Sometimes, Christian fundamentalists really scare me. The asshole in the picture is one such fundie. His name is Bruce Ware, a professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Another is the president of said seminary, Albert Mohler. They’ve abused both their educations and the Christian Bible to support the most abhorrent theological conclusions. Their beliefs make them downright sexist and possibly even racist.
First the sexism. Like most evangelicals, Ware believes that women should be submissive to their husbands. That is, of course, because the Bible was written at a time when women were considered inferior and were expected to be submissive to men in all instances, so there are plenty of verses to support that theological conclusion.
Ware takes an already sexist belief to extremes. First, he blames the victims of domestic abuse. Basically he claims that non-submissive wives force their husbands to react one of two ways: to become a wimp or to beat the crap out of her.
“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches”
The above image of the jackass was created and is licensed by these other jackasses.
Do you hear that wives? Assert yourself and don’t be surprised if you get beaten. Blaming women, even partially, for their own abuse is as abhorrently sexist. It’s just as bad as believing victims of rape were “asking for it”.
It gets even worse. Ware’s seminary promotes something called full-quiver theology. Basically, the idea is that married couples should have as many children as possible. This means that people should marry early and have children early and as often as possible. Of course, this also means no birth control in any circumstance. They describe not having children as rebellion against God’s design, that any couple not matching their cookie-cutter mold for how every relationship should be is sinning. It seems that the religious right isn’t only out to control homosexuality, they are out to control heterosexuality as well.
Setting aside the Malthusian catastrophe it would create, this disgusting theology demotes woman even further from ‘submissive’ to ‘breeding slave’. They want to return to a pre-birth control world were women often quite literally die from having so many children. It’s tough to be politically active to protect your rights if you are pregnant and taking care of several kids most of your life. Safe and legal abortion would disappear, pay discrepancies would increase, few protections for domestic abuse would result, woman would be kept out of the armed services, etc. In short, woman’s liberation would disappear in a generation if the full-quiver theology became wide-spread.
While not racist on the face of it, it seems to be in rhetoric and practice. Albert Mohler, president of the seminary, has said, “We are barely replenishing ourselves. That is going to cause huge social problems in the future.” Yet both America’s and the World’s population is growing. There is only one ethnic group in decline: whites. That’s right, the full-quiver theology is in part to make sure whites are not out-breed by other ethnic groups.
This contemptible theology needs to be called what it is – white-male supremacist theology – and opposed everywhere it is confronted. Thankfully, other, more ethical Christians have done just that. Miguel De La Torre, professor of social ethics at Denver’s Iliff School of Theology, has called full-quiver theology “white-supremacy code language advocating for the increase of white babies.” He’s the one who first brought up the racial implications of Molher’s statement.
Keith Herron, a Kansas City Baptist minister describes the theology as follows.
“Over the years since the takeover of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the ickiest viewpoints about sex and procreation and pleasure have been lurking in the theological minds of the President and professors who teach there. Once a viable center of creative and respectable theological thinking, now we are subjected to the strangest of sexual obsessions that focus on the means and motives of sex slimed by the notion they claim to represent the viewpoints of the God who created sex.”
He goes on to attack Ware and his ideas about spousal abuse directly.
“Dr. Ware needs to have his head examined. He and the others who share these views need therapy and should be banned from teaching the next generation of ministers who sit at their feet learning about God, about human pain and suffering.
Warning signs should be posted at the entrance of the seminary: “Warning! Sexual Obsessions Abound Here … Enter at Your Own Peril!””
I love to see rational responses no matter what quarter they come from.






















Okay so here’s that quote that some folk find icky and others go overboard with:
Epheisans 5:21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,
Is that sexist? Is that a bad way to live? I don’t think so. Now the sort of submission that a lot of Extremists read into that is.
Is it sexist? Yes. Is it a bad way to live? No, not in general.
It is sexist because it requires the wife to acquiesce in the event of disagreements. The value of the two opinions are discriminated based on sex. It is saying that her will is not of equal value as that of a male’s. There is a power imbalance.
It’s not a bad way to live for many couples. Some women are happy to be a submissive partner and should seek out men who prefer to be the head of the household. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At the same time, it is a bad way to live for other couples. Some men prefer the submissive roll and women the dominant roll. Others prefer some kind of equality. Still others, like B4B and myself, prefer a division of responsibility, where both are submissive in some issues and dominant in others.
The problem with Complementarianism (other than the sexist power imbalance) is that it is one-size-fits-all, when in fact one size does not fit all. I would be miserable in such an arrangement.
I’m curious. How far do you think a woman’s submission extends? Does she submit to the man’s decisions about finances? What to buy? What to have for dinner? How to dress? Where to live? Who her friends are? Whether or not and where she gets to work? Rearing children? Having children (if and when)? Having sex? How to vote?!?
At what point does the level of submission become extreme? Is there any level of women submitting to their husbands that you would be comfortable with saying is good for all marriages?
By the way, those aren’t the verses than Bruce Ware uses. You can find a summary of his justification here. Like most anti-Enlightenment theology, most of it comes from Genesis. My personal favorite is #4: “The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).” Heh. Women’s purpose is to ‘help’ man. Disgusting.
What do you think of the full-quiver theology? My opinion is pretty plain, I think.
Good ol’ quiverfulls. There are a couple near me, but more for the backwoods reason than religious reasons. It makes my friends at work sad when they see the movie Idiocracy and think, “This will happen to us.” Not this might happen, this will happen. We will be overtaken by these people if we’re not careful.
It still confuses me how a person could go through enough of an education of any kind in this country and be so incredibly narrow-minded. I’m not necessarily thinking about the views themselves, but just how simplistic they seem and how dismissive of everything else. I mean, don’t they learn Biblical history outside of the literal words? Don’t they learn about different interpretations while in seminary? And they just throw all that out? It seems like a deeply disturbing childhood or total isolation for years would be necessary. I don’t get it. How do you just completely dismiss everyone around you?
Actually, I have to scratch that last part, because I’ve seen how it does happen, and it saddens me. Moreso it makes me angry how simple it seems in some cases.
Had a nice comment post all typed up and clicked the wrong x to close the winder.
Suffice to say that the way most Christians I know who look at the verse I quoted look at it a little differently than guys like this and perhaps you. One, both wife and husband are required to submit to one another. This verse often gets overlooked. Two, wives are to submit to their husbands as we do to God. This is not an abandonment of thought. This is more the idea that as Christians we believe that God has what is best for us in mind. So while it does put the husband in a place of authority over the wife, that authority should not be about power or abuse, but simply seeking what is best both for the wife and the relationship. It’s not about control or deciding who your wife can be friends with. It’s more about respect. If the husband shows that he is abusive, then at least in our church the wife would not be bound by this submission. Finally the husband is called to love the wife as Christ loves the church, sacrificially, seeking not to glorify himself or his needs, but instead to aid the wife in purity and loving generously.
In our marriage that looks a lot like what you describe for you and B4B. I let Leigh make decisions where we agree that she has the strengths (I suspect you’re going to object to the word “let” here) and vice versa. In a lot of areas where somthing impacts us both we work together. Where we can’t agree and a compromise can’t be struck and a decision must be made, I make it. How would that look with you guys?
As far as other folks go, I have no problems with submission on one end of the spectrum to the other so long as it’s a mutual thing. My feeling is that if a person is seeking “too much” control then they aren’t mature enough to marry (male or female) and if they are all about “freedom” then they probably shouldn’t be married. A marriage is a partnership and partnerships require sacrifice of some personal freedom for the benefit of the whole.
So some measure of submission is good for all marriages and submission, as the Bible says, is a two way street.
Regarding woman’s purpose being that of a helper, I don’t find that disgusting. I find the use of that word by you interesting. Is helping bad? Woman completes man. Women, in general, have strengths men do not have. We’re speaking in generalities here, but I’m comfortable with that. What do you think the Bible means by woman being man’s helper? I don’t take that as some junior position.
If I help you move am I your inferior?
As far as full quiver theology goes, if the idea is that children are a blessing and that having them is a good thing then yes. As far as birth control goes, I don’t think that’s a sin. You need to be aware of your resources and whether or not you can support a “full quiver”. The whole white supremacy idea, or having more kids strictly so that “we” won’t be outnumbered I find as reprehensible as you, perhaps moreso. We have three and would love to have more, but a number of factors, not the least of which was Leigh’s health, led to us deciding that her getting her tubes tied was a good idea. Again, she didn’t decide, I didn’t decide, we decided together as it should be.
Hey Scott,
Sorry about your first comment. I hate it when that happens. Still, your second draft is very good and asks some great questions.
First, we seem to agree on much regarding this subject. Taking these to extremes, as Ware has, is wrong. Often these are due to misinterpretations/selective readings (which I may be doing as well in some of my criticisms). Also, we both think that successful marriage does involve some sacrifice and submission by both parties.
I think we would also agree that any authority should not be about abuse, but I would say that all authority is about power. Determining who gets any power based on the sex of the individual is the definition of sexism. Additionally, the verses (and the Bible as a whole?) doesn’t address what should happen when the husband does abuse his power. Historically, she’s still been required to submit. Your church has a different interpretation. Do you know the Biblical basis for their/your opinion? The analogy of the Ephesians verses fails because God is perfect and men are not. They will abuse their Bible-given authority.
I would object to the word ‘let’ if your wife wasn’t okay with such an arrangement. I suspect she’s just fine with it. B4B would probably object rather strongly (and may, if she gets around to reading this discussion). As you say, our arrangement is very similar. The only difference is that we’ve never run into any serious disagreement that can’t be compromised on or were one of us cannot convince the other. And honestly, I can’t imagine that compromise isn’t a possibility. There’s always the “You make this major decision and I make the next” type of compromise available.
Oh, there’s nothing wrong with the word ‘helper’. I actually did a little research before posting my last comment and learned the the original Hebrew equivalent doesn’t have the same, mildly negative connotation ‘helper’ has. What I find disgusting is that ‘helping men’ is the purpose for which women were created; that their value is not inherent, but contingent on that of man’s. In the creation myth from Genesis, man is the point, not women.
The word helper does bring out bad connotations. It gives (to me, at least) the mental image of a servant, someone who cannot be complete on their own. They need someone else who does not necessarily need them. This is, of course, a very negative view and in no way necessary, but given what we’re talking about, it is something to consider.
Scott,
I think that most people would agree with your views of respect and duel submission and compromise and all of these things. Mainly, I think, because these things suggest equality. I think the primary objection, at least that I have, is that you state all these wonderful things and then you ‘spoil’ it by saying things like (allow me to paraphrase) “in the case where we can’t come to a compromise, I decide”.
I believe that that one statement (or idea) is what is driving everybody crazy. Mainly because it begs the natural question ‘Why do you decide in those cases?’. And I’m not talking about cases where because your wife doesn’t mind that you decide, because that is a form of compromise. I’m talking about an actual case of where your wife wants something one way and you want something another and since you can’t agree you assert your authority and get your way. Why do you get to decide? If you can’t imagine that situation in your life then I ask you to consider it in the hypothetical. I think that it would be just as easy to reverse the situation and have the wife be the tie breaker. Why not?
I guess what it comes down to, for me is, do you believe that it is up to you to decide if your wife gets to decide based on YOUR evaluation of yours and hers strengths (I’m sure there’s a better way to write that sentence). And if so, do you come to this conclusion solely because it is what the Bible says? And if so, can you hypothesize as to why the Bible may say that? Is it possible that the Bible is saying that men have better decision making abilities? Or is it possible that the Bible is just saying ‘well someone’s gotta decide, let’s toss a coin and say it will be men’? Or is it one of those ‘we just don’t know the mind of god and we must trust what it says even if we don’t understand it.
I hope you don’t feel that I’m picking on you. You’ve just raised a point that I struggle to understand and I am really interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks
Chop
Hello Sid Yes Mr Ware is talking a lot of silliness but that is what you can expect from somebody whose core beliefs come from somebody who says they are talking to angels or God.The fact that there are any inconsistencies gives it away that they are not that is assuming that God is perfect.
In any system where there is an inconsistency then all statements are true hence conflict.
Here is a website which gives me some insight into what other religions are up to only these guys have some teeth and aren’t afraid to use them.Take a look at thereligionofpeace.com for a glimpse of that good old time religion
What seems wrong to me is that you and your wife defer to you for decisions not because you may have more knowledge of the situation or because you’ve shown that you have superior decision-making skills, but simply because you’re the man. That doesn’t seem efficient.
I’m relieved to hear that “helper” isn’t the best translation in that quote from the Bible, because to me, “helper” implies that women were created for a secretarial-type role for men, and I certainly don’t believe that. However, you say that “woman completes man” as if that makes it less sexist. I hope I’m not getting stuck on semantics, but I tend to think that women and men complete each other. Sid and Snurp summed up the rest of my feelings on this (that women have value quite separate from anything to do with men) nicely.
So much to respond to. Okay here goes.
Chop.
I suppose it all gets back to Leigh (my wife). We both agree that the man’s role is the head of the household and as such is the ultimate “decider” or tie breaker if you will. So that’s part of it. I’ll give you an example of how this played out recently. She asked me if I minded if she visited a different church. I told her that I certainly didn’t mind if she did or if we all did, but since I had no intention of changing churches amd since we believe that it is beneficial to all worship togeher that if her visit was to try that church out for potential membership the answer would be no. She didn’t like the answer particularly, but she respected me and the authority that we mutually agree that I have. It’s not always pretty or easy. So why me, why not her? Well in the majority of cases we make decisions (hopefully) based on our evaluations of our respective strengths. We try and encourage one another’s strengths and cover one another’s weaknesses. In cases like this where there doesn’t seem to be a compromise, I make the decision because that’s been our agreement. I guess that’s compromise of a sort right there. The reason we’ve made that agreement is because that’s pretty clearly what the Bible says. Why does the Bible say that? Well I don’t know that it’s a blanket statement on a woman’s ability to make a decision. For me it doesn’t even get back to Eve as it does to some of my brethren. And the Bible seems to hold Adam more to account for his poor decisions, than Eve. So I suppose for me it’s a matter of faith. God said that’s the way it needs to be, so that’s the way it is. He has his reasons. I recognize that there are those among you that will see that as some sort of cop out. *shrugs*
Bridget.
I don’t know that relationships are ever about “efficiency”. None of mine have ever been. But if it were it would seem to be more effiicient to have already agreed to who the tie breaker would be in those situations where you arrive at an impass. Our government is designed that way. The way I view the whole helper thing is this. Man by himself is incomplete. Woman by herself is incomplete. Both have value intrinsic in their being. Together they make a whole. That’a what I mean (and what I think the Bible means) when it comes down to the helper issue. It’s not like God says “Oh man could do it, but he really needs a gal Friday.” No God said that it is not good that man should be alone and needs a helpmeet. So I think we agree.
“In the creation myth from Genesis, man is the point, not women.”
Until woman was created creation wasn’t complete, so I disagree.
Scott,
Thanks for clarifying your position. If I have it straight, it seems that you could sum it up thus:
-The husband has ultimate authority
-The husband can decide that the wife may have more experience in a certain area and he may defer to her in those situations if he chooses
-The wife must submit to whatever the husband decides
-All of this is so because this is what you and your wife interpret the Bible as saying.
Is this correct?
I understand that according to your interpretation this seems to apply only between husband and wife. But it begs the question, if these roles of authority are followed in the household, how do these roles transfer to circumstances such as at work? For instance, Should I or other men have authority over female co-workers? Should I get to decide whether or not to listen to suggestions by female workers? And then should they have to submit with my decision regardless of what they think? An obvious answer is yes they should if the are of a lower rank in the company. But what if we are equal rank? What if she is my boss? I guess you can see how if the gender biases of authority are applied outside the household then some major difficulties can arise. You may say that these roles only apply to the home. But, I think it would be hard to separate the two. Further, I can’t imagine a female CEO of a company going home to her out of work husband and just blindly following her husbands authority because God told her to. That seems silly to me. If anything she should be following gods authority not her husbands. I find it hard to believe that god would need the ‘husband’ to transmit his ideas to women. I believe that God is perfectly capable of communicating directly with women and empowering them with their own authority. I believe that that is one of the key components to a strong lasting marriage. Is when both the husband and wife are empowered equally and challenge each other mentally. When its done with love and respect it’s a beautiful thing.
Is this correct?
I’d say so.
I understand that according to your interpretation this seems to apply only between husband and wife. But it begs the question, if these roles of authority are followed in the household, how do these roles transfer to circumstances such as at work?
Biblically they don’t, so far as I am aware. The scripture applies only to marriage. There are some that interpret Paul’s writings on women’s roles in the church to be somewhat limited, how limited varies with interpretation. Generally though no one that I am aware of other than the most ultra-conservative would say that this applies in the workplace.
You may say that these roles only apply to the home. But, I think it would be hard to separate the two.
Why?
Further, I can’t imagine a female CEO of a company going home to her out of work husband and just blindly following her husbands authority because God told her to. That seems silly to me.
Again why? Why should either the man’s or woman’s position at work, especially if they don’t work toether, affect their roles at home? The “I am a CEO at work so you must obey me or I can ignore you.” seems odd and it’s an argument I’ve not heard.
If anything she should be following gods authority not her husbands.
Why is it an either or? Both are called to submit to God’s authority and that’s why, if the husband isn’t submitting to God by ordering his wife to do something uncharitable ro unloving or that otherwise runs contrary to God’s law, I would say that she is under no obligation to submit. Of course not every Christian is going to agree with me on that point.
I find it hard to believe that god would need the ‘husband’ to transmit his ideas to women.
That’s not the purpose. God can communicate his ideas to women and does. You’re putting forth an argument against something neither I nor the Bible says.
I believe that God is perfectly capable of communicating directly with women and empowering them with their own authority.
They do have authority, just not over their husband.
I believe that that is one of the key components to a strong lasting marriage. Is when both the husband and wife are empowered equally and challenge each other mentally. When its done with love and respect it’s a beautiful thing.
What does “empowered equally” mean to you? The rest I can agree with.
According to the Bible, Husbands are given authority over wives based only on sex. Without verses to the contrary in other parts of the Bible, that authority discrepancy can rationally be extended to all aspects of life. After all, the sole criteria, sex, is present in every part of society.
Oh, and Paul was pretty clear on this topic outside of marriage.
I Corinthians 11:3, 7-9
Then there is I Timothy 2:11-14
The pecking order is pretty clear outside the context of marriage.
All this talk about the bible just goes to show the power of repetition and how you say something is just as important as what is said.Of course getting your ideology from God represents the ultimate in authority because after all who can argue with God?The more I think about the people who came up with religion the more i recognize their genius.Not that what they are saying is particulary profound or even makes sense but the fact that it survived through probably 100 generations says a lot about the power of it’s construction.If you don’t believe me here we are in the 21′st century actually discussing this nonsense and you know what people will be talking about these verses hundreds of years from now.i would prefer a more meta discussion about the structure of the religious books and their durability through the ages.A survival of the fittest in mental space and what it takes to do that.Hint truth or reality has nothing to do with survivability which comes back to a variation of the problem of evil touched on earlier.Why does god allow nonsense to spread and live for centuries especially when much of it is about him?
Both of those passages are in context speaking about roles in worship, not at your day job.
But it is a power discrepancy prescribed by the Bible outside of marriage, correct? Now we have a pattern. Is there anywhere in the Bible the prescribes equal power in any other context?
One of the also reinforces the idea that women were created for man and not for their inherent value.
The woman in Proverbs 31 seems to have her share of power.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+31
I guess it depends on what equal power means. Roles might not be identical. Does that mean power isn’t?
2 scott:
Just out of curiosity, so the order in the bible is this: woman submit to husband and husband submit to God but woman does not need to submit to the husband if he does not submit to God, instead she submits to God. Then what is the point of the wife submitting to the husband? Why not just submit to God directly? Why the middleman?
Seondly you mentioned about compromising in marriage?
My question is if you are the main decider and if there is a disagreement between you and your wife’s decision then whatever you say goes. So the only time your wife gets what she wants is when you agree with what she wants otherwise she does not get it. My question is, where is the compromise on the husband’s part? If this is the order then there is no compromise coming from the husband at all. He gets what he wants either way?
Thirdly you mention:the Bible seems to hold Adam more to account for his poor decisions, than Eve.
I think that you are suggesting the fall when Adam ate the apple. The reason behind this is because he was the last person to sin. Eve already disobeyed God therefore he was the final decider whether or not mankind will fall. He cannot procreate by himself.
Well said Observer…well said.