Distinguishing

Complementarian

&

 Patriarchal

Views

  By Charity Kay

Contents

Chapter 1: Background Story

Chapter 2: Understanding Views

Chapter 3: Love vs. Control

Chapter 4: Headship and Submission

Chapter 5: Emotions and Reasoning

Chapter 6: Women- Spiritually Deceived?

Chapter 7: Feminism

Chaper 8: Man-Centered Polygamy

Conclusion: Jesus and the Church

Appendix: Pre-Marriage Questions

Introduction

This book is the result of my struggle with difficult passages of the Bible about women, mostly about marriage. While the topic of women in ministry is not covered, I affirm that women can relate to God in the same way that men can.

The purposes of this book are:

  1. To show God’s love and help those who struggle with the Bible as it relates to women
  2. To help women be aware of extremes, before getting married
  3. To help mothers prepare their sons to be good husbands
  4. To help bring understanding to the needs of many women who have been hurt
  5. To show that a wife’s obedience is a good thing, and doesn’t imply coercion

Chapter 1

Background story

Since I was 12, I have been attending complementarian Baptist churches. As far as I could tell, women had freedom to do almost anything except preach. Marriage was not presented as anything oppressive, and submission was seen as joyful. I got married with that understanding, and found that submission really wasn’t too hard. There were some adjustments, but I got used to it quickly and was happy with my husband being the leader.

Then in the first week of May 2019, my perfect picture of traditional marriage was shattered. It was not about my own marriage but my view of marriage in general. It happened in part because I went searching online for a certain topic related to marriage, and found a website with extreme views, which to me were oppressive toward women. Keep in mind, I was a firm complementarian and among the least likely of women to be shaken.

I am  not sharing the name of the troubling website, because (1) in this case there is no need to expose it by name, as long as the views are called out, (2) I would not want other women distressed by it, and (3)some men may be influenced by reading the views, to the detriment of their wives and possibly the destruction of their marriages.

The particular article used a string of verses and extrapolated them to say that men should discipline their wives through spanking or withholding money or grounding. The writer personally cancels dates with his wife and leaves her at home alone, as a form of discipline. He says he is heartbroken over abuse, but to me the emotional effects of what he is doing are the same as physical abuse.

The hardness of his tone was a factor in my distress, compounded with a general feeling of darkness and heaviness. Specifically, I had a feeling of polygamy, and sure enough, several weeks later I did find an article on that site about polygamy, even against the first wife's consent; my discernment was right, and I believe that discernment came from the Holy Spirit.

Even though it was unlike the way I was raised, and it went against my natural sense of love, the fact that he used Bible verses put me into a crisis for 2 years, on and off, with questions on what is the nature of love. I couldn’t begin to say that God is unloving, so I thought, “Maybe love is just not really what I thought it was; maybe it is a little selfish and controlling. Maybe law is not based on love, but stands on its own.” This spiritual crisis was so distressing that I think it was mild trauma. I began having triggers when reading the Bible, hearing anything about submission or related words, seeing men with bald heads (because there was a picture on the site of a man with a bald head, which I assume was him), and when having misunderstandings with my husband in which I was too sensitive. These triggers easily led to downward spirals.

I began reading articles on CBE (a popular egalitarian website) to counter the feeling of distress. The previous year, a friend online had sent me the link to CBE, and I looked at it for about 2 seconds and thought “It was nice of her, but no, thanks.” Now all of a sudden I “needed” the site when seeing such extreme views of a man who believes that husbands should control their wives (note: control is counterproductive). The articles on CBE seemed to be stretching verses, but not any more than the patriarchal website was doing. And at least I was able to balance out the two views in search for a happy middle.

It was confusing. Although I wanted to surrender to what might possibly be God’s will, my natural sense of justice and love was firm that it cannot be God’s will- but as I tried conforming myself to those views, I could see harshness seeping through in my relationship to other people. Eventually I realized I shouldn’t bend my natural sense of love and justice to fit something that ends up making me less loving.

About 10 months into it, I wrote to a facebook group of conservative head-covering women for advice. They didn’t have much to say, but they agreed that it was distressing. On the same day, I stumbled across a troubling email, quoting a man or men who believed that wives should be spanked, because 1 Peter 3:1 links marriage with government, and fear of authority helps to keep us in line, and life was better in the 1950s when husbands were still spanking their wives. At the time, I wondered why God wanted me to see that email during one of my peaks of distress, because I know that He is good and He wouldn’t intentionally “rub it in” when I was in such a troubled state. As I thought about it, things made sense.

First of all, appealing to American history isn’t solid. The 1950s were not a perfect time, because of segregation. It was 1955 when Rosa Parks was told to give up her seat. For the record, I am white, but that is unjust. So the 1950s may have been the last generation for solid family structure, but it doesn’t mean that everything was alright. About 1 Peter 3:1, I acknowledge the allusion to government; however, it’s not about ruling over our personal lives but our interactions with other people in society. As far as being motivated by fear, should that be the motivation for a wife to honor her husband? Is it necessary?

During this time, I also struggled with the idea of polygamy being allowed in the Bible. The most troubling verse was 2 Samuel 12:8. To me, it seemed like adultery for a man to pursue and marry a woman when he is already married. After a while, it occurred to me that married women were the focus of adultery. That opened the door to the climax of my crisis.

In the first week of May 2021, about 2 years to the day of when I discovered that website, it occurred to me that married women were the ones punished for adultery, regardless of the man’s marital status. I turned to Deuteronomy 22:22 and there it was. When I saw that the punishment (death) did not apply to married men with single women, I was shaken. Since I didn’t want to question God’s love, I instead wondered if the Bible was truly inspired. There are women who suffer because of their husbands’ affairs, and worse, there are women who are devastated when their husbands marry more wives.

I went searching for answers online, but the only answers (as far as I remember) were “women didn’t have the same freedom in those days.” To me, it didn’t make sense, because Israel was a Theocracy; God was giving them laws to live by. It’s true that divorce was allowed for the hardness of their hearts, but that was in the direction of less strict rather than more strict.

It was only about two days beforehand that I was chatting online with a non-Christian woman who was troubled over the treatment of women in the Bible, specifically, female war captives (as is supposed). The topic didn’t bother me because it wasn’t related to my own crisis, so I gave some very good explanations. She was faced with a decision of assuming positively or negatively. Sadly, she chose to think negatively about the Bible. Now two days later, I was at my own crossroads. It wasn’t so much about God’s love as it was about the Bible’s inspiration, although I was in search of better interpretations.

I did find something to rest on– charity is not self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13:5). That was an anchor. I had some ideas of why Deuteronomy 22 did not give a punishment for men; however, I didn’t know for sure. In prayer, I was crying out for answers, but the answers didn’t come immediately, because I had a change to make. I had to recognize that I already had enough reasons to believe the Bible, and the only problem was my irrational fears. Suddenly when I acknowledged that, God answered.

The very next morning, I found an email (from my subscriptions, not a friend) leading to an article on the topic of men controlling their wives, and there were about 5 specific things that were confirmations of what I believed to be true. It was about not bending our sense of justice to a fallible interpretation of the Bible.

As far as Deuteronomy 22:22, I felt that God gave me the idea to search for Matthew Henry’s commentary on it. It was risky because the first time I went searching for answers, I was sorely disappointed. This time, I felt that it was God’s leading-- and it turned out well. The reason for only married women being punished was that children would stay with the mothers, and there would be a constant reminder of what she had done. I reasoned, a single mother could simply take care of the child by herself, so it wouldn’t have as much impact on a man’s marriage. Some may argue that married men would be marrying more women based on Exodus 22:16, but that is too unclear, and there is nothing to stand on. It’s better to believe that God cares for women who have suffered through their husbands’ infidelity.

Shortly afterwards, two memories came to my mind. An elderly man from Alaska, Jerry Olson, told a story about a revelation God had given him about a man who was having an affair. As far as I could tell, it was about a married man committing adultery against his wife. When the man was confronted by Mr. Olson, he covered his face and said “No one knows that but the woman and me!” The other memory was of a Youtube video I had seen years before, of a man who confessed that he had imagined lustful thoughts about a woman besides his wife. She then had a dream about the same person he had imagined, and it was detailed and specific to the extent that he knew it was from God. In the wife’s dream, the woman was interfering with their marriage, and he and his wife recognized that. So there is such a thing as male adultery, and God cares for the women affected by it. Mark 10:11 is reassuring as well.

There came a point when there were enough answers that I found resolution. I still do have some triggers, but at least I have peace and confidence that God has led me.

Chapter 2

Understanding Views

Differing positions

Patriarchalists believe that men have parental authority over their wives (parallel to a parent and child).

Complementarians believe that men lead, but do not control their wives (parallel to an older brother and younger sister).

Egalitarians believe that husbands and wives should come to an agreement on all decisions, through mutual submission (parallel to twins).

Feminists are sort of a fourth group, but in a way are hyper-egalitarians, as I explain in chapter 7.

Where is the line?

On the outside, complementarian looks the same as patriarchal, because the jobs/roles look the same. To some people, submission seems to mean that a wife is controlled.

During my crisis, I wondered “where is the line” between complementarian and patriarchal marriages. In a way I could tell there was a difference, but at the same time it looked like a slippery slope from slightly controlling to overly controlling.

Finally the difference became perfectly clear. Submission (even obedience per Titus 2:5) is not meant to be forced. It is a way for the wife to show love for her husband and bring peace to the marriage.

I believe it is a mistake to think of complementarians and patriarchalists in one lump of traditional marriage, because of the extremes it can lead to.

Views of the history of husband’s leadership

There are different views on what God intended in marriage from Creation until now, based on Genesis 1-2, 3:16, and Galatians 3:28.

C-P-C: Some believe that marriage began as complementarian (C) but became patriarchal (P) and returned to the original. They believe the husband was already given the role of leader at Creation, then there was a curse of male dominance, and then we were set free through Christ but still have roles.

C-C-C: The husband already was the leader, and now it’s harder.

E-C-C: Marriage began as egalitarian (E) but there became a need for submission, because there would be more tension in marriage.

E-C-E: This view says that husbands’ leadership was temporary and abolished.

E-E-E: Genesis 3:16 was a simply prediction of how men would treat women.

To me, it makes sense to think that marriage began as complementarian and always remained so, because (1) Adam was created first, and 1 Timothy 2:13 points to Creation as a reason for man’s leadership, and (2) Jesus is our leader, as we see in John 15. I believe that is an unchanging principle, so it seems that God would have created Adam and Eve as a reflection of Jesus’ future relationship with the Church.

Thoughts on roles

As complementarians, we believe in a role of leadership and a role of submission. There is no role of control. Leadership is not synonymous with control; even authority is not quite control, although it has more connotations and easily gets out of hand.

In an article on the CBMW website, Bob Kauflin wrote, "God has designed men and women to serve others in complementary ways"

To serve others–in complementary ways.

He goes on to say, "The world often only sees domineering/wimpy men or doormat/aggressive women. The Gospel produces something better – men and women, both made in the image of God, glorifying their Maker by modeling a compelling picture of biblical masculinity and femininity.”

This is what roles are about. Serving others and glorifying God.

Chapter 3

Love and Control

When it comes to the husband and wife relationship, there are two sides of love (sacrifice and submission) and two sides of selfishness (control and rebellion).

One thing both extremes are confused about is the issue of control and submission. Control and submission are not two sides of the same coin. The two sides of the coin are submission and sacrificial love. It's not how to run a business; it is how to make marriage overflow with love on both sides.

What exactly does it mean to be controlling?

One woman thought her husband was controlling because he went out and did things he liked to do– which is hilariously ironic. It would be controlling if he did it as discipline, but as far as I heard, he was not that way. She may have been overly sensitive, and that is something we all have to watch for, so that we don’t make faulty assumptions about our spouses.

To truly be controlling is to enforce our own will on the will of others, when it is not absolutely necessary.

What is necessary?

It is necessary for a man to make the final decisions for the family, and this is healthy in a truly complementarian marriage. I go into detail in the next chapter (Headship and Submission).

Patriarchal marriages

In Mark 10 and Matthew 20, Jesus taught us not to “exercise dominion” as the Gentiles do. The Bible doesn't say that since women should submit, therefore men should put their wives in their place. That either makes his authority selfish, or it makes love subject to a random law, rather than law being the natural result of real love. Romans 13:10 says “love is the fulfilling of the law.”

In a patriarchal marriage, there is more going on than having a controlling attitude. Some men truly believe that they have authority from God to enforce their wives’ submission- which is quite a stretch of certain Bible verses. On the other hand, women who have a controlling attitude, are at best using manipulation tactics, while not literally believing that God sees them as an authority over their husbands.

In a marriage questionnaire on control, there was a Yes or No statement saying, “My spouse uses religion to control me.” While that may be true for some marriages, I think in patriarchal marriages, it is not quite that way, and sort of puts the cart before the horse. Some men are not simply using the Bible but fully believing they are meant to control, which makes it a nearly impossible situation, because it is a belief rather than a failure of character– and they may cling to that belief as an orthodox doctrine.

What works in a marriage?

Are egalitarian marriages happier? In one study, traditional couples were happier when it came to the issue of housework. In another study (or maybe multiple), egalitarian couples were happier in overall areas. They probably didn't separate patriarchalists from real complementarians in their study, otherwise they would be at least as happy as egalitarians. So it helps to make that distinction as we consider the statistics.

What would make an egalitarian marriage happier than a patriarchal one? A patriarchal husband decides how his wife should submit. Dr. John Gottmann’s research shows that in  81% of marriages in which the husband doesn’t share the decision-making process with his wife, there is divorce. (Again, this does not include true complementarians.)

Obviously, a woman feels more loved when she is not controlled. Therefore, women who are controlled are more likely to leave a marriage (I'm not condoning divorce, but only analyzing the cause). Now let's factor in a complementarian marriage, where the wife decides to submit rather than being put under restrictions. Now they are working through decisions together, and she is letting her husband lead, and they come to decisions peacefully.

Now let's consider egalitarians. An egalitarian marriage is not automatically successful. What would make it successful or not? Love. So, if a man is loving his wife through "submitting" to her, and she is submitting to him, it may work. I've heard of some couples that haven't reached an impasse where they couldn't come to a decision together. They find compromises or wait to make decisions, like friends. An unhappy egalitarian marriage is one in which they are not loving, but fighting, and that is the kind that is more likely to fail.

Here is the point where I differ with egalitarians: some decisions require immediate action, so someone should make the final decision. A couple may be 50/50 in their decisions through taking turns or finding win-win solutions, but other times they delay decisions, which leads to inaction.

Complementarian couples are not actually much different in the decision process, because we are working together; however, the final decision is left up to the husband.

In addition, submission is not all about major decisions but also an attitude.

My view of Genesis 3:16 is that the husband was already the leader, but submission became even more necessary, because there would be more tension. God wasn't setting up a form of oppression. He is love, and always has been about love. He wants husbands and wives to love each other and be at peace, and that is the heart of Ephesians 5.

Do roles relate to freedom?

In marriage, we use the word “roles” applied to a husband’s leadership and a wife’s submission. That much is fine. However, it can get out of hand if we define this as status or level of freedom. Personally, I wouldn’t use the word “role” to apply to citizens of North Korea, unless we want to define captivity as a role. So we should be careful not to associate roles with restriction of freedom. This is where egalitarians have a problem with the way others use the word “equal,” because egalitarians mean equal in freedom. It goes beyond being equal in value (as far as being cared for). Complementarians have a good balance, because men are not controlling, and wives are choosing to submit.

In a pre-marriage questionnaire that I made, I included a section about gender roles. In the questions there, I made subtle references to control, without using that word. People who are controlling don’t often realize it, and they may even have reasons for acting in certain ways that they think are within their boundaries; so I tried to bring this out in an unbiased way. Anyway, there is a difference between a husband making decisions for the family, and a husband controlling his wife’s personal choices, for example what time she goes to bed.

There may be gray areas where it’s unclear if the husband should do something or not. Most complementarian men don’t restrict finances from their wives- I think they would step into the patriarchal side at that point- but in some cases it might be necessary, if a woman is out of control and putting them in debt.

On the other hand, what would happen when the husband is the one spending too much? (And some men do spend too much.) In that situation, people start looking for solutions like counseling. Although I’m not opposed to a husband putting limits on his wife’s spending if it's a serious problem, there may be a solution that is more equal - something that would also apply to over-spending husbands. If possible.

Of course, I’m only addressing marriages where the wife is submissive, because a man cannot actually control a strong-willed wife. So for the women who are submissive, the question is how much authority is necessary. And as a woman, I shouldn’t have too much opinion on this, but I do think it’s important for all of us to keep Mark 10:37-45 in mind.

Analyzing Mark 10:37-45

In Mark 10, Jesus said that we should not rule over others. The order is (1) exaltation- 37, 41; (2) lordship- 42; and (3) service- 43-34.

These points seem to go from general and then narrow down to specific. First it's someone's overall opinion of himself. Then it moves to lordship, and not lording over others. Then it moves to serving. That should describe our relationship to everyone around us.

Natural respect

I respect everyone, in the sense that I don't go online to argue with people and speak in demeaning ways. I realize that with our husbands, there should be an extra dose of respect.

However, when I see men who are controlling, it is so repelling that I have only forced respect.

I'm not sure how to express how much appreciation I have for men who speak up for women. It's spontaneous and natural. To know that they truly care about their wives as themselves, provokes my respect. Men who want natural respect from their wives, should realize that control is the wrong way.

Again…

A wife loves through submission. A husband loves through sacrificial leading. The opposite of submission may be control, but the complement of a wife’s submission is her husband’s sacrificial love.

Chapter 4

Headship and Submission

The husband is the head of the wife and the leader of his home. “Head of the house” is sort of accurate because “head” and “leader” are basically synonymous, but more precisely, he is the head of his wife. It sounds like semantics, but it’s important not to lose sight of the unity of the head/body illustration in Ephesians 5:23. Losing sight of that illustration can lead a man to think of his wife and children being lumped together.

There is a popular illustration of Biblical marriage represented as umbrellas of authority. In some ways, it is practical. However, there are also pitfalls, because there is a nuanced misunderstanding of unity. Rather than representing the husband/wife relationship horizontally (patriarchal) or vertically (egalitarian), it is best diagonally (complementarian).

Jesus’ authority to us is that of an older brother (Romans 8:29; Hebrews 2:11). In Song of Solomon 4:10, a spouse is parallel to a sister. In Malachi 2:14, the wife is a companion; I looked up the original word, and it is the same word used for couplings in the temple, so this is a good reference for a wife being the husband’s “other half.” In John 15, Jesus said we are His friends if we obey His commands.

So the husband’s relationship to his wife is that of an older brother taking care of his younger sister. And better than that, the husband/wife relationship is a unit. Not separate, but unified.

Wife-discipline?

Since some men see themselves as having parental authority over their wives, they believe they are meant to discipline their wives. From what I observed on the patriarchal website, it was not all about the man getting his way; he thought it was his duty to change his wife’s character. To me, it is entirely unnecessary.

The man has God working in his heart, and the wife has God working in her heart. Why would the wife have to be singled out for discipline? She is already an adult, and her will was set in stone by the time she was about 5 years old. From what I’ve heard, children who learn submission early will keep submitting later on, while children who grow up rebellious remain rebellious, and if they do get saved, they have a hard time submitting to God.

So, once we have the will to obey God, we grow in character, each learning to follow Him in our own personal lives, without any enforcement or interference from other people.

A wife who is submissive may let herself be disciplined by her husband, but it’s damaging to the unity of their relationship. She can simply keep growing in the same way he grows, without any extra discipline. By the way, I’m aware that some women ask their husbands to spank them, but then it is a matter of their own choice rather than having it enforced on them.

What do we do with new or immature believers? We give them direct guidance, encouragement, resources, and ideas for implementing changes in their lives- for example setting an alarm for a daily time of reading God’s Word. When we notice a sinful habit, we take (or should take) intentional steps to break the habit. That is how we all grow. There is no need for wives to be singled out for anything more than that.

What if a wife’s disrespect is passing to her children and affecting them spiritually? Then their eternity is in danger, and that is a valid point, but it’s faulty reasoning to think disciplining her is the solution. A careless woman wouldn't be changed by discipline, while a submissive wife already has the will to please God. I would say she needs to stop and think about the impact on her children.

Maybe it’s not always an issue of children’s salvation, but at least of a mother’s own relationship with her children. As Bill Rice III pointed out in his book on child training, a parent who undermines the other parent’s authority is undermining both parents’ authority (I’ll come back to this, applied to a different context). When a wife shows disrespect toward her husband, her children will reflect it toward her at some point. That should be enough to motivate her.

Husband and wife as a unit

Another application of Bill Rice’s insight is that parents are a unit; we are a team. Again, he said that a parent who undermines the other parent’s authority is undermining both parents’ authority. He said when a wife tells the children “no,” the father should not sneak around with the children to do the opposite. If he does so, he is undermining both parents’ authority.

My application is that there is some equality in the husband-wife relationship as parents. The Bible says to honor both father and mother. That is unity. Although the wife’s submission plays a part in that relationship, they are one team.

Authority of counsel

On the CBMW website, Jonathan Leeman is quoted in the article “Wise Advice about Authority in the Home and Church”:

We need a better understanding of the difference between the authority of command and the authority of counsel. Both types of authority possess the ability to make commands—conscience-binding injunctions, as in, “You must…” Yet only those with the authority of command possess the power of enforcement. Those possessing the authority of counsel do not. …

Now stop and think: does the Bible anywhere give husbands such an enforcement mechanism? What about pastors or elders? In both cases, I believe the answer is no. Husbands and pastors possess true authority, because Jesus will hold wives and church members accountable on the last day. But husbands and pastors possess no such moral right from God (authority) to enforce their decisions.

This dramatically shapes the nature of the complementarian authority and protects against abuse. Husbands must live with their wives in an understanding way. Pastors must preach with great patience. In both cases, they must love, be gentle, woo. They lead by teaching and example, but they must also be the best listeners and understand-er-ers. The goal is never to force decisions. Forced decisions by wives or church members are worth little. Rather, the goal in both cases is to elicit decisions made from love and even attraction. The husband’s loving care should prove attractive to his wife. An elder’s holiness should be appealing to a member.

It’s very nice to see this written by a man, especially a complementarian man.  And I know that he is right about church leaders having authority, based on Hebrews 13:7, 17; yet church leaders are not called to enforce submission. They are meant to give counsel and lead exemplary lives.

Factors in Authority

There are different factors in how a husband relates to his wife:

  1. The type of authority - The Bible says that wives should be obedient to their husbands (Titus 2:5). When we think of Jesus and the church, we obey Him but He does not obey us. Some say that He practiced mutual submission. However, submission implies meek acquiescence, but obedience goes further. In John 15, He told us to obey Him. However, obedience there is mixed with friendship.

  1. The type of decisions - What exactly is the husband meant to make decisions about? How much his wife exercises and when she goes to bed, as well as choices in favor of his own comfort? Or is it primarily for the family as a whole? I believe the latter. It is the husband’s responsibility to make decisions for the family, in the same way a president is meant to keep order within the nation.

  1. The level or extent of authority as God intends - Simply because a husband can expect submission, doesn’t mean that he should, and it doesn’t mean he should enforce anything. As wives, we are to submit “in everything” (Ephesians 5:24) but it does not mean that husbands should control everything.

What is necessary?

Parental authority is probably the highest form of human authority. As parents, we train our children. They come into life not knowing anything, and we are the ones with the responsibility of teaching and training. Even then, I realize that they need increasing amounts of independence, and I won’t always have the same role that I have now.

Government authority is less; it doesn’t extend quite as far. God doesn’t intend for the government to micromanage personal lives, but rather to promote peace between citizens.

A supervisor’s authority applies at work, but doesn’t control the personal lives of his employees.

A pastor is meant to guide the church through teaching, counsel, and example, while not ruling over his people (1 Peter 5:1-4).

These are considerations for anyone in a position of authority, not to overstep what God intends. It is not necessary for a husband to have absolute authority. Pastor Percy Gutteridge said it perfectly: the husband has a "measure of authority.”

Of course, as we all know, we obey when it’s not sinful to do so. But what about a wife submitting to a husband who is just selfish? He may not be telling her to sin, but he is overstepping on his side, by controlling her life in a way that God did not intend. Some people would say to comply, and some would say not to comply. A Focus on the Family video recommends not complying, which I understand, although I believe in complying, based on Ephesians 5:24 and 1 Peter 3:1, unless it is traumatic to do so. It’s unclear exactly what a wife should do, but at least even without obedience, there can be an attitude of meekness and a desire for peace.

A wife’s submission is for God

Submission is a good thing. As wives, we submit “as to the Lord.” We will give account in the same way that husbands are going to give an account for how they loved.

Some say that Jesus submitted to us, and therefore husbands should submit to their wives; however, that overlooks the principle of obedience (John 15:10-14).

While mutual submission does have some good points, the Bible does give wives an extra command to submit, in addition to common submission found in Ephesians 5:21. And we are told to be obedient to our husbands (Titus 2:6).

Some women submit as long as they and their husbands are in agreement, and make too many exceptions.

Not only do we submit in decisions, but we also show respect (Ephesians 5:33). The word in KJV is “reverence.” I looked up the original root word, and it was used in another verse for fearing God. It’s unnecessary to go down a rabbit trail about fear, because hopefully we all understand the meaning of the word; it is deep respect. One interpretation is “awe” as we relate to God, but in terms of marriage, I think it is meant as deep respect.

In a way, husbands should respect their wives (1 Peter 3:7), but I believe as wives we are meant to show extra respect.

Submit to preferences

If a man should not be controlling, so he has preferences and counsel, but a wife thinks she doesn't have to submit to his preferences and counsel, what is left for her to submit to?

In that situation, submission would only be for the times when a couple agrees; which isn't real submission. So, a wife should submit to her husband's preferences.

One extreme looks at submission and says: since a wife should submit, therefore the husband should control (through discipline, commands, and restrictions). The other extreme looks at submission and says the opposite, that there is no need for wives to submit because it implies control. However, it doesn’t have to be that way. Submission can be a free choice.

I ask my husband before spending money on anything, and he is the one who buys groceries. I think there have only been two exceptions in nearly 11 years of marriage when I didn’t ask first– once I bought a bagel, and another time it was broccoli (which amounts to almost nothing). I know that is extremely rare, but it’s not that I am restricted; it’s my own choice, and I like my husband leading.

Submission isn’t limited to following a husband’s leadership for big decisions, but an attitude of meekness that comes through in everyday life. It is not a state of being controlled, but a choice to love our husbands “as to the Lord.”

Chapter 5

Emotions and Reasoning

How women think

"I don't know where people go when they die! I don't know!" the widow said as she burst into tears. Her husband had died 3 days before from coronavirus, after 30 or more years of marriage. She was a believer, and her husband had been a believer too, but she was feeling very lost. Her facial expression and her tone of voice told me that she didn't really question where people go when they die; it was purely an emotional response to a traumatic event.

It was at a ladies' Sunday School meeting, so we discussed Bible promises about life after death. She said, "I know, and I really believe--but you don't know what it's like until you're in this situation and it makes you feel lost."

In her emotional state, her reasoning was clouded; yet she did know the truth.

There is a saying that women are emotional, while men are logical and intellectual. This is a misunderstanding. Men and women score equally as well when tested in logic, as shown in aptitude tests. The problem is that everyday life is not simply a written test, and emotions have the ability to sway us into less-than-wise responses. However, the potential is there, and we have the ability to overcome.

Intellect

I believe men and women are somewhat equal intellectually,  although there is a misconception of "smartness" that overlooks individuality. Although I made a C in Chemistry, I won all 3 spelling bees that I participated in. Some women are excellent at science and math, and are able to teach even college-level science. People have different aptitudes that are not limited to gender but rather personal gifts. My husband and I have strengths in different intellectual areas.

At the risk of being considered feminist, I think it's worth saying that women may be as  smart as men.

The Talmud and Quran are demeaning toward women’s intellect. Maybe women weren't as smart at the time of those writings, but only because their education was neglected. It was only a result of the times.

Now that women are educated, research shows that our GPAs are basically the same as men’s GPAs.

At my Christian school,  we graduated with a class of 14 students. The valedictorian was a girl (and she had taken advanced math). The salutatorian was a male. So, the order of our GPAs was female, male, female, male, male, female (I think I was 6th; maybe 5th). Of the other 8, there were 6 males and 2 females. I'm not using this to say that women are smarter,  but to say it was a good mix for the upper half. There are male valedictorians as well. Overall there is not much difference between men’s and women’s intellect.

Logic

Men often call each other out on logical errors. And women critique women. And men critique women, and women critique men.

Men are typically the ones to debate, and they usually don’t come to an agreement.

When Ken Ham debated Bill Nye, he used evidence that Bible-believing scientists were competent, by sharing their achievements. Yet Bill Nye dismissed those examples and still claimed that Christians are bad scientists. While he stood on being “reasonable,” no actual reasons were given for dismissing the scientists; it was a denial of reality that Christians contribute to modern science.

Another example is a debate between a male abortion doctor and a pro-life man. When presented with facts, the abortionist disregarded them, saying he didn't know exactly when life starts, either from science or the Bible (the abortionist claimed Christianity!). To him, there was a standard somewhere, but it was too blurry to define. To the pro-life man, it was crystal clear that life begins at conception. So, men differ in their reasoning.

There is also a difference among women. When Allie Beth Stuckey presented a pro-life case to Congress, she used facts as a foundation with emotion following, as it should be. On the other hand, pro-choice women are carried away with their emotions for their own freedoms.

There are times when men correct women’s reasoning, but I have seen at least instance in which a woman corrected a man. In a conversation between Georgia Purdom and a non-Christian man, he said, “Words don’t really have meaning,” to which she replied, “Then how are we having this conversation?”

So, I believe reasoning is more individual and not necessarily limited by gender.

 

Wisdom

Wisdom, specifically choosing to believe good reasons, is a moral choice. It is not something genetic or a male/female difference, but a choice to follow the truth rather than feelings and emotions.

Wisdom is more valuable than emotions and feelings. It's a fact of life. If you make decisions based on emotions, your life is going to be a mess. When we have that awareness, we can consciously choose to put emotions in their place. We walk in the Spirit (with wisdom). Emotions have their place--following right after wisdom, never in the lead.

Erin Smalley said that when she starts to get heated in a discussion, she takes a break, so she can shift from the amygdala to her prefrontal cortex. That is a wise choice for men and women alike; we all have the ability to do the same.

Feelings

Feelings are more broad than emotions. While emotions are a specific kind of feeling (reactive and outward), feelings are generally how we feel about things in life. Sometimes feelings are accurate, and sometimes not. For that reason, we should always follow wisdom above feelings.  From what I’ve seen, men and women don’t differ much in this area.

One time at the online ministry, I was chatting with a young man who was wondering if God wanted him to marry a certain girl, because he had feelings for her. I explained that romantic feelings are not directly from God. Romantic feelings are from our own minds. And while feelings originally came from God, they are not necessarily for a specific person to marry–as we know, it’s possible to go through crushes over multiple people that we end up not marrying. So as I was chatting with this young man, he was living by feelings, and I was not.

Before my husband and I got married, I didn’t “fall in love,” but made a choice based on wisdom. I remember the time my youth pastor (a man) asked if I had butterflies in my stomach, and I said "no." He looked concerned and sat down next to me, and said there should be something. It was a funny incident. My husband and I are happily married.

Of course, there are men who follow wisdom and women who follow their feelings, but I believe it’s more of an individual issue and not so much based on gender.

Emotions

While women are higher in emotion, especially in expressing sadness, it is true that men can get carried away with emotions as well.

In Judges 13, when Samson’s parents were visited by an angel, his father (Manoah) was afraid they would die, while Manaoh’s wife reasoned that they would not die, because their offering was received. She did not fear.

On the other hand, I do understand that as women, we have more tendency to fall into emotions. I admit that emotions can cloud our reasoning. Emotions often come like a tsunami wave, and make the unreal appear real or provoke us to act in dramatic ways.

Still, we have a choice. Being emotional doesn’t mean we have to get carried away. When feeling overly emotional, we have to cling to wisdom and walk in the Spirit. And when others are struggling emotionally, we can support them (1 Thessalonians 5:14) while reminding them of the truth and hope they need as an anchor.

Chapter 6

Women: Spiritually Deceived?

The risk of thinking women are further from God

One woman was married at age 18 to a 28 year old man that she hardly knew, and she had no interest in marrying him. It was a marriage arranged by her dad, and her choice was based solely on trusting her dad’s wisdom, because she thought women are easily deceived, while the man of the house is the one who hears from God.

It turned out to be an abusive marriage in which her husband used her for his own pleasure without caring for her. She stayed for years, believing it was the right thing to do, but eventually she realized that it was abuse, and she left (there is a principle for leaving in case of neglect in Exodus 21:11).

I believe a woman’s spiritual discernment can be as little or as much as a man’s discernment, and each of us has the same potential for closeness to God as any other believer. The belief in women being easily deceived extends farther than the question of women teaching, and crosses into the area of women's personal relationship with God. It has been applied to our personal beliefs, in ways that mean we must go to men for truth rather than seeking Jesus.

Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:14

The concept of women being easily deceived is an interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:14- “the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

This verse had me stumped, because I see men with every type of belief within and outside of Christianity, sometimes changing their minds. Women would have to simply follow the views of the men they are closest to. That would mean whenever a man changes his mind, she has to change her mind, too– and what if it's heresy?

In Timothy’s experience, his mother and grandmother were the ones to lead him to the truth.

If we are easily deceived, and we are entrusted with teaching other women (Titus 2), we would be the blind leading the blind.

So I asked my husband about this, explaining the problems, and he said "where does it say women are easily deceived?" He explained that Eve was in the transgression through deception, and because of it, men are in the lead. The lightbulb came on: the two reasons are not Creation and deception, but rather Creation and the result of the Fall.

Thanks to his answer, I see that it's not about women being deceived; it's about women being submissive per Genesis 3:16. Regardless of whether all women are deceived or not, we are still under the leadership of our husbands. This does not in any way take away our autonomy or ability to discern truth. In other words, a woman can be under a pastor's teaching and not have to believe everything he believes, and she doesn't have to believe everything her husband believes. She could actually be less deceived than her pastor and her husband (keeping in mind that not all men agree with each other), but that doesn't mean that she should take the lead. In her personal life, she can follow Jesus.

To go further with my husband's explanation, and to answer why it would even mention deception at all, it's because some people may say, "she shouldn't be accountable, because she was innocent; she couldn't help it that she was deceived." She wasn't innocent. Ignorance is not innocence.

There are deceived Hindus, Muslims, and atheists, and they are accountable. They have a choice to seek God for answers. In the same way, Eve should have sought God. She was not helplessly lost in deception to the point that she had to sin; she could have prayed. God would have given her wisdom (James 1:5).

By thinking we cannot know the same truths as men, it opens the door to women being more gullible and less discerning. We would be “tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14).

It also creates unnecessary inferiority, being dismissed when we study the Bible in the same ways that men study. I frequently come to the same conclusions as men. Often as I listen to preachers (men), I find that they think the same things I’ve been thinking.

To believe in roles makes sense, but it’s not necessary to believe that women’s beliefs are more dangerous, thus making them more dangerous teachers. If it is true that  men are not easily deceived, they would not be swayed by a deceived woman’s teaching. Within that paradigm, the only people that would be deceived are other women, but we are already teaching other women anyway, based on Titus 2.

It is an either/or fallacy to think of spiritual inferiority as the reason for women not teaching, and to think that letting go of that belief means that we must believe in women preaching.

We can still be complementarian without believing that women are more easily deceived. The idea of women’s spiritual inferiority is not essential in order to believe in men’s leadership. Rather, we can simply believe in roles.

Men and women both have access to God–and both can be deceived

Women have access to God, in the same way that men do. Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection, chosen by God.

As part of two ministries that are focused on evangelism, I see men and women equally having questions in their relationship with God. One time a man called, complaining that God was not giving him salvation in answer to prayer. I think we were discussing Romans 10:13, and he answered that God was saving those who were not seeking Him, while He was rejecting those who were seeking Him. I pointed out that the second half of his statement was not true (because of Romans 10:21) but he answered, “Well, Honey, I don’t see it that way.”

It is worth mentioning the story of Lucy Harris who hid 116 pages of Joseph Smith’s manuscript, knowing it was false. She was not deceived.

Sometimes women leave Christianity-- and regardless of our doctrinal views on whether they were saved in the first place, the principle is that men and women can both be deceived. I heard of a woman who left Christianity and became involved in Buddhism. Her husband wondered if he should use his spiritual authority over her.

The problem is that for every woman who departs from Christianity, there seems to be another man departing as well. Sometimes men think they are saved, and end up turning to other religions or atheism. Most atheists are men (68%). Bart Ehrman became an agnostic, while his wife did not.

So considering these reasons, the idea of depending on men for spiritual beliefs is a faulty foundation. If a woman marries a man who is a professing Christian, but then he wants to become a Mormon, is she meant to follow him?

Yet we see in the Bible that women had their own relationship with God.

Spiritual leadership

I do believe that men are meant to lead spiritually. In my own life, I frequently tell my husband about problems I’m dealing with, not simply to be heard, but also for answers. One example is when I struggle to see the positive in situations, and ask for his counsel. To me, finding solutions to problems from a Biblical perspective is the best part of a husband’s leadership.

Ephesians 5:26 speaks of Jesus cleansing the church by “washing of water by the Word.”

It may possibly mean rebuke, as the patriarchal website says, but it may not mean that. Colossians 3:16 shows another way: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

This happens to be only two verses before instructions for marriage.

That is very much like John 15:3: “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” That ties in perfectly with “washing of water by the Word.” We are clean by the words that Jesus spoke.

In the same way, a husband can lead his wife through speaking truth, especially in the times when she most needs guidance and support.

Humility

In John 9, Jesus healed a blind man. The blind man testified to the Pharisees. Then the conversation turned to spiritual blindness:

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Jesus was not making people physically blind, but He was giving spiritual blindness to those who were proud, as we also see in the second half of John 12. Their problem was that they claimed “We see.”

Revelation 3:17-18 is similar. The nominal church-goers were claiming to be rich, while Jesus saw them as poor, and to get their sight from Him. To be poor in spirit is to acknowledge that we are not wise, and to be completely dependent on Jesus.

What did Eve do wrong? She didn’t wait on God's timing for the knowledge of good and evil, and she didn't go to Him  for wisdom for what to do in her moment of temptation. As her Creator, the one who gave her life, He was trustworthy,  yet she relied on her own wisdom instead.

That is a warning for men and women alike.

Proverbs 3:7 and Romans 12:16 warn against being wise in our own eyes.

In the book of Proverbs, the "simple" is the one who blindly follows others, the "fool" is the one who follows his own wisdom, and the "wise" is the one who humbly seeks wisdom from God.

If we believe we are more deceived than others, there is the danger of becoming blind followers. On the other hand, if we believe we are less deceived than others, there is the danger of pride, with the result of God making us blind.

Maybe there is some truth to the concept of women being more vulnerable, but it is not a helpless state. To be childlike toward God is an advantage, as long as we are not blind followers of other people.

There is a saying that children believe whatever they are told. However, it does not mean they are hopeless. From a young age, children can begin the habit of praying "is this true?" They can learn not to lean on their own understanding but to seek Him. I heard a story of a young boy in a Muslim family who felt Islam was wrong. Even a child is not far from the truth and can learn to seek God.  

As women, maybe we are vulnerable, or maybe not. If it is true, we are not hopeless. We still have a moral choice and the same potential to seek Jesus. All of us, men and women alike, should come to Jesus humbly, acknowledging that we know nothing by ourselves. We have to depend on Him for discernment and knowledge.

Chapter 7

Feminism

In order to get an answer straight from the horse’s mouth, I looked up the definition of feminism. An article on Huffington Post called “What Is Feminism?” by Hannah McAtamney says that feminism is “not the belief that one gender should be raised in power above another" but "a movement towards equal society."

So in the mind of feminists, they want equality, and it is a movement. That is why I consider it hyper-egalitarianism.

Looking beyond the fault to see the need

To be clear, I am not even a first-wave feminist; I don’t believe women should have fought for the freedom to vote. To “fight for rights” is not always a holy cause.  When it comes to issues of obeying God rather than man, that is a time to take a stand, but a right to vote isn’t something to fight for. Homeschool is worth fighting for, because we have to protect our children, not only from immorality in education, but also the immorality of their peers, before they are fully prepared to handle temptation. Fighting for women’s rights is not in the same category; it’s more like Luke 12:13-- “speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me” (and Jesus did not participate).

However, my crisis gave me some insight into feminists; they are feeling hurt. Some have been treated as inferior.

Men who are extreme in their views, further provoke this reaction. Both extremes are caught in a cycle, while balanced complementarians have the perfect solution: men love without controlling, and women love without fighting.

There is much bitterness in feminism. Allie Beth Stuckey shared a clip from a Taylor Swift / Cynthia Nixon video on feminism, which was a long list of phrases that women hear about the way we should be. It was purely bitterness. While it seems to be a reaction to some teachings that portray women as threats to men's purity, it offers no real solutions. There are meek, non-bitter ways to solve the problem.

It's very much like critical race theory. The motivation for feminism and CRT is a pushback against extremes. While their conclusions are wrong and they often misjudge those of us who are not extreme, it helps to realize that they are hurting.

My experience

From my own experience, it was not rebellion that led me to question submission during my crisis. As a teen, someone teased me (in a friendly way), saying “If your parents told you to jump off the bridge, would you do it?” It was in context of me being too obedient. And I went into marriage with the belief that my husband would be my authority. For the first 7 years, I was blissfully ignorant of extreme interpretations. Then on the night when I found that website, I was shaken. My emotional mind separated from my rational mind, and all of a sudden I understood feminists and egalitarians. I was among the women who were least likely to be swayed. The good thing is, I made a choice to follow my rational mind.

Looking back at our wedding video, there was a part that stood out– my youth pastor said, “Don't let culture sway you from your roles.” That much was easy; modern culture has nothing to offer, because I love following Jesus and doing things that I know will impact eternity. I was a stay at home mother to the fullest extent, not even driving. The only thing that shook me was the extreme position of some men who believe that God wants them to be controlling.

Love without compromise

Why are so many women Democrats? I looked for answers and this is what I found:

The first 3 can be solved in some way without compromise.

About #4, we cannot sway.  For those of us who are don't approve  babies' lives being taken, the issue has nothing to do with women's health care. Pro-abortionists think it is only about women, because many of them don't believe that their babies are real babies. The ones who concede that fetuses are babies, still think women's rights are more important than babies' lives. Either way, they see it as being about women's freedom.

While we cannot support sin, we can show love to the feminists who are hurt by men or struggling financially.

A light to the lost

There are non-Christians correcting men who are domineering. Terry Real, who follows Buddhism, is a man who teaches men not to dominate over their wives. He spoke of the Bible in a disparaging way, at least disagreeing with the way that some men interpret it. It is a shame that some (however few) Christian men have given him this impression.

In order to win the women of our day, we need to show God’s love, that He does not want them oppressed but free. We should be careful to present the Bible in ways that attract rather than repel. We have to show that submission is not about being controlled; it is a form of loving our husbands.

Chapter 8

Man-Centered Polygamy

An important difference

Polygamy in general does not perfectly reflect Jesus and the Church, and it is an unnatural relationship that creates tension. That is made far worse when a man marries more wives, to the devastation of his first wife. If a man marries multiple women in one wedding, that is unnatural, but it is small in comparison to a man marrying a woman who expects monogamy, only to marry more women against her consent.

Women have a hard enough time when their husbands have an affair with other women, or when their husbands divorce them in favor of other women; and for a woman to end up in a polygamous marriage without her consent is a worse sin against her than the other two scenarios.

Polygamy arguments

Most pro-polygamy arguments are weak, so I'll share only the strongest ones.

  1. “God has two wives”

That argument is based on Jeremiah 3, about God being married to Israel and Judah. At that time in history, Israel and Judah were divided, but that was only a temporary result of sin, although they were in fact meant to be one kingdom. We know from Romans 9-11 and Revelation 7 that Israel is one nation in God's eyes. In an allegory, one wife can split into two wives and then re-metamorphosize into one, but this doesn't happen practically. The fact is there is one nation of Israel.

I realize it sounds like appealing to the allegorical when we don't like something; but in this case there is a very good reason. In Malachi 2:11, Judah is a male marrying the daughter of a strange god. If we take both passages as rigidly literal, Judah is both a sister/wife (Jeremiah 3) and a male marrying a heathen woman (Malachi 2). Seeing it so rigidly would create contradictions. So based on what we know from the overall picture of Israel as God's people, it makes more sense to interpret Jeremiah 3 as allegorical rather than use it to approve polygamy .

Are Israel and the Church two wives? We know from Romans 11 that Gentiles are grafted in– not a separate tree. Paul said a believer is a Jew in heart, and his uncircumcision is counted as circumcision (Romans 2:26-29). Paul also said Abraham was the father of all believers (Galatians 3). Ephesians 2:11-20 explicitly describes our unity with Israel, to the point it gets redundant. So, there is only one Bride of Christ.

  1. “God gave David multiple wives”

2 Samuel 12:8 was possibly the biggest reason for my crisis. What I’ve come to believe is that God saw that those particular women were going to be okay, coupled with the fact that He was not too strict and wanted to bless David. It’s not an excuse for men whose wives would be traumatized.

I realize there are different interpretations like the views of Hank Hanegraaff and Kerrigan Skelly, who believe that God did not want David to have multiple wives. I would be elated if one of those views is true, but it seems like a little bit of a stretch, and so I simply believe that David’s wives in particular were not traumatized, while many other women would be.

  1. “It’s not sin, because Jehoiada had two wives and was perfect.”

For one, it doesn’t mean that he literally never sinned, and although polygamy was allowed, women tended to expect polygamy, and may not have gone through the same trauma that it would cause for a woman who expected monogamy.

My objection to an objection to an objection

1 Timothy 3 says that a pastor must be the “husband of one wife.” Most of us understand that it provides a good example of monogamy for the congregation.

 

The patriarchal website countered this objection by saying that it refers to pastors who have never been divorced and remarried, but “even if” it does mean monogamy, the priests in the Old Testament were held to higher standards like not marrying widows.

"Even if"-- is that a psychological technique for persuasion? In other words, slim chance. I don't see what is so convincing that would reduce monogamy to a small chance. The plain meaning that comes to our minds is monogamy, and it's only a secondary position when people debate over remarried pastors.

Are pastors held to a higher standard, while other men can freely marry multiple wives? While I agree that this passage only limits pastors and isn’t an absolute restriction, all married men should be committed to their first wives; they will give account for loving their wives as themselves, sacrificially.

Traditional Vows

“Forsaking all others” is included in the traditional American vows.

At our wedding, my husband and I wrote our own vows, but my pastor also had us say traditional vows in addition to our own. So my husband did agree to it, and he is stuck with only me (but no, he is content anyway).

So if you are having fears or if your husband is actually considering polygamy, your marriage is intact as long as he and you said those vows. If you didn't, have a vow renewal with traditional vows.

If you are unmarried, make sure your future husband agrees to say "forsaking all others."

God’s Providence?

I made a mistake of commenting on a Youtube video on the topic of polygamy. Although my comment was in agreement with the person who made the video (Allen Parr), people in the comments were not so agreeable. I will admit that my reasoning wasn’t perfect about “permissive will” and I’ve since changed my view slightly (which I will conclude with).

My comment:

"The verse about God giving David more wives sounds more like His permissive will than perfect will. In other words, He didn't have to steal and kill for it. But it's still not ideal, and I believe God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman."

So, I got a trail of argumentative replies on that comment. For some reason, people in Youtube comments think it’s a free-for-all to get in arguments. Well, one comment was sillier than mine:

"It was in God's perfect will unless you are saying that it wasn't God's perfect will for Christ to come through Solomon's lineage because if David had married Bathsheba there would be no Solomon thus no Christ and also how come God choose to birth the nation of Israel from 4 mothers if it wasn't his perfect will then all 12 tribes would have came from Jacob's first wife."

This is a place where I want to call out a fallacy in a man’s logic (read: a man, not men, because I know there are plenty of logical men, but this particular one was not). It was the fallacy of faulty premises. We can’t move to point B until we have proven A. He made two here and one in a later comment.

My reply was “There is a lot that could be said, but (1) I don’t want to argue because of 1 Timothy 2:24, and (2) this topic is traumatizing to me.”

It may have been an exaggeration to say “trauma,” but seeing a pro-polygamy comment can easily set me into a downward spiral, unlike any other topic.

So, what is “a lot that could be said”? In Leviticus 18:18, God commanded the Israelites not to marry a sister who would be a rival to the first wife. The principle in the verse? God doesn’t want rivalry. So even though Jacob’s marriage was before the giving of the Law, we can assume it was not His ideal plan based on Leviticus 18:18.

What is wrong with all 12 children coming from the first wife, whether Leah or Rachel?

Why did he think Solmon could only come into existence through David and Bathsheba? In the Bible, lineage was based on the father, as we see in the genealogies (with the exception of Mary, but she was at the end of a list of men). In the Bible, a man begot children “by” a wife, so it wouldn’t be necessary for a specific wife to give birth to Solomon.

 

A year later, this crusader for polygamy came back with a similar comment that God ordained the marriage between David and Bathsheba. I  replied the same way as at first, and finally deleted my own comment with all the replies attached.

On the day I saw his comment, I noticed one where someone made a comment packed with swear words, apparently referencing my comment, and I have never been so happy to be sworn at. His profane comment actually saved my day so that I didn’t fall into a downward spiral. Not because of rejoicing when we are persecuted, but because I appreciated him taking a stand. The filtered version is that God doesn’t tolerate sin, and David was sinning. The crusader and the mouthy man had something in common; they both said God doesn’t have a permissive will, yet they came to different conclusions.

My own comment was actually not about David and Bathsheba, but about polygamy in general; it is not ideal. Since that time, I’ve come to agree that “permissive will” may not be a good term to use because it is confusing (implying that God can approve and disapprove at the same time), but there is a basic concept of God allowing choices outside of His will. Jeremiah 19:5 shows that God does not ordain everything that happens in the world; He tells people not to abuse, but they do anyway (along with every other sin). Also, 1 Corinthians 10:23 shows that there are lawful things that are not beneficial.

Hardship for everyone involved

Someone asked if the reason for polygamy being unwise is that women act in sinful ways when they are jealous. My answer is, No, they are provoked because it is naturally hard, since it is against the design of God’s original creation of Adam and Eve.

Jacob and all four of his wives were, in their own ways, victims of Laban’s deceit. In the Old Testament, it seems that women were used to polygamy, and they went into marriage expecting it. Still, it was hard because it was unnatural.

Jacob was not innocent because of his treatment toward Leah, but his own experience in marriage was difficult. His marriage was not totally patriarchal, because he bore the brunt of competition as Leah and Rachel fought using maids and mandrakes.

Leah suffered rejection. She had probably agreed to her father’s idea out of obedience. In my naivety, I wondered why she went to the wedding, or at least why she didn’t say, “I have to tell you something- I’m Leah.” The very next day after thinking about this, I heard the story of Alyssa Wakefield, who agreed to arranged marriage only out of obedience to her father, and found herself in an abusive marriage. Leah’s case was different, but still, she suffered.

Rachel suffered as she too had an experience with inferiority, and God answered her prayers after some time.

The handmaids, because of their commitment or because of their need to survive, didn’t run away when asked to marry Jacob. Not much is said about their experience, but it must have been difficult.

God’s compassion

 

When Leah was suffering in polygamy, God heard her.

When Rachel was suffering in polygamy, God heard her.

Later on, when Hannah was suffering in polygamy, God heard her.

If God cared for the pain of women who expected polygamy, how much more would He care for the pain of women who have gone into marriage expecting monogamy?

Men loving their wives

Men are called to love their wives as themselves. It’s not too much for a woman to ask her husband to be as faithful to her as she is to him.

Although I dislike drama and I’m trying to be as non-emotional as possible about this, it’s worth pointing out the calloused attitude that some men have toward their wives. They seem to think, “I provide for my wife, and that proves I love her enough. Therefore, I can have assurance that my job is accomplished and it’s okay for me to marry more wives even though she says she is devastated. She can handle it, because having multiple wives is like having multiple children. It’s her place in life and she should accept it. There is no such thing as adultery for a married man with a single woman, so faithfulness doesn’t apply to me. She should get over it.” The insensitivity is too much.

If a woman marries another husband, they would say it's a sin against her first husband, but if a man marries another wife, it's not a sin against his first wife. They think a man has a right to feel hurt, but a woman doesn't have a right to feel hurt. They think she is designed to be happy in polygyny. That is all pure opinion.

Cindy Benson, in A Struggle for Peace, tells the story of her life as a Mormon, before she converted to real Christianity. She tells the story of her mother, who was devastated when her father married another wife. Her mother fell into severe depression and her life was ruined.  

Personally, if I had the kind of husband who married another wife, I would fall into a state of depression like Cindy Benson's mother. I'd rather be "put away" as in Mark 10:11 than be stuck in such a living situation. By being divorced, a woman would at least be free to move on.

Percy Gutteridge wisely pointed out the reason polygamy is illegal in America: to protect women. If liberal polygamy is ever made legal, many men would take advantage of it, and their wives would suffer.

I think men who promote polygamy are doing a few things:

  1. They are assuming different kinds of polygamy are in the same category- when the first wife is consenting, and when she is not.
  2. They are totally dismissing women’s devastation.
  3. They are feeling that they “can” do it and they act in selfishness.

A wife is not a daughter

Since the patriarchal website made a point of multiple wives being like multiple children, I might as well explain that a wife is not a daughter.

Family structure - In the Garden of Eden, there was one man and one woman, and they had children. Perfect arrangement. No need to mar the picture by adding more wives and multiple families of children. God let the first generation from two parents multiply and have their own families. There is something about having one closed relationship (marriage) as a crown above all other human relationships.

A second wife is not a second child - Having a child is bringing a new person into the world, while marrying a wife is not bringing her into the world. One of the reasons that I’ve had children is because I love the thought of them having eternal life with God forever, assuming they will be saved. That is not the case with a man marrying another wife.

Divided affection - Married couples are meant to have a different kind of affection for each other that is different from our relationship with our children. A child can look forward to being married; she is not married to her parents.

Unnecessary reasons for polygamy

Marrying to have more children - If a man really wants more children, he can adopt. Children are abandoned on the streets in some countries, and they need someone to care for them. And for having children by birth, God does not rush us to multiply the world. He told Adam and Eve to multiply, which I think was more of a blessing than a mandate, and there was no need for more wives to hurry the process.

Sibling relationships - Relationships between siblings are natural, and fit under the headship of parents. It is totally different for two or more wives, because they have no real relationship with each other; their only relationship to each other is one of rivalry centered on the man.

Wanting to give - Sponsor orphans in Cambodia or some other third-world country. We need more people caring for street children and putting them in Christian homes (one of my tireless passions in life). You don't have to marry people in order to provide for them. And to help a specific woman in need, just give her money.

Raising up seed for a brother - In my pre-crisis days, I knew about the responsibility of a man to marry his deceased brother’s wife. I assumed automatically that it meant the nearest single relative, because  to me marriage is monogamous by default, and a married man marrying his brother’s widow didn’t occur to me any more than I would expect two objects to be in the same physical space. It makes more sense to marry the nearest single relative.

In the story of Ruth, there were two candidates to marry her. One was Boaz, and the other was a nearer kinsman. The nearer kinsman didn’t want to mar his inheritance - that is a vague and curious thing to say, but I assume he means that he wants to get married and have his own name passed on. Well, if he already had a wife, he would have children in his own name, and having another wife wouldn’t change that, because they would be two separate family names. So, I think he automatically assumed monogamy as much as I did. When I looked at a Jewish commentary on the story of Ruth, it said Boaz had been widowed, and it so happened to be on the day Ruth entered the land of Israel. God’s providence! He knew it was better for the first wife to pass away, than for the two women to suffer with an unnatural arrangement.

Male adultery

Although the Old Testament makes no mention of a man’s marital status related to adultery (no case of a married man with a single woman), Jesus made it clear in Mark 10:11 that adultery applies to men as well. Notice that He said “adultery,” not simply divorce alone. Also, the adultery is “against her.”

In the first chapter, I explained how I was led to an answer for Deuteronomy 22:22, as well as modern-day examples of God convicting married man of their sins against their wives. An affair can be an enmorous hardship for a wife; polygamy would be worse.

Principles for Monogamy

From the beginning, God created marriage between one man and one woman. It also ruins the perfect picture of Jesus and His Bride. Practicing polygamy is an assumption with terrible risk, as it is traumatic for women. A husband should love his wife as himself by truly caring for her through faithfulness.

Conclusion:

Jesus and the Church

Marriage is not only a social issue, involving fallible men, but is ultimately about Jesus’ love for the Church.

Leadership of love

Jesus modeled perfect love-leadership in John 15:10-14. He called us friends rather than servants; and yet He wants us to obey. Yet even in His commands, we see that He is not selfish but focused on us being loving toward others.

We are the Body of Christ

Although there are many of us in the Bride, it is still monogamy. There are many men who are believers, yet all are united as one female Bride. We as a whole are the Body of Christ. Our unity is not simply a vague concept but functional, as we each have gifts for edification.

We are called “one bread and one body” (1 Corinthians 10:17)  

“For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Corinthians 12:14)

“We being many are one body” (Romans 12:5)

“There is one body” and we edify each other until “we all come in the unity of the faith.” (Ephesians 4:4,16)

The only eternal marriage

The only marriage that will last forever is our eternal relationship with Jesus. He sees us as one Bride, and we can be sure that He loves us as Himself. In our earthly marriages, we must strive to reflect His love.

Appendix : Preparing for Marriage

Before getting married, it is essential to make sure you and your future spouse are agreed on the topic of submission in marriage. This is one part of a pre-marriage questionnaire I wrote, in a section for gender roles.

What is your view of passages like Ephesians 5:22-33? (check any that you agree with)

-A wife should obey and submit to her husband unless it would be sin.

-A wife is a helper but doesn’t have to submit if her husband is controlling.

-A wife is her husband’s cheerleader and helper.

-Other

From your perspective, how much authority does God intend for a husband to have?

- Parental authority

- Some authority

- No authority; only leadership

- No authority or leadership

How does a husband’s leadership apply to his wife’s lifestyle?

- God intends for men to have authority over their wives’ health, use of time, and other areas of her life.

- He intends for wives to freely follow their husbands’ advice, but men are not intended to command their wives.

- A wife should be independent and make her own decisions.

- Other:

What is your opinion of decision-making?

-A husband has all authority in the relationship, including decisions about his wife’s health and lifestyle.

-A wife makes decisions about her personal life, but if it’s about the family (children’s schooling or where to live), they discuss it together and the husband makes the final decision.

-A husband and wife mutually submit and come to compromises when possible, and delay decisions at other times.

-Other

What is your opinion of handling chores? (check any that you agree with)

- It’s a wife’s job to take care of the house if she is physically able, and the husband should make sure she gets everything done.

- It’s a wife’s job to take care of the house if she is physically able, but the husband doesn’t enforce it.

- Both spouses should be willing to do what needs to be done, without telling the other what to do.

What do you think about a wife’s access to finances? (Answer based on your perception of marriage, not a compromise you feel uneasy about.)

- She can have her own bank account.

- She can have equal access to a shared bank account if she is working.

- She can have equal access even if she is not working.

- She can have equal access even if she is spending beyond their means.

- It’s the husband’s role to manage finances, and a wife doesn’t need equal access. She can either have an allowance or go to him for her needs.

Women: Do you want/expect to have a job once you’re married?

- Yes, I want to work until retirement.

- Yes, I want to work until we have children.

- Yes, but I might change my mind.

- No, because I want to stay at home.

- Other thoughts:

Men: Do you expect your fiancée to have a job once you’re married?*

- Yes, I want her to work until retirement.

- Yes, I want her to work until we have children.

- Yes, because she wants to work; but I would support her if she doesn’t.

- No, because she wants to stay at home, but I’m okay with her working.

- No, I prefer her to stay at home when we have children.

- Only if she can work at home and include the children.

*Answer from your own preferences even if you’re already agreed. Would it be different if she changes her mind?

Is it important for a husband to ask/inform his wife about big decisions? (check all that you agree with)

- Not if it involves his personal life; only the family or finances.

- He can tell her, but it's still his decision.

- He listens to her advice.

- He does more than listen to advice but works through it with her.