The CBE Scroll

Comment by B-W

November 14, 2006 @ 3:26 pm

I think his egalitarian and “American married couple” is a very limited, tightly controlled group used to back up his pet theories.

Actually, I can’t find anything in his article that really says much about what kind of statistical sampling was used at all, so it’s difficult to comment on whether it was “limited” or at all representative. I do hesitate to call it inadequate just because the study’s findings are in conflict with my own understanding of relationships, though. Of course, since I’m only reading the links provided here, it may be that you’re responding to data provided in the actual report, which I don’t have access to.

I do think that a lot more should be said about the fact that this study is already a decade out of date. So much has changed in our society that I have trouble seeing the validity of such old findings.

It also seems worth noting that the people running this study are both male, and really only studied the “happiness” of women (rather than both women and men), which seems bound to instill some prejudice into the process, which never seems to be considered.

The Slate article is interesting, but I would have liked to see more data.

Comment by Liz

November 15, 2006 @ 3:18 am

For the record, Christian marriages in Australia have the same divorce rate as others (in some places it’s actually higher). This is one indicator that hierarchical marriage falls far short of God’s ideal. The overwhelming majority of marriages among church people in Australia would be “headship based,” however that is lived out in practice.

Comment by cokhavim

November 15, 2006 @ 10:16 am

The studies referred to here present exactly the opposition conclusions; i.e., egalitarian marriages are happier. There are at least three different studies cited, each involving samples of thousands of people.

Comment by Lainie Petersen

November 15, 2006 @ 11:10 am

This study by Wilcox had me scratching my head over its conclusions.

What Wilcox seems to be saying is that women are happiest when their husbands are emotionally engaged and when they provide economic security. Well, who wouldn’t be happy with this sort of arrangement? Most people are not fond of having to work day in and day out: Of course women are going to appreciate not having to shoulder that particular burden. My guess is that most men, if it came down to it, would be happy to not have to work so hard.

All this study tells me is that women who have otherwise good marriages and aren’t under as much work-related-stress are happier than women who are under work related stress. This has nothing to do with complementarians being more “in touch” with American families.

Comment by molly

November 15, 2006 @ 2:50 pm

Did you see this article (also titled, What Women Really Want). It was so well done!
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/15/what-women-really-want/

Comment by TL

November 15, 2006 @ 4:01 pm

Yes, I was scratching my head over his conclusions also. Anyone remember the TV show that had a traditional family with Ethel and Harvey (I think) the oldies with their children grown. Perhaps, that is the kind of comical out of touch family he is enthralled with.

Sorry, it just made me think of them. I can still hear her rasping high voice calling out to Harvey on some of his shenanigans. Course he never did any thing remotely resembling “helping around the house”. And he sat there ordering lil’ patient Ethel around boasting in his “manliness”. You’d never catch him eating quiche, washing dishes, or taking his grandchildren to the park. :)

Comment by Lisa in FL

November 15, 2006 @ 8:13 pm

One explanation for the “women like it when men earn more” idea: Women still tend to make less than men. If the woman is the primary breadwinner, the household income overall is therefore likely to be lower than if the man is the primary breadwinner. A family where the man brings home 66% of the income is going to have more money than a family where the wife brings home 66%. People generally like having more money rather than less money.

Comment by Jennifer

November 16, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

Along the lines of Lisa’s post - since the data for the study was collected in 1992, men who earned less than their wives at that time may have been more likely to have been out of work or underemployed. There were far fewer men choosing to stay at home or work part time for family reasons back in ‘92. It would make sense that families are less happy where Dad is unemployed or underemployed than families where Dad has chosen the “Daddy Track.”

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

November 17, 2006 @ 1:11 pm

One problem I had with the report was the slipperiness of the terminology. Wilcox went all over the map in describing “traditional” and “complementarian” marriages when there didn’t seem to be a lot of evidence that the couples in question considered themselves either. He seems to have been very selective in applying his varying criteria in order to get the “happiest” results attributed to the allegedly “complementarian” marriages. And one doesn’t have to be a social scientist to observe that probably most Western marriages are functionally egalitarian while still holding at least a minimum of various hierarchalist beliefs (best if husband is older than wife, best if husband makes more money than wife, best if wife stays home when children are small, and so forth).

Comment by B-W

November 17, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

“Women still tend to make less than men. If the woman is the primary breadwinner, the household income overall is therefore likely to be lower than if the man is the primary breadwinner.”

Conversely, the woman might be working a more stressful job, in order to make “the same” that the man might have earned. Either way (your previous suggestion vs. this interpretation) is likely to cause a person to be less happy.

Comment by Jennifer

November 19, 2006 @ 6:57 pm

I agree with Psalmist. Most Western marriages are fundamentally egalitarian, and most, if not all, of the women who call themselves traditionalist would not want a true hierarchical marriage.

For example, a woman I knew in a fundamentalist church, who held strong hierarchical views, once asked for prayer because her husband had bought a house without her consent. He knew her feelings on the issue, that she did not want to move, and overruled her. So she was asking people to pray that the closing wouldn’t go through.

I didn’t think it polite to point out that this is a logical extension of her beliefs. Her husband, as her head, listened to her judgement and overruled her. (And I really didn’t think it wise to point out that asking dozens of people to pray against his decision was not exactly submissive…)

Comment by Ann

November 20, 2006 @ 8:19 pm

I am new to this blog. I have been a christian for 27 years, the last 6 which have been in a reformed congregation. I am a single woman and all of my prior church history has been in egalitarian churches. I left because of authoritarianism and church abuse (circa- shepherding movement which is still pretty rampant.) Most of these churches are also armenian which I don’t particularly agree with. I did not leave over gender issues. Just a couple of thoughts… I find it curious that abuse arises in leadership even when it is egalitarian. Also does anyone have any insight into the marraiges (pastors wives) of the complementarian position? Are they happy and satisfied or do they stay in the marraige because they recieve a salary from that denomination and have to agree? Am also curious what if any conflicts there may have been during courtship and how it was resolved. These women are always so silent, they must really love their husbands to be as supportive as they are.

Comment by Kathryn

November 21, 2006 @ 11:33 pm

Re: comment 12: Although I can’t answer for each situation, in general patriarchal women who are unhappy in their marriages may not have the confidence or support systems to fix those marriages for theological reasons. Of course, leaving should ideally be a last resort, if it happens at all. Also, even if they get marriage counseling, the husband who sees nothing wrong with hierarchy may not think he needs counseling at all. Being silent may not mean support as much as “It isn’t my place as his wife to disagree with my husband who is after all my ‘head’.” Outward silence can sometimes mean inward fuming. Of course, this isn’t always true. As sad as it is, there are some women who do actually agree with hierarchal marriage because they mistakenly believe it is God’s ideal for marriage.

Comment by LJR

November 22, 2006 @ 10:39 am

A pastor’s wife getting a salary? I’ve never heard of that unless she too has a job at the church. (If other churches do this, then I must change denominations! ;) )

I do know of at least one very traditional church in which the pastor’s marriage was, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. He was verbally abusive to her from the pulpit, he ignored her the rest of the time, there were questions about affairs on his part, and the problems in that marriage affected all of us at the church. She only stayed because she did not want to destroy the ministry. Never mind that everyone else could easily see the problem and nobody would have blamed her for getting out. She felt like it was God’s will, no matter how much it hurt her. (Fortunately, something appears to have happened because their marriage eventually came back to life and the church’s ministry has improved in some ways… but some very nasty damage has been left behind.)

Comment by Ann

November 22, 2006 @ 6:29 pm

Thank you. Appreciate insights. These are things that I obviously cannot discuss in HFG’s or amongst parishners. And I’m not sure of the honesty from leadership either. I often think of fulltime Christian service but in a lot of ways I think I might be better off staying in the marketplace for now. (My interest is medical missions.)

God bless all of you and I will keep reading! Thankyou for your courage and voice!!

Comment by TL

November 25, 2006 @ 2:47 pm

post #12

You wrote:
“I left because of authoritarianism and church abuse (circa- shepherding movement which is still pretty rampant.) Most of these churches are also armenian which I don’t particularly agree with. I did not leave over gender issues. Just a couple of thoughts… I find it curious that abuse arises in leadership even when it is egalitarian.”

The Shepherding Movement, of which I am intimately acquainted, is an ultra traditional deeply patriarchal movement and which predates the current patriarchal, hierarchal, complementarianism, which it contributed to birthing. Any church that was involved in the Shepherding Movement in it’s leadership is as far from egalitarian as East is from West.

What made you think your church was egalitarian?

Comment by Ann

November 29, 2006 @ 7:04 am

My church is not egalitarian. I was inferring that even when women are in positions of leadership, abuse happens ( church abuse). In addition, churches are only as healthy as the pastors marriage, by the way, which also gives some insight. Egalitarian gov’t in churches ( keeping in mind Kevin Giles explanation of the trinity which is excellent)… I meant that women are in prominent positions of leadership if not pastoring or co-pastoring churches. Many of the charismatic churches today (mostly the independent non denominational one’s) all have leaders that have been discipled through all the bad theology in the 70’s and 80’s: Word of faith, many of the vineyards, Calvary chapels, many AOG’s,( even though they try but after their pastors leave seminary they do what they want. Their web page addresses this to some degree.) Oneness Pentecostals, parachurches/YWAM and now Emergent is falling into the same heresy all over again just like the latter day rain movement. House churches are also now getting sucked in.
I don’t pick a church or ministry ( at least any more) just because women are allowed in prominent positions of leadership, I choose one based on the accuracy of how God’s word is handled. Do I agree with egalitarian govt in churches? Yes absolutely! But good luck finding a healthy one! Sound Pentecostal scholarship is sorely lacking! That’s why I am in a complementarian one for now. And for those who don’t know what I am talking about my guess is that they haven’t figured it out yet. Hope that helps clear it up. My heart really goes out to a lot of people. That’s why folks get displaced. I am getting to the point where instead of bailing and church hopping I want to stay and fight. (You know…” your in rebellion type stuff”. But then again in complementarian churches I would be in rebellion too so I guess I can’t win!)

Comment by Ann

November 29, 2006 @ 7:57 am

One more thing. While I realize this was a posting regarding marriages, sorry if I got off topic. For people who have ‘ministry marriages’ the sheep really suffer if it isn’t a healthy marriage. So for those of us as women who want to be in leadership in the church let’s be sure we are part of the solution, not keep contributing to the problem by continually regurgitating bad theology. That’s why there is a stricter judgment to those who teach. Woe to those who hurt his sheep. God will expose and judge eventually. Better to judge ourselves first( its safer that way). It makes me love Christ all the more when we realize WE are is church, his bride and yet he still loves us!
And for all of those I have offended, try reading books like “Churches that Abuse,” “Lambs on the Ledge, or “Toxic Faith”. If you can read any of those and not identify with any of it, you are blessed! (Also, I really get a little wigged out over all this as I still suffer from its effects. I will not respond again.)

Comment by Lori

December 2, 2006 @ 10:02 am

I reran all of my analyses with a sub-sample of women who had more egalitarian attitudes. Even for these women, they’re more likely to be happy when their husbands earn the lion’s share of income, when they share religious attendance with their husbands, when they share a strong, normative commitment to marriage with their husbands, and when they don’t work outside the home.

Most of the above assertions are just common sense, and to try and present them as “traditional” simply points out how biased this study is. I mean, the husband earning more money is debatable, but of course women will be happier if their husband shares their religion and church. Lee Strobel wrote an entire book documenting that women usually end up being miserable when they marry non-believers. And who would be happy with a spouse who wasn’t committed to their marriage? Who wants to get divorced? And I think the desire to stop working is pretty universal among both men and women. What else would explain the rise of reality TV shows like “American Idol”? I mean, the whole premise of these shows is to leave your dreary day job behind and become an instant star, with the implication that you’ll never really have to work anymore. Again, the fact that all these are passed off as being representative of “traditional” people, as opposed to progressive ones, just shows how outdated this survey is.

My secular friends would roll over laughing at this. They all have egalitarian marriages or relationships, and look at the complementarian marriage as ancient and out of touch with today’s world.

The article quoted in #3 is basically the same article that Preato also published in God’s Word to Women. However, there’s a quote in the second article that I think is very revealing.

By religion, Jewish and born-again Christians have the highest divorce rates at 30% and 27% respectively, followed by other Christians at 24%.[5] Even more revealing and disturbing is the finding that atheists and agnostics have the lowest incidence of divorce at 21%. Why is this? Spokesperson Ron Barrier for American Atheists offers some reasons why he thinks this is so. He says, “Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals,” and “with Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of ’submissive’ nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage.”[6]

I wonder if Christianity Today will allow the other side of this story to be told?

They’ve actually published several articles that presented a balanced view of the egalitarian movement. That’s why I’m so disappointed that they would present this nonsensical study as the “truth.” It just shows once again how biased the Christian media is towards the complementarian movement, and how if the egalitarian movement is going to gain more recognition, they’re going to have to bypass them.

Comment by Lori

December 2, 2006 @ 10:10 am

Re: 17

Ann, could you clarify what you mean by YWAM being sucked into heresy? I know that the founder of that organization, Loren Cunningham, wrote a book that has been hugely influential in the egalitarian movement (Why Not Women?). I also served with YWAM for a couple of years. Granted, that was several years ago, but where I served they were very much living out Cunningham’s vision.

Comment by Stephanie

April 26, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

What would an egalitarian marriage look like? Who leads? How are disputes settled? There has to be a leader because in any relationship there is…can the woman be the leader? Isn’t marriage a picture of Christ and the church? How would that be Biblical for mutual submission? Does the church (bride) ever trump Christ’s leadership (groom)? How could the woman (bride) trump the man (groom)?