Compassion or Appearances?

The tragic story of Ronke Bewaji Shonde, the lady who was allegedly murdered by her husband in a fit of rage, has been trending and people are understandably very moved by the circumstances of her demise.

Many people have given their 2 cents and a recurring theme has been the role of her pastors and other advisers who told her to persevere in the face of persistent physical abuse. I don’t claim to know the conversations she had with her pastor, I don’t even know if the pastor was privy to the problems in the marriage. None of us knows for sure if the decision to hold on wasn’t solely the victim’s. That said, I would disagree strenuously with anyone who gives advice that places a woman in harm’s way just because you feel the need to protect ‘the home’.

As a Christian, I do wonder if telling a woman to stay and persevere in an abusive situation all in the name of maintaining the sanctity of the ‘marriage’ actually reflects the Person of Christ. When I read the Gospels, one thing that resonates with me about Jesus’s encounters with people (especially women) is His overarching compassion for their circumstances. Take the case of the woman who was caught in adultery and about to be stoned to death; the gruesome truth about her situation was that death by stoning was the prescribed punishment in Mosaic Law. The Pharisees were not breaking the Law by wanting to punish her and Jesus didn’t contest that fact as a fellow Jew. But He knew the real reasons behind their ‘righteous indignation’ – they weren’t interested in upholding morality, their anger wasn’t righteous – first, they wanted to entrap Jesus because they felt threatened by Him, and then they were also just hypocrites who had found someone that they felt superior to, someone who was unfortunate enough to get caught. He saw right through them and challenged their feelings of superiority by telling the one without sin to cast the first stone and of course, there was no one left to execute the punishment.

Jesus could have been pedantic and said “the Law is the Law” (the woman was not falsely accused from all indications) but He didn’t because He knew that compassion is more life changing than the rigid application of the law. He was more interested in preserving a life by showing mercy.

In His encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, He didn’t list out all the provisions of the law regarding her status as a woman who had been married 4 times, in fact as a Rabbi, He should not have even spoken to her. When the woman of questionable reputation poured perfume on him and washed His feet with her tears, He didn’t kick her away to maintain appearances as the spectators expected. When the woman with the issue of blood touched His garment, He wasn’t concerned about the fact she was in an ‘unclean’ state according to the provisions of the Law, He didn’t accuse her of defiling Him, rather He saw her need and addressed it. In fact, if anybody had the right to wave the law over these women and insist on a strict adherence to it, it should have been Christ because He was sinless. Was his failure to condemn them a result of His disregard for the Law? No, everyone marveled at his authority and knowledge whenever he preached, but he understood the intent of the Law and knew that God was/is not interested in a rigid external fulfillment of the law to the exclusion of mercy and justice. He said “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matthew 23:23)

So when a marriage becomes a dangerous arena for one of the parties involved, is it an act of mercy and compassion to coldly tell the abused person to stay and pray for change in the danger zone because God hates divorce? When a woman’s life is endangered in the name of a marriage, how does God get the glory? I wonder if the real reason for such advice is because we want to foster love and reconciliation or because we want to avoid the awkwardness and unpleasantness of a less than perfect marriage in the church. I wonder if the advisers are more concerned about keeping up appearances than the well-being of the concerned parties.

When a married woman is turned into a punching bag on a regular basis, can we say with all honesty, that the marriage is fulfilling divine purpose? Children who grow up seeing their mother regularly subjected to beatings and humiliation are not happy and well adjusted. A woman who lives in constant fear is definitely living below her God given potential.

Some people will say things like ‘seek the will of God in prayer’ but I don’t see how practical this is; in any case distance doesn’t negate prayer. We all have survival instincts and I believe it’s a gift from God because the life He gives is precious, so He has engineered us to instinctively preserve our well-being. The people who say ‘seek God’s will’ before attempting to preserve your life will not seek God’s will before looking right and left when crossing a road; if a deadly snake suddenly appeared on their path, they would not pause to pray about whether to kill the snake or flee. I don’t know how a woman in a dangerous marital situation is any different.

I know the Christian life is one of sacrifice and hard choices but God’s commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5v3). God knows that we are imperfect and we make bad choices but the fact that a woman, for whatever reason, made the decision to marry a violent man does not mean that she must pay for it with her life.