“They are totally submissive.”
The men handle the finances. The men make the decisions. The men have all the authority. They obey the men.
“They are totally submissive.”
*****
When the church preaches female submission and male authority, what, exactly, are they preaching? Is there such a thing as being too submissive? Does the church teach about the dangers of submission? Or the benefits of, and the command to, mutual submission?
In my experience, the only thing they talk about is men not handling their authority correctly, and women not submitting properly. Which is funny, because I don’t remember reading any delineations in the Bible declaring how far and when to submit, or exactly what male headship looks like.
If the only message they send is women submit and men rule, how do we know if it is a healthy relationship or has crossed over into dangerous territory? Where are the caveats in submission and authority, the shades of grey that should exist, and the option to refuse? Or aren’t there any?
Because the description in the first paragraph could easily be describing a traditionally conservative, patriarchal marriage, could it not? Except in the marriages I know, the women are not totally submissive, but feel they should be. But isn’t this a rough description of what we’re taught the ideal marriage should look like?
*****
The first paragraph is not describing wives. It’s describing prostitutes.
Sex slaves.
Trafficked victims.
If the church’s message to women is they need to submit, and to men it is they need to lead, then how in the hell can they adequately address the issue of female oppression in the world?
“They are totally submissive.”
That line is from a new movie documenting the causes of sex trafficking, Nefarious. I saw a screening last week and highly recommend watching it. It’s the first of 3 movies, and I can’t wait to see the others. We need to see and understand issues, to see the complexity of the problems and solutions. We need to have our eyes opened.
I heard that line, and thought, isn’t that the goal of all complementarian teaching in the church? To have women be completely submissive to men? To let men lead and have complete authority in the home and church? How can a system that is built on lifting one gender up while lowering another, respond when the lowered gender is crushed to the ground?
I am not saying that complementarians and the conservative system of patriarchy advocate slavery and trafficking.
I am saying I don’t see how they can have a logical response to the injustice.
How can you affirm the worth and dignity of women, without going back to creation, when they were created as an image of God, equal to Adam and given the same responsibilities?
When women are crushed, what hope is there to offer them when the message really is, you can have some freedom, but not too much. Let’s get you out of slavery, but you still have to submit. The man still has the responsibility and authority.
From what I’ve gathered, people who believe in submission and authority yet want to help trafficked women, do so out of the idea that ‘no one should be treated like that’ and ‘women aren’t animals’. They have sympathy and a horror rooted in basic decency.
I think we need to have a deeper reason for affirming women. If we are going to appeal to basic human dignity, then let’s appeal to basic human dignity. A dignity that does not reduce women to a verb at the expense of their humanity. The essence of a woman is not found in how well she submits. What makes a woman is her Maker.
We have to have a better response to offer women. We have to offer them a place in this world that is founded on respect, equality, inherent worth and dignity. When women are oppressed, victimized, silenced, or slandered, there must be a response.
There must be a response when women are not taught their true value. There must be a response when men continually violate them and get their wrists slapped. There must be a response when a well-known preacher with hundreds of thousands of followers tries to redefine a classic Bible story and it’s heroine.
“Some have even tried to tie her story in with modern-day, sex-slave trafficking as she was brought before the powerful king as part of his harem.”
“{The book of Esther} casts a sexually sinful winner of The Bachelor as heroine.”
There has to be a response.
Mark Driscoll is starting a new series on Esther that appears to be horrific. I’m going to listen to the sermons and post a response each Wednesday. Because when someone speaks like that, I think there should be a response.
When women are shamed, even blamed, for being victims of rape, there has to be a response that dignifies their status as image-bearers. We have to offer a hope that will lift them out from under the boots of men who would crush their souls.
There are many ways for women to be exploited and oppressed. Not all of them are as obvious as sex slavery. Not all conservative men are as obviously misogynistic as Mark Driscoll. But when the value of women lies in submission and obedience, then women are not truly valued.
There are prostitutes because we don’t value women.
There are slaves because we don’t value women.
There is rape victimization because we don’t value women.
Esther is being dramatically reread because we don’t value women.
The only real answer popular evangelicalism has to offer, because this is the only discussion they have, is that women need to be submitting properly and men need to be leading rightly.
That isn’t good enough for me anymore. My defense and affirmation of women comes from the fact that we are created equally, as images of the most-high God. The message we have to offer is there is a Jesus who restores, who constantly uplifts the outcast, touches the rejected, and empowers the weak.
I highly recommend the work of Catherine Kroeger who founded Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) and was called into story after story of Christian men abusing their wives … She then went on to find Peace and Safety in the Christian Home (PASCH), because, for one, their research showed that abuse statistics aren’t different within Christian homes. She passed away last year, but spent years researching and studying “submission” and “headship.” Have to run, but looking forward to continuing the discussion.
Catherine Kroeger also put together the Women’s Bible Commentary for IVP. Great for a different perspective than the boy’s club of commentaries!
oh awesome. Thanks for that….more books to add to my list, haha!
Just make sure you read my book Hazardous first… 😉
of course! That’s been on my list for awhile actually. Doing me no good just sitting in my cart, but it’s there, lol.
Brilliant I’m with you and will also be blogging. Was listening to Roger Forster on Esther the other day. he seemed to think the main message was about God in working all things. I laughed out loud at the irony – tones of egalitarians are going to be studying and writing about Esther in the next few weeks – what amazing resources will be produced. And while 1 man has many followers we are a very large collective of people and we are not fighting each other to get to the top but working together which is much more powerful. Can I put a link to your blog on mine?
One thing you made me think of just now- in complementarian thinking, the ideal marriage is one where the woman is COMPLETELY submissive and the man has COMPLETE authority, right? It doesn’t happen like that in real life, for practical reasons, but isn’t that the goal they want men and women to strive for? That’s scary stuff.
Oh of course! I can’t wait to read all the great posts that are going to come out of this series.
I know! Don’t they want women to at least be able to fight back and not submit if they are dating an abusive man or are being attacked and raped? Why is a healthy non-submission never taught, or the command to mutually submit completely ignored? Argh, it’s so frustrating.
I was always taught that the woman should not submit if her husband wants her to do something illegal or go against God. But isn’t it meaningless to say “wives submit to your husbands” if she is also evaluating things as reasonable or unreasonable, and only “submitting” to the reasonable ones? For all practical purposes, that sounds egalitarian.
So yeah, my point is, if you teach “healthy non-submission” then the general principle women should live by is to judge for themselves what is reasonable or not. The general principle is NOT to “submit”.
“when the value of women lies in submission and obedience, then women are not truly valued.”
Well said. So very true, yet as you point out so well, those who advocate for male headship don’t see the contradiction. What are we offering women if we’re only offering them a less hostile form of bondage? That’s not the message of the gospel I hear.
Hi Ed, I have The Women’s Study Bible, edited by Catherine and Mary Evans. I would love that commentary! Didn’t know about it. I have mostly the publications she’s edited and published together through PASCH. She’s such a #shero.