“God hates divorce” (but he loves a broken jaw)
January 8, 2009
by Violet Socks, Editor
|Editor’s note: Beginning this month, The New Agenda Blog will be featuring regular columns from a diverse group of terrific contributors. Violet Socks is a writer and feminist activist who blogs as the Reclusive Leftist. She is a co-founder of The New Agenda and the editor of its website.
Rick Warren explains it all for you.
But it’s not an intellectual exercise. There are real-world consequences.
As Nina M. points out, Warren doesn’t believe battered women have the right to seek a divorce. “God hates divorce,” says Warren, with the confident affability of a 250-pound man who’s never cowered in fear for his life:
It’s not like you can escape the pain… You don’t — you don’t escape the pain. And I’d always rather choose a short term pain and find God’s solution for a long term gain, than try and find a short term solution that’s going to involve a long term pain in life.
Actually, you can escape the pain — and the fists and the knives and the drunken rages and the loaded guns. But somehow I don’t think that’s what Warren is talking about. I suspect none of those things are quite real to him, just as women aren’t quite real to him — not as full human beings, that is.
The only thing Warren is interested in is marriage itself: the sacred union between a man and his helpmate (and notice who is the subject of that formulation and who is relegated to an adjectival subservience). In conservative Christian ideology, human marriage replicates the bond between Christ and his church, with the husband in the role of Christ (of course) and the wife playing the part of devoted church. The psychological burden this places on women is enormous. Commanded to love and obey their husbands even as the church cleaves to Christ, wives feel compelled to stay in even the most brutal of marriages.
In No Place For Abuse, their book about domestic violence in Christian communities, Catherine Clark Kroeger and Nancy Nason-Clark explain the conundrum:
…some religious women feel that God does not permit them to leave, that marriage is forever no matter how cruel their husband’s treatment, that this may be their cross to bear, or that perpetual forgiveness of their husband for his repeated behavior is God’s expectation. For women such as these, it is often very difficult to sort out the difference between long-suffering in honor to Christ and to their marriage vows and actively contributing to the danger of their own lives.
“The wise pastor,” they add, “will help such a woman navigate these troubled waters.”
Unfortunately, wise pastors seem to be in short supply. Contemporary Christian literature is rife with stories of ministers who counsel battered wives to stay, to submit, to obey — no matter what their husbands dish out. As one woman reports, “I went to my minister then and his reaction was ‘What’s your husband’s favorite food?’ and I said ‘Pork chops and scallop potatoes.’ ‘What’s his favorite dress?’ I told him and he said ‘I want you to go home and put on that dress and make him pork chops and scallop potatoes and honor your marriage vows.’” Another woman who had been beaten severely was told by her pastor: “Go home. He’s probably calmed down now. And come in for counseling . . . you married him, you made a commitment, so you have to work this out. Pray more. Submit more.”
Submit more.
Which brings me back to Rick Warren and his highly selective brand of biblical “literalism.” Warren claims that he certainly wishes there was “a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.” Unfortunately there’s no such verse, so his hands are tied.
But this is an intellectual dodge, a fraud, a cover-up. Modern Christianity is a selective blend of old and new, and there is no church on earth that slavishly follows every word in the Bible, nor any church whose worship isn’t shaped by modern culture. As I wrote last month:
The plain fact is that each Christian denomination must choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which parts to ignore. The parts that don’t fit with a group’s modern understanding of faith are jettisoned as “not relevant” in today’s world. The parts that do fit are labeled “eternal truths.”
Some Christians take an intellectually rigorous approach to the issue. Southern Baptists like Rick Warren do not. They ignore the prohibition on gold and pearls, they allow women to minister in certain very restricted roles, and they seem downright carefree when it comes to oaths, drinking water, and hats. But wifely submission? Oh, that’s an eternal truth. Gotta keep that.
The bottom line is that men like Rick Warren insist on the doctrine of wifely submission because they want to.
And the same is true of Warren’s teaching on divorce. He believes it because he wants to believe it, because it suits his personal ideology. The broken bodies and hearts of women are barely real to him; what matters is the great spiritual drama of man and God.
The irony, of course, is that it is women who fill the pews in Warren’s churches and send the money to his coffers. Christianity has always appealed to the disadvantaged and the abused, and so it has always appealed to women.
Which reminds me: didn’t women vote for Barack Obama in huge numbers? Wasn’t it women who put him in the White House?
Isn’t it women who are now being mocked?
Melissa Etheridge over on HuffPo says now, now. She’s made nice with Warren. He’s not so bad when you get to know him. And anyway, this is a new era. She’s going to the inauguration, and she’s going to have a ball.
Does no-one make the connection that OBAMA chose Warren?
Violet Socks
This article is fantastic….
Till I got to the very end:
1. Dr. Socks, what is your comment that “Christianity has always appealed to the disadvantaged and the abused, and so it has always appealed to women” based on? I know this isn’t science, but merely an anecdotal comment, but from where I grew up and what I’ve seen, those who identify as Christians, including evangelical Christians, appear to represent a diverse group of Americans in terms of advantage and abuse (or lack thereof).
2. Once you made the assertion quoted above, you then paint with a broad brush and make a leap to suggest that therefore women (presumably disadvantaged and abused?) who voted for Obama….well, quite honestly, I don’t know what to make of those final assertions. Please explain.
The end of the piece undermined what I felt was a very very articulate argument, founded in research and critical thinking, which then devolved to some less-than-solid presumptions and assertions.
Sis
The Melissa Etheridge thing reminds me of how often people would meet with some elected official who had horrid views toward blacks, for example. Horrible voting record, etc. But, when they meet the person, they find them very nice, friendly, warm, etc. You know: He’s really a nice guy once once you meet him. It’s truly disheartening that Melissa Etheridge would fall for this and not see beyond whatever positive feeling she had with Warren to grasp the meaning of his preaching. Especially since she is a high visibility person with the potential to influence others.
I’ll let Vi speak for herself Anna; but “religion is the opiate of the masses”, even in the relatively well-to-do West.
I simply can’t understand how all these people are ignoring the message Obama is sending: Summers, Favreau, Warren.
This reminds me of the Moonies and other cults, and gives credence to the argument Vi made about Obama being a media created President. It’s all about religion and entertainment: televangelism.
Sis
I totally agree that Obama is the cult of personality. (As my husband said last year: I always wanted the Dem party to move farther to the left, I just had no idea it would look so Stalanist!)
As for “religion being the opiate of the masses” (ironically, I believe stated by Marx, who indulged quite a bit in the real deal: opium!), I used to feel this way. I don’t believe in God, etc. But, truth be told, the journey I’m on that began a year ago, has woven through many unexpected lives and places and I’ve come to have a lot of respect for many who, in year’s past, I might have writtten off with some judgemental, self-righteous attitude. I have no answers. Everyone’s got to find their own. But, I no longer dismiss religion as I once did. It’s not for me, but I’ve seen how it is a truly beautiful thing in the lives of so many.
As for your sense of disbelief regarding how so many appear to be mssing the messages that appear to blatant and clear to the rest of us regarding Obama, you got me, too. I think someone did a brilliant job of “branding” with him, the media was in the bag, the DNC lined up behind him, he worked the race card, the timing was right, and his supporters appeared blinded to any and all things that would suggest anything that might contradict the impression he gave and what they wanted to believe. That said, I think this is often true in politics. I fought hard against slipping into that myself working for Clinton’s campaign. It’s as if in order to support a candidate, you dare not see or admit to any of their weaknesses, their errors, etc.
Sis
PS I know A LOT of folks who voted for Obama who are atheists. So, it seems, religiosity was not a necessary element.
“….a 250-pound man who’s never cowered in fear for his life.”
Just the facts please. If this is an assumption, it weakens the writing in my view.
Historical fact. Salvific religions appeal to the most disadvantaged members of society, which is why the most fervent Christians have often been the poor, the enslaved, the downtrodden, the female.
Dr. Socks – Thanks for the reply. But is what you’ve written true in modern time? If so, it is far from what I have observed, personally and professionally.
Yes, it is still true. Women still make up the majority of parishioners in every Christian denomination I know of. Poor people are more fervent in their faith than the wealthy, and that is true world-wide.
Of course wealthy and educated people are Christians too, but the rock hard, white-knuckled faith of longing and hope belongs to those who need it the most. It has ever been thus.
There is no doubt that Warren is huge, big, overweight, and well-muscled. Two-hundred fifty, or well over 300 (which would be my guess having been married to someone that size) men of that size have little to fear, physically. I have been countered many times by men who weren’t even near that size, who scoffed at my wariness, or fear to be in any particular place or situation that they did not fear. It’s a valid point which Vi is making. We don’t need to put him on a scale.
Anna, pop culture *is* religion, in your culture especially, and mine too but less so. Canadians are taken aback by the religious overtones in the American culture.
Exactly my point.
Look at him. Rick Warren doesn’t know what it’s like to have his spouse — the person who owns the house he lives in — pick him up by his lapels and throw him across the room. He doesn’t know what it’s like to have bruises on his thighs. He doesn’t know what it’s like to lock the bedroom door and crouch behind the bed, shaking in terror.
I don’t want to get into a discussion about religion. I think this post is not about religion per se, but abuse toward women, however, Obama knows the role of religion in American society, and his branding (nice point) has been that of *saviour*. He’s cynically working it.
Dr. Socks and Sis, thank you!
Excellent points all around.
And this:
“I have been countered many times by men who weren’t even near that size, who scoffed at my wariness, or fear to be in any particular place or situation that they did not fear. It’s a valid point which Vi is making.”
This is so true. I’ve more than once had this conversation with men who were under 200 lbs but still didn’t get it….why women cross the street at night at the sight of oncoming men and why they don’t allow anyone to walk behind them and why they would never in a million years park their car in an empty lot at night next to a van!!!!!
But I would never be so naive to think that if we just point this out to him, patiently explain that to him, he’s gonna say Oh I see! because that’s not where he (or any man) is coming from on this.
And also I would bet Warren is a beater, and will find a Biblical quote to justify it.
Associated Baptist Press joins in:
http://www.abpnews.com/index.p.....;Itemid=53
Rick Warren says domestic violence is no excuse for divorce
It just gets worse and worse.
From the article Amy posted:
No, no, no! Warren is talking straight out of his ass. The only “path toward healing” with most chronic abusers is the path that takes you the hell AWAY from him FOREVER.
So if he beats you occasionally, that’s okay? If he beats you once and rapes you and waves a loaded gun in your face, that’s okay? No cause for separation?
Rick Warren is a menace.
Good article on HV
http://www.hillarysvillage.net.....php?t=5394
You can see him parsing it. Well what did you do? Were you doing something that upset him? You’ve hurt his manliness. A man can only take so much. Blah. Etc.
This man is a beater, because only a beater would make these kinds of arguments.
Newsweek has a positive spin article, “An Inexact Analogy”, on Rick Warren in its January 12th issue. http://www.newsweek.com/id/177790 The article mentions his “helping to fight global aids” and other issues. We know his views on domestic violence are unconscionable. We know his alleged AIDs work has harmed rather than helped: http://www.thedailybeast.com/b.....-in-africa (Thank you Sis for the link.)
Action Plan:
1. Write to Newsweek and ask them to tell the whole story and the real effects his work and views have had and will have:
Contacts:
a. Here is a list of editors and correspondents at Newsweek: http://www.congress.org/congre.....org_id=305
b. for Letters to the Editor
Newsweek ?251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019 ?
Phone: 212-445-4000 ?
Fax: 212-445-5068 ?
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com2.
2. This has likely been done – send TNAs press release on Warren to Newsweek.
3. Does anyone know how to get an article/commentary published in Newsweek—and other media–on the real truths about Warren’s ‘work’?
Together we are strong!
Ignore the ?-marks in the above post in the Newsweek address and phone numbers. More formatting problems.
A superb article, Violet. Glad someone commented above on
the Warren AIDS issues also.
[...] believes that a good, subservient wife should not leave an abusive spouse unless he is beating her once a week, and that even then, it’s a sin for her to divorce [...]
“…also I would bet Warren is a beater, and will find a Biblical quote to justify it.”
I bet you’re right, sis, and you make some persuasive observations.
It reminds me of that foul “focus on the family” jerk, Dr. Dobson, who beat his dachshund with a belt. He’s another “man is the King of his family” thug.
Anyone who knows dachshunds knows they are fearless and fight back to the end because they are bred to face and fight larger fiercer animals alone underground, so the story always triggers me…how Dobson bragged about thrashing the little dog, and how long it fought back and how exhausted he was by time he “won.”
Oh, and why? Because the dachshund was sitting somewhere he didn’t want it to sit.
Does it surprise anyone that Obama is ( now that he is elected) showing his true stripes. He was a media crated candidate just like Robert Redford. He could do no wrong. 85% of the stories in the Post were about him in a positive light, whereas with HRC, Palin and McCain, they were mostly negative. Chris Matthews spoke of a tingling down his spine…now CNN in discussing the fact that Blair house is being occupied( by the Australian PM-Cheney moved out) and thats why Obama couldnt stay there- CNN headline” No room at the Inn”- The press annoited messiah- and I predict that they will continue to cover for him during the term. Frankly the truth be told we’dbe better off with McCain…he is clearly more femininst in view then Obama
bruce
regarding Chris Matthews…it was a tingle up his leg I think. Even creepier.
[...] his Inaugural — a pastor who preaches that wives must submit to their husbands, and that even physical abuse is no excuse for a woman to leave her [...]
[...] his Inaugural — a pastor who preaches that wives must submit to their husbands, and that even physical abuse is no excuse for a woman to leave her [...]
[...] Warren preaches that women were put on earth to obey their husbands? So what if his church says that even domestic violence is no excuse for divorce? It’s a private religious matter. All the real feminists understand that. Barack Obama is [...]
[...] fit to be president, this is perhaps not surprising.) The invocation was delivered by Rick Warren, the nation’s most high-profile advocate for the belief that women belong under their [...]
[...] fit to be president, this is perhaps not surprising.) The invocation was delivered by Rick Warren, the nation’s most high-profile advocate for the belief that women belong under their [...]
[...] achieving that ideal. The devil, as ever, is in the details. We cannot unpack the situation of an abused wife in a conservative Christian community, for example, unless we understand the particular social and religious codes at work. We [...]
[...] codes or religious beliefs; we’re not supposed to notice that many Christian communities turn a blind eye to domestic violence, or that many Muslims believe husbands have a religiously-sanctioned right to beat their wives. [...]
[...] codes or religious beliefs; we’re not supposed to notice that many Christian communities turn a blind eye to domestic violence, or that many Muslims believe husbands have a religiously-sanctioned right to beat their wives. [...]
[...] social codes or religious beliefs; we’re not supposed to notice that many Christian communities turn a blind eye to domestic violence, or that many Muslims believe husbands have a religiously-sanctioned right to beat their wives. [...]
[...] achieving that ideal. The devil, as ever, is in the details. We cannot unpack the situation of an abused wife in a conservative Christian community, for example, unless we understand the particular social and religious codes at work. We [...]
Not all pastors condone sending a woman back to an abusive husband. My pastor was the reason I left! He begged me to leave my ex-husband but he did ask me not to tell anyone that he instructed me to do this. The real issue that most pastors don’t want to bring up when talking about this kind of thing is the concept of ‘Shepard accountability.’ Pastors are essentially accountable for all of the decisions and counsel they make to their parishioners (their ‘flock’ so to speak). They feel that if they tell a woman to leave her husband that they will be punished by God for their actions. The irony is that they will likely be punished by God for sending a Woman back into a situation where she could get killed and/or her children continue to witness violence. Warren cherry picks his passages. God absolutely doesn’t want a Woman to stay in such a situation. The Bible is vague about divorce and only really talks about faithfulness. Since when was being faithful limited to sexual affairs! When a man hits a woman he has broken any covenant there ever was!
[...] social codes or religious beliefs; we’re not supposed to notice that many Christian communities turn a blind eye to domestic violence, or that many Muslims believe husbands have a religiously-sanctioned right to beat their wives. [...]
When the bible says Husbands love your wives as Jesus loves the church, I am sure abuse did not come under that commandment of love.
It is just not a sensible thing to think a woman should or must stay in a reltionship where her life is at stake. I am not saying that God cannot change a mans heart but I could understand and dont see God having a problem with a woman trying to protect her self by leaving.
[...] Warren preaches that women were put on earth to obey their husbands? So what if his church says that even domestic violence is no excuse for divorce? It’s a private religious matter. All the real feminists understand that. Barack Obama is [...]
[...] Obama Inauguration was presided over by Rick Warren, well known for his belief that women are second class citizens put on the earth to serve their husbands. The New Agenda issued a press release also noting that [...]
[...] Obama’s Inauguration was presided over by Rick Warren, well known for his belief that women are second class citizens put on the earth to serve their husbands. The New Agenda issued a press release also noting that [...]
I think God hates divorce because it hurts his kids.
I also think that Jesus was completely on the side of women in his society who were looked down upon. No way would he stand by and allow anyone to hurt or take advantage of any one of them!
This is my post on how divorce has shaped me:
http://mamamiamcmasters.blogsp.....vivor.html
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...