Earlier this month, audio of controversial comments made in 2000 by Paige Patterson, at the time the President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and past President of the Southern Baptist Convention, made its way to national consciousness.  I first learned of it in articles in the Washington Post, but it has since garnered widespread attention.  The audio in question, for those interested in hearing it for themselves, is here:  https://archive.org/details/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence.
In these articles, Patterson is alleged to have said that divorce is not an option for an abused woman except in the most extreme of circumstances.  In the audio, Patterson says– and I am paraphrasing– that he counseled the victim of an abusive husband to stay in the marriage and to pray for him.  She later came to church with two black eyes, and asked Patterson if he was happy.  Patterson said he was, because the husband had come to church that Sunday for the first time.  The husband gave his life to Jesus that very Sunday, and the two went on to have a long and happy marriage.
Patterson has been widely criticized for his comments, even within the Southern Baptist Convention, and I condemn them also.  To his credit, Patterson has tried– in my view, not entirely successfully– to clarify his views here:  http://bpnews.net/50802/patterson-clarifies-domestic-violence-stance.
But my point of interest is not the rightness or wrongness of his views.  What I prefer to discuss this morning is one issue that gives rise to comments like these:  How are Christians to be faithful followers of Jesus when Scripture is silent on some particular issue?
We see this problem theologically, for example, when it comes to a doctrine like the Triune nature of the Godhead.  While the doctrine of the Trinity – one divine “substance” or “essence” (Greek ousia) eternally existing in three persons (Greek hupostaseis) – has been a standard part of orthodox Christian doctrine for centuries, it is also clear that the New Testament itself is silent on the question of the Triune nature of God.  Thus, Cornelius Plantiga, former President of Calvin College, writes “the NT writers were not mainly or explicity interested in the intra-trinitarian ontological status of Jesus Christ” (Revised International Standard Bible Encylcopedia 4:916).
The question of the silence of Scripture around domestic violence is a moral example of this problem of the silence of Scripture.  For full context, it is worth mentioning that Scripture does speak with one voice about divorce.   By “one voice,” I mean that Scripture speaks only negatively about it, even though Matthew 19:9 allows for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality while Mark 10:11 does not, and Mark 10:12 astonishingly puts the same restriction on women although there is no evidence that Jewish women were ever allowed to initiate divorce proceedings in the first century.  I know of no text in Scripture which upholds divorce as something good and praiseworthy.
Nonetheless, there are two basic ways to interpret Scripture’s silence on this topic.
We could argue, as does Patterson, that because Scripture only allows for divorce on account of sexual infidelity, Scripture does not allow for divorce on account of domestic violence, and therefore the church should not counsel victims to divorce their abusers on the grounds of the domestic abuse itself.  I’ve heard people argue that separation without divorce is a reasonable option in matters of abuse.  All I will say to that is that if I had a 25-year -old daughter, married for a few years to someone who has become violent, I’m not sure I could support her staying separated potentially for the rest of her adult life instead of getting divorced.
We could alternatively argue that even though Scripture is silent about domestic abuse and divorce, this does not mean that it is prohibited for the Christian.  This is the view I support.  As soon as the victim feels unsafe (which for me would be the first instance of the intentional infliction physical abuse), the victim should leave the home, seek legal counsel and the help of domestic violence shelters and support networks, and begin the process of exiting from the abusive marriage.
So to be clear: I disagree, vehemently, with the idea that a victim should stay married to or even continue living in the same home with an abuser.  I abhor the “pastoral” counselling that might support such a stance.  I will instead choose to err on the side of demanding repentance from the abuser instead of using forgiveness as a weapon against the victim and shaming them into staying in an abusive marriage.  I will always give them permission to leave the abusive marriage and I will always pray that they give themselves permission to leave.
But I could very well be wrong.
It is possible for an abusive spouse to repent and change.  It is possible for an abusive marriage to become something better, something stronger.  I don’t know whether there is reliable statistical evidence around this topic, but I am 100% certain that it is possible, even though I doubt that it happens with any kind of regularity.
And so a vibrant faith in the 21st century will also acknowledge the fact that despite our best and most prayerful attempts to follow the Risen Lord with all the faith that we can muster, the outcomes we anticipate are far from guaranteed.  My counsel to leave an abusive marriage might prevent an abusive marriage from being salvaged.  Patterson’s counsel to stay in an abusive marriage might enable the abuser to escalate the abuse, even to the point of putting the victim’s life at risk.
Therefore, a vibrant faith for the 21st century will accept with humility the fact that difficult problems rarely have simple or easy solutions, that a lived life of faith will inevitably be messed up and messy, and then choose to live that life of faith anyway.

Sharing is caring!