A woman’s place
I caught another choice piece of Christian radio yesterday. I tuned in near the end of the program, but I found the transcript of the entire show online. You can read it here. It’s part of a series called “God’s Beautiful Design for Women.” It turns out that the “beautiful design” that God has in mind for us is to be mindlessly subservient to our husbands. I don’t dispute that the Bible says women ought to “be subject to their husbands” (Titus 2:1-5, the focus of the series). My problem is the fact that they call this teaching — well, their interpretation of this teaching — beautiful.
I understand the ideology that if God teaches it, it must be good and wonderful. Well, I don’t understand it per se, but I understand that it exists. Still, I have a hard time believing that, hearing or reading all of these testimonials from women about how they learned to submit to their husbands, Nancy Leigh DeMoss and fans of her program wouldn’t have a second thought about whether this was truly a good teaching, or whether their interpretation of those five words in Titus 2 was really the most accurate. Here’s one pretty telling quotation:
My husband has never been very open to constructive criticism or change so I have come to the point where I give him to the Lord for the Lord to work in his heart and life. It is a very freeing thing not to have the responsibility for my husband.
So let me get this straight. The wife believes the husband is making bad decisions, but he is not “very open to constructive criticism” (read: he’s a jerk), so her response is to wait for God to fix the situation. Unclear whether this works, and how long she expects it to take. Never mind that the husband is making lots of bad decisions in the meantime. She’s free! Subservient to him as per the teachings of her religion, she does not have to take any responsibility for his bad decisions. If God wants him to start making good decisions, He’ll make it so.
To me, this is a very troubling outlook on life. If you know someone is doing something wrong, and you choose not to intervene to stop them, your actions are morally equivalent to having done those wrong things yourself. (I know this statement is not undisputed, but I don’t buy the other side’s arguments. Imagine that you’re walking down the street and you see a baby lying face-down in a puddle. You didn’t put that baby there, so it’s not your fault, right? But you could easily reach down to turn the baby over to keep him from drowning. If you actively choose not to take the baby out of the puddle, you are condemning it to drowning just as surely as the person who put it there in the first place. There is no action/inaction distinction.) Feeling free in such a situation strikes me as pretty morally repugnant.
It is suggested in the program, though, that wives’ submission to their husbands inspires the husbands to be more responsible. Since their wives have chosen to accept everything they say unquestioningly and made this choice clear, husbands’ future actions are informed by this sensibility and thus they have to be more careful to make the right calls. That’s a nice idea, but I’m not convinced that it always happens. It sounds to me like the perfect set-up for a real power trip. After all, it’s God’s will that the husband is always obeyed, so how could a husband’s decision ever be wrong?
The program makes the case that submission is a sign of love. I can see what DeMoss is getting at when she talks about having a “soft and responsive heart” versus as “hardened” heart. But if we agree that this is a way to express love, what are we to make of the way husbands are supposed to act? Husbands do not have to listen to what their wives say, unless God happens to change their minds accordingly. Does this mean that husbands should not be expected to express love to their wives?
Naturally, the interpretation of this is simply that men and women have different natures, and express love in different ways. Husbands show their love for their wives by making responsible decisions and maintaining strict authority — right? Right, except for when they don’t. What if a husband is abusive with his power? DeMoss explains that this one marriage could easily have ended in divorce, because the husband’s heart was neither soft nor tender. She praises the wife for saying,
I still have daily struggles to forgive, to choose to care for my husband, to judge my pride. I do what I do because of what Jesus has done for me. He deserves to have my obedience, and my husband deserves my forgiveness and kindness because Jesus loves and forgives me.
Well, that’s nice. According to DeMoss, it’s your job, wives, to supply enough love and kindness for both yourself and your husband. You should worship your husband as just you worship a supposedly infallible deity, no matter how stupid or harmful his decisions are.
But wait! This sounds too terrible, so they’ve written in an exception:
…I don’t mean that you stand around and you watch your husband beat you up or you just say, “Hit me again.” The whole counsel of God would make it clear that if you or your children’s health or lives are being threatened, there is the biblical permission to separate, to remove yourself from that immediate danger.
I’m not talking about your body being threatened, as Jesus was—to the point of death. Most of the time it’s not life and death or physically threatening for us, though there are some. Most of the time it’s our wishes, our desires, our convenience, our comfort, our personal desires and pleasure, and He says, even if it makes your life difficult, “be subject to your own husbands . . . even if some do not obey the Word.”
I have two pain problems with this passage. First: even if the husband does not follow the Word of God, the wife should submit to him? That seems like poor advice. Second, and more importantly: where do we draw the line, and why do we draw it there? DeMoss and the Revive Our Hearts ministry have an easy answer. The Bible says that these cases are on this side, and these cases are on the other, and we don’t have to think about it anymore. But what happens if we do, horror of horrors, apply some of our own independent critical thinking to the Bible? What should a wife do if she is forbidden from buying the new shoes she wants, because her old ones are giving her back pain? What if her husband wants to take the kids out for fast food most nights, but she wants them to eat healthier? How much health should a wife consider an exception for? Also… what about emotional abuse, rather than physical abuse?
I think that cuts to the heart of the issue. If a woman is expected to humble herself before her husband just as she humbles herself before Jesus Christ, how could it possibly not be an emotionally abusive situation? Divorce is a tragedy, but sometimes it is better than remaining married — in a broader range of situations than merely the ones where there is physical violence. I don’t understand how someone could consciously decide to follow the teachings of a religion which is so blatantly in contradiction with common sense and moral intuition.
Comments
2 Responses to “A woman’s place”
Leave a Reply
Z – I read this post way back when you first put it up and I wanted to respond to it on my blog several times, but kept deciding against it. Since I’m a guy I thought that my perspective would be taken as ill-informed or chauvinist. I just thought I would post a reply here and hope you accept my perspective.
I guess the first thing to say is that I think as an atheist it’s going to be really hard for you to accept the reasoning behind the whole notion you are discussing. A big part of this idea is based in a Belief that there is a God and he can be a powerful force in our lives. You did a thorough job of reasoning through some of the drawbacks to wifely ‘submissiveness’ and I respect your reservations, but the problem is that when we are talking about the role of a higher power in our lives, Reason plays a secondary role to Faith.
So, the notion of a wife ‘submitting’ to her husband… First, let me say that maybe a better way to come at his is to replace ‘submissive’ with ‘deference’. Submissive is a pretty charged word and I don’t think it accurately describes the teachings on this idea. Second, let me say that in my own marriage, the ‘submissiveness’ or ‘deference’ is reciprocal. A strong couple compliments one another so in our house my wife is the leader on issues with the kids and the day-to-day parts of our finances, while I am the leader with discussions about our house and our long-term finances. In issues where discussions reach a stalemate, the natural leader casts the tie-breaking vote. It is our belief that we recognize God-given or acquired skills in one another and by deferring to the other’s judgment we are trusting that God will guide them. So we are coming at things from a slightly different angle.
In couples where the wife submits to the husband completely, you have to understand that the wives do not see it as actually submitting to the husband…but to God. They trust that the husband will see their subservience as a motivator to listen closely to what God is telling him. Essentially, they are dumping a lot of responsibility on him and praying that will sharpen his focus. An analogy I would make is this: When my daughter was young, maybe 6 or 7 I took her on a three-day trip to Tennesse. We drove maybe 500 miles and did all sorts of fun stuff. At one point we were driving along and she was engrossed in a book or something. I thought to myself, this child has placed all her trust in me. This car is hurling down the road at 70 mph and she doesn’t have a care in the world. She trusts that her daddy will protect her by driving this car safely. It may not have even been a conscious trust, but it was still there. That trust was quite sobering. It’s the kind of trust that makes you put two hands on the wheel and ease off the gas a little bit. THAT is what the wife in these marriages hopes will happen.
If the husband is listening to God and following his will, the wife believes that God is guiding them, not the husband. He is just the middle-man, sort of like a priest in the Catholic church. I suppose you could say, why can’t the woman be the one that God speaks through? That’s a good question, and I can only answer it by saying that this is a old bastion of society that is hanging around. If the women do it voluntarily though, I see no harm in it.
You seem to be really focused on the notion that the husband may make mistakes and how tragic it would be for the woman to not voice her opinion. I will also say that sort of attitude can destroy a marriage, even in a marriage of non-believers and non-submissiveness. Often the best gift we can give ourselves is the gift of letting go of certain things. The best advice any married couple can receive is to choose their battles very carefully. In the case of a submissive wife, believe me, there are ways they can let their heart and mind be known without taking over. Also, when mistakes ARE made, you have to remember again that in the mind of the wife, this may be God testing them or leading them in a different direction. That trust in God, even when we falter, is a huge part of Faith. Again, that may be the point where it becomes hard for a non-believer to understand.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don’t think you sound chauvinist at all. It sounds like you and your wife have a great relationship that’s working fantastically, and I’m happy for you both. Realize, though, that a great relationship is not something that one person can achieve on their own. You describe your deference to each other — but the message in that program was that only the wife should be deferential to the husband. The husband is under no such constraints.
I’m happy to use the word “defer,” by the way, instead of “submit,” but I should point out that “submission” is the word the radio transcript used. It’s the language in which they chose to describe their own beliefs.
You wrote: “If the women do it voluntarily though, I see no harm in it.” I think that’s just the issue. How voluntary is it for these women? It’s not about whether they believe their husband to be well-informed and fair in his decision-making; they’re not analyzing the situation and picking the best course of action for the circumstances. It’s about how God wants them to behave at all times. Maybe you’re okay with the conclusion that following God’s will is voluntary (though I don’t think that’d be the standard interpretation) but I doubt the truth of such a premise for people in very religious communities. People die refusing basic medical treatment because of pressures from their religious community. Perhaps they can technically make a choice between following their deity’s commands or displeasing that omnipotent deity and facing the consequences… but in effect, there is only one option.
It can be valuable to let go and allow a loved one to take the lead. That’s not what I take issue with. “Choosing your battles carefully,” what you’re arguing for, is different from being categorically submissive (or deferential). We could take your story about your daughter as an example. That is a really touching story. I assume, however, that if you were swerving around on the road or if you were falling asleep, or if you were otherwise incapable of driving in some way apparent to a 7-year-old, you would want her to speak up — both for her safety and yours. If she were at least 16 and licensed, I expect you’d even want her to offer to drive and let you rest, and to insist that she drive if you tried to refuse but were clearly incapable of driving safely. I’m not a parent myself, though I hope to be someday, and I’d want to teach my children to protect themselves like that. Trust is beautiful and inspirational, but in the event that it has to some degree been misplaced, we need to be able to look past it and solve the problem at hand. Otherwise… are we to view a tragic car accident as simply God’s will?
You’re right that some part of this is hard for me as a nonbeliever to understand. My inability to understand it, though, is a big part of why I am a nonbeliever. I’m not okay with putting reason in a secondary role, so I don’t like to believe arbitrary things with no proof behind them… and I’m disinclined to see belief-without-proof, or faith, as virtuous. I realize people do have religious beliefs that sound irrational to me. I’m over that. What blows me away is when those religious beliefs lead people to do things that are detrimental to themselves. Theological debates are complex, and there’s no way to prove any one side right or wrong… but some things are simple. “Don’t kowtow to an abusive spouse” should be one of them. It worries me when religion gets in the way of people making healthy and safe decisions for their own well-being.