Part 3 - Wives, Submit to Your Husbands
Christians have little trouble accepting the broader teaching of the biblical narrative, but when it comes to applying it specifically, we often find tension in the details. Ephesians is a good example of this, where some use the narrative about submission and headship in marriage to manipulate women into positions below men. Others interpret the passage so liberally that the importance of submission and headship is lost entirely. One difficulty with Paul’s letters is that we only have one side of a conversation. We don’t have the questions he was asked and little context to help with understanding. I can't entirely agree with a literal application in this instance, and we need to be clear about what Paul meant in utilizing the word “head”. However, I believe the narrative contains the truth, but it’s been misconstrued to the point of being completely rejected.
Eph 5:22-24 “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
Submission is a case in point. If we leave “headship” out of the discussion for a moment the New Testament does not suggest that submission means “under someone’s control” and the greater context of Ephesians makes it clear that submission is mutual, and on the same basis as submitting to Christ. The problem today seems to rest in the social denigration of submission and the Church making things worse by conflating it with an authoritarian view of “Headship”. The contention is that by submitting, women come under the “authority and power” of a man. However, I also have concerns with commentators, who aggressively reject submission altogether by making a less than convincing argument that “head” can be interpreted as “source”, thereby eliminating the theology around headship entirely. The distinction between the two words is irrelevant but the motive is mischievous and deliberately attempts to invalidate the Genesis account. If this were true the argument also releases men from the same responsibility which becomes theologically problematic and somewhat self-defeating for Women. Why, because the motivation severs the basis for love and respect at the outset. The bedrock for actively loving and respecting another person is submission, and marriage isn’t sustainable without it. Sometimes it seems more palatable to change the meaning of various words, but this only serves to entrench, and not illuminate the problem. Further, if we refuse to submit in a marriage, we might examine our submission to God.
I don’t want this commentary to be side-tracked by the controversy surrounding “headship” because I’ll expand on this in the final commentary. The foundational precept in the Ephesians narrative is love and respect. God wants two people to have a loving and respectful relationship, where both parties are prepared to lay aside their own needs for the well-being and betterment of the other.
Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t supply a complete list of details like a manual for living; it talks extensively about how we should treat each other but provides little detail about the changing social attitudes we might face today. Even in the Church, we find little considered response, to the subject of relational breakdown. One Pastoral visit and it’s all done and dusted!! The Bible suggests that Christ is the cornerstone and love and respect form the basis of all relational endeavours. It’s about what we do for, and how we serve others, rather than what we receive ourselves. This is a sad testimony in light of marriage problems today.
New Testament leadership has authority, but the nature of this authority has to be defined. I would argue that its only purpose is one of sacrificial service, to encourage the spiritual growth of others, sometimes to the detriment of those who have it. Ironically, being loved and respected is not a right, and I want to challenge the idea that “it’s my right” to be loved and respected. To claim anything as a right is highly subjective and often misconstrued. It’s an unbiblical emotion, which stems from insecurity, through coercion and manipulation. The wider body of scripture does suggest reciprocity; in so much as what we receive from others is often a consequence of what we do for others. But taking what others do for us, as the validating reason for freely giving love and respect in the first place, is not a biblical approach either.
What does it mean for a woman to, “Respect her husband”? As I previously suggested, I do not believe that women instinctively respect their husbands because the active verb “phobeo”, “to hold in reverence and awe” is implicitly submissive, and therefore a decision of the will, not an underlying predisposition. Respect is a decision of the will and that choice is an act of submission. A wife can love her husband but convey disrespect in her words and actions. The point to consider here is that it’s not about what the wife thinks she is saying, it’s whether her husband feels respected by the words and actions he’s subjected to.
For a husband, feeling respected is like feeling loved. In most cases, it’s the words a wife uses and how she speaks and acts, toward him. Do the words convey reverence and awe if you like (phobeo), and build him up as a husband? Are they words that lift him as the hunter-gatherer, protector, and provider for the marriage relationship? This may come across as something sloppy and pandering to an emotionally deficient Neanderthal, but it remains a vital ingredient that makes a man feel important, needed, and respected. This act of submission, through respect, causes a man to feel loved. Acts of submission are not always easy, because choosing to deny one’s feelings can be very difficult when there’s miscommunication and emotional tension. Sometimes husbands and wives want different things, and someone has to give way. Here the Christian principle is tested, and the will has a choice to make, (Phil 2:1-8).
