The CBE Scroll

In order to evaluate an ideology it is a good idea to project it to its extreme end to see what it would look like were it brought to its logical conclusions. Most would have to agree, then, that the extreme end of the ‘headship’ model of marriage would be the physical, emotional, and mental abuse of the ’submissive’ partner by the ‘head.’

It is well-documented that abuse of all kinds and to varying degrees occurs more in homes where the hierarchical model is practised. This model of marriage puts a huge responsibility on the wife to behave in such a way that her husband will be the ‘loving, servant leader’ he is encouraged to be. This, in itself, is nonsense, if the husband can only effectively be the leader if his wife allows him to and encourages him in his role.

What, then, would be the extreme end of the ‘mutuality’ model of marriage? There are no negative aspects to equal love, respect, honour, and submissiveness to one another’s opinions and desires and when the top priority is equal desire to love and obey Christ.

This model of marriage only looks better as the couple learns to esteem one another more, listens to and considers one another, and truly wants the best for one another.

Thanks to Sue for pointing out this interesting bit of news to CBE.

Towards the end of last week’s Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, a debate that dealt largely with foreign policy and the war in Iraq, the debate turned sharply to the issue of marital submission, and by extension, biblical equality.

Here is an excerpt from the debate’s transcript, found in its entirety here.

Governor Huckabee, to change the subject a little bit and focus a moment on electability.

Back in 1998, you were one of about 100 people who affirmed, in a full-page ad in the New York Times the Southern Baptist Convention’s declaration that, quote, ‘A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.’

Women voters in both parties harshly criticized that. Is that position politically viable in the general election of 2008, sir?

The ad mentioned was the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) document ‘You Are Right,’ an affirmation of the traditional definition of the family endorsed by 131 evangelicals including Franklin Graham, Charles Colson, and T.D. Jakes, among others. The ad included, as stated above, the declaration that husbands are to ’sacrificially love and lead their wives’ and that ‘wives are to graciously submit to their husband’s servant leadership.’

Here is how Huckabee, a co-signer and former SBC pastor, responded.

First of all, if anybody knows my wife, I don’t think they for one minute think that she’s going to just sit by and let me do whatever I want to. That would be an absolute total misunderstanding of Janet Huckabee.

The whole context of that passage – and, by the way, it really was spoken to believers, to Christian believers. I’m not the least bit ashamed of my faith or the doctrines of it. I don’t try to impose that as a governor and I wouldn’t impose it as a president.

But I certainly am going to practice it unashamedly, whether I’m a president or whether I’m not a president. But the point… the point, it comes from a passage of Scripture in the New Testament book of Ephesians, is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.

So with all due respect, it has nothing to do with presidency. I just wanted to clear up that little doctrinal quirk there so that there’s nobody who misunderstands that it’s really about doing what a marriage ought to do and that’s marriage is not a 50/50 deal, where each partner gives 50 percent.

Biblically, marriage is a 100/100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other and that’s why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love.

The ‘You Are Right’ ad, an affirmation of the traditional definition of the family, was strong on it’s position that husbands are to ’sacrificially love and lead’ and that wives are to ‘graciously submit,’ and yet Huckabee, speaking from his own experience not only as an SBC pastor, but as a husband, affirmed that marital submission is mutual.

Thoughts, anyone?

(Please feel free here to post comments on political issues as related to marital submission and biblical equality and treat this as a forum within which to discuss political issues.

Please refrain from overly-grandiose displays of endorsement and/or the public denigration of particular candidates, seeing as The CBE Scroll is not a political platform, and platforms aplenty exist elsewhere. Thanks.)

Mutuality is now accepting articles (and discussion surrounding the issue) for the Summer 2008 issue on ‘Resolving Conflicts.’

Topic ideas include, but are not limited to:

• How convictions about biblical equality and gender justice apply to resolving conflict
• Biblical alternatives to ‘the tie-breaking-vote’ model of conflict resolution by female submission to male headship
• The importance of prayer for resolving conflict
• Whether there is a ‘middle way’ between egalitarianism and male headship
• Appropriate and inappropriate anger
• Biblical reflections: examples of how Jesus handled conflict, Jacob and Esau’s reconciliation, rivalry between Sarah and Hagar, etc.
• Examples of Christians who are/were reconcilers as well as examples of Christians who refuse(d) to compromise on truth
• Practical tips and reflections on race and gender reconciliation in Christ

Please send specific ideas or proposals to mgreulich@cbeinternational.org.

When I got married a year ago, I kept my maiden name - just the way it had always been. It wasn’t that I ever came upon a final decision; rather, it was more the result of a lot of indecision.

It was assumed, of course, by all of our family and friends that I would take my husband’s name. For not long after we had walked down the aisle we started receiving letters and invitations addressed to ‘Mr. and Mrs.,’ and it was frequently in the traditional form of, ‘Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.’ When I received those letters, I wondered where I went in the midst of the addressing process. Suddenly, my identity was completely lost in my husband, and it made me very ‘angsty.’

The angst, however, was no slight on my husband. I am ineffably in love with him and still breathless thinking about the incredible romance God has unraveled before us. However, I had spent almost thirty years with a certain name. How could I suddenly change it to something else? Losing my name felt like losing my identity. It felt like losing a certain part of me - my culture, my heritage, and the woman I had grown into - complete and whole, called and gifted by God without a husband/man’s ‘leadership’ or ‘covering.’ And, putting my first name with my husband’s last name resulted in a person I did not know. She was a stranger to me, and I wasn’t sure I was ready to be her.

I wrestled with the name change for months before and after my wedding and was told, more than once, of all the spiritual reasons for why I needed to change my name. Some reasons given to me included:

1. You need to embrace your husband’s identity as your own identity. (My response: Of course! But my question is: why doesn’t he need to embrace my identity as his own identity, too?)

2. It is a standing truth that God made Adam and Eve in his image, but at the same time he refers to both as ‘man.’ (I think that the person who said this meant that since God referred to both Adam and Eve by the man’s name ‘man,’ so too, I should take on my husband’s name.)

3. You need to change your name because ‘the beauty of God’s image is in a man and woman becoming one. Each needs to be lost in the identity of the other, being fully represented and affirmed. The Father was willing to identify with the Son and the Son totally submitted to the will of the Father.’ (My response: But why is it, despite this ‘equality’ sounding reasoning, do I feel like I’m the only one losing her identity here? I don’t feel like I am being fully represented and affirmed.)

4. Changing your name to your husband’s demonstrates your submission to him as your spiritual head. (My response: What about the idea of mutual submission from Ephesians 5:21?)

5. You need to show your oneness and unity in order to do battle against Satan. Satan attacks marital unity, after all. (My response: Is a name capable of scaring off Satan?)

I was perturbed by these reasons given to me by older, spiritual men whom I respected. Their arguments made it sound like changing my name was God’s will and akin to being spiritual and godly. Not changing it was not being a submissive wife and therefore being a bad Christian. However, I don’t personally believe a woman changing her name is a biblical mandate. It’s a part of Western culture and tradition, one that has been deeply influenced by patriarchy, but it is not the equivalent to godliness.

In a way, my desire to keep my maiden name is a resistance against some of the inconsistent lines of thoughts that were presented to me. I don’t want to simply fall in line with patriarchal traditions that pose as biblical mandate. To change my name would feel to me like I was making a public proclamation that I subscribe to mainstream interpretations of spirituality - i.e. headship and submission roles in marriage - when on the contrary, my husband and I have spent the last year establishing a biblical marriage based on mutual submission.

So, I haven’t changed my name. But, I still wrestle with all this because while I want to be able to represent the uniqueness and individuality which God gave to us both, I also want to represent the oneness. I don’t want to be so focused on the ‘twoness’ in the midst of the oneness that there is no oneness to be seen. And, ‘oneness’ is important to me too.

I still haven’t come to a final conclusion yet. Maybe you could help me.

What do you think about the name-changing tradition? Biblical, unbiblical? What are pros and cons to a woman changing her name? What is your personal experience?

Right on the heels of this year’s Sheri Klouda debacle at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary comes yet another example of president Paige Patterson’s move to ‘establish family and gender roles as described in God’s Word for the home and the family.’

This fall, Southwestern Baptist will be offering a new academic program in homemaking, a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration including such classes as ‘Clothing Construction’ and ‘Meal Preparation.’ Such classes, Southwestern Baptist must believe, are in keeping with their stated goal of letting a woman (and I mean woman, as no men are to be admitted to the program) ‘choose from a variety of programs what is appropriate for [her] own diverse interests and unique giftedness within the boundaries of biblical priorities.’

Southwestern’s dean of women’s programs stated for the Associated Press that the program was instituted in order to strengthen families, as a woman’s ‘first priority is her family and home.’ In the words of president Paige Patterson, ‘If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed.’

National destruction? Quite a price to pay for a lack of homemakers.