I recently saw a post about wifely submission online, which you can read here, along with some reactions to it on Facebook, which can best be described as yet another round of the vapors.
Now I grant that there were certain rhetorical aspects of the original post that were infelicitous, but the central one appeared to me to be the author’s assumption that she would be read by people who were in equal measures charitable and reasonable. Ah, but this is not so. That’s not the way the world works anymore, honey.
There are two things to get a grip on, which would be in addition to simply getting a grip.
The first is that the apostle Paul requires that wives submit to their husbands in everything. Not some things, or most things, but everything.
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Eph. 5:24, KJV).
The second is that a godly husband entrusts his affairs to his wife. He does not follow her up and down the aisles of the supermarket, telling her which can of beans is the best deal, or what to put into the basket next. Authority and submission in marriage do not require a command and control regime.
“The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.” (Proverbs 31:11, ESV).
So how are these two realities to be harmonized? Normal people have harmonized them for millennia, and it is only an era like ours that turns it into a stumper.
What this nice lady was obviously doing was telling us the story of what happened to her at the point of decision for her. In other words, that inadequately rinsed glass was a picture, a covenant representative, a symbol of the whole. In that moment, all the relational issues met. Anybody who thinks that she must believe that a godly marriage means getting approval from the husband on every rinsed glass has the same kind of mind as a husband who would actually try that.
I am reminded of the story told of Spurgeon, who was no friend of the invitation system, when told by an aristocratic lady who sniffed that a person did not need to “go forward” in order to become a Christian. “No,” Spurgeon replied, “but you do.”
In every marriage where the couple want to live in accordance with the pattern found in Ephesians 5 (and elsewhere throughout the Bible), there will inevitably be a testing point for them. Take one hundred couples at random, and there will be a hundred different testing points. If any of them tell the story afterward, because we live in a generation that is hostile to the whole enterprise, the story they tell will be deliberately misconstrued.
“You believe that only the husband can pump gas?” “You think that a woman has to get permission to get her hair done?” “You believe that women can’t write checks?” And so on.
You’d think life experience along with the popular books about micromanaging authority, weak authority, and good authority that knows when to delegate, take command, or encourage innovation we would see the parallel in marriage. But no, apparently the only option to a leader who is a cruel micromanaging tyrant is one who doesn’t lead at all. E I mean, seriously, have people not experienced both kinds of bad leader, the domineering and the weak, as well as the good kind of strong and empowering to not get the connection between that and marriage? It’s like they think authority is inherently… Read more »
People who oppose the marriage-submission line don’t believe that marriage needs a leader, good or bad.
That’s exactly his point — some people believe that any other relationship, in order to function, needs a certain structure in which all parties are not held equal in all respects.
But they lose their minds over it in marriage, going so far as to deny what the Bible says about it.
I have to say that blogging about submission and marriage is a brutal business and as much as I’d like to pin that on the culture, the non believers, the feminists, that road to hell has actually flat out been paved by Christians themselves. First there is the manosphere, the alt right, shrieking “women submit, women submit,” until one starts to believe Ephesians 5:22 is now the entire bulk of scripture. Then there is the BDSM community, and the red pills and pick up artists and assorted sexual perversonists, and than there are also the Proverbs 31 wives all to… Read more »
Links! Links! Links!
(What else am I going to do all day?)
I have a post scheduled this afternoon about this very issue that includes some links. https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/
I’m not sure what your critique of Dalrock’s article was. Do you support women being rewarded with greater amounts of cash/prizes for divorce/frivorce?
n8tdo66: there are a lot better things to do with your time
Do you not believe that faithful women whose husbands abandon them for someone else are entitled to financial support?
Yes yes yes and yes JB
I’d recommend ignoring her. She believes in submission as long as it it done exactly the way she thinks it should be. She writes about how submission is wonderful in her marriage. But when anyone else (who she has categorized as being less righteous and intelligent than she is) mentions submission, it is immediately considered that their support of submission is just a front for some kind of evil. The fact that there are some who abuse the concept seems to be justification to exaggerate their influence and suppose that anyone who mentions the topic must out to abuse and… Read more »
Yes, to all points. Is that not precisely what I have said over and over again, including in my comment on this blog?
Except this is not accurate, “But when anyone else (who she has categorized as being less righteous
and intelligent than she is) mentions submission, it is immediately considered that their support of submission is just a front for some kind of evil.”
Not “anyone.” I specifically call out those red pills who are mangling and perverting scripture.
Can you show me where I have mangled or perverted scripture regarding submission? On your blog or elsewhere?
I’m not in the habit of ignoring people. I like to listen. Even when I may disagree I think it helps me disagree better when I listen. Then I dont later end up tearing down a straw man because I’ve missed the argument. Lets submit to one another in the Lord. Lets not shout each other down or ignore each other. Lets give each other a fair hearing and agree to disagree when scripture isnt clear. Submission is right, but exactly what it looks like is not much explicitly elaborated on in scripture. We have many examples, though. Lets look… Read more »
You’re missing the much bigger problem the said groups are reacting to. When “conservative” Christians like Al Mohler say men have to “earn” their right to marital sex, and when men are blasted in sermon after sermon each Sunday (while women get nothing but praise), the “manosphere” reaction was bound to happen sooner or later. Aim your gun at the so-called complimentarians and white knights instead.
I’m not sure I completely agree with your critique of Mohler. First of all he usually has more to say about something than he says at any given time. He can be a bit long-winded in person. Thats sometimes a detriment. In this article he’s primarily addressing a porn culture. And I think his primary methods of earning marital sex is 1) be monogamous and 2) attempt, with some degree of fruit, to love her as Christ loves the church. Certainly the main thrust (no pun intended) is turning aside from the temptation of pornography. That said, I dont agree… Read more »
I don’t want to misrepresent your point, but it sounds to me like you are saying that nothing can be said, or at least it’s so close to true that nothing can be said that no one really ought dare to try, until all the possible wilful and unintentional misuses and abuses of what is said, are accounted for.
You have to start somewhere.
Good point, and it follows a very widespread tendency, which is to object to any general principle by appealing to one particular. For example, “men are stronger than women,” but … no, because Ronda Rousey is stronger than Bill Nye. etc.
I wish the original article to which Pastor Wilson linked had not used such a silly example. A woman who can’t be bothered to rinse the dishes properly is not being unsubmissive; she is being really dumb. Not just a husband but even a child ought to be able to say to her, Could you please rinse this, it is all soapy. And she should have be willing to rinse the glass, whoever asked her to do it. I don’t think wifely submission is primarily about deciding to do your household chores properly, as opposed to badly, because your husband… Read more »
Jill, that is exactly the point — 97 of those 100 testing points may seem silly. But for this woman, that was it. Would you have preferred that she make up something that didn’t happen?
Right on. It’s a test precisely because there’s no really good way to justify in her own mind WHY a stinkin’ single soap bubble matters so much. So, is she going to submit, or not? And the answer to jilly’s examples is, yes. But we have a Father to trust in who will not make our lives a nightmare as a result of obedience, and ways to handle genuinely being sinned against. We are also allowed to explain to our husbands why a certain request is unreasonable, and he may come around. If he is requiring something that utterly crushes… Read more »
Why should your husbands allow you to explain yourselves? Either submission means exactly what Wilson here says it does – constant, unconditional, immediate and complete obedience in absolutely everything — or it’s nothing. You’re either a doormat or a rebel, and I much prefer rebel.
Because the very same paragraph of scripture that tells wives to submit, tells husbands to love us as Christ loves the church.
Your premises are completely wrong. “You’re either a doormat or a rebel” isn’t true in any sphere of life, and there’s no logic behind the statement. But the larger problem is your simple refusal to heed the authority of scripture. Your arguments are meaningless to anyone who wishes to honor God.
If well-behaved women rarely make history, at least they don’t make false dilemmas.
If you only submit when you agree with your husband, you’re submitting to your own judgement, not to your husband. Just as love in a marriage is expressed in the little things as well as the big things, so is submission. In Martha’s case, the small annoyance of extra effort rinsing represented a much deeper issue.
No, of course not. But I think it would be possible, in reviewing one’s married life, to find an example of more meaningful submission. This woman submitted over something that she ought to have been doing in the first place–rinsing the glassware properly. For me, the test of submissiveness is not finally agreeing to do what you ought to have been doing in the first place. It is when two equal intelligences and two strong wills, husband and wife, disagree about something, and when a valid argument can be made for each side. The submissive wife yields to her husband’s… Read more »
But she wasn’t just looking for an example. She was describing a specific significant moment. No other example from her own story would have done. For her, that was the crisis point, the turning point.
And dishes will survive just fine and not do anybody any harm if not rinsed perfectly. I had a roommate who never rinsed them at all. I thought it was weird, but it didn’t kill me to eat off of them. ;^)
Ewwww. I am fanatical about my dishes, so maybe I simply can’t relate to this story!
Jellybean, what if you think women are the equals of men and that no human should ever submit to another based on their sex in a marriage? What if all decisions in a marriage are on the table for both partners to decide? Why does this terrify reformed christians?
We’re shaking in our boots over here.
As you aren’t a Christian, RandMan, and (presumably) do not have a Chistian wife, the discussion here does not concern you. This is an internal family matter, so you can keep your external opinions to yourself.
Unless RandMan thinks Christian women should submit to *his* view of things. That’d be rich.
Good rhetoric, but semantically quite an equivocation.
I will gladly take that as a compliment. *bows*
It’s hilarious how liberals/statists or whatever always have to project irrational emotions onto their opponents. We’re TERRIFIED. Oh my! Oh my! What are we going to do?!? *faints*
Haha! Enjoyed that. But yes, I stand by my diagnosis of fear. Group terror at the idea of women being in control of their own destiny… which seems a rational response to me considering the mandates of a bronze age text.
Your belief in some sort of secular “perfectibility” of mankind is quaint and precious. Not rational at all, but kinda cute in a way. I always wonder why your viewpoint should be crowned king and rule over people who disagree with you, but I’m not sure you’re up to the task.
I’ve never claimed secularism wasn’t tremendously difficult proposition. Just that the safety of delusion and superstition is not an acceptable trade-off. to me I believe in changing one’s mind as new data presents itself. Not saying: ‘god did it’ wiping your hands and calling case closed.
And somehow you are certain that secularism is *not* “delusion and superstition.” What great faith has this man!
I have never claimed to be a ‘secularist’. Maybe I am? But I have honestly never thought about it for one second. That is your tag. What I am actually saying Is: there is no evidence for a god. That to believe in a magical intercessory being is superstitious and delusional. I have faith in nothing. I am not afraid to say I don’t know. Why close the circle with ‘god’ merely to assuage one’s fears? I think it’ a cop out and a waste of a beautiful life.
Oh, and “group terror”: I guess that’s what you have to project if you imagine all disagreement with you as automatically invalid. I guess you’re king of the world. Who knew!
“Group terror at the idea of women being in control of their own destiny…”
Well Rand, I have seen that on the internet, I have seen some express exactly that. I have to say however, that is not something I have ever seen in churches or among believers or in husbands at all. The vast majority of Christian men are not the least bit interested in “controlling women’s destiny,” except perhaps to make sure we are protected, cared for, and reasonably happy.
I would disagree… respectfully. I see this insistence on biblical patriarchy as pursued by the Douglas Wilsons of this world as an attempt at control.
Having grown up within militant secularism, I have to tell you that biblical patriarchy is rather kind to women while secularism really can be all about power and control.
I realize you probably can’t see that, so all in good humor here, but I am actually surrounded by cameras, heavily fined if I get caught using a styrofoam coffee cup or a plastic grocery bag and patrolled on facebook for any evidence of bad thought. I literally seek refuge from secularism in biblical patriarchy, which is represented mostly by a rather kind husband and some brave churchian men.
Respectfully, where do live that ‘heavily fines you for using styrofoam and plastic bags.’? Who patrols you on Facebook? Either hyperbole or you may need to hire Gavin Debecker.
I can’t really answer that because it is not a teaching of my faith. But, in fairness to reformed Christians, the scripture passages calling for it do seem pretty clear. Nor do I think that the teaching implies inequality. If I have grasped it correctly, I could have 50 IQ points over my husband and I would still be expected to submit to his will. It is as if marriage is a dance, and the convention requires the man to lead, even if the woman is an infinitely better dancer. But I would also say that in many marriages I… Read more »
Yes, jillybean sigh, the scriptures calling for many questionable things are pretty clear. But many christians, even the reformed ignore some of the more ugly implications of their doctrine. I am from a reformed family and I understand the dynamic to a degree. My parents and siblings all practice it. Iworks for them but I personally find this exoskeleton of patriarchy unevolved. It is like a philosophical hijab that some women seem to enjoy wearing proudly… fine. But what about the young? The impressionable who are told that they MUST subject themselves in/to marriage to a man or they are… Read more »
So I take it you don’t think your wife should stop earning money and stay at home and just do the dishes?
Not sure exactly your point. That it’s about money? Money is not an issue for us. We could live on either of our incomes alone. Is that what you’re getting at or did I misunderstand you?
It was kind of a joke. I was assuming neither you nor your wife subscribe to the biblical view of submission.
Oh yeah, no neither do… Sorry humor is hard online sometimes.
Dishes are frequently used as an example in writing aimed at Christian mothers and wives. I suppose authors expect that we’ve all been angry about dishes at some point. Perhaps we should switch to paper, and save ourselves the trouble. ;)
Dishes are probably the most annoying chore for most people. Washing them isn’t an interesting task, and the task will become undone faster than just about any other household chore. So it probably is a tender point.
But nowhere near as bad as folding laundry!
Well, I just don’t find that as tedious, and generally, a clean and folded garment will last at least a day, especially if you don’t have little kids. Dishes often don’t make it four hours.
I am kind of embarrassed to say that the two household tasks I love are washing dishes and ironing. (I dislike almost all the rest!) They are so conducive to daydreaming and holding conversations in my head with absent people. And they soothe my perfectionistic impulses. I am sorry that the days of people dropping off baskets of laundry to be ironed for $1 apiece are gone for good.
LOL! You are not alone, Jilly, I love to wash dishes and iron. So in the ultimate twist of irony, hubby doesn’t really want me engaged in those tasks very often. Somewhat funny, but relinguishing control of housework has been a real challenge for me.
Also, hubby is not smarter than me or superior or any such nonsense, he just happens to be right and to submit is really just about surrendering long enough to grasp his wisdom in our particular situation.
My middle daughter can try on four different sets of clothes in an hour. It’s not the changes of clothes as much as that the off-casts are left on the bedroom floor for a while and then classed as “dirty” and put in the wash!
On some weeks, my poor wife can end up washing as many of #2’s garments as the other four of us together.
Sometimes dishes are used in writing aimed at husbands. For example, a blog article “She divorced me because I left dishes by the sink” (It now has 3753 comments).
A good portion of the OT ceremonial law seems as silly to most of us, yet those were they testing points that God chose for His wife. The point is not dish rinsing any more than the point is poly-cotton blends. The point is real authority that requires real submission.
Also, I think it’s helpful to point out that Martha Peace a) got saved in 1979, so this story happened about 35 years ago, and b) is the author of the popular book The Excellent Wife.
Are you saying the folks back then thought the poly-cotton blends, or any other regulation, appeared to them as inscrutable or even a bit goofball on the surface (do YOU think so?) — but they could feel it was really about getting their obedience groove on?
Related — Do you think Eve took the prohibition of that particular tree’s fruit as an arbitrary law?
Finally — Do you know of ANY such regulations that are in effect now?
It’s really hard to imagine the average Israelite being able to develop a well-thought-out reason for every one of the laws of Torah, beyond “this is what Yahweh wants and we are His people.”
You are right about that. I was discussing the dietary laws with my Jewish husband years ago, and he told me that whether the dietary laws actually protected the Israelites’ health was completely irrelevant. The point was to have your daily life circumscribed by rules so that you could do every routine act in obedience to God. In that sense, the more arbitrary the rule, the greater its value.
Well, I thought “to most of us” was pretty clear as to who I meant was thinking what and when.
Let me ask you a question: Is the character of the God who made those commands the same as the character of the God who commands wives to be subject to their husbands in every thing?
When you said AS silly to most of us — I took that to mean it seemed silly to them — which I’m not so sure about. When He told Eve not to eat, or Abraham to offer Isaac, or the Hebrews not to eat pork, I think all the folks knew that He had a reason that superseded the superficial suitability for the opposite. Eve could see the fruit was going to tasty and healthy on its own. Abraham could figure that keeping Isaac healthy was a good idea on its own. Eating pork or mixing fibers by themselves… Read more »
I meant that some of the OT ceremonial laws would seem as silly to most of us as the dish-rinsing example seems to most of us. My point was that if God has required things that don’t have a Big Eternal Right And Wrong Standard attached to them, then it is not out of the question for any authority modeled on His authority (as a husband’s is) to require things that don’t have a Big Eternal Right and Wrong Standard attached to them. Ergo, folks should not get their knickers in a knot because some guy decided that in his… Read more »
Like it!
Completely. In the old days couples getting married would be told to remember the Two Bears: Bear and Forebear. There is a lot to be said for showing love by indulging each other’s idiosyncracies.
Well, they didn’t have polyester back then, but cotton fibers and hair fibers shrink differently when washed, presumably shortening the life of the garment when mixed.
Which isn’t precisely the point, but what you consider “inscrutable or goofball” is entirely likely to have a practical reason as well as ceremonial or cultural importance.
If practicality were an underlying, you’d think they wouldn’t need a law to get there.
“Don’t eat from THAT tree Eve, it’s got worms. — Oh, So it’s the law.”
“Don’t eat pork — it’s got worms — so it’s the law.”
“Circumsize for cleanliness — it’s the law now too.
Reminds me of govmnt trying to regulate us into nirvana.
You can’t see the worms in pork without a microscope, and circumcision was not for cleanliness, but for distinction.
But I agree that the underlying point was not practicality — which means the average person is naturally going to find the point of some of the laws puzzling. So it’s about obedience and loyalty, most of all.
Gay marriage is going to play hell with “wives submit to your husbands” as the vast majority of evangelicals come to affirm gay marriage in the next 10 – 20 years. But I’m sure you’ll work it out. Because if there’s anything Judeochristians are good at, it’s going with the flow!
Yep, just like there are no more pro-lifers in the evangelical church. JUST LIKE.
Please tell me you’re the latest iteration of Bull Connor’s a heterosexual etc. This is getting funny. If not, nevermind.
Of course he is. I think you might have missed a couple in between. It may almost be time for a new one. I wish he would let us have a contest to choose it, with prizes of course.
What about polygamy? Wives, submit to senior wife?
“And certainly, the mistakes that we male and female mortals make when we have our own way might fairly raise some wonder that we are so fond of it.”
― George Eliot, ‘Middlemarch’
Replace the word ‘misrepresent’ with the word ‘abuse’ in the meme above and we may have ourselves a discussion.
For what is worth I think Doug may well agree with you here. He is a long time critic of controlling husbands.
Cruz is out of the race. What now??
Cigars! — Another smoked Cuban!
Submission to a man in everything? Sure, just like men are to love as Christ did–it is impossible for either spouse. When it comes down to it women have to submit as they would to Christ–and that means not submitting to requests that are sinful.
Your first sentence would be endorsed by every believer in biblical patriarchy.
Being fruitful today means sharing the gospel and making converts. That was Jesus’s command in Matthew before he left.
It’s worth noting that it in the cultures Jesus, Peter and Paul were addressing, it would be generally expected that: (1) wives submit to and serve their husbands (2) children submit to and serve their parents (3) slaves submit to and serve their masters The NT reinforces one idea, while introducing a counter-cultural other: – that the gospel doesn’t give license for not submitting – that masters should take the lead in serving, and that this is not contrary to being a master, but rather in the very nature of God’s mastery. We want to say “no authority (but God)”.… Read more »
Andrew–what? It was from Aristotle that wives were to submit to husbands and children were to obey parents and slaves were to obey masters. The counter-cultural thing was that Paul always added something to balance this out. Wives were to submit, but husbands were to love; children were to obey, but fathers were to be sure they didn’t provoke them to anger; and slaves were to obey, but masters were not to be harsh. If we stopped this whole argument about who is in control and picked up the towel and followed Jesus’s lead to serve each other I think… Read more »
“What?” what? Re-read my post and point out which part of your first 3 sentences contradicts anything I said.
Note: we know from 1 Tim 6:2 that some slaves were trying to take advantage of believing masters, That specific instances of submission needed to be mentioned in multiple letters suggests that it was a recurring issue among a number of the early Christians, despite the Greek and Jewish cultural norms. That said, I’m pretty sure there were cultural influences towards anti-submissive behaviour also – it wasn’t a uniquely Christian trait!
One thing I have never seen addressed anywhere is disability. I would like to understand what people think about a man who can’t really make decisions. The brain is a physical organ, like other parts of the body. I don’t think someone would criticize a wife for helping a husband who is in a wheelchair or has a missing arm–even if she has to do more than most wives would. Yet if someone has an autistic husband or a husband whose brain was damaged in some sort of accident, how does the wife obey him in everything then?
A good question. I think these kind of exceptions are seldom, if ever, addressed in the Bible. My inclination is that we should act in Christian love in the absence of Biblical direction for a given situation.
By the way, your reference to autism seems to imply that their brain is “damaged”. Autism is a very broad spectrum and some are quite capable of living normally, although their behavior may be considered abnormal by many. I think “normal” has a broader range than is often supposed.
Austistic people often have a reduced ability to understand and handle time and money, which are important in the scope of leadership of a home. They also have reduced communication skills and often concurrent other problems–like OCD. Either we have to give these people a lot of freedom to handle their own situations without labeling the wife rebellious (and a lot of support too) or we have to give them freedom to divorce someone who is truly not a partner.
I don’t see that the Bible gives freedom to divorce “someone who is truly not a partner”. In fact, a common wedding statement is “for better, for worse”, suggesting that the marriage commitment is for all situations. I understand that they want “better” (we all do), but the reality is that “worse” may well happen. In reality, most people seem to implicitly add “unless it’s really terrible in my opinion and then I’m gone.” Commitment to marriage is often missing today.
“The first is that the apostle Paul requires that wives submit to their
husbands in everything. Not some things, or most things, but everything.”
The apostle Paul requires it, at least according to the way his writings are sometimes [mis]translated and [mis]taught, but God doesn’t require it. Nowhere do the prophets mention it, nowhere does Jesus mention it. Nowhere does Jesus’ interactions model it.
I think much of the problem with the S word is that people mistake Paul for God.
And Julie knows how to correctly interpret Paul and when to just completely disregard everything he says and throw him out the window! Thanks Julie!
Nowhere in my comment did I completely disregard everything Paul says. You might want to give it a quick, careful reread. But, I’m glad and impressed that you recognize genius when you see it! Thanks Wesley!
I think much of the problem with the S word is that people mistake Paul for God. Sure, as Dunsworth noted, equating Paul with God is a mistake, but you’re using that point as an out to disregard Paul where you disagree with him. “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ….”—WOOO!! WORD OF GOD!!! ” …Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church… Read more »
Today I’m feeling like quite the misanthrope, so I’ll toss out I Cor. 13. After all, it’s probably been [mis]translated and [mis]taught, and God doesn’t require it.
Good ol’ Paul. Sometimes he got it right, and other times he was way off the mark. I’m glad I can choose which parts of his letters to take seriously.
Mistaking Paul for God would indeed be an error, but I believe what people are doing is rightly seeing the apostles’ canonical writings as the very inspired words of God.
If Paul requires it, and it made it into scripture, God requires it. At least, for a Christian. Mileage may vary for a follower of self-constructed religion.
Which begs the question: When did Jesus, His Father or the Holy Spirit endorse a canon? If the canon was God’s idea, there would be no discrepancies at all in what is included. When Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God breathed…,” he was referring to the Law and the Prophets. None of his letters were Scripture at the time…. And then there is the time Paul quoted the (lower case l) law – the Talmud – which, as you know, is not Scripture but a collection of Rabbinical (man made) writings, in one of his opinions re: women. I’m guessing… Read more »
The Holy Spirit endorsed it through the church.
At any rate, we’re orthodox Protestants around here so speaking against the apostles doesn’t fly.