What Could Go Wrong?

Watch most television these days and you'll discover the changing roles of husbands and wives. It used to be the husband was the "man of the house," the "head of household." A largely patriarchal kind of thing. The husband was the bread-winner and the wife was the homemaker. It was the sad woman who was forced to go to work outside of the home because the husband, apparently, was a poor provider. That perception was so deeply entrenched that to this day the concept of a "stay-at-home dad" is a really odd concept. Sure, we'll think about it for a moment and then let it go, but at first blush it seems strange. But marriage roles have evolved in the last half century or so. Marriage itself has declined, to be sure, and the constant and expected threat of divorce looms always in the background, but even within working marriages things are different. The media will tell you that wives are now the primary decision makers, followed, it appears, by the children, with husbands coming in third place. Where before men were the workers, now they're the problem. When before women were the anchors for a solid home, now they're the bread-winners. More and more marriages end in childlessness, too. Couples are so focused on their careers and personal pursuits that "kids" just don't factor in like they used to. Yes, we've come a long way.

Biblical marriage is something else entirely. Of course, no one these days really wants to hear that. It's not surprising that the world doesn't want to hear it, but even Christians oppose it to its face. Mention that Paul wrote, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3), and you get pushback. "What? Oh, no. He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain." So they push it around. The feminist approach: "Paul was clearly a sexist and a misogynist." The "modern Christian" approach: "That was then; this is now." Or the scholarly approach: "You see, 'head' there doesn't mean 'head' as in authority or leadership. It only means 'protection'." (Or the very clever, "Actually, the word means 'origin' and it's just referring to how Adam was the origin of Eve in Gen 2:21-23.") Point out that Paul wrote, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and they'll stand their ground. They'll take it as mutual submission ("Look at verse 21!") or they'll simply push it aside ("Fine, but we just don't care what that says."). What they will not do is take it at face value. Why? "Well, what about the abusive husband? What about the husband who isn't in Christ? What about the domineering husband?"

Interesting, then, that almost all objections to biblical marriage are predicated on perceived biblical roles in marriage that aren't in there. The thought is, "The Bible is commanding wives to be doormats." No. The fear is, "The Bible makes men domineering and overbearing." Really no. The common belief is, "Taking a biblical view of marriage in this way demeans women and elevates men." Absolutely not. That is, all of the objections to doing what God says in His Word are based on what happens when people don't do what's in His Word.

So we read, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and we fire up the concern. "What about bad husbands?" (as if the only husbands that exist are bad husbands). The biblical husband looks like this. He loves his wife sacrificially. As Christ "gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). Biblical husbands are not domineering; they are self-sacrificing. They aren't lording it over their wives; they have her best interests at heart. They don't predicate this love based on her response to them. Theirs is not a control concept; it's an honor principle (1 Peter 3:7). The biblical role of a husband in the marriage is to be a depiction of Christ. Look to Christ to see how a husband should treat his wife (e.g., Php 2:3-8).

Included in that command to women is that the submission should be "as to the Lord." It assumes God is in charge and is premised on trusting God, not the husband. Peter even specified, "even if some do not obey the word" (1 Peter 3:1). God made Eve as a "helper" (Gen 2:18), the compliment to her husband. (The text says she was a "helper fit for him." That means she was designed to be his counterpart, to fill in his gaps as he filled in hers.) That's not inferior. Inferior has nothing to do with it. A wife is not called to be a doormat, unless you believe that she is called to be the Lord's doormat. Biblically, the wife in a marriage is designed to be the depiction of the church in the "Bride and Groom" relationship between Christ and the Church.

There is a lot more going on here, but I wanted to point out the problem. We're are shaking our fists in God's face saying, "No! Your idea of husband and wife roles is wrong! We will not do it!" We are doing it because of sin, not because of design. That is, we are protesting God's instructions in this because too many have failed to follow God's instructions in this. If we followed the design rather than our own sinful preferences, it would work marvelously. Divorce would be absent in a relationship where a wife faithfully submits and completes her husband and a husband self-sacrificially loves his wife and seeks only her best. Christian marriages would operate as a loving team rather than like self-interested adversaries that they often do. The world would have a clearer image of the relationship of Christ and His Bride if we followed His instructions on marital roles. Christians would be thought of as strange, of course, but only because of the natural hostility to God that unbelievers have. "They're strange," they'd think, "but they sure know how to do marriage." Or, you could keep telling God, "No! I won't do it! I won't submit to my husband. I won't love my wife that way. You can't make me." What could go wrong?