To ask if you agreed to submit to your husband's authority when you married?

[GalaApples]

If so, what made you agree? Was it a good decision?
I recently found out that this is a thing among some evangelical Christians, in the UK as well as in the US. Has it worked out for you? How do you feel about the man being the "head" of the house, and have his decisions been good ones or not? How do you feel about him making the final decisions about your marriage and family?

Sorry, that was supposed to be addressed to @Botw1.

☝️this

I did not. It would never have occurred to me (or my husband).

It's not a leap and I do understand it in terms of how it actually works. I don't understand why you'd let another person make decisions for you just because they're male.

@Panapan

Yes.

Definitely dodging.

I know why no one is answering

And no of course I don't expect you to change your mind

Question for the Christians on here. For the record I'm not a Christian and I am not a supporter of this premise in marriage (to put it mildly), but I'm trying to understand and unpick your arguments.

If I've understood the logic of what you're saying correctly its that you agree to "submit" on condition that there is some fairly rigorous quid pro quo for your husband in terms of what is expected of him. And that it works in the context of a Christian marriage where there is trust and mutual respect etc.

The problem with your assertion that its all OK in the context of a good Christian marriage is that the fundamental premise is based on Christian morality but is routinely applied in contexts where those other conditions (mutual respect, conditions on the husband etc) do not exist.

So for this rule to function well it requires all the elements of a "perfect Christian marriage" to be in place. (There's a big question in my mind as to whether a Christian marriage can be equitable anyway but let's leave that to one side for now).

When in reality this piece of morality is actually usually a hangover from a broader set of Christian social and moral values which are not applied. And which is used as a figleaf by people who do not behave in a Christian way in many other areas of their life but cling to the belief that a man has inherent authority over a woman. (And by the way this applies in other religions as well. Christianity is by no means the only faith to use morality as a tool to control women).

So while in your specific situations it doesn't sound like you are downbeaten oppressed women, this piece of Christian morality relies on a perfect calibration of interests which is not usually in every marriage. And it is being widely abused in the wrong context by millions of men for their own purposes.

Does that not worry you and don't you feel it undermines this argument in a modern society?

You are 100% right. It does not work outside of a Christ centred marriage. It can't. Which is why marriage is a Christian sacrament instituted by the church. The legality of marriage with all its protections is relatively new. It's useful and provides stability and lots of legal protection but vowing to obey someone in that setting is probably not useful. Standing before God with a spouse who shares your faith, values and ultimate worldview and promising to love, honour and obey them shouldn't be scary because you're both pulling in the same direction on all the big things. The big things are what counts. I don't obey my husband in decisions around what colour to paint the kitchen because frankly neither of us care enough to assert any level of authority over that. We just compromise. Any situations where it would concern you to have to "obey" another just aren't worrying to me because we agree on the big things.

I’m not arguing for this to be the case in all marriages at all. I was answering a question about how it worked in my marriage and trying to explain that it isn’t automatically abusive, which seemed to be what others were saying.

I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone who wasn’t a Christian to apply it to their own marriage.

In terms of it only working in a perfect marriage, to some extent you are right. It is explained in the Bible as a framework for how marriages ought to work - and yes it is a massively high bar for both parties. But it’s not the case that the wife is called to submit only if her husband fulfills his side of the bargain. Just as a husband is not called to love his wife in a sacrificial way only if she submits to him. Ultimately we can only control how we ourselves behave - we can’t force our spouse to do anything. It’s not just in marriage that Christians are called to live like this “do good to those who persecute you” “turn the other cheek”. Jesus himself forgave those who killed him. Put simply it’s treating others how we’d like to be treated, not how they treat us.

There is very sadly abuse in many marriages, both Christian and non-Christian and I’m sure there are many men who love this idea without actually believing much else in the Bible. So yes, it can be misunderstood and abused. But so can many other models of relationship. All I’m saying here is that in my case, it isn’t abused.

Nor is it abused in our marriage either.

Humans are of equal value, men and women. One is not intrinsically inferior or superior to their other, but they have different roles. The framework, done properly, is designed to be a beautiful, harmonious, close loving marriage where each party puts the other person/family first. It's not designed for men to just boss their wives around and basically exploit them.

Some people ask ,'why does having a penis give someone authority over someone who doesn't?' From a secular worldview, it doesn't make much sense. Through a Christian lens, it does. God the Father and Jesus are equal, but Jesus always submitted to God. The model of marriage is similar.

We are all created lovingly and carefully by God, and our sex is an important part of that design, because of the role that God wants us to play in our marriage. It's not that women=doing all the chores while the man shouts instructions at her and abuses her. It is supposed to be a mutually beneficial relationship where both parties put the other first, but when it comes to "penalties', to use a football analogy, a final decision, the husband will make the final call, prayerfully and carefully. In a marriage like this, the husband is most likely not going to make a decision that he knows would really upset the wife or negatively impact her. I know a lot of Christian women who subscribed to this and they are certainly not weak, exploited doormats. They are in happy, thriving, caring marriages. Myself included.

There is a huge amount of theology attached to this marital framework that goes way beyond 'men good/women bad cus the Bible says so'. It's so deeply entrenched in so, so many aspects of the faith, so many doctrinal issues which Christians find beautiful but the secular world often scoff at. Sacrifice, service, putting the needs of others above your own. I understand why Christian posters find it difficult to find the time and intellectual space in their day to really tease these facets out in relation to their faith. It just goes so deep and cant properly be summed up in a paragraph. For many, its from years of walking with Jesus, studying scripture, prayer, life experience. For many, it's a very profound thing that is difficult to explain.

My relationship with my husband is so closely entwined to my relationship with God. I know I'm not the poster girl for modern day womanhood but I do not care. My faith is strong, I am happy, my husband is happy, our children are happy. I'm not abused, it's not toxic. Our home is a safe, loving place, very grace-filled, based on team work.

This isn't an AMA where we have volunteered to answer every question and have the time and mental energy to really go into doctrinal issues which inform our choices. This is a faith that we love and spend a lot of time studying. We know that a lot of posters want to know more to understand, but many actually have no interest in understanding and it is just very tiring to go away, collect all of our points, articulate them succinctly and try to explain in the detail that we would like to be met with 'yeah but abusive!'. It feels like such a waste of time and goes around in circles. It's already quite difficult to come out with such counter cultural views without wasting lots of time explaining ourselves in the detail we would like only for it to be discarded or deliberately misconstrued.

If anyone is genuinely interested, I'm happy to share some links to explain more, albeit quite generally.

Anyway, that's me out.

And yes, my husband makes me coffee, just because.

Given the amount of marital misery I have observed on Mumsnet and in real life, I would consider it madness to submit to ANY man, however kind, respectful, caring, and embued with 'Christian' values he may appear to be.

Yes I did, and am happy with it :)

Sod that. To put it politely. The US has already given up on women’s rights and the U.K. is trying to follow but no I will not submit to any male authority by virtue of them being dicks.

Christianity was deliberately invented to keep the Roman ethics of the time going, as organised state religion usually is. You can think of it as thinly veiled Roman Emperor worship, with a few sos thrown to the common populace who were getting annoyed about various things at the time. Rome didn’t like women very much - more than some, but they would not put up with women in charge. I do not see it as any good justification for putting up with men being dicks now.

Sops! Not sos.

It's just all waffly nonsense designed to try and obsficute the fact that it is mysoginistic bullshit.

Oh god loves us equally he just thinks men are better off in charge and it's their role to make the decisions

How any self respecting woman can not only agree with that but think it's wonderful is beyond me.

Bleugh

Outside of growing children, men and women's roles are not inherently different in the modern age. Many Christians do not belive in a man dominating a woman or making decisions on their behalf. There is nothing about believing in God which makes this inevitable.

I know and respect many people and organisations who would agree with that, howmanybicycles. There’s nothing wrong with different thinking about the metaphysics of the universe, although I prefer the eastern less personalised thinking myself. But when it starts to tell you how you should organise your politics and personal relationships, especially with sanctions and threats behind it, it is the ancient form of imperial totalitarianism, and we should all be alarmed. There’s a reason it’s coming back now, as democratic forms of government fail, and a reason it’s taking this patriarchal form.

History is the real enemy of religion btw - the first real shock to the tyranny of medieval religion was the proof of the real age of the earth. Without history you lose survival knowledge, and identity and are easy prey for tyranny and authoritarianism.

WellThatwasWeird and Panapan
Thanks for your full explanations. I would say however that this thread may have given the impression that all Christian marriages are based in this way, which they certainly are not. For example, I am Christian but I do not believe that God has made a "framework" for what marriage should be like, and neither has he set down specific roles for men and women. Those who believe this take the bible, particularly Genesis literally, and also follow St. Paul where he says the same things. But for me, these rules are man-made dogma, not God's will. I respect those who believe it and live it, but most Christians do not because they do not read God's will in that way. To me personally and many others, the teachings of Christ himself are what is important, and he does not say anything on this.

 Another aspect of male authority/headship is that women are not supposed to have authority over any man, hence the churches that want wives to submit, won't have any women in leadership roles in the church, so even lay worship teachers are only allowed to teach women, and are never in "authority" over a man.
 A real concern is that although posters on here have nice and reasonable husbands, where are the guarantees?  What happens if the husband drinks or gambles away the family money, or refuses outings or clothes for his children, or won't let them do sport, etc. etc.  What if he is a bad lot or becomes a tyrant? 
 A particular worry is how children are brought up with these ideas. I imagine girls and boys are treated differently based on what their future roles are likely to be.  I hope that girls do not suffer because of it, including in their education.

Another aspect of male authority/headship is that women are not supposed to have authority over any man, hence the churches that want wives to submit, won't have any women in leadership roles in the church, so even lay worship teachers are only allowed to teach women, and are never in "authority" over a man.
Oh! please stop it. There are so very few 'churches' that believe this. Why pick on them and claim they are examples or typical?
The Comfy old C of E ordains women, some of them are promoted to BISHOP. That is authority over men and a million ponds worth of assets Plus buildings..

I think the Congregational Church started ordination of women and therefore giving them authority since before WW1.
Have you been to a church with a woman minister or vicar? Try talking to one.
Go and find out for yourself.
If you are in UK There will probably be one within 10 miles. C of E, Methodists, Baptists, United Reformed Church. They are not rare and in hiding.

First DH was like this. I never realised pre marriage what a chauvinistic shit he was.
Tried telling me who I would be voting for in elections.
Thought he'd got me fixed up for a job going door-to-door selling cleaning stuff.
Tried to bully me into breast feeding.
Told me we wouldn't be getting divorced when I started proceedings...
Well here I am now married to someone else who treats me like a human being and not a brainless slave.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

1 Corinthians 13:4-13

This famous wedding quote should be the basis of a healthy Christian marriage.

I've not rtft but I'm sure she's on TikTok and now free? It might be someone else but I'm sure her name is Sue. I hope it's her and she's escaped.

Brianixon
You have completely misunderstood my most recent post, presumably because you have not read it. The whole point of this thread is that the complementarian view is quite in a minority, so why suggest I said otherwise, that they are typical? You seem to have butted in to an otherwise amicably conducted discussion, in an overbearing and bombastic way without bothering to read what has been said.

The rest of your post is completely off beam. I am a member of a mainstream Church of England congregation that until recently had a wonderful women vicar who has been promoted to higher things in the church. However, thanks for mansplaining to me what I already know so well. Maybe read the posts in future before firing off aggressivde irrelevancies.

Sincere apologies to OP and others on the thread.
I seldom post although a regular reader of MN.
Yes, I did get it wrong. I am already careful of emails after a drink or two. Will do better in future.

@Wellthatwasweird and others.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I can see this works for you in your marriage but respectfully I find this absolutely baffling and devoid of logic.

Some people ask ,'why does having a penis give someone authority over someone who doesn't?' From a secular worldview, it doesn't make much sense. Through a Christian lens, it does. God the Father and Jesus are equal, but Jesus always submitted to God. The model of marriage is similar.

I'm struggling to grasp this: so in a secular worldview having a penis does not give a man authority over a woman. But in a Christian worldview it does because Jesus (who did, presumably, have a penis) submitted to God (who presumably doesn't)? How can the model of marriage be similar to a theoretical situation where a long-dead prophet who was biologically male "submits" to a theological entity who is hard to define but sexless?

Unless you believe that God is "male", which raises all sorts of questions about how women are treated in the church. And if you accept that God is male and the headship thing flows from that it's very hard to see how women can be treated fairly in the church.

I can just about make peace with the idea that two Christians with the same values can trust each other enough for the woman to "submit" in her marriage (although I would never accept this in my own life I can accept that it isn't always abusive). But how on earth does this piece of theology justify this?