St. Paul is recorded as saying that “wives should be subordinate” (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18) and “under the control” of their husbands (Titus 2:5).
Some people see these texts as demeaning and sexist, and thus as reasons for rejecting Christianity. This means that they represent a problem for some women who want to accept Christianity. They raise the question of whether it is possible to be a Christian without having to commit to St. Paul’s vision of “wifely subordination.”
1. A Prefatory Note on Terminology
The word “subordinate” is taken from the New American Bible translation of Ephesians 5:22, which can be found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The phrase “wifely subordination” is intended to refer to “whatever it is” that St. Paul is trying to say about the subordination of wives.
2. What Does Subordination Mean?
The Greek verb used to describe “wifely subordination” is hupotasso. It is used 38 times in the New Testament, including in the following examples:
- The child Jesus is subordinate to Mary (Luke 2:51) (Greek-English text)
- Demons are subordinate to Christ (Luke 10:17) (Greek-English text)
- Citizens are subordinate to governments (Romans 13:1) (Greek-English text)
- Wives are subordinate to husbands (Ephesians 5:21–2) (Greek-English text).
These texts suggest that subordination is a type of governance by an authority.
The type of governance varies in each example. Governing children is not the same as governing demons. Governing indentured subjects is not the same as governing a wife.
Modern Christian writers tend to explain “wifely subordination” by focusing on its mitigations, to show that it is not as bad as it sounds. Thus, it is stressed that husbands must love their wives, and this love should be like Christ’s love for the Church (Ephesians 5:25).
These mitigations are relevant. But we must also be honest and admit that there is an unmistakable power dynamic in the idea of subordination. Ultimately, St. Paul seems to think that a husband is “in charge,” governing his family . . . and his wife.
3. Divine Tradition and Human Customs
St. Paul says that wives should be subordinate to their husbands. But is this just St. Paul’s opinion, or is he conveying God’s view?
This question arises because the Bible contains both human customs and divine teachings. We can see this with St. Paul’s views on women’s dress.
St. Paul insists that women in church should cover their heads with “chapel veils” (1 Corinthians 11:7–10). As a result, women have done so for centuries; and this requirement was enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1262).
Chapel veiling is commanded in Scripture and was carried out for more than 1900 years. It looks as if it must be a divine command (not just a human custom), conveying God’s will for women through Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
But the current practice of the Catholic Church challenges such a view. The 1983 Code of Canon Law has removed the requirement for veils. Some women choose to continue wearing them, others choose not to.
Allowing women to choose, means that chapel veils cannot be a divine command. The Church cannot change divine commands. This is why the Church does not change the ban on divorce. It has changed the rules on chapel veils, so chapel veils must be a human custom.
4. What Does the Church Say?
In the light of the issues raised by chapel veils, we can ask the Church whether it thinks “wifely subordination” is a human custom, or a divine command.
The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church contains 25 occurrences of the word “wife” and 6 occurrences of the word “wives”. None of these texts deal with the issue of “wifely subordination.”
The Catechism gives an impression that it is deliberately avoiding the issue.
Pope Pius XI says that “wifely subordination” is “established and confirmed by God” (Casti Connubi [1930], 28). This suggests that it is a divine command.
Pope St. John Paul II says that “wifely subordination” is a “custom and religious tradition of the time” (Mulieris Dignitatem [1988], 24). This suggests that it is not a divine command.
The Catechism is silent on the issue. Popes Pius XI and John Paul II seem to have different perspectives. The Church’s current position is unclear.
However, we can draw some tentative conclusions using reason.
If “wifely subordination” is just a human custom, then women can choose for themselves whether to commit to it, as they do with chapel veils.
If “wifely subordination” is an (unchangeable) divine command, then issues become more complex. So, it is to that interpretation which we will turn.
5. Is There a Reason for “Wifely Subordination?”
If God commands “wifely subordination,” then it raises a question about the nature of God. Either God commands it for no reason other than God wants it that way. Or there is a reason.
The first option views God as a dictator, issuing potentially arbitrary rules. Things are right or wrong because God says so; and religious followers must just obey. This is “Divine Command Ethics.”
Catholics typically prefer Natural Law Ethics. This is because they think that God’s commands have a reason, and the reason can be understood in terms of the “nature” of reality (see “What Has Philosophy to Do With Religion?”).
If we take a Natural Law approach to the issue of “wifely subordination,” then it means that we can explore what the reason for God’s command might be.
6. Is There an Unchangeable Reason for “Wifely Subordination?”
There are broadly two types of reasons for why a God might command “wifely subordination” to husbands, as governors of the family:
- Unchangeable issues about the nature of men and women
- Changeable historical circumstances.
The first reason is essentially sexism. It is the claim that men are naturally “superior,” or that women are naturally less able to be leaders and govern a family.
Arguably, this is not the view of the Church. Pope Pius XI says that if a husband fails in his duties to govern the family, then the wife should “take his place in directing the family” (Casti Connubi [1930], 28).
This comment would make no sense if women were unchangeably inferior and incapable of governing a family.
History also shows countless examples of wives who have heroically led their families, often despite feckless and abusive husbands.
This means that it is irrational and contrary to evidence to claim women cannot govern a family because of unchangeable, “natural” capability differences. Unjustly disadvantaging women for irrational reasons is the sin of sexism.
God cannot commit a sin, so sexism cannot be a reason for a divine command.
7. Is There a Changeable Reason for “Wifely Subordination?”
The second type of reason which a God might have for commanding “wifely subordination” relates it to changeable historical circumstances.
Women have been historically disadvantaged and discriminated against. This has adversely affected their historical opportunities for education, employment, and exercising authority. In those kinds of adverse circumstances it may well have been true that many women were (practically) unable to govern and lead their families. This could even have been a reason for thinking that ancient marriages needed the default setting of a husband governing the family.
Whether or not that was historically true, evidence shows that it is not true today. People can look around them and see that women (if they are given a fair chance) can be as successful as men in governing businesses, organizations and nations.
This suggests that if there was a changeable historical reason for a divine command of “wifely subordination,” then the world has changed so much that the divine command may have become no longer applicable.
8. Can a Divine Command Cease to Be Applicable?
When historical circumstances change, (unchangeable) divine commands can be rendered irrelevant, and thus non-applicable.
For example, the Jews were commanded in the Old Testament to offer sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple. That eternal and unchangeable divine command became irrelevant when the Temple was destroyed. So, modern Jews consider the command as currently non-applicable.
The Old Testament also commanded that men should be circumcised. St. Paul judged that the situation facing the early Church was so different to the situation in ancient Israel that the old command for circumcision was no longer applicable. So, Christian men are not required to be circumcised today, even though the Old Testament records it as a divine command.
The situation of modern women is completely different to that of women in St. Paul’s era. This means that there is reason to think that a command of “wifely subordination” is no longer applicable, just as the command of circumcision is no longer applicable.
9. Must Marriage Be Monarchical?
Another set of considerations focuses upon the assumptions inherent in the underlying model of marriage.
St. Paul thought that families (and marriages) needed “governing.” He seems to have viewed the family as a mini society. All societies need the governance of a leader (like a monarch), so the family also needs the governance of a leader, i.e., the husband.
This view assumes an underlying model of marriage, which is monarchical.
But societies do not have to have monarchical governance models. They can be democratic. They can even be led by two people sharing power and authority equally, as the Roman Consuls led the Roman Republic.
The Church has no preference for national governance models. Nations can decide for themselves, and the Church will work equally happily with a king or a president.
If nations can change their governance models, can marriages change their governance models? Must a marriage be monarchical with a single leader to whom the other spouse is necessarily “subordinate?”
There is a cryptic comment in Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical, Mulieris Dignitatem (1988), which suggests that marriage governance does not need to be monarchical. The Pope says that instead of a single “wifely subordination,” married couples should think of themselves as jointly and mutually subordinate to each other (Mulieris Dignitatem 24).
If this is a reference to the possibility of a non-monarchical model of marriage, then it has significant implications. Once the governance model of a marriage is changed, then the consequences that go with the old model are automatically rendered irrelevant, and non-applicable.
So, even if “wifely subordination” is unavoidably necessary within the monarchical model of marriage governance, there is no obligation for a Christian to choose that model of marriage.
Perhaps a married couple might choose a more “Trinitarian” style of marriage governance, which involves (Binitarian) equality of status, dignity, and power? This would, of course, require a complete rejection of the Arian style subordination(ism) implicit in the monarchical model.
Conclusion
We began with a question: Must a Christian woman accept the idea of “wifely subordination?”
The Church’s current position is unclear (see section 4), so we have reasoned through the issues. At the risk of over-simplifying some important nuances and caveats:
Either “wifely subordination” is a human custom, which means that women can decide for themselves about it, as with chapel veils (see section 3).
Or “wifely subordination” is a divine command based on changeable circumstances which have arguably rendered it non-applicable (see sections 7 and 8).
And, in any case, “wifely subordination” is based on an assumed premise of a monarchical model of marriage. But there are no reasons based on Scripture or Tradition which compel Christians to adopt that model of marriage (section 9).
Therefore, Christian women should not feel compelled to accept “wifely subordination.”
This conclusion has an unavoidable tentativeness because the Catechism is silent on the issue. So there remains a risk that biblical texts can be abused and misused to trouble the consciences of women.
Ideally, the Church needs to update the Catechism, to clarify the issue of “wifely subordination.” It has recently supported prisoners by updating the Catechism to clarify the limits of capital punishment. Surely women deserve similar support?
49 thoughts on “Must Christian Wives Be Subordinate to Their Husbands?”
This article says everything I had thought for many years but haven’t had the time to organize.
Just to add another evidence of what is said, Saint John Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem (24) says that the relationship of authority does exist among Christ and the Church, but DOES NOT exist among husband and wife. These two relationships (Christ-Church vs. husband-wife) are necessarily DIFFERENT when it comes to hierarchy:
“[…] whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual”.
Therefore, there IS hierarchy among Christ and the Church, as Christ gives His life, and the Church submits itself to Him. However, when it comes to husband and wife, both must give his/her life out of love AND submit to the other spouse.
There is no leader. Pope Francis ratifies this perspective in Amoris Laetitia, and explains how mutual love and submission looks like:
Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected. This includes all improper interpretations of the passage in the Letter to the Ephesians where Paul tells women to “be subject to your husbands” (Eph 5:22). This passage mirrors the cultural categories of the time, but our concern is not with its cultural matrix but with the revealed message that it conveys. As Saint John Paul II wisely observed: “Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband… The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection”. Hence Paul goes on to say that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28). The biblical text is actually concerned with encouraging everyone to overcome a complacent individualism and to be constantly mindful of others: “Be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21). In marriage, this reciprocal “submission” takes on a special meaning, and is seen as a freely chosen mutual belonging marked by fidelity, respect and care. Sexuality is inseparably at the service of this conjugal friendship, for it is meant to aid the fulfilment of the other.
Thank you Fran. Some very pertinent additions.
When one has to use mental gymnastics to argue a simple point simply stared in scripture it is obvious that one wants to avoid scripture. Love her like Christ loves the Church. Simple, yet difficult. Subordinate ones self to the husband. Simple but difficult given modern feminists undue influence on Catholic women. The avalanche of shaming heaped upon a woman who practiced this teaching would be immense.
Yet, the teaching is beautiful. Rather than all the marital infighting between husbands and wives we might see a loving husband be an actual man; great husband and father. I think it inspires him to be a very loving and supportive husband. Fighting between spouses?! Why? Who would he fight with if there was little or nothing to fight over?!
Keep it simple. Keep it scriptural. Preserve marriage and families.
If men were like St. Joseph and women were like St. Mary, there would be no conflict in the family and by extension, the world. We would all be more like Christ.
Pingback: Should Christians Care About Their Appearance? - Catholic Stand
Overall, I appreciated the deep analysis, but I feel one aspect was glazed over. The author mentions the rest of the quote from Ephesians, but doesn’t explore it much, which I find problematic, and one of the main reasons why this subject of “wifely subordination” is so misconstrued today, not just due to how today’s world understands the word “subordination” at this time.
The verse continues that in turn, “husbands should love their wives just as Christ loved the Church.” Jesus loved the Church and asked them to follow Him, because he was setting an example for them in how to live, and He gave some guidelines. He also DIED for the Church, loving them completely with the understanding that everyone has free will, and they might not do everything asked of us.
I subscribe to the model put out by PJP2. I believe that in today’s world, this full verse from Ephesians calls husband’s and wives to a marriage full of mutual respect and compromise, where they lead each other to holiness.
Pingback: Modernism: Did Vatican II Save the Church From Disaster? - Rory Fox
Pingback: Must Christian Wives Be Subordinate to Their Husbands? - Rory Fox
Jesus always taught that believers were to do the will of His Father who is in Heaven. He never taught that believers were to submit to other people. This is because submission to sinners inevitably leads to sin. Instead, Jesus taught that believers were to serve one another. So submission is to God and servanthood is to one another.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, I believe that Paul is quoting the words of a faction of men who wrote to him in verses 4-6. I believe that it is a faction of men who want women to be veiled while praying and prophesying. I also believe that Jesus Christ is the image and glory of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3, Rev. 21:23). So in verse 7, Paul is making the point that just as a man ought not to veil his head, Jesus Christ, since He is the image and glory of God, so also the man ought not to veil the woman because she is his glory.
Thanks for allowing me to comment. God bless.
Any subjective interpretation of Scripture, outside the Magisterium, is evidence of feminism. St. Thomas says we are to give charity to one another. Charity makes us equal in the eyes of the Lord. As far as submitting to the will of God, we must submit to His natural order that He created. As such, we must “know our place” within the hierarchy. We are not seraphim. We are not insects. There is a vertical hierarchy that we must first learn and then conform. The problem with modernism is its rejection of the vertical hierarchy. In rejecting the natural order (vertical hierarchy), modernism tries to make everything horizontally equal. This creates an imbalance in the system, which manifests in the destruction of the nuclear family. As such, abortion is rampant (women assert their rights), and divorce is commonplace. The problem with Catholic men is they are addicted to their pleasures, beer, football and porn. The problem with Catholic women is they refuse to submit to men who are not willing to suffer for grace, so they are being lead by witches (feminists). Once men stop being what St. Thomas called “effeminates,” addicted to pleasure, women will once again want to submit to their husbands, because they will have married “real men.” Women are called to submit to their husbands, because husbands are supposed to be strong leaders worthy of submission. Too many men are morally weak, and thus not worthy of their wives submission. Eve was weak, but Adam was weaker. As such, the serpent has taken over.
Thank you for adding some pertinent points. I think you’re right that there is some ambiguity about St Paul’s context. Some interpretations see his comments as offering timeless truths about female dress, but he may have just been dealing with temporary practical issues arising in the context of his culture.
Pingback: Modernism: Did Vatican II Save the Church From Disaster? - Catholic Stand
“Advocates of complementarianism (the view that men and women have different roles) claim that complementarianism is non-sexist. Critics say that it is just a new way of trying to justify old fashioned sexism. The article doesn’t explore whether complementarianism is sexism, or not; as it wasn’t focused ‘per se’ upon sexism.”
You are right, your article does not explore whether it is sexism. Instead, your article makes the claim that it is sexist. That is your bias:
“The first reason is essentially sexism. It is the claim that men are naturally “superior,” or that women are naturally less able to be leaders and govern a family.”
You are being dishonest with your audience.
BTW, Paul doesn’t define the roles of husband and wife; God does. The Bible is full of examples of husbands, and men, for that matter being the leaders. It doesn’t make men superior to women just as the superior physical strength men have compared to women does not make men superior either. However, that strength can be used to enslave a woman but it doesn’t make a man superior in God’s eyes. On the other hand, it could be as easily said that women are superior to men because they can give birth or that women are superior to men because they are more natural communicators. It is in the eye of the beholder, but it is the design of God. So, why were men and women designed differently? Different roles. What are those roles?
Men are given more *authority* as husbands by God’s design, but that isn’t a power to use to enslave, it instead grants an ability to serve and to die for their families for which God has entrusted to them. However, in this broken world that authority can be misused just as all good things can be and it also shows why the sins of a father are so powerful at tearing down a family. BTW, you don’t hear people talking about the sins of the mother in the same manner nor are the impacts so greatly seen.
It would be unjust of God to expect a person, man or women, to fulfill a role for which they are not empowered by their design. God cannot expect a man to give birth to child because man is not designed for it.
What saddens me the most is that your article desires to call into question the roles of husband and wife. That is very similar to what feminism has been doing for years by demanding equality across the board. We can see its horrible results because it denies God’s design. Your article will only lead people into doubt and away from understanding God’s true design. This is why I presented, in other comments, further context in Church teaching for seeing God’s true design of husband and wife. You wish to ignore that context in an attempt to give a reason to question Paul’s teaching on the important roles of husband and wife.
If you are right, then I guess husbands no longer need to die for their wives as Christ did for the Church (as Paul taught as well). Such a sacrifice would lack meaning unless the husbands can fulfill their authoritative roles as Christ in their families. What a sad day that would be. The sacrifice of a human would not save mankind, it took the sacrifice of Christ. If Christ didn’t have His authority, it would have lack the power to save us. Same goes for the family on a smaller scale. Husbands need their authority (power) to allow their commanded deaths to be meaningful and powerful.
This is such a wonderful and well thought out article. Kelly, your view is so strange to me. I don’t want my husband to die for me. The roles of husband and wife *need* to be called into questions for some very good reasons. Men who think they’re entitled to order their wives around because God said so are doing massive damage to their wives and families. Some women need to learn how to stand up for themselves so they can get their basic needs met. When you say it’s unfair to ask women to fulfill a role they weren’t designed for, understand what you’re saying. You think you have a right to tell her what she can or can’t do because you think you know what she was made for. That is sexism and needs to be called out. This article is not calling for equality across the board. It’s simply saying women should have opportunity and say over their lives and not be under the thumb of men – whether that’s her dad or husband. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal outcomes. It simply means that women don’t have their rights and prerogatives taken from them because men want to keep them in a certain role. A big part of the problem is that men have always abused their so called ‘authority’ to the detriment of women and children. The only way to get that to stop is to stand up to the people who are doing that. When men and women are given equal opportunities to determine their lives they are less likely to be mistreated by abusive men.
Rory, your bias shows in your point 6.1.
You pretty much claim that a man being in the role of leader makes them somehow superior. That is a worldly view and not a spiritual one. The Pope is the leader of our Church but he is not superior to us in God’s eyes. He has a greater responsibly to the Church than we do and thus requires a greater authoritative role in the Church to fulfill that mission.
Men are not superior, they are just designed to take a different role than women in marriage. They are servants of the family and have a greater responsibility to leading that family. Thus men require greater authority to fulfill that role.
It is not sexist to say men are different than women. You just made a jump in claiming that difference makes a man superior.
Thank you Kelly. You make a good point that there is more to be said on these issues.
The examples cited in section 1 suggests that ‘Wifely subordination’ goes beyond merely different roles for men and women, as husbands have power ‘over’ wives. ‘Power over’ is one of the meanings of ‘superiority.’ For example, popes, bishops, priors (etc) are said to be a ‘religious superior’ in that sense.
If a husband’s power ‘over’ a wife is due to the nature of men and women (section 6), the article suggests that the claim risks becoming just an assertion of discriminatory sexism. This is because most versions of discrimination work by claiming the basis for the discrimination is something inherent within the nature of what is being discriminated against. Thus the discrimination is justified.
Advocates of complementarianism (the view that men and women have different roles) claim that complementarianism is non-sexist. Critics say that it is just a new way of trying to justify old fashioned sexism. The article doesn’t explore whether complementarianism is sexism, or not; as it wasn’t focused ‘per se’ upon sexism.
So you are right that there is a set of issues about complementarianism which can be cited, to argue to the opposite conclusion of the article.
If you think the snake allegory is a gas you all should read the account of Scheherazade, the storyteller in the 1001 Arabian nights. That first night will knock your socks off.
Thank you, a thought provoking suggestion. The idea of telling stories to distract her husband into not murdering her certainly adds a new perspective to the issues.
Yes, but the lesson is her husband didn’t trust any woman after a former wife’s infidelity, not
unlike Eve, who must likely got framed as Adam tried to do.
Pingback: Must Christian Wives Be Subordinate To Their Husbands, Creating Your Domestic Church, and More Great Links! – christian-99.com
Let me add another…
Husbands are compared to Christ.
Wives are compared to the Church.
The Church follows Christ, not the other way around. Also, the two are not a democracy.
Another good point as this is an interpretation of ‘wifely subordination which many Christians have adopted. The article poses the question of whether St Paul’s analogy of husband and wife to Church and Christ is “an” analogy of marriage, or whether it is “the” analogy which all Christians must follow.
If wives are not subordinate to their husbands, then why is it Adam’s Sin? Eve ate it first yet Adam gets the blame?
Adam gets the blame because he’s in charge. He was standing right there and didn’t stop the snake nor protect his wife.
Yes that’s certainly a possible interpretation of Genesis. Another possible interpretation might see Adam and Eve as equally (sinfully) responsible for their failures, but Adam is the narrative focus of the story so the sin is referenced to him in the phrase ‘Sin of Adam.’
The Original Sin of disobeying God is on both Adam and Eve. When Eve listened to the serpent’s lies and bit of the Forbidden Fruit, she blamed. When God looked for someone else to take responsibility, he turned to Adam, who blamed Eve. The point of the story is that God wants us to accept responsibility for our actions. He wants us to discern the difference between right and wrong, good and evil (hence the tree). If we live our lives always blaming someone else for our choices, we live in a world of lies. We are solely responsible for our decisions, both good and bad. We can’t keep blaming someone else for our sins; that’s why we go to Confession before reconciling with God in the Eucharist. People who do not accept reposnibility for their mistakes are people with a character disorder. Their minds are “disordered.” They do not understand the difference between right and wrong. As a result, mental illness ensuses.
Pingback: Must Christian Wives Be Subordinate To Their Husbands, Creating Your Domestic Church, and More Great Links! - JP2 Catholic Radio
There is no such thing as a democratic marriage. Short of unanimity, you can’t have a majority vote when there is only two of you. 🙂
Ephesians 5:21 says, ‘Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ There’s no mention of a senior partner.
Good point. Ephesians 5,21 focuses on a mutual subordination. Ephesians 5.22 talks of wives being subordinate to their husbands. The juxtaposition of the texts suggests that issues may be more complex than implied by the single text of 5.22
“Must Christian Wives Be Subordinate to Their Husbands?”
The question implies that this is day to day. It is not.
After 30 years of marriage, I can accurately say that 99% of the time -Wives run the household. This is not only true in Christian homes but others as well. Husbands should lovely do whatever their wives ask them to do for her or the family. It’s that 1% of the time when there is an emergency, a hard decision or some problem that husbands need to make the call for the good of the family and for the woman he loves as his wife. And it is in those times, the 1% when there clearly needs to be a decision, that it is best for the wife to be subordinate.
“Husbands should lovingly do..”
If using the Monarchical model of marriage it is always worth bearing in mind that Pope Pius IX noted that when a husband is failing, it should be the wife who takes over and makes the crisis decisions.
Sorry, but that is only anecdotal personal experience.
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
For a thorough treatment of this subject, I encourage you to read “The Three Marks of Manhood” by G. Dilsaver. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Marks-Manhood-Priest-Prophet/dp/0895559048. It is a challenging and provocative book.
The 1992 Catechism is silent on this issue, but many older catechisms are not. Check out the catechism of Trent, for example. The headship of the husband is one of the most widely misunderstood and neglected teachings of the Church today. It is key to re-establishing strong Catholic families and culture.
Thank you, that’s a good example of an approach which argues from different premises to an opposite conclusion. It is good for readers to be aware of the arguments on both side of the issue so that they can draw an informed conclusion.
Amen!
Men need to understand their role in marriage. We have a very special role as leaders of our families. Ignoring this fact is one of the reasons families are failing in our culture today.
The Bible is filled with examples of husbands leading their families. Yet, the Bible is very silent on wives leading their families. To claim, as the article’s author does that it was only a place in time would require the examples of husbands being asked to be subordinate to their wives. Comparing marriage hierarchy to head veils shows the lack of seriousness the author takes toward this topic.
Thanks for the insight.
Concerning circumcision, the situation facing the early Church that changed was that, in Christ, Christians were no longer bound by the entire Mosaic Law. It was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The Spirit enabled Christians to do the right thing without the constraints of religious law. They were rejecting grace if they placed themselves under the Law (see Galatians 5:1-4).
Thank you Peter, that’s a good summary of Paul’s thinking about why Circumcision has run its course. The question posed by the article is whether ‘Wifely Subordination’ could also have run its course, albeit for different reasons.
This is an interesting set of reasoning. Personally, I think it is ludicrous to believe that my wife should be subordinate to me. Every relationship is different, but in my marriage neither of us is subordinate to the other. In my opinion, the “duty” of wifely subordination is clearly something that needs to be officially done away with.
I think the arguments are interesting as they apply to other aspects of church life too. If women aren’t subordinate and are capable of leading, then why should they not be ordained? Women may have had leadership roles in the early church, but they haven’t for a long time. Why would this not also fall under the umbrella of human custom?
Going further, one could make the same argument about marriage being between one man and one woman. Jesus never explicitly ruled out same sex marriage, so this is something that could also potentially be treated as a human custom and modified accordingly. And the list goes on.
I think this is a good framework for opening discussion on these items. And it is also timely as the German Synodal Way continues and as all of the synods called for by the pope begin taking place around the globe. Good and timely article.
Kyle, thank you for your perceptive thoughts about how approaches to this topic might be relevant to other theological debates. Before broadening the exploration of topics, I think one of the critical issues is clarifying what would count as an appropriate methodology. This is an issue that the Synodal Way will also have to reflect on. An interesting starting point for Methodological reflection could be the 1990 document edited by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) – “On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian” (Donum Veritatis).
I think the text you reference lays out the crux of the disagreement. What is up for debate? And what is off limits? The Ratzinger document places very narrow guardrails on discussion. The guardrails are far narrower than what I think is appropriate, and I believe also far more narrow than the German bishops believe is appropriate. This will make the next few years interesting because we don’t know exactly where the current pope stands on this. The current pope encourages discussion – and I think it’s pretty clear that his limits are much wider than Pope Benedict’s – but I’m not sure they’re as wide as the German bishops’ limits. Only time will tell, but the fact that Pope Francis has effectively created national synods to compete with the German synod tells us that he is open to a decent amount of discussion, debate, and change. From my perspective, it seems that Pope Francis very much values unity of the church – but not necessarily regarding the details of practice. He doesn’t want a church with leaders that are at each others’ throats, but he is comfortable with a level of variance in practices and opinion – as long as the opinions are shared and debated civilly.
The church is at a turning point, and I think the direction will be decided in the coming years. There is too much pressure from all sides for the status quo to continue. It will be a slow process, but very interesting nonetheless. Will there be a Vatican III in the next decade? I wouldn’t exclude the possibility!
Thanks again for your article, your perspective, and your comments. Very timely.
Christianity is the most politically incorrect religion on the planet. The idea of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a creator who rose himself from the dead is beyond measure.
Still, Jesus did say it and thus lost a large number of its followers.
As such, trying to compromise on whether a wife must be obedient to her husband has no place in this religion. Instead, what we should focus is on the reasons for it.
Either way, anyone who still disagrees most likely will also disagree on the issue of Jesus expecting people to eat his flesh and resurrecting which is basic to this religion. Thus, no loss there.
Some thought provoking reflections. Thank you.
Thank You, Nate, a well argued point. Genesis 3.16 can certainly be interpreted as a response to fallen human nature. If so, I would respond as in the article above. Either 3.16 implies a permanent unchangeable reason for wifely subordination, which section 6 deals with. Or it implies a temporary subordination, which section 7 and 8 deals with.
I would also be cautious in drawing a conclusion about what ‘must’ be the case, from a description of what ‘is’ the case with Eve. Otherwise there is a risk of falling into the Naturalistic fallacy (ie The “Is Ought problem”). For example, Genesis 3.17 says that Adam “is” going to live by the sweat of his brow. But that does not mean that all men “must” live by the sweat of their brow. If someone is lucky enough to receive an inheritance and live off that, then they do not sin in doing so. Thus, just because Gen 3.16 describes that Eve “is” wifely subordinate to Adam, that does not necessarily mean that every woman “must” be wifely subordinate to her husband.
I think your comments are a good illustration of a key issue; that this is a complicated matter which can be argued to opposite conclusions. And so it would be helpful if the Church clarified its view.
Good points, Rory! But I’m not drawing from Genesis alone. The Fall and its consequences lead us to Christ and his bride, who is called to be subordinate. Accordingly, Ephesians 5:22-33 states, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” There is no ambiguity here.
St. Paul’s teaching on wifely subordination is based on the the relationship between Christ and his bride, which cannot and will not change. This is why he says, “As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” The Church is always subordinate to Christ.
Regarding Adam, “sweat of his brow” simply means that he and his progeny will no longer have the ease and enjoyment found in paradise. Even someone who lives off an inheritance must deal with the world in its current state. An inheritance, no matter how large it is, does not equal paradise. Additionally, if one refuses to work in some way because they have a large sum of money, they commit the sin of indolence, which quickly leads to, or is the result of, spiritual sloth. Thanks!
Thank you for your further comments, Nate. Whilst we disagree about the interpretation of some key texts, I think we are showing an agreement that the issue is complex and that it can be argued to alternative conclusions.
Good article with many good points, Rory! But I have to respectfully disagree with the mutability or potential mutability of wifely subordination. In Genesis 3:16 (RSV-CE), after the Fall, God says to Eve, “…your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Accordingly, wifely subordination is a result of the Fall rather than a Divine command that applies to human nature eternally.
Originally, man and woman would have worked together without strife. After the Fall, however, a monarchical relationship between married men and women became ideal for for minimizing strife, provided both husband and wife strive for a proper relationship with God and look to Christ and his bride, the Church, as the example par excellence.
In this covenantal marriage (Eph 5:21-33), Christ gives all, and his bride is subordinate. Christ is responsible for ensuring his bride’s spiritual well-being, and his bride humbly submits to her omnibenevolant husband. Her husband is not a dictator but partner who knows what is best for his bride.
Similarly, earthly husbands are called to safeguard their wives’ spiritual well-being, and wives are called to follow their husbands’ lead. Therefore, the husband has the grave responsibility of learning from and imitating Christ. If a husband does not follow Christ, his wife must take some appropriate corrective action.
Thus, wifely subordination is a temporary solution for our fallen nature. It provides order in what would otherwise be a chaotic and divisive relationship between man and woman. God bless!
Thanks for the good discussion, Rory!