Xrlq pointed me to a thread at Hugo Schwyzer's blog about Bible versions and submission as commanded in Ephesians 5. The comment thread is very interesting, but they get stuck because the only options they consider are that the passage is misconstrued and that it doesn't really mean that wives should submit to their husbands, or that the passage is nonsense and demonstrates that the Bible is stupid and sexist. However, as I wrote regarding marriage and submission previously, the reason secularists and politically correct Christians don't understand the passage is because they don't see how it can be both "sexist" and good at the same time.
First, Xrlq argues that it's absurd for the Bible to say that a wife should worship her husband just as the church worships Christ. That would be absurd, so it's good the Bible doesn't say that. It only says that a wife is supposed to submit her husband as the church submits to Christ. That submission is based on the wife's reverence for Christ, not based on the magnificence of the husband. Further, the husband is commanded to live his wife just as Christ loved the church, not because the wife is super-fantastic, but because of the husband's reverence for Christ. Our worship of God dictates our relationships to our fellow human beings.
Second, the real controversy seems to be based on the belief that the one who submits is somehow "less" than the one in authority. As I quoted in my previous post, that's just not the case. Jesus himself taught on the matter of authority and said:
Luke 22:24-2724 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."
Jesus came to earth to submit to evil men and be killed, not to rule as a king. Anyone who worries about being in charge and having earthly authority reveals that they care more for worldly things than spiritual. Humility should guide both husbands and wives in everything. Each should love the other, and each should submit to the other, but special instruction is given here to each partner to teach them what manner of behavior is pleasing to God. Anyone who knows both men and women can attest that we are different, so it should be no surprise that God treats us differently in marriage.
Finally, perhaps more husbands should strive to be worthy of submission, and perhaps more wives should strive to be worth dying for.
Nicely done, Michael; your concluding sentence is dead on.
I think the real issue is that too many folks confuse submission and being submissive. Great post.
Finally, perhaps more husbands should strive to be worthy of submission, and perhaps more wives should strive to be worth dying for.
Amen, brother.
At times in Christianity, the wife was treated pretty much as a slave. Wives often were expected to submit to abuse by their husbands, or to never question their husband's judgment, concepts far gone from Christianity.
I always thought of "submission" as being more of a deference to authority than anything else-- the man is "in charge" but that doesn't mean the woman has no say in anything. The wife's role is an "advise and consent" role, which does give the husband an advantage over her; but women already have so many advantages over men that this only serves to balance things out.
The real rub here is that since the man has the leadership role, he is responsible for the way he carries it off. He will be judged according to his position. That is huge.
Also there is an interesting thing that happens. As the husband loves his wife even close to how Christ loved the church, she is way more likely to revere him and be willing to submit. Likewise, as she acts in a submissive way and reveres him (even when he isn't worthy of either), he is much more likely to love her. Its a circle.
Well MY man knows he better submit or some slapping will be crackin' the air.
The relationship of husband and wife is a mutual one--one that calls for great sacrifice by both husband and wife. I see guys quote to "submission" verse very selectively, and missing the part about how a husband must be willing to sacrifice for his wife. It is supposed to be a two-way street; too many guys are looking for justification for being a tyrant.
For a marriage to work well, husband AND wife must work very hard to get past selfishness. There are enough difficult adjustments in a marriage, especially in the first few years.
Woe to you, chief priests and teachers of the law!
Don't you understand that you must submit to your wives before you can enter the kingdom of heaven? That you have to give up your idolatrous desire to rule your family and possess earthly authority before you can be like the little children Jesus welcomed? You quote Scripture without understanding its radical implications, because you won't let the Holy Spirit open your eyes.
Chris,
You're correct in saying that Michael will also have to submit to his wife as he is obligated to do per Ephesians 5:18-21. Yet, I really don't think that Michael expressed any sort of idolatrous desire to rule his family and possess earthly authority. His authority over his wife is God-given. (See Genesis 3:16, 1 Peter 1-7 and Ephesians 5.) I believe Michael has a good understanding of Scripture and that you needed more evidence of sin and a closer knowledge of Michael before unleashing an open rebuke against him. Please let me know if I've misread or misunderstood your comments, but I felt compelled to respond.
Megan, under no definition of "submit" can one lord it over another human being in the way some Christians believe men should wield authority over their wives. Paul gets it right sometimes, and sometimes he falls prey to his own misogyny. Christ himself, however, presents a radical vision in which the first are last—so it will be with all the men who wield authority over their wives.
As for Genesis 3:16, this is a curse, not a divine ordination of what should be. Shall I go out in a field and sweat for hours before every meal so that I can literally fulfill God's curse on me as a man?
Christ made it clear that we cannot be saved through obedience to the law. Why then do you continue to preach it? Embrace the spirit of the Luke passage quoted above, be fools for Christ, overturn your earthly binaries that tell you when to submit and when to wield power. Don't come up with creative ways to justify living by the old strictures, the old Sabbaths that Christ disobeyed to show their worthlessness. You are not to be like that.
The problem starts when you have a power-centered worldview, when you believe that life's proper goal is to have power over others and avoid letting others have power over you, or when you view human relationships as primarily defined according to who is controlling whom. If that's your starting point, then the Bible passages in question won't make much sense to you---and neither will many other important truths.
I suspect that this power obsession is inborn in a certain percentage of the population, and is learned in childhood by others. No doubt Nietche, Marx, and their heirs (such as feminists) have contributed to this obsession among intellectuals in modern times.
There's no driving people out of it; if you try to convince someone that there's more to life than power, they'll only think you're up to some clever ploy to put them off their guard. (e.g.: You may think that you want limit abortion to save babies. But no! It's really a devious plot to subjugate women!)
There's no helping them. You just have to leave the power-obsessed to their small and unhappy little worlds.
For the rest of us, it's enough to observe that power over others or obedience from others is much more of a burden than a benefit for anyone with a conscience.
It's quite interesting to read everyone's perspective. I won't enter into the conversation since everyone is saying everything much more eloquently than I could on this topic. I think both sides are presenting their views well. I'll continue to read this debate; it's fascinating.
Chris, if you're not going to hold the word of God as fully inspired, inerrant and authoratative then our conversation is moot.
I suspect that this power obsession is inborn in a certain percentage of the population, and is learned in childhood by others. No doubt Nietche, Marx, and their heirs (such as feminists) have contributed to this obsession among intellectuals in modern times.
I think this power obsession comes from real men and women who are hurt in real situations in their real lives. This isn't some abstract discussion involving philosophers and political theorists to love or hate.
Megan, I'm sorry that you're unwilling to talk to people who disagree with you. I don't recall Christ demanding the same submission to doctrinal standards when he sat down to talk with the Samaritan woman. But then, if you're not committed to following Christ's example of radical love and acceptance, I guess our conversation is moot, huh?
Chris - way to make people desire to discuss issues with you.
Back to the topic -- if one is going to look at the marital relationship as a power struggle, then one is going to have a tough time in marriage. That's all I've got to say.
Chris T: "I think this power obsession comes from real men and women who are hurt in real situations in their real lives."
I agree. Many people become power-obsessed because they're tormented by someone else who is power-obsessed.
"This isn't some abstract discussion involving philosophers and political theorists to love or hate."
Many people endure that kind of torment, yet don't become obsessed with power. A philosophy or political theory oriented around power can certainly tip that balance. Examples of this in liberal thought abound. Whether it's sex, race, sexual orientation, or anything else, the template is the same: You are oppressed! Rise up and strike down your oppressors!
I know people who have lived very sad lives under the yoke of that vile philosophy, and I know others who lived through much worse childhoods but never adopted a power obsession. Philosophy matters in the real world.
Chris- I'm hurt by your comments. You don't even know me and you're questioning my commitment to Christ. Please withhold your judgment from me. I was simply stating that it doesn't make sense for us to debate whether Michael's post holds true to the teachings of Christ, if we disagree over what constitutes the teachings of Christ. If you feel that I've sinned against you by insulting or offending you, I apologize.
I don't mean to be overly critical, but Chris, your seem to focus solely on following Jesus' personal example only - which I have a hard time saying is a bad thing. On the other hand, it seems as though you are almost militant in your way of discussion and presentation. I am not an expert in the matter, but if you are truly trying to discuss or educate or win over others to your ways of thought, that is the worst way to do it. However, if you are trying to force others to submit to your way of thinking without question, then are going about the right way.
I have always looked at the old testament as mostly history and prophesy leading up to the time of Jesus, and then looked at the new testament as a new way of living by Jesus' examples and teachings. I guess I have always looked at all of the new testament as a whole as the way Jesus wanted us to live. Maybe I have misunderstood you or what you were trying to convey.
I am no master of the bible, though I have done a fair amount of learning and reading both the bible and about the bible. If you believe the bible is divinely inspired, then you would accept all of the teachings of the bible as a whole and take them all into consideration when making life decisions.
Jesus was solely focused on loving and teaching his fellow man, his fathers creation. His entire purpose as I understand it was to serve that focus and save us all from our own sins. Jesus was to love and sacrifice through death to show love and to justify our salvation. The rest of the new testament was to help teach us how to function aside from that. It is to remind us that we must live, and work, and do things in this world without being of this world.
Jesus taught us to come before him as children and submit to him. As you said, he also taught us that the first will be last and the last will be first. I take this to mean I should serve my wife and she hopefully will try to serve me. It's a mentality and a way of living.
In life, we must have leaders and followers. People are born with different amounts of these traits. Jesus commanded us to follow the law and obey our leader's because they are in authority over us. We should not disobey Jesus' teaching in order to follow our leaders, but otherwise we should follow them. In much the same way, the bible sets up a leadership role in marriage and lays the burden of responsibility on the man to take up the leadership role. But again, this does not mean we go against Jesus' teaching us to be servants.
We as men should lead and serve and love our wives. And I love the quote above:
"Finally, perhaps more husbands should strive to be worthy of submission, and perhaps more wives should strive to be worth dying for."
I am long winding so forgive me for such a long post. The posts above are wonderful and give many good points. I very much enjoyed reading them.
Don't forget that the command is to the woman, not the man. There is no way a man can/should demand submission. It has nothing to do with the man, it is the woman's job.
I would never demand/require my husband to love me as Christ loved the church. I shouldn't. Let's each keep our eyes on our own jobs, and not worry about the job your spouse is not doing.
And maybe we could be a little more greatful for what our spouse IS doing. The husband is usually able to be greatful, the wife is usually the one dissatisfied.