|
Friends United Meeting |
 |
October 1998
Chain of Command or Mutual Submission
Evangelicals Dispute Family Models
By Sandra Cook-Dufield
Recently there have been discussions in evangelical circles concerning the proper roles for men and women in marriage and in the family. Usually these discussions center around two main perspectives: (1) a traditional approach, which involves husband headship and wife submission (the chain of command model) and (2) an evangelical egalitarian approach.
The traditional position was represented this past summer in the Southern Baptist Conference statement on family. This statement says "God's pattern for marriage" means:
A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.
In contrast, the evangelical egalitarian approach believes the scriptures call husbands and wives to mutual submission, nurturing, protection, leadership, love and respect. Ordained minister and psychologist James Beck writes (in Women, Abuse, and the Bible):
Building on our full equality in Christ as marriage partners, our family communicates fully, directly, lovingly, and honestly with one another, confesses to and forgives one another in the routine conflicts of life, conciliates when tempted to misuse authority with control or force, and conjures no one, but offers only authentic contrition to one another.
This egalitarian position questions some of our present translations and interpretations of scripture. It holds that New Testament authors did not intend for "head" and "submit" passages to involve unilateral power in decision making or to limit women's spiritual expressions in marriage. It contends that scripture used to support hierarchy or chain of command in marriage are misinterpretations of original Greek writings.
The Southern Baptist statement is consistent with many Christian positions on marriage since the writings of the early church fathers, but the language has changed and softened quite a bit. Of course, a statement wouldn't go over too well today like Turtulian's in 200 ad, telling women, "You are the Devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first foresaker of the divine law...you so lightly crushed the image of God, the man Adam...." Dressed-up language aside, these chain of command statements remain riddled with flaws.
The theological justifications for the chain-of-command model of the family inevitably conclude that women are morally weaker, and are more susceptible to sin and false doctrine than men. They say women cannot be trusted to make moral decisions and judgments affecting their own life or the life of their family. They tell us that wives need to be led and protected from themselves and from the world by the superior morality, spirituality, and leadership of the husband.
Eve's sinning first is one of the main justifications for the chain of command family pattern. Taken to their conclusion, these statements say that women are not as covered by the blood of Christ as are men because they still bear a stigma for the introduction of sin into the world. This view suggests that Eve sinned and that Adam did not. It also questions Christ's redemptive work on the Cross in that it still sees original sin in women. But according to one of the basic tenants of Christian faith, this sin was to have been wiped clean upon women's acceptance of Christ. (Romans 3:23-25)
Traditional marriage statements also contain elements of a works-righteousness theology. What is at stake here is how one attains and sustains salvation. We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, not through a "correct" set of beliefs concerning how we pattern expressions of spirituality and power structures in our marriages. (Romans 5:1; Galatians 2:16) A requirement of additional demonstrations of genuine faith-husband headship and wife submission-seems to question Christ's work on the Cross as full, final and complete.
More works righteousness tendencies are revealed when chain of command statements teach that submission of wives to husband headship (even within emotionally, psychologically, and physically abusive marriages) is their sharing in Christ's suffering and redemption. It holds up women's silent suffering work of obedience and submission as key in helping lead to their husband's salvation. Scripture tells us this can occur, but this is not the only way a husband can be led to faithfulness and salvation. Christian psychotherapist Carolyn Holderread-Heggen cautions us against glorifying suffering when she writes (in Women, Abuse and the Bible):
Let us be wary of religious teaching which suggests that females particularly have been designated to carry the wounds of Christ in their bodies, to practice suffering love in a unique way. Let us hold up the crucifixion, not as a symbol of the virtue of suffering, but as the result of Jesus' consistent challenges against the dominating, violent powers of evil. Let's point to the cross, not as proof that all suffering is redemptive, but rather as evidence that Jesus, because of his wounds, stands in compassionate solidarity with all those who suffer.
Beck borrows from J.M. Alsdurf when he observes that "some Christians treat the concept of submission as the exclusive responsibility of the wife. Submission almost becomes the magical cure that can correct all the problems of others in the family, including the violent husband....Jesus never taught differential responsibility in this regard...."
Even though some church positions recognize that men and women are "equal" in "worth" and "image" before God, they still make it clear they believe husbands have better moral and decision-making abilities. This contradicts Galatians 3:28 which says "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It is also a form of "returning to the flesh" (counter to Paul's whole argument in Galatians) in that it makes maleness a prerequisite for spiritual leadership.
Chain of command statements honor sin. They fail to recognize that the husband's authority over ("rule over") the wife is because of the curse of sin (Genesis 3), and is not a blueprint for us to purposefully imitate. Chain of command does not reflect Christ's victory over sin in male/female relationships by demonstrating God's original plan as found in Genesis 1 and 2, a plan that, as the evangelical egalitarian position believes, reflects mutual dependence, stewardship, trust, complementarity, and cooperation between men and women.
The chain of command family structure does not recognize the inclination toward sin within the human heart. It eliminates the wife's ability to question her husband's authority or hold him accountable when he has a momentary (or longer) lapse towards his natural human propensity to sin. This flies in the face of the overall Gospel message of honoring and loving one another by holding each other accountable and calling each other to faithfulness and obedience. (Matthew 18:15-17; Luke 17:3; Galatians 6:1-2; James 5:19-20)
Eastern Mennonite University theology professor Stephen Dintaman said that chain of command is a "sub-Christian view of authority." He clarified:
Not only does the Bible not speak of a chain of command from husband to wife, it does not speak of a chain of command from God to us. God is not worshipped and obeyed because he is the all-powerful boss that stands at the head of a chain of command. Rather, we love Him because He first loved us. God has authority over us because of His grace and His condescension to give us the gift of eternal life.
Jesus' overall example and message concerning our relationships is the source by which all other scriptures should be interpreted. It is because of this that Quakers have long since upheld egalitarian principles for the marriage relationship.
For example, Query 9 from Northwest Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice asks, "Do you conduct yourself in a manner that supports and preserves the sanctity and permanence of marriage? Do you who are married yield to each other in decisions and build up each other as individuals, always cherishing your common bond?"
The Advices of Iowa Yearly Meeting's Discipline says:
Christ used the family to illustrate the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. He honored and blessed marriage as the truest example of divine-human co-operation in perfecting a social structure for the help and continuance of the human family and for the mutual assistance and comfort of both sexes that they may be helpmates to each other in things temporal and spiritual.
Marriage hierarchy positions reflect and imitate the secular power structurespower structures that Jesus called us to question (Luke 22:2-27; Matthew 23:6-12). In contrast, as the evangelical egalitarian position holds, the Kingdom principles of Jesus' example and message are unity, mutual sacrifice, mutual serving, mutual submission, mutual dependence, equality, complementarity, and the priesthood of all believers.
Sandra Cook-Dufield attends Rose Hill Friends, Rose Hill, Kansas, and is a freelance writer and a volunteer at Women's Shelters and Domestic Violence Centers. She co-pastored Hortonville Friends, Western Yearly Meeting, from 1986-1988.
Copyright (c) 1998 Friends United Meeting
Return to October 1998 Contents page