A Cry For Justice

Awakening the Evangelical Church to Domestic Violence and Abuse in its Midst

Shunning is Not Always Wrong – by Jeff Crippen

Rather than putting Paige Patterson out of the SBC for all the cruel ways he has treated victims of abuse, the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary have just given Paige Patterson a golden parachute. They ought to have put him out of the church altogether and be shunning him for his facinorous (extremely wicked) pattern of conduct.

This is a repost from Ps Jeff Crippen’s blog.
Jeff resigned from the ACFJ team last year.
He now blogs at Light For Dark Times.

Many times I have heard people criticize churches and Christians for “shunning” someone. And in many of those cases the criticism is valid because the person being shunned is in fact a victim of some evil which the church refused to confront. Instead, they blamed the victim and gave threw them under the bus.

Somehow the idea of “shunning” someone has become something that is thought to be always evil and wrong. But that is not so. The Bible is quite plain that there are people who we are to have nothing to do with. Who we are, you can say, to shun. Here are some scriptural examples:

1Co 5:11-13 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one. (12) For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? (13) God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Rom 16:17-18 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (18) For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

I could go on citing more, but this certainly should suffice to prove that the Christian is to keep away from, avoid, and not even eat with certain people. Namely and especially, people who claim to be Christians but who are walking in evil and therefore are servants of the devil.

This idea that shunning is always wrong and evil in itself is something that is often used to justify keeping the wicked in the church, enabling them in their evil. But to do so is to refuse to obey the clear commands of the Lord. For myself, I simply cannot understand why any real Christian would want to continue in fellowship with a counterfeit believer who has crept in among the brethren to destroy and harm. We are light in the Lord. Why would we want to associate and be bound together with darkness?

Notice once again (you see it in the verses quoted above) that it is not the average, normal unbeliever that is the most serious threat to the church, though of course we are not to be intimately connected with them either. I count numbers of unsaved people as my friends. But I wouldn’t marry one. I socialize with them (as Jesus ate with sinners) but I realize that we are not at all on the same page when it comes to ultimate truths of God’s Word. Nevertheless, the greatest evil, the most wicked and dangerous person, comes to us disguised as a sheep, yet is a ravenous wolf. If someone claims to be a brother in Christ but in fact bears evil fruit as a regular pattern of his life, then that is the person to shun.

So, yes, I shun certain people. Our church shuns certain people. And in doing so we are obeying our Lord’s command.

***

If you’ve never commented on this blog before, and esp if you could be risk from your abuser(s) we suggest you read our New Users’ Info page before commenting.

For further reading

Churches are sinfully honouring reprobates—Eli and his reprobate sons.

Wise As Serpents Digest

FAQs about Abuse 

Resources about Domestic Abuse

 

 

Some biblical counselors deride the work we do – a story from one of our readers

My “biblical counselors” made me confess to all my “sins” (things I might have done to make him mad; things I might have done to “make” him abuse me)… out loud… to them… Then they smiled at me and asked if now didn’t I feel better.

But I was even more miserable! I wept and wept. They rubbed my back and said I should let it all out.

But I wasn’t crying for repentance sake. I was heartbroken over how they were repeating and piling on more abuse! Acting just like him! Telling me everything was all my fault! And then acting all nice and sweet when I was broken and bleeding inside but trying to crawl through their hoops.

Then they told me I had to make a list of church people who had re-
traumatized me (but not to include my counselors who were making me write the list!) after I finally asked for help. I had to name them all in front of the counselors and “chant” how I forgave each one. Sweet smiles. I could hear the meaning… “Good doggie! Good girl! Here’s a treat and a petting!”

My point is – when I found this blessed site, I tried to show them all what true wisdom looked like:

  1. There are real, very bad guys close by – not just “over there” or “out there” somewhere.
  2. They are in your church, right now.
  3. Not everyone who says he’s a Christian, not everyone who prays pretty prayers, not everyone who teaches Bible lessons, not every group leader, not every BFF of the pastors, not every pastor – is a true Christian. Bad guys lie.
  4. Real bad guys are really hurting and destroying your sisters, and brothers, in Christ, and their children. Right now.
  5. Christ cares about the wounded, not the wounders.
  6. God hates sin, yes. But He hates the reviler, the abuser, the defiant, the arrogant wolf who enjoys the destruction he brings; He does not hate His hurting child for the sins He’s already paid for.
  7. The church should be more interested in binding the wounds of the bleeding sheep who are crying in front of them, and not hunting down the derisively laughing wolf to try to make him a “trophy” of “grace.”
  8. The wolves must be thrown out of the flock as soon as they are revealed, and, if there’s cause, they must be handed over to the law for real consequences.

I gave them article after article. You have provided so much good information.

What happened next

They cast aspersions on the good work here. They derided the wisdom I had found. They sneered at the efforts to try to make them see. They complained about the “anger” you showed toward the abusers and their sin. And most of all, it was all done with a smile and a patronizing giggle as they set the articles aside.

The idea? Now that I’ve had my little tantrum, fueled by obviously “damaged, bitter” people on some “angry” blog I had wandered into — we could now get back to the business of “sloppy agape” forgiveness (without any signs of repentance), “confession”, “submission”, “reconciliation”, and packing me and my kids off to go back to be abused again.

So, thank you for your wisdom. Thank you for caring deeply about justice. Thank you for really, truly caring for the hurting. Thank you for the amazing clarity that I’ve found here, in spades! Thank you for your passion.

And honestly? Thank you for your anger! That seemingly small thing right there helped so much! Because up until I connected here… no one had ever even said that they felt bad for what had been done to us. They were all so much more interested in finding reasons to justify him or explain him or to make it seem that I had overreacted… again… They were all more interested in reaching out to him, throwing us to the side of the road in the process.

So to have that first person be angry for what had happened to us? It was a window of heaven opening.

Keep being “angry”! We need it!

And thank you for assembling your page For clergy who want to learn how to respond to domestic abuse – all the links there! What a collection of wisdom!

No wonder this site A Cry For Justice is the place I found clarity after leaving him. Nowhere else had I ever found such information that finally rang true to what I was experiencing.

— MoodyMom

***

MoodyMom wrote this as comment here on our blog. We thank her for giving us permission to re-publish it as a stand-alone post.

Further Reading

Finding a good counselor

This Biblical Counselor Thinks we have Misrepresented Biblical Counseling

Another Example of “Biblical Counseling” that is Enslaving

 

Christians are jumping on the bandwagon to ‘help the abused’. James has something to say about that.

If a brother or a sister is without proper clothing, or destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, Depart in peace; may God send you warmth and food – and notwithstanding, you do not give them those things that are needful to the body, what help is it?

Pure devotion, and undefiled before God the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their adversity, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

(James 2:15-16; 1:27, New Matthew Bible)

#Metoo and #Churchtoo are giving rise to many new “advocates” in the Christian community. Churches, christian leaders and christian journalists are getting on the bandwagon pronouncing this or that ‘wisdom’ about abuse and ‘how to respond to abuse’. But a lot of what they are saying and doing is naive, misinformed, under-informed or simply ‘image management’ for their own reputation

When churches and clergy are doing image management, it is designed to get victims and their supporters to shut up. And to get the secular media off the churches’ backs. And they’re also getting on the bandwagon hoping it will protect them from being sued for their previous malpractice.

The bandwagon. The plethora of ‘advice to victims’. All the virtue-signalling: “Hey everyone! We are setting up a ministry to the abused!” 

It feels a little similar to the problems that victims of domestic abuse have with DV centers in the U.S.A. The secular DV support centres in the US will convince the victim that she is not safe at home, but they either will not or cannot provide much if any support once she leaves.

I personally know of several Christian victims of domestic abuse who are currently homeless. I know women who are living in trailer parks. Some are couch surfing. Some are desperately looking for a room to rent. These women have to keep their true identity hidden on social media. They try to go under the radar as much as possible because many abusive men are skilled at stalking their targets on facebook and other social media platforms.

These women have no one from their family of origin or their former church who is astute and trustworthy in supporting these women. So these women don’t have the normal network of friends or family that non-abused people have. Some of them are at high risk of being killed by their abusers. And these women almost always have health problems…from the longterm abuse they have suffered. Physical ailments. Plus complex PTSD. And they don’t have much money. They may be on food stamps. They may be working for very low pay. They may not be able to work because of their physical disabilities and ill health. Some of them have had their phones hacked or tampered with by the abuser. Some of them don’t feel safe to use email.

Many of them are so easily and frequently triggered by insensitive remarks from others (including other Christians) that they might have only a few minutes or hours each few days where they have the mental space and physical energy to take action to change their situation for the better.

So I want to ask this:

Do people who advocate for victims of abuse bear any responsibility to assist in the support structure for the victims?

Because the structure is NOT there. And while I’ve described the situation in the USA, the support structures for victims in other countries are sometimes as bad or worse than the USA. Australia seems to be a bit better than the USA, but there are many many countries where it is far worse. Think of the third world!  And it is going to get worse. …possibly very soon as more women are educated through the various campaigns which are springing into mainstream christian media because of #MeToo and #ChurchToo.

If churches are going to get on the bandwagon and start offering ‘ministry’ to the abused, they need to —

  • learn from our website and other experienced advocates how to do it
  • provide financial assistance so that victims can carefully and safely get safe from their abusers without having to crawl through the fire of homelessness, poverty, untreated health problems, etc.
  • not assume that they know enough to be able to control or direct how the victims should use the financial assistance.

Most of these get-on-the-bandwagon people are not nearly skilled enough yet to advise victims what to do.

We do not tell victims what to do. We give them information and we spread before them options and ideas they might like to consider. We encourage them to read what we have on this site. But we do not tell them what to do. We encourage victims to make their own decisions in their own time. We trust that with the understanding of true Christianity which they can gain from reading things on our site, they will become better and better able to reject unbiblical (victim-entrapping) teaching. And thus they will be more and more able to be led by the Spirit.

God is able to guide each victim of abuse in the way that will be best for her.

And I’ll rephrase that for the male victims, so I don’t offend anybody. God is able to guide each victim of abuse in the way that will be best for him.

***

Pastors and church leaders, please read this: What are the most important things for me to know about domestic abuse?

Victims who are new to our site, please read this: New Users’ Info. This link gives tips for how to guard your safety while commenting on this blog.

Victims and supporters of victims, you might like to read our FAQ page.

 

Question for our readers – why do some of you prefer to comment on FB rather than our blog?

Dear reader, if you comment at our Facebook page but don’t comment at our blog, could you please tell us why you do that?

We prefer to receive comments at the blog. Facebook posts and comments quickly drop out of visibility. If you want to see a post which was put on Facebook some months ago, it’s almost impossible to find it. But if you want to search for a blog post which was published months or years ago, it is much easier to find it. We know that many of our blog readers look at posts which were published months or years ago, and they are reading and adding comments on many of our old posts. So the conversation on the blog remains very much alive, no matter how long ago a post was first published.

If is also easier for us as Admins to search at the back of the blog to find your comments from long ago, if we need to do so. Sometimes we do this in order to direct one reader to a comment written by another reader.

Safety is better at the blog

Another advantage of commenting at our blog as opposed to our Facebook page is that we as Admins have much more ability to moderate comments at the blog. We read each comment submitted to the blog before it goes ‘live’. We might edit out or airbrush details which could be too identifying. That keeps you more safe.

And on the blog we encourage you to use a pseudonym if you are in any danger from your abuser or his allies. Whereas if you comment on Facebook and your FB identity is your real name, your abuser has more ablity to stalk you. (Facebook is “stalk-book”)

So, over to you

If you are one of the people who comment at the ACFJ Facebook page but do not comment at ACFJ blog itself, please can you tell us

  1. Why do you do that?
  2. What would make it easier for you to comment at the blog?

Why did Paul call abused women ‘little-women’?

Paul was most likely conveying that abused women deserve sympathy and empathy for the underserved suffering they have endured. Paul was probably indicating that we ought to feel compassion for these women, recognising that they worthy and good people, but relatively powerless and weak against the crafty tactics of abusers and their allies.

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul describes the characteristics of evil men. And he tells Timothy to have nothing to do with men who fit that description.

(2 Tim 3:1-6, KJV)
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts

Paul says that some of these evil men target ‘little-women’ (Greek: gunaikarion) in order to deceive and take them captive.

The KJV translated gunaikarion as ‘silly women’.  As I explained in this post, many English versions of the Bible have rendered the Greek word gunaikarion as two words.  (To see some of the ways 2 Tim 3:6 has been translated into English, click here.)

The single word ‘women’ might well have been an acceptable English rendering of the Greek word gunaikarion. But when English Bibles have rendered it as two words, they have often done so in a way that shows contempt for abused women by calling these women silly, foolish, weak-willed, weak-minded, idle, gullible, etc.

Why did Paul call them ‘little-women’?

Did Paul call them “little-women” to show contempt for those women?

Could Paul have employed the diminutive form to show compassion, pathos, affection and tenderness for these women?

I’ve dug deep to find what Paul might have meant when he uses that diminutive form of ‘women’.

I have found an article by Jonathan Watts which I think is very helpful: Diminutive suffixes in the Greek New Testamennt: a cross-linguistic study. I hope and pray that other linguists and New Testament scholars will do further research which could give us more insight into what diminutive forms in the Bible could be conveying. 

Here is a snippet from that article by Jonathan Watts (emphasis mine):

Diminutives carry high emotional connotation and are thereby useful for encoding sympathy and empathy. They may convey informality, familiarity, and even intimacy. They may facilitate euphemism and understatement and consequently may connote politeness when making a request. There are very few careful studies of the range of connotations in a particular language.

….certain conditions favor the use of diminutives, intimacy being one of them, because it involves a “readiness to reveal some particular aspects of one’s personality and of one’s inner world that one conceals from other people; a readiness based on personal trust and on personal ‘good feelings.’

Going by what Jonathan Watts says, diminutives can convey many different things. And sometimes they can convey more than one thing at the same time depending on the context, the audience, the relationship between the speaker (or writer) and the hearers (or listeners).

Let me give you a summary of what I’ve gleaned from Jonathan Watts’ article.

Diminutives can –

  1. convey physical smallness in contrast to something larger
    • minibus, booklet, hillock, kitten (small cat)
  2. demonstrate like quality
    • the Dutch word for green “groen,” with a diminutive suffix “groentjes”  means regionalism
  3. convey affection, endearment, or intimacy
    • calling someone “dearie” or “duckie”
    • affectionately referring to a group of children as “kidlets”
    • a family might refer to one of their members as “Wee Johnny” no matter what his age or stature
  4. denote or characterise ‘in-group’ conversation. This often conveys affection, fellow-feeling or camaraderie among the members of the group.
    • Australians refer to themselves as “Aussies”. They say “tradie” instead of tradesman. They say “footy” instead of football. Australian English uses the diminutive suffix “ie” or “y” a great deal. Between Australians, this use of the diminutive form conveys that we are all Aussies … and we enjoy the camaradie of cutting through the haughty superiority of rulers and aristocrats and traditions.
      The democratizing impulse of Australian English might go back to how the English founded white settlement in Australia as a penal colony; convicts are skilled at derogating their jailers behind their backs!
  5. demean or derogate
    • the fourth-century Western Roman emperor was derogatorily referred to as “Romulus Augustulus” (i.e., “little Augustus”)
    • a deviant jetsetter is headlined as “that poor little rich kid”
    • in some languages, the diminutive form of ‘woman’  means a prostitute.
  6. generate reference to something else
    • in Scots English kilt-ie” (literally “small kilt”) designates the soldier who wears the garment

It is not easy to determine what a diminutive form conveys to the hearers/listeners, if we are not members of the community in which the diminutive is being used in that time and place and cultural setting.

Jonathan Watts says:

A diminutive form of a word can designate both “dear” and “foolish,” “small” and “normal-sized,” derogation and politeness, in-group and marginalized  – at the same time and in the same speech community. The key to determining the appropriate nuance must be located somewhere in the living context and in the minds of both speaker and hearer.

We are looking at Paul’s second letter to Timothy. The older pastor who had acquired wisdom from seasoned experience is writing to Timothy the younger pastor who can benefit from his wisdom.

Paul and Timothy had spent a lot of time together; they had a deep affection and respect for each other. Paul probably had a pretty good understanding of what Timothy was facing in his pastorate. The intimacy of this personal letter can guide us in making a best-guess about what Paul might be conveying to Timothy when he used gunaikaron, the diminutive word for women.

Was Paul conveying to Timothy that these women were deserving of compassion and sympathy? 

The meaning of silly has changed a lot over the centuries. Readers of the KJV now read ‘silly women’ and assume it means ‘foolish women’. And many bible translators have followed suit, rather like a line of standing dominoes… you push the first one and it knocks the second one down and the second one knocks the third one down.. and they they all fall down in same direction.

But we need to be aware of how the meaning of a word can shift of time.

It is a widespread phenomenon that the words for ‘innocent’, apart from their legal use, develop, through ‘harmless, guileless’, [and then to] a disparaging sense ‘credulous, naive, simple, foolish.'” [Buck]
etymonline.com 

We have learned that diminutives often encode sympathy and empathy. And ‘silly’ used to have much more sympathetic and kindly senses than it has today. So the KJV translators may used ‘silly women’ to convey the idea of sympathy and empathy for these women.

In my previous post on this topic, I listed six different senses which ‘silly’ has had over time, according to the OED Online. Let us review that list again and consider each sense to see if it might apply to women who are abused by men. Under each sense I’ve given a few of the OED’s examples of how the word ‘silly was used in a text.

The KJV came out in 1611. Bear that in mind when looking at the date of each usage example. It was interesting to me how many of these examples came from Christian literature in the 1500s and 1600s.

1. Worthy, good. Also: pious, holy. Auspicious, fortunate.

1650  Ther had bene great confluences of people at a chappell..thrie Saturdayes befor Lambas and thrie efter called the six silie Saturdayes. (W. Cramond  Church of Rathven)

Could abused women be deemed ‘worthy, good, pious, holy? Some of them certainly could. And that description tends to be particularly true for Christian abused women.

2. Helpless, defenceless, powerless; frequently with the suggestion of innocence or undeserved suffering.

1644  The Woolfe shall fawne vpon the silly Sheepe. (Francis Quarles· Barnabas and Boanerges; or Wine and Oyle for afflicted Soules.)
1587   Making him repine, To see a sillie dame so sore distreste. (Turberville. Tragicall Tales)
1616    Prouided that you do no outrages On silly women, or poore passengers. (Shakespeare Two Gentlemen of Verona)
1665   There remained fresh Examples of their Barbarism against weak Sea-men, and silly Fisher-men. (T. Manley tr. H. Grotius De Rebus Belgicis )
1703   Who behaved themselves with such inhumanity, that they Charged among the silly Women. (Clarendon’s The history of the rebellion and civil wars in England )

Are abused women helpless, defenceless, powerless? Not entirely. But in comparison to the power and influence abusive men can wield, abused women have much less power.

3. a) Meagre, poor, trifling; of little significance, substance, or value.

1613   Where they found but silly shelter. (T. Jackson The eternall truth of scriptures )
1637   Oh how silly an advantage is my deprivation to men, seeing that my Lord Jesus hath many ways to recover His own losses. (S. Rutherford Letters)
1676  They prize their bodies above their eternity in heaven; this silly clay house above that building of God. ( J. D. Sermon for the Funeral Lady Armyne)
1767   Marsh land, of a light, silly, hungry soil. (Sir R. Colville in R. Dossie Memoirs of agriculture)

Are abused women often seen as lacking in significance or value? Yes! And they are often in poverty because of the financial abuse their abusers have wreaked on them.

3. b) Weak, feeble, frail; lacking strength, size, or endurance (of people).

1574   Why raungest thou then through so many thynges O silie man? (St. Avstens Manuell in Certaine Prayers S. Augustines Medit.)
1633   Thou onely art The mightie God, but I a sillie worm. (G. Herbert The temple; sacred poems and private ejaculations)

Are abused women weak, feeble, frail, lacking in strength or endurance? Quite often they are, due to the accumulation of trauma and financial, social, medical, legal barriers that they’re facing.

Are women typically less strong than men? Yes.

3. d) Sickly, ailing, in poor health; weak or feeble due to illness or infirmity.

1636  To doe the thing we can to please..this silly sickly man. (A. Montgomerie Cherrie & Slae)

Can abused women be sickly, ailing, in poor health, weak or feeble due to illness or infirmity? Most certainly. Think of all the auto-immune disorders which many abused women have from the constant stress of being abused.

4. That provokes sympathy or compassion; that is to be pitied; unfortunate, wretched.

1641   What is poore, and silly man alone, but a very scrich-owle, and satyre. (J. Jackson True Evangelical Temper)
1680   I might have trusted him with all the secret, Open’d my silly heart and shewn it bare. (T. Otway The Orphan)
1723   Good wife, for your Courtesie, Will ye lodge a silly poor Man. (A. Ramsay Tea-table Misc.

Does an abused women deserve sympathy and compassion? Yes.

Is an abused woman to be pitied? It depends on what you mean by pity. So long as ‘pity’ does not connote the idea of patronizing her from a haughty distance without really helping her, then yes, she deserves pity.

5. a) Simple, rustic; lacking sophistication or refinement; (hence) ignorant, uneducated.

1547   The silly herdman all astonnied standes. (Earl of Surrey tr. Virgil Certain Bks. Aenæis)
1597   To make the sillie people belieue that the contrarie is maintained by the Bishops. (R. Hooker Of Lawes Eccl. Politie )
a1633   Socrates..found Philosophy in silly Trades-men. (G. Herbert Priest to Temple)

Are abused women often simple, rustic, lacking in sophistication, ignorant and uneducated about the ways of abusers and evildoers? Yes; often it is due to the conditioning they have received from their family / society / church.

5. b) Of humble rank or status; lowly.

1607   Little thought shee that silly man that sate there..was the Sauiour of the worlde. (S. Hieron Discovery of Hypocrisie)
1647    The siliest and simplest being wronged, may justly speake in their owne defence. (T. Fuller Good Thoughts in Worse Times)

Are abused women of humble rank? Yes; quite often they are. While abuse occurs in all demographics, research shows that poorer women suffer it more. (And what is the chicken or the egg in that correlation?)

Are abused women of low status? The vast vast majority of them are, not least because of all the stigma they suffer when they report the abuse, leave the abuser, divorce the abuser.

5. c) Of a thing (concrete or abstract): plain, simple, uncomplicated; rustic, homely. 

1570   David had no more but a sylie slynge, and a few stones. (J. Foxe Actes & Monumentes)
1587   Consider how the silie netts of those Fishermen drew the pride of the world..to beleeve. (Sir P. Sidney & A. Golding tr. P. de Mornay Trewnesse Christian Relig.)
1798   The silly buckets on the deck.., I dreamt that they were fill’d with dew. (S. T. Coleridge The Ancient Mariner)

Are abused women plain, simple, uncomplicated, homely? Often they are. Generally speaking, abused women are not devious like abusive men are. Most abused women are truthful persons who lack guile and often they just aspire to be good wives and to care faithfully for their families. “Plain, simple, uncomplicated, homely” is a pretty good description of the women that abusive men target for abuse. A skilled male offender sees a plain, simple, homely woman as an easy target.

Take home message

Paul was most likely conveying that abused women deserve sympathy and empathy for the underserved suffering they have endured. Paul was probably indicating that we ought to feel compassion for these women, recognising that they worthy and good people, but relatively powerless and weak against the crafty tactics of abusers and their allies.

***

Here is my previous post on ‘little women’ in 2 Timothy 3:6 – “Little women” have been called “silly women” which now contributes to misogyny in the church

I am not capable of assessing the value of the following, but I’m putting it here out of interest. 
2 Timothy 3:6 (Jonathan Mitchell New Testament)

for you see, forth from out of the midst of these folks are the people repeatedly slipping-in, into the houses, (or: worming their way into households) and habitually leading into captivity little women [note: this is the diminutive of “women, ” thus, perhaps: women of undeveloped character, ability, or inward stature. While the word for “woman” is feminine, the noun “little women” and the following participles are neuter – or neutral – so this rare word may be a figure for what was a cultural view for “feminine” aspects of all people, e.g., their feelings and emotions, or general receptive qualities]

Women’s Independence Scholarship Program

 

Women’s Independence Scholarship Program (WISP)

 

 

Scholarship overview:  This scholarship is for women who have survived intimate partner abuse and have been separated from their abuser for a minimum of one year. Applicants must be full or part-time students interested in attending accredited programs at educational institutions such as state supported community colleges, state supported colleges or universities, technical/vocational schools, private colleges or universities, or for profit schools. Women who have been parted from their batterers for more than five years may also apply. However, funding for these individuals may be limited. Special consideration will be given to those interested in using their education to further the rights of, and options for, women and girls.

Click on link above for more details.

 

***

We want to thank the person who pointed us to this scholarship.