| This post is a response (finally) to the comments on and questions about my last post, so you might want to read those first if you haven’t already. Or if you aren’t the person that wrote them in the first place. 
Alright, first I’ll tackle brorjace1’s question, a point on which d.a. also asked for clarification. The pursuit of the woman by the man and his subsequent leadership and her submission to him is all part of God’s natural order, as I said. Domination, however, is a corruption of this natural order, a distortion of it, which is the way evil works - by creating a lie close enough to the truth to deceive. The difference is choice. As soon as choice disappears, it is wrong. Look at how God demonstrates this: He set forth this natural order based on Himself and models, as I said, the role of servant leadership. We can choose to follow Him and submit to His will, but at any point, we can change our minds. We always have that freedom; He never puts chains on us. The greatest and truest love is one that allows freedom and choice, and it is this love that returns the greatest joy. The fact that the wife chooses to submit to her husband makes that submission all the sweeter to him as a leader; conversely, following the lead of her husband of her own volition can be intoxicatingly pleasurable for the wife. Think of it this way: how much would you enjoy receiving a present from someone if you somehow had coerced them into giving it to you? How much could you enjoy it? The gift itself would likely still be the same, but everything surrounding it would be lacking or at least diminished: love, joy of the giver at the act of giving, etc. The recipient suffers, though he may not recognize it, as does the giver. However, when the gift is not simply taken but is given freely, the joy on both sides is increased, and the love between them is also strengthened. Now, I want to point out again that the submission is a constant choice; it is not a point in time, soon left behind and unable to be changed should she wish to do so, but a line, continuous, ever present, its direction alterable at any moment.
Allow me to focus for a moment on the concept of freedom. If you think about it, freedom is associated with good. People want freedom. They fight for it; no one fights to be enslaved. Freedom is also associated with God Himself. In both physical and spiritual senses, He sets people free: Paul and Silas from jail (Acts 16:25-26); the Israelites from their Egyptian captors; numerous individuals from demons or diseases. Bondage, therefore, is not a part of His nature. And if it is not a part of His nature, and if He is good and all good things come from Him, then bondage is necessarily evil. Now let me take a moment here to say that I realize I make assumptions of belief in God (and sometimes the Bible) throughout my arguments, but that is what everything is based on. I recognize and accept that if someone does not believe in God, my arguments will mean nothing to them, can mean nothing to them, for in their eyes the basis for my entire argument is missing and thus everything built on that topples. I also wish to reiterate that I am applying these standards to all levels of the relationship, not only the sexual level (though that seems to be the one most focused on). Thus, you can compare the domination of the wife by her husband sexually to, say, him forcing her to quit her job, whether by intimidation or abuse or some other method of force. The common quality is a lack of choice imposed by a use of force. It doesn’t matter whether he is right that she should quit her job; it may be truly the best thing. But what matters is the way he goes about it; again, as soon as free choice disappears, by whatever method in whatever situation, domination is occurring, and it is inevitably wrong.
Though I do not pretend to know God’s thoughts and motives, I can see at least one perfectly good reason for freedom of choice to be a part of His natural order: protection of the woman. In our relationship with God, we would not need to worry about being protected from choices He made for us if a dominating situation existed, for He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect. Man, however, has not these advantages. Thus, God models for us the servant leader who is strong but nevertheless allows his followers to choose for themselves, for that is the only viable structure to be used among imperfect mankind. For her own safety, in extreme and dangerous situations, the woman must have a way out, and that is her freedom to choose. For I am certainly not suggesting that it would be wrong for a woman to go against an abusive (in any sense) husband; in a situation such as that, God’s order in the relationship has already been broken down, and self-preservation certainly takes precedence. What about domination in a “healthy” relationship, you may ask? I cannot answer that question, for according to God’s order, they cannot coexist. I am sure that real-life examples could be presented to the contrary. My response to such evidence is that the detrimental effects may not be immediately apparent, but they are present and are building up, and though it may take time, they will ultimately be felt even if their source is never recognized.
As for the point about natural versus unnatural societies: I agree that God did not reach down His hand and create societies, in the United States or otherwise. Following that thought, then, leads me to assert that, by your own definition, all societies are “unnatural” because they are all man-made. If this is the case, then the point becomes moot. However, if the definitions instead are that “natural” implies aligning with God’s natural order and “unnatural” rebelling against it, then what distinguishes between the two is simply how they compare with this standard God models for us. A society would not necessarily have to be based in an Abrahamic faith to align with this order; in fact, many societies do not have a religious basis or have lost it, but this does not mean that the general social atmosphere does not still follow God’s natural order. Religion itself is, in the end, far less important than many people think.
Firstly, as far as animal relationships are concerned, the pursuit of prey is a different matter. Pursuit of one sex by the other sex is the only “pursuit” I am referring to here, and your admission that the males of animal species are often the ones “looking pretty to attract mates” actually enforces my argument, for that exact trait is one of their tools in their pursuit. Thus the natural order appears dominant even in the animal world with the males’ ritual dances, mating calls, etc., but I also do not deny that there are likely exceptions to this. Now, on the one hand, I agree that man is a unique creation; we cannot look to plants to prove a natural order between males and females in humans, for, although these two sexes exist, they interact and reproduce in a way that cannot translate to mankind. Animals are admittedly more similar yet still not on the same level as man. On the other hand, I can see how it could be confusing for me to assert that even nature is not always “natural”. Perhaps this is one of those rules that is different for mankind, just as the killing and subsequent devouring of a wounded wolf by his fellow pack members is accepted in animal behavior but abhorrent when applied to a group of humans. Or perhaps this is simply evidence that nature, as it is now, is truly unnatural in the sense of not aligning with God’s design and has been so since the Fall. Who can say how nature might have been different in the Garden of Eden, before man allowed evil its stronghold in this world? One thing we know was different: in the Garden, all animals were herbivores, according to Genesis 1:30. Obviously it is not so now; thus we find something in nature that is unnatural in the sense of functioning differently from the way God created it to function. If the Fall affected this, is it not conceivable that other aspects of nature, including the male/female relationship among animals, were distorted? Not changed, for one of God’s qualities is His constancy, but its expression in nature broken. However, since the order itself remains the same, man, created in the image of God and with a spirit and the capacity for rational thought and conscious choice, bears the responsibility and burden of fixing the broken nature in himself and bringing it back into alignment with God’s order.
A response to your disagreement about shared desires among all men and women requires a discussion of absolutes. If you do not agree that absolutes exist, then I cannot form any sort of argument as to why you should believe that it is possible for all humans to have something in common. To believe so would be to acknowledge the existence of an absolute. However, if it can be agreed on that some things are absolute - say, that all people want to be loved - then isn’t it possible that this too could be an absolute, that all men harbor a desire to be the leader and that all women secretly want to be conquered and possessed? For the desire to be loved exists in each of us because it is what we were created by God for - fellowship and a loving relationship with Him and glorifying Him through loving relationships with others. Thus it follows that if God created men to be the leaders in the husband-wife relationship - and someone must be the leader - all men will have this inherent desire. The same would apply for the “follower” role of women. Again, there are varying degrees and expressions of these traits in people, just as the amount needed by and the method of receiving love is not exactly the same for everyone. There is even the ability to deny one’s nature. If you can accept my declaration of man’s innate desire for a loving relationship with God, then you can also see that many people deny not only the fulfillment of that impulse but its very existence, insisting that they don’t need God or that He doesn’t exist. Despite appearances, none of this, whether differences in degree or outright denial, changes that inherent desire woven into our very being.
Moving on to the “tricky part” about who is the appointed head of the household: in history, even dictators surrounded themselves with numerous advisors, recognizing (on some level) their limitations. But just because they relied on support, advice, and wisdom from others did not change their status as the leader of the nation. If absolute rulers exhibit this quality, why should it be surprising for a servant leader to do the same? Similarly, in medieval times a king would divide up land and appoint some nobleman over each fiefdom to help him in the governing of an area so vast that the king could not effectively handle it alone. Again, it was an acknowledgment of the limitations of one man’s abilities, but the king retained his position as the ultimate authority. Thus, the delegation of power indicates neither a lack of leadership nor a lack of the desire for it, for the headship is retained, but neither does it indicate weak leadership, for indeed, it requires great strength and confidence to admit one’s limitations. One could think of the husband and wife’s shared life as a kingdom, one that is too large for the husband to handle without support. Thus, some tasks, some “pieces of the kingdom”, are handed over to his wife for her to deal with. This is traditionally the lands of childcare, household duties, etc., but her “fiefdom” is certainly not automatically limited to these areas any more than the husband is obligatorily excluded from them. Based on her particular abilities and talents, there are numerous other areas for which she may be given responsibility or where her counsel may be sought. This is the partnership aspect of the relationship; leadership and submission does not necessarily preclude collaboration. They may seem mutually exclusive, just as the idea of a servant leader may seem a contradiction of terms, but that is, in fact, one of the incredible things about God: He is a combination of things that seem irreconcilable - justice and mercy, servanthood and leadership - yet they coexist in His very being and are thus proved possible.
Just for clarification, I have nothing against a girl encouraging a guy’s pursuit of her; it is when she takes matters into her own hands and denies the man his role as the pursuer that I assert that problems arise. Nor do I deny that men can and often are flattered by a woman chasing them; of course it is an ego booster. However, I maintain that, somewhere inside, they feel robbed of the thrill of the chase that they were created to enjoy. As I have stated before, there are varying degrees of these desires that I claim are inherent and also the ability to deny them, so voices to the opposition can certainly be found. And unfortunately, as no one can know the deepest truths hidden in another’s mind - indeed, it is sometimes even hidden from ourselves - I fear this matter cannot be proven to satisfaction one way or the other. Let me be quick to state that I am not accusing anyone of lying who truly feels that, based on their personal experience, they disagree with me; I hold that sometimes we do not even recognize the truth about ourselves. A person may insist that he has no dirt on his face because he can feel none there; he may then be surprised once he looks in a mirror. He was not lying, though his statement was false, for he gave an honest assessment based on the information he had. Once more information was given, i.e., seeing in the mirror, the truth was revealed.
Well, that's it. And I'm sure it's going to unsettle a lot of people. Guess I just feel the need to live up to that first post and to rise to the occasion of such worthy and thought-provoking comments. Thanks, guys. |
