I don’t remember who said it, or why. One minute, we were filing into bible class at our Christian school, and the next, I heard another student — a girl — say, “Well, Susan won’t make a good wife because she’s not submissive.”
At the time, I would have been 15 or 16. When I heard that comment, my first knee-jerk reaction contained a hint of panic: What if that were true? Was I destined not to be a good wife because I was not their version of submissive? My next reaction came from deep in the gut: “These girls and their idea of submission! Give me a break!”
During my time in youth group and later as a single woman, I balked at what most Christian girls in that very conservative denomination seemed to mean by “submissive.” To be submissive was to cease to have an opinion other than your boyfriend’s, and, therefore, to cease real thought. It was to embrace a boyfriend’s beliefs and tastes as if they were your own. They took Ephesians 5:22 and absolutely elevated it, not waiting for marriage to starting submitting as to the Lord. This was practice for being a “submissive” wife.
So, the Bible teacher addressed the student’s comment. “I disagree,” he interjected, coming to my defense as other girls — girls with boyfriends — started echoing the dire prediction of my future marital felicity. “Susan is submissive to God and shows a tender heart in obeying Him. Because of that, she probably won’t have a problem being submissive to her husband.” Mumbling from other girls petered out after this; the bell rang to start class; and I sat at my desk feeling unexpectedly vindicated.
“What do you know,” I inwardly mused, “submitting to God means I probably won’t have a problem submitting to my husband down the line. What do you know.” After that, I let the matter of my own particular submission between my future husband and me rest. After all, as long as I submitted to God, things looked promising for maintaining the right kind of marriage, right? In the meantime, though, I kept adding to the definition and application of general “submission” in a marriage.
In the Sunday Schools, churches, youth groups, Christian camps, and Christian colleges I grew up in and attended in the Bible Belt of the U.S., submission was always a hot topic. When I was 17 and visiting a Christian college to look it over, I heard a preacher describe submission as the wife ducking out of the way so that the husband alone gets hit by God. He said it lightly, delivering it as a joke to an audience who seemed to laugh knowingly. So the woman gets completely out of the way as the man leads? That’s a tall order, I thought. Then again, maybe women have it easy; we’re not accountable for the bottom line, just for getting out of the way. I took that idea out from time to time, sifting and re-sifting it.
Also around this time, I heard a preacher say he really enjoyed “The Cosby Show” but disagreed with the roles demonstrated in their marriage. Curious, I asked what he meant. “On the show, the husband and wife discuss things as equals,” he answered, “but they aren’t. The man should be the one making the decisions.” I boggled a little at that. My teenage mind chewed on its implications. So, in a marriage, the wife, even if a lawyer, should not be discussing issues as an equal with her husband. Besides not getting the casting vote, she also must be wary of putting herself on the same footing as her husband. That was a tough one to swallow, but I noted it for future reference.
Along with the many sermons and bible lessons I heard, I also absorbed the examples of marriage and leadership I saw in the ministries. In that denomination, the man was to be the head of the home and most definitely the head of a ministry. I don’t ever remember seeing a woman lead if a man were in the room. Any woman with leadership skills and high abilities used those for women’s ministry or children’s ministry or in her own family, and nowhere else. A woman who put herself forward to lead — or to discuss something as equals — when men were present ran the risk of being called a pushy woman, a woman out of God’s will, or a woman who outright prevented men from obeying because she herself did not obey. And in those Christian circles, being called any one of those epithets was Very Bad News.
Having absorbed all this training and teaching and modeling of submission, I had become, without knowing it, a compliant — if reluctant — complementarian.
And then one fine day, I married an egalitarian.
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a 3-part series. The first — “I think it’s broken” — detailed Susan’s wrestling with gender in the church. The last, coming next month, will detail what happens when a complementarian marries an egalitarian.
___________
Image credit: coursesandevents.anjaschuetz.net, liberapedia.wikia.com, and jobmarket.tw





Sheesh, I missed all that Cosby Show “not discuss as equals” stuff. Blecch. Glad I missed that.
Really.
I’m looking forward to the third piece, Susan.
I don’t have as many clear memories to point out as you do,Susan, but I do remember one specific instance to go along with the high school girls “molding” to their boyfriends in aforementioned circles. When discussing her boyfriend with a gal in my class, she told me she feared him. “What!” I wondered to her. With all seriousness, she connected a fear of God with a same type (at least not on the same level) of her boyfriend. mmmmmmm
Thanks, Mere.
Makes one wonder what teenage girls are thinking, what it is they’re attempting to model, when they get the bottom line of behavior so skewed. What’s the thought behind the action? And whom were they emulating? And wasn’t there anyone [in this case, an older woman in the Titus 2 vein, since they most likely wouldn't heed a peer's observation] who could pull them aside and teach them a better way?
It’s to be hoped that, 20 years later, this is happening less.
Perhaps of interest is the fact that some would argue that the Bible belt is also the most racist region of the United States.
One wonders to what extent there is social, cultural, and religious correlation between those who used Bible verses to argue, back when it was an actual debate, in favour of keeping slavery or segregation legal and those who currently use Bible verses to argue in favour of a complementarian position.
To wit, this article by Max Blumenthal.
It certainly seems arguable that the Bible, both old and new testaments, is definitely more unambiguously pro-slavery than it is unambiguously complementarian.
Hmmm. I put the map of the Bible Belt states and the link explaining what it is to help a larger audience understand the quick reference (churches on every corner kind of thing), not to reopen the Civil War.
Do you have any thoughts on the main point of the post, Benjamin? If not, then I believe your comments on some of these posts are in danger of sounding like the guy at the back of the room who can’t hear the speaker very well and only catches a couple of words, which he latches on to, and then proceeds to shout stridently about.
I’m not trying to belittle you with this reply, nor to cut you out of the conversation; I am trying to give you a firmer footing in it. Do you have anywhere to stand?
Hmmmm. =).
You asked two questions, Susan.
1. Do I have any thoughts on the main point of the post?
To which the answer is another question: What do you see as the main point of the post, Susan?
2. Do I have anywhere to stand?
Yes, certainly, very much so. I’m standing right here =).
Also this: I used to have a God who was into hitting people. I have a graciouser, gentler God now. Noone has to duck out of his way.
Also this question: what do you mean by “shout stridently”?
I very much like you making explicit the relationship element of your reply. It seems to me that messages have both a relationship element and a content element. I hear you saying, with your “I’m not trying to belittle you nor cut you out of the conversation” that you value relationship and connection at least as much as content. That’s kewl. I lean that direction as well =).
Hey, Benjamin, sorry it’s taken so long to get back to you!
The main point of the above post is pretty well stated in the title; no tricks there.
Yes, yes, I do value relationship and the content.
Ok, I’m going to get to your other comment now…
Also, with regards to this thread, there’s been an potentially interesting debate in the Sydney Diocese of the Angligan Church here in Australia, which is known for being particularly evangelical and theologically conservative (that particular diocese, that is). They are proposing to change the Prayer Book for Australia, the Anglican Church Australia’s iteration of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, in such a way that the alternative marriage service has the woman promising to “submit”, whereas previously in the alternative marriage service she promised to “obey”. Some people have gotten a bit up in arms over this proposed change, saying “submit” is potentially more denigrating and more dangerous in terms of potential for domestic violence, etc., than the previous “obey”. I find this a bit of a stretch, personally–it seems to me that both “obey” and “submit” are incredibly similar and neither are really such brilliant ideas unless they are promised both directions (guess I’m egalitarian. although I’m really too post-modern to pin down so neatly =)
I’m curious, Susan–did you say “submit” or “obey” or anything like that in your vows? Megs and I actually used the vows from the Prayer Book for Australia, as we were wed by an Anglican minister here in Oz, but we changed them to do away with the “obey” wording. =) We did, however, plight one another our troths, which is kind of delicious old language =)
Thanks for this comment. When I first read it, I said aloud (I think!), “Hey, there’s the guy I used to chat with on aol!” Thanks for relaxing and just talking in your comment on this.
So, the Anglicans in Australia are approaching changing up the marriage vows. I find that interesting, too, not least because I have been giving it more thought lately myself. Besides this topic I’ve been writing about and studying, we had a wedding on our property a little over 2 weeks ago, and in the scheme of helping get things ready for it, it put us back in that world of wedding vows & bridesmaids & preparations (& cleaning up & cooking & etc.) I listened closely at the rehearsal & the ceremony itself to see what vows would be made…there was no promise to “obey.” There were other wonderful promises, mind you, but I had my radar out for that one. It is one, in fact, that I used in my vows to Glenn. (How could I not? I was determined to Do The Right Thing from the beginning.) I would not use it now, and I will not encourage our kids to use it. It’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, anyway. Of course the word “submit” comes with its own bag of issues, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations, too. Yes, I’d think it’s a you say po-tay-toe, and I say po-tah-toe when it comes to settling on either “obey” or “submit.” The couple who married on our property used neither. (I’m pretty sure; I was keeping our 3 year old ringbearer entertained at the other end of the wedding tent; he’d started pitching rocks at the pastor’s legs.) But there were sound, Biblical, and beautiful promises nonetheless…almost as beautiful as “plighting one another their troths.”
yes–the guy you used to chat with on aol. FSM that was a long time ago! =).
Here’s to relaxing and just talking =)
I like the little vignette about the ringbearer and the rocks. very funny, somehow =). The wedding on your property sounds delicious and exhausting.
I love your capitalized “Do The Right Thing”. perfect.
When Megs and I go to a wedding, we whisper the vows again to each other as the bride and groom are saying them. It’s kind of an excellent opportunity to remember and recommit. =).
Yes, you got it: the wedding was delicious (literally: we ate twice!)and exhausting. But so creatively put together.
I see you’re still the romantic! Very nice you and your wife connect on several levels that way. You know, I’m really glad you’ve found a home and sanctuary with her, and with your new country, Benjamin.
p.s. Yes, the 3 year old ringbearer (who was my 3 year old incidentally) got yanked off the front row pretty quickly after he started pitching rocks at the preacher’s legs. Thinking it was funny (when the ceremony was over), I mentioned it the pastor, who said he hadn’t felt it. His 9 year old son, however, came up to me several times throughout the day, demanding to see my son who had been throwing rocks at his dad. Oops!
I am also glad for you–also in a new country! During the 9 years we lived in Seattle, we’d occasionally pop up to Vancouver, Abbotsford, and surrounds in British Columbia, as Megs said it felt more like home/Australia than did Seattle/the US. I love the thoughtful conclusion to this series you recently posted as well. My Megs has also had to make a big adjustment, as when we got married I was coming from a more complementarian, IFB persepctive, and now I’ve gone and transformed into an atheist/Pastafarian! =). She’s very gracious about it, but a couple times a few years ago she said to me with some chagrin (and also with a little humour) “False advertising, buddy–when we got married you wanted to be a Christian missionary and Bible translator, and now you’re an atheist!”. Megs has over the past few years increasingly embraced a slightly more radical feminist philosophy, decrying the patriarchy that is rampant even in her somewhat more theologically liberal and open Anglicanism.
Hi Susan! I missed this second installment and am only getting back to it after reading your third installment (which underscores the idea that not all men want to exclusively lead and that this expectation can cause tensions for him, her, or both). It is such an interesting journey that you are on, and I once again appreciate your transparency.~Deb