Submission
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.
Col 3:18-19
A close friend of mine challenged some friends and I to the question of Christian submission. I have been thinking about it for the past few days and this is what I've come up with.
Imagine that marriage is like a car driving down the road of life. Now imagine that the car had 2 steering wheels. What a great concept! One could sleep while the other drove, One could navigate...you get the concept.
Now imagine that a huge crevice appears in the road in front of you. Which person should avoid the obstacle? What if both people turned the wheel in opposite directions and you fall straight into the hole?
Lets discuss this :)
Thought up by Tmproff at 11:33 AM
26 People Talking:
then again, is cooperation necessarily synonymous with submission? personally i don't think so. i think that the submission thing in the bible is true, and i have a somewhat "old fashioned" way of viewing the family, because i believe that the man should usually be the one working and the woman should raise the children (this is the point at which i get attacked by politically correct fiends). but i don't believe in submission. no one should have full control of the steering wheel. but you should talk about which way to turn before you wrench the wheel.
Not all problems have a clear solution. Sometimes you dont have time to properly discuss and analyze something.
Sometimes you have to trust that the other person has your best interests as heart when they take action.
what matters exactly should a woman be submissive in, in your opinion, and what matters should she retain control over?
i only partially agree with you. if any sex should submit to another i think women should submit to men in matters of money, etc. but i think huge decisions that require foresight need to be discussed and that the input of both husband and wife should be weighed equally. marriage is more of a partnership than a dominion, even if the women is not a slave or doormat. there are many relationships in life that work equally well when both members have equal power, just in some areas one has control, and in others, the other. but i don't agree with what confuscious said about relationships and power.
also, if both members of a relationship trust each other, and the wheel must be wrenched, then it seems in some matters one would wrench it, and in some the other. and that those situations should be agreed upon beforehand.
Good discussion... I would add, read Ephesians 5, all of it, starting even before "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church", where it says to "submit to one another"; that mutual submission is a HUGE part of the formula.
so if you turn one steering wheel left, the other one has to turn left as well, so the person who has the greater strength to move the vehicle/relationship will be in control of where the vehicle moves because the other person will be overruled by strength
Unfortunately, I see many marriages that work this way.
Sometimes it takes your full strength (sometimes more than you have alone) to avoid a crevice in the road. If you have someone fighting your decision, you might still fall in even if you do everything in your power to avoid it.
I totally agree that marriage should be the biggest act of servanthood between 2 people.
The big question to me is this:
Why did God feel it was important to show us the importance of a "one head" relationship?
Also, I totally debunked my own analogy tonight....cars might not have 2 steering wheels, but airplanes DO have 2 yokes.
But continuing on with that, airplanes have a pilot and a copilot. Both definatly have access to navigating the plane, but they both also know their roles and responsibilities.
The pilot isn't necessairly any stronger,smarter...etc than the copilot. The difference is that only one can be hired as the pilot.
This is topic I could talk forever on (hopefully I won't in this post), because I'm still wrestling with it. Before my wife and I were married, we went through a premarital counseling course. Over the course of several months we sat down with an older couple and went through a book that covered things like finances, communication, sex, planning the wedding, etc. It was good for us to sit down and talk openly about our expectations and work through some stuff. At our last session, a month or so before the wedding, they go through some last-minute planning details, and then we turn the page.
"Submission."
This books point of view was, essentially, the husband always has the trump card. He has the final say. We didn't exactly um... agree... with this point of view.
I understand the Pauline directives on submission and authority in marriage. But I have to wonder how people can hermeneutically "contextualize out" the need for Christian women to have long hair and never wear jewelry, but leave intact the verses on submission. When it comes to long hair or head coverings or women speaking in church in the Epistles, we confidently explain that "Paul (or whoever) was writing to specific culture with specific roles for women, and that wasn't necessarily God's instruction for all time." When it comes to submission, though, we lay it on thick. No cultural awareness or discussion of Paul's own biases, just black and white "Do what it says." I think it's unfair to slap down Col. 3:18-19 and Eph. 5 as "God's Rules About Marriage." What about Proverbs 31? What about the women who served Christ with Paul? What about Jesus' radical treatment of women?
Dave wrote, "I would postulate that most of the women in marriages would be more than happy not to have to lead the relationship and happy to surrender many of those details to men if they were confident and secure that the man in question is going to do things leaving her more secure, loved and free to do what she truly does best. In my opionion many times that I've seen women having a problem with the idea of submission have either had a very bad expereince or they simply do not respect their husband."
I would have to disagree. Even the best-intentioned man is going to fail. When that happens, he needs a check in his life, a wife who will stand up to him. If she has been continually browbeaten into submission (either overtly or subtly, whether by her husband or by the Church), how will she be able to function as that check and balance? And what if the thing she "truly does best" is lead? God does not withhold leadership giftings from people simply because they are women. Are women only allowed to use their leadership gifts in ladies' small group or a Sunday School class? Why not in the home? To use the original analogy... what if the woman is the better driver? I think that's the case more often than we realize. Men are hot-headed, impulsive. We don't signal, we don't follow the speed limit, we cut people off. In a crisis situation (or driving in New York City), I would trust my own driving over my wife's... but in normal, day to day driving, she might actually function better than I do.
I think there are plenty of women who respect their husbands but don't feel comfortable with submission for the same reasons an African-American may respect a white person but feel uncomfortable with Bible verses on slaves respecting their masters. As a white male, I've never been subjected to the systemic oppression that women or minorities have been. Maybe we need some radical course-correction to rectify the wrongs that have been perpetrated in the name of Biblical submission.
There I've done it again. Wrote a whole freaking book when I didn't mean to.
hjyjhp
i agree with all of the above... people seem very selective about which parts of the bible are taken literally. for instance, when it comes to divorce the bible says that marrying a divorced woman is like committing adultry. but now in our culture this is not what most christians think. the world has changed in 2000 years, and some parts of the bible i think must be taken for their religious meaning more than their literal meaning.
People can argue that slavery/ submission should be a thing of the past, but I believe there is still relevance to this scripture.
I have tried to avoid using gender in any of my comments so far. I am not condoning male surpremacy. I just want to understand the meaning behind this.
I think perhaps the greatest issue here is acknowledging that men and women are of equal worth. If we all believe that to be the case, it will help this submission question, to be sure.
Jon... thanks for pointing out that this is a good thing to openly discuss with your partner before any major commitment.
Anonymous... you have to use gender in this analysis, that's really what this is about, but thanks for your commentary just the same.
I recently read opposing viewpoints on the question of submission and looked up the Greek meanings and contexts of this concept. That helped me; and of course brought up more questions, but the questions lead to a greater depth of exploration.
I would postulate that most of the women in marriages would be more than happy not to have to lead the relationship and happy to surrender many of those details to men if they were confident and secure that the man in question is going to do things leaving her more secure, loved and free to do what she truly does best.
I know I'm just grabbing this out of the middle of the discussion, but I agree with this. In my personal life, sometimes I wish someone else could take the lead instead of just me all the time having to rely on myself. I think it would be a relief. Like when I'm in a social situation, I don't want to be the one leading the group walking down the sidewalk or driving the lead car to the restaurant.
That said, I'm not shy about letting my opinion be known. But as a single woman I think it would be nice to let someone else take care of some things for once.
I remember a female friend of mine recounted a time she was eating at a Chinese restaurant with several friends. All of them were women except for one man sitting there. One of the other women asked the man to say the blessing over the meal. My female friend felt slighted because it seemed the only reason this person was asked to say grace was because he was a man.
Jennifer, do you think your preference for not wanting to lead is a function of gender, or personality? I know plenty of men who feel the same way, and plenty of women who feel the opposite.
Also, I think the idea of "men leading" should be separated out into "general leadership" (socially, politically, whatever) and "marriage leadership" (Biblical submission). You might change your mind, Jennifer, if once you're married you feel your husband is trying to control every aspect of your life.
Jon, you make a good point about my preference possibly being a personality thing, not a gender thing. I am more introverted by nature. But I've also been told I can be a good leader (though a reluctant one). Saying women are outright more followers would be erroneous.
I definitely don't think it would be easy to submit to a man. Esp. considering my screwed up relationship with my dad. I've got a lot to work out there ... but I'm just saying sometimes it would be nice to let someone else take the lead. And I think men almost have an obligation (???) to do that.
I know that's a dangerous last statement ...
i think they do have more of a societal obligation than women, that's been pretty obvious throughout history, but roles are changing lately... and there are some cultures (ie native american ones/quakers) where women have always been more in charge.
I am reading a book called Men and Women in the Church by Dr. Sarah Sumner right now, and she has an interesting take on this:
In Eph 5:21-33 it talks about how Christ is the head of the church...(go read it please) and she groups the subject matters into 3 categories:
1. Body/Head
2. Submission/Sacrifice
3. Respect/Love
Dr Sumners explains that we always "mix" the meanings. For example, it is common to associate the submission with head when it should relate to sacrifice. Also, the term "head" in this scripture is kephale in Hebrew, and when translated is the anatomical name for someone's head. It has no reference to leadership.
She has some other interesting observations that I don't necessairly agree with, but it's good to hear perspectives other than my own (thats why I love you guys so much!)
There is another meaning for the Greek word "kefale" that I have heard bandied about by various people - "Source," as in the head of a river, or source of a river. I'm no Greek scholar, so don't take this as Gospel truth, but it's a provocative reading of 1 Cor. 11: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
We could break down in (theoretically) three different ways:
1. The authority of every man is Christ, and the authority of the woman is man, and the authority of Christ is God."
2. The physical head (which, interestingly enough, Strong's says is "is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment." Maybe that's the sacrificial usage?) of every man is Christ, and the physical head of the woman is man, and the physical head of Christ is God."
3. The source of every man is Christ (see Acts 17:28), and the source of the woman is man (Adam and Eve), and the source of Christ is God."
Could all three of those be valid ways of reading that scripture? Maybe Paul was being a little punny in his usage?
Verse 11 is also worth looking at: "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."
Excellent post Jon. I have heard that it can be translated as source as well (which can make sense).
We can also use the term "subordinate". For example, we are all subordinate to firemen/doctors/police when they are doing their job. Yet, they do not rule over us...they are not superior to us.
Jon, I have loved reading your insights and thoughts on this subject matter. I do have some theological issues with the idea of "God being the source of Christ" which seems to infer an inequality I am uncomfortable with as far as Scripture is concerned. I am not trying to put words into your mouth, so correct me if that inference was not what you intended.
I guess I just have one question about all of this discussion... How do you fit in the Biblical concept of two becoming one flesh, one entity, with this whole need for someone to be the head of the relationship?
I'm afraid this may turn into a book again... so feel free to skip it. :-)
Ashlee, I think your theological qualms with that interpretation led me a minor epiphany. There's a local Greek Orthodox Church I've done some work for, and in one of many conversations with the priest (a highly educated man), the history of the "Great Schism" (split between Eastern and Western Christianity came up. In 589 A.D. a Council added the phrase "And From the Son" describing the origin of the Holy Spirit. Religionfacts.com describes it like this: "In Christian theology and creeds, the Son is 'eternally begotten' of the Father. This means that the Son is somehow caused or generated by the Father but not created or begotten in a chronological sense, since the two are both eternal. But how to understand the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son? In the Eastern Church, the Spirit is described as proceeding from the Father. Like 'begotten,' this term both recognizes the Father as the source and indicates an eternal, ongoing relationship. This was the phrase used in the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381). In the Western Church (Catholicism and Protestantism), however, the Spirit is described as proceeding from the Father and the Son." The Eastern Church felt that it relegated the Holy Spirit to a subordinate place and rejected that theology.
That was a slight tangent, so here's the meat of what I wanted to say:
I think, scripturally speaking, it's accurate to describe God as the "source" of Jesus. While both are eternal, We read in John's Gospel that God "sent" His son, meaning that God is the source of the Incarnation. We also read several instances where Jesus describes His obedience to the Father. (John 4, in the Garden of Gethsemane, etc.)
This concept of complete equality coupled with functional authority and submission might be the goal of marriage. Like you said, Ashlee, the Bible talks of the two becoming one flesh, but also speaks of submission. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are completely One, but Jesus (on earth) still submitted to the Father. But everything the Father instructed Jesus to do was, in essence, Jesus' own instructions, because he and the Father are one in every sense.
That is the goal of marriage... where the husband is functionally "leading," but every decision is a mutual decision "by the very nature of things." It's almost as if no one were leading because every decision is so unified.
Unfortunately, this utopian ideal hasn't been realized in my 8 months of marriage, so we're working towards what Tony Campolo calls "the democratic family" - one person, one vote. And, in the highly likely event of a 50/50 split, we just talk through it.
Okay Jon, you know if we could comment on your blog you could share some of these essays there!!! Just kidding, of course!
Thank you for clearing up the intended meaning behind God being the source of Jesus. As far as God "sending" Jesus to earth I can operate under that premise. The thing I wanted to avoid was an inequality in the relationship or a belief that God "created" Jesus thus saying there was a time that Jesus did not exist. (There now you aren't the only one with a tangent, are you?)
I think part of the problem is that we tend to only think of the one flesh Scriptures in the context and realm of the physical. That is letting us off way too easy in my opinion.
I guess I just don't even see why we have to say that men are "functionally" the leaders or heads of the marriage. Why does there have to be a "functional" leader?
When I look at the relationship between Jesus (while He was on earth) and God, I see a practical example of operating as one flesh. Jesus always had the choice to do it His own way, to give in to temptation, to avoid the crucifixion. All of those choices He was faced with He could have taken and operated ON HIS OWN. But instead He submitted Himself to the plan set in motion, by Him, from the very beginning of time. He operated as One.
Being a Christian is submission. I think when we take the idea of submission and simply (and often times only) apply it to the marriage relationship, we have missed the bigger picture.
The goal of becoming one flesh in a marriage is not primarily to make the same decisions. The goal is hopefully to becoming one flesh submitting to the authority and Lordship of Christ. Through submission, Christ has authority in our lives. When you, as one flesh, submit to the authority of Christ; He has authority of your marriage. Hopefully our ultimate goal as Christians...
Sorry, I guess the book syndrome is contagious....
What a topic! I was directed here by Ashlee's blog, so I may have arrived when the conversation already ended...
In one of the comments that Jon made, I understood him to say that the idea of submission came in at the end of the premarital counseling. That was also the case for Daniel and I. It may not be a coincidence. I know that in our case, we didn't have much to discuss on the topic at that time. We both "knew" and accepted the verses, but we had nothing more than idealistic picture of how they play out practically. The ideas we had were something like Daniel would be valiant and chivalrous, and I would be charmed and supportive. During counseling, we nodded away at our understanding of the topic.
So, I think Christian submission AND Christian honor are thrown in at the end because they are so complex and deep, they must be explored with experience.
Daniel and I have been married six months now, and we now have situations to refer to where these issues come up. In the comments, a few people talked about both spouses having equal say/authority. But in practical terms, if both spouses have one vote, then when you disagree there is a tie. And some issues aren't compromise friendly- they are yes/no....like where to go for vacation; what to spend extra money on.
We had questions for the same more experienced couples that counseled us before marriage. The simple thing that they helped us realize is that submission isn't a mechanical thing, and neither is authority or leadership. They are goverened by respect, honor, and love. The woman's submission isn't slavery, it is voluntary respect for her husband. And the husband's leadership isn't to be a tyrant, but he has a great responsibility to take his wife's happiness and welfare into account out of love.
It helped us to understand it better, but we can really only learn more through experience.
Lisa,
Thank you very much for your insight into this. This conversation is far from over I'm sure, you commented at a great time!
The majority of the people that have commented up till now have been single. We have opinions on the matter, but no pratical experience to back it up.
Before I started this blog entry, I really hadn't given this subject any deep thought...I knew the scripture, but I tried to avoid it...I thought it was ludicrous to treat a woman like that.
I'm sure that this conversation will continue, but I'd like to thank everyone who has commented on this. I have learned from them all.
R.C. Sproul Wrote:
This passage should put to rest once and for all the myth that marriages are to be fifty-fifty. I can’t think of a worse scenario for a marriage than to have the authority in that relationship divided equally. When two people are together like that, then nobody has any authority. You are in a perpetual power-struggle where one is trying to get control of 51% of the stock. And that can be exceedingly destructive to a family.
I think there is a lot of truth to this. Husband or Wife, I think its important that there is a pre-communicated "plan" for situations where both disagree.
I remember our pre-marital counselors explaining to us that they followed the "Christian principle of submission," meaning the man had the final say. We pressed them to come up with an instance where he explicity went against what his wife's desires to do what he thought was best. Neither one of them could give us an example.
in the few months before my wedding, I asked several other people who claimed to practice "Biblical submission" for instances of that happening... and no one could give me one.
While I'm certain there are less-than-scrupulous men out there who could give me plenty of examples (which is why the whole thing frustrates me), maybe for many couples the point is moot. They believe the Bible, but in practice they just always work things out.
I'm glad this discussion has moved away from analogies...I think marriage is too intricate and individual for analogies to do any justice.
At the risk of sounding naive or simplistic, I think that if we, as individuals and as a married couple, have the right focus, submission is not much of an issue. If we are focused on God first, I really don't think there's any room for submission to come up. Now, I understand that sometimes the issue revolves around God's plan or will, but I think in that case, other sources must be considered (prayer, other people, etc.).
Furthermore, I think that if trust in the other person and putting the other person first are in place, submission is also not an issue. If I put my husband's needs and well-being above my own, and I trust that my husband is doing the same, then submission is not an issue.
I guess I see submission as being lesser than love. To me, it's like a Ten Commandments thing. Yes, the Ten Commandments are important as guidelines for life, but I don't really stress about them because I am more focused on love and following Christ, and the Ten Commandments necessarily follow.
Not to say that any of these things are easy or my natural tendency, but that's just one of those things that I work on, and that we work on.
Post a Comment
<< Home