http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9517680/Sydneys-Anglican-Church-introduces-submit-wedding-vows-after-Fifty-Shades-of-Grey.html
Now I am fairly live-and-let-live in my approach to such things. I accept the argument that if the husband loves the wife as Christ loves the church, then submitting to him might not be such a bad thing in practice, and so if that is what a gal wants to do...
However, I do object to some of the theological thinking behind the move. The article says the new service has been designed to combat what is perceived as a harmful rise in "egalitarianism and individualism". The Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, is quoted as having said:
"In the last three or four decades a certain egalitarianism has crept into
society and the way people think and I understand that's the reigning
philosophy...I just happen to think it's wrong, unhelpful, and in the end we will find
it's better to recognise that men and women are different, that we have at
certain points different responsibilities and men will be better men if we
acknowledge that."
Where to begin???
Let's start with egalitarianism and individualism being linked in this way. Now I accept this was not a direct quote and may represent a misunderstanding on the part of the news report. However, if it contains truth, the implication is surely that egalitarianism is responsible for a more individual and fragmentary society. Yes, both have increased in society over recent decades, but likewise banana-consumption and lung cancer have increased at similar rates in recent decades. Ergo banana eating causes lung cancer? Nonsense.
Feminists who promote the full humanity of woman and her equality with man are at the forefront of promoting mutuality and have been key to understanding humans not as individuals acting in isolation but as part of complex "human webs". Egalitarian does not equal individualistic - I would love to discuss this further, but time and space do not allow.
So on to egalitarianism being harmful. HOW is it harmful? How is it harmful to allow women to vote, have their own bank accounts and property, be paid the same as their male colleagues, find fulfilling jobs and contribute to the support of their family, to minister to God's people and to stand eyeball to eyeball with their male counterparts in strong, honest and non-hierarchical relationship? How?
There are, of course, new challenges when things change, and with new freedoms women and men will find new ways to sin. But that doesn't make the basic premise of equality wrong. And as long as we are fighting equality, we are fighting the wrong enemy with disastrous results.
Gender hierarchy - as Genesis makes abundantly clear - is a consequence of the Fall. Paul in writing about submission within marriage was egalitarian off the scale within his social context. He begins with a cultural norm: "wives submit to your husbands" and then lobs a rhetorical grenade into the mix by demanding that "husbands love their wives". Without even getting to the part that they should love their wives as Christ loves the church, it is radical stuff. Wives were property and providers of heirs - of course, some were beloved but some were treated extremely badly and they had little protection when this happened. Paul's instruction immediately transforms wives from property and providers of offspring to people, people to be loved, people to be valued, people worthy of sacrifice. Surely this is the beginnings of the egalitarianism we see today!
And yet, we have those who would preserve gender hierarchy arguing that the wife is told to submit while the husband is told to display "agapaic" love (e.g. the love of God). On Twitter yesterday, there was a debate on the positioning of a Greek punctuation mark and its implications for the understanding of Paul's words. In my opinion, this is missing the wood for the trees. The message is clear - women/wives are people too...
I read Paul's words as words of liberation. Others read them as a reductionist recipie for the complex relationship that is marriage. The thing is that all loving relationships are a dynamic tension of loving and submitting, owning oneself and giving oneself to another, taking responsibility for one's actions and allowing others to share the burden of that responsibility. To simplify it to "the wife submits and the husband loves" is just not true or helpful.
I don't have a problem with submitting to my husband - most of the time. He is a man of faith, hard-working, loving and generous. On the rare occasions he isn't, do I still submit? Heck no! I hold him to account, look him in the eyes and tell him the truth he needs to hear. Because I love him. And then he submits to me.
Where to begin???
Let's start with egalitarianism and individualism being linked in this way. Now I accept this was not a direct quote and may represent a misunderstanding on the part of the news report. However, if it contains truth, the implication is surely that egalitarianism is responsible for a more individual and fragmentary society. Yes, both have increased in society over recent decades, but likewise banana-consumption and lung cancer have increased at similar rates in recent decades. Ergo banana eating causes lung cancer? Nonsense.
Feminists who promote the full humanity of woman and her equality with man are at the forefront of promoting mutuality and have been key to understanding humans not as individuals acting in isolation but as part of complex "human webs". Egalitarian does not equal individualistic - I would love to discuss this further, but time and space do not allow.
So on to egalitarianism being harmful. HOW is it harmful? How is it harmful to allow women to vote, have their own bank accounts and property, be paid the same as their male colleagues, find fulfilling jobs and contribute to the support of their family, to minister to God's people and to stand eyeball to eyeball with their male counterparts in strong, honest and non-hierarchical relationship? How?
There are, of course, new challenges when things change, and with new freedoms women and men will find new ways to sin. But that doesn't make the basic premise of equality wrong. And as long as we are fighting equality, we are fighting the wrong enemy with disastrous results.
Gender hierarchy - as Genesis makes abundantly clear - is a consequence of the Fall. Paul in writing about submission within marriage was egalitarian off the scale within his social context. He begins with a cultural norm: "wives submit to your husbands" and then lobs a rhetorical grenade into the mix by demanding that "husbands love their wives". Without even getting to the part that they should love their wives as Christ loves the church, it is radical stuff. Wives were property and providers of heirs - of course, some were beloved but some were treated extremely badly and they had little protection when this happened. Paul's instruction immediately transforms wives from property and providers of offspring to people, people to be loved, people to be valued, people worthy of sacrifice. Surely this is the beginnings of the egalitarianism we see today!
And yet, we have those who would preserve gender hierarchy arguing that the wife is told to submit while the husband is told to display "agapaic" love (e.g. the love of God). On Twitter yesterday, there was a debate on the positioning of a Greek punctuation mark and its implications for the understanding of Paul's words. In my opinion, this is missing the wood for the trees. The message is clear - women/wives are people too...
I read Paul's words as words of liberation. Others read them as a reductionist recipie for the complex relationship that is marriage. The thing is that all loving relationships are a dynamic tension of loving and submitting, owning oneself and giving oneself to another, taking responsibility for one's actions and allowing others to share the burden of that responsibility. To simplify it to "the wife submits and the husband loves" is just not true or helpful.
I don't have a problem with submitting to my husband - most of the time. He is a man of faith, hard-working, loving and generous. On the rare occasions he isn't, do I still submit? Heck no! I hold him to account, look him in the eyes and tell him the truth he needs to hear. Because I love him. And then he submits to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment