mmmm, interesting

so from my other post, I've been thinking that the whole idea of biblical equality is interesting to me and I'd like to look more into it. I chose to start with the group Christians for Biblical Equality, who were in fact the folks that sponsored the tent at Cornerstone. I will fully admit that I am now currently biased against the idea that the Bible needs to be messed about with or that things "need" to be more equal as far as women are concerned, but I can still understand the desire to encourage these changes, and think that to an extent, their arguments may have merit.

CBE has free articles that can be viewed online, so I decided to look one up, titled A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority in Marriage by Dennis J. Preato. He has a Master of Divinity degree (he went to and graduated from seminary), so I was disappointed when I found that he writes the article from a grossly secular point of view.

His main focus is egalitarian vs. heirarchical marriages, or marriages based on equality and sharing of roles vs. traditional "the man is the head of the house" marriages. He seems to conclude that if you're trapped in a marriage where the man has all the authority, you've got a 20% chance of being happy. He's got empirical data from a survey done by several professors of sociology, following a number of couples over a 20 year span and periodically checking in to see how things are going. The empirical data apparently proves that men and women who share the leadership and decisionmaking and authority in marriage are much happier, more fulfilled, and less prone to domestic violence than the traditional marriage.

Preato's main shortcoming that shines throughout the entire article is that he sees the purpose of marriage as being happy and fulfilled. He states his mission in comparing the two marriage models as "recognizing which relationship is most biblical and results in a happier, healthier, more intimate, long term and permanent marriage. After all, is this not what God really desires for our lives?" Umm, the last time I checked, God desires to mold us into his image, and to be glorified in everything we do. Also, I thought that part of the mystery of marriage is that it is a reflection of Christ and the church. When was the last time we shared authority and decisionmaking abilities and leadership with Christ? With a focus on marital felicity and not on obedience and subjection to God's will, Preato's entire argument is flawed from the start.

Along the lines of obedience to God's will, the empirical data that is showcased seems to assume that each of the marriages following the "traditional" model are doing so entirely by Biblical standards. How many of those women were really submitting to their husbands out of reverence for Christ? Or were they in truth just going along to avoid rocking the boat, all the while cultivating a bitter heart? Or how many men were placing themselves into their leadership role, only to have to spend most or all of their time fighting off their wives' desperate attempts to usurp their power? Those could be considered contemporary marriages, but they could not be happy, nor should the be considered Biblical. If I had to choose between fighting my husband for control on a daily basis or having him consciously share it with me, of course I would be happier sharing control. That doesn't make it any more right.

The only other explanation to that problem is the assumption that the Biblical standards presented are wrong, too stringent, or too lofty. That begins to tread on thin ice when these same Christians say they believe about the Bible being the inspired word of God, so it makes sense that they would find some way to excuse their disbelief in the scriptures as they are written. One of Preato's excuses is that the Bible actually alludes in places to women "ruling" the house, thus having authority in that realm, i.e. in the marriage. He also uses Ephesians 5 to try to explain that wives and husbands are to mutually submit. I agree with him that they should always be looking to serve one another out of reverence for Christ, but to entirely discount the exhortation of women to submit to their men simply because "there is no verb in the Greek text" in verse 22 dealing specifically with wives is ridiculous considering the context. Following into verse 23, Paul explains that the husband is the head of the wife just like Christ is the head of the church. Again, by excusing the wife from submitting to her husband, or expecting that the husband will also equally submit to the wife seems to mean that we would expect that we do not have to submit to Christ, or that somehow, somewhere, Christ will be submitting to his body, the Church.

Most women will say that if only their husbands acted the way they should, there wouldn't be any question that they would be more than happy to serve them, or if their husbands had the sense, they would love to trust him to make all the decisions for the family. While I don't doubt that for many of those women those statements would prove true, that's totally missing the point of obedience. In all the scriptures about how wives and husbands are to be treating each other, there is one exception. That's when you decide as a couple to abstain from marital relations while fasting and praying, and even then Paul says not to do it for too long, you are intended to be giving your bodies to one another. Everything else is clear cut, no way around it. It's not "wives submit to your husbands if his IQ is over 115 and he has an MBA" to prove that he is able to successfully handle the job. I'll be the first to say that this line of thinking raises major unfairness alarms. I agree with the idea, but I still think it sucks and is unfair. But I would like my husband to love and cherish me, even when I am not submitting to him, so why is it so hard for me to think it's a good idea to submit to him even when he's making what I think could be a bad decision? We are only able to be responsible for ourselves. I don't think God will take the excuse of "I didn't feel like submitting because he was being a jerk".

It's amusing that so many women say that they strive to be a "Proverbs 31" woman, yet they ignore what the rest of the Bible says about womenhood and being a wife. In our current times, it is such an affront to anyone who has grown up in America's liberated society that we might have to subject ourselves to someone or some organization or idea, that it has carried through even to the most basic relationships that we have. We always have to be looking out for number one, making sure that we get ours, and that we're not taken advantage of, it's amazing that people decide to get married anymore. We still idealize this ultra romantic view of love that someone would give themselves to us entirely, and live their lives to make us happy, that we forget that our partners are dreaming of the exact same thing. We have a role to play that doesn't include being satisfied or catered to at all times. We're so used to getting everything else just the way we want it (usually so that we will give our money or our time for someone else's gain) that when it doesn't happen, we throw a fit and demand to know why; why do we have to be so old-fashioned? Why would Paul say that? How could God possibly expect women to behave that way in a marriage?

The assumption of many who crusade so vehemently for biblical equality is that the currently accepted view of a Biblical marriage is the man has all the control and the woman has no voice, she's barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (but only if that's what her husband wants!) There are many out there that strive to have exactly those marriages, some of them work, some of them don't. I don't pretend to admit that this picture of marriage holds any attraction for me at all. I myself wrestled throughout the first year of marriage and even longer trying to coem to grips with the idea that honoring my husband means that I can't disagree with him or speak my mind and give my opinion. That's not what it means, but it also doesn't mean that I'm able to nitpick and argue him out of all, or even a few of the decisions that he is trying to make for our family. Part of my problem was that I was so overly concerned that my voice wouldn't be heard, that my rights would be trampled on, I couldn't get past that to see what God wanted for our marriage.

Any marriage in which the participants are both looking out only for themselves is not going to work for very long. In these egalitarian marriages where the power is shared, there is some measure of deferring to one another and selflessness, that could be why they succeed more often. It doesn't make it right though, if it's not how God intended marriage to be. Just because the original intent of the marriage bond has been convoluted over the past few decades doesn't give us an excuse for remaking it into something we think sounds good. It's sad to me when we decide to interpret our lives, or even the Bible through our cultural standards, instead of the other way around.

God made Eve to be a helper to Adam. Paul says specifically that man isn't made for woman, but that woman was made for man. There are certain inescapable hints in God's word that he really does intend us to have certain roles and live after a certain pattern. Those of use who have heard a good number of sermons should know by now that following God's will is usually one of the harder things in life, but if you want to be successful in the one thing that matters (pleasing God) then in the long run, harder is better.