How does one portray male headship in marriage in this context? I don't mean rationally and intellectually defend it. But how does one advocate male headship without advocating the power structure that seems to lend itself to such abuse?
Most of us - the mentally insane excluded - have a knee-jerk defensive reaction against putting ourselves in harm's way. And most of us are probably smart enough to have a few thoughts like:
- Power increases the opportunities for abuse
- He-said-she-said claims are really, really messy for victims. Evil doers often look really good to the community at large (churches included).
Lately I've also been reflecting on a couple Old Testament marriage laws.
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.The 2nd passage is of interest to me because it is effectively commands limited polygamy - and rather seriously enforced. Yet Paul later writes that pastors are not to be men of more than one wife.
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
In short, there seem to be aspect; of Old Testament marriage law where because of sin, God allows/commands situations that don't seem to fit his original design in order to protect women.
I don't really have any good solutions to the problem. Well, I have good theories, but they aren't very practical. I suppose I have two thoughts:
- I wonder how much of the feminist movement is fueled by men abusing power.
- I wonder how Christians can protect and defend the weak within families with effectiveness and holiness without sacrificing the male headship view of marriage.
Flames can start now.
3 comments:
I'm a little freaked out, because you're touching on things I've been thinking about lately but haven't posted.
I've been meaning to write a letter to my abusers' church, warning their pastor to watch the kids carefully. Yeah, been meaning to do that for a few years now. But, yeah, the he-said-she-said stuff.
Anyway, I can say that every woman I'm close enough to to discuss the issue with has been sexually abused, assaulted, or harassed in some way (last term added for my best friend, who endured some nasty mental abuse from a manipulative guy in HS). All. 100%. Granted, we in the community of the "least of these" tend to attract one another (if for no other reason than the unlikelihood that others will accept us or understand), but still -- exceedingly high figure. And that doesn't include other types of abuse being male-instigated -- that brings the figure to something like 200%.
I'm fairly sure I've disclosed to you that I don't believe in male headship. If I did somehow come to believe in that, after all I've seen and experienced, I'd sooner attempt suicide than return to that particular form of slavery. (In this I am being literal, not hyperbolic. Given that this is the one issue that reminds me that there is no such thing as a perfect church, I have thought about it quite a bit over the past few months.)
All of that being said, I really, truly appreciate the two statements at the end of your post. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these things and your non-strident, humble approach. Despite my disagreement with you and others in the church on the need for a head of a family, I can only agree with and respect the heart with which you approach the issue.
</antiflame>
One more thought, as it seems that it might be of interest:
Once when I was at a women's Bible study, the leader talked about Malachi 2 in the Old Testament. Her interesting take on this was that God's hatred of divorce related to the effect it would have on the woman, who as a divorcée would likely have to turn to prostitution in order to support herself.
She then contrasted this with the idea some folks have that a woman should not leave an abusive husband because "God hates divorce," as God also hates people being abused.
Anyway, I guess that doesn't relate as much as I'd thought, but it is an interesting argument I thought you might appreciate.
And now I will quit clogging your comment page.
I'll keep my flaming to a minimum, but you know I have to comment on this Alan.
My take (with support from the Bible and many Christian theologians): God's original design (equality of the sexes, in marriage and all other things) was distorted becuase of sin. Unbalanced power in a marriage relationship is not God's original intent but a result of the fall, and therefore we see all the sad situations mentioned by you and others. "Male headship" is a cause of, not a solution to, abuse of women.
I suppose it is my turn to be flamed now.
The good thing is, we are all still Christians and like Tony mentioned, this is not the most important faith issue. If you believe in male headship I can still be your friend, I just would never marry you. ;-)
Post a Comment