Submission

[Gob]

Marriage really matters. Thank God we are talking about it.

As Professor Patrick Parkinson said in these pages last week, marriage is ''by far the most stable, safe and nurturing relationship in which to raise children''. However, fewer people are choosing marriage as a way of relating to someone of the opposite sex and fewer people are nurturing children in a family with marriage at its heart.

I can understand that. Individualism leaves us with little reason to join our life to that of someone else. Apart from that, for many marriage has become an arena of suffering, exploitation and disappointment. We choose to bypass it. Yet I would say that we need to go back to biblical principles and understand, improve and support marriage rather than abandon it.

I freely admit that for me, the earthly title and vocation I cherish most is ''husband''. It all began with promises, and each day I try to live out the commitment I made. Marriage is not always easy and I know that for some it proves painfully impossible. But, mostly, making our promises before witnesses and trying to keep them is what works best.

Public promises make a marriage. Marriages are founded on promises of lifelong, exclusive bonding. Provided that the promises commit both man and woman in good times and in bad ''till death do us part'', and that both intend to relate only to each other, the promises are effective in creating the marriage. Husband and wife can certainly make identical promises.

But promises can reflect something even more profound. Since they unite not simply two people but a man and a woman - two different bodies for whom marriage holds different consequences, needs, expectations and emotions - the promises can express these differences, and traditionally have done so.

Many of our young people want to be ''wives and husbands'' rather than simply ''partners'' and in their weddings they come as ''bride and groom'' rather than simply two individuals. They believe that expressing these differences, including different responsibilities, makes for a better marriage.

Both kinds of promise are provided for in the Sydney Anglican diocese's proposed Prayer Book, which has been the subject of commentary this week.

There is nothing new in this - it is the same as the Australian Prayer Book which has been used for decades.

Where different promises are made, the man undertakes great responsibility and this is also the wording of the book, as it has always been. The biblical teaching is that the promise made voluntarily by the bride to submit to her husband is matched by the even more onerous obligation which the husband must undertake to act towards his wife as Christ has loved the church. The Bible says that this obligation is ultimately measured by the self-sacrifice of Christ in dying on the cross.

This is not an invitation to bossiness, let alone abuse. A husband who uses the wife's promise in this way stands condemned for betraying his own sworn obligations. The husband is to take responsibility for his wife and family in a Christ-like way. Her ''submission'' is her voluntary acceptance of this pattern of living together, her glad recognition that this is what he intends to bring to the marriage and that it is for her good, his good and the good of children born to them. She is going accept him as a man who has chosen the self-discipline and commitment of marriage for her sake and for their children. At a time when women rightly complain that they cannot get men to commit, here is a pattern which demands real commitment all the way.

Secular views of marriage are driven by a destructive individualism and libertarianism. This philosophy is inconsistent with the reality of long-term relationships such as marriage and family life.

Referring to ''partners'' rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage.

Men have to accept the limitations imposed by a commitment to marry. Both husband and wife must exercise self-control and the acceptance of boundaries, although in ways which are somewhat distinctive. My greatest interest in the draft service the diocese has prepared is the high standard being proposed for men.

When a husband promises to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her, he is declaring his intention to be a man of strength and self-control for her benefit and for the benefit of any children born to them. Such qualities, properly exercised in the spirit of self-sacrifice, enhance the feminine and personal qualities of his wife.

Each marriage and each era will work this out differently. It is in this context and this alone that the revised marriage service enables a woman to promise submission.

Her submission rises out of his submission to Christ.

It is a pity that the present discussion has been so overtly political. Instead of mocking or acting horrified, we should engage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives. The Bible contains great wisdom on this fundamental relationship.

The rush to embrace libertarian and individualistic philosophy means that we miss some of the key relational elements of being human, elements which make for our wellbeing and happiness. It's time to rethink marriage from first principles. It really matters.

Peter Jensen is the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... z24sysM5Ni

[rubato]

He says a number of valuable things but then wanders off into saying things which are untrue about 'secular' marriage.

First of all, I agree that it is important to declare yourselves "in front of god and everybody" and I would not have had it any other way. The depth of conviction and commitment in stating in front of your family and community your devotion to each other is irreplaceable. It is a large part of why I knew that I would propose to my future wife.

Second, he gets slightly wrong the idea of 'submission'. In a true marriage there is the death of both individuals into a new thing formed by their mutual submission to each other. Even his own writing shows that the husband must submit wholly just as the wife does "When a husband promises to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her... "

Further, the idea of submission is a very powerful motivating force. It is the central dogma of Islam, "submission to the will of god" and the simplicity and power of this idea is why Islam spread further and faster than any religion in history. It is a common human desire; the wish for a powerful and wise authority to whom one can turn for all wisdom, comfort, protection and hope. It is why the "guru" model of personal or spiritual growth is so common. Many people want this.

And in the end many of the most powerful things we can do are often acts of submission and sacrifice. To give up your life for another. To give all your goods to save someone else. To subsume your will into an act of love for the world.


This last is merely a bigoted and unthinking remark: "Secular views of marriage are driven by a destructive individualism and libertarianism."

"Libertarianism" is an empty and failed social philosophy unrelated to anything else.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Often the 'submission of wives' phrase is taken out of context, making the marriage sound unbalanced. However, the whole passage describes a healthy, respectful relationship;

Ephesians 5:22-33

New International Version (NIV)


22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Obviously, this says if a man is unloving and disrespectful to his wife, she need not submit to him.


I agree that not all secular marriages are any different in that the two people respect and love each other, and that they bring this to raising a healthy family. Individuality has a place, but it shouldn't be selfish.

[Big RR]

I don't know Lo--I do think that it says a man is wrong if he does not respect and love his wife and treat her accordingly, but I see nothing there that teaches that the wife is free to do as she wishes (and not "submit" to him) if he does not. Indeed, some fundamentalist christian teachings say exactly that--even if he treats her badly, she still has the duty to "submit" to his will, and that she dishonors god (and the marriage vows) if she does not; these groups would tell both parties that divorce is unacceptable, and that your duty to your spouse is not contingent on their duty to you. Just as one must love his/her enemies, just as jesus allowed the unjust and cruel persons to crucify him, (s)he must live up to these vows.

Not that I buy that, but I do think that's a fair reading of the passage (which is why I often have trouble with the pronouncements of Paul).

edited to add:: From the Christian apologetics and research ministry (the first I could find):

"Women are not commanded to submit to their husband’s because God insures that men will be just or loving. When a woman submits unto her husband, she is actually submitting unto God (Ephesians 5:22). A woman therefore does not submit because her husband deserves it in his own merit- she submits because she knows it is pleasing to her Lord. There will be times when a woman needs to submit, and her husband does not deserve it from a human perspective. But by divine right, God set the man as leader and a woman can trust that God is good. She can also know that nothing escapes God’s notice, and a wicked man will be held accountable for his actions."

[Gob]

"Women are not commanded to submit to their husband’s because God insures that men will be just or loving.

Joke of the week?

[loCAtek]

BIgRR, It's my opinion, but I believe those apologetics and such ministries are misinterpreting those passages for thier own support of female domination.

As such it is also my opinion that that is dogma and not faith.

[Big RR]

Well Gob, to be fair, I didn't write it, I posted it from an article on a website--and it is pretty funny (but pretty sad too).

lo--point taken, but this (and other) biblical passages are used to subjugate women but many claiming what I posted. I don't like the interpretation, but the words of the passage do seem to support it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I do think that it says a man is wrong if he does not respect and love his wife and treat her accordingly, but I see nothing there that teaches that the wife is free to do as she wishes (and not "submit" to him) if he does not.

I do think that's a fair reading of the passage (which is why I often have trouble with the pronouncements of Paul).

In isolation that may be a fair reading of the passage (I disagree but....). However, no Bible passage should be taken in isolation, especially when the "fair reading" is not consistent with the entirety of Paul's gospel, let alone the rest of scripture.

In a marriage neither husband nor wife is "free to do as (he or she) wishes" if the other partner fails to respect, love and treat their spouse perfectly correctly. The Biblical pattern for marriage requires mutual submission - the wife "submits" as to the Lord (Eph 5:22); the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church "giving himself up for her". This requires self-sacrifice, not domination. Both are required to submit to God's plan. The husband is to live considerately with the wife (1Pe 3:7), love her and not treat her with harshness (Col 3:19). He is to be faithful (Mal 2:14-15).

A man who does not care for his relatives, especially his immediate family, is disowning the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1Tim 5:8). And what is the advice regarding unbelievers? Don't join yourself with them; good and bad do not belong together (2 Cor 6:14) and if one is married to an unbeliever circumstances may require separation (1 Cor 7:15). A so-called believer who refuses to repent of their sin is to be treated as a pagan or a corrupt tax-collector (Matt 18:17); one is not to associate with anyone in the faith who sins sexually, is greedy, or a drunkard or is abusive (1Cor 5:11).

No woman is required to submit to abuse (and no man for that matter). However, my family is currently going through a crisis as some of you are aware - my daughter has been unfaithful to her husband. We are encouraging both of them to submit to God and serve as Christ to each other. We have told them that if they continue their old pattern of marriage then they cannot make it succeed - neither one has treated the other in accordance with their vows. Both became (and he still is) focussed on "what I get" - not on "what I give". Both are wrong. If "feelings" are their guide then they will divorce. Each of them must decide if they are Chistian or not.

Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--point taken, but I do think that a consistent interpretation of the passage would say that a wife should submit to her husband because that is what god wants, not because he is deserving of it. How far does this go==I really can't say what Paul meant (nor can anyone else) with certainty, but I will agree that there is probably a limit--although the I Cor 7:15 pasage says she should let the "unbeliever" leave--not vice versa.

Again, one can say it does not mean exactly what it says, but the strict interpreter would disagree (as would the interpreter I posted previously).

[Lord Jim]

See now this is one of those discussions I really enjoy reading....and that genuinely helps to elevate the tone around here, in my opinion...

Big RR and General Meade discussing the finer points of scriptural meaning, in a knowledgeable and civilized way...

However, I also realize that if I tried to weigh into this debate in any substantive way, I'd just embarrass myself with my comparative lack of knowledge on the subject, so I'll pass on that....

But gentlemen, please continue....

[rubato]

"...
The Biblical pattern for marriage requires mutual submission - the wife "submits" as to the Lord (Eph 5:22); the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church "giving himself up for her". This requires self-sacrifice, not domination. Both are required to submit to God's plan. The husband is to live considerately with the wife (1Pe 3:7), love her and not treat her with harshness (Col 3:19). He is to be faithful (Mal 2:14-15). ... "

Which is exactly the point I made above. Marriage is the <<mutual>> death of two individuals and the beginning of something else.


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Agreed, but far too many modern men quote that verse to say thier wife should give up all her needs, and solely focus on his.

Interestingly, I heard this opinion once voiced by a lapsed Jew.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--point taken, but I do think that a consistent interpretation of the passage would say that a wife should submit to her husband because that is what god wants, not because he is deserving of it.

How far does this go==I really can't say what Paul meant (nor can anyone else) with certainty, but I will agree that there is probably a limit--although the I Cor 7:15 pasage says she should let the "unbeliever" leave--not vice versa.

Again, one can say it does not mean exactly what it says, but the strict interpreter would disagree (as would the interpreter I posted previously).

Interesting points above. I believe myself a strict interpreter because I agree it means exactly what it says. And what it says is that "(b)oth are required to submit to God's plan". Of course a wife should submit to her husband because that's what God wants - he is not "deserving" of it. Of course a husband must love his wife, sacrificing his own self for her sake because that's what God wants - she is not "deserving" of it. It is love and grace

Christ died for you and me and not because we are "deserving" anything - love and grace to the unworthy

I feel perfectly able to say what Paul meant because he wrote with certainty and scripture must be interpreted with scripture - it is not isolated. If a pastor told me that Paul's passage in Ephesians 5 meant that wives are to stay submissively with an abusive husband - then I'd say that such a pastor is neither conservative nor a strict interpreter. He has pulled one line out of a passage which is itself pulled out of the totality of scripture. He is a rotten interpreter.

And the same goes for any of those "modern men" that Loca refers to. They are the ones who deliberately misuse the Bible for their own purposes.

BTW 1Cor 7:15 is cited to show that Paul himself did not interpret Eph 5 to mean that a wife must stick like glue to a husband no matter what he does. It also offers comfort to a Christian woman who would take seriously Jesus' comment that anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. I would further add that a spouse who abuses the other partner has "left" the marriage and should be treated as such a person - for which many other passages apply. As an opinion: I think under abusive circumstances the abused wife or husband must remove her/himself (and any children) to a place of safety - but divorce is not an option. Let the abuser do the divorcing which validates 1Cor 7:15.

If Christians took seriously the meaning of Christianity and did as Jesus commanded, there would be no "Christian" divorces. Not would there be failed marriages in which one or both partners remain unfulfilled - each would be too busy serving the other and finding the true joy of such a mutual submissive relationship

I wish I did not fail in so many ways in my own marriage to love my wife as Christ loved the church.

Meade

[Big RR]

Well Meade--you won't get me to argue that god wants peoople to submit to abuse at the hands of a spouse because I agree with you. However, I do note that had Paul (however inspired) wanted to condition the submission on the mutual submission of the other spouse, it would have been easy enough to say that clearly; that he did not is unfortunate, but it is what occurred. And that's the point, the bible cannot be interpreted in a vaccum, whether it's mutual/unilateral submission in marriage or the blanket condemnation of homosexuality. If we accept that the statement of the law as provided by jesus (love god and love your neighbor as yourself), then I do think we can properly interpret god's will, however inartfully stated, in the rules set forth in letters and other documents.

In the immediate discussion, I do think it makes sense to say that in a true marriage both parties must submit to each other and place the other's interests ahead of their own, much as parents have to do with their children. Indeed, love, by its very nature, requires eactly that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

However, I do note that had Paul (however inspired) wanted to condition the submission on the mutual submission of the other spouse, it would have been easy enough to say that clearly; that he did not is unfortunate, but it is what occurred.

Yes, you and I don't disagree much about the subject. But I don't think your statement above comports with what I said. The submission of neither party is conditional upon the submission of the other. You are right that Paul did not intend to say that and so he does not say that. The wife submits - the husband loves to the point of self-sacrifice - not as a quid pro quo but regardless of the other party's ability to fulfil the requirement.

I think the tipping point is where a husband (let's say) is not simply failing to be as "good" as he should (could) be, but where he steps away from God's word and does that which is antithetical - e.g. mental/physical abuse, neglect, unfaithfulness and so on.

You were more on-track I think earlier in stating that the submission of each is a response to God's requirements. Wife A may not "submit" much to Husband A but he is not to take that as permission to stop loving his wife and giving it all up for her. In the same way, Husband B may be very deficient in manifesting true Christian companionship to Wife B but she can't therefore refuse to "submit".

In healthy (although necessarily imperfect) Christian marriages, strong women are responsible for much and are not "doing just as they are told". They are Proverbs 31 women, trusted by their husbands to handle much. Those women however, if it came down to selecting New York or Chicago for a holiday, will put forward their views and yet still "submit" to a choice made by their husband. Or perhaps the husband, loving his wife, will agree with her preference.

My wife, still in the USA working on these things, just emailed to say that she'd like to go to North Carolina with our Aunt Judy for a few days but it would cost $$$ - could she go? I said "yes, enjoy". Had I said "No" she would not have gone.

I wouldn't spend money without her agreement either

Meade