Tagged: Ephesians 5. (Part II - Okay, but like I said, what does "wives, submit to your husbands" mean?)

So Darwin tagged me and asked that question about Ephesians 5, and I went and wrote a post of several paragraphs of, er, scriptural analysis.  Which everyone knows is the easy part.

Now I'm sitting down to try to answer the hard part.

Even though I liked my fellow taggee Dorian's ranty post about it , and I wish to validate her with a "Yeah!  What she said!",  I repeat:  "Wives, submit" isn't about paid work or childcare.   Sure, in a given marriage, paid work may be a big issue.  So can sex, money, whether to have another child....  Ephesians 5 gives us the framework for discussing the issues, not the issue itself.

Thinking that it's about assigning the woman the stay-at-home job (an error peculiar to our age) can even lead us in opposition to Ephesians 5.  In this model we sometimes think of the husband ruling in his providerly way over the external-world sphere, while the wife rules in her nurturely way over the domestic sphere.  But guess what?  The wife doesn't get to rule over the domestic sphere anyway.  Just as the church is subject to Christ, so must women be subject to their husbands in everything.  Everything!

And anyway, does the domestic sphere even count as subordinate to the external-world sphere?  Only in the eyes of the world.  

+ + +

Darwin writes:

It makes sense and seems true to me, and yet I can't think of specific rules as to what "headship" means in our household, much less formulate some sort of universally applicable principle which must apply in all circumstances.

I think it's hard because the only universally applicable principle is apparently "in everything," which either means nothing or it has to be applied uniquely and individually to almost every point of contact between the spouses.  So, no un

I think it's hard because it's exquisitely intimate.  When I try to write about specific ways I "submit" in marriage, I feel unacceptably laid-bare -- I am not writing about sex, but it feels as if I am trying to write about something equally interior and private.  I don't have the right to explain how it is between us.  

And I think it's hard because we're both trying to think of things that we should do.  I think that submitting is more about things that we should not do.

So I come back to this idea that it must mean something  that sets us apart from the "pagans" around us, from those who haven't internalized the Christian message.  Does he order Christian wives to submit because it's natural and right to submit.... or does he have to order us to submit because it does not come natural to us?  Does he perhaps have to tell us to submit because to do so is not natural, but supernatural?

It's within the domestic sphere that this matters, when wife and husband are together, and so perhaps he's warning us against becoming the petty ruler of the home, treating our husband as if he were an intruder or worse, one of our children.  Haven't we known women to say things like this?

It's like I have three children instead of two.

or

I can't get it together on the weekends when he's home, he messes up all my routines.  I don't know how I'll stand it when he retires.

Yeah, we want to be avoiding an attitude like that.

+ + + 

So what is "not submitting" like?

One way would be to undermine his authority with the children:  denigrating him in any way in front of them, or colluding with them against him.

Another would be to undermine his standing outside the family:  denigrating him to your friends.  I know.  Many of us do this.  It's a cliche of the culture that women complain about their husbands.   Especially in a group, it's extremely difficult to avoid joining in on the husband-bashing.  Maybe there exists some fine line between husband-bashing and confiding your troubles to a trusted and close friend.   Maybe it depends whether you're trying to find an answer, or whether you're just complaining.  I'm not exactly sure about that.  But it's definitely something to be cautious with.

Yet another would be, ironically, to demand he take a more assertive role in something.  Erm, to put it another way, don't top from the bottom.  "I want you to assert your spiritual headship of this household more forcefully!"  Doesn't really work.  

I once tried to make Mark be more "involved" in the homeschooling decisions.   It didn't go well.  I finally had to accept that I have been blessed with a husband with a very hands-off managerial style, who trusts me to make wise decisions in this area.  Homeschooling is delegated very firmly to me, and in this case, submitting means I don't get to pass the buck to him on day-to-day operations.  

And then there's decision-making.  Often we discuss submission in terms of the hypothetical Big Decision That You Discuss And Discuss And Can't Come To An Agreement On.   Someone has to give, the theory goes, or the marriage can't survive; and if marriage is to survive, the "who's gonna give" must be pre-decided.  Might as well be the guy, for reasons explained in Eph 5.

But how often does this happen in a marriage?  Three or four times, maybe?  A dozen, if one or both of you is exceptionally dramatic?  But aren't there daily or weekly tiny decisions where the wife gets to decide if she's going to do things the way her husband has asked her to or if she's going to do it her own way?   Don't we all do little things that drive each other crazy?  Can we not actually try to stop doing that small thing that we know bugs him so much?    Would it be so hard to try?  

But how about when it's the other way around, when there's something we really think he ought to do that he's not doing?  Demanding that he change is apparently right out.  Is there then nothing we can do?  

On the other hand... "men ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies..."  We can, I think, ask to be loved and provided for in the way we wish to be loved and provided for.  

I remember a disagreement Mark and I had in the past year, one of those situations where I was absolutely, positively sure I was right and he was wrong, and looking back on it I can see how I tried to put my foot down about it and how uncomfortable and awful and wrong and upsetting that felt.  How much better it would have been had I simply ... asked for what I needed, and trusted that he would want to find a solution that would work for both of us.  

(Even without my asking, he did find a solution.  So.)

So what have I come up with?

1. Don't be bossy about how to interact with the house or the kids.
2. Take all his suggestions seriously.
3. Don't undermine his authority with the children.
4. Don't undermine his standing outside the family.
5. Try not to do that thing that drives him nuts.
6. Ask for what we think we need.

Yeah, that's a start.

Comments

[Kate]

Dang, it was easier when I was just thinking of Eph. 5 in the big decision making sense. I've got a lot of work to do on this still. But what you have written here really clicks for me.

[Donna Jannuzzi]

I love all of this. :)

And regards women who gripe about their husbands in public - oh how I truly hate that behavior. Even before my husband and I were married I made a promise to myself that I would never do that. I think that if you are trying to get advice from a trusted friend about a problem you're having that's one thing, and yes I agree that it can be a fine line. But I think once you start *complaining*, you've crossed it. I just think how hurt I'd be to know to that my husband spoke of me in such a way to... anyone. It's just so disrespectful.

[Arwen]

I love your systematic approach to things, Erin!

I, like so many other women, am itchy about the term "submission" - and even more so about the term "head of the household" which I instinctively connect with a particular kind of cultish evangelicalism - but I can see that over 8.3 years of marriage I have actually come to... well, to trust and submit to my husband in many ways I wasn't willing to do at the beginning. I think you hit the nail on the head with "ask for what you need" because I think that has been the biggest way in which I've been able to relinquish control (and bless my marriage): by sharing with my husband a need that the children or I have, and then stepping back and letting him (and oh yes, it is "letting" - sometimes with great effort) solve it in his own way. I submit to him by trusting him, and it is good and very important.

In one of these posts someone mentioned the possibility that Paul told men to love and women to submit precisely because those are the roles with which each sex struggles (i.e. women love more easily, men submit more easily). I once heard this exact opinion expressed in a homily by a very smart priest (Antonin Scalia's son, actually) and I really like it. I think that in the realm of the home and family it is easy for women to love devotedly, but not so easy for us to relinquish control. Which is why so many households fall into that "my husband is my extra child" trap. But I think your suggestions for fighting it are right on!

Hooray for this post. I am getting so much out of this discussion.

[MrsDarwin]

"Thinking that it's about assigning the woman the stay-at-home job (an error peculiar to our age)"

I love this concise demolition of the usual bugbear of this verse.

Husband-griping is a dangerous and insidious sport, in which I refuse to participate. It's the kind of destructive behavior that can create problems where there were none, simply by naming them.

Great, thorough post, as always!

[Dorian Speed]

Yes, good thoughts. Really, for reasons not to be revealed in public forums (fora? fauna?), this is a super-difficult thing for me right now due to Special Circumstances. Because I'm sooo special, or something.

It's been my experience that most groups that exist for the sole purpose of being "mom groups" degenerate into husband-bashing and other-woman-bashing. (Not like, bashing the husband's other woman. That, I could understand.)

[bearing]

Arwen: "...Paul told men to love and women to submit precisely because those are the roles with which each sex struggles (i.e. women love more easily, men submit more easily). "

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. There's huge variation in both genders, but love and control are intertwined in a classically, stereotypically feminine way.

Obviously people can and do err in the other direction --men do cruelly dominate their female partners in a sort of awful overcompensation. That's a truly terrible situation that society shrinks away from -- even though it's maybe a lot less common than (far less physically dangerous, but also insidious and marriage-undermining) husband-bashing. Oh, and of course spousal violence does go the other way: women injure their male partners, probably far more frequently than it is ever reported.

As I look over my enumerated list of "Don'ts" this morning, it strikes me that so many of them are (a) simple common sense (b) ordinary charity (c) probably good advice for how a husband should treat his wife too. I mean, for example, Dad shouldn't undermine Mom's parental authority either.

So here's another thing that is a little tricky: "love your wives" and "submit to your husbands," put into enumerated lists of "do's" and "don'ts," might look pretty similar. Is the difference between them wholly or largely interior, "spiritual" in the sense that women live with a submissive spirit, and men with a sacrificial spirit?

And suddenly using the term "sacrificial" there (for that is the kind of love that I am sure Paul means) -- doesn't that clarify it a bit? Doesn't that really make it ring true that women SACRIFICE more easily and men RECEIVE (take) more easily? isn't the submissiveness that Paul recommends essentially receptive in nature?

Is he possibly ordering men to give and women to receive?

And maybe the obedience part of submission is sort of a necessary step to receiving in fullness? To receive as much as possible, you have to open up as much as possible, and lay down as much of your defenses as possible, and sweep away your own plans in order to make room for the self-gift of another person?

[mandamum]

I cut the tendon on my pinkie last week (and an artery and nerve to boot) and got a crash course in being cared for (loved, in a very real way) by dh while also submitting many decisions/actions to him. The end of pregnancy/babymoon can be a bootcamp in this too. It might be interesting to go back and read E. Foss's thoughts on being a "good wife" when bedrest kept her from the "doing" side of things, and see how it ties in here.

I like your thoughts on some specific ways E5 plays out. I think the trust issue is crucial--trust your husband to be the good man you married, and pray for him and trust God to lead him and take care of you both.... This would probably be more effective in our house than my "suggestions" and interference in child-rearing stuff..... Off to try it today :)

Erin, you ask, "Is he possibly ordering men to give and women to receive? " I think the answer JPII's wed audiences, now collated as ToB, would give is "YES!!" And yet, to receive is a very active role too--which I think your OP and the comments illustrate.

[bearing]

Well, another thing that occurred to me this morning is that all Christians are called to have a spirit of sacrifice in our daily lives, and certain spirit of submission to God in our daily lives too -- men and women are equally called to live out sacrifice and submission in MOST of the the things we do.

Most, but not all: in the husband-wife relationship, specifically within the domestic sphere, all the sacrifice is characteristic of "husband-ness" and all the submission is characteristic of "wife-ness." Complementarity, not equality, within that sphere of the home. Equality outside it, and in eternity.