CONTINUING the discussion of male authority in marriage, the reader R.A. Martin writes:

I believe that the concept of authority is often misunderstood. Authority in popular society seems to have the connotation of the proverbial “foot on the throat.” Those in authority have an oppressive power over those under authority, and those under authority must yield, regardless of their protests, either cheerfully or begrudgingly, but yield nonetheless. This concept is a perverted concept of authority, and it is attributable to secular influences.

The Christian concept of authority is rooted in the example of Christ. This is no better exemplified than in the account given in which Christ girded himself with a towel and washed his disciples’ feet. In this act, Jesus defined the role of Christian authority as being a role of servant. His disciples looked to Him as their master, and yet he humbled himself and served them. 

This concept of authority is applied to marriage by Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians. Paul lays out the duties of a husband to a wife, and a wife to a husband. At the end of laying out these duties, he states that he speaks concerning Christ and His Church; that is, Christ, being the husband, and the Church, filling the role as wife. In this, Paul directs us that our marital relationship should follow the pattern of relationship between Christ and His Church. 

By considering the example of Christ and His relationship to the Church, then we can conclude that it is the responsibility of the wife to submit herself to the will of her husband, as the Christian submits himself to the will of Christ, and that it is the responsibility of the husband to serve the wife by virtue of providing and caring for her and her children. The Christian concept of authority denotes obligation and responsibility. Christ took the responsibility of the sins of the world upon His shoulders, paying with his natural life, having never sinned Himself. 

And thus is the example that a husband should strive for in his family. He takes on the responsibility of the well-being of the family, providing for them, and protecting them. Jesus was not and is not a dictator, and neither should a husband be to his family; but he should direct them, as does Jesus to His Church. The responsibility of the wife lies in the stewardship of the house and the nurturing of children, as is the responsibility of the Church in regards to God’s house and in regards to the nurturing and raising of those who have just been born into the Christian family. 

Anyone who claims to be a Christian would not claim equality with Christ. Authority by its nature requires inequality between those who are in authority and those who are under authority. And marriage, by its nature, also requires inequality. Woman was created not as an equal to man, but unequal to man. Generally speaking, with the knowledge that generalizations do not apply to all cases, men are physically unequal to women. Men and women are “wired” to think differently. Men and women handle emotions differently. In general, men and women are not equal. And this inequality is what makes marriage strong. 

The inequalities that exist do not make one sex superior to the other; rather, each sex has strengths which complement the weaknesses of the opposite sex. The warm emotion of a woman complements the cold rationalizations of a man, and vice versa. The strength of a woman lies in her femininity, as the strength of a man lies in his masculinity. A man will generally fail at the things that come naturally to a woman. Women will generally fail at things that come naturally to a man. 

Failure and imperfection is also what separates man from Christ. Unlike Christ, a husband will not always be right in his judgments. The wife should always have an influence on her husband’s judgments, but if handled in such a way that undermines the authority of the husband, will have detrimental effects on the marriage. Much as the Church cannot demand of Christ blessings, but should ask in a submissive spirit for blessings, so should the wife persuade and influence her husband’s judgments concerning the family. A husband who is striving to act responsibly toward his family should have the support of his wife, even if she cannot persuade him otherwise. But a wife is in no way obligated to support the decisions of her husband if they move outside the bounds of being responsible to the well-being of the family. And as goes the support of Mother, so goes the support of her children. It is the responsibility of the wife to support her husband in his decisions and allow him the final decision, even if she does not agree with decision if she cannot persuade him otherwise; but it is the responsibility of the husband to make decisions that have the best interest of his family in mind. 

Esther is a good example of the influence of a wife to her husband, and how a wife should approach her husband when wanting to influence a decision. Esther, a Jew, became the wife of King Ahasuerus, who, under advisement of Haman, made a decree to “destroy, to kill” all Jews in the land. Ester, not by demand, but by way of feminine persuasion, caused the king to rescind his decree, resulting in Haman being hung from his own gallows and Mordecai, the uncle of Ester whom Haman sought himself to hang, to be paraded in royal apparel in the street of the city. 

The Christian concept of authority is leading by service. Men, by natural law, are made responsible for the providence and protection of their families. This is evidenced not only by his physical characteristics, but also by the way in which he mentally approaches the issues that he faces. Being given this authority also necessarily binds him to the family unit, as his purpose is to lead the family. This authority in no way makes him always right, or in no way takes away the voice of the wife in matters of decision-making; however the voice of the wife is to influence and not to decree, provided the husband is within the bounds of reason when making his decision. If the husband abdicates his responsibility, the family unit is thrown out of harmony, causing the wife or a child to fill the roll by necessity. Likewise, if a wife takes this authority from the husband, she throws the family out of harmony as well. The example Christ is the example of authority that all men, husbands and fathers in particular, should strive for, and the model of marriage should be the relationship between Christ and his Church.

                                               — Comments —

Mrs. H. writes:

R.A. Martin very ably explained St. Paul’s “wives, submit to your husbands; husbands, love your wives.” A true, full understanding of the marriage relationship can only arise from an understanding of Christ and His Church. 

I would add that the nature of authority can only be understood when one accepts and meditates on the doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity (notice not “understands,” since these are mysteries). Christ emptied himself and was made Man (Phil. 2:7), i.e. abdicated for a while his divine “rights” (but not his divine nature). “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself, but only what the Father says” (John 5:18-47 Jesus explains his equality with God, and the Father’s authority over him, and how Jesus’ authority is from the Father). Jesus’ authority is not in and of itself, but from the Father. 

So a husband’s authority is not in and of itself, but granted to him from Christ (this is true of the office of pastor and government officials, also–the world will recoil at anyone claiming authority, because it assumes tyranny, the ruler ruling from his own subjected self-appointed superiority). But my authority over my children is given me by God and my husband. My husband’s authority over me is entrusted to him by God; a pastor has been given his authority over his congregation or parish, a king over his country. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, those in authority are always sinners, and make mistakes, or deliberately abuse and abdicate their offices. These incidences do not make invalid or obsolete the offices of husband, priest, king, etc. 

So what does this mean for the Christian in authority? I am in authority over my children. This means that 1) I “empty myself” and try to always make decisions in their interest. I think any parent would agree. 2) I realized that my authority is not my own, but entrusted to me. These thoughts go a long way toward (imperfectly) “ruling” in humility and love. 

I realize some of your readers in this conversation are not Christians. My husband likes to tell inquiring unbelievers who are skeptical of the Christian marriage model (wives submit, husband love) that a partnership works best with consensus, that his job is look out for my best interest, and make my job as wife and mother easier. If there is a “tie” or disagreement, he is the “tie-breaker,” with the caveat that he must break the tie in my best interest, not in his own preference. Most people without Christian beliefs understand this explanation, even if they don’t agree (and even if it imperfect in assuming a marriage is a “partnership.”) 

One note to your readers who ask “What is wrong with these modern females?!” The woman has always tempted to rule her husband, or reject his authority, and I suppose a husband has always been tempted to abdicate his difficult role as head. One could argue the first sin stemmed from Eve not submitting to her husband (or conversely, Adam not governing his wife). Whichever spouse you are, you will always be tempted to fight for your “rights” and self-interest, against your God-given role. Numerous comedies and tragedies from the ancients, Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc., draw on the unnatural picture of a wife ruling her husband. This is not new. What is new is that it is not considered strange, tragic, humorous, or unnatural. It is now institutionalized as a “good.” A wife is now virtuous and “strong” when she rebels against her husband and goes her own way or does her own thing. This is what is so new and modern, not the wife’s temptation to rule.

Laura writes:

Exactly.

Wifely rebellion is as old as history. What is new is the cultural celebration of it and the establishment of a state infrastructure that facilitates it.

Kimberly writes:

“The inequalities that exist do not make one sex superior to the other; rather, each sex has strengths which complement the weaknesses of the opposite sex.” 

This makes no sense. You cannot say 3=2. You cannot say 3>2 and that 3 is not greater than 2. You can say that 3=3, although one 3 is apples and one 3 is oranges, and that they complement each other with their differences. “Inequality” is the wrong word, because almost any given woman is as capable of as much value as almost any given man. Value is what we are discussing when the term “equal” is used. Authority is given by God to both men and women, but in different ways. A man is given authority over his wife. A woman is given authority over her children, and although her authority is subject to the authority of her husband, it is nonetheless hers, an intrinsic authority given to her directly from God. Only she can cause her authority to be directly taken away, and while this could befall her by disrespecting the authority of her husband, he himself cannot take it away from her without just reason. If she does not disrespect his authority, he cannot contravene her authority with God’s blessing. He will fall into sin. 

I deeply appreciate R.A. Maritn’s good attempt to explain the beauty of God’s plan for authority with the Church’s example. However, I cannot help but feel somewhat patronized by this choice of words. 

I feel that using Esther for the ultimate example is insufficient. Granted, she was a beautiful, holy wife, and worthy of praise. But only one woman in all of history is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with Jesus Christ. Only His Mother was made without sin. 

The feminists complain that they want to be priests, or heads of households. Yet this is obviously not where their value would take form. If women want their lives to be as meaningful, valuable, and helpful to mankind as the lives of their male-counterparts, they must seek to develop, use, and ultimately perfect their maternal instincts. Every woman has them somewhere inside, and even if she is not a mother through carrying a child in her womb, she can be a mother to society by following these maternal instincts. 

If we point to and look to Our Lady, that Infinitely Blessed Mother, then women of today will stand a chance. With the grave conditions we are facing today, abortion being the most horrifying, we must not hesitate to reach for the highest help. She is the woman who was made to crush the serpent. We must be wise enough, and humble enough, to cry out for our Mother as the lost children that we are.

Laura writes:

It is very important to use the word “inequality” because the modern understanding of equality means alike in all things and equal in self-determination. Men and women are equal in essence but not in the accidental aspects of existence.

Strong Man writes:

I have followed your blog for a long time. This particular post stood out to me as one of the most well-articulated vision of the Christian marriage relationship that I have read. Truly excellent. I’ll be linking to it in my next blog post.

I also enjoyed the previous discussion about Male Authority and the various comments and your responses.

Thank you for your continued work in this area.

Please follow and like us: