A friend, when she was in her 20s, was part of a singles' fellowship group. She and one of the young men had a mild difference of opinion on some "disputable matter" (Romans 14), and the guy attempted to wrap up the discussion by saying, in a rather disputable tone...
wait for it...
"C'mon, woman! Submit!"
I know, right?
There are so many things wrong with this that it's hard to know where to start. I recall sitting in a hairdresser's chair some decades ago and listening to the woman's anguish over this topic because a friend of hers had followed her husband into sin in the name of submission. The kicker is that the hairdresser was still conflicted over what choice her friend should have made. What, she wondered, do you do when the choice is between submitting to sin and avoiding it at cost of defying your husband?
Maybe things have improved for younger men and women of today; I truly hope so. But when a woman hears the word "submission" and runs screaming, I want us to not be so quick to judge that she has a rebellious spirit. And when a man speaks the word "submission," I want us (and any woman he is dating) to examine in detail what he means by that. There have been a lot of things done in the name of that word, by both men and women, that do not square with Scripture one bit.
Did I say it's hard to know where to start? Silly me. Let's start with Scripture. There are passages that deal with submission to governing authorities, to parents, to spiritual leaders, and of course to God, but let's go right to the ones about marriage.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head [the Greek kephale means both head and source] of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:21-22, NIV).
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Colossians 3:18, NIV).
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without talk by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of their lives...like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master (1 Peter 3:1-2, 6a).
The Greek word translated "submit" or "be submissive" (or be in subjection to) in all three of these passages is hupotasso, literally "under" (hupo) and "to place" (tasso), which has two main connotations: (a) to arrange in a military fashion under a leader, and (b) a voluntary attitude of cooperation.
Right away, I notice something: submission, in this context, is from wife to husband. It isn't from all women to all men (the horror of that can't even be contemplated), e.g., not to some guy in a church group, even if you know him well or he is a friend. Nor does a submission situation exist for a dating couple, engaged couple, or unmarried cohabiting couple. That's because this is all about a covenant, which doesn't exist until and unless they have married. I'll discuss more about the husband's role later. For now, suffice it to say that the making of a covenant requires each party to hold up their end of the agreement whether the other party does or not. (This differs from a contract, and is in part why marriage should be dissolved only under specific dire circumstances, not just because the couple ain't feelin' it anymore. The other part of the reason is that marriage is intended by God to model the relationship between Christ and the church; in other words, as Christian marrieds, we have a responsibility outside ourselves and our families.) Note: this article does not address the question of women submitting to men, in general, within the context of a corporate worship gathering, which is a controversy all its own that I don't presently feel called to cover. But I will say that my church leadership believes women may serve in pastoral, teaching, and other leadership capacities, with which I agree.
Looking at our definition of hupotasso, let's consider part (b) first. I think we can just go ahead and say that within a marriage in which both parties mean well and are not asking their partner to sin, who can possibly object to a voluntary attitude of cooperation? There's no issue here. And I think the idea that this cooperation is voluntary fits with the character of God. Does God force the gospel on us? No; He never did want automatons, which is why He gave us free will. Does God consider our input (prayer) and even relent in response to it? He does. Though the church (bride) is to obey Christ (the bridegroom), adhering to Jesus' ways is a choice we must constantly make; it is not coerced. Logically, neither would a relationship meant to mirror Christ and the church force compliance from the partners.
Meaning (a) is interesting and curious, though perhaps for only a second. Why do we need a military arrangement? Oh, yeah--it's that spiritual adversary we have. Satan. To arrange husband and wife in a military fashion suggests that a large part of their relationship and establishment of a home and likely a family will involve spiritual warfare. Following Christ certainly does invite opposition, and though this may come through people, we war not against flesh and blood, but "...against spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12). So while the definition may show the wife aligning under the husband, it is for a common purpose toward a common goal, not so that the husband may in general lord it over the wife.
And speaking of lording it over, let's look at 1 Peter 3:6a, where Sarah is said to have obeyed Abraham and called him her master (some translations say lord). The word translated "obeyed" is hupakouo, literally "under" (hupo) and "to hear or listen" (akouo), and implies actively listening with a willingness to comply. The word translated "master" is kurios, often rendered as authority, Mr., Lord, Master, or Sir. (I don't know for sure, but I wonder if this is why women in some social circles called their husband "Mr. Surname" as recently as 100 years ago?) Now, if Sarah willingly listened with the intent of compliance, and called him master or lord, did this make Sarah some kind of doormat or slave? No, as this example from their life shows. When Ishmael, the son born to Sarah's maid Hagar by Abraham, began to persecute Isaac (Genesis 21:9-12), Sarah said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son." This distressed Abraham, because although Ishmael was not the son of promise, he was still his son. But God said to Abraham, "...whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her and do what she asks, for your descendants will be named through Isaac." So not only was Sarah able to make such a request of Abraham and have it carried out, but God told him to listen to her and do whatever she asked in this matter. Did Sarah have agency? She certainly did. This episode teaches us one other important thing: when a couple is following God, He will step in and correct or enlighten when necessary. Submission, then, is never just submission to a human husband only. Indirectly--and often pretty directly--it is also submission to putting one's trust in God.
In Part 2, to be published August 20, we'll look at various meanings of the English word submission and how they inform or shed light on the wife's role, and also cover the husband's role in all this. Stay tuned. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment