Questions
Concerning Prof. Engelsma’s Treatment on Spousal Abuse
by
J. Parnell McCarter
Prof. David Engelsma of the Protestant
Reformed Churches of America has spoken and written on the topic of “spousal abuse”, such as
presented at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU
and http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow
. The views he expresses here appear to
be growing in acceptance in the reformed Christian community, so it is proper
that Christians be aware of the views and approach them with a Berean spirit. In this article I lay out questions I have
regarding what Prof. Engelsma states, as well as
explain our background doctrinal differences and how I believe those doctrinal
differences play out on this issue. All
married people must inevitably have opinions on the topics he covers because he
touches on issues regarding marital relations.
There are areas of creedal agreement and disagreement
I have with Prof. Engelsma. Regarding agreement, both Prof. Engelsma and I would profess agreement with the Three Forms
of Unity. However, in reality Prof. Engelsma and his
denomination (Protestant
Reformed Churches of America) do not agree with the Three Forms of Unity in
their original form, but in an amended form, whereas I agree with the Three
Forms of Unity in their original form. Specifically, Prof. Engelsma
and his denomination disagree with Article 36 of the Belgic Confession which is
why they have an amending note rejecting the Establishment Principle (see http://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/creeds/three-forms-of-unity/belgic-confession/article-36),
whereas I agree with Article 36 of the Belgic Confession. The rejection of the
Establishment Principle by Prof. Engelsma and his
denomination has implications far beyond the narrow area of church-state
relations, because embedded within it are issues relating to the nature of
God’s authority via human agency and the nature of Fallen man. Furthermore, Prof. Engelsma
and his denomination reject the Westminster Standards in quite a number of
critical areas, whereas I fully subscribe to these standards. As it especially
relates to the topic of spousal relations, Prof. Engelsma
and the Protestant
Reformed Churches of America hold to this view: “The Bible gives one
ground only for divorce, namely, adultery. And there is no remarriage for a
divorced man or woman so long as the spouse lives” - http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/4163-marriage-divorce-children
. In contrast, here is what the
Westminster Standards say on the topic:
“…In
the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue
out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending
party were dead.…Although
the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put
asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but
adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be
remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving
the bond of marriage;a wherein a public and
orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in
it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.b” -
Westminster Confession, Chapter 24
“Q139:
What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment? …unjust divorce,[15] or desertion;[16]…” – Westminster Larger Catechism
Upon
thorough analysis, these creedal differences between us will almost inevitably
lead to differences of view on the topic of spousal abuse. So at one level, the basic question I ask is
this: are the original Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Standards correct
(as I believe) or are they incorrect (as Prof. Engelsma
believes)?
So
with this background regarding our basic doctrinal agreements and
disagreements, here are some of the questions I have of Prof. Engelsma’s treatment on spousal abuse:
1.
In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU Prof. Engelsma speaks of “rape within marriage” and defends use of
this term. In the United States, a
husband could not be charged with raping his wife until 1979.
Here is further historical information on the topic:
“In
his History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), Sir Matthew Hale made the
following pronouncement: But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed
by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and
contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she
cannot retract. As Hale had held the office of Chief Justice for five years,
there can be little doubt that what he wrote was an accurate expression of the
common law as it then stood, even though he had died some 60 years before the
publication of the work. Hale’s justification for his statement was that, on
marriage, the wife gave up her body to her husband and gave her irrevocable
consent to sexual intercourse. That Hale’s pronouncement was accepted as an
enduring principle of the common law is evidenced by the first edition of
Archbold, A Summary of the Law Relative to Pleading and Evidence in Criminal
Cases (1822), which simply stated: ‘A husband also cannot be guilty of a rape
upon his wife.’
-
http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415639989/downloads/rape-marriage.pdf
Is
traditional English common law consistent with scripture in asserting that
“rape” cannot occur in marriage, or is the modern view which Prof. Engelsma has apparently embraced consistent with scripture?
This
is no small issue for every man married to a wife.
2.
Prof. Engelsma cites I Corinthians
7 as evidence that a husband can commit rape on his wife. Can he cite any reformed theologian before
1900 who agrees with him and provide the basis for their argument? How
precisely does I Corinthians 7:4 (“The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise
also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be
with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and
come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. ”) support the view that a husband can criminally have sexual
intercourse with his wife? Does it not
imply precisely the opposite?
John
Calvin comments on this passage: “Unless by
mutual consent
He requires mutual consent, in the first place, because the question is not
as to the continency of one merely, but of two;” In other words, Calvin
points out that sexual intercourse cannot be stopped unless both spouses agree
to it. So is it not patently absurd and contrary
to God’s word to suggest that sexual intercourse when one spouse does not want
it is criminal? Is Prof. Engelsma not engaging in malfeasance as a church officer by
promoting the concept of marital rape? Is the abuser here Prof. Engelsma in twisting scripture to fit modern humanistic
shibboleths?
3.
In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU
Prof. Engelsma asserts that “verbal abuse is every bit as
destructive as physical abuse if not more so”.
He
later proceeds with the following syllogism:
Prop.
1: verbal abuse is every bit as destructive as physical abuse if not more so
Prop.
2: physical abuse warrants marital separation since it is proper for the
endangered party to flee for physical safety
Conclusion:
verbal abuse warrants marital separation
Does
Prof. Engelsma’s assertion that “verbal abuse is
every bit as destructive as physical abuse if not more so”, especially as it
relates to justification for separation of a married couple, have scriptural
warrant? How should we think of it in
light of Matthew
Henry's treatment of Proverbs 21:9 as it relates to the topic of desertion
below? (“It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a
brawling woman in a wide house.”):
So is it correct that even if one does have a vexing spouse,
God does not give license for departure from the household? Where is the scriptural support for the
proposition that “emotional abuse” should be treated as equivalent to “physical
abuse” as a basis for someone to engage in spousal separation?
4.
In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU
Prof. Engelsma cites for support of his views certain “recognized
experts in the field of abuse...” Specifically he mentions “Crippen and
Wood”. I looked up and found that their
full names are Jeff Crippen and Anna Wood. Crippen is a Baptist currently
living in Oregon and Wood is a Baptist who lives in Alabama, and they have
co-written the book described at https://www.amazon.com/Cry-Justice-Domestic-Abuse-Church/dp/1879737914
. Prof. Engelsma
does not refer to any pre-1960 reformed theologians, but instead to these
two. Is this where reformed Christians
should be looking for how to think on this topic? And what resources have they primarily been
studying to come up with their views?
Anna
Wood, the “expert” to whom Prof Engelsma refers, has
written the following:
“Maybe
you aren’t really sure if your husband is an abuser. Ask yourself these
questions: Do you walk on eggshells around your husband? Have you changed your
beliefs, the way you speak, act, or dress, or what you like or dislike, not
just to please him but because you had no choice but to do so? If you are
constantly stressed when you are around your husband, if you must do whatever
he says or accommodate his wishes no matter how bizarre, if he gets angry for
little or no reason, if you’ll do anything to keep from setting him off, the
chances are very, very great that you are in an unhealthy or even a dangerous
relationship. Domestic abuse is a sin. Domestic abusers may masquerade as
Christians but no true Christian abuses his family. If you are married to an
abuser, do whatever it takes to protect yourself and your children, including
leaving if you need to.” - https://feminasolagratia.wordpress.com/category/domestic-abuse/
Is
Anna Wood Biblical here, and is someone who holds this view someone reformed
Christians should be following? Is she not advocating “willful desertion” which
is a heinous sin condemned by scripture according to the Westminster
Standards? Setting the husband aside,
does Anna Wood understand that she must not only love Christ, but also fear
Christ and obey His commandments? Is
there not a proper fear element involved in man’s relation with God? Is Anna Wood’s dispute perhaps really with
God and not the man she regards as an “abuser”?
So
why is Prof. Engelsma siding with Anna Wood? Could it be that this is a logical outworking
of his rejection of the Establishment Principle, which is an implicit rejection
of Christ’s full authority as exercised through human agency?
Also,
is there not a real danger for women in the conflation of what Anna Wood and
Prof Engelsma place under the category of verbal or
emotional abuse with that which falls under the category of physical
abuse? If there is much crying of “wolf”
for that which is really not a wolf, then when a woman cries “wolf” in the case
of real physical danger, then might it tend to be ignored when it should not
be? Obviously, the woman as the “weaker
vessel” needs to be protected when there is real physical endangerment. Also, by conflating that which is truly
proven with that which is not, is there not also danger?
5.
Here is more information on Anna Wood who Prof Engelsma cites as the “expert” he looks to on these issues
(not John Calvin, not Matthew Henry, not …, but Anna Wood):
https://www.womenspeakers.com/united-states/montgomery-/speaker/anna-wood
:
Anna Wood
Christian Speaker
Christian Woman Speaker at Tamar Weeps
Montgomery Alabama 36116
…
Contact Information
Name |
Tamar Weeps |
Position |
Christian Woman Speaker |
Location |
Montgomery, AL 36116 |
Speaking Ministry Details
·
Salvation
Date
·
1970
·
Home
Church
·
Home church
·
Relationship
to Church
·
Member of
·
Available
for
·
Conferences, Retreats
·
Speaking
Experience
·
Full Time (over 20 events
per year)
·
Fee Range
·
Love Offering
More About Anna Wood
My name is Anna. Along with Jeff Crippen, I am
the co-author of A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your
Church. I’ve spent my life walking the broken pathway of abuse. I know its
lonely, craggy, pathways far too well. My father was an abusive drunk. My mother
became emotionally and verbally abusive when I was around 9. I was molested. I
married into abuse. The horrors of abuse once defined my life. Now Jesus does.
I can’t say with certainty when God saved me, only
that He did. I grew up in church, and believed myself to have been saved at age
seven. Whenever God’s justifying work was actually done in me, I praise Him
that it was. Broken bit by broken bit, God has worked on mending me. Daily He’s
delved into my angry, broken heart, exchanging the ashes of a destroyed life
for the beauty of His holy one. I’m a work in progress as we all are but, praise
the Lord, He’s patient. He’s working on me still.
The lessons I’ve learned in the fires of abuse
aren’t easy lessons. They’re lessons of dependency on God alone, of trust in His
faithfulness in the blackest darkness, of hoping in His goodness when all hope
was seemingly gone. As God comforts us not to make us comfortable but to make
us comforters to others, it is my desire to come alongside abuse victims in
their pain, and also alongside the church as she learns about abuse and how to
minister to abuse victims, in order to share His glorious healing truth.
Soli Deo gloria!
Is
it not highly irresponsible of Prof. Engelsma to look
to Anna Wood as the expert he follows?
6.
Prof. Engelsma for the most part
seems to brush aside reformed theologians of past centuries and their treatment
on the topic of desertion. Is this not a
serious flaw in his treatment? What should
we think about the following in relation to Prof. Engelsma’s
treatment?
Calvin's Commentary on I
Cor 7:10-11
10. To the married I command. He now treats of another condition of marriage
— its being an indissoluble tie. Accordingly, he condemns all those divorces
that were of daily occurrence among the heathens, and were not punished among
the Jews by the law of Moses. Let not, says he, the husband put away
his wife, and let not the wife depart from her husband. Why? Because they
are joined together by an indissoluble bond. It is surprising, however, that he
does not make an exception, at least in case of adultery; for it is not likely
that he designed to curtail in anything the doctrine of Christ. To me it
appears clear, that the reason why he has made no mention of this 399 is, that as he is discoursing of these things
only in passing, he chose rather to send back the Corinthians to the Lord’s
permission or prohibition, than to go over everything in detail. For when
persons intend to teach anything in short compass, they content themselves with
a general statement. Exceptions are reserved for a minuter
and more extended and particular discussion.
But as to what he
subjoins — not I, but the Lord — he intimates by this correction, that
what he teaches here is taken from the law of God. For other things that he
taught he had also from the revelation of the Spirit; but he declares that God
is the author of this, in respect of its being expressly taken from the law of
God. If you inquire as to the particular passage, you will nowhere find it in
so many words; but as Moses in the beginning testifies, that the connection
between a husband and wife is so sacred, that for the sake of it
a man ought to leave his
father and mother. (Genesis 2:24.)
It is easy to gather
from this, how inviolable a connection it is. For by right of nature a son is
bound to his father and mother, and cannot shake off that yoke. As the
connection of marriage is preferred to that bond, much less ought it to
be dissolved.
11. But if she depart That this is not to be understood of those who
have been put away for adultery, is evident from the punishment that followed
in that case; for it was a capital crime even by the Roman laws, and almost by
the common law of nations. But as husbands frequently divorced their wives,
either because their manners were not congenial, or because their personal
appearance did not please them, or because of some offense; 400 and as wives, too, sometimes deserted their
husbands on account of their cruelty, or excessively harsh and dishonorable
treatment, he says that marriage is not dissolved by divorces or dissensions of
that nature. For it is an agreement that is consecrated by the name of God,
which does not stand or fall according to the inclination of men, so as to be
made void whenever we may choose. The sum is this: other contracts, as they
depend on the mere inclination of men, are in like manner dissolved by that
same inclination; but those who are connected by marriage are no longer free,
so as to be at liberty, if they change their mind, to break in pieces the
pledge, 401 (as the expression is,) and go each of them
elsewhere in quest of a new connection. For if the rights of nature cannot be
dissolved, much less can this, which, as we have said already, is preferred
before the principal tie of nature.
But as to his commanding
the wife, who is separated from her husband, to remain unmarried, he
does not mean by this that separation is allowable, nor does he give permission
to the wife to live apart from her husband; but if she has been expelled from
the house, or has been put away, she must not think that even in that case she
is set free from his power; for it is not in the power of a husband to dissolve
marriage. He does not therefore give permission here to wives to withdraw, of
their own accord, from their husbands, or to live away from their husband’s
establishment, as if they were in a state of widowhood; but declares, that even
those who are not received by their husbands, continue to be bound, so that
they cannot take other husbands.
But what if a wife is
wanton, or otherwise incontinent? Would it not be inhuman to refuse her the
remedy, when, constantly burning with desire? I answer, that when we are
prompted by the infirmity of our flesh, we must have recourse to the remedy;
after which it is the Lord’s part to bridle and restrain our affections by his
Spirit, though matters should not succeed according to our desire. For if a
wife should fall into a protracted illness, the husband would, nevertheless,
not be justified in going to seek another wife. In like manner, if a husband
should, after marriage, begin to labor under some distemper, it would not be
allowable for his wife to change her condition of life. The sum is this — God
having prescribed lawful marriage as a remedy for our incontinency, let us make
use of it, that we may not, by tempting him, pay the penalty of our rashness.
Having discharged this duty, let us hope that he will give us aid should
matters go contrary to our expectations.
Matthew Henry's
Commentary on I Cor 7:10-11
In this paragraph the
apostle gives them direction in a case which must be very frequent in that age
of the world, especially among the Jewish converts; I mean whether they were to
live with heathen relatives in a married state. Moses's law permitted divorce;
and there was a famous instance in the Jewish state, when the people were
obliged to put away their idolatrous wives, Ezra
10:3. This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to
Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing
infidels. Concerning this matter the apostle here gives direction. And,
OPC Issue Paper on
Desertion which includes Scriptural Exegesis and Historical Review
https://pohopc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/divorce-desertion_committee_final_report.pdf (Note: I am not a member of the OPC, but of
the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, but this is a thorough treatment on
the topic worthy of consideration.)
7.
In the video Prof. Engelsma defines
“verbal abuse” as “degrading words that destroy her [the wife] emotionally…she
does not know she is…Specialists in abuse call this ‘loss of personhood’”. He then relates this modern psychological
jargon to the term “railer” or “reviler” in I
Corinthians 5:11 and 6:10. I
Corinthians 5:11 reads: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company,
if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”
Thayer’s
Greek Lexicon references Proverbs 25:24 as having a word with same essential
meaning as a “railer” in I Corinthians 5:11: “It is
better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and
in a wide house.” The Greek
Septuagint uses the same word for “brawling woman” as found in the Greek New
Testament for “railer” in I Corinthians 5:11 and
“reviler” in 6:10.
Given
this relation, why
does Prof. Engelsma target men as the primary
violators of the sin of being a railer when scripture
itself does not do that? Indeed, could
one not make the case that it is more typically a female sin in the context of
marital relations, based upon what is indicated in Proverbs?
Furthermore, Proverbs 25:24 in no way warrants a
spouse to leave the home, but just the opposite, as addressed in 3. So why does
Prof. Engelsma take it in this un-Biblical direction?
8.
Prof Engelsma asserts
in the video that “invariably the abuser will lie to church authorities and
deny it”. But is Prof. Engelsma not himself guilty of being a false accuser and
false judge when he states the following:
“When a wife takes action or seeks
help alleging abuse, abuse on the part of the husband is almost always, indeed
invariably, a reality. A consistory may safely believe
the woman. Naturally,
the woman desires to maintain her marriage and family intact…“How
does one approach a husband about sin he has denied from day one, but whose wife
has left him because of alleged abuse? In a situation in which it is unknown
whom to believe, will this cause more harm to young children who are still in
the church? As a matter of right terminology, if a husband and a wife are
living separately because of the husband’s abuse, the wife has not left the
husband, but the husband has driven the wife away. In the case of the husband’s
denying the abuse, the consistory must determine guilt. They do this by closely
questioning the man, by questioning the man
and the woman together, and, if necessary and possible, by questioning the
children who may be members of the family. Involving the children in the
questioning will be harmful to the children, but the fault lies not with the
consistory but with the abusive husband. Even when the husband persists in
denying abuse, the consistory will be able to determine that the wife is
telling the truth and that the man is lying. Unless in the extremely rare case
the consistory is inclined to doubt the woman and to believe the man, the
consistory will then charge the man with both the sin of murder (in abusing his
wife) and the sin of lying.” ( http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow#ixzz63JaNnF5l
)
“Since abusers are so secretive and deceptive and
seemingly good people in public, what are some of the signal
symptoms of an abused wife that the church can look for? Abusers of their wife
are all the things that this question suggests. They present an appearance in
society and in the church that impresses everyone (except the wife and
children). This is a reason why, when the wife finally cries out for help, the
response of society and church is that her complaint cannot possibly be true.
They blame her rather than the abusive husband, thus adding to her misery. This is why, as the rule, the church ought to accept her
complaint as true, and doubt her husband’s denial of the wife’s charge against
him.” - http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow#ixzz63JZJgGL6
Does the above have the marks of
even-handed justice? How can the church authorities
make a determination if there are no witnesses and the spouses disagree? And why does Prof. Engelsma
lie by saying “When a wife takes action or seeks help alleging abuse, abuse on
the part of the husband is almost always, indeed invariably, a reality”? Is Prof. Engelsma
wiser than God who inspired the book of Proverbs and paints a different picture
of the reality of human relations? Is it
not an unjust judge who would convict a man of murder and lying on such
insufficient evidence?
9. Per the video Prof Engelsma looks to “experts and specialists” to find out
what makes the supposed abuser tick. He
says they say the reason is “entitlement”, and Prof. Engelsma
agrees.
In order to
understand the theoretical underpinnings of what Prof Engelsma
says here, it is necessary to look at humanistic psychology resources such as http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/what-causes-relationship-abuse/
, which says:
“Relationship
abuse is a choice and it is a learned behavior.
For these reasons, it is difficult to say that relationship abuse is caused by any one single
factor. However, the following beliefs and attitudes are common for abusers:
·
Sense of entitlement
·
A
belief they should have power and control over their partner
·
Belief
that they can get away with it
·
Learned
experience that being abusive gets them what they want
·
Belief
that their lives should take priority
…
Throughout history, societies around the world have systematically devalued and
oppressed women. In the United States, steps to make intimate partner abuse
illegal began only in the twentieth century. Many continue to see men’s
violence against women as a historical problem, but the reality is that 1 in 3
women worldwide and in the United States continue to be abused and raped by a
partner. It wasn’t until 1993 that marital rape was considered a crime in all
50 states. Having a common understanding of the causes of domestic violence can
help communities develop more effective responses to victims and perpetrators.
Such an understanding helps us to avoid offering conflicting responses that
could undermine efforts to protect victims and hold batterers accountable.
·
Feminist theory sees men’s violence against women as a result of a
patriarchal structure. “Patriarchal means of control are often subtle and
deeply entrenched, with the most violent forms not emerging until patriarchal
control is threatened–as when individual women leave or threaten to leave relationships
or groups of women assert their rights.”
Gelles
(1997) Intimate Violence in Families
·
The feminist gender
politics model theory about domestic violence holds that
male control over women is present in many areas, ranging from intimate
relationships to economic life. Most men do not abuse women, but any man can be
a perpetrator. Additionally, any woman can become a victim: there has been no
specific personality trait found that makes a person more likely to experience
abuse–the primary shared trait of victims is being “female.” Victims of
relationship abuse are often forced to stay in those relationships because of
fear, lack of support, and victim-blaming by friends and larger communities.
·
Exchange or “choice” theory builds on the feminist model, suggesting
that men choose to behave abusively toward their female partners because they
can get away with it and because doing so gets them what they want in the form
of power and control. Ultimately, men abuse women because they can…”
Now
Prof. Engelsma obviously does not go anywhere near
this far, and he does acknowledge that the husband is head over his wife. But why is Prof. Engelsma
leaning at all on “experts and specialists” instead of keeping to historic
reformed theologians and theology? Why does he borrow concepts and theories
regarding “abuse” and “entitlement” from such modern wicked sources as above,
even if they are filtered through professing Christians like Crippen and Wood?
Is there no danger of syncretism?
10. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijEhMGBDS8&t=514s
Prof Engelsma condemns churches and church officers
who do not follow his view. Is this
placing false guilt?
11. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijEhMGBDS8&t=514s
Prof Engelsma says without qualification the so
called “abuser” is damned if he does not repent. Is Prof. Engelsma
warranted in making such an unqualified assertion? What about Prof. Engelsma? Will he be damned for his unrepented of
sinfulness, even if they are sins of ignorance?
12. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijEhMGBDS8&t=514s
Prof Engelsma says often professional help
(specifically psychologists) from outside the church is necessary in cases of
spousal abuse. He says the pastor can
counsel spiritually, but the psychologist is necessary for counseling because
of the expertise such has. What theology
do such psychologists have? Is it
reformed Christian? Does that not
matter? Is it the mark of wisdom to encourage Christians to go to psychologists
often steeped in un-Biblical views for counsel?
Is there a Biblical basis for laying that moral burden on church
members?
13. Per Prof. Engelsma’s
article “Questions and Answers Regarding the Speech on Spousal (Wife) Abuse” available
for reading at http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow#ixzz63JZJgGL6
, Prof. Engelsma advises this course of action for
the allegedly abused wife:
“Scripture
does not permit divorce on the ground of abuse. Scripture recognizes one
ground for divorce: fornication on the part of one’s husband or wife. Scripture
also forbids a husband to drive his wife away from him by abusing her.
But if the husband does wickedly drive his wife away from himself, there
is nothing the woman can do to prevent the physical separation. In this
case, even though she does not divorce her husband, who remains her
husband, there are remedies at law for her physical and financial
distress. The state recognizes legal separation and provides for the protection
and financial support of women in such circumstances. The woman who is driven
from her home and husband by an abusive husband should seek good legal
counsel.”
Keep in mind that Prof. Engelsma has included within “abuse” the category of “emotional
abuse”, as previously explained. Also
keep in mind what Prof. Engelsma
says regarding elder adjudication of what is truth:
“When a wife takes action or seeks help alleging abuse, abuse on the part of
the husband is almost always, indeed invariably, a reality. A consistory may
safely believe the woman.”
“… as the rule, the church ought to accept her complaint as true, and doubt her
husband’s denial of the wife’s charge against him.”
So Prof. Engelsma
is advising under the above circumstances that the woman should get an attorney
and have US civil courts handle the matter.
Is that consistent with I
Corinthians 6, given how US civil courts embrace no-fault divorce, so called “gay
marriage”, etc.? (“Dare any of you,
having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before
the saints?...”)
14. Is not Matthew Henry’s treatment in
his commentary on I Peter 3:7 on the necessary relation between husband and
wife much more sound than that promoted by Prof Engelsma?
Why would Prof Engelsma ever look to Anna Wood and
not sound reformed Christian theologians and ministers like Matthew Henry, Wilhelmus a Brakel, and John
Calvin? But even if Prof Engelsma does not, should
not we?
·
o 2. The duties of Christian wives being in
their nature difficult, the apostle enforces them by the example,
§ (1.) Of the holy women of old, who trusted in
God, v. 5. "You can pretend nothing of excuse from the
weakness of your sex, but what they might. They lived in
old time, and had less knowledge to inform them and fewer examples
to encourage them; yet in all ages they practised
this duty; they were holy women, and therefore their
example is obligatory; they trusted in God, and
yet did not neglect their duty to man: the duties imposed upon you, of a quiet
spirit and of subjection to your own husbands, are not new, but what have ever
been practised by the greatest and best women in the
world.'
§ (2.) Of Sara, who obeyed her husband, and
followed him when he went from Ur of the Chaldeans, not knowing
whither he went, and called him lord,
thereby showing him reverence and acknowledging his superiority over her; and
all this though she was declared a princess by God from heaven, by the change
of her name, "Whose daughters you are if you imitate her in
faith and good works, and do not, through fear of your husbands, either quit
the truth you profess or neglect your duty to them, but readily perform it,
without either fear or force, out of conscience towards God and sense of duty
to them.' Learn,
§ [1.] God takes exact notice, and keeps an
exact record, of the actions of all men and women in the world.
§ [2.] The subjection of wives to their husbands
is a duty which has been practised universally by
holy women in all ages.
§ [3.] The greatest honour
of any man or woman lies in a humble and faithful deportment of themselves in
the relation or condition in which Providence has placed them.
§ [4.] God takes notice of the good that is in
his servants, to their honour and benefit, but covers
a multitude of failings; Sara's infidelity and derision are overlooked, when
her virtues are celebrated.
§ [5.] Christians ought to do their duty to one
another, not out of fear, nor from force, but from a willing mind, and in
obedience to the command of God. Wives should be in subjection to their
churlish husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from a desire to do well
and to please God.
·
II. The husband's duty
to the wife comes next to be considered.
o 1. The particulars are,
§ (1.) Cohabitation, which
forbids unnecessary separation, and implies a mutual communication of goods and
persons one to another, with delight and concord.
§ (2.) Dwelling with the wife according
to knowledge; not according to lust, as brutes; nor according to
passion, as devils; but according to knowledge, as wise and sober men, who know
the word of God and their own duty.
§ (3.) Giving honour
to the wife-giving due respect to her, and maintaining her
authority, protecting her person, supporting her credit, delighting in her
conversation, affording her a handsome maintenance, and placing a due trust and
confidence in her.
o 2. The reasons are, Because she is the
weaker vessel by nature and constitution, and so ought to be
defended: but then the wife is, in other and higher respects, equal to her
husband; they are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the
blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and
quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another
and one for another will be hindered, so that often "you will not pray at
all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so
without success.' Learn,
§ (1.) The weakness of the female sex is no just
reason either for separation or contempt, but on the contrary it is a reason
for honour and respect: Giving honour
to the wife as unto the weaker vessel.
§ (2.) There is an honour
due to all who are heirs of the grace of life.
§ (3.) All married people should take care to
behave themselves so lovingly and peaceably one to another that they may not by
their broils hinder the success of their prayers.