Since there is disagreement amongst serious Bible scholars, it seems cruel to impose, with Piper, the most restrictive of the interpretations as if the issue were, indeed, crystal clear. It's not crystal clear. Hence the disagreements. Nevertheless, guys with happy marriages sit on their high and mighty thrones making ex-cathedra pronouncements on real-life situations that the scriptures don't address. There are other scriptural principles that apply in some cases--like one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore a woman has a moral obligation to do whatever she needs to do in order to avoid being beaten. I know of a woman who locked her intoxicated husband out of the house in the winter time--it taught him a lesson and dried him out. She was not being submissive. Separation with gradual renewed contact, with each parameter negotiated can be healing to a relationship. There is also the HIV issue. Scriptural ethics are meant to be followed. One extreme is obedience only as long as it doesn't cause inconvenience--not legitimate. The other extreme--rigid absolutes with utter disregard of consequences is also not legitimate. Is there not some middle ground, some room to discuss the various ethical principles that bear on any particular case?

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia