Biblical proportions!

At least, the Financial Times thought so.

Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome

There is a domestic violence epidemic within the church, according to a report by Kathryn Joyce, of Religious Dispatches.

Enduring a physically abusive relationship has developed into a feminine virtue, Joyce and others argue, just as "submission" has come back into fashion. (See here, here, here, here and here, for the latest in this season's most popular virtue.)

Joyce focuses on the published teachings of Saddleback Ranch (since it has our attention), and the stories of former "submissive" wives Jocelyn Andersen, author of Women Submit! Christians and Domestic Violence, and Danni Moss, an activist who shares her story of abuse in her blog.

In web clips posted on the Saddleback website, teaching pastor Tom Hollaway, explains that he would offer women the option of divorce in the event that a marriage becomes violent if there was “a Bible verse that says, ‘If they abuse you in this-and-such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.’” But, since there is not, Hollaway is declaring biblically-induced impotence.

Moss and Andersen have each found ways to reconcile their belief in the Bible with their painful experience of its silence. Moss says that abusers are making idols of themselves when they declare that their wife is anything but good. Andersen views the abuse as originating in Eden, when Adam refused to acknowledge his own sin and instead projected it onto Eve.

Joyce concludes with this thought:

Perhaps what’s most compelling about the existence of these seemingly contradictory stances on women’s rights, submission, complementarianism, and abuse is the fact that complementarian teachings and domestic violence are both large enough issues within the evangelical church to give birth to such an array of approaches. These including such nascent theological attempts—neither quite feminist nor complementarian—to help give biblically literalist women a safe exit.

On the parallel topic, Joyce's addresses the "patriarchy movement" from the perspective of the 2008 True Women Conference and warns:

What a conference of this size means -- along with the publicly-declared ambition to gather exponentially more women -- is that the biblical womanhood movement is getting organized.

So what is the proper response? Should feminists and those concerned about abuse form an alternative biblical womanhood movement? Should we argue that these organizations are reading the Bible all wrong? Can we only fight Bible Bending with more Bible Bending?

UPDATE: Bishop Williamson, one of the four ex-communicated bishops that Pope Benedict has recently embraced, has said that trousers on women "are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God." In another letter, Wiliamson wrote that the same "wrongness of women's trousers" can be attributed to women attending university: they both represent the "unwomaning of woman."

Where are the Bible Bending Critics?

Critics of creationism are concerned that the newly proposed biology curriculum in Texas, which would consider the biblical account of the origins of life, is merely justification for "exposing students to religious objections in the guise of scientific discourse."

But where are the critics concerned about a national agenda that considers the biblical account of the "good and proper life" to justify exposing the world to religious objections (and projections) in the guise of political discourse?

Drudging up the Bible

Matt Drudge managed to turn a story the Washington Post innocuously titled "Obama Sworn In Again, With Right Words," into this headline:

NO BIBLE USED AT OBAMA RE-SWEAR...

Drudge has a knack for turning details into headlines and, subsequently, headlines into stories. In this case the new Drudge story came from this detail in the middle of the original article:

After a flawless recitation that included no Bible and took 25 seconds, Roberts smiled and said, 'Congratulations, again.'

I wonder how long it will take before the sincerity of Obama's newer, more precise oath will be called into question because of the missing cultural artifact?

UPDATE: As promised:
“I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.”--Glenn Beck, Fox News, 1/22/09

Beck is wrong. John Quincy Adams, Theordore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson did not take their oath on the Bible

Inaugurations of Bible Benders Past

Jimmy Carter

Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President, in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me a few years ago, opened to a timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah:
"He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)

Ronald Reagan
First Inaugural Address:

I am told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I am deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inauguration Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer.

Second Inaugural Address:

For all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old, as we raise our voices to the God who is the Author of this most tender music. And may He continue to hold us close as we fill the world with our sound—sound in unity, affection, and love—one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.

George H. Bush

And my first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads:
Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: "Use power to help people." For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen.

Bill Clinton
First Inaugural Address:

The scripture says, "And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not."

Second Inaugural Address:

Guided by the ancient vision of a promised land, let us set our sights upon a land of new promise.

George W. Bush
First Inaugural Address:

I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image.

Second Inaugural Address:

That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people.

President Obama's Inaugural Bible Bending Address

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama gave us a glimpse at what kind of President he will be and, because the two do not seem to be mutually exclusive, what kind of Bible Bender he will be as well.

As we put away "childish things" (things, according to Obama, like partisanship, though it is unclear how partisanship can be distinguished from general disagreement), let's be sure to pay attention to the "thing" left on the table: Scripture.

Afterall, to what God is Obama referring to when he says: "God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny." And where does Obama propose we turn to when if we need further instruction as to what shape we are to mold destiny?

I feel certain that when, as Obama begins to purposefully shape destiny, he will provide us with more details about where he has taken his direction from, and for now, I am hopeful that it won't involve Bible bending.


Photo source: NYmag

Bible Bandaging: Huckabee tries to repair Ephesians

During Thursday's debate in the South Carolina debate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is asked about a 1998 ad in USA Today that he signed along with around twenty other evangelical leaders. In the ad affirmed to the Southern Baptist Convention, "You are right because you called husbands to sacrificially love and lead their wives. You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

When asked about this statement, Huckabee began on the defensive ("everybody says that religion is off limits but I get asked all the religion questions"), then went to the personal (anyone who thinks my wife "will sit by and let me do whatever I want to, that would be an absolute total misunderstanding of Huckabee"), then clarified the context (that ad was aimed at "believers"), and finally went on a rambling piece of biblical scholarship (around a minute and a half in):



Huckabee says that the "submit" passage comes from the book of Ephesians which says that husbands should also submit themselves. Huckabee would be of the hook--if he were right.

As a number of sources have already pointed out, Ephesians has nothing to say about husbands submitting to their wives (English Standard Version):
5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...

Baptist ministers and GOP presidential candidates... it is just too tempting not to Bible bend.