This past Sunday I went to a meeting of a church men’s group. The group was in session #20 (!) of a series it was doing called (something like) “Finding Your Authentic Manhood.” Just before offering my idea about exactly where each man in the room could find his authentic manhood, it occurred to me to shut-up.
Staying quiet was easy to do, too, because what the thirty or so men in the room were doing when I showed up was watching television. That made perfect sense. It was a men’s group—and if there’s one thing men like to do, it’s watch TV. What these middle-aged men were watching on their big-screen TV was another middle-aged man talking about what does and doesn’t make for a happy marriage.
I got there just in time to watch the guy on TV start talking about how in a good Christian marriage a wife should be submissive to her husband. The moment he said that he started saying what I knew he would, which is that what he meant by the word “submissive” isn’t what people generally mean when they use that same word.
I have never, ever heard a pastor or ministry leader assert that a Christian wife should be submissive to her husband without them immediately launching into an explanation of how they’re not using that word to mean what everybody else thinks it means. And then they always say a bunch of stuff I can never follow, because in my mind it keeps folding in on and contradicting itself. But I’m sure that’s just me.
Anyway, I would like to suggest that when it comes to describing how a Christian woman should act toward her husband, we Christians start employing a different word than “submit” and/or “submission.” Think of how much time pastors could save explaining themselves by using the right word in the first place! I know Paul used “submit,” but … maybe he meant something different, too. Or maybe “submit” is a terrible translation of whatever word Paul originally used to describe how Christian women should act toward their husbands. I don’t know. All I know is that today every pastor who uses that word when he’s talking about women in marriage then has to spend 15 minutes talking about how that’s not actually the right word.
I think we should come up with the right word. I’m a writer. I like using the right word. If I want anyone to take my work seriously, I have to use exactly the right word, every time. And pastors say way more important stuff than I do. I think at this point it’s safe to say that “submit” isn’t working for them or us. There are about one million words in the English language. Surely there’s one in there somewhere that comes closer to what we’re actually trying to communicate about the proper attitude of a wife toward her husband than “submit” does.
It’s weird, though. I can’t, at just this moment, think of that word might be.
Just out: UNFAIR: Why the “Christian” View of Gays Doesn’t Work (softcover edition; Kindle edition; NookBook edition). You’re invited to check out my Facebook page, and my group Unfundamentalist Christians, the motto of which is “Above all, love.”
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
LMAO! You’re too dumb.
Sorry, I’m succinct- I don’t do theological explanations because well, I can’t.
You’re dumb because you’re right and I’m about to go into an explanation that by dumb, I didn’t really mean dumb in the bad way…how about I use the right words? You’re fucking right in a funny way. lol
In 1st century Rome, women were legally subject to their husbands. Paul could have just been acknowledging a legal fact rather than prescribing the psycho-emotional pattern that all couples must follow for all time.
I like that it was at a men’s group that they were discussing what a wife should do. Because that is pretty helpful. Hey guys, here’s some ammunition to take back for your next fight with your wife. Quote scripture to her about how she’s supposed to submit to you. Tell her you learned it in your church men’s group where you are learning how to find your manhood. feel free to be a really great guy and add in the part about submitting not really meaning what she thinks it means. It won’t help, but maybe you’ll feel better about your equinamity afterwards (is that a word?)
I’m so late to this conversation, but I have to chime in. John, you are exactly right. It drives me crazy.
When my pastor preached on Ephesians 5, he gave examples of headship and submission. When he was talking about the wives, he showed a clip from the movie “300″ because a Spartan queen shows what submission is. When he talked about the husbands, he used an example from his own marriage. In his marriage, his headship entails making the bed.
Whenever I read Ephesians 5 I envision myself as a Spartan queen watching the king make my bed. Yeah, that’s it. I want to be a submissive Spartan queen. I will certainly submit to all that bed-making. Oh yes, I will.
Interesting discussion. I suppose that it all depends on what type of church the husband and wife attends.
You said, "I think at this point it’s safe to say that “submit” isn’t working for them (pastors) or us."
But again, in some churches, "submit" is working VERY WELL for THEM!!!! There are some churches and pastors today who are using the marriage institution as a tool; as a weapon in order to gain their own ends.
Wives are being subtly taught that submitting to their "pastor," over and above their husband, is the more higher calling and duty!! Marriages are being destroyed through this teaching. A tremendous article that describes this false teaching in great detail can be found at:
http://www.wickedshepherds.com/awordtothewives.html
What they say in that article is very disturbing, yet very real!
Brandon
Brandon: Good point, I guess. I don't know how common it is, though, for pastors to tell wives in their congregation to obey them over their husbands. I tried to look at the "article" you linked to, but it was just too crazy-looking for me to deal with.
John,
The interpretation of what I said varies greatly with the perspective of the reader. Hardly an effort at a convincing argument; Christian Beyer more accurately saw my intent.
The contrast between your two interpretations is quite stark and that difference is important in itself and might warrant a post of its own. My only real concern is that level of certainty that, by its nature, breeds fundamentalism. The problem is, (to my mind), is that soooo much of the ‘major player’ religion’s texts and core principals that are keystones in the faith. If those keystones are removed (or fundamental precepts are questioned), things begin to collapse quickly.
In the matter of Shelly saying that Paul’s comment were just the opinions of a biased, mortal man; does that not call into question the veracity of ANYTHING that is in the bible? Hence; if we can’t trust the veracity of what is written in the bible, does that not greatly diminish the foundation upon which Christianity is built? Is it not critical, then, to maintain that biblical writings are, at least, edited by God?
My last statement still stands. Few here would be willing to contemplate that the bible is merely the products of first-century, men’s, mortal minds.
At the first reading I thought that Mike's comment was sarcastic – that he was actually criticizing Shelley's suggestion as the slippery slope that leads to falling out with fundamentalism. Which, in a way, is what it is. But that's not a bad thing.
I think Shelley makes some very valid points. Do we really think that Jesus cares as much about marital hiearchy or gender roles as Paul does? Paul was sort of an early church consultant – fielding all kinds of questions from struggling congregations, pointing out where others were making mistakes etc. But this was in a vastly different time and place. It's not necessarily that Paul was at times making 'mistakes' or was in error (though I don't see why that is so outrageous a suggestion) but that some of the things he said were specifically directed to the listeners of his time and are not necessarily relevant today.
The Bible is certainly inspired but not everything in it is the "Word of God" speaking to us today.
Sorry if I offended anyone by my question.
I don't think asking that question was denying that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I would never say that. With that said, Paul was a Christian and by no means perfect. I don't think we can put him in the same category as Jesus himself. So was he perfect? Are some Christians perfect? No, of course not. Are we saying Paul was not fallible and say Billy Graham is? I doubt Paul was without sin. I am sure my pastor prays over his sermon and recieves God's guidance concerning it. But he also is just a man and fallible. Unless Paul was Jesus himself, it is possible that it could have been partly his opinion. I don't know that it was? I also think it is perfectly normal to question things like this. It's not like I'm questioning my faith or Jesus? By the way, I have no problem with the word "submit". It has never been an issue with me and my husband. I just thought it was an interesting topic. 
Yikes, Mike. That is one astoundingly flawed attempt at logical reasoning. I just … can’t imagine where to start with that. Have you EVER taken, like … well, an actual college course in formal logic? DO, please. I’ll pay for it.
Anyway, I can live with you being the worst logician ever. But could you please at least try to show a little respect for people’s religious beliefs? If you just somehow can’t manage to be anything but dismissively insulting, I’m gonna have to block you off this site.
C’mon. You can do it. You’re a humanist. Show some respect for the idea that not every human who believes in God is, automatically, a moron.
…so it follows that the bible is just the thoughts/opinions of mortal man…so it follows that religions based on the bible are based on the ignorant, 1st century minds of those mortal men…so it follows that those religions are mere mythology
I don’t think many here could allow themselves to consider that possibility.
← Older Comments