Yesterday I posted about how I came to change my views on gender and leadership, from believing the complimentarian position that only men can lead, to holding the egalitarian position that leadership is not one of the things men and women differ on. While I alluded to the reasons why I changed my mind, I didn't actually mention any of them. I thought I'd start now and revive my dusty old blogging habits by making a series of posts on why I consider the egalitarian position the best in the light of scripture. There are lots of better minds that have written on this subject, so I thought I'd start with a topic that doesn't get much attention: the idea that being an egalitarian can help you be a better man, and more specifically, a better husband.
Consider the following verses aimed at husbands in the Bible.
Consider the following verses aimed at husbands in the Bible.
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."
"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."
"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."
Looking at these passages, one thing is conspicuous by its absence: none of these passages contain commands for a man to exercise authority and leadership over his wife.
Now, one can argue that the exercise of authority is implied by the proceeding verses about wives submitting themselves to their husbands. That argument could be further backed that the passages instructing parents on how to treat their children don't mention exercising authority over them either, even though it's clearly assumed that they will. But where this analogy breaks down is when we admit that women are not children. There is a difference between a man's wife and his daughter. A child, still growing up, needs instruction and guidance from their parents and there are many, many verses in the Bible attesting to that and admonishing parents to raise their children well, especially in Proverbs. Women, on the other hand, are adults who no longer require parenting, especially not from their husbands. There are no verses anywhere in the Bible instructing husbands to exercise authority and give guidance to the lives of their wives. From the complimentarian position, we have to simply assume it's implied by the verses about wives submitting to their husbands. We have no other scriptural proof that it is so.
But, from such a dearth of proof comes a wealth of "Biblical" advice and commands from Christian sources. I sat in on a number of gender talks when I was at Summitview. The importance of leading one's wife and family was a topic that never failed to come up. In one particularly memorable session, the entire talk was devoted to leadership by provision, and how critically important it was that we as men find profitable jobs and pursue marketable degrees so that we would be able to financially support our family in the white-picket-fence American dream (anyone with aspirations of a less lucrative career was told point-blank to abandon their dreams for money; there was even a list showing which careers were most profitable and thus which occupations were acceptable for a leading, Biblical man and which weren't). The topic of male leadership is proclaimed everywhere in complimentarian Christianity. If someone is decrying the loss of masculinity in the church today or the record numbers of men who are up and leaving their families, odds are the solution they'll propose is that men become better leaders and exercise more authority. According to the complimentarian view, the essential thing for making a good, godly husband and a good, godly man is nothing more or less than the exercise of authority and leadership.
The problem with this is that our proscription for godly men is not at all the same as the Bible's. Ask the Bible what advice husbands need to hear, and it isn't "lead your wives and provide for them," but "love your wives and understand them." We may brush this aside as a non-issue, perhaps a mere cultural difference (like early church men somehow already knowing how to lead whereas ours do not), but the truth is that this is more than a simple disconnect. There's actually an inherent contradiction that arises when we put the emphasis for husbands on leading rather than loving in their marriage.
Take, for example, this scene that played out at my register yesterday. A young couple was in line buying a variety of groceries and obviously enjoying themselves. When it came time to pay, however, a disagreement arose. She wanted to split the transaction. He wanted to pay all of it. Very likely the pair shared finances to some degree, so it probably made little difference whose account it came out of. However, the man felt his prerogative to provide and lead was being threatened. He insisted. Things became physical. He shoved her forcefully away from the checkout stand, told her harshly not to get in his way, and swiped his card, insisting I allow him to pay the entire bill. Now, some questions. Was the man leading? Well, certainly. He fulfilled the prerogative to provide by paying, and he exercised authority by making sure he got his way. Was the man loving? I would say just as certainly no. And now, for the real question: was he Biblical? If we go by what the complimentarian position defines as Biblical for men, then yes, or nearly yes, because to that position the most essential part of manhood and being a husband is to exercise authority and provide leadership, which he did (albeit not in a very gentle way). However, if we go by just what the Bible actually says, we'd have to say certainly not. He was harsh with her, not gentle or loving. He did not try to understand her at all or honor her. He certainly did not show the same kind of self-sacrificial love to her that Christ shows to the church. He dominated her. This is the disconnect: in the Bible, his behavior was unambiguously wrong, but in complimentarian morality he was right or at least on the right track.
When our views lead us to different moral conclusions than the Bible, I think it's high time we reexamined our views!
But the disconnect goes deeper. A few years ago I had the privilege to acquire the book For Men Only by Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn. I recommend it and its companion For Women Only for anyone who wants to understand gender differences and the opposite sex better (which, Biblically, should be a goal for all husbands, citing 1 Peter 3:7). Each chapter is dedicated to one of the most commonly reported (by women) misunderstandings between them and their spouse. One chapter is titled, "Your Real Job is Closer to Home." The thrust of the chapter is how many husbands believe that their financial provision is their best or a major way of expressing love for their spouse. They put in long hours at the office, they work hard for the promotion they don't really want, they work nights and weekends to get that extra paycheck...and then come home to a wife and family that feels positively abandoned by them. Why? Because when it comes to the type of love wives and families need from their men, the love that provides monetary things is way, way down on the list. Most of the women surveyed by the Feldhahns (who based all of their writing on comprehensive surveys of actual couples, etc) would much rather be married to a poor but affectionate man rather than a hard-working provider who was never there when they needed him. Another chapter of the book, if I recall correctly, was dedicated to addressing the misconception in men that women talk about feelings because they want them fixed by the man rather than simply understood. The problem for the complimentarian husband is that his ideology predisposes him to make both mistakes. Complimentarian ideology says that leading, fixing, and providing are all essential not only to the role of a husband but also to a man's very masculinity. Certainly it holds these things as more essential for husbands to practice than love, emotional connection, and understanding. The problem is that wives find the opposite is true and the Bible agrees with them! To be good, Biblical husbands, men must agree with these priorities as well.
This doesn't fly in complimentarian theology. In fact in the Bible's emphasis on husbands loving and understanding their wives we probably see the stage set Biblically for the end of the patriarchal system, much as the Bible's insistence that masters treat their slaves as brothers in Christ spelled the eventual emergence of Biblical abolitionist movements. If we insist on complimentarianism, we're forced to hold a believe that contradicts scripture when it comes to where our priorities should be as men and husbands, and one which, at the very least, predisposes us to be bad husbands and very possibly unbiblical ones. If we instead discard the belief that leadership and provision are divinely ordained roles every husband must fulfill, we are much more free to obey the Bible's commands to husbands and to better love our wives.
No comments:
Post a Comment