I posted this in another thread, but it applies equally here:
The problem I see in discussions like these is that we look to Scripture to support an overly simplistic assumption about how to structure our relationships. I don't believe that a proper hermeneutic of Scripture yields such a simplistic solution when applied to the reality of actual relationships. From Scripture, we seem to glean three general principles: (a) mutual submission within any Christian community, including marriage; (b) male headship and female submission within marriage; and (c) the man's obligation to love (and lead) with his main motivation being his wife's well-being and holiness.
So, the question then, is how do we apply these principles to real life?
When a man abuses his wife (which is is clearly against prinicples a & c), ought his wife submit nonetheless even at her own peril? What about if the husband is an alcoholic, drug addict, or compulsive gambler (all of which also necessarily entail a violation of principle c)? Submission in any of these cases would be tantamount to enabling and codependency, which is the most unloving thing that can be done for an addict or abuser. Arguably, the most loving thing she can do in these situations is to stand up to her husband (even if this means leaving him), not submitting to him, but challeging him to get the help that he needs. And, we are all called to love one another. I bring these situations up, because it is not uncommon for men in these situations to use principle b to belittle their wives when the wife chooses to respond in a healthy way.
But, what about less extreme situations? What about the man who doesn't abuse his wife, but doesn't love and lead sacrificially -- who makes decisions affecting his wife according to his own selfish desires? Does a wife not have a moral right to correct her husband when he spends all of the couple's money on his own hobbies and interests, leaving the family with little material resources? What about where the husband is an unbeliever who doesn't want his wife to be a part of the Church? Should she submit to him there?
And to people arguing on the other side I would ask: Where a husband does live up to the biblical ideal to the best of his ability, shouldn't the wife submit to the best of hers? After all, loving a wife according to Eph. 5:25-33 is quite a task that is only made more difficult by a nagging and uncooperative wife. Also, regardless of the husband's conduct, ought a wife be allowed to lead a home in the same reckless ways as some of the husbands I have described above?
My point is that the biblical ideals described throughout this thread is a good starting point for discussing how things ought to be. But, when we apply them to reality, it is a bit over-simplistic to take any one of these principles in isolation, especially where there is a failure in the others. Certainly, these represent the ideal toward which we ought to be aiming. Sometimes that means, however, that, in furtherance of bringing a given marriage closer to that goal, a wife ought not submit and may even need to take the lead in the marriage for a time.
We need to look at Scripture in its entriety to discern the whole picture. To simply argue as to whether or not wives should always submit ignores the bigger picture of what a healthy Christian marriage looks like. Instead, our objective should be to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us toward marriages that reflect the biblical ideal. We should not take one aspect of the ideal out of context and assume that it is wholly non-negotiable or go to the opposite extreme and ignore it as being out of touch and out of date. These seem to the two extremes represented on this thread when it comes to female submission, and both, imho, run contrary to a proper understanding of Scripture.
I agree on this, thank you.
