mee@pacbell.com (Margrit E. Eade) (09/01/89)
In regard to Peter Berghold's article on Husband as leader: There are two questions here: 1. Should there be a leader in a marriage? 2. If there should, should that leader be the husband? I cannot find a reason why there should be a leader in marriage. As Peter says, each person has their strengths and weaknesses, and a marriage should be a partnership. To me, partnership means equal participation in decision making. Sometimes a decision can be reached by mutual consent, sometimes the decision rests with the person who is "best at" the subject of the decision. "Submission is the recognition of someone's authority in your life." Indeed it does apply in the business world. Why does it apply in marriage? What is "bad" about husbands and wives reaching decisions of mutual agreement by consensus, coming up with something they both can live with? Perhaps some concrete examples would enliven the discussion. What are some situations in a marriage where the fact of there being a "leader" would make things work better? In other words, what is the value of having one of the partners having authority over the other? In regards to the second question--if there should be a leader, why should that leader be the husband? I personally do not find the biblical authority on this convincing. The admonition for wives to obey husbands does not make me believe having wives obey husbands should be the rule in all marriages, any more than the admonition of slaves to obey masters makes me believe that it is OK for one human being to own another. Jesus never spoke on the topic of whether wives should submit to husbands -- we only have St. Paul's opinion on the topic. I am curious whether anyone can advance an argument why (assuming that there should be a leader in marriage) the leader should be the husband. If there should be leader, surely it should be the person best suited to lead. Using the business analogy, assume that you are a manager trying to decide who to promote to a position where the person will have authority over others. The two candidates are a man and a woman. Past experience has shown that THAT woman is much better at managing people than THAT man. Naturally you promote the woman. Not BECAUSE she is a woman, not IN SPITE OF the fact that she is a woman. The decision is based on her abilities in that situation. Is the ability to lead in a marriage linked to gender? A physically-based propensity that can be proven by accepted scientific methods? Or is the only reason why the leader should be the man the biblical passages? If so, then by all means, let's bring back slavery. Peter says, "Wives: if you don't respect your husbands, why did you marry him?" In my opinion, the husband must also repect the wife. "Husbands: if you don't respect your wife, why did you marry her?" And Peter says "Husbands tend to need to be respected and know that they are looked up to." This is something only males need? I would say, "Human beings need to be respected and know that they are looked up to." [Additional note: one of the reasons that monasticism has traditionally included OBEDIENCE as one of the vows is that it has been found that submitting to another person in a spiritual context CAN be fruitful for the Christian soul. That is why it is good even for people who are not monks and nuns to have a spiritual advisor to whom they submit. But there is no reason why that spiritual advisor SHOULD be male.] Margrit Eade Pacific Bell