put the goblet of his wrath into your hands and force you to drink it? If not, isn't it time you stop insisting that the Bible commands you to take authority over your wives? Isn't it time you stop commanding women to fall prostrate so that you can walk on them? Isn't it time you stop setting yourselves up as higher than God with your husband authority teaching and practice and your demand that wives practice husbandolotry by obeying you rather than God? And isn't it time you live lives of non-authoritarian, sacrificial service as God commands?

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.

Husband, father, shepherd--Wife, Nanny, Stupid Sheep

noreply@blogger.com (www.wanetadawn.com) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:22:00 +0000

The Photo on the front of the March 2011 American Family Association Journal http://www.afajournal.org/ at first glance looks like a warm and loving husband and father who has his arms around his family. Upon closer study, though, something looks dreadfully wrong. The wife is standing there like a dutiful daughter; passive, obedient, and without parental authority herself.

I begin to wonder what her life is like. Does her husband override her authority when she tells her sons to pick up their things and put them away? Does she have any authority at all when she home schools them? Is her situation like that of an elder daughter—carrying heavy responsibility, but denied the authority to make sure her charges respect her?

And where does shepherd come in? Is her husband her pastor or priest? And she's expected to sleep with him?? If he's her shepherd, she's his fleeced ewe. So his relationship toward his wife is that he has all authority, he is her employer, her parent, and as her pastor/priest he has the right to speak for God, making any demands of her that he chooses--as long as he says God says so--which makes her a stupid sheep.

The stories of several women come to mind. Their husbands insisted on their right to undermine and over-ride what their wives asked of the children, and wanted for their homes. Their homes were chaotic as a result. Father was the all-powerful one. As soon as the wives found a way to be effective in spite of their husbands, the husbands would look for another way to undermine the wives. This picture looks like that. All powerful husband. Obedient daughter-wife, obedient sons. But since they are sons who will one day be the authority figures, they are not curbed as completely as their mother is, nor as any sisters would be.

Why doesn't the wife in the picture have her arm around the boys? Is it some lack in her? Do the boys allow Dad to hug them, but not Mom? Notice that they have their arms around each other. For a picture like this, wouldn't Mom automatically put her arms around her family, too? I'm guessing she would, but she's not allowed to. This agrees with complementarian teaching: wives are to receive and respond, not initiate or share authority with their husbands. Indeed, in this photo it looks like the sons have more authority than their mother does!

The picture should show both Mom and Dad as the adult parents with their arms around one another and around their children. Ephesians 6:1 says “Children obey your parents” not “children obey your fathers.” The Bible says wives and husbands, male and female are equal. Wives are not to be the obedient daughters of their husbands, nor are they to serve as child-like prostitutes. Nor are they the nannies, hired hands, or any other designation that requires them to hold less power and authority than their husbands do. I Timothy 5:14 when translated correctly, says wives are to be the heads of, rulers of their households.

Ephesians 5:21 tells everyone who is a part of Christ's bride to submit to one another. There is no exception clause for husbands. Nor is there an especially clause for wives.

Yet complementarians read Ephesians 5:21-22 as if it says “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God, especially wives to your own husbands. For the husband has authority over the wife, even as Christ has authority over the church.”

Because of this emphasis, they totally miss the deep message in those verses to husbands. Until they accept that Ephesians 5:21 is not a 90% to 10% with wives doing the majority of the submitting, nor a 80-20, 70-30, or 60-40 submission, they will never comprehend the depth of love and sacrifice taught to husbands in Ephesians 5:25-29. It is when husbands practice that total love and sacrifice for their wives, that Christ's love and sacrifice for humans is experienced and understood on a profoundly deep level. When the church "gets" the preciousness of what Christ did for his Bride, and what He continues to do for his Bride, the church becomes an effective living and loving testimony to the world.

But when husbands claim to have a God-decreed right to boss and take authority over their wives, the church loses her testimony, the prayers of husbands are hindered, the world is turned off to the message of Christ, and Christianity becomes as disdained as radical Islam.

Even if a husband puts on a show of love, as long as he sees himself as superior to his wife, as having more authority and/or importance than she does, his love is not the real thing. It is but a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. A person with real love does not vaunt himself nor puff himself up, nor does he claim he believes husbands and wives are equal, when he practices his authority and demands that she obey him. Indeed, the first item in the Philippians 4:8 list is truth. Until authority-hungry husbands acknowledge the truth, that they think male is superior to female, husband is superior to wife, the fulness of the gospel message will never reach their hearts.

When they acknowledge the truth and accept the role of love and sacrifice that God has commanded to them, then they will no longer think of their wives as Nanny, subject, and Ewe to fleece, but will instead think of their wives as loving companions, confidantes, advisors, best friends, and co-rulers over their households.

Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" See www.wanetadawn.com A Mennonite woman fights to save her family yet keep her faith.