Single Sex Christian Events

The other week I was chatting with my wonderful friend Helen and her housemate.  Still pyjama-clad and vaguely sleepy, the conversation moved onto single-sex Christian events and not in a good way.  I felt it called for a bit of a Google of the names Christian women’s and men’s events are given.  Here is a brief overview:

Women’s events

Activate your life
Love actually
Restore and reform
Women of faith: from survival to revival
Being a Christian woman
Pink Impact
True Woman
Love Life
God’s word our story
Desperate for Jesus
All Things Are Possible
God’s Leading Ladies
Gathering of Women Leaders
Valued and Thriving

Men’s events

Fighting the good fight of faith
Men’s Summit
A Call to Arms
No Regrets
The Gathering
Iron sharpens iron
It seems, in general, fighting is for men and feeling is for  women.


I know those who run these events are passionate about what they do and that many people gets loads out of single-sex events, and not all of them are hideously bad, plus it would be unfair to invalidate whole events based on their name.  The question is, are these events solely using stereotypes to attract their audience, or are they perpetuating the very boxes which restrict women and men from becoming all God is calling them to be.  I’ve spoken to so many women and men who find the current single-sex conferences alienate them and leave them feeling either inadequate or under pressure to conform.


I’m not sure what the way forward is, but surely there’s got to be a better way than this…?



Ah! Children In Need. That time of year when everyone embarrasses themselves for charity by doing something that in any other circumstances would be mortifying and/or social suicide. However, this year the stakes have been raised, the challenge is on, the embarrassment factor has reached epic proportions. This year for Children In Need, on 8th November, women can truly do something off the chart mortifying to raise money. They can go out without make-up on. That’s right, women of the UK, forget silly outfits, or dressing up as a camel. This year, if we are brave enough, we can go out “Bearfaced” to raise money for children, with a tiny paw-print on our face, to show that this hideous ugliness that is our actual face, is not something we normally display, but…for the children (said with tears in one’s eyes) we can bravely make such fools of ourselves.


In case you hadn’t realised, my previous paragraph is dripping with sarcasm.


It is a damning indictment on our society that not wearing makeup is considering so embarrassing as to be worthy of being a fundraising activity. It is troubling that a charity which supports children in reaching their potential, often in very challenging circumstances, is promoting this message. Women and girls across the UK are having their self-worth stolen by aggressive marketing, beauty products, toys, TV, films and the music industry. We are then convinced to buy back said self-worth through purchasing the right products and makeup, “because we’re worth it”. Bearfaced makes explicit the messages throughout society which say that women can never “come as they are”, that we are for ever destined to change ourselves to measure up to an unreachable societal standard of beauty that is manufactured by an industry invested in making money, at the expense of people’s health and wellbeing.


So if you see me without makeup on the 8th November, please don’t think I’m taking part in Bearfaced. It’s actually just my face being…well…my face.

Karen Ingala-Smith, Desmond Tutu and Forgiveness

After writing this blog critiquing Archbishop Tutu’s article about forgiveness, I thought it may be valuable to respond to the specific things Karen Ingala-Smith says within her blog about his article. So here goes…


“But is it for the child to forgive the abusive parent? What does it mean for a boy child to forgive his father for violence towards his mother, essentially for a man to forgive another man for violence against women?”


I think Karen raises a really interesting point here. I read Tutu’s article as a forgiveness of his father for the trauma that it caused him, rather than absolving his father’s sins on behalf of his mother. Perhaps this is one of the differences in mine and Karen’s views of forgiveness. I would see the forgiveness I offered to someone as only related to their actions towards me, the hurt they caused other people, perhaps even within the actions towards me, would need to be forgiven by the other people that have been hurt. My forgiveness doesn’t absolve the offender’s sin, it is a decision for me to no longer wish that person harm. It doesn’t even remove the consequences of their choices, it is about the attitude with which I approach them.


“In a feminist analysis that identifies patriarchal society, religion has been shaped to protect men’s oppression of women.”


Karen and I may hold similar views on many things but it is here that our ideas diverge. I understand completely why she sees religion as an institution designed to maintain patriarchal systems of power. My experience as a church goer for my entire twenty nine years of life has proved over and over that religion is a patriarchal institution. But my faith and experience of God is not of a patriarchal entity desiring to control and subjugate me; it is of a truly liberating character that seeks to enable me to be more than I could have ever imagined. I don’t believe this understanding of faith can come outside of an experience with the Divine and so do not blame Karen for her strongly held conviction of this. However, perhaps her views are a wakeup call to the church. Gender justice is not a secondary issue if people reject all aspects of faith because of the Church’s investment of patriarchal structures.


“Apparently, in the bible there are two types of forgiveness: God’s pardoning of the sins of ‘his’ subjects, and the obligation of those subjects to pardon others.”


I struggle with the idea of forgiveness as an “obligation” and this is not my experience of faith. The times I have forgiven others has not been out of obligation. In fact it was when forgiveness felt like an obligation that I fell into a state of denial, pretending that if I just tried hard enough, I could make my ex-husband’s treatment of me not hurtful. It was as I felt the bitterness of hatred towards him that I decided I no longer wanted his treatment of me to define anything about me, including my feelings towards him that forgiveness became a reality for me.


“Being able to do so is so important that a believer’s eternal destiny is dependent upon it. Refusing to forgive is a sin. Forgiveness then is a selfish, not a selfless act.”


In Matthew 6 Jesus does states that unless we forgive one another, God won’t forgive us. We also find that in Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus prefaces His teaching on forgiveness by saying we must hold to account those who sin against us. None of these verses can be taken in isolation. I personally have never forgiven because I believe it will save me for eternity.


“… when talking about violence, [forgiveness] is an act that absolves the abuser of their responsibility…I disagree. We are more than the product of our experiences. We have consciousness, we make choices, we can see if our behaviour is harmful or hurtful to another. Abusers are always responsible for their abuse. If someone’s ‘god’ , or indeed another believer, can absolve someone for the choices that they make, their responsibility is erased.”


I totally agree with Karen here. Tutu’s assertion that forgiveness removes the responsibility of an abuser is not my understanding of Scripture. Surely the Christian faith is rooted in a belief of free will? No matter what leads up to our actions, our choices are just that, choices. The consequences and responsibility for abuse and violence are not eradicated in forgiveness, it is the ability for that offence to define us that is removed. If someone cuts off my legs, it does not matter how strongly I forgive them, I still have no legs. My experience of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection mean I know I am free, but if I choose to kill someone tomorrow, I will still have to deal with the consequences of that choice, as will everyone affected by that murder. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24,


““I have the right to do anything,” you say – but not everything is beneficial.

“I have the right to do anything” – but not everything is constructive.

No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.”


“By reducing male violence against women to an individual relationship, one in which someone who is neither perpetrator nor primary victim can bestow forgiveness, we are ignoring, condoning – forgiving – the wider impact of men’s violence upon women, upon all women above and beyond that individual relationship.”


All I can say to this is yes, yes and yes! We must be careful whenever talking of forgiveness that our message does not condone or justify behaviour. We must always consider how our words and actions impact the vulnerable and the hurting, and recognise the principalities and powers that we are fighting against; in this case the spiritual power of patriarchy.


“We cannot allow a person to say that this is okay, that this is forgiven, but it appears that religion encourages us to do just that. Indeed, male violence against women can be forgiven by god. That’s just a little bit convenient for patriarchy.”


Again I agree, we cannot allow forgiveness to blind us to the reality of patriarchy. We must not let forgiveness become a weapon of abuse, which for many women it has. The teaching on forgiveness disabled me from making good choices, it enabled an abuser to totally destroy me and it is doing the same to far too many people each and every day. We have a responsibility to ensure our communications, teaching and theology do not collude with or enable abuse. We must critique the systems which perpetuate and enable abuse to continue. This is a prophetic work and I believe that Karen Ingala-Smith and other radical feminists are doing this work while the church very often colludes with the systems of oppression Jesus came to set us free from. I applaud them for their work and thank them for their courage.


“In the UK, the mainstream is very quick to identify ‘other’ religions as oppressive to women but this is equally true of Christianity. Religion reinforces and upholds patriarchy, forgiveness is just another of its tools. We do not need to forgive male violence against women unless we want men to continue to dominate women.”


To some extent, I agree with this. I have seen religion uphold patriarchy, I have experienced forgiveness as a tool of patriarchy and it makes me weep, because that is not the whole story. I have spent most of the day deeply distressed at the reality of being an outcast. I don’t fit in the Christian world, with its 1950s housewives, its black and white clarity, its collusion with the Powers. And I don’t fit in the feminist world because I live for Jesus. I will unapologetically give my whole life to an awesome God whom most of the feminist world understand to be an oppressive construct propping up patriarchy, and yet it is in Her that I have found liberation and freedom. And I weep that those who are doing the work of the Kingdom cannot see the truth of that very Kingdom and that those who think they are part of the Kingdom are in fact working to prop up the Powers that seek to destroy the Kingdom.


What better way for the Powers to win, than convince those who love Jesus that the tools given for liberation be turned into weapons to destroy the Kingdom?

On Desmond Tutu and Forgiveness

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written of his journey to forgiving his father for abusing his mother. In an article for the Guardian he says, “I can still recall the smell of alcohol, see the fear in my mother’s eyes and feel the hopeless despair that comes when we see people we love hurting each other in incomprehensible ways.”


Karen Ingala-Smith has written an excellent blog critiquing Tutu’s message of forgiveness from an feminist atheist view. I have such deep respect for Karen and her tireless and enormously valuable work on ending male violence against women and girls. Her blog led me to thinking it would be useful to write my own response, from my perspective as a Christian feminist. (You can read my blog responding to Karen’s blog here.)


It must be acknowledged that for Archbishop Tutu to witness his father hurting his mother as a child is a terrible thing. Research suggests 750,000 children in the UK witness domestic abuse every year and the effects of such trauma can impact a person throughout their life. I hope my thoughts will in no way invalidate or undermine the pain and suffering of Archbishop Tutu has experienced as a result of his father’s choices. So much of his work and lie are to be admired and respected. As Karen says in her blog, his life has involved much good work. I also hope my thoughts in no way devalue the amazing work he has done and continues to do across the world.


I have known the power of forgiveness in my own life. For four years my ex-husband chose to hurt me. His choices left me suicidal, physically and mentally scarred and I only escaped after he assaulted me and my son was born three months premature. The effects of his choices continue to impact my life, with ongoing traumatic responses to what he did and with my children. For me forgiveness has been an enormous sacrifice, but one that has transformed me. I am not defined by what he forced me to become. I am free.


The theology I had learned in church about forgiveness and relationships disabled me from making good or safe choices. I met him when I was 17. He sexually manipulated and abuse me and I thought it was “sex before marriage”. I assumed my only way forward, twelve days into the relationship, was to commit my life to him, to marry him. His constant put downs and sexual relationships with other girls were seen by me as an opportunity to show him Jesus’ love. To forgive him and forget. I thought Psalm 51:7 applied to my actions “wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.” I had to forgive him, to wash away all traces of his choices and then everything would be okay. But it wasn’t okay and I was pregnant within six months and four years later, lived in a hospital with a seriously ill child and a toddler, almost totally dead inside.


In that place I learned what it was to lose everything, to hit the end of everything and for me, it was in that place that I found God. And I have been on a journey since then. Part of that journey has been discovering what forgiveness is and what it is not. Forgiveness is never about nullifying the consequences of someone’s choices. It isn’t about reducing their behaviour to something we can justify or explain, in order to make it smaller and easier to accept. It isn’t about a forced feeling that allows us to believe that now “God can forgive us too”.


Forgiveness for me started by learning to forgive myself. The shame and abuse I suffered left me filled with self-hatred. To no longer blame myself for my ex-husband’s behaviour, but to fully hold him responsible. To know longer live in denial (which is what the teaching I had been given as a young person really meant; forgiveness equals denial). Then, once I had been through the long and painful journey of holding him fully responsible for his choices, I then chose to forgive him, over and over each time another memory surfaced. And for me that has been the liberation of no longer being defined or controlled by him. I don’t have to be filled with hatred for him, and I’m not. Forgiveness isn’t about letting him off the hook, but rather hoping he will stop hurting others and begin to live a positive life. It is wishing him well within a context of knowing he is currently dangerous and unsafe.


It is within that context of my own journey of and belief in forgiveness that I write about the article Archbishop Tutu has written.


“…see the fear in my mother’s eyes and feel the hopeless despair that comes when we see people we love hurting each other in incomprehensible ways.”


What he writes about is not two people hurting “each other” but one person hurting another person. Though this may seem like semantics, it is important to mention. I have written for EVB about the issue with talk about abuse as a relationship, as a “between” type thing.


“Intellectually, I know my father caused pain because he himself was in pain.”


Far from this being intellectually true, it is feeding into myths about abuse. Perpetrators do not abuse out of their pain, they abuse because of their beliefs about the person they abuse. They believe they own their partner and are entitled to behave in the ways they do because of this. Rather than this being a statement which holds his father to account, Archbishop Tutu actually justifies those choices.


“Spiritually, I know my faith tells me my father deserves to be forgiven as God forgives us all.”


The Bible does talk of us forgiving others, but I’m not sure it says that others deserve our forgiveness. Surely forgiveness is necessarily a voluntary act. Not because it is deserved, but because the person forgiving has made a choice to do so.


“If I traded lives with my father, if I had experienced the stresses and pressures my father faced, if I had to bear the burdens he bore, would I have behaved as he did? I do not know. I hope I would have been different, but I do not know.”


Perpetrators of abuse do not need empathy. We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of those who have beliefs of ownership and entitlement and consider that we too may behave in those ways. Forgiveness is not about being able to understand or provide reasons why someone did what they did, it is a choice in the midst of suffering to no longer be defined or held captive to what they have done to us.


“Forgiveness is not dependent on the actions of others.”


I do agree with this. It is not in the apologies of the offender that forgiveness is found. We can choose to release them from our hatred regardless of what they do. That is the beauty of it; the offender has absolutely no control over whether we forgive them or not. However, the other side of this is that if someone does apologise, we are under no obligation to reconcile with them. Reconciliation may put us emotionally or physically at risk. No matter how much the offender changes, we as the offended have the right to put in as many safeguards as we need.


Of his children, Archbishop Tutu says, “We have been able to forgive them because we have known their humanity. We have seen the good in them.”


The forgiveness we have for our children is different than that of a son forgiving a father. The power differential within all of our relationships must be considered when we think about forgiveness. Likening forgiving my child for keeping me up at night to the forgiveness of a son for the abuse his father perpetrated is not comparable. The power differential and the choice to bring those children into the world means that our relationship and responsibility means we make allowances for them in healthy ways.


Of his father he says, “…while his temper pained me greatly, there was so much about him that was loving, wise and witty.”


It is important to understand that abuse is not rooted in anger. It may appear as anger, but as I mentioned before, it is about beliefs. The belief in the inferiority of the person they hurt, that they are an object, a possession to be controlled.


“When I reflect back across the years to his drunken tirades, I realise now that it was not just with him that I was angry. I was angry with myself. Cowering in fear as a boy, I had not been able to stand up to my father or protect my mother. So many years later, I realise that I not only have to forgive my father, I have to forgive myself.”


One of the scars of abuse is blaming oneself, of believing oneself capable of impossible action, like that of a boy protecting his mother from his father. That self-blame is a lie. And though it may require self-forgiveness, it is also important to acknowledge that it is a lie that we believe in order to give us some illusion of power in a situation of utter powerlessness.


“No one is born a liar or a rapist or a terrorist. No one is born full of hatred. No one is born full of violence. No one is born in any less glory or goodness than you or me…We can easily be hurt and broken, and it is good to remember that we can just as easily be the ones who have done the hurting and the breaking.”


It is true that no one is born an abuser, however this statement does not take into account the systems which exert themselves on every person. That patriarchy insists men be dominant and that women are owned, is a fundamental system that must be challenged. Men do not abuse because they are hurt and broken, they abuse because a patriarchal system legitimises their choices. It is so important that we never lose sight of this. That Karen Ingala-Smith was left with the understanding that forgiveness enables patriarchal culture is not surprising if this is the message that is being given.


“It has taken me many, many years to forgive myself for my insensitivity, for not honouring my father one last time with the few moments he wanted to share with me. Honestly, the guilt still stings.”


It seems the feelings Archbishop Tutu has towards his own actions are more overwhelming the choices his father made to hurt his mother. Earlier in the article he talks of having forgiven himself, but it seems he is still far harder on himself for doing the best he could at that time than he is on his father.


In relation to the bad choices each of us make he says, “We can come up with all manner of justifications to excuse what we have done. When we are willing to let down our defences and look honestly at our actions.”


Throughout the article Archbishop Tutu provides many justifications for his father’s choices, yet when he talks of us acknowledging our own choices, he then says excuses and justifications are not okay. Surely we must be willing to apply that same attitude to our forgiveness of others, as we do to asking for forgiveness?


For me, it is through Jesus’ model of giving up power and showing what forgiveness and love truly are I have been able to make the choices I have. My experiences of being set free from the abuse I have suffered and my work in ending male violence against women are all rooted in a deep knowledge that it is through love and forgiveness that we will win the war. In Jesus, we see an all-powerful God, who discovered the only way to save humanity was to give up all His power and become weak, vulnerable and powerless. In Jesus, I discovered it is my weakness that is my greatest gift, not my strength.


While patriarchy continues to be a power which destroys lives and incites individuals and systems into worldwide oppression and injustice, it is as we live lives of love and refuse to be manipulated into hatred, as we begin to own the power and privilege we have and recognise the responsibility that gives us to empower those with less power, as we choose to forgive in a way that holds people to account, while believing them capable of change, and challenging the societal issues which disable change, it is as we do these things, that we will see transformation.


To The Men

I wrote this piece earlier today after reading this article. The article states that 1 in 3 women in the EU will be abused by a man they thought loved them; their partner. Yet the article managed to mention women a lot of times, yet did not mention the men who abused them. The invisibility of the men in this piece is not an isolated incident, regularly articles about abuse of women refuses to mention the men who abused them. It’s almost as if violence against women is a perpetrator-less. And yet it is not.


After reading this article I then went to the gym where I watched Robin Thicke singing about the Blurred Lines between sex and rape and how he wants to give a woman “something big enough to tear her ass in two”. Except the song was silenced, so all that you could see was a music video where fully clothed men gesture at almost naked women who appear to be wrapped in cling-film. Nobody batted an eyelid. Nobody switched it off. I nearly wept right there on the cross-trainer.


Then the next two music videos were of male performers “featuring” female performers. How apt! This is the lie the world tells women. That we are features of men’s lives. Not people, not human beings in our own right.


And through my headphones I heard music that praised Jesus and declared that we are free because of His sacrifice and I looked at the screen and considered how many women, the world over, are not yet free. And I almost wept on the cross trainer, instead taking my rising anger out on the machine, getting faster and faster, to the point I almost fell off.


I arrived home dripping with sweat and wept hysterically on Mr GLW. This is such a terrible world. And I wrote the words below. Mr GLW advised me not to publish them. He said I would appear as a man-hating, angry, feminist if I did. But I needed to. Because this is how it felt to be a woman for me this morning.


And if you read my words and you feel more offended by what I have written than by the fact that 1 in 3 women is abused by a man, or that a man rapes a woman every 9 minutes somewhere in the UK, or that 140 million girls and women are living with having had their genitals mutilated, or that a man rapes a woman in South Africa every 36 seconds, then you need to consider your priorities.


If you read my words and feel I am alienating men, or being harsh, we are in the midst of a genocide, a war against women, and yet the media want us to believe this is about isolated incidents. It is not. Men abuse women because they believe they own them, and are entitled to do whatever they want to them. This is across the entire globe. No woman, in any community across the world is safe from male violence.


I am married to a man and I have a son and so I know there are good men out there. But until we begin to see this as a war against women, and about global gender relations, we will never see systemic change.


The hearts of my sisters and I break. And the world-at-large remains silent.


To the men

Your kind are raping my sisters

Your kind are killing our mothers

Your kind are reducing my value

Every single day.


And yet, as you hear my words,

You do not feel enraged at your brothers,

At your fathers, at your friends.


You feel enraged with me,

For giving men a bad name.


I do not hate you

I do not know you

But I cannot trust you

Because your brothers are raping my sisters

And the rapists, murderers, torturers

Cannot be identified in anyway

Don’t take up this with me, take it up with your kind


My rights are not women’s rights

My cause is not niche

My sisters are they who brought you into the world

While them who birthed all the people of the earth

Are not human.

Then none are human


The screens show mutilated women

Parts, not making up a whole

And your kind have convinced some of my sisters

That to sign up to this mutilation

Is the route to power


In the church

My sisters are sacrificed daily on the altar of unity

In the media

My sisters are altered daily in the hope of being found worthy

In the home

My sisters are more unsafe than in a dark alley

In the state

My sisters’ voices are silenced


When my sisters are laying in the gutter

Broken, chained, discarded

Who lifts them from the gutter?

Who breaks their chains?

Who walks them to freedom?

Not your kind, but the mothers, the sisters, the women.

Yet my words make you angry with me

And not with your kind.


I want to call you brothers

To bridge the enormous chasm

That stands between our peoples

The sisters and the brothers


So listen to my words

Said by a broken hearted woman

Hold your brothers to account

And help us end this war on women

This Is Theology!

I had a twitter conversation with someone recently about whether God’s model for humanity involves hierarchy and whether his model for marriage involves headship.  My view was that hierarchy and headship are not from God, his was that they are God’s constructs.  This is how it ended:


Them:    “Yes, it’s clear from both of you that men have abused their position. However, just because they have does not make almost all of the arguments you’re offering. If you are saved, then you simply cannot ignore scripture, or reduce it to fit your needs or argument. I say this not because I’m a bloke, but because it’s God’s word!”


Me:     “But perhaps in part you can say that because you haven’t been abused by those Scriptures.”


Them:    “..and THATS the issue.”


The person I was conversing with then left Twitter and I was left trying to deduce what he meant by his statement.  Although afterwards I said I didn’t understand what he meant, he has not clarified his meaning and so I am left wondering.


The conclusion I have come to about his comment was that he somehow thinks that my having been abused through the use of headship and hierarchy puts me in a less capable position to be able to see how God views these things.  That somehow his privilege at not knowing first hand the damage hierarchy and patriarchy does means he is in a better position to understand the Scriptures.  Perhaps that I am too emotionally involved with this issue to really “get” what God is saying.


[Of course, this may not be what he was saying, and if I’ve misinterpreted his view, I apologise, but I shall continue with this blog as I believe even if this man doesn’t believe this stuff, there are plenty of people who do.]


Firstly I would like address the idea that being emotionally involved with an issue means we are less able to have a suitable perspective on it.  God came to earth as a human baby, how much more emotionally involved does it get than that?  Jesus lived, died and was resurrected in a state of complete vulnerability.  Throughout the Bible we see God relating to Israel as an emotionally involved Father.  Jesus calls us to love sacrificially; he calls us blessed when we mourn and when we are merciful.  Being emotionally involved is not only an asset when making theological decisions, it is essential.


It is only as we see the true consequences of the theology we hold, that we can make decisions as to whether it is God’s heart or mans understanding.  Just as the Pharisees spent their lives running around trying to obey rules that they had missed the heart of, so many of us Christians are busy trying to stay true to teachings that we don’t understand, blaming God’s sovereignty on perpetuating teaching that abuse, damage or undermine people’s humanity.


I understand people’s reluctance at picking and choosing Scripture, but have we learnt nothing from Jesus’ response to the religious leaders?  Blaming it on the rules isn’t good enough!  Jesus came into the place and time He did and blasted apart the religious views of the time.  He advocated a radical third way, in which the heart is more significant than the letter could ever be; in which the least became the greatest and the most sinful more capable of redemption.


I resist anybody who tries to tell me that the fact I was subjected to abuse by my ex-husband, or having listened to the horrific stories of many Christian women, who have been abused by their “Christian” husbands makes me less able to understand what God is saying.  God has truly healed me from the abuse and trauma caused to me, and yet my heart is broken for the abuse and hurt in this beautiful world.  It is broken for the women and children that suffer, for the men who destroy lives, for a society that accepts abuse and for a Church that perpetuates it with teaching of hierarchy and headship.  This does not make me less able to understand theology.  This is theology.

15 Million Merits: Will the Church wake up?

Yesterday I wrote about the personal challenge I felt after watching 15 Million Merits on Sunday.  To find out more about the programme and the impact it had on me, please read my blog from yesterday.


Today I hope to share my thoughts on the wider, less personal, response I felt having watched the programme.  My immediate feeling, after the conviction of my own culpability at watching programmes like X Factor, was a feeling of frustration at the fact Charlie Brooker, an atheist writer and comedian, could get the horror of reality TV in a way most of us Christians cannot.


Why is Charlie Brooker’s understanding of the powers and principalities of the world so much clearer than that of us Christians?  He is making a prophetic statement to this generation while many of us Christians are busy arguing amongst ourselves and being religious.


At a recent discipleship group I attended the leader started to describe the horrific fallen-ness of the world and the polluting nature of evil that has saturated so much of our society.  I was horrified as she explained this was exemplified most clearly by the marriage of gay people.  She did not mention the soul destroying reality that there are more people trapped in slavery than there ever have been; that sex, money and power rule our world; or that the true beauty of individuals is destroyed be a media machine that sucks out our self value, in order to sell it back to us in the form of beauty products and plastic surgery.  No, not one mention of any of those things, just the “evil” of gay marriage.


Throughout the Bible the prophets spoke clearly to the people of God, Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for the religious leaders, and right now it would seem, God is using Charlie Brooker – an atheist – to bring about His truth.


Will the Church wake up?  Will those of us who are Jesus followers, called to emulate Jesus, see God’s truth in these programmes and instead of trying to be relevant to the world, will we become radical to the world?  Will we speak out against the great evils in this world?  Will we collectively call for the end of programmes which pornographicate young people and the culture which seeks to perpetuate violence against women?  Will we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us on what really matters?  Or will Jesus need to say to us:


“Woe to you, [Christians], you hypocrites!  …you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness.” (Matt. 23:23)

Open Letter to Stormie Omartian

Dear Stormie Omartian,

I have just read your book, “The Power of the Praying Wife” and I felt I must write to share my horror at the message you are sending out with what you have written.  Please do not mistake me as someone who would say this lightly.  I read your previous book, the Power of the Praying Parent, and found parts of it extremely helpful when I was going through a terrible time in my life.


I would like to share a bit more about that time with you, as I hope it will give you some background into my concerns with your book.  It was 6 years ago, almost exactly and I was living in a hospital with my 2 and a half year old daughter and three month premature baby son.  My son’s prematurity was caused by an assault from my husband, who had abused me sexually, emotionally, psychologically, socially, financially and sometimes physically for four years.  I come from a Christian family and have been committed to God my whole life, although this commitment was almost completely destroyed by my husband’s satanic and evil attempts to destroy everything I was.  In a nutshell, that was where my life was when I was given your book, the Power of the Praying Parent.  It was a great comfort to find practical ways of praying for my children, especially my son, in a situation where I could do nothing else, but watch as his life swung between life and death on an hourly basis.  So I thank you for the help you gave through you authorship of that book.


What has concerned me so greatly about the book I have just read, the Power of the Praying Wife, is that if I had been given that book 6 years ago, I would have invariably returned to my husband and would be dead now.  I would like you to understand that, I am not being dramatic or over-imaginative.  If I had returned to my husband, I WOULD BE DEAD NOW.


Instead, I am very much alive!  My son is a perfectly well nearly 6 year old and my daughter is a beautiful well adjusted 8 year old.  I have gone through many hours of counselling and serious spiritual battle to get to the place where I am now: divorced from my first evil and abusive husband and married again to the most wonderful, Christian man who loves, cherishes and respects me with everything he does.  I am healed and whole and restored because I was able to escape, unlike the many women every year killed by a partner or former partner.


I am not a one off case, please understand this.  At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her.  That would suggest a third of the women reading your book are also experiencing abuse similar to mine.


I feel it is important to share with you my specific problems with your book.  I hope you will appreciate this is quite a long letter as I hope to list the many reasons your book would have led me to return to my abusive ex-husband and how throughout it perpetuates the values of abusive men and encourages women to accept and even embrace abusive behaviours.  I will do this by going through the issues one by one.  Thank you in advance for listening to what I have to say.


The Power
In the first chapter entitled “The Power” your first assumption is all women reading your book have some power that they are at liberty to give up to their husband.  Potentially a third of your readers will be abused and without power, to suggest they are to give up this power, is more than just a problem.  It is an impossibility.


In your second page of this chapter you state, “A husband can hurt your feelings, be inconsiderate, uncaring, abusive, irritating or negligent.  He can do or say things that pierce your heart like a sliver.”   At this point you have included abuse as a potential sin a husband is perpetrating against his wife, abuse can never be tolerated and at no point do you validate the  reality that this is wrong and that he should be held accountable for this sin.  In fact I would say that in my position as a domestic abuse awareness trainer, all the behaviours you list could be described as abusive, if they are partnered with a desire to have power and control.


You go on to say that “Many difficult things that happen in a marriage relationship are actually part of the enemy’s plan set up for its demise”  At this point you seem to negate any personal responsibility on the part of the husband for his behaviour.  I am not denying that the enemy isn’t involved in the situation, but it is only through personal responsibility for our choices that we can move forward.  As Paul says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”


You state that we can say “I will not allow anything to destroy my marriage”  but if we live in a world of free will and our husband is choosing to abuse us, without stopping, we cannot stop him.  In fact, by giving us free will God has stated that even He can’t stop our husband abusing us.  If we could stop abuse by prayer alone, surely sex trafficking would no longer be a problem, when actually more and more girls and women are being trafficked and raped multiple times on a daily basis.


You state “You can submit to God in prayer whatever controls your husband – alcoholism, workaholic laziness, depression, infirmity, abusiveness, anxiety, fear or failure – and pray for him to be released from it.”   This seems to suggest the abusive husband is the victim in this, he is being controlled by the abuse.  As a professional domestic abuse trainer, I would like to clarify that abusive men control their victims, they are not controlled by their choice to abuse.  They abuse because they want to and because they can.  The only way a man will stop abusing is if he accepts 100% responsibility for his behaviour, maintains regular accountability and develops compassion and empathy.


You go on to mention “God’s position on divorce”  using the verse from Malachi, “God hates divorce”  to suggest that God is against divorce and we are “grieving him” if we do divorce our husband.  I feel you are offering a rather simplistic understanding of this passage and God’s word  as a whole when you say this.  I would suggest that the reason the passage says God hates divorce is because He Himself went through the pain of divorce in His marriage to Israel.  He had to abandon His beloved due to their inability to love Him and recognise the great love He had for them.  You have said you did not want to grieve God by divorcing your husband, but what about how your husband had been grieving God by his treatment of you.  What about God’s love for you and His desire for you to be everything you can be?  In fact to abused women, you are saying here, “your life is less valuable than your marriage.”  When satan tempts Jesus in the desert, he says, “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here.”   Jesus’ response is, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”   We are asking women to put God to the test when we do not see the terrible danger they are in and help them to safety.  Maintaining separation and divorcing an abusive man is nothing short of heroic for many women and we need to celebrate their victory, as God does , rather than condemn them with individual verses taken out of context.


You go on to describe your husband’s behaviour in a way I would define as abusive, “The biggest problem I faced in our marriage was my husband’s temper…He used weapons that left me crippled or paralysed.”   At this point I would point out to you that he chose to do this and nothing you did  caused him to.  You were too valuable to be treated this way.  You seem not to acknowledge this and rather blame yourself for his behaviour, “I’m not saying I wasn’t at fault – quite the contrary.  I was sure I was as much to blame as he, but I didn’t know what to do about it.”


If I had read your words six yeas ago, it would have convinced me my husband was right, I was responsible for the abuse.  It was my fault and it was up to me to go back to him and change myself to make him able to treat me well.  I now know that is the ultimate lie abusive men tell.  It makes us believe we have some power, that we can change things.  And yet we have no power, it is an illusion and it keeps us trapped, unable and unwilling to believe someone is choosing to treat us in this way


You say that when you got to the end of your tether with your situation, “…because I came to God in total honesty about what I felt, He allowed me to thoroughly and clearly envision what life would be like if I left Where would I live, how would I support myself and care for the children who would still be my friends, and worst of all, how would a heritage of divorce affect my son and daughter.”


I have not read a more clear description of how I felt when I was living in a hospital with my children.  Completely hopeless, knowing I would be seen as a failure, losing all that was important to me and most of all letting my children grow up without a father.  It was a terrible picture that I saw.  But in my case God did not show me it.  It was the devil, trying to convince me back to an evil, life draining existence where my children could go on to be emotionally and potentially sexually or physically abused.  You have described the feelings every woman I know who has experienced abuse has gone through, and for many these feelings lead to them going back to their abusive husband, where they  and their children are being continually abused.  There are worse things for children than a heritage of divorce, ask any child who has witnessed their mother being beaten or belittled.


You felt God was calling you to stay and I am not denying that God may have said that.  It breaks my heart however that women who read your book will go back to a life of abuse rather than a life of freedom after reading your words.


You go on to talk about the results you saw as you began to pray, you say, “Little by little, I began to see changes occur in both of us.  When Michael became angry, instead of reacting negatively, I prayed for him.”  Although I don’t doubt God’s transforming power, I find it interesting that your husband’s change related to your changed response to him.  For some men who want to control, as long as things go their way, their behaviour is much more acceptable, obviously this is not the case with many perpetrators, but if every time I behaved unacceptably people adapted their behaviour, I would probably be nicer to be around, not because I had changed but because people were pacifying me.  It happens with 5 year olds, if you give them everything they want, they stop having tantrums, because they don’t need to.


Later in the chapter you go on to say “You have to decide if you want your marriage to work, and if you want it badly enough to do whatever necessary within healthy parameters, to see it happen.”   You seem to assume we all know what healthy parameters are.  I would suggest that throughout the world you will find many different thoughts on what healthy parameters are.  You have so far suggested you are as much to blame for your husband’s abuse as he is, that exposing children to abusive men is preferable to a legacy of divorce and that pacifying abusive men is a suitable way of enabling God to change them.  I would consider all of those outside of healthy parameters.


You say that ”A wife’s prayers for her husband have a far greater effect on him than anyone else’s…”  but then go on to say that, “… I’m not convinced we should depend on our husbands to be the sole providers of [prayer] the best thing for our marriage was for me to have women prayer partners with whom I pray every week.”   It appears from your words that a wife’s prayers are the most effective, but a husband’s are less effective than having prayer partners.


His Wife
Now moving onto the second chapter, “His Wife”, in which you begin by saying, “[You must] maintain a pure heart.  It must be clean before God in order for you to see good results.”   This makes me feel extremely uncomfortable; like prayer is some sort of formula, get the heart right and the blessing flows.  But what about the many pure hearted people who never had their prayers answered, what about the children who pray that sexual abuse will stop and the thousands dying of AIDS who pray they will be healed, who continue to suffer and die.  Where does the formula go then?  It is interesting that Jesus answered the rebel’s prayer on the cross when he had not maintained a pure heart:  “’Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’  Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in paradise.’”

You go on to say, “This whole requirement [of a pure heart] is especially hard when you feel your husband has sinned against you with unkindness, lack of respect, indifference, irresponsibility, infidelity, abandonment, cruelty or abuse.  But God considers the sins of un-forgiveness, anger, hatred, self-pity, lovelessness or revenge to be just as bad as any others”   I would like to point out that you start by invalidating the truth of this pain by saying “when you feel your husband has…”, you seem to be suggesting he may not actually have done these things, it is just our perception of what he has done.
Where is your understanding of a God of justice here?   You do not at any point condemn the behaviours you have listed or validate those of us who have been treated in those ways.  In fact you seem to only condemn the response to those behaviours.  Also, please could you explain how we are to forgive when the abuse continues, Jesus said, “For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?  Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, `This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’”   The cost of forgiveness is great and requires us to truly feel the pain of what has been done to us.  The ability to do this in an abusive environment is impossible.  When we are being abused we are in survival mode and do not feel the true pain of what is happening.  Forgiveness is not an act of consciously forgetting what has happened, this is actually denial, which involves being dishonest to ourselves and others, something unlikely to be supported by the Spirit of Truth Jesus talks of, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth…”

You talk about it being painful for us to die to ourselves in our marriages, “…this kind of pain leads to life.  The other alternative is just as painful and its ultimate end is the death of a dream, a relationship, a marriage and a family.”   I would beg to differ, for some women staying in their marriage will lead to ACTUAL death, not metaphorical death, not relationship death, actual real death and for some of the women, their death will be the first time they have experienced peace in a long, long time.

At this point you may be about to point me to your one sentence on safety in the book, “(In fact, if you are in any kind of physical or emotional danger, remove yourself immediately from the situation to a place of safety and get help.  You can pray from there while your husband receives the counselling he needs)”   This bracketed sentence is your one and only attempt at ensuring safety for those reading your book, when statistically at least 25% of those reading it will be experiencing physical abuse.  As a qualified and trained professional in domestic abuse issues I would like to state that this is NOT enough.  You have already listed abuse at least three times as a thing a husband can be “released” from if the wife is willing to pray and be changed for him.  I would also say, as someone who has experienced physical and emotional abuse, I would not have defined myself as emotionally or physically abused.  Most of us women who have experienced it think it is unique to us and in order to survive in an abusive situation, we will minimise the abuse and our level of danger, as will our husband.   He will say that he ‘only’ slapped us or ‘just’ broke our leg and we will believe it really is unimportant.  The sentence you have written is unlikely to enable any woman whose husband is assaulting her to recognise herself in it.  Especially with all you have said previously about it being our fault too, and that we must change to enable our husbands to change.

Later in this chapter you talk of Queen Esther as an example of a truly godly wife.  You describe how she did not, “…run in and scream, ‘Your hoodlum friends are going to ruin our lives.’  Rather she prayed first and ministered to him in love, while God prepared his heart.”   I would like to challenge your idea of Esther as a loving wife.  In reality she was a sexual slave procured by the king to satisfy his desires.  Her waiting was not about love, it was about absolute fear; if she approached him and he refused her, she would die.  Rather than using Esther as an example of a loving wife, she is more suited to the description of a courageous woman, willing to be martyred if there was a possibility it would save her people.

Further through this chapter you begin to look at creating a home.  You state at the offset of this section, “I don’t care how liberated you are, when you are married there will always be two areas that will ultimately be your responsibility: home and children”   You may be under the impression this is true, but in fact this is a complete lie and is based on nothing more than your own personal situation.  I am married to a wonderful Christian man, who is a full time stay at home dad who does the majority of the housework and child-care activities.  I do not in anyway feel more responsible for those areas than him, however I endeavour to share responsibility with him for our house and children.  I am the only financial provider in the house and my husband and I are truly able to live out these roles, without the world collapsing or our children being scarred for life.

You go on to say, “Even if you are the only one working…you will still be expected to see that the heart of your home is a peaceful sanctuary…you will also be expected to be sexually appealing, a good cook, a great mother, and physically, emotionally, and spiritually fit.  It’s overwhelming to most women, but the good news is that you don’t have to do it on your own.  You can seek God’s help.”   As I read this again, I am shocked at your lack of understanding.  The reason that it is overwhelming to women is because it is completely unacceptable and no person, male or female, should be continually pushed to achieve the unattainable.  We do not need God’s help to do everything you have listed, because we are worth too much to have unrealistic expectations thrown at us at every turn.

These expectations are continued as you say, “My husband may not look in the cupboard for a light bulb or a battery for months.  But when he does, he wants it to be there.  Nor does he want to come home late from work one night and find there is no bread for a sandwich.”   My question to you is, why can’t he buy batteries, light bulbs or bread for himself?  He is a grown man and capable of doing these things for himself, just as we are capable of doing things for ourselves.

You go on to say, “Part of making a house a home is allowing your husband to be the head so you can be the heart.  Trying to be both is just too much.  God placed the husband as the head over the family, whether he deserves it or not and whether he rises up to take his position or not.  It’s God’s order of things.”   How can you say this?
Look at what happened with Deborah, “And I will call out Sisera, commander of Jabin’s army, along with his chariots and warriors, to the Kishon River. There I will give you victory over him.” Barak told her, “I will go, but only if you go with me.” “Very well,” she replied, “I will go with you. But you will receive no honour in this venture, for the LORD’s victory over Sisera will be at the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.”

And what about God’s attitude to Saul?  “But Samuel replied, ‘What is more pleasing to the LORD: your burnt offerings and sacrifices or your obedience to his voice?  Listen! Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission is better than offering the fat of rams.  Rebellion is as sinful as witchcraft, and stubbornness as bad as worshipping idols.  So because you have rejected the command of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
God does not give rights without responsibilities.  Those who do not uphold the position God gives them do not maintain that position.  When Barak would not lead, Deborah took over from his authority.  When Saul dishonoured his position, God removed it and gave it to David.  Men who abuse or dishonour their wives, do not maintain their place as head.
I would also say that you are misunderstanding what it means to be the ‘head’.  It is not an authoritative word; it does not mean to be the chief over the home or the elder of the home.  In fact, “…the emphasis of Ephesians 5 is not on the authority of husbands, but on their obligation to love their wives as they love themselves. In fact, the only mention of authority in marriage is found in 1 Corinthians 7:3-7, where Paul gives husbands and wives mutual authority over one another’s bodies.”

You go on to talk of how we should let go of our expectations of our husbands.  You use the following story to illustrate this, “…my husband called from work and said he wanted me to prepare a certain chicken dish for dinner.  I went to the store got the food, prepared the dish, and when he came home, he walked in the door and said bluntly, ‘I don’t feel like chicken tonight, I want lamb chops.’…I realised it was healthier for both of us if I rearranged my expectations”   I would like to clarify for you that this wasn’t a case of too high expectations on behalf of yourself, it was a case of male privilege on behalf of your husband.  He believed that you as his wife, was there to serve him and he could do what he liked.  This is a form of domestic abuse.  I would say to you and any other woman whose husband was behaving in such ways that you are worth far more than this.  You are not a glorified slave, you are not a possession for your husband to use as he wishes, you are a human being, made in the image of Almighty God, and as such, you should expect more from him and should not allow him to devalue you in this way.

You say “It is interesting that God requires the husband to love his wife, but the wife is required to have respect for her husband…I assume no woman would marry a man she didn’t love, but too often a wife loses respect for her husband after they’ve been married awhile.”   Please do not assume women do not marry men they do not love.  Throughout the world there are many girls and women sold into marriages with men they will never be able to love.  The culture into which this verse speaks is one where women were bought and sold as possessions.

You go on to use Queen Esther as an example of this lack of respect.  “All [the king] asked of [Queen Vashti] was that she put on her royal clothes, don her royal crown, and make a royal appearance for the people he was entertaining.  She declined, knowing full well it would be humiliating for him…She not only wronged her husband, the king, but the people as well.  Unless a wife wants to lose her position of queen of her husband’s heart, and hurt her family and friends besides, she mustn’t humiliate her husband no matter how much she thinks he deserves it.”

Let us clarify a few things here.  It is believed that the king was asking Vashti to “to appear wearing only her royal crown.”  This theory is supported by the statements that the king was very drunk  when he made the demand for his wife to “show the people and the princes her beauty “.  Suddenly this changes the situation from Vashti being disobedient into her refusing to be sexually abused publically for the pleasure of the king.  Rather than vilifying Vashti for her disobedience, we should be celebrating her heroic act of standing up to the king and his abusive ways.  Far from modelling disobedience to the people of the land, as the king suggests; Vashti was standing up for her position as queen, much like Mordecai, later in the story, stands up against Haman, because of his commitment to God.
His Work

As you talk about a husband’s work you state, “…a man’s identity is very often caught up in his work.  He needs to be appreciated and he needs to win, and his work is often a means of seeing both happen.”   Rather than challenge this view, you use it to encourage women to pray for their husband’s to find purpose.  But this view must be challenged.  It must not be acceptable for a man (or indeed a woman, as this is a human problem, not a male problem) to get their identity from their job.  Our identity must first and foremost be found in God, and it is only when this happens, that we will be able to find our purpose.

His Sexuality
In this chapter of the book you make many factual statements that are in reality only assumptions and myths about men and women.  You state that “…for a husband, sex is pure need.  His eyes, ears, brain, and emotions get clouded if he doesn’t have that release…there is a far greater chance of settling the other issues if sex comes first.”   This is an assumption, it is not based on any biological fact.  Men can concentrate and focus on things other than sex and to suggest otherwise is to do men a great disservice and push women into accepting sexual abuse in order to resolve issues.
You at no point in this chapter discuss rape.  You do not mention that it is illegal, you do not explain that sexual abuse, violence, coercion or manipulation is wrong and instead you put all the responsibility on the woman for satisfying the man’s needs, while enabling the man to do nothing to support or honour his wife.

You go on to say, “Sexual problems are quite common because many women don’t have a clear grasp of what God’s view is on the subject…Unless we’re fasting or praying for weeks at a time, or are experiencing physical infirmity or separation there is no excuse not to engage in it regularly.”   I would say most Christian women and men are very aware of this view and I would suggest that this is, in part, why 13% of American married women have experienced rape by the current husband,   and why in the UK, the most common rapists are husbands, ex-husbands, or partners.

You go on to explain that God’s perspective is that “…our body is to be used to comfort and complete the other person.  Something is built up in the man and the marriage when this need is met by his wife.”   You do not however state that the same is so for the wife when the husband, ‘comforts and completes’ her.  You squash men’s and women’s sexualities very neatly into two boxes which do not fit the majority of people.  What of the women that have higher sex drives than their husband, what of those men or women who have been sexually abused?  It is very dangerous to use stereotypes as facts or to assume men and women are in fact biologically opposites.  This is not the case.  To not ask within your book why women are not interested in sex with their husbands is very dangerous.  Maybe they have brokenness that needs healing, maybe their husband has raped them on a regular basis, maybe they need their husbands to give them love in other ways, before they feel able to give of themselves in a sexual way.

Your solution to sexual problems in the marriage are as follows, “When your husband  communicates to you what he has in mind, as only a husband can do, don’t roll you eyes and sigh deeply.  Instead say, ‘Okay, give me fifteen minutes’…  During that time, do something to make yourself feel attractive…Comb your hair.  Wash your face and prepare it with products that make your skin look dewy and fresh.  Put on lip gloss and blush.  Slip into lingerie you know he finds irresistible…While you’re doing this, pray for God to give you renewed strength, vitality, and a good attitude.  Hopefully, when you’re ready, your husband will find you were worth the wait… He’ll be happier and you’ll both sleep better.  This is a small investment of time to see great rewards in your marriage.”    For many women, this advice is a push towards accepting sexual abuse, towards further unhappiness.  Please do not say that we will sleep better as a result of this.  Potentially we will sleep worse, much worse.  I say this from a place of experiencing sexual abuse on a daily basis from my ex-husband.

You briefly mention the situation of a woman who is being sexually neglected by her husband, saying, “…if he is content to go month after month without sex, then something is wrong.  If there is no physical problem hindering him, maybe he’s having deep feelings of failure, disappointment…prayer can help reveal what the problem is and how to solve it.  Get professional help if you need to.”   I would like to know why this is your advice for a man struggling sexually, whereas your advice for a woman is just to get on with it and make the man happy.

Your parting thoughts in this chapter are this, “If you don’t think highly enough of yourself to take care of your body, do it as an act of kindness for him.”   This is yet another unacceptable comment.  How is it right that a “fearfully and wonderfully made” creature of God should be advised by you to make effort with themselves ‘in an act of kindness’ to their husband?  It is not!  If any woman does not value themselves, this needs to be supported and the reasons for it considered and support given to enable her to move forward.

His Affection
You use an example of a couple named Patti and Tom to talk through the issues of a husband who is not affectionate.  You explain how Tom was affectionate only during sex and at no other time and how Patti was finding this incredibly hard.  As she prayed and submitted herself more to God, Patti became sure she deserved more affection and approached Tom, leading to transformation because of Patti’s prayer.  “Tom proceeded differently this time.  He took his problems to his own prayer group of men, who instantly rallied around him.  They decided to not only support him daily in prayer, but also to keep him accountable to show some form of affection to Patti each day.”   This worked and Tom became affectionate and Patti became much happier.

Throughout your book you focus on the wife’s prayers for her husband and the power they have, but in this situation it was the accountability of Tom’s prayer group that enabled him to change.  Why not have a wider focus in your book?  Not only is accountability mentioned regularly in Proverbs (11:14, 15:22, 24:6, 27:17), Jesus makes it clear what we should do with believers who continually ignore the accountability of other Christians, “If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back.  But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses.  If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.”

Why does your book not focus on this teaching at all?   Why is the focus on the wife and her responsibility to bring about change?  What about Jesus’ teaching about those who are sinning taking responsibility, about those who are around that person not enabling them to continue with their sinful behaviour, but instead challenging it and being willing to provide consequences if necessary?

In this chapter you again box men and women with no factual basis to do so, “Affection isn’t at the top of a man’s priority list because men often see sex and affection as being the same.  A woman’s greatest need is for affection.”   I can assure you my greatest need as a woman is not for affection, and my husband’s greatest need is not for sex.  I do not know many women or men who fit into the boxes you have given them and for those who do fit into the boxes you have given, this doesn’t make their behaviour acceptable.  When my husband and I first married, any time we had an argument, he would say the reason he had behaved in a certain way was ‘because he was a man, and that’s what men do.’  I will not accept this.  If it is because of who he is that is one thing, if it is because he is a man, it is as unchangeable as his genitals.  If it is because of who he is, his history, background, experiences and personality, they do make him who he is, but they are changeable and if he loves me and I love him, we will work to change the parts of us which hurt the other, and with God’s power working within both of us, we have done and will continue to.

His Temptations
In this chapter you address a man’s ‘temptations’, you talk of a friend, “…whose husband had numerous affairs before they finally divorced.  I questioned her choice of ‘friends’ but I never questioned her godliness or commitment to pray.”   It is interesting that you blame her friends, who I am not saying are blameless, but the constant factor is this woman’s husband.  It is important to understand that this is an abusive tactic, an abusive man will attempt and potentially succeed in seducing our friends.  This not only means we lose any confidence we have, but also that we have no friends and are isolated from those who could have supported us.  I know this to be true as my ex-husband regularly employed this tactic on my friends, some did say no, while others didn’t.  I do not absolve women who have relationships with married men of any responsibility, but I would not be surprised if your friend’s husband was abusive.  I recently spoke at a church where a woman spoke to me afterwards and disclosed that until I spoke about the abuse I had suffered, she had never realised that her nearly 40 years of marriage had been abusive and she wanted to cry, finally her pain and brokenness over all that time had been validated.

His Mind
In this chapter you talk of the attacks of the enemy on a man’s mind, “I finally realised that all men have an enemy who wants to undermine what God desires to do in their lives.  Women have that same enemy, but men seem to be more vulnerable to his attacks in certain areas.”   I feel you are undermining men’s abilities to fight off the enemy and elevating women to a higher plane, where they are less likely to be unable to resist the enemy.  This is blatantly untrue and is not in anyway factually based.  It again reinforces the need for women to take responsibility for men, when men in fact need to take responsibility for their own lives.

His Fears
This chapter talks of praying for a man’s fears.  “Men are often susceptible to [fear] because without even realising it they get attacked by the ‘what if’s’.  ‘What if I can’t make enough money?’  ‘What if something happens to my wife and children?’  ‘What if I get some terrible disease?’  ‘What if I’m overpowered or threatened?’  What if I can’t perform sexually?’  ‘What if no one respects me?’”   I would suggest to you that this type of fear for men comes from the thing you call ‘God’s order of things’.  While men are pushed into the man box of having to be in charge, earn the money, achieve, make the decisions, be the head, they will feel this fear, because your interpretation of the Bible means that men, without any capability to do so, are expected by God to be in authority, purely because they are the owner of a penis.  I believe the best way to stop men having this type of fear is to challenge the theology and tradition which puts such high expectations onto men.

His Purpose
You write in this chapter of a praying for a man to find his purpose.  Towards the end of the chapter you address the issue of a woman’s purpose saying, “Whatever God has called your husband to be or do, He has also called you to support it and be a part of it…For some women this means creating a good home, raising the children, being there for him, and offering prayer support.  Other women may take an active role by becoming a partner or helper.  In either case, God does not ask you to deny you own personhood in the process, God has called you to something, too.  But it will fit in with whatever your husband’s calling is.”   I know you are saying that God has a purpose for me, but the emphasis you give is that my calling is secondary to my husband’s.  It is always going to be part of my husband’s calling to raise the children and create a good home, in partnership with me.  Sometimes it is the woman who is called first and the husband who is to support her, and although you do not condemn this, you do not mention it either.

His Choices
This chapter is about men’s choices and how we need to pray for them to enable them to make better choices.  You again make very stereotypical comments about men, “We have to remember that all men think they are doing the right thing.  ‘Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.’ (Proverbs 21:2)”    I think you will find the word man is this verse is actually about men and women, “People may be right in their own eyes, but the LORD examines their heart.”   This is not about men, we all like to think we are making right choices.

His Priorities
Yet again in this chapter you stereotype men, “Men have many different ideas about what their priorities should be…if you want your husband to place you as a priority over work, children, friends and activities, you need to do the same for him.”   Of course we should prioritise our husbands, if we want them to prioritise us, but what about when we do this and he still places other things above us.  You do not really give an answer to this.
His Fatherhood
You quote your husband in this chapter saying, “We get so caught up in doing what we do in our work that we’re afraid we haven’t done enough with our children.  Or we’re afraid [we] haven’t done well enough, or we’re missing something.  It becomes even more of problem with teenagers.  We fear we can’t communicate with them because we’ll be perceived as old and irrelevant.”   I would suggest to you and your husband that this isn’t a specifically male concern.  It is something that concerns me and I think most parents.  We are concerned that we don’t get the balance right, but that isn’t something to do with our gender, more to do with our humanity and love for our children.
You go on to say, “Thoughts of failure and inadequacy are what cause many fathers to give up, leave, become overbearing from trying too hard, or develop a passive attitude and fade into the background of their children’s lives…Mothers get overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy, too, but only the most deeply disturbed ever abandon, ignore, or hurt their children.”   Again you seem to be making a factual statement based not on reality but on your own perception.  Men leave due to selfishness, not inadequacy, it is an excuse to justify hurting, abusing, neglecting or leaving your children.  The reason men leave is because society has accepted men doing so.  If a woman leaves her children she is vilified, if a man does, it is just another absent father.  In contrast, single fathers are seen as heroes, whereas single mothers are looked down upon and seen as failures; yet another example of women being responsible for men’s failings.  Also in this chapter you miss out completely on the fact that there are men who abuse their children, and nowhere in the book do you suggest women leave to protect their children, I would go as far to suggest that your book is likely to convince women who are being abused to stay, putting their children into further danger and causing them further damage.

His Emotions
In this chapter you write of Don who, “used anger to control his family.  Each family member was so concerned about his temper that they lived their lives on tiptoe doing his bidding out of fear, not love.”   This is defined as abuse.  As most professionals working with situations of domestic abuse can tell you, abuse is not about anger, it is about control.  Although you talk of how Jenny, Don’s wife, saw transformation when she prayed, after she, “learned she not only didn’t have to tolerate his anger, but going along with it was disobedient to God…”   there are many women who are not so blessed.  Abuse is unlikely to stop through prayer alone.  You state that, “The best gift a wife can give in secret to calm her husband’s anger is to pray for him.”   I would say this is dangerous advice for anyone in an abusive situation, controlling others by behaving in a way that appears angry will escalate and to advise people to pray, rather than find safety is completely irresponsible.
You say at the end of this chapter, “Don’t stand by and watch your husband be manipulated by his emotions.  Freedom may be just a prayer away.”   Men who control others by behaving in a way that appears angry are not being controlled by their emotions, they are controlling others by the way they behave.  The man who is abusive is not the victim, those around him are.  It is important to understand that men who choose to behave in these ways do so because they believe women are inferior to men, something your book has reinforced over and over again.  If we are to stop abuse, we must challenge it.  Slavery did not stop through prayer alone, it was through action, prayer, political intervention, hard work and massive sacrifice on the part of many courageous people that it ended.  We will not stop abusive or unhealthy marriages through prayer alone.  Although everything Jesus did was committed to prayer and He spent much time praying, He was always involved in practical action and challenge.  Prayer is impotent without action.

His Obedience
In this chapter you spend time looking at how to pray for a husband to become obedient to God.  As you go through the chapter you say, “If you husband’s disobedience to God’s ways has already brought down your house in some manner, know that God will honour your obedience and He will see that you will not be destroyed.”
If this was true, why are women who have been obedient to God for years continually being abused by their disobedient husbands?  Some to the point of their death or the death of their children?  When you have stated so strongly that divorce involves disobedience to God, you are advising women to stay in abusive relationships, waiting to be murdered in their obedience.
In summary I would ask you to consider what I have said.  I and my children are some of the ones God rescued, but many, many women will not be rescued, especially if they read your book and the many dangerous statements it makes.

Thank you,