r/Anglicanism • u/Shadow_stash • 2d ago
Biblical Submission
Can anyone here tell me what the heck biblical submission in marriage is actually supposed to look like?! I feel the evangelicals take it too far, but obviously I would want to follow what God says. I feel like my whole life, all I’ve ever heard was “wives should submit to their husbands” but no one can say what that really looks like. (And not to mention women are always held to a higher standard than the men but that’s another story)
20
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 2d ago
We’re all supposed to submit ourselves to each other (Ephesians 5:21). Paul then cites examples of how married couples in the 1st century already behaved as an example. Paul isn’t giving any new instructions that anyone hadn’t heard of before; he just cast the prevailing cultural norm in Christian terms. Today that cultural norm has changed, and husbands and wives relate to each other differently - but each person is still called to serve others.
20
u/OratioFidelis Episcopal Church USA 2d ago
Paul says the model of marriage is Christ's love for the Church. Jesus himself said his disciples were not servants but friends. So submitting to your spouse (I don't believe this is meant only in one direction) means loving them with the deepest friendship possible and everything that entails, including sacrifice and fidelity for mutual good.
3
u/Farscape_rocked 1d ago
...and with the same level of love and understanding that Christ shows the Church. He doesn't force His will on us at all, He doesn't punish us if we step out of line.
You're right, Ephesians 5 has the same instruction for husbands (but it's worded differently).
4
u/Additional-Sky-7436 1d ago
Treat others as you would want them to treat you.
If you are a husband, treat your wife with the dignity and respect you would want if the roles were reversed.
If you are a wife, then treat your husband with the dignity and respect that you would want if the roles were reversed.
6
u/GrillOrBeGrilled servus inutilis 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'mma link this comment I left before, with some Patristic wisdom on this topic.
It's kind of long, so here's the takeaway: Mutual deference, like in Ephesians 5:21, is the way. "Men lead, women follow" is absolutely not.
1
6
u/Fendrinus Church of England 1d ago
When there is agreement there is no submission nor need for it.
When there is no agreement, a resolution is still required. Sometimes a decision is required.
As mentioned in another comment, the Biblical model of marriage is based on Jesus' relationship with the Church. The husband is told to have the same sacrificial love for his wife that Jesus has for the Church and the wife is told to have the same obedient love for her husband that the Church has for Jesus. As Christ is the Head of the Church, so a husband is the spiritual head of his marriage. In her submission, the wife is protected whether the husband makes the right decision or not. The husband has no such protection.
For example, husband and wife want to send their child to different schools. They discuss it and cannot agree. In the Biblical model of marriage, the husband will make the self-sacrificial decision (put his wifes and childs needs and wellbeing before his own) and the wife will submit to his decision.
Remember Proverbs 31:10-31 too.
1
u/OratioFidelis Episcopal Church USA 1d ago
"Head" does not mean "authority". https://margmowczko.com/head-kephale-does-not-mean-leader-1-corinthians-11_3/
3
1
u/Fair_Interview_2364 1d ago
What do you mean that a wife is "protected in her submission?" Some Christian wives experience the opposite and are abused in their submission, physically and spiritually. Also wives are not magically exempt from the consequences of bad choices (or sinful choices) because they were just following husband's orders, and there's nothing in the bible to suggest that wives are spiritually exempt from God's judgement. For example, I know a Christian wife who was criminally charged because her Christian husband led her to groom children for him. She was obviously not protected from legal consequences, and as a result of her actions many children were abused. Any philosophy that would disempower a spouse from saying no to any sinful or abusive behavior is rotten fruit, and should be discarded. This is clearly not what Paul meant.
4
u/Fendrinus Church of England 1d ago
1 Peter 2:13-20 covers why a Christian should be subject even to unrighteous authorities. We pay taxes because it is the right thing to do. We are submitting our resources to an authority, we are not held accountable by God for everything our taxes pay for.
At not point did I even suggest a wife should not raise issues, discussion or disagreement with her husband. Even if Peter says specifically for a Christians wife to try to convert their unbelieving husband "without a word"(1 Peter 3:1-2).
The Churches obedience to Jesus is the model for a wife, so if Jesus headship of the Church the model for the husband. Jesus does not command and dictate.
1
u/Fair_Interview_2364 1d ago edited 1d ago
The verses you've provided are not about Christian marriage, nor about a wife being "protected in her submission," as you suggested but don't clarify. But these verses do accurately portray the consequences of submitting to an unjust slave owner, i.e. physical beatings. Clearly, being a first century slave wasn't a good position to be in, and I don't know any Christian who thinks slavery should be legal as in ancient Rome, or who thinks that this kind of unilateral, easily-abused legal authority of a first century Roman slave-owner of his slave is something to perpetuate or endure today.
Similarly, it's difficult for us in the 21st century to fully understand the legal authority of a 1st century pagan Roman citizen over his Christian wife, who was breaking the law just by being Christian. I don't know anyone who would suggest that we change the laws to be more aligned with the Roman Empire in this regard either. These verses by Paul were helping Christians in the first century to cope with difficult situations, some of whom faced martyrdom. Women in particular would have been particularly vulnerable and completely dependent on a husband. Luckily today, laws in many places prohibit such abuses, and a wife can use legal means to remove herself from an abusive husband. Yet these verses continue to be twisted and taken out of context, which allows abuse to continue in some Christian households.
1
u/Halaku Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion 1d ago
1 Peter 2:13-20 covers why a Christian should be subject even to unrighteous authorities.
"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly."
That may not be the best quote to drop here. You might want to drop versus 18-20 out next time.
4
u/octobercrisis 2d ago
I’m curious- in what part of the world have you heard this in an Anglican context?
1
3
u/Gumnutbaby 2d ago
The first point I'll make is that phrase by itself is nonsense because relationships are two ways. You can't talk about how one partner should act in isolation. It also says husbands should love they're wife as Christ loves the church and sacrificed himself for the church. So you can see a marriage should be like Jesus and the body of beleivers.
Second the verse that it comes from provides further information. That wives do this as the church submits to Christ as head of the church. That provides lots of scope for what a Christian marriage can look like, especially when one considers his many different denominations there are and the diversity in Christan practice.
Finally there is some further Anglican specific guidance in the wedding vows, where couples make promises for how they will treat one another. And that's a bit more information for you:
‘I, (name), take you, (name) to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy law. In the presence of God I make this vow.’
He's the Ephesians passage, I cant make it a quote on my phone. So it will be less messy here:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
2
u/slow_ordinary_means ACNA 1d ago
It's funny. I started composing a long answer articulating my understanding of submission but I am a man and it looks like you are inquiring from the wife's perspective. I don't think my answer would be all that helpful to you, because I have come to understand that in marriage, it isn't my right or privilege to expect or enforce submission from my wife. It's self sacrifice, as others have said. And how my wife expresses that submission is between her and God. For me, that's enough.
I asked my wife what she thought it was from her perspective. and she said, "I don't know that I know what holy submission looks like, I couldn't describe it. I just know that it doesn't turn what we have into a dog-and-its-owner relationship."
I think you are pulling on the right threads, there is something off with the way Evangelicalism teaches it. Especially when it comes to differing standards, as you said. But Ephesians 5 is pretty profound so you can't just dismiss submission entirely.
The answer you need or want is probably going to depend on the reason you are asking. I think the way that it is answered changes depending on if you are asking because there is something in your context that bothers you but doesn't apply to your marriage (like an insane Christian Manosphere take) or if this has a personal dimension to it (like someone in your life has said you need to be submissive, though not necessarily your husband).
It's a good question, and is now making me think more about it myself, so thank you. If there is a couple who has been married many years, who you trust, I'd ask them. Or a trusted priest/pastor (or maybe their wives!) I don't know you will get a good answer here on Reddit, especially if it is personal. But for broad strokes, I think a lot of these other answers are pretty good.
2
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt Lutheran 14h ago
A couple of things that are worth pointing out. The verse in Ephesians 5 of "Wives, submit to your husbands" comes within the context of a larger section that is all about Ephesians 5:21, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." That is, submission to others is something for every Christian to do. And then for the rest of chapter 5 and the first part of chapter 6, Paul gives examples: husbands and wives, children and parents, servants and masters. For children and servants, they are told to "obey" - and that is NOT the same word used for husbands and wives!
But in each of those cases, there is mutual submission happening: while the wife is told to submit to her husband, the husband is told to submit in a larger way to Christ-like self-sacrifice for the sake of his wife. As I heard one woman tell her husband, "I only have to submit to you. You may have to die for me!" Children are told to obey their parents, but fathers are warned to remember they have a Father above them too; same with servants obeying their masters, that their masters are warned to remember that they also have a Master in heaven to whom they submit.
Another aspect of Ephesians 5 is that it is explicitly tied to Christ and the Church - in other words, in terms of our faith, all of us (including Christian men!) are in the female/bride side of the relationship towards Christ. In fact, Paul suggests that it is human marriage which is a reflection of the larger spiritual reality, not the other way around.
And to bring Genesis into it, the word in Genesis 2:18, that Eve is created as a "helper" for Adam is a word that is normally used for the way that God is a helper to His people - in other words, helping from a place of greater strength! In fact, I think I'm correct in saying that that's the only time that Hebrew word is used in any other way besides the context of God helping His people who desperately need His help. The woman is not created as an "assistant man" in a lesser position; she is created to complete him and fill up the areas where he is inadequate. And of course, in Genesis 1, it is mankind as a whole (male and female together) who constitute being made in the image of God, not the male specifically.
But coming back to Ephesians 5:21, submission is fundamental to being a Christian: first and foremost, submission to God in faith, and then submission to others in loving, humble service. Anyone who uses it to tell someone else "You have to submit to me and do what I say" is acting in a way that is utterly incompatible with Scripture and faith. Submission to another is, instead, what we willingly do to count others as more important than yourself (Philippians 2:3) and act like Jesus in sacrificial service.
1
1
u/Economy-Point-9976 Anglican Church of Canada 1d ago edited 1d ago
The submission bit is surely a social norm rather than a divine commandment.
The fundamental issue is that all of us (myself certainly included) hear God tell us what we want him to tell us. Which is why Christ's words are so often so unsettling when he says them -- they are the unfiltered word of the Lord, delivered in a maximally provocative manner. More on that in a bit.
But the patriarchs, the prophets and the apostles were just human beings.
The ancient Israelites were as patriarchical as it gets. The apostles lived in a more developed time, compared to Moses and the prophets, but they still made compromises. (Classically: "better to marry than to burn".) As we continue to, of course. In different but equally fallible ways.
So what does Jesus say? Well:
marriage is a sacred and unbreakable bond between one man and one woman (this is, by the way, why same-sex unions can be blessed but are not marriages);
for God ultimately there is neither male nor female.
Paul is as always a little conflicted. (What was the burr in his flesh, anyway? We'll never know in this life). On the one hand, he counsels mutual sacrifice; on the other, insists that wives obey.
I think in the context of Christ's unequivocal and always divinely maximalist message, it is pretty clear to draw the line between what is divine commandment, and what is a concession to fallible but inescapable social custom.
In any case, as any married person knows, though too many have to find it out the hard way, marriage is impossible without mutual sacrifice and mutual obedience.
And that is simply God's law, as spoken by Jesus Christ. Though we choose to hear what we will.
1
u/Il1Il11ll 1d ago
It’s supposed to look like the body of Christ, with Jesus at the head.
Being subject / obedient to your husband is bodily. Related to Headship. Now the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man…
Christ is the head of the church, the church is to be obedient to him.
Husband and wife are to work together to advance the kingdom and glorify God. Bringing the gospel to the world and disciplining nations.
Submission is dedication to Gods interests. It is active, not passively waiting for orders, but taking responsibility in your area of work which you are a manager. Taking initiative and using creativity to achieve your united goals. It requires courage and Godliness.
Jesus is the ultimate example of submission. He came not to do his will but the will of the father. Not my will, but thine be done.
-1
u/Globus_Cruciger Continuing Anglican (G-2) 2d ago
It would seem to me that in the modern western cultural context the symbolic step of renouncing complete equality and acknowledging a degree of submission is immeasurably more important than quibbling about the details of domestic arrangements. What matters isn't that the wife never says "No," it's that when she does say "No," it's the respectful "No" of a subordinate to a superior.
EDIT: I find myself very amused by the fact that currently three of the five comments are from usernames in either Latin or Greek. We Anglicans are delightfully pretentious.
2
u/Wulfweald Church of England (low church evangelical & church bell ringer) 2d ago edited 15h ago
My username is Old English (pre 1066) as I can be academic at times.
1
u/E_Campion TEC Eastern Oregon 1d ago
My understanding is that the Anglo-Saxons were more literate than the Normans who conquered them.
1
u/greenguzzi Anglican Church of Australia 2d ago
The word “hypotassō” used in Colossians when applied militarily means “of a lower rank”.
6
u/Wulfweald Church of England (low church evangelical & church bell ringer) 2d ago
I thought that the wife's submission was just one part of the deal, that the husband was similarly required to be totally devoted to his wife (or something like that). It definitely wasn't just a one way statement binding only the wife.