PamBG is justifiably angry at this bit of pernicious nonsense which claims that when marriages fail, it’s almost always the husband’s fault
Guys, welcome to leadership…the husband gets commended when it is going well and he gets the heat when it is not. A happy, holy wife is a wonderful endeavor for a husband. A husband must learn to keep the pulse of how his wife is doing (spiritually, emotionally, physically) and if it has gotten to the point that they are in my office for marriage counseling and he is pointing the finger at her…he is in need of some biblical adjustment.
Pam replies
Both Christian egalitarians and advocates of male-headship often present themselves as believing that husbands and wives are called to put their spouse first. The difference in the two attitudes isn’t really even about ‘what women are permitted to do in Church’. The big difference is the attitude of male-headship that women and our lives can be controlled and led by men. That we are not and never will be full adults. And that co-dependent relationships - with the man responsible for controlling his wife’s mental, emotional and spiritual responses - are What God Wants.
Tell ‘em, Pam. The giveaway, if the truth of Pam’s position isn’t blindingly obvious to you, is that the ‘christian counselor’ speaks of the husband guiding the wife in exactly the same sort of terms that dog trainers use when advising new owners. It’s just repugnant.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Kim 03.31.09 at 4:23 pm
“Biblical adjustment”? Yup, this is the “heel, dear” school of marital training (oops, I mean counselling). What an asshole!
Richard 03.31.09 at 5:03 pm
There’s something quite chilling about the sound of “Biblical adjustment”. Very deeply unpleasant.
Wood 03.31.09 at 8:24 pm
True. It sounds like some sort of Room 101-style conditioning, doesn’t it?
PamBG 04.01.09 at 3:24 pm
As someone who not only grew up in male-headship, but also at the tail-end of an era where even secular society talked about husbands ‘controlling’ their wives, it’s interesting to hear people’s incredulous reactions.
I think that the post also gives a glimpse of why it male-headship s harmful for men. At the end of the day, it really does put the blame for failed marriages (churches, business ventures) on men. I wonder if the chap who wrote that insight really understood it? I always get the feeling that the men - particularly pastors - who espouse male headship, see themselves as the ’successful’ men who have got everything sussed. That has other theological implications too: they can’t really afford to be broken or sinful, can they?
DH 04.01.09 at 9:51 pm
I have MAJOR problems with what the guy said because the guys seems to forget about “husbands love your wife as Christ loves the church.” It seems in many circles the “submissive” part is brought up but the “love your wife as Christ loves the church” seems to be neglected. Could it be that the reason why more women go to church than men is the evidence of how men treat their wives? Not saying that is the total reason but I would venture to say that if men truly “loved their wives as Christ loves the church” then we would have better marriages and more families commited to God and to the church.
DH 04.01.09 at 9:54 pm
I mentioned “treat” meant to say “love their wives”. Sorry for the word that could be misconstrued. “love their wives” is so much better. Thanks for the patience.
Tony Buglass 04.02.09 at 11:01 pm
DH has put his finger on the target, I think. I’ve explained this a few times in marriage preparation. Paul’s ‘haustafeln’ in Colossians and the like tells wives to obey their husbands, and husbands to love their wives. He was writing to a culture in which wives were property, and his Christian insight is that our wives are very much more then that. When Cranmer came to write his prayerbook, he was trying to be biblical, and so utilised the NT passages which he thought relevant. However, while “wives obey your husbands” made sense, “husbands love your wives ” sounded superfluous, because that’s why (roughly) they were marrying. (I know, wives were still very much property until comparatively recently, but not in the way they were in ancient society.)
In short, because Cranmer was in a different culture from Paul, he didn’t see things the same way as Paul (as indeed is true for us today). What he did was simply poor biblical work, wit th e result that the wedding service has been lopsided until recent years, when we’ve ditched the ‘obey’ bit.
As far as I’m concerned, Christ died for both men and women equally, and marriage must be a complete mutual surrender of both partners into each other, so that each die to self and a resurrected into the new relationship together in Christ.
DH 04.03.09 at 1:57 pm
Tony, does it say “wives obey your husbands” or does it say “wives submit to your husbands”? I think it is the latter and there is a difference. I do believe there is a mutual complete surrender to each other and that Christ died for men and womer both equally but I believe that a husband and a wife each have different responsibilities to each other but that one is not greater in hierarchy than the other. It is the husbands job to protect the wife and to love her as Christ loved the church and the wife to submit to that protection and both have complete mutual surrender to each other with Christ as the center.
As you can see Tony, I agree with about 95% of what you said but I still believe that what Paul said, with proper understanding of Paul, that marriage should not be property and even Jesus in the Gospels stated that as well. I believe those who go overboard on the submit to husbands vs. those who don’t recognize the individual responsibilities that are different between a husband and wife are both wrong.