Domestic Discipline of a Wife?

                                       

Introduction and definitions

 

There is a "non-modern" teaching that you may have heard of - what might be called the accountability and "proactive love" model of marriage.

 

It is the controversial viewpoint that a loving Christian husband will use his authori ty and headship in a marriage in a very proactive, non-passive way to help his wife grow and mature. She is expected to submit, and he is to love and protect her - both following the roles that conservative Christians often at least in general agree upon.

 

While that seems basically similar to a hard-line conservative Christian position, what makes this model unique is that the husband, in order to love, has decided to use what might be called "God mirroring" or "practical godliness" - in other words, a following of (what this position considers as) God's methods of how He uses authority, and how God expects and tells mere humans to carry out their delegated authority.

 

This leads to a belief in limited physical discipline (God's chastising, such as in Hebrews 12 and Proverbs) to lovingly keep his wife accountable to his authority under God. In these relationships, the wife at times wants the relationship to be this way, feeling that the husband is showing practical love when he corrects her for sinful habits or other things. In testimonies of followers of this belief, sometimes it is the wives who wish to have, and continue, a relationship with the husband in authority.

 

She wants to be submitted,, and so obeying means allowing discipline (but is distinctly and clearly contrasted to abuse in this view, since anything God does and approves of cannot be abusive by default in this view- at least without calling God abusive and all child discipline abusive),

 

Discipline? This concept is not based on hitting, fighting, or BDSM, and in                              fact is potentially to help avoid improper male aggression and abusiveness of that sort. Instead, the husband has the right (within certain parameters and safety issues) to use Biblical chastising - arguing that it cannot be abuse since God gives merit to human leaders using discipline in the outwork of authority. If authority exists at all, the DD reasoning goes, it must have consequences to be genuine and not merely a sham. The limited discipline could be compared to spanking a wayward child, which both sides of this debate often admit is not considered abusive in many Christian families.

 

Keep in mind that this is all in the context of a Christian Marriage. In fact, pastors are involved with this concept. It is hard to judge how common this is, given the fear of being laughed at or judged if others find out that this is your conviction.

 

A woman is to grow and blossom into a strong, vibrant, free and joyful woman of God! But some wives seem caught in destructive habits and attitude problems and other things that leave them weaker than they need to be. For believers in Responsible Authority, at least part of the blame might be placed on not understanding God"s method of producing such I'@ peaceable fruit"' (Hebrews 12 - chastising) in a woman's life.

 

The husband is to 'tend his garden"" in love with prayer, loving her enough to help her change in the Christian Responsible Authority position. Passivity in a man is a denial of manhood - he is called to love her like Christ loves the church, and he cannot do that if he simply allows her to hurt herself while he has the authority (and therefore the responsibility) to step in and help love her through the areas of growth needed.

 

Responsible Authority believers might further feel that this was simply a ligiven" in earlier cultures, and that they merely are in this view trying to go back to God's standards and Biblical norms and fight the culture which tries to "mold our minds" (Romans 12: 2). So this debate would not have been an issue had not feminism equated "authority's consequences" with "abuse." Like Christians fighting against abortion, a DD could point to the past and say "that is what God's way looked like, and the new way is abusive of women, leaving them without God's loving wisdom on how to help her flourish as a woman of God."

 

The accountability and "proactive love" model of marriage is certainly not mainstream! It is certainly controversial. There is at least one Christian forum on the topic on the web, but overall some are probably too embarrassed in this culture for the adherents to be to open about it. Therefore the Biblical questions around this issue are often not even asked, let alone an attempt to answer them. In fact, most people won't even bother with the issues, preferring to simply 7 assume a position based on their background or emotional beliefs fed by the culture they grew up in (some AGAINST Responsible Authority, and some FOR it.) But in both cases that leaves the Bible out of the picture, replaced with mere human emotions.

 

In this article, I am going to attempt to define several different viewpoints on this issue and take a good solid look at the Bible to see what conclusions, if any, can be found.

 

I especially want to make sure to uncover what CAN be given as official Biblical doctrine (doctrine: commands, sins, truths) and what cannot be given as doctrine (disputable matters, matters that are situational in nature). This will answer questions such as ""Is it sin?" or ""If it is not sin, does it fall under personal conscience?' or "If they are correct, MUST I and my spouse do this?' or 'They are absolutely wrong, but is the choice a 'disputable matter'that I am forbidden to judge them over per Romans 14?"

 

And since it is unfair to lump everyone into the same basket, I plan to mention different viewpoints/positions within people who in general believe in wife submission plus spanking. NOR should it be wrongly confused with wild alternate lifestyles such as BDSM and torture and other such stuff - ""Responsible Authority' is a different concept, but can be easily confused with other viewpoints -- making it ""guilty by association."

Unfortunately for Responsible Authority believers, this viewpoint is generally called ""Domestic Discipline"" and is often shortened to its initials 'DD.' This is just too close to ""BDSM" and doesn't help things. And evil websites sell pictures called ""DD" that are BDSM in nature. However,, I will use the abbreviation ""DD"' anyway as a convenient shortcut. It is, after all, the normal name for it.

 

 

Let's get started! The arguments below assume that you are a Christian and that you believe that the Bible is God's inspired word in accordance with 11 Timothy 3. 16. I contend that if you do NOT believe that, then arguments for or against Discipline are immaterial since there would be no real way to find objective truth. Your definition of abuse, etc., would probably be whatever the changing culture can tolerate, for example.

 

I will debate for the spanking side. Even if that position is NOT correct, this paper should be quite useful in over-viewing the arguments. Please don't let that offend you - rather, go along with it and engage your mind and your faith in God's word to test that side's viewpoint. It is better to think and pray over an issue than it is to get needlessly emotional. Effort is sometimes needed to rightly divide the word of Truth and carefully pick through arguments.

 

Beware choosing EITHER side on mere emotional first impressions. Some would be horrified at the concept of spanking, while others might have a desire for clear accountability and real submission even if it means discipline. And in fact some cultures are more open to this - one example I read of was of a Chinese man who grew up in a home with his mother disciplined and seems to have accepted it as normal. We need to renew our minds first, and emotions that are correct FOLLOW that. Until our mind is renewed we cannot trust our emotions 100% since they ARE at times wrong. Some people will be lost forever because Jesus did not "feel" right. Christians sometimes do blatant evil because it "'felt"' like it was ok. Be careful!

 

Side note on this: In ANY area of life, we can have a tendency to go straight FROM a first impression TO a final evaluation. Instead, God desires us to hold the first impression weakly if at all, then TEST the issue with the Bible and other means, and THEN choose by our wills (not our emotions) a final conclusion. Emotions can play a large part in such an evaluation - but should not be the deciding factor in most issues. Being led by emotions ungoverned by a desire for truth is not wise. If you read a little of this paper, come to a conclusion, and never finish it or pray over it you are only setting yourself up for being deceived, either in this area or in FAR more important ones. Emotional decisions creating faith convictions is a bad habit to allow in a life! Yet we all can be tempted to take the easy way out, especially when our emotions scream that they already HAVE perfect understanding of an issue.

 

You will probably be very surprised at the arguments. I am confident that many people have NOT heard these arguments, unless they are already involved with DD. That should keep the paper fresh and interesting, and make it thought-provoking.

 

Many of the pro-DD arguments are based on things like love, gentle concern and Biblical truth. And even the arguments against this position (Freedom before God, Grace verses Law, be gentle in all you do) can surprisingly be turned around for arguing for the discipline of an entire household and not just the children. And the whole concept of "only discipline children" is very hard to support Biblically (authority's discipline is never specifically limited to children), making things even more interesting. It is not as simple of an issue as it sounds.

 

This paper - even if DD"s are utterly wrong - will almost certainly give you much, much food for thought on issues of love, sanctification, freedom (does freedom contradict rules?) and other issues. It could also provoke you to NON-spanking ways that married men should be 'actively responsible,"' such as praying for their wives, helping to set a positive God- centered tone for the family, and gentle understanding of a wife"s needs.

 

DEFINITIONS (please read carefully): •

 

DD = Domestic Discipline. Within the CHRISTIAN context it refers to a belief that the husband is to be submitted and under authority to God, and the family (wife, kids) are in turn under the husband's authority. What separates DD from simply being common Ni conservative Christian belief" is that DD further holds that authority inherently includes the ability to take action (limited forms of guarded discipline within parameters, and limited commands).

 

Authority implies a power to influence and motivate those under your authority - evaluating them can lead to positive or negative consequences. Authority without the ability to create consequences is a denial of the very concept of authority. There should be general guidelines so that things remain safe and proper, AND there are other authorities (police, government, church) that place safety balances on the husband's ability.

 

A Sergeant that cannot command a private under him isn't really a Sergeant. Authority without ability is merely a hoax. Or worse, it is a satanic lie to undermine God's chain of command and loving wisdom.

 

• Responsible Authority = another name I used above instead of DD. Again, the viewpoint is that the man is responsible before God to lead his wife, and has the authority to act upon his wife and not merely suggest"" changes. DD sounds too close to BDSM and that is NOT the concept we are dealing with here. But because it is shorter, I'll generally use DD anyway.

 

 • BDSM = Bondage, sadism, etc. - erotic power plays and pain. This is general NOT what DD is referring to, but it can easily be confused because of spanking and people being wrongly referred to as ""dominants,"' and ""submissives".

 

DD is NOT about master/slave relationships. This is confusing DD with BDSM. DD is about equal partners with different roles and responsibilities before God. Strangly, this viewpoint actually places more "to do" before God on the husband's side than the wife's. Neither is a slave to the other, but are co-heirs with Christ and of great dignity but different jobs.

 

•  Vanilla = someone new to the DD lifestyle, a newbe. Usage: ""My husband and I were vanilla, but after a while we got used to obeying God radically in this area and have enjoyed the benefits of it."

 

•  Abuse = in DD terms, it generally would mean any non-spanking hitting or harm. For example, a Christian parent may feel ok to spank their child - but would NEVER wish to slap, hit or in any other way hurt the individual! Discipline is FOR the person's ultimate good, while abuse is to harm the person.

 

That is perhaps why DD wives can be very clear that they do not see discipline as abusive - like many things in life, it is a short unpleasant thing with a positive purpose (like a runner who forces their body when tired, or a mother giving birth).

 

•  Erotic pain (verses discipline's pain) = erotic pain, like in BDSM. For fun and for sexual reasons. I will NOT be dealing with the issue of whether that is right or wrong here. It is not the point. DD is basically NOT about gaining sexual fun, but instead gaining loving homes where power struggles, a wife's insecurities, a husband's passivity and manipulative games are (imperfectly) replaced with love, respect and calm gentleness.

 

By the way, if you ever read forum posts by DD wives you may be in for an eye-opening experience. Right or wrong, some women testify of how they would never want to go back to their pre-DD lifestyles simply because now they feel loved and the war is over. And how they don't necessarily like discipline but like the results in their lives and marriages. Their statements can be quite interesting if you are not used to this viewpoint and the benefits that these DD women claim to be gaining.

 

Still can't believe there even COULD be arguments for such a thing? Right or wrong, here are quite a few. I will BUILD issue upon issue, so pleas take the time to prayerfully go through each section in order. In that way you sill be able to evaluate Domestic Discipline's logic flow and see how the puzzle pieces fit. And a fictional example in a later section will pull together ideas from before and will be something worth serious reflection - don't give up on reading too soon to get to the "payoff" of having it fit together. Even if DD is ABSOLUTELY wrong you may find the fictional example worthy of prayer and reflection in your time before God Most High.

 

 

I will use a question and answer format,, where I (as a fictional questioner) pose a question and then (as a DD supporter) answer it. Please do NOT jump to later questions! Take the time to read this, please, so that you have the whole picture. Later questions may be based on issues discussed in earlier ones, for example,, or assume you have read all that is before it.

 

 

(This is a KEY issue, and so this part is a bit long. But it is an important foundation for the rest. Please don't skim!)

 

The DD's side overall would it seems say 'yes." Although some couples just might be into DD in order to have what are seen as major benefits of that non-traditional lifestyle, others are sincere Christians who are trying to obey God.

 

I went to a forum on this topic - some DD's are pastors of churches. A conviction that the Bible is true, and a willingness to "mold their mind" to the Bible and challenge traditions of men and culture can be a reason to become a DD.

 

Back to the question - yes. There are several passages in Scripture that clearly indicate that God sets up lines of authority that we must follow. If a Marine disobeys the captain's clear order, he or she is also disobeying the General, the president, and ultimately the entire authority of the Marines.

 

Before I look briefly at some passages, there is a strong warning that I need to give first:

 

Be careful here - there is a tendency for some to 'muddy the waters' by adding other issues to this question. For example, whether a woman should be ""silent" in a church or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether she is under her husband's authority. NEITHER does the question of whether she can be a woman pastor. These "smokescreen" topics are not to be used to neglect what God states about authority in the marriage relationship.Beware anyone who tries to ""fix"" the verses on authority with verses that don't really have a direct bearing on the marriage relationship.

 

A starting point: Here's one section of Scripture an wives submitting: Now then, what did God mean when He told us:

 

"Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands,... .'I Peter 3: 1 ... the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling his lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror."' (I Peter 3: 5-6).

 

 

 

First, notice the 'likewise' in chapter 3, verse 1. It refers to chapter 2, where God gives submission again and again. EVERYONE is to submit to "kings" and "governors' who are to punish evildoers according to I Peter 2: 13. Then servants are dealt with and told to also be submissive and under God's will for themselves. Then in verse 25 - immediately before the wife verse - he speaks of Jesus as the 'Overseer' of our souls.

 

In other words, God simply inspires Peter to bluntly tell people to submit to (obey) the authority that He had allowed or placed over them. And that these is a line of authority that runs to God. Therefore to disobey a government is to disobey God, UNLESS the government steps outside of it's authority by commanding sin. After this is spoken of, the Bible pulls it all back to jesus our Oversees (top authority). Then he immediately deals with wives.

 

There is no IF statements in the wife verse that would allow her to wiggle out of it, just as there are no if statements in the commands that husbands are to obey either.. Nor does God say that the wives need NOT submit after AD 1000. There is nothing conditional about verse one above - God tells us that Jesus is our Overseer, and immediately follows that with a command to the wives.

 

Generally people try to get around these verses by claiming it was just their culture. But that makes God out to be a poor communicator, forgetting to tell us that the rules have changed. Personally I think you need more than wishful thinking and a "guess"" that it was cultural. How can you give as "proof" a guess? God does not call it cultural, and we can trust God that He would make that clear if so, especially in the case of such blunt commands.

 

Jesus being our overseer - was THAT cultural? It's 5 words away from NN wives""! If the wife verse were no longer valid, why would the immediately proceeding Overseer verse    be still valid? After all, they are connected. Because Jesus is overseer,,  wives are to submit. The word ""likewise"" connects the two chapters.

 

See the flow? Submit to kings ... submit ... Jesus is Overseer ... wives submit ...

 

I have heard of the commands to servants being second-guessed. ""Oh, if he were alive NOW he would have written differently." But isn"t it strange to think that servant in the last 500 years are to get different rules to live by before God than all those that came before? Did God forget something the first time?

 

Servants ARE to submit - not because servitude is right, but simply because it is wise to do so, and being under authority leaves the servant walking well with God. The master is responsible for what he or she does to a servant, and after this ""blink of an eye" life is over they have all eternity to live in the consequences of their decisions. The servants God speaks of in I Peter died about 2,000 years ago - and so did their masters. We need to have an eternal perspective and trust in God's wisdom above our own understanding (Proverbs 3: 5-6).

 

In an ETERNAL perspective, the servant is actually called God's 'free man' and free people are called figuratively God's slaves. Free people are accountable to God for their freedom, while not as much is expected of servants and slaves - they don't have the opportunity to do much.)

 

Again, slavery is wrong. But God knew the best way for people to survive it with dignity, virtuous character, and an eternal reward for well doing in the face of hardships.

 

He commanded submission, not because slavery was right, but because they needed to walk in faith and godly character, and not be self-seeking like the world! BUT God also says elsewhere that if you have the chance to be free - take it! God's wisdom is not always simplistic, but it is eternally wise.

 

Actually God purposefully attacked the idea of seeing wife submission as cultural. But you may have missed it in the verses above. Let's look at it again:

 

In Peter's day, Rome ruled, Israel was and had been a nation for a long time; the Law had been given to Moses and so forth. That was their culture. Peter wrote to THAT culture, BUT tells them that the rules and wisdom of ABRAHAMS (Pre-Moses, pre-Law,, pre-Rome) culture still Did you see it? (Reread sections of vs. 4-5, above.)

 

These women live in a time FAR after Moses, after the giving of the Law, after the birth of Israel, after David and Solomon, after the first Temple, after the Roman occupation. And yet here God is telling them to look to godly examples BEFORE the Law, before Israel itself, and still follow those rules.

 

How could submission be a CULTURAL thing if God calls them to look OUTSIDE of their culture to follow principles shown in a previous culture? Go to the pre-Israel culture, and learn from a saint. Culture doesn't matter - the fact that Sarah and others walked in God's way is what counts! Learn from their example, regardless of your culture.

 

In other words, God had made His will clear. Each generation is simply to ignore their present culture and seek God's ways.

 

BY THE WAY, I find it humorous that people try desperately to make THESE clear verses only cultural, while the NEXT verses (concerning husband's role) is still supposed to be followed! How can you hold to the husband's role as still valid, but deny the wife"s role given immediately before it? Here is the husband's role (still in effect most would agree?) Notice the ""likewise" here also - God even TIES the male part to women submitting.

 

"...being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham

 

And the NEXT verse: "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel [physical strength, probably], and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. "' (I Peter 3: 7)

 

1 have NEVER heard someone say that the ""hindered prayers" part was merely cultural and ended 2000 years ago or so. And even very liberal preachers will tell the men to ""live in understanding' and to give her honor. And yet it is directly connected with wives being submissive to their husbands.

 

Quick note: Submission is submission: God tells us all to submit to HIM. I doubt that any Jew would have thought to say to God "I didn't obey you, but I was submitting even so!" It is a contradiction in terms, and an obvious one at that. Submit meant to fall under rank and obey. A command to obey is a specific command - "do this" - while submission is a pre-determined choice to obey future "do this" commands. "Submit" means to allow the other person the right to command in the future. It is a placing of someone "under rank."

 

God tells wives to submit to their husbands. Strangely, some people insist on creating a "new" definition of 'submission"' to get around this.

 

The correct definition: ""This person has authority over me, so as long as it is not sin before God, I am expected to obey and really need to do so to please God."' This definition might be "tolerated" by some when referring to God, the king, rulers, or such.

 

BUT a second definition mysteriously appears when dealing with wives. The same word is given a new definition: ""I should give some honor to this person, but I am to decide what to do and do not need to obey. In fact, if he COMMANDS me he is already in the wrong!"' This definition is so prevailent that, although the BIBLE is clear as to what submit means, you can now find modern false definitions even in a dictionary. But how can a word be given a new definition after being understood one way for thousands of years?

 

This new definition is actually the opposite of submission! Would you use that last definition when referring to submitting to GOD? Of course not. The word ""submit"" cannot be simply redefined because a person does not want to obey its original meaning. And yet when referring to wives, people call such disobedience 'submission."'

 

Read the above verses again - the wife is to see Jesus as her overseer (ruler) and based on that is to submit in the same way you are to obey a law of government or a rule of your employer. But then again, in this age we have become so used to rebellion that even those commands are routinely ignored. More on this in a later section of the paper, toward the end.

 

Whether discipline of a wife is right or wrong, arguments against the authority of a husband tend to be quite absurd. BUT if authority is true, much of the rest of the DD belief system falls into place (more later).

 

More verses commanding a wife to submit to her husband.-

 

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

 

For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church, and He is the Savior of the body.

 

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

 

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her... (Ephesians 5: 22-25)

 

I challenge you to reread those verses carefully. Notice the following:

 

HOW are wives to submit? In the same way they submit to the Lord. (So much for that second definition given for submission.) "as to the Lord"'. So, does a person have to "submit" (obey) Jesus? Or not?

 

Who is the head? The husband is. And what this means is clear in CONTEXT - as Jesus is the head of the church, the ruler, so the man is in authority and is to rule. I have heard it argued that ""head" does not refer to the ruler-ship, but in the context of this and the next chapter, it makes no sense at all to try to redefine ""head" as something else just to get around the plain call for wives to obey. God says, 'submit" and then (why submit?) ""For" that man is your head.

 

The church is to be "'SUBJECT" to Christ, as head, and "just as'l this is to happen, "so" is a wife to be subject. After. all the attempts to redefine submission, here God tells us that the church is SUBJECT to Jesus (ie He is in authority and we must obey) and that wives are to be subject to their husbands in the same way, in "everything". Clear, blunt, plain.

 

These verses really aren't that hard to understand as long as someone does not come to the verses with a heart desiring to change their meaning.

 

THEREFORE-noticethis-JUSTAS-SOLETTHEWIVES. Inotherwords, to argue that a wife need not obey, you must further argue that the church need not obey Jesus. Jesus becomes a figurehead, not a king. They are connected - as Jesus rules the church, husbands rule their wives.

 

'Husbands love..." - again notice that people accept the MAN'S part without any problem usually, even when denying the immediately prior direct statement of the women's role.    Deny one, and you need to deny them all.

 

ANYWAY, enough on the authority issue.

 

If you still need proof of a woman's role,, reread the above and pray hard. And check yourself - are you having trouble placing faith in those verses? And if so, is it honest un-sureness, or do you "want"' them to mean something else? May God bless all honest attempts to understand His Word.

 

QUESTION #2: Isn't disciplining (spanking) a wife abusive?

 

That depends on how you define ""abuse." Some people in this culture see even spanking children as abusive. Taking kids to church might be seen as 'abusive' to some people, since some may see religion as abusive to children.

 

So letting the culture define what is abusive is dangerous and unwise. Since culture obviously cannot be trusted to give God's definition of what is abusive, we need to go to the Bible to find out what God considers abusive and what He does not,, and set our convictions there. Biblically, giving physical discipline and the pain involved is NOT seen as abusive, but is actually commended and pointed to as a very wise thing to do. LACK of giving pain can in fact be abusive in some cases, Biblically. Let's look at this a bit.

 

 In the Bible, spanking a CHILD is not abusive (Prov. 13:24). (Although a wife is an ADULT, this becomes important later in this section.) And in fact God rebukes the father who does NOT give the child pain. In Hebrews 12: 5-11 God tells us that He treats us the same way - loving His children, Christians, enough to correct us.

 

You may want to read that section, noting words such as 'chastening"' lklk scourges' and 'pain."' God reminds them of what good fathers do (physical pain) and then God makes it clear that (1) they were right to do so and (2) that God is a good parent who uses the same basic method even though it is generally spiritual in nature. God bluntly tells us in clear terms that chastisement (the giving of redemptive, corrective pain) is not abusive in and of itself. This is in contrast to torture and physical abuse,, done not to correct and better but to hurt and destroy.

 

In Proverbs 10: 13b ("But a rod is for the back of him who is devoid of understanding.") God clearly states that the rod (physical pain given by the God-given authority) is supposed to be given to those that 'lack understanding."" Therefore, based on this clear statement of Scripture, the rod (phgysical discipline) is NOT abusive but redemptive and good and honorable in God's sight.

 

Notice that the verse does NOT limit this to a government at all - it simply gives Gods view ""a rod is for the back"'. God states a general principle that pain is supposed to be used by authority for correction.

 

There is a general principle here, utterly proving that, in general, giving a person pain as discipline (not torture) cannot be called ""abuse"" Biblically. I will get into how to use this verse carefully a little bit later.

 

Proverbs 26: 3 also states that some people are (like dumb animals) in need of correction. It compares the fool to a horse and donkey - for an authority figure to rule properly, he must make his horse trot, make his mule carry a burden, and give the 'fool" motivation to also do what is right. Again, limited, proper giving of pain is the responsibility and right of authority.

 

NOTE: I am NOT calling anyone a fool! This verse dealt with someone God calls a fool, and the previous verse dealt with those that lack understanding. A Christian wive may occasionally act foolishly (we all do) or lack understanding in an area (as don't we all) but she is neither a bonefide "fool" nor "devoid" of understanding. My point is NOT that these are to be seen as DIRECTLY referring to discipline of a household, BUT that they clearly show that DISCIPLINE and ABUSE are NOT the same in God's eyes.

 

Discipline is godly, honorable, commendable. Abuse is horrible sin. And yet people falsely call discipline "abuse" in spite of God's own statements to the contrary.

 

God clearly expects authorities to rule, and sometimes discipline is a part of wise leadership. The principle remains valid. After all, we all do "foolish" things and therefore temporarily find ourselves in a place of needing discipline (whether of God or of man).

 

This KILLS the idea of calling DD abusive. Since God HIMSELF will not call authorities giving pain abusive ... and since He Himself uses that method ... and points to 5 that method ... and commends that method           and wants others to use the same method ... THEN to call DD abusive is to call God abusive and His wise ways wrong. (Reread.)

 

Disciplining a wife is simply men looking to God for God's example on how to properly walk out authority. Since God ties authority with discipline, it is wise for a husband to desire to use God's own method of responsibly using authority. Just guessing what authority should look like and do depending on the culture's (sometimes satanic) viewpoint at the time is not wise. Authority is never supposed to be a passive thing, or merely a ""final decision is yours" right.

 

Disobedience to authority can have redemptive consequences.

 

Why was Jerusalem destroyed? Why was Sodom destroyed? Why did Annanias and his wife fall over dead? What of God stating that he was disciplining to the point of DEATH some Corinthian believers who were not walking well? Why has God used armies and problems to chastise people and nations? The Babalonian captivity was NOT an accident! Yes, some things just happen because God "allows" it to happen. But God also TELLS us that He ACTIVELY causes many things to happen. Get used to it - God is ACTIVE in spite of the wimpy view of God some seem to have.

 

Even Jesus spoke of disciplining those servants who knew to do good but who didn't - with many stripes. Did Jesus compare Himself to an abusive man?? NO! Jesus knew that authority had the right to discipline, and that He would have every right to do such a thing. And no one else corrected Jesus Christ's theology either! He was painting a picture of what authority has the right to do, and they understood that. Our culture was BIRTHED in a revolutionary war (rebellion) and hates authority and any "bite" to it in our personal lives. Thus the natural mind's war against God's authority is reinforced in this culture of ours.

 

God uses painful circumstances and discipline for a redemptive end. And husbands are to grow to be more like God's character of love, more If godly", and have that same heart of active, moving, long-term profitable love. In other words, husbands are to grow CLOSER to God's revealed model of discipline when in responsibility, NOT farther from it like the culture teaches! Men are to forsake the short-sighted love without wisdom that many settle for. Instead, choose love combined with God's wisdom for building a good life.

 

Think this through: Is it abusive to spank a child or to discipline an adult with pain? Yes or no? If you say, "YES, it is abusive"', then God is found to be wrong every time He expects it and any time God speaks of such a thing. If you say "no" then you are ADMITING that discipline itself is not abuse!

 

Remember, discipline was of the FAMILY. The idea that you ONLY discipline a CHILD is an interesting invention, but has no merit Biblically. But it has great EMOTIONAL weight,, perhaps, in some hearts. I know of not ONE verse that ever implies that ONLY children are to be disciplined. A wife and a child are both under the husband's authority, and therefore both are under the "rod" that the authority inherently has. It seems to be merely a modern myth.

 

Perhaps people saw MISUSES of authority's rod and went too far in the other direction to correct the problem. But MISUSE of a concept cannot REMOVE the concept!! Some police are corrupt - but that doesn't mean we should remove all policemen. Even if some evil husbands went too far, that does not mean that God's ways are therefore invalid. God wanted a husband's rod of authority to be IN BALANCE with the church and with the government - the idea was to have SAFEGUARDS, not deny the rod altogether!!

 

Interesting sidenote - the "rule of thumb" was just such a balance. A man in English common law was in authority, which by definition meant that he had the right to use the rod of discipline. So the government choose to put a BOUNDARY on that right - you could only use a rod that was as thin as your thumb. You can cringe at the crudeness of it in our modern times, and maybe say that it didn't go far enough, but at least it was an attempt to both uphold God's lines of authority AND protect women.

 

Delegated authority without delegated power is an empty shell and a deception.

 

In Hebrews 12, God speaks bluntly of giving Christians painful discipline at times to grow us up. Calling the giving of pain Al abusive' would therefore make God HIMSELF abusive! Obviously that is not the case - God DIED for us and loves us! It is His LOVE that causes Him to give us pain to train us.

 

I HAVE THEREFORE PROVEN that physical discipline is not in and of itself abusive when done by authority. I have NOT yet dealt with this in the context of marriage (later). BUT the general principle of physical discipline in no way it can be ""abusive"' if God Himself sets physical pain (the rod) as a proper and godly way for authority to deal with unruliness (un - rule - ness).

 

That is the basic idea behind DD - that women are given a loving man to be accountable to, and that women benefit greatly over time as their husband holds them accountable to a high standard of behavior. I plan to deal with this issue later.

 

Trust God - HE does not think that limited pain is abusive (given NOT as hateful torture but as redemptive or as short-term punishment). His wisdom is RIGHT,, regardles of the fact that the culture may have trained our emotions to scream "abuse" in direct opposition to God. Bring every thought captive to Jesus Christ.

 

 [SIDE NOTE. Torture and abuse are created AGAINST a person, to harm them. Discipline is created FOR a person, to love and help correct them. The heart attitude is miles apart, as is the final outcome when a woman accepts and allows her husband to love her enough to hold her accountable. These two things can be falsely compared merely due to an inaccurate description of DD, or to attempts to "muddy" the issue. Is it "torture" to spank a child? No, it is discipline.]

 

So tell me, did God abuse and desire others to abuse ("a rod for the back,")? Of course not! Therefore physical pain in discipline is an acceptable and even godly method of using authority to enforce rule.

 

 

 

ABSOLUTELY!! First, any NON-spanking pain is absolutely off-limits, as is permanent marks and the like. After all,, Christian parents who spank are also very careful to draw a godly line and go no further.

 

DD is not 'wife-beating." It is to be a well-channeled program of accountability and obedience, with some ""bite" to the commands. (I WILL GIVE A FICTIONAL EXAMPLE LATER - I AM STILL BUILDING THE PIECES TO THE PUZZLE! STICK WITH IT! PAY THE PRICE.) And anyway, we are talking a SPANKING here! NO fists allowed, NO drunken fights, none of that junk. It is just a time of controlled discipline.

 

Unlike SOME non-DD marriages, the husband is NOT just building steam, and then letting go in inappropriate ways. Instead, he can give discipline with clear controls on what he can and cannot do. And then both can get on with their lives, without building up the dangerous male grudges that explode in some people's lives. AND the man is UNDER authority as well. In hard cases it is perfectly acceptable to bring in other authority to balance his (more on this later).

 

ANOTHER ISSUE ON THIS: This might surprise you, but DD wives sometimes complain that they are not spanked ENOUGH. And/or mention that they believe at times that they are given too much leeway to do wrong before their husband will act as the authority and rein them in. A man in their view should learn to love his wife, and that means active participation in helping her to grow out of bad habits.

 

Believe it or not, some DD's just may see it as abusive for a man to NOT take the DD lifestyle. Letting her go on without practical and real accountability and authority might be seen as abusive. A man who loves his wife should not let her go on unchecked in her desires and bad habits, since long-term those things are harmful to her and to the relationship and kids. ABUSE should have a LONG-TERM definition.

 

TELL ME: Which is more abusive - discipline given in love to motivate someone to focus on and pray for grace to conquer an area of sin in her life? OR years of bad habits virtually unchecked, undermining the wife's life and hurting her relationships?

 

Is it abusive to tell a wife to stop a bad attitude, and eventually back it up with a few minutes of pain? OR is it abusive to allow slander., horrible attitudes that affect the kids, or whatever her pet "ungodly behavior" is? Many a person has ruined their life because they would not heed God's wisdom to allow correction! Which is the long-term abusive relationship, a DD might ask?

 

Finally, which is more abusive to the kids - them seeing mom and dad actually respect and love each other? OR fights, games, power plays and mom doing her own thing? Or the CHRISTIAN games, where the wife supposedly submits but is very, very good at usually getting her will done (she manipulates, holds the veto, threatens) and the husband is afraid to buck her?

 

So abuse IS an issue - men are NOT to go beyond certain parameters, and it might be seen as abusive to leave a wife without a proper 'covering' of a proactive (NOT passive) husband. QUESTION #4: But what about "let your gentleness be evident to all? Doesn't the character traits God desires us to live in prohibit spanking?

 

 

A few answers. First off, God has perfect character and - as seen already - both ""spanks"" us with painful things AND desired pain to be given both to children and to discipline adults. GOD our example is utterly gentle and virtuous and yet is also utterly able to hold us accountable to our actions and give pain, and tell others to do so.

 

Gentleness and discipline are not mutually contradictory, or God would be a sinner.

 

So be careful before you use the concept of gentleness to remove your responsibility to ""speak truth in love"' and act strongly when in authority. After all, does the 'gentleness' and 'love' and "patience" and other virtues stop you from eventually firing a poor employee? (If you are a wise manager, no.) Or stop you from disciplining a child in some way? (Again, vio.)

 

KEY: Gentleness has perhaps been redefined. Gentleness does NOT mean: ""does not give pain."' That's absurd. My dentist is gentle,, but my root canal HURT (after the novocain wore off, anyway)!

 

A gentle parent can love a child and be gentle and yet be firm and give discipline. If gentleness meant never giving pain, Christian parents would be in sin every time they obeyed God's wisdom to use the rod to discipline their child properly. So obeying God would be sin.

 

Gentleness does not mean painless, or gentle Jesus would have SINNED when he made a whip and cleared the Temple! No, He who was gentle was also expected by His Father to use authority. And authority is inherently tied to the ability to affect negatively those under authority.

 

 

As for the other virtues, the point of DD is to USE those virtues FOR the wife, in a godly way. Love, patience and self-control are all a part of really ruling and occasionally disciplining a wife. (I'll give a bit more on this idea later on, and give a made-up situation to ponder. It is a VERY IMPORTANT story. It illustrates the picture of DD far better than these less visual discussions can!! Stick with it.) LOVE motivates to DISCIPLINE a wife instead of WATCH her walk into a ditch and not stop her.

 

 

In a nutshell:

 

++(SOME DD might say - a bit extreme, but a great point) Obedience to God. If a man really is the head, then it is sinful for him to NOT find and use God's methods of wielding authority properly. How could we use MAN'S methods in order to properly carry the weight of responsibility God gave a man to carry?

 

 ++Protection of the wife spiritually from perhaps the accusations of the enemy and other spiritual attacks. Not being under the protected 11 covering' of her mate places her outside of God's perfect will, and some believe would place her in a place where the enemy has a limited right to attack her. If anyone, man or woman, stands OUTSIDE of the castle walls of submission to God"s order (in family, church or government) they are more open to the enemy"s archers and foot soldiers.

 

++Protection of the wife as a whole, as her husband is to learn to be the head of the wife. Remember, Jesus the head of the church DIED for the church, and He also washes her by the water of the word. A wise husband is to 'understand' his wife (from an earlier verse) and live wisely with her. Authority over her means responsibility to protect and love her.

 

++Accountability. Instead of doing her own thing, spanking can give great motivation to change in areas that she didn't have the willpower or desire to change in before. More on this later, as well as comments about sanctification, freedom and Grace. ++Children might grow up with the example of a father who loves the mother and of a mother who respects the father. And instead of merely fights and power plays and manipulation, they may see more peace as the wife lets go of trying to fight the man and learns to peacefully submit and yet still be a strong, vibrant woman at the same time. A woman who the husband has spent years actively helping her to grow in God (instead of the passivity in many marriages).

 

++Some DD wives speak of spankings as an emotional help. It can, it seems, stop the bad attitude and leaves peace in its wake at times. Cathartic is what I think at least one person called it. A reassurance that her husband is actively choosing to love her. A way to refocus from having a bad attitude.

 

++The man grows in his manhood, gaining confidence in God and in his God-given role. He needs to learn to go to God, since he really IS accountable to God for his family! In weaning himself from passivity and in accepting the mantle of responsibility for the care and welfare of others, he can become more like the active man of God he was created to be.

 

No longer allowing his wife to grab control, he can grow in the areas of proper leadership, active accountability, and in the area of being RESPONSIBLE and not merely passing the buck or passively letting it drop from his shoulders.

 

++The wife is to learn peaceful submission. That is of great worth to God since a wife who internalizes submission to her husband over time should be also more submissive to God.

 

++The feeling of taking a step of faith based on the Bible, in spite of what the culture may say. A faith-strengthener as someone actively tries to obey God in an area even other Christians may judge them for. This sincerity and willingness to obey is very precious. Faith steps don't look nice or popular all the time anyway!

 

There may be more, but here are some. I did not go into the emotional benefits here. You may want to ask some DD women in a forum about that side of things - they even speak of sometimes having a ""need" emotionally to be spanked and a calming effect or whatever that it can have? Generally they say they do NOT like the pain, but very much like the peaceable fruit of the discipline.

 

Their experience seems to mirror Hebrews 12: 11

 

"'Now no chastening [NOTE: ANY chastening, notjust God's, is referred to here]

 

seems to be joyful for the present ., but painful; rlt is SUPPOSED to be temporarily painful]

 

nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness [righteousness of life - a good life - not the righteousness we get by faith in Jesus.]

 

to those who have [they didn't miss out by authority refusing to correct them with painful chastizing,, or by refusing to submit to it]

 

been trained by it. " Hebrews 1 2: 1 1 [Training is how you get the peaceable fruit.]

 

QUESTION # 6: You mentioned help in growing and losing bad habits (what Christians call "sanctification"). How could externals produce internal fruit? Aren't we to walk in grace and not Law?

 

Let me.ask you this. God told you to obey the governmental authorities. You are not under Law for your right standing with God. But as a Christian disciple you are to obey God as Father and Lord. And there are consequences if you do not. And in GRACE God gave you the Holy Spirit and the power to grow and mature to be more like Jesus in this area.

 

But one day you are speeding and get caught. If you are seriously concerned about growth in that area, don't you think a $100.00 ticket would motivate you to grow up in that area? Even just a little?

 

Now some Christians who aren't very mature might just pay the ticket and go on with life having never learned the lesson. But what if that immature Christian KEPT getting tickets, and others even told him or her to grow in that area?

 

You see, true obedience to God is when we by FAITH trust God and follow God"s ways, trusting God for the Grace (undeserved favor) to help in the endeavor. But that does NOT rule out God using or allowing outside influences to motivate us to GO to God FOR the grace,, by faith! God used externals in the Bible to provoke people to think and act in faith!

 

A wife must CHOOSE by faith to gain God's help to overcome a pet sin. No amount of discipline (spanking) can change her - she needs God. HOWEVER, if her husband calls her to a higher standard in that area, holds her accountable, and gives her discipline, she certainly should have motivation now to work on it!

 

THE KEY: You see, the GRACE is there as we go to God. And faith is a choice. The problem is that we often lack the motivation to seek God to overcome our sins. We get USED to our sins, and expect others to put up with them too! A husband"s discipline changes the priority level - he is leading her to honestly deal with the issue. I will get into this in a fictional example later.

 

When a husband loves his wife and says to her: "I care for you too much to let this go on" and then holds her accountable, she now has motivation to seek God and grow up in that area. Her short time of pain can motivate to a long time of growth. Accountability is helpful. It's love's way to train us to to make better decisions, and helps to break bad habits by giving extra motivation.

 

God states that with our temptations there IS a way of escape. Therefore if a husband is pointing out an area a wife needs to grow in, there IS help from GOD in that area. She is not alone, if she is a Christian, since God's GRACE is there.

 

 Is she under LAW? No - she does not earn righteousness from God by her deeds, not does she earn her husbands acceptance by her deeds. But even Christians who are in Grace and not Law are responsible for their actions and reap the fruit thereof. Authority has a ROD. She isn't under law but under grace - but that doesn't mean that she can escape a speeding ticket if she's caught speeding! Similarly, she is to obey her husband, and he has the rod of authority to help her to be motivated where she wavers. She is under grace, but she is not exempt from redemptive, instructive consequences at times.

 

GRACE needs to be received - sometimes people are passive in an area and need motivation to bother to GO to God and really deal with it. God wants us to be motivated - and often that comes externally either through God's own setting up of experiences, or by those in authority over us. The Bible is filled with God motivating people by externals! Get used to it - it is His normal loving dealings with mankind. He knows it is better for us to be spanked than to be allowed to wreck ourselves. Praise GOD for His wisdom and love!! AGAIN, I will give a great fictional example later that ties this issue in with DD in a good way. Keep Reading!

 

 

 

Since this is so misunderstood,, it seems wiser to NOT start at this question. First I gave Biblical reasons for authority in the first place. And then it is important to challenge people to use GOD'S viewpoint of the rod and not culture's insistence that it is somehow abusive to use God's method. There are several different views on this To be fair, I think I need to be clear about this.-  DD’s are NOT all the same!

 

ONE VIEW: One view is that a wife is to submit, a given, BUT that she has to give consent or permission before a husband can from that point on spank her. Although this is really contradictory to the whole 'authority' and "submission" concept, it is perhaps a fairly practical way to enter into a DD lifestyle. In that way the wife and husband have been clear. There is even a CONTPACT on a website, where they can sign on the dotted line.

 

It is a problem, however, if a husband believes Biblically he must use Godly methods to hold authority and becomes convinced that discipline of a wife is the wisest thing to do. Although there is no command to spank,, or any command to NOT spank, he can reason that her unwillingness to be spanked is simply disobedience.

 

That is the SECOND VIEW in a nutshell. Here is a logical thought process on this. Really give this some thought - see how things logically flow together: .

 

1. Husbands have authority over their wives. She also knows that wives are commanded by God to submit 'as to the Lord" and (in headship) ""to their own husbands in everything.' (In EVERYTHING - not what she chooses.) She knows that Sarah even called Abraham lord, a level of submission that was openly acknowledged.

 

2. THEREFORE she is to obey NON-SINFUL commands which equals “submit”

 

3. THEN Husband commands her to allow herself to be disciplined. To be accountable for her actions to him. He decides to use God's tool of physical discipline. He takes up not merely the MANTLE of authority, but the ROD of authority. They are a match set! To become more like Jesus he decides that he must use God's methods that the Bible commends. He forsakes culture and chooses the Biblical view of "chastizement" as one way that adults are to be held accountable by those in authority over them.

 

This is NOT Biblically called sinful, and even supported as one way that authority influences those under authority.

 

Therefore she has no BIBLICAL grounds for not submitting.

 

4. BUT she is tempted to refuse to obey her husband's headship and authority. She considers disobeying his leadership command (the command to allow him to correct her by spanking).

 

Heart motivations are perhaps tested. Willfulness, or FEAR, or another sinful attitude may convince her not to obey God. This may show also that she is not placing faith in God and trusting God's decision to put her under authority to this man.

 

In some cases she may not even CONSIDER that she could be wrong. (Lack of humility, or the deception trusting her emotions more than external truth.) Allowing her emotions to go from first impression directly to final evaluation, she convinces herself that her feelings are truly ""of God" instead of allowing them in time to be conformed.

 

(Especially in Charismatic churches women can, I believe, fall into this trap - and so can the men. God does speak I believe, but so do 5 our own emotions and the enemy. Therefore the command to 'test all things."" How do you test? With objective facts from the Bible, such as this paper is attempting to do.)

 

5. Finally, either because of failing to temptation or perhaps being honestly deceived by her untested emotions and feelings, she disobeys. She says 'no' to her husband, refusing DD, perhaps not fully realizing that she is disobeying God and not merely her husband.

 

Even a woman who passionately loves God can fail here - perhaps even easier sometimes since she may be used to trusting her ".passion"' and emotions, or her knowledge that God speaks to her. But God wants us to test things. We can ""mishear"' or confuse our voice/emotions for His. And our enemy certainly does not want God's authority to be properly walked out Biblically. After all, the enemy is opposed to God's rule, God's authority structure. The enemy refused God's mantle, and is to be put under God's rod - so MAYBE it can be guessed that he might want to confuse people to separate the two. THEREFORE she is not being totally submissive to her husband, regardless of what other "submissive" things she may claim. She is in sin by her own admitted belief in wife submission, even though there is no biblical command for spanking. Because her husband made a DECISION in this area, where God has given no laws either way, she is bound by it and God will hold her accountable to what she did with it. (REREAD.)

 

That's what authority is FOR anyway. If God commanded EVERY issue, you would need no leaders. Instead, God gives general guidelines and examples, and then trains up leaders to make further decisions - giving them wisdom.