Showing posts with label Christian violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian violence. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Christian Women, Divorce, and A House Divided

Photo credit below
Christians do not doubt that marriage ought to last a lifetime. It is no secret that divorce was forbidden unless adultery could be established. And even in cases of adultery, women were encouraged to forgive their husbands. You did not hear much about husbands forgiving their wives. Many Christian groups have changed their views on divorce, while still believing in the sanctity of marriage.

Jonathan Merritt (Washington Post, 2018, April 30) poses a challenge to Southern Baptists—the largest group of American Evangelical Christians: “In a #Metoo moment, will Southern Baptists hold powerful men accountable?” Merritt wonders about the views of Paige Patterson, president of the influential Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Essentially, Southern Baptist leaders believe in a traditional marriage in which women are to be submissive to men in the church and marriage. Merritt wrote:

Last week, an audio recording surfaced on which Paige Patterson, a high-profile Southern Baptist leader, says abused wives should avoid divorce, pray for their violent husbands, and “be submissive in every way that you can.”

How much violence should a woman take before she sues for divorce? If you take the Bible at face value, which Southern Baptists and many evangelicals do, then there is no biblical justification for divorce aside from adultery. Another quote helps understand Patterson’s view on abuse:
“It depends on the level of abuse to some degree,” Patterson is heard saying on the 2000 tape. “I have never in my ministry counseled anybody to seek a divorce, and I do think that is always wrong counsel.” He adds, “On an occasion or two when the level of abuse was serious enough,” he has suggested a temporary separation.


Domestic violence image from Bing/ free to share and use
Patterson is on solid ground with the Bible. But he’s on sinking sand with the host culture—that is American culture in general, and many Christian subcultures. At best, evangelical clinicians can suggest a separation and counseling without violating the biblical text.

PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANS and WOMEN

Progressive Christians interpret biblical texts drawing on principles rather than relying on explicit statements. Evangelicals in transition to progressive views often struggle with moral matters such as sex-linked gender roles in the church and marriage. Progressive views draw on Jesus’ reference to principles that avoid strict adherence to a rule such as breaking the rule of the Sabbath to do good works, like healing. I discuss these issues and more in A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures (2016).

When it comes to women in society and the church, progressive views consider women and men as equals. One example of a text supporting equality is the “no male or female in the kingdom of God reference” (Galatians 3:28). There’s much more to the argument favoring women and men as equals rather than the traditional teaching that women are helpers or the “equal but different” doctrine.

Supporting women as clergy rests on several arguments pointing to a few examples of women as leaders in the early days of the Christian era and evidence that women have many gifts such as teaching and administration. Progressives attribute these gifts to God (See chapter 10 for more).
A progressive view on divorce allows additional exceptions to the adultery clause. Sexual and other forms of physical violence are justified in several ways but the primary basis is the lack of love and respect mandated by the second greatest commandment—loving your neighbor as yourself (See chapter 8 for more on marriage and divorce).

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE

Merritt refers to accusations of a “morally inappropriate relationship” toward a woman by a Southern Baptist leader. The phrase is vague. No one is accused of sexual violence. But the accusations raised in the article paint the leadership with a brush of disrespect for women, but that might not be fair.

There is no reason to believe that either male evangelical or progressive Christians would treat women as sexual objects. There is no reason to think that women would be the victims of harassment, abuse, or violence simply because an evangelical believes women ought to be submissive to her husband or be excluded from church leadership. After all, evangelicals do believe a husband ought to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25).

The lack of escape from an abusive or violent relationship via divorce is a difference from those taking a fundamentalist view of the text in contrast to a progressive view. This difference can mean the difference between life and death or between a life or misery and a life of happiness. Is it reasonable to say that marriage is made for people?


We may reasonably ask if the lack of women in church leadership leads to a higher risk of sexual harassment, abuse, and violence than would be true if women also held leadership positions. Research documents moral foundations of loyalty and respect for authority are highly important to conservatives. These moral foundations help bind people together and support a strong community. Unfortunately, these moral virtues can cause people to cover up abuse and violence when under attack from those outside their faith group. We’ve seen too many cover-ups. Conservative Christians (fundamentalists, evangelicals) may need to ask if their loyalty and respect for authority have been misplaced when leaders fail to love others as Christ does.

CHRISTIAN COUNSELING & PASTORAL CARE

A person (woman or man) seeking counseling following experiences of harassment, abuse, or violence has much to consider. In addition to the troubling experience, which may have resulted in physical harm, there are feelings and thoughts that can produce a wide range of distress symptoms depending on the nature of the experience, the offender, and one’s own history of experiences and personality. In severe cases, diagnoses such as Depression, Anxiety Disorders, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can be present and require intensive treatment. Although many Christian clinicians are qualified to provide treatment for the aforementioned mental health conditions, they may approach the spiritual issues differently.

Evangelical Christian clergy and counselors really have no biblical grounds to support a divorce except in the case of adultery. This has been the traditional teaching of the Church for some 2,000 years. A woman may get a reprieve from violence if their counselor encourages separating for a while. But there is no guarantee the woman would be safe even after a year’s worth of separation. How far will the clinician go in moving beyond tradition when a client experiences severe emotional distress in a relationship? Will the clinician set aside traditional teachings when a victim is in danger of ongoing harassment, abuse, or violence?

And for clients, we may ask how comfortable they feel if a pastor or Christian counselor holds quite flexible views that are not a part of the victim's faith tradition? After all, progressive views hold that women and men are equal in society and the church. Women and men may be clergy and hold other leadership positions based on their abilities and not their biological sex. Progressive views endorse equality for women and men in marriage and parenting, which call for mutual love and respect. A challenge for progressive clinicians is to respect the struggle in clients who may not easily set aside the teachings that have governed their lives for decades.

Photo credit
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson poses near a portrait of B.H. Carroll, the seminary’s first president, at the B.H. Carroll Memorial Complex in Fort Worth in 2010. (AP Photo/Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Paul Moseley)

READ MORE

Sutton, G. W. (2016). A house divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888

Sutton, G. W., Arnzen, C., & Kelly, H. (2016). Christian counseling and psychotherapy: Components of clinician spirituality that predict type of Christian intervention. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 35, 204-214. Academia Link    ResearchGate Link




Relevant Chapters in A House Divided

Chapter 8: Marriage, Divorce, and Sexual Relationships 149

Chapter 10: Sex and Gender Roles 195

Chapter 11: Sexual Violence and Christianity 209


CONNECTIONS

Facebook  Page Geoff W. Sutton

Twitter  @GeoffWSutton 

Website: Geoff W. Sutton   www.suttong.com










Saturday, February 11, 2017

When Christian Cultures Clashed

Image result for Difference Between Catholics and Protestants




FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, Martin Luther was at the forefront of an attack on a dominant Christian Culture, the Roman Catholic Church. As most Christians know, Christianity has since splintered into many subcultures, which often do battle over matters of belief.

Although the contentiousness between Catholics and non-Catholics has considerably abated in North America and Europe, there were times in the UK and its large North American colonies (after 4 July 1776, the United States), when Catholics were treated as outsiders—as people of a foreign religion.
Some features of the acrimonious verbal and physical battles between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians bear a similarity to current concerns aimed at people whose religion is suspect.

Catholics are of course those Christians under the leadership of the Pope. Non-Catholics are a diverse group consisting of several Orthodox traditions, Anglicans, Protestants, and a few other groups. In social science research, various classifications are used. I find in the US that people often think of Christians as either Protestants or Catholics.

I’m focusing on the United States because recent rhetoric in the world’s foremost superpower reminds me of previous battles between ruling Protestants and minority Catholics. And I wonder if people with sharp religious differences may one day live peacefully as most Catholic and non-Catholic Christians do today. Of course, I am mindful of the more recent horrid clashes between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland but that deserves a separate investigation though it is relevant to a broader understanding of religious conflict.

There are probably many ways to categorize the historic animosity between U S Catholics and Protestants. I’ve chosen a few based on Haidt’s analyses of moral-political values (See more in Chapter 4, A House Divided).

HARM AND DANGER FEARS

The recent concerns about unchecked immigration in Europe and the United States have been leading reasons for political change in the UK and USA. The attempted immigration ban by President Trump has been attacked as a thinly veiled attempt at keeping out Muslims because of the high percentage of Muslims in the countries named in his executive order. I won’t debate the issue of religion and the order here (see links below for related stories). My point is that many Americans fear Muslims because of the 911 attacks and the ongoing war against people who claim to be Muslims and often use the language of their faith in battle cries.

Pope Day” in the U S colonies was celebrated by burning effigies of the Pope on 5th November when the English remembered the Catholic, Guy Fawkes, who attempted to blow up the House of Lords and assassinate King James I, considered by some to be a Catholic sympathizer. That celebration in the US officially ended in 1775 when George Washington issued an “executive order” banning the event to obtain assistance from Catholic France to defeat the British forces.

JUSTICE FEARS

As recent as the 1990s, the Catholic faith of Justice Clarence Thomas was an issue. In 2010, Coffman in the conservative Christianity Today magazine asked: “Does it matter that there might soon be no Protestants on the Supreme Court?” Obviously, it mattered enough to warrant an essay, which noted only Jews and Catholics were on the court. Ironically, the current nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is an Episcopalian and former Catholic (Denver Post).

As I note in my book, A House Divided, the research supports the view that judges take their faith to court.

The U S has come a long way since 1641 where the “papists” were not permitted to hold a public office or even serve on a jury in Virginia.

AUTHORITY FEARS

Writers like Samuel F. B. Morse (Morse code fame) and Lyman Beecher (famous Beecher family) warned US citizens in the 1830s of Catholic plots against Protestants brought about through immigrants from Catholic countries and the Catholic parochial schools. Anti-Catholic violence was evident in the 1834 burning of the Ursuline Convent in Charlestown, MA- the day after Beecher preached his third anti-Catholic sermon.

Authority fears continued into the 20th Century. I recall the anti-Catholic rhetoric hurled against Catholic Presidential Candidate, John F. Kennedy who had to address the issues in a famous speech given 12 September 1960. Here’s a quote:

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

LOYALTY FEARS

Loyalty fears can overlap with authority fears as evident in the concerns about President Kennedy’s religion. The fears may be construed as loyalty to the rules of the church vs. the laws of the US.
Such fears continue in the form of the Sharia law followed by Muslim groups. Here’s a 2012 quote from Presidential Candidate, Newt Gingrich.

“We should have a federal law that says under no circumstances in any jurisdiction in the United States will Sharia [law] be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law…”(Source TIME, 2016).


PURITY FEARS

Purity concerns are common to many religions and Christianity is no exception. Purity fears can take on various dimensions including basic fears of contamination from impure hands and foods to more abstract notions of impure, unholy, and untouchable people and doctrines (aka heresies and cults).
According to Massa, a salacious best seller of 1836, Maria Monk’s, Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Monastery in Montreal, told of a Protestant girl who escaped from a Catholic convent where she was a victim of sexual abuse. 

The recent exposure of sexual abuse by Catholic priests has fanned suspicion of celibacy and questions of the link between celibacy and sexual abuse (e.g., Power, SMH, 2014) despite some research (e.g., Oddie, CH, 2014;  Peralta, npr, 2011).

Doctrinal heresy is another form of purity. It is no surprise that various religious groups wish to distance themselves from others who commit some act considered at the time to be socially undesirable or worse. In the “Pope Day” festivities mentioned previously, the Pope was sometimes considered to be The Beast in the Book of Revelation.


 REFLECTIONS

I would not be surprised to find people capable of disputing all of the points I have made. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to conclude that Protestants and Christians have had sharp disagreements in the past 500 years that have led to violence.

People care to distinguish their tribe from other tribes. Religious people are no exception. If we are not talking about  walls around castles and nations, we may be talking about psychosocial walls or boundaries of beliefs that identify members as inside or outside.

Often religious leaders establish boundaries based on belief or practice-linked belief (e.g., baptism). Although the harsh rhetoric in the West is often voiced by Christian and Muslim conservatives, harsh words, suspicion, and discrimination is not limited to fundamentalists. Moreover, when more salient clashes are less in the news, Christians find themselves at war against other Christians over issues such as women’s rights, LGBT rights, capital punishment, and so forth.

My hope is that understanding, promoting civil discussions, and bringing people of different beliefs and practices together, can lead to a safer and less contentious society as usually happens when Catholics and Protestants currently interact without concern for their religious beliefs.

Links to related articles I read (see intext links for other sources).