Men and women are different, and so should their marriage vows

Peter Jensen
Published: August 29, 2012 – 10:55AM

Marriage really matters. Thank God we are talking about it. As Professor  PatrickParkinson said in these pages last week, marriage is ”by far the most stable, safe and nurturing relationship in which to raise children”. However, fewer people are choosing marriage as a way of relating to someone of the opposite sex and fewer people are nurturing children in a family with marriage at its heart.

I can understand that. Individualism leaves us with little reason to join our life to that of someone else. Apart from that, for many marriage has become an arena of suffering, exploitation and disappointment. We choose to bypass it. Yet I would say that we need to go back to biblical principles and understand, improve and support marriage rather than abandon it.

I freely admit that for me, the earthly title and vocation I cherish most is ”husband”. It all began with promises, and each day I try to live out the commitment I made. Marriage is not always easy and I know that for some it proves painfully impossible. But, mostly, making our promises before witnesses and trying to keep them is what works best.

Public promises make a marriage. Marriages are founded on promises of lifelong, exclusive bonding. Provided that the promises commit both man and woman in good times and in bad ”till death do us part”, and that both intend to relate only to each other, the promises are effective in creating the marriage. Husband and wife can certainly make identical promises.

But promises can reflect something even more profound. Since they unite not simply two people but a man and a woman – two different bodies for whom marriage holds different consequences, needs, expectations and emotions – the promises can express these differences, and traditionally have done so.

Many of our young people want to be ”wives and husbands” rather than simply ”partners” and in their weddings they come as ”bride and groom” rather than simply two individuals. They believe that expressing these differences, including different responsibilities, makes for a better marriage.

Both kinds of promise are provided for in the Sydney Anglican diocese’s proposedPrayer Book, which has been the subject of commentary this week.

There is nothing new in this – it is the same as the  Australian Prayer Book  which has been used for decades.

Where different promises are made, the man undertakes great responsibility and this is also the wording of the book, as it has always been. The biblical teaching is that the promise made voluntarily by the bride to submit to her husband is matched by the even more onerous obligation which the husband must undertake to act towards his wife as Christ has loved the church. The Bible says that this obligation is ultimately measured by the self-sacrifice of Christ in dying on the cross.

This is not an invitation to bossiness, let alone abuse. A husband who uses the wife’s promise in this way stands condemned for betraying his own sworn obligations. The husband is to take responsibility for his wife and family in a Christ-like way. Her ”submission” is her voluntary acceptance of this pattern of living together, her glad recognition that this is what he intends to bring to the marriage and that it is for her good, his good and the good of children born to them. She is going to accept him as a man who has chosen the self-discipline and commitment of marriage for her sake and for their children. At a time when women rightly complain that they cannot get men to commit, here is a pattern which demands real commitment all the way.

Secular views of marriage are driven by a destructive individualism and libertarianism. This philosophy is inconsistent with the reality of long-term relationships such as marriage and family life.

Referring to ”partners” rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage.

Men have to accept the limitations imposed by a commitment to marry. Both husband and wife must exercise self-control and the acceptance of boundaries, although in ways which are somewhat distinctive. My greatest interest in the draft service the diocese has prepared is the high standard being proposed for men.

When a husband promises to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her, he is declaring his intention to be a man of strength and self-control for her benefit and for the benefit of any children born to them. Such qualities, properly exercised in the spirit of self-sacrifice, enhance the feminine and personal qualities of his wife.

Each marriage and each era will work this out differently. It is in this context and this alone that the revised marriage service enables a woman to promise submission.

Her submission rises out of his submission to Christ.

It is a pity that the present discussion has been so overtly political. Instead of mocking or acting horrified, we should engage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives. The Bible contains great wisdom on this fundamental relationship.

The rush to embrace libertarian and individualistic philosophy means that we miss some of the key relational elements of being human, elements which make for our wellbeing and happiness. It’s time to rethink marriage from first principles. It really matters.

Peter Jensen is the Anglican Archbishop of  Sydney.

On wives submitting to their husbands  ¢â‚¬“ some thoughts

I ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been surprised by the vehemence of reactions to it  ¢â‚¬“ mostly ranging from rolled-eyed indifference to outright hostility. I ¢â‚¬â„¢ve wondered why the reaction has been so strong and so strongly negative. Of the 1,000 or so responses on the SMH web site, most have been negative.   Peter has certainly touched a nerve.   Why so?   Here are some thoughts.

1.   There are some obvious and probably predictable problems with the word  ¢â‚¬Ëœsubmit ¢â‚¬â„¢  ¢â‚¬“ which is being suggested for use in a Sydney-created marriage service. The word has all sorts of unfortunate connotations, some of them sexual, most of them demeaning in a contemporary setting. The idea that a woman should  ¢â‚¬Ëœsubmit ¢â‚¬â„¢ to a man, simply because he is a man, is objectionable in a context where feminist assumptions are now ubiquitous.

The Oxford Dictionary defines submission as  ¢â‚¬Ëœthe action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person. ¢â‚¬â„¢ Submission to authority is certainly on view in Biblical uses of the word.   James Hurley, author of  Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective(1981), notes that  ¢â‚¬Ëœeach of the more than forty New Testament uses of the verb (hypotasso) carries an overtone of authority and subjection or submission to it. The use of the verb necessarily carries with it a concept of exercising or yielding to authority. ¢â‚¬â„¢ 142. People are no longer comfortable with the idea that this sort of authority relationship should exist within a marriage.

2.   Most Australians, including most or many Australian Christians, have rejected patriarchy as their preferred way to understand marriage. They are egalitarian by conviction and practice, which goes a long way to explaining their reaction to this recycled and slightly modified marriage service. Peter is right to point out that the new service is essentially the same as one used for decades in the  Australian Prayer Book,  though it is interesting that for all of those decades few couples would have chosen to go with it. In my own experience of conducting weddings over almost 30 years, I can only remember one or two couples who have chosen the First Order Marriage Service with its promise by the bride to  ¢â‚¬Ëœobey ¢â‚¬â„¢ her husband. The tide of patriarchy has long since run out.

3.   A third and related reason for the vehemence of reaction to Sydney Anglicanism ¢â‚¬â„¢s proposed new marriage service is that patriarchy isn ¢â‚¬â„¢t something people want to go back to, for all sorts of good reasons, including the following:

3.1           Few people actually practice a patriarchal model of marriage  ¢â‚¬“ even if they have an in-principle acceptance of patriarchy.   For two thirds of my married life, I believed in male  ¢â‚¬Ëœheadship ¢â‚¬â„¢ in family and church. I probably would have been happy for Judy to say those words,  ¢â‚¬ËœI promise to submit to you, as you submit to Christ. ¢â‚¬â„¢ Perhaps I was a poor exponent of patriarchy or especially blessed with a competent and healthily assertive wife, but I can ¢â‚¬â„¢t think of even one instance in 35 years of marriage where it has made any sense at all for Judy to obey or submit to my authority. The concept of female submission in marriage, even when I accepted it in theory, made not the slightest difference to what was a strong and co-operative marriage relationship. And my story seems to be duplicated in the experience of nearly every Christian couple I have spoken to about this.

3.2           For the concept to have meaning there must surely be a significant number and frequency of examples where the wife submits and the husband exercises his authority. Though rarely, I have witnessed operational examples of patriarchy, where the husband does assert himself and/or where the wife submits. Sometimes those have happened within happy marriages, but more often than not those sorts of actions have undermined or created a challenge to marital happiness. These personal observations are born out by studies comparing patriarchal and egalitarian marriages.

Dr Alan Craddock has drawn my attention to a number of studies (below) which have consistently suggested that egalitarian relationships have higher levels of couple satisfaction and lower rates of conflict and violence.

There does seem to be no good reason to re-introduce or persist with patriarchy. The only reason I can think of is that the Bible mandates it, which is why the Archbishop and others are advocating the retention of patriarchy. But does the Bible mandate patriarchy?

4.   There are two major arenas within which a decision needs to be made about whether this is the case; the first is exegetical, the second hermeneutical.   Exegesis will tell you (to some degree of probability) what the relevant Biblical texts say and mean.   Hermeneutics will determine what to make of this meaning, including what it means for us.

One thing I think is (relatively) clear, and that is that the Biblical writers accepted and/or assumed patriarchy as the way marriages operate. Patriarchy was a given within the lifetimes of the Biblical writers.   I agree with Scott Higgins, who, in an excellent article on this issue ( ¢â‚¬ËœPaul was no feminist, but his gospel is ¢â‚¬â„¢-  www.scottjhiggins.com), points out,  ¢â‚¬ËœThe early Christians lived in a patriarchal social system that saw a man at the head of a household, with his wife, children and slaves all in a subservient relationship to him. ¢â‚¬â„¢

Patriarchy was assumed as a cultural given, in the same sort of way as ancient cosmological beliefs were assumed.   However, our society is no longer patriarchal, at least in its assumptions. The key issue is not whether the Bible is patriarchal, but whether the Bible mandates or necessitates the retention of patriarchy.

I don ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe it does.   A useful exercise, if you are wanting to think this through, is to read through all the relevant texts, asking yourself this question,  ¢â‚¬ËœAre the Biblical writers simply assuming patriarchy, and then, in the case of the New Testament writers, regulating it according to gospel principles OR are they arguing that this accepted marriage custom is designed and intended by God to exist for all time? ¢â‚¬â„¢

When you ask the question in those terms, the answer is not straightforward. It is at this point that exegesis and hermeneutics coalesce. Most evangelicals are comfortable with the idea that the Bible is ancient and that its writers held assumptions we no longer share. Patriarchy could well be one of those.

The only credible obstacle to this live possibility is the argument that the Scriptures mandate patriarchy. A major problem with this argument is that it depends crucially on a small (in fact tiny) number of hotly contested Biblical passages; most importantly 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. These passages  can  be read as implying that male-female role distinctions are grounded in creation. This is a  possible  reading of those texts, but by no means is it the only or the best reading.   I refer you to Scott Higgins ¢â‚¬â„¢ excellent article for a fuller, but still brief discussion.

My own opinion is that it is impossible to know for sure whether these texts are appealing to or seeking to establish an order of creation.   It is just as possible, and possibly more likely, that these passages are local and time bound in their application, with the Genesis passages being used illustratively to make very particular points. Exegesis is not decisive in other words.

5.   This takes us back to broader hermeneutical considerations  ¢â‚¬“ and to a possibility that Scott Higgins argues to, which I also suggest in  A Restless Faith,  and that is that the Biblical writers, although they assume patriarchy, also subvert it by applying gospel principles to its operation. To quote from  A Restless Faith:

 ¢â‚¬ËœPatriarchy comes under significant attack in the ministry of Jesus, or at least earlier expressions of it do. Women are given the right to divorce their husbands (Mark 10:12). Jesus treats women with great respect, and readily accepts them as his disciples. He significantly elevates their status and role. Jesus ¢â‚¬â„¢ example is followed by his apostles, including Paul. Paul may not have gone all the way towards dismantling patriarchy. However, one could argue that the trajectory established by Jesus and honoured by Paul was of such a nature that patriarchy, like slavery, can reasonably be set aside, especially in a world where women have come to show themselves capable of holding their own at all levels of human endeavour. ¢â‚¬â„¢  120

6.   The reason that patriarchy doesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem to work, or to have practical purchase, in happily functioning Christian marriages is that the gospel has made it irrelevant. Efforts to make it relevant necessarily involve some form of restriction (whether voluntary or not) to female agency; some loss of power. That, I think, is whySydneyhas reacted so angrily to Archbishop Peter ¢â‚¬â„¢s irenic effort to argue for submission. It is not somethingSydneywants.   It is not something that most of Sydney ¢â‚¬â„¢s Christians want, nor even most of Sydney ¢â‚¬â„¢s Anglican Christians  ¢â‚¬“ I would guess.

I do, however, really like what Peter says towards the end of his Opinion Piece. He challenges us all, detractors and supporters alike, to  ¢â‚¬Ëœengage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives. ¢â‚¬â„¢ This blog piece is one effort to meet this challenge.

Keith Mascord

7 September 2012

www.arestlessfaith.com.au