Love and Marriage (without the Horse and Carriage)
He did it with just a touch of his big toe.
My husband and I were having coffee with friends, sharing our spiritual highs and lows of the previous week when he saw the warning signs. It was subtle: a rise of my shoulders, an intake of air, leaning forward, my mouth beginning to open, and he knew. He knew what I was thinking and what I was about to say. He knew that I was prepping myself to be argumentative and to say something unnecessarily controversial.
So he nudged me under the table. Just once.
In full disclosure, we’re not the stereotypical conservative couple—we simply don’t fit the personality paradigm. He’s type B; I’m type A. He’s quiet; I’m outspoken. He actually enjoys cleaning and after ten years, I think I finally believe him. (He says he likes bringing order to chaos, which on further reflection shines significant light on why he fell for me in the first place.) But there in that moment when he expressed his disapproval with the slightest nudge of his big toe, I immediately stopped.
Most conservatives would hail this as a great victory, that this is exactly how marriages should function. Husband directs, wife obeys. But I have to admit, my response to him in that moment had little to do with an immediate understanding of headship and hierarchy. It wasn’t mapped out by a complementarian flow-chart. It wasn’t because of a role.
It was because I love him.
Over the last couple of decades, there’s been a strong push to recover a Biblical understanding of roles in marriage. But somewhere on that path, we’ve started taking short-cuts. Short-cuts around the gospel and right into legalism. And these short cuts have led us to think that obedience to the roles, that our ability to have perfect families and properly ordered homes, will show Christ to the world. So we end up talking more about paradigms and less about people, more about rules and less about Spirit.
Maybe it’s time we remembered what it’s all about in the first place. The truth is that we were never made for roles; we were made for relationships. And just as Christ had to remind the first-century Jews that man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man, we have to remember that marriage was not made for roles but roles for the benefit of the marriage. That the relationship, the one flesh unity, the loving communion is what is of greatest significance. That this, the love we have for one another, is what will show the world that we are His disciples.
And if you think about it, the differences in marriage are one of the greatest opportunities to do just that. Because here you have two sinful human beings—so diverse that even their molecular composition is different—who must learn to live in loving, daily communion. Not temporarily, but for a lifetime. And we learn that as we fail each other, as we selfishly demand our own way, and as we run to Christ for mercy. For only there do we experience true love and only there will we learn to extend that same love to each other. We will never learn it by simply conforming to roles.
So in that moment, when my husband nudged me, my deferring to him had less to do with performing my role as his wife than it did with loving him already. And quite frankly, why would I have done anything else? Why would I have chosen to barge ahead knowing that the man I loved didn’t want me to? Why would I have insisted on my own way when I knew it would make him uncomfortable? What wisdom, what convoluted sense of liberation would have led me to do something that he thought was unwise?
And so I didn’t.
As quickly as he had understood what I as about to do, I understood his objection. We looked each other in the eye and smiled that knowing smile that comes only from living and loving together. I settled back into my chair and comfortably nestled my head against his shoulder as if to tell him, “Yes, dear, of course I won’t.”
handerson Bio
Hannah R. Anderson lives in Roanoke, VA where she spends her days mothering three small children, loving her husband, and scratching out odd moments to write. She blogs at Sometimes a Light and has recently published Made For More.
- 8 views
Dan… I think you’re right that this kind of thing can go in both directions in a healthy relationship. It can’t work, though, if a wife has created a dynamic of nagging (which is ultimately disrespect) or if the husband has created a dynamic of oppression (which is also, ultimately, disrespect.)
Personally, I don’t think it’s properly termed “mutual submission,” but that’s a quibble.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[handerson] That’s precisely what’s at stake—the healthy relationship. And it’s precisely what we are sacrificing if we rely on “roles.” FWIW, both to warn and to heed a warning are acts of love. And if done in the right way, I most certainly would feel free to nudge my husband if he were stepping onto dangerous ground. Free and obligated to.Yes, and you should encourage/admonish your husband. Just because we (men) lead, doesn’t mean that we’re immune to correction (although it would be nice if that were the case!). Dr. Ollila joked, when I was a student at NBBC, that wifely submission is ‘learning to get out of the way so God can hit your husband’, and there’s a lot of truth in that joke.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
God told Adam it was because of him that the ground was cursed … Why did God not include Eve in that curse if they shared equally in the sin? Instead, Eve is cursed on her God-given role before the fall. She’s cursed on her roles as a mother and as a helper… .I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.
http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=confere…
[Brenda T] Recently there was a conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Thomas White spoke on “The Biblical Foundation for Gender Roles.” When explaining that Adam and Eve did not share equally in the responsibility for the fall and thus were not equal in their roles (meaning Adam was her head before the fall) White said,That is a rather surprising misstep. I have found that people who do not understand administrative subordination usually think of authority and subordination in a personal manner instead of an administrative one. Hence, they have a negative view of its construct as if such a construct is inherently indicative of something wrong. And this may be the erring basis of this claim by White.God told Adam it was because of him that the ground was cursed … Why did God not include Eve in that curse if they shared equally in the sin? Instead, Eve is cursed on her God-given role before the fall. She’s cursed on her roles as a mother and as a helper… .I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.
http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=confere…
Christ clearly subordinated himself to the plan of the Father, it was not personal but administrative (for those not understanding the use of the word “personal” here and believe it means something it does not because the word itself is often misused thereby has developed a certain kind of common misunderstanding, the word’s use here means that Christ’s person was not submitting to the person of the Father because his person (Christ’s) was less than that of the Father’s as is the case of our’s with the Godhead).
There is an administrative subordination in the Trinity in which even God the Holy Spirit submits to the will of both God the Father and God the Son, yet all retain their Divinity without compromise. So if this is the motivation of White’s claim, that to be subordinate as Eve was to Adam, indicates some kind of curse, I believe he faces the problem of the Triune construct and its administrative execution.
This reminds me- a pastors I know say they only talk to/counsel with husbands, not to wives. If there is any kind of problem or concern, they will not speak to the husband with the wife present, and they use Numbers 30 and 1 Cor. 14:35 as their proof text.
[Dan Salter] The Son submits to the Father specifically related to the mission of redemption. That is an administrative role and not personal. But if you remove the mission and declare without qualification that one person of the Trinity is eternally subordinate to another person of the Trinity, you have tied role inextricably to person rather than mission and have thus made it personal, which of course is changing the concept of Trinity into tritheism. Authority and subordination always involve the will. If the eternal will of the Son could possibly be different from the eternal will of the Father so that the Son must constantly submit his eternally separate and different will to the Father’s, we may be left wondering what it is that makes the Godhead one. Defining the oneness of the Godhead merely as similar characteristics albeit separate and different wills again causes a drift into tritheism. But now we have also veered off from Hannah’s article, so I’m going to back off here.Good qualifier here. Thanks
My specific concern has more to do with the fact that we have reached a point in the discussion that we have forgotten that roles are not the point. Even titling a lecture “The Biblical Foundation for Gender Roles” in my mind elevates them to a place that is not Biblically accurate. It’s not a question of whether the Scripture teaches headship, but of the emphasis that we place on it and whether we view it as an end in itself. IMO, we’re quickly reaching a place where hierarchical roles are becoming THE ONLY way conservatives understand relationships between men and women.
[Brenda T] Recently there was a conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Thomas White spoke on “The Biblical Foundation for Gender Roles.” When explaining that Adam and Eve did not share equally in the responsibility for the fall and thus were not equal in their roles (meaning Adam was her head before the fall) White said,Perhaps another reading is possible. He could be saying that before Adam was cursed; Eve was cursed; and each was cursed in accord with their roles. It is his wording “before the fall” that is the problem; I’m just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. The way I’m taking the words “before the fall” is not necessarily before the fall of Adam and Eve together, but I’m taking the words as before the judgment was leveled on her husband, God has already leveled her with her own judgment.God told Adam it was because of him that the ground was cursed … Why did God not include Eve in that curse if they shared equally in the sin? Instead, Eve is cursed on her God-given role before the fall. She’s cursed on her roles as a mother and as a helper… .I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.
http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=confere…
I may be wrong. I’m just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. And I have not listened to the link provided, and that would perhaps clarify. Certainly, his wording could have been better if one takes the “benefit of the doubt” view of his words. I’m just suggesting an alternative way of reading the words that is no longer a theological blunder.
[handerson] we’re quickly reaching a place where hierarchical roles are becoming THE ONLY way conservatives understand relationships between men and women.How is this exclusion demonstrated among conservatives?
I have heard a well loved, learned pastor say that the Proverbs 31 women asked her husband for permission before she bought the field.
Men aren’t too comfortable talking with women about ideas in groups settings even though all may hear the conversation and there is no questionable intent. Women are expected to gather together in another spot and talk nonsense. And if the women begin to gossip and cause trouble, well, “isn’t that what all women do?” is the mindset of the men in some churches.
I have seen pastors sitting near women at a church dinner whisper their conversation about current trends in fundamentalism as if women, especially those of the laity, aren’t capable of understanding or giving sound Biblical input.
Not to put the blame on men, mind you. Many women are happy acting mindlessly and letting responsibility for everything that happens fall on their husbands. They don’t understand their loving relationship to their husbands or what it means to “do him good and not evil”.
L Strickler
You should listen to the recording; maybe I heard it wrong. I listened to it a couple of times through just to make sure I heard it right, because it really made me do a double take.
I thought maybe it was a fluke until I was in another situation where the study leader did the exact same thing, launching the discussion from I Timothy 2:12 back into Genesis, rather than the other way around. So he ended up handling Genesis 1-3 much the same way, even expressing that Adam’s naming the animals was a direct teaching of headship (i.e. Eve didn’t get to name them) and Adam saying “bone of MY bone” was in order to make the point that Eve was under his headship (instead of an example of oneness).
Even the debate around Trinitarian submission that was referenced earlier is being fueled by headship issues. In my mind, we’re being disingenuous to wrestle with the nature of the Trinity simply to prove our point (whatever it may be) about male/female dynamics. I realize that this is in reaction to feminist theology, but that’ s the whole problem. By reacting, we are missing the bigger picture of what Scripture teaches about the depth and beauty of marriage.
More anecdotally, because of the amount of time we are dedicating to teaching about “roles,” I see among my generation, young women who are striving very hard to meet the paradigms of biblical womanhood and getting very overwhelmed and discouraged when they can’t The solution offered them is this: be more committed because this is REALLY, REALLY important.
Discussion