Samantha and Pete Ride Zip Lines (Part 4)

An analysis of men and women's authority in marriage

This is the fourth part of a thought experiment involving siblings, marriage, and authority. If you haven't read the first three parts, click on the links above. These posts build off each other.

We've covered a lot of ground in the last few posts. So far we've seen how marriage is similar to a partnership between siblings. We've also seen how it's different in that the couple gives everything to one another as a gift. But do they give ruling authority to one another too? And more specifically, does the wife give ruling authority to the husband?

In the last post, I recalled how in traditional vows, women promised to obey their husbands, thus giving their husbands leadership authority. Does this still apply today even if women no longer say that part of the vow?

In the last post, I mentioned how authority must be supported by a law. In the olden days, laws prohibited women from having the authority to buy property, study the Torah, and hold political office. However, now those laws no longer exist. When the Bible talks about male headship, is it just talking about the laws that once gave men these authorities? 

How about God's physical laws? A country's laws may change, but what about the unique way that God made men physically? Aren't there physical laws that God built into the world, such as the law of gravity and the law of diminishing returns? Are there natural laws about who should rule whom?

I can see two physical "advantages," so to speak, that most husbands have, although I think I'd rather call them abilities. Most husbands are physically stronger than their wives, and, historically, most men have been older than their wives too.

This gives most men two special abilities in marriage. One is brawn; the other is life experience. Men's physical strength has made them better fit to provide shelter, hunt, and give physical protection to their families. This is not the case in every marriage. In fact, there are plenty of exceptions, but in general, even if only 70% of husbands are physically stronger than their wives, this is still a generally true statement. Thus, bodyguards, construction workers, hunters, and soldiers are more often men than women, even today. 

Does having greater physical strength give men the authority to rule in marriage? It certainly makes them more capable of bullying their way into power, but that doesn't mean Might ought to make Right. No, physical strength doesn't seem to give anyone the authority to rule. We also know from the Bible that spiritual ruling isn't about physical strength. More often then naught, historically God seems to use those who are physically weakest to be spiritual leaders: Moses with his speech impediment, Paul locked in prison, Joni Erickson Tada in a wheelchair, and Nicholas James Vujicic without arms or legs. 

So, no. Physical strength doesn't qualify a person for leadership. It must be something else. 

How about age? Throughout most of history, older people have been given a deference. We don't honor age so much in our culture anymore, but I do believe we've lost something by doing this. Those who are older have seen more of life, and while they might not be wise, they do deserve a kind of honor.

Again, I haven't done an extensive study on this subject, but I believe in most marriages throughout history, husbands have been older, sometimes twenty-plus years older, than their wives. Thus, historically, husbands have had more life experience than their wives. Today, however, this is not always the case. Nowadays,  it's not uncommon for a younger man to marry an older woman.

So if physical strength doesn't make men better fit to be leaders and men are not always older than their wives, do they have anything nowadays that makes them better fit to serve as head of the family? It does not seem that there are any government or physical advantages giving men authority to rule.

In case you need a picture, here is my Venn Diagram showing the advantages that men have had throughout history. Historically, they have indeed been better fit to serve as the heads of their families, schools, businesses, countries, and churches.

This is all very interesting, but is the Bible referring to societal laws or physical tendencies that give men an advantage? What about spiritual advantages? Does God give spiritual abilities to men that he does not give to women? And do these spiritual abilities make men better fit to serve as heads of their families and churches?

Let's explore the different spiritual abilities, although the more I say that, the stranger it sounds. Isn't everything spiritual? I suppose I mean an authority that doesn't come from the government.

Does God give only men the authority to intercede on behalf of others? No. How about the authority to sacrifice your life for others? No. How about the authority to learn Biblical truths? No. The authority to interpret scripture? No. The authority to prophesy? No. The authority to wash people's feet? No. The authority to pass out communion? No. The authority to forgive others? No. The authority to cast out demons? No. The authority to look after the spiritual growth of others? No. The authority to preach the gospel? No. The authority to teach children the Bible? No. The authority to teach adults the Bible? Arguably, no.

I realize some people might cite 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and 1 Timothy 2 as objections to this. However, that reading of scripture doesn't seem to match up with everything else Paul said. If you're interested in reading more about this, click on the link below.

So, do men have any spiritual authority that women don't? It seems that Ephesians 1:4 states that Christ has blessed both men and women "with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places." This seems to mean that men and women are blessed with the same spiritual authority to rule.

If men do not have any special advantages given to them by the government, if they aren’t older nor do they have special spiritual gifts given by God, by what authority do they claim rulership in marriage or churches?

What if it's not about abilities, but rather about being chosen? Just as God appoints certain people to be presidents or kings or emperors to look after the needs of their people, doesn't God appoint men to look after their family units? Maybe God chose man for no special ability that man has, but just because someone had to do it.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

I do believe there is some truth in this. Just like mankind cannot govern itself and thus needs—or in the case of Israel, demanded—a king to look out for them, families likewise need someone to look out for the needs of everyone. Historically, the overseer of a country has been one ruling man: king, czar, emperor. Likewise, God does seem to choose specific people to be spiritual shepherds. They look after the needs of their flock. This makes authority to rule a different matter. It is no longer about laws and advantages, but rather an anointing.

So now the question is: does God anoint people individually or does he designate entire groups of people based on their nationality or gender or tribe? The Bible shows us many examples: the anointing of Saul was used to designate authority for a time, the setting aside of the Levites was a thing for many years, Levite men were once the only ones to serve in the temple, the line of David continued all the way to Christ, etc. 

In fact, over time, God seems to anoint different types of people for different periods. There's the patriarchs, then Egyptian pharaohs, then priests, then judges, kings, and foreign kings. Interspersed in there are even a few women.

It seems that leadership styles continue to change even now. They have evolved, so to speak. Where once emperors and kings ruled, there are now, more often than naught, parliaments and houses of representatives. Perhaps God helped mankind make these changes by revealing to us the foolishness of giving one man all the power. It's better to have a group serve as leaders than one man. We see this in the church as well. Many churches have shifted from pastor-led to elder-led.

So why do we not yet see this in marriage? Isn't it also best in marriage for one man not to rule alone? Could it be that a woman was meant to be a man's perfect partner in sharing the authority of the family?

Perhaps then male headship is like what Paul says in Galatians 3:23-29 in that we are temporarily under guardians and managers until the date set. In Galatians, Paul was talking about how the Jewish law served as a guardian to the Israelites until faith in Jesus came.

"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:23-29 ESV)

Does Jesus' life and the Holy Spirit's empowerment somehow release us from the one-man-as-head model? I don't like how that sounds. Let me try again. Does Jesus' life and the Holy Spirit's empowerment somehow launch us from the platform made by the one-man-as-head model? I think I like that better. 

Perhaps the one-man-as-head model was put into place to safeguard the family until something greater was to come. Perhaps one-man-as-head was like a Fisherprice walker for youngsters. A baby walker helps babies take steps. It gets babies up off the ground. It protects babies from touching things they shouldn't. It puts the babies closer to eye level with other children who are already walking.

We don't expect the baby to continue in the walker all of his days, but we do not resent the walker either. It kept the baby safe. Not only that but it taught the baby the movements of real upright walkers. Perhaps headship is like that. Perhaps it is like the Jewish law that showed us how to live, that set us going the right direction so that we can now walk by the spirit.

Funny, I once wrote an ode to our kids' walker after they'd all learned to walk and it was time to say goodbye to the walker. There was a bitter-sweet sadness to that.

Before Christ came, how could a man and woman lead a family together? The spirit wasn't freely available to teach all people all things. Not only that but women didn't have the same privileges as men.

It was 1,382 AD that the Bible was first translated into English, and fifty years after that the printing press made the Bible more accessible to the wealthy. Education and the owning of books had to become possible for all people before women could ever read scripture for themselves. And it has only been in the last two hundred years that women have been allowed equal access to education in seminaries. 

Male headship has safeguarded the family order for thousands of years. But perhaps it was and has always been a guardian of greater things to come: that is, a joint rulership.

Photo by FORMAT arw on Unsplash

If this is true, we neither need to abandon nor scoff at the structure that male headship provided. If ever there is a marriage of two sinful humans with insecurities and uncertainties, the old walker can assist. It can get couples up on their feet and going. But we don't need to cling to it forever, afraid to walk and run and perhaps even fly, men and women together guided by the Holy Spirit.

Some people will probably decide to despise the old orders in order to leave it behind. Teenagers sometimes do this when they are about to leave home for college. They make themselves and their parents repulsive so that leaving home is not so difficult. I've seen my son do this too when a party is over. After he leaves, he tells me all the things he didn't like about the party. It is his way of soothing himself about a good thing that is over.

Perhaps, if all that I've said is true, we will see the same happen with the idea of male headship. Some will point back to these systems and mock them or try to prove how God never intended them to be. Some women will take over and scoff at the idea of men leading. But we don't have to do that.

In fact, we can continue to use the one-person-as-head model in various situations. If one spouse loses his or her faculties, the other may take the leadership. When the wife is going through hormonal changes and can't think straight, the husband can lead. If one spouse has a disability or is particularly insecure in Christ or has lost a job and feels depressed, the other can lead.

It seems that nowadays the role of headship can shift and change based on who is most fit to serve. I don't mean physically fit, but who is best able to rule as Christ did.

And how did Christ rule while on earth? Let me give another analogy.

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Perhaps marriage is like a man and woman holding hands and going down parallel zip lines. Throughout history, the man has sped ahead because he weighs more. This is the "advantage" given to men. However, he is commanded by God to keep holding hands with his wife and to use his "advantage" to bring her along with him as one.

On a zip line, this would look like the husband launching his wife forward, accelerating her speed and propelling her ahead of even himself. Perhaps in reality this might mean doing spiritual warfare for her, praying for her, serving her, and encouraging her. 

Let's say after a stint of five years, his faith feels dull and lifeless. He gets sucked into self-serving activities and doesn't care much about serving as Christ served. 

It is the wife's turn to lead now. She has been in a Bible Study. She sees her husband's faith turning fruitless. She takes up the mantle of ruling spiritually and she does spiritual battle through prayer for her husband. She encourages and prays for him too. 

On the zip line, this looks like her pulling him forward, propelling him faster than even herself. Perhaps all throughout their marriage, they shift the headship back and forth to keep pace with one another.

It would be wonderful if they both went the same speed all the way, but given life circumstances, they'll probably go through alternating seasons of being before or behind one another, of having to submit and having to lead one another spiritually. But they shall, if they keep their promises, remain holding hands.

Perhaps then, in the Bible, when Paul and Peter talk about the very common practice of submission and male headship, they were taking the old model and steering it toward the next step in evolution. Perhaps they were saying, "Work within the confines and structure that our society has given men and women. However, man is not independent of woman, nor woman, man. In fact, through Christ, they now have the spiritual authority to rule together. But as we are weak and merely human, may the one who is more spiritually fit to rule like Christ look out for the needs of the other family members." 

Photo by Dương Hữu on Unsplash

So far, I've used my imagination and reason as a basis for these arguments, pulling scripture in here and there when it came to my mind. I realize some may think this is backward. Should we not start with scripture and fit our imagination and reason into that? Perhaps. However, sometimes we come to scripture with so many predisposed assumptions that we can't see straight. 

There is one more topic that needs to be addressed, and that is childbearing. Perhaps men were meant to be the head of their families and churches not because they have something special, but because women have something special that needs protecting. This includes a monthly cycle where she may experience varying degrees of irritability or creativity depending on what day it is. This also includes pregnancy and breastfeeding. And let's also not forget that unstable time of becoming menopausal. Is that the right way to say that?

How does headship work with the cycles of a woman's body and the growing of children? Tune in next time to Abby's Rambling Thoughts on Everything! Or just click on the next link.