P.O. Box 53055    
Los Angeles, CA 90053   

LONG HAIR AND SUBMISSION #3

MARGARET THATCHER'S HECKLERS

We mentioned a successful politician named Margaret Thatcher yesterday, as we looked at Bible verses saying that the head of WOMAN . . . is MAN. And that brings to mind a few quotable quotes we thought we'd share as we begin our Wednesday study.

Back in 1987, French politician and prime minister Jacques Chirac was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying: "I am not prepared to accept the economics of a HOUSEWIFE." But that's a cream puff of a statement compared with a line from the Rev. John Knox, the Scottish Presbyterian leader who, clear back in the year 1558 wrote a pamphlet entitled "First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women," which was distributed just as Queen Elizabeth I was beginning her reign. Here's the line:

"To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire, above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; CONTUMELY to God (which means ARROGANT or INSOLENT), a thing most contrarious to His revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice."

On the other hand, a fellow named Ronald Reagan had a more cheerful opinion of Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady whose 11½ years in office pretty much coincided with his own. He said very simply: "She's the best man in England."

Well, today's one of those days where there just plain aren't going to be easy answers. Does the Bible teach that women should submit to men and wives to husbands? First Corinthians 11:3 very plainly says so, and we've spent two days trying to decide how hard verses like that ought to be considered in our day.

"The head of the woman is MAN."

That's the New International Version, although we find a much SOFTER rendition in the Clear Word, which is a self-admitted paraphrase. Notice:

"Just as a man leans on the strength of Christ and a woman leans on the strength of her husband, so Christ leaned on His Father and received His strength from God."

That pill goes down easier, perhaps, but still there's the feeling that this is an ALWAYS rule. Every family, every marriage, every TIME — the man's the B-O-S-S, boss.

As we've read through a number of excellent Bible reference works, a similar thread seems to often show up. Here's our Seventh-day Adventist commentary's notes on verse three:

"The man is to acknowledge Christ as his Lord and Master; the woman, while recognizing the supremacy of Christ as Lord over all, is required to acknowledge that in domestic life she is placed under the guidance and protection of man. . . . Even among EQUALS there may be a head. A committee of men of equal rank still selects its chairman. . . . The dependence of the wife on her husband was a divinely appointed plan for the good of both spouses. However, the dependence does not in any way imply the slightest degree of degradation. As the church does not experience dishonor by being dependent on Christ, neither does woman by being dependent on man."

Both the commentaries and the Bible itself take great PAINS to make the point that men and women are equals before God. We mentioned yesterday Paul's beautiful statement in Galatians three about "in Christ there is no male or female." And even here in this troublesome chapter 11 of First Corinthians, he moves on from verse three to give us a level playing field. Here are verses 11 and 12:

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, NOR is man independent of woman. For as woman came FROM man" — remember the Eden story about the rib of Adam? — "so also MAN is born of WOMAN. But everything comes from God."

So we have here a classic "Yes . . . But" kind of teaching. Yes, men and women are equal. Both have value before God; both are His infinite treasures. One's not OVER the other in an AUTHORITARIAN kind of way. But when it comes to ROLES — and it doesn't matter what version you read or what commentary you try to find — this thread is there: God giving the "(quote) headship" to the male.

Which has to make us wonder here in the year 1999: is this to apply EVERY TIME? There are millions of married couples walking the face of the earth. When you measure every person's personality — some strong, some retiring, some bold, some self-effacing — is it heaven's rule that the woman will hold back and look to her husband for leadership? Will the person with whiskers have the deciding vote every single time? We can all think of families we know where, without anyone saying so, maybe, it was clear that the WIFE had an inner core of strength . . . and maybe her husband didn't. They were happy together; things functioned well, but if a tough call came up, this particular male would COMFORTABLY say to his wife, "Whatever you want, honey." And maybe in parenting, the same thing. Mom was in charge, and three or maybe even THIRTEEN kids got successfully raised and married off.

Well, we can certainly think of anecdotes that go on both sides of the football field. And certainly the one-liners are there too. Even among our staff, some of the women openly admit, "I let my husband THINK he's in charge." And one of the men got kind of red and said, "In my marriage I do what I please. My wife tells me what I please, and then I do it." "I'm in charge until my wife gets home." Or — the husband is the HEAD of the house, and the wife is the NECK . . . which turns the head any direction it wants. Probably our favorite is the confession: the wife runs the train and gets by just letting the husband blow the whistle once in a while.

Well, we have a bit of fun with that, but friend, there's nothing fun or FUNNY about the SERIOUS debate this causes among Christians, both in the home and in the church. This is not an issue that sorts itself out easily, and in homes where perhaps one or both partners AREN'T comfortable with how the leadership responsibilities are being divvied up, these Bible verses don't bring much comfort.

In our few remaining moments, let's look at a couple of important points. First of all, in Eden God surely had a vision that a man and a woman would live in perfect harmony. Sure, Eve might have been shorter than Adam and PRETTIER too — but they would have enjoyed an Eden-like marriage with no disputes or disagreements. One would never NEED to rule over the other because harmony would have reigned.

However, in Genesis chapter three, right after the fall and the introduction of sin, God says to Eve:

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he WILL rule over you."
"He shall be your MASTER," it says in the Living Bible. "He will be your spiritual leader," says a third version.

One of our favorite writers, C. S. Lewis, wrote as an admitted bachelor for most of his life. Here's how he comments:

"The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a CHRISTIAN marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution."

So friend, we see the IDEAL of harmony, of an Eden-like partnership where a husband and wife are generally walking down the same path, supporting and loving each other — and agreeing! But because of the entrance of sin, and because we haven't yet returned to Eden, it seems clear that heaven has given this prescription for the purpose of keeping marriages PERMANENT.

Still, let me add a second point — and this came out of the same vehement lunch discussion where a few people said, "Oh, listen, SKIP chapter 11, it's too controversial." One of our staff members looked around at the group and then said, "No. Get into it, but make it clear that the Bible teaches that LEADERSHIP really means being a SERVANT. For a man to be the head of the home really means that he SERVES. It's his role to LOVE his wife, to protect her, to support her, to financially care for her, to surrender FOR her, to provide for her emotional needs. This is no POWER TRIP," he said. "IT'S ALL SERVICE." Which reminds me of a book title we like that comes from Pastor Bill Hybels: Descending Into Greatness.

And really, the Bible corroborates what my friend Lance said in that meeting. The head of the Church is Christ, isn't it? And look how Jesus SERVED. He gave EVERYTHING for the Church He was the head OF. He sacrificed, He supported, He surrendered, He gave away His rights. He gave all His energies on behalf of the church; in the end, He even DIED for Her.

In the gripping bestseller, Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn makes this conclusion:

"Equating masculinity with servanthood — I am a good man because I serve others — is a dominant idea in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Many of the most famous biblical stories and teachings, such as Jesus washing the feet of His disciples, convey precisely this message: The greatest leader is the greatest servant."