OT - RELIGION: C.S. on the reason for the husband's headship in Christian marriages - Chris

[Guest guest]

This is a continuation of our earlier conversation on the marital

relationship and the husband's " headship " . Could you or someone else who's

well versed in Christianity address this? you were talking about how

the marital relationship is symbolic of the Christ/church relationship and

said that it's not a *differential* power relationship but rather reflects a

" flow " of power between the parties involved. However, C.S. apparently

disagrees with you (in terms of the marital relationship), so one of you is

wrong, and I'd like to know which one. If is correct, then I did not

insert my own assumptions into my understanding of the marital

relationship, since my understanding is exactly as describes.

refers to a power *differential* in the marital relationship and goes on to

describe in blatantly sexist terms why the wife is not the head. I'd like to

know if he's simply projecting his own sexist worldview on the reason he

says that the husband is the obvious choice for the " headship " or if this

accurately reflects Christian thought. This is an absolutely sincere

question as I'm trying to get a better understanding of the Christian

worldview.

Here are the pertinent excerpts from " Mere Christianity " :

" Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the

man is said to be the " head. " Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why

should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the

man? "

then goes on to explain why he believes there needs to be head. At the

end of his explanation as to what needs to happen when wife and husband

disagree on a matter he writes:

" Surely only one or other of two things can happen: either they must

separate and go their own ways or else one or the other of them must have a

casting vote. If the marriage is permanent, one or the other party must, in

the last resort, have the ****power**** of deciding the family policy... "

Now, you said there is no power differential, but clearly is saying

the man has the " casting " vote and has the " power " (his words) of deciding

family policy. (That was my understanding of the relationship from the

get-go. Although I think I have a fuller understanding of the relationship

now, aside from the power differential) Or is he wrong? Is this just his

personal misinterpretation of the marriage relationship? Or were you wrong

in your explanation of there being no power differential?

Now here is ' explanation of why the clear choice for headship is the

man.

" (2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any

serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married

myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of

her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she

finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say " Poor Mr. X! Why

he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more

than I can imagine. " I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone

mentions the fact of her own " headship " . There must be something unnatural

about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half

ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also

another reason and you can see from outside even better than from inside.

The relations of the family to the outer world - what might be called its

foreign policy - must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he

always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman

is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of

the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override,

for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests.

The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers

is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people

from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let

me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if

your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal

with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you hare a married

woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would

you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his

rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A

bit of an Appeaser? "

Not even getting into the utter lack of evidence provided for his claims

other than his own thoughts on how (all?) married women think and act (and I

think much of this para is an excellent example of claims based on poor

scholarship or no scholarship), does this represent the official Christian

view (if there is one) on why men are the head of marital relationships? Or

is projecting his own sexist views onto the Church's and erroneously

implying it's the Christian perspective?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------