Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Bandwagon Effect

It is so much easier to go with the crowd. People as a rule, are apt to allow another do their thinking for them. It never ceases to amaze me how a single idea, if let out at an opportune moment, and parroted ad nauseum, can snowball into something quite large - And when given sufficient time, it makes no difference that this idea is completely destitute of logic and has no basis for its continued pursuance.

It is the bandwagon effect!

For years now, I have watched with fascination, almost amusement, at the popular view concerning “love and respect (submission)” between a man and a woman in marriage. Again, people have taken the message of Paul in Ephesians 5: 22-33 and driven it in a direction that it was not originally intended.

In relationship seminars and books, you must have heard it said so many times that :

"Men want respect, and that men value respect more than love."

(as if respect does not matter as much to women)

Infact some have gone as far as to say that:

"If you ask a man to choose between love and respect, he would choose respect."

Now, notice, that this is all supposedly based on the premise that Paul told women to “submit” to their husbands.

Some have even gone as far as to say that:

"Paul told women to “respect” their husbands and did not tell them to “love” him because “love” comes naturally to a woman."

Does anyone sincerely believe that love comes naturally to any human at all simply because of their gender? Do you not know of any woman or at least, have you not heard of women who do not love their spouses?

Now, if the above was true, how would they explain Titus 2:4, where

“Young women are admonished to love their husbands”.

O! I see! maybe love comes naturally only to “old women” and not to “young women”

(I am sure someone has tried to use this as an excuse by now)

On the other hand, in the same Ephesians 5: 22-33, men are admonished to love their wives.

An immediately obvious question would be:

Does that mean that men should not “respect” their wives because they were not specifically told to do so?

OR

Does “respect” come naturally to men, and is that why they were not specifically instructed to “respect” their wives?

I have always steered clear of this topic but I have no option now but to weigh in because I hear this same message about “respect” and “love” being preached so frequently at weddings.

Personally, I think there is no scriptural basis for the formula that they are trying to concoct.

When Paul talked about “respect” and “love” in marriage, he was not trying to create two new equations that read:

Husband = to love .............. equation I
Wife = to submit ................. equation II

Here is a Newsflash:

I believe that the man is also expected to "submit" to his wife and the wife should also "love" her husband. Why? Simple.

If I truly love my wife, I will "submit" to her and my wife will only truly submit to me if she "loves" me.

In Titus 2: 6-8, Paul told the young men to be sober minded . . . etc

Should I then deduce from this passage alone, that Paul knew that it is natural for young men to LOVE THEIR WIVES, and that is the reason he did not specifically instruct them to?

My whole point in this issue and in all other issue concerning scriptures is that you CANNOT TAKE A SINGLE PASSAGE AND RUN AWAY WITH IT and the fact that something was not EXPLICITLY mentioned does not mean that the instruction was not IMPLICIT.

I do not understand why women are constantly told that "men have fragile egos” and this “fragile ego” demands to be propped up by the wife’s constant respect or submission. Why are men never told to stop sulking, grow up, and be less egotistical? What everyone is happily calling and glorifying as "male ego" is just another fanciful expression for "male selfishness".

Male selfishness is the last vestige of an instinct which was acquired through the course of history that women were created for the amusement of men.

But, from the beginning, it was not so!

This is not some feminist rant. I am a man but first and foremost, I am a human being and I owe it to my fellow humans – women, to speak on their behalf.

I see a trend especially in Christendom: we have drawn up this long list of so-called “differences” between men and women, among these are:

"The woman uses her left brain while the man uses his right brain"
"The woman is emotional while the man is logical"
"Men get their validation from their jobs while women get theirs from the home"
"Women should “submit” to their husbands while men should “love” their wives" (people have taken this passage by the apostle Paul and stretched it to distortion, as if "submit" and "love" are two entirely different modes of behaviour.)


How on earth can you put the sexes into such rigid boxes? I have met many women who are more rational than men and who also get a sense of validation from their jobs.

Does this make these women any less women?

I have met men who are more emotional than women and who get a higher sense of fulfillment from their home than their jobs.

Does this make these men any less men?

People are people and you can find the combination of all the items listed above in both sexes. No particular item on the list defines a particular sex. What these rigid roles do is give people unrealistic expectations of themselves. A man feels he has to live up to his “manliness” by being all of the prescribed items on the list and the woman her "femaleness" by doing the same.

Obviously men and women are different and I for one know that very well (My training is in the sciences and I can give you a long list of physiological and biochemical differences between the sexes) but these so -called “differences” are not as "unique" as these “relationship experts” are advertising.

Has anyone noticed that God Himself does not have a different plan of salvation for women and a different plan for men? If the differences between the sexes are so “destiny-defining” obviously God would have taken that into account.

Here is another newsflash:

“Submission” and “Love” in marriage, are aspects of the same thing. A man who truly loves his wife will invariably “submit” to her. He was told to love his wife as Christ loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF UP for it.

In other words, Christ’s love for the church led Him to the ultimate form of submission:

Death on the cross!

And no, Christ did not die for the Church (his wife) because the Church (his wife) first submitted to Him. We are told that it was “while we were yet sinners that Christ died for us”

Now, that is TRUE LOVE! That is UNSELFISH LOVE!

If a man TRULY (I always use the adjective TRULY because TRUE LOVE embodies every noble virtue possible, including respect/submission) loves his wife, he would also SUBMIT to her.

So, eventually, what you have is, the husband “loving and submitting to his wife” and the wife also “loving and submitting to her husband”.

Love and submission in marriage are aspects of the same thing.

If a husband and wife have TRUE love for each other the issue of "submission" will not come up because the bond between them would be so seamless, that you cannot tell at any point who is "submitting" to whom. They are both constantly giving to each other.

If a man has a plan in mind but his wife has a better alternative and he still insists on doing it his way, then he is in the wrong for not "submitting" to his wife. He can do what he likes obviously, but that does not make him any less guilty for not "submitting" to a better idea from his wife either because of his "ego" or because he actually believes he is right.



The truth is that, if there is TRUE love between a couple, the man should never feel insecure about "NOT BEING A REAL MAN" if he submits to his wife, because they are supposed to be ONE! 



It is the inherent insecurities in marriage relationships that feeds this love/submit debate.

Ideally, and in REALITY it should not be so.



In a marriage, TRUE love is the overarching principle - and if a man and a woman TRULY love each other, SUBMISSION TO EACH OTHER would be the most natural thing in the world.

I can’t believe that a married man can actually say that if he has to choose between “respect” and “love” from his wife that he would choose “respect.”

How can a man get true “respect” from his wife without having her “love?” The kind of respect I am talking about here is not born out of fear or intimidation

It is like telling someone to choose between “God the Father” and “God the Son”. You can not choose one without invariably choosing the other.

When love is true, a husband and a wife should be able to say these words to each other:

Your hands are in the hollows of mine,
my heart with yours is full;
Love’s command is upon my eyes
to see myself in you

10 comments:

  1. Hmmm...why would they admonish "young" women to love their husbands? It is because it is "learned" and older women have the experience and wisdom of doing it well. Never saw it that way before.

    About submission: I have a different twist. Now whatever I have to say about this really boils down to what I think "submission" means in that scripture. I see "submission" there as making final decisions in the relationship. That being said, I don't think men are supposed to "submit" to their wives. Yes, they are to respect and love her (including listening to all of her wonderful suggestions), but there cannot be two heads. In the sense that it is wonderful for the head of the household to make the final decisions of the home. That being said, like you said a loving husband must respect and love his wife, and vice versa for a loving wife to her husband. And yes, it is true that submission and love and not entirely independent of each other.

    I liked this paragraph:

    "I do not understand why women are constantly told that "men have fragile egos” and this “fragile ego” demands to be propped up by the wife’s constant respect or submission. Why are men never told to stop sulking, grow up, and be less egotistical? What everyone is happily calling and glorifying as "male ego" is just another fanciful expression for "male selfishness".

    I also can’t imagine that a married man actually said that if he has to choose between “respect” and “love” from his wife that he would choose “respect.” Love is the greatest thing before any other, and then with love comes respect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ Jaycee . . . you said something here, which I could not quite convey in this post because of the length and that is "definition". The definition of terms is at the heart of this love/submit debate.

    When people say "submit" there is usually something "subservient" in the picture that comes up in their minds but that is not what I think God had in mind.

    Let me present a "thought experiment":

    Imagine that there is this hypothetical married couple (a man and a woman), who both have love as described in 1 Cor 13. Now if they have such a complete love for each other, do you think that the issue of "submission" will come up?

    I don't think so because the bond between them would be so seamless, that you cannot tell at any point who is "submitting" to whom. They are both constantly giving to each other. I know it is hypothetical but I believe also that this is what we all must aspire to.

    If a man has a plan in mind but his wife has a better alternative and he still insists on doing it his way, then he is in the wrong for not "submitting" to his wife. He can do what he likes obviously but that not not make him any less guilty for not "submitting" to a better idea from his wife either because of his "ego" or because he is actually believes he is right.

    The truth is that if there is TRUE love between a couple, the man should never feel insecure about "NOT BEING A REAL MAN" if he submits to his wife, because they are supposed to be ONE.

    It is the inherent insecurities in marriage relationships that feeds this love/submit debate. Ideally, it should not be so.

    This is similar to the rule that Moses gave concerning divorce. As God intended from the beginning, couples should not separate for any reason but Moses gave a "revised" rule because of the "nature" of man.

    Maybe I am just a Utopian dreamer, but I feel we must always strive for the ideal and that ideal is:

    In a marriage, TRUE love is the overarching principle - and if a man and a woman TRULY love each other, submission to each other would be the most natural thing in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. eyitemi you surely share my views on this issue!

    i think a man should love his wife, a woman should love her husband, a husband should submit to his wife and a woman should submit to her husband.

    the problem we have is that most people think that submission means blind obedience and being passive, that is not submission.

    i believe submission has to do with reference, with respect and with being considerate of each other.

    @ jaycee, am sure there has been times when your hubby puts you first in making a decision, he probably agrees to what you want not neccesarily becuase he likes but because he wants you to be happy or because he believes in your choice, and that doesn't mean he has made you his head!


    in fact i think he further establishes himself as a good leader , becos one of the qualities of a good leader is respect, reference and being considerate of the people he leads.

    i think that is submission - respect, and being considerate of the other person, and not lording it over the other person.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is what I've found out about the Greek definition of submission in that famous verse: The word ‘submit’ here is also the Greek word ‘hupotasso’, (Strong’s Concordance) meaning ‘to obey, be under obedience, subdue unto, to subordinate oneself, submit self unto’.

    So if my husband listens and agrees with me, would I call that submission (being obedient to me)? I think not. I would just call it "listening and agreeing with the wife." Maybe I just can't wrap the definition of "submission" around my head like you guys are defining it. My hubby listens and agrees with me a lot of times, but does that mean that he's "submitting" to me? You guys raised great points though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Jaycee....if your husband yields to your opinion because he believes yours is a better idea etc... I think it is safe to say he has "submitted" to you, but it does not take anything away from him because actually,

    YOU ARE HIM

    and

    HE IS YOU

    YOU BOTH ARE ONE . . . NOT TWO

    If you go to the verse before the wife submission thing, Ephesians 5::21, Paul said, referring to all christians:

    ". . . .submitting to one another in the fear of God"

    The Greek for submit in that verse 21 is the same Greek word for submit in verse 22

    "hypotassō" ( ὑποτάσσω )

    So should all christians submit to one other as if we all are married to each other?

    Of course not

    So I think the nature of the submission that Paul was talking about is made clear by verse 21 - mutual submission.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Really thought provoking. I loved seeing how you wrestled with the Bible to try to understand what it actually says.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting discourse, while i believe the use of same word (with each person having differing thots one its definition) could make for a lengthy (& unnecessary) discourse, Jaycee's representation of submission is apt for me.

    When you submit yourself to another, you put yourself under their guidiance, protection, provision and diference.

    It takes a woman who is bold and confident to say 'yes, i will marry you' to a man, knowing fully well that she by that singular action, submitting (onward) to him (& his authority).

    It takes a man of wisdom to understand that when a woman (willingly) chooses to submit to (oops, marry) you, it means not you should 'lord' authority over her but, to 'care for' and 'shield' her.

    ReplyDelete