Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Women Wearing The Pants


When we stop being afraid of what men can do to us, or angry about what they have done, and start serving the God whose image they are made in, then men will start filling our church pews again.

And our husbands will rise up to their full potential to be spiritual leaders, to be prophets and priests of integrity and Pentecost, to be speakers into lives and providers of families and protectors of daughters and mentors of sons.
{The Lost Art Of Servanthood}

Emily Wierenga wrote those words.  She is getting beat up in the comments section about teaching that wives are commanded to submit to their husbands.  She tells of a friend of hers in Lebanon whose husband broke out some of her teeth when she became a Christian.  She stayed with him and he became a Christian.

Oh, this angers many women.  "How can you support abuse?"  Her husband will be in heaven praising Jesus for eternity because she fought silently for her husband's salvation.  Women are willing to fight for many things but for some reason to fight for your marriage and your husband is not worth it? {Of course, she doesn't condone physical violence against women and neither do I but uses this example as the power of submission.}

She tells how her mum wore the pants in her family so she grew up not respecting her father.  Are men partly responsible for women wearing the pants?  I am not sure but it is worth considering.  Maybe if men would stand up to their wives and say "No" and stop being afraid of their wives, they would have more authority in the home.

However,  what responsibility do women have in the feminization of men? Men fearing to be leaders in their homes?  Men abandoning the Church?  Men no longer wanting to support and protect their families?

I believe women hold a great amount of responsibility in this area.  In the quest to be equal with men, women have systematically destroyed masculinity and in the process destroyed femininity.  God has made it very clear that men are to be the leaders in the home and wives are to obey them in everything.  This creates peace and order, something that God highly prizes.

True happiness and joy is found in serving others.  When you learn to truly love and serve your husband, your home is put in order, God's order.  I admire Emily for taking such a bold, strong stand on submission and putting it out there for all to read.  Of course she will be ridiculed.  The world doesn't like God's message and ways.  They love to pervert His ways and make them look ugly.

Show the world how beautiful biblical submission is in your own marriage.  My son recently told me that one of his friends decided to take on my 30 Day Challenge of not arguing.  They made it four days without arguing.  They are going to start over.  Never give up!  Practice makes perfect.  Learning to not argue with your husband is the first step to taking off those pants once and for all and allowing your husband to wear them!
Emily's story ends this way ~

For all of my dad’s sermons the greatest message he ever gave {and continues to give} was with his life, bent over the bathtub, washing my mum as she lay semi-unconscious; cutting her toenails, changing her Depend’s and cooking baked potatoes in the microwave night after night for supper, for years.

And suddenly Mum began to laugh at his jokes and lean on his arm and tell him he was handsome. And suddenly my dad’s shoulders straightened and his home became his ministry. And his children rose up and championed him, and called their mother blessed.

The greatest among you shall be your servant.
Matthew 23:11

Comments (21)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I think a big part of the reason that many women have tried to take over is that we erroneously believe that the leader is more important or somehow worth more. We tend to think that being in charge means being more important and more powerful. That's often how it is in the world's eyes. But in God's ways, being a servant makes you the greatest of all. God doesn't see the leader as more important. He sees those who are willing to serve where they are placed as the greatest in His kingdom.

The fact that husbands are designed to be the leaders of their homes and that women are to submit to their husbands does NOT make women inferior in any way. It actually means that women have been chosen for a very special and exalted purpose. Thus, a woman who wililngly and submissively tends to her family in the role God has placed her is of great worth in His eyes. It is she who will receive great reward. Not the one who is dissatisfied with her role and wishes power as the world sees things.
1 reply · active 625 weeks ago
Great thoughts, Lindsay! Thank you.
I love this post! I too believe that the lack of real men and real leaders is actually our fault as women.
I don't think submitting to our men makes us weak at all. If fact, it's much easier to do what we think is right rather than to submit. So in my book, if you can humbly submit to your man, you are a very strong woman :)
1 reply · active 625 weeks ago
I completely agree with you. It was much more difficult for me to become a submissive wife than do what comes naturally...be controlling and manipulative!
I read her post and some of the comments and I agree wholeheartedly with her and you- I'm a 25 year old wife of 5 years, and I have come to realize that our home works so much smoother, is so much more peaceful and love-filled when my husband is wearing the pants and I'm not manipulating and trying to lead. It just doesn't work that way. My husband is more confident, more effective at work and in ministry when he is head, when I'm encouraging and not demeaning. Doesn't mean I let him walk all over me and I am a quiet mouse- I serve him, and he serves me and it's a partnership of love, where being his helpmeet brings out the best in both of us. Thank you for writing this- you are right- the world doesn't like the light shined into it's darkness.
1 reply · active 625 weeks ago
You sound like you have a wonderful marriage, Marybeth! You are blessed.
Very interesting! Personally, I don't think the feminization of men is a negative thing, if by "feminine" we mean nurturing, gentle, intuitive, and those qualities I typically associate with the word. Whenever my husband and I read those Mars/Venus type books, we always laugh at how different we are from the ways most men and women supposedly are. We're almost always opposite. I don't know if that means I "wear the pants" but I do know I'm grateful for my husband and I love his personality, even the "feminine" aspects. I'm grateful he wants to stay at home when we have kids. I'm grateful he supports and encourages me in my career. I'm also thankful when he opens stubborn jars for me! I wonder how it would be if we were Christian and believed God prescribed different roles for us (because I agree, it seems pretty clear in the Bible) if it would be hard to change the dynamic of our marriage.
3 replies · active 625 weeks ago
What I mean by being masculine is being a leader and wanting to provide for a family. A masculine man can be nurturing and gentle but he should also be the leader in the home. Everything works much better when there is one leader!
What does the leader of the home do? I'm sorry if that is a dumb question, but I guess I don't really understand. It means providing financially? But what else?
Yes, providing for the family is important but it is just like a boss at work...makes the decisions, runs the company {family}. Most husbands want their wives imput but when there is an impasse, he gets to decide. He also should have the last word.
God's word is so simple yet many struggle with it. If we all can just follow God's order for marriage and life in general, it will take unnecessary pain out of our lives.
Thanks a lot for sharing this, I always pray and ask for grace to be the best daughter to God and best wife to mu husband.
I think that one of the reasons that women are constantly trying to lead their family is that they have no confidence in what men can do. We have been raised in a society with women battling men for equality and in that struggle, women now disrespect men. Even tv shows the men as bumbling idiots. It's not a good influence on us.
You can count me among the women who are angry that you would sensationalize enduring abuse as a powerful example of anything good. (But you probably knew that.)

I believe in feminine servant-hood -- and I hate to see domineering women destroy families by disrespectful conduct. But I also believe that all leaders must be servants, which means that I also believe in male servant-hood, and that any servant-hearted person can be a leader in a family.

I understand that you cling to words like "leader" for men "obey" for women, but you get "leader" from the Greek metaphor of headship, which is by no means as clear-cut as you imagine... and you get "obey" from the King James translation of "hupotasso" which is an innocent word that only means that we elevate others by our humility (servanthood) and willingly take shelter under them. It's important to cling to the Bible -- It's also important to occasionally wonder if our personal conclusions about 'what it clearly means' are actually well founded.

I might go on saying these things to you, because I think you read them, even though Ken usually responds. Sometimes I have hope that I might find a teachable moment with you -- possibly due to the title of your blog... but posts like this, Lori, they are not worthy of you. It does not good for the Church to be on the internet as "pro-abuse" -- there are already enough people in Churches past and present who prove that point. Let's not join their ranks?
2 replies · active 611 weeks ago
I made it very clear that I am not "pro-abuse" and frankly, you write a bit too intellectually for me. This is why I usually have Ken respond. My posts and thoughts are fairly simple. I am not a highly academic person. I would like to think I am a wise woman and that is all that matters to me. All your interpretations of words confuse me. I do read your responses but I don't always understand the point you are trying to make. I know we agree on some things and disagree on others and that is fine with me. You always write thoughtful disagreements and that is why I publish your comments.
Thank you PJB- I stumbled on Lori's blog and have been less than enthused at the simplistic and topographical reading of scripture. When you dig deep into many passages quoted, and look to the surrounding text, you will find they require a more nuanced reading than portrayed by Lori and many other evangelicals. History, society, and culture cannot be seperated from the Bible.
I'll take my flogging now for being unfeminine. After all, my BA in theology from a highly respected Northeastern religious liberal arts college and my JD make me..... Lets just say I'm glad I live in the Northeast and was raised mainline Protestant.
I suppose those here will pray for me. As I will pray for them. I don't think that one side will convert the other. Though I will suggest that you utilize the brains God gave you and learn more about the Bible and the history of Christianity before attempting to interpret what it's taken men and women lifetimes of study to understand.
Telling a story when abuse occurs, and enduring it (rather than protecting one's self from it) is characterized as a noble "powerful" choice that leads to good results *IS* pro-abuse. It's not in favor of the 'abuser' but it makes a hero out of an abused person who does absolutely the wrong thing -- intentionally enables the abuse to continue. That's what makes it pro-abuse.

If you are truly against abuse, you would condemn it in all forms, every time it comes up -- rather than waxing sentimental about his sometimes it can be a good thing if a woman puts up with it for long enough.
{Of course, she doesn't condone physical violence against women and neither do I but uses this example as the power of submission.}

You know PJB, the reason you hear from me is because of your constant picking at Lori’s work and consistent mischaracterizations of what the Scriptures teach in the Greek. You seem to have an agenda to teach Lori something that is contrary to what the scriptures teach, and Lori knows it, but prefers not to take her talented time up with defending what she writes. You are welcome to read her work, and welcome to post comments, but what do you want Lori to say to you when you purposefully mischaracterize what she has clearly written?

Lori clearly states that she is against physical abuse of any type, yet you want all her readers to believe that she condones it. All because she explains why another writer is getting beat up for a story about how a wife suffered so she might win her husband to the Lord?

Get real for a moment and give Lori’s readers the benefit of not being stupid, ignorant or slavishly submissive. Her readers are like you, highly intelligent, educated and can decipher between an illustration and an admonition. Lori is not admonishing her reader to accept abuse, and you know it. If you want to object to her repeating the illustration, so be it, but resist the temptation to mischaracterize what Lori has clearly written because you do not appreciate the illustration.

Lori teaches that if a husband does any physical abuse, run, don’t walk to the police, or at least get to a friend’s home. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the women in the illustration got back with her husband after she turned him in? Or after she ran away for a period of time and then forgave and restored him?

We have been round and round on your inaccurate use of the Greek word "hupotasso" and as much as you want to try and wiggle out of it, it is a military term and you know full well the military speaks in terms of leadership and submission, and definitely not “an innocent word that only means that we elevate others by our humility.”

No matter how many times you repeat the same mischaracterization of the word, it will not change its true origin and meaning. "Hupotasso" clearly means submission or 99% of all Bible translators got it wrong and you and modern feminist Christianity somehow have discovered the its new meaning without ever finding it defined your way in any ancient manuscripts. For that matter, “elevate others by our humility” makes zero sense in the context of a military term.

To define a word in the Scriptures according to what you want it to mean in the context of a modern christian marriage is a gross violation of any reasonable hermeneutics, yet you repeat it over and over again with some authority that others may perceive is valid, when it is not. Like it or not, God could have chosen a different word other than “hupotasso,” but he did not. So it may be time to give up and accept submission as an admonition from the Lord, and discover that it is the key that can lead to a glorious, Christ centered marriage of loving equals each playing out their God given roles.

If you want Lori to learn from you, use the Bible to defend your position, and use the Greek words with their clear translation. Do not set up a straw man of recently coined definitions and masquerade them as the truth, then ask Lori and others to accept them. This makes no sense to Lori because she knows her Bible intimately and has never seen what you speak of so matter-of-factly. We cannot accept that all of Christianity throughout history somehow got it wrong, but now you and others who espouse a kinder, gentler “hupotasso” just figured it out in the middle of a feminist world. There needs no watering down of “hupotasso” because the husband’s responsibility to “love his wife as Christ loves the church” is an even great demand. The two extremes balance each other out perfectly in God’s marriage.
It is also a "husband's duty" to "hupotasso" to his wife, his children, and every other person with whom he is doing Church -- lest he disobey the commands of Christ that include him in not one, but many hupotasso relationships. Being a submissive servant is not a command given to women alone. It must be something all can do, to one another, since that command precedes any more specific gendered instructions.

To tell a woman to be submissive is to tell her to act like a Christian. There is every reason she should.

Christan leadership is always submissive leadership. That's why being submissive does not mean 'not bring a leader' or 'make someone else your leader' -- it means honour and elevate others... Something that fits in military contexts as easily as it does in marriage and Church. In secular places the honour runs only one direction. In Christan relationships, everybody does it. Some lead, some follow, but everyone elevates others by the submissive humility of a servant.

I don't mind repeating myself, and I never intentionally mischaracterize anything (though I may misunderstand),and I still think any illustration of good-from-abuse crosses a line. We're allowed to differ. It's just nice to be able to talk (type) about these things among compatriots.
1 reply · active 625 weeks ago
You are correct PJB... that Christian leadership is shown in humility with the leader esteeming others as more important than himself. Christian husbands are to serve their wife and family, but they are not called upon to "obey" their wife, nor asked to follow their wife's leadership. Wives are to be the sergeant of the family and husband the lieutenant while following Christ the Supreme Ruler. There is a clear order in the family and the church ... an order of equals, and a clear order of leadership ... but you are correct that a great husband does all he can to display Christ to His family while taking full responsibility for the decisions and direction the family takes.

I enjoy the discussions we have ... and wish you the best. We can agree to disagree. Lori's health has deteriorated again the last five weeks or she may respond more ... I pray she is headache free soon.
Submission is so deeply counter-cultural right now that talking about it takes an enormous amount of bravery. God bless you for writing and speaking honestly. Far too few people do.
I'm sorry to hear about Lori's health. I seem to be able to tell when she is feeling worse -- her posts somehow mangage to gain a bit more "edge" on the controversial topics.

If you are interested in checking translation work (working from the assumption that you don't buy into ideas of "inspired" translation teams) I think you will see that the word translated long ago to "obey" was in fact just plain "hupotasso" on which we have such disagreement. It is rare to find a competent translator that still thinks that "obey" is a good word choice in representing "hupotasso". That's why I don't think that the Bible clearly "says obey" -- because it simply doesn't it was chosen by translators. It is not disregard for the Bible to question translation choices -- especially with a word this complex.

Additionally, the idea of leadership in marriage is not ever mentioned by those words. People find that idea in the (completely undefined) metaphor of "head" and in passages that call for respect and honour for husbands from wives. There is a reasonable case to be made there, but it is "making a case" -- it's not obvious. It's an opinion. Which is why it is controversial among believers and respecters of the Bible. That's why I call (like the Bible) for all the respect and honour in the world from wives to husbands, without adding other interpretive ideas such as leadership.bi also make sure to say that honour and respect isn't optional for anyone.

Post a new comment

Comments by