I had a chat with a friend of mine the
other day concerning the complimentarian vs. egalitarian view of
marriage. My friend holds to the C-team view, and he does so
with an informed and I would say gentle spirit. Me, I don't hold to
either view precisely, but in practice my own marriage tends to
resemble the egalitarian model I think.
I've noticed some Christians want to go
to the mat over this issue, and I'm afraid I just don't see a reason
to do so. I think loving relationships within marriage are certainly
possible in both models, but there I've kind of given away my bias in
saying that. My bias is toward the loving relationship, not toward
any one model, whether the C or the E variety. That's not very
original or profound, I'm afraid, but it's my goal and my wife's
also.
So my point here is not to assess the
relative value of either position or ultimately take sides between
the two and insist that this model or that one is the correct one
that all ought to adhere to, but I do have a point here, and a point
that I think justifies my not taking a strong stand with regard to
these two positions.
I'm going to assume that anyone reading
this probably understands what is meant by Complimentarianism and
Egalitarianism as these terms are applied to marriage. The C-team
holds that there are distinct but equal roles for the man and the
woman and that these roles, though equal, do involve a degree of
hierarchy. The male is the head, the leader, the Lord of the
household. The husband, as head, loves his wife as Christ loved the
church, and the wife is to submit to that headship.
The E-team holds for a non-hierarchical
view of marriage, with both members being full partners in the
endeavor. I think Egalitarians speak of mutual submission within
marriage, not just wifely submission. Needless to say, both sides have carefully worked out their
vociferous objections to the views of the other side.
Me, I don't fancy myself on either
team. But I would say again that in practice my wife and I might well
be mistaken for egalitarians. Mutual submission would probably better
describe our way of doing things, but this doesn't mean I'm placing
my seal of approval on everything the E-team stands for or
endorsing every implication that follows from their propositions.
No, when it comes to marriage, I'm just a working stiff with no
particular theory to espouse.
What the theoreticians tend to forget,
I think, is that in practice their idealized vision of marriage is
always marred by the sinfulness of both partners. Sin is the failure
or refusal to love God with everything we've got and to love others
as we love ourselves. That's true in any setting, whether the
workplace, the ballfield, the political arena, or the home. Whether
you're on the C-team or the E-team, sin is the problem in your
marriage. Whether your role is husband or wife, sin is your problem.
Sin, the failure to love, is at the root of all that's gone wrong in the world, and it's at
the root of all that goes wrong in your marriage.
So start here. If your on the E-team,
your sin is going to be self-love overriding or out-muscling other-love. In your
self-love you want what you want and you're not going to lay aside
your desires in favor of satisfying the other (in this case, your wife). So you fight over it, and the ideal of
mutual submission between loving partners is nothing more than a
pipedream.
If you're on the C-team, your self-love
to the exclusion of other-love is still the problem. No, you have not
loved your neighbor (or spouse) as you love yourself. You've put
yourself first, and perhaps connived to get your way when there was a
disagreement. If you're the husband, and you're a C-teamer, you're
temptation might be to play the Lordship card for your own selfish
purposes.
What I mean to say is, in the end, on
the ground, these marriages don't seem so different. The problem
everyone is facing is the problem of love, or the failure to love, as
the Bible clearly calls us to love. Does the Bible call us all to
love our neighbors as ourselves, but not the wife to love her
husband?
The answer is, of course not. Whatever
Paul may have meant when he said, “Wives, submit to your husbands
as to the Lord,” and then, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ
loved the church,” what he did not mean by mentioning love only in
regard to the husband but not the wife was that wives are not called
to love their husbands. That is precisely the conclusion we should
not draw. It does no harm to the “institution of marriage” to say
that husbands and wives should love one another.
On this ground it is safe to say that
there is no difference between the call to love others as ourselves
when applied to women as opposed to men, or wives as opposed to
husbands. That means that we might as properly say, “Wives, love
your husbands as Christ loved the church” (which is to say,
sacrificially) as many wives have certainly done over the years. In
such cases, it is not roles or hierarchies which govern the marriage
relationship, but the law of love. Does that really seem like such a
bad thing?
Do you see my point? The overwhelming
bulk of the NT message has to do with love, not with the ordering of
the marriage relationship. Love really dove cover a multitude of
sins, as anyone who has ever been truly forgiven by a loved one
surely knows. As a matter of fact, it is something very much like
what Paul says elsewhere with regard to church fellowship: “Be
devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.” [Romans 12:10] In the light of such instruction, it really does not
seem a great crime upon Biblical understanding for a married couple
to say, “we believe in and try to practice loving mutual
submission, honoring one another above ourselves.” And if another
couple says, “Well we think the husband ought to be the lord of the
household and the wife ought to submit to his judgment in all
things,” well to them I'd say, I hope you can make that work for
yourselves. Now let's the four of us go bowling!
No comments:
Post a Comment