Sam and Pete Rent an Apartment (Part 1)

A thought experiment about authority in marriage

Photo by Donovan Grabowski on Unsplash

Let's say two friends, Sam and Pete, decide to rent an apartment together. They each pay half the rent. Thus, the authority and responsibility of keeping the apartment is evenly split. If Sam pays more to occupy a bigger room, Sam has the authority over the bigger room, but they are equally in charge of the common areas.

If Pete works from home and sets up his office in the kitchen, Pete is responsible for keeping the kitchen tidy and accessible for both himself and Sam. If Sam comes home from work and wants to make himself an omelet, but finds Pete’s stuff scattered around the kitchen, Sam would be rightfully angry. Pete has misused his authority over the kitchen by hindering Sam's use of it.

Let’s say that Pete only works part-time. To make up for his shortfall, Pete agrees to clean the house and cook dinners. This means Pete has authority over the cooking and the apartment's cleanliness. If Sam were to start telling Pete how he ought to clean the house, Pete would be rightfully angry. Sam is not Pete’s authority on how Pete ought to do his job. On the other hand, if Pete slacks off to play video games all day, Sam would be rightfully angry. Pete is not using his cleaning authority as he should. We’d say Pete wasn’t doing his fair share.

Let’s add some more factors to the scenario. Let's pretend Pete found out that he'd fathered two children back in his irresponsible days, and the mother has now abandoned the children on Pete's doorstep. Pete decides to adopt the children and move them in with himself and Sam. Pete would then be responsible for the children’s health, education, and moral behavior in addition to his part-time job, all the cleaning, and cooking dinners.

If Sam were to come home from work and find toys strewn about the apartment, the toilet clogged with a sock, crayon drawings on the walls, and the children not respecting his boundaries, Sam would have a right to be angry. Pete is not managing his responsibilities. However, at this point, it's more likely that Pete is in over his head. Pete needs to hire a nanny or a house cleaner or cook. Pete could quit his part-time job, but then he has nothing to give Sam in exchange for rent.

Let’s make things even more complicated. Let’s say the children aren’t Pete’s but Sam’s. Sam produced the children in his wild days and now the mother is deceased. Sam has a full-time job and cannot manage the children, so he hires Pete to manage the children in exchange for rent. Now Sam is paying all the rent. Pete pays for his portion of the rent by managing Sam’s children, cleaning, and cooking the meals. 

At this point, things get quite complicated, as I'm sure you can see. Pete has submitted to having Sam be his boss, so to speak. Thus, Sam has the authority to tell Pete how to bring up his children. Pete, as Sam’s employee, must submit to Sam’s instructions as best he can. However, while Sam is away at work, Sam submits control of his children to Pete. Pete must learn to care for Sam's children in the best way Pete can.

I’m sure you can see all sorts of complications. What if Sam is micromanaging Pete? What if Sam, being unknowledgeable about children, asks Pete to train the children to be robot soldiers? What if Pete neglects Sam’s instructions?

A great amount of understanding, communication, and grace will be needed to make this business partnership work. There’s also the question of who is in charge of the children when Sam comes home from work. If Sam is in charge in the evenings but is neglectful, Pete might be enraged to see his standards not upheld. 

Maybe Sam lets his children jump on the furniture or sass back without reprimanding them, and Pete is enraged because he worked hard all day to teach the children to behave themselves. Maybe Pete reprimands the children in front of Sam, and Sam feels this is stealing his parental authority. Maybe Sam reprimands the children in front of Pete, and Pete feels this is a critique of his nannying. Difficulties galore! And the more insecure the guys are, the more they might step on one another's toes.

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

Let’s make things even more complicated. Why not? Let's say that Sam and Pete are brothers. Sam is older by a few years. And let’s also say the children are neither Sam's nor Pete’s, but rather a sister who had them out of wedlock and then promptly died. Sam and Pete then adopt them, and Pete quits his part-time job to look after them full-time. Sam continues working full-time to pay for the apartment and food and bills and such. 

Now the raising of children has become a joint effort. Neither Sam nor Pete is the boss of how to raise the children. They both have equal authority and say in the matter. However, if Pete stays home and has authority over the children most of the time, he'll have a greater say in enforcing the rules with the children. However, it'll be very important for Sam and Pete to meet together regularly and discuss what they want for their adopted children. 

Again, all sorts of difficulties could complicate this situation. What if Sam says, “I pay for the apartment, so while you’re in my house, you must do things my way!” This is Sam claiming a false authority over Pete.You may remember that Pete agreed to cook and clean and take care of the children for his share of the rent. Thus, Sam’s claim that this is his apartment isn’t valid. Sam’s name might be on the paperwork, but they agreed to pay for the apartment in different ways. Sam in cash; Pete in housework, cooking, and childcare. Besides, even if the apartment was Sam’s, this doesn’t give Sam authority over Pete. It merely gives Sam the authority to say how he'd like his apartment taken care of and how he'd like people to behave while within his home—to a certain degree.

Pete may also claim false authority by saying, “I work all day with the children, so I get to decide what’s best for them.” You may remember that the children are neither Pete's nor Sam’s, and while Pete is responsible for the children for most of the day, this doesn’t mean that Sam has no say. A healthy team discusses and agrees on how they will raise the children.

You may see all sorts of correlations between these brothers and a healthy marriage. Children are ultimately God's, not the parents. And both parents, if they wish to be united, would do well to meet and agree on their family values and household rules. Neither spouse is in charge of how the other does his or her job either away or in the home. However, if they are secure in themselves and humble in heart, they will be open to each other's council or suggestions.

Now, let's change the analogy even more. What if Big Brother Sam were to lord his age over Pete as a sign of authority? What if Sam were to say, “I’m older so my word has more weight than yours. I have final authority on things. God made me first and that’s proof of my authority. You can't have two captains of a ship. I'm older. I'm the captain.”

I think we would be repulsed by Sam for saying this but isn't he right? Perhaps Sam could have said it more kindly and gently, but doesn’t age have deference? Don't those who are older have an authority from God that those who are younger don’t have? Let’s be clear about one thing. We’re not talking about honor and respect. We’re talking about authority to rule and lead. Honor is something we give our parents. We are to respect those older than us. But we don't have to obey those who are older than us unless we're under their authority.

Authority has to do with who is authorized to make decisions and judgments about how things and people ought to function. In the Bible days, the oldest sibling of a family got the larger portion of the inheritance. He had authority over something his younger siblings didn’t have. I believe the oldest was also in charge of the family's welfare and protection if the father was away or died. Those who use their authority correctly see to the best of others before themselves.

In modern times, we no longer have age-derived authority in a family once people reach adulthood. The inheritance goes to whomever the parents choose. And the responsibility of taking care of the others, if children are underage, goes to whoever the parents designate.

So, does Sam have the authority to say to Pete that he is in charge of the house because he's older? How about based on wisdom? Don't those who are older have more wisdom and life experience than those who are younger? This seems to be so. If Sam was 30 and Pete was 20, Sam would probably know some things about life that Pete has yet to learn. However, in order for this to continue being a peaceful operation, Sam would need to be very careful about how he uses his wisdom with Pete. Anything that smelled of superiority or lording over or trying to control would be rejected outright by Pete. If Pete feels belittled or patronized by Sam, this brotherly union isn’t going to work. Likewise, if Pete isn’t willing to take guidance and suggestions from Sam, what’s the use of Sam’s wisdom?

Even if Pete were to submit to Sam's wiser years, if Pete is taking classes and has a teachable spirit from other parents and spends all his hours working with children, Pete’s understanding and knowledge of children will quickly surpass Sam’s.

Now what if Sam's greater age hasn't provided him with more wisdom? What if Pete is a nincompoop? Or what if they are closer in age? Then probably neither of them would want the other to be in charge.

Let's make one more change to this thought experiment and then I shall leave it. Let's pretend Sam is actually Samantha, the big sister. Pete is now the younger brother by two years. Does this change anything between the two? I don't think it does. There's no way that Pete would give up his authority over the children or the apartment because Samantha was older. Samantha might be a bossy big sister and lord it over Pete, but that wouldn't be right. Pete ought to have equal say and authority in the running of their apartment and the raising of the children even if Samantha is older and the only one with a paying job. There's no way Pete is going to get away with saying, "Samantha, I know you're my big sister, but you're a woman and so you need to be under my authority." 

You laugh. Do you not? And yet, isn't this what many Christian couples claim is right and good in a marriage?

I have purposefully kept this thought experiment between siblings because the moment I make it between a husband and wife, our expectations for how people ought to behave change too. It becomes less about a mutual partnership and more about who has control over what. Who must give up their rights? Who must be in submission? Who did God say is the leader?

What seemed quite clear between two siblings becomes muddled when I change the analogy to a husband and wife. And why? Why would authority change when a couple makes a promise to one another? Does something about them change when two people become one flesh? I can think of several possible reasons why people see siblings differently than married couples.

One, we expect our marriage to work in the same way as our parent's marriage or a marriage on TV or in a novel or movie worked.

Two, we believe romance changes all the rules about authority and mutual teamwork.

Three, we don’t really think men and women have equal authority on earth, either in or outside of marriage. Isn't that why woman used to promise to obey in old-fashioned marriage vows? So that the husband can have the authority God intended? Isn't that why some people say churches must only have men pastors and elders?

I'm looking forward to exploring these questions But as this blog is getting too long, this experiment will have to continue in another post.