Former child star and heart throb of the TV show Growing Pains, Kirk Cameron, has apparently morphed into a giver of marriage advice that seems to come from a different decade. The actor-turned-Christian evangelist had some of this advice this week, telling the Christian Post that women should “follow” their husbands’ leadership…. “Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead, not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband,” he opined. “When each person gets their part right, regardless of how their spouse is treating them, there is hope for real change in their marriage.”…. He added, “A lot of people don’t know that marriage comes with instructions. And, we find them right there in God’s word.”
There are as many different ways to undertake a marriage as there are people who take the vows of matrimony. No one gets to define marriage or how a couple should live within the bounds of their commitment to one another. Here in the 21st century, the general definition of marriage has broadened as society has come to recognize and accept that marriage isn’t a one-size-fits-all proposition.
Then again, there are still Neanderthals like Kirk Cameron who continue to insist that marriage must even today continue to be fit within narrow Old Testament bounds. The recognition that marriage is today held to be a legally-sanctioned union of two equals seems to have somehow escaped Cameron’s grasp. Not that I give a damn about what Kirk Cameron thinks about anything- he’s as free to broadcast his delusions as I am to mine, but the bottom line is that women aren’t property. No one- not even enlightened, self-righteous Social Conservative Christians- has the right to determine what another’s marriage must look like.
The idea that women should defer to the leadership of their husband is an insult to any rational, sentient being. Granted, I imagine there are women who enjoy letting their husbands do the heavy lifting, just as there are men who enjoy being treated as lord of the manor. If that’s the agreement they’ve reached, then good on them. It’s one thing for a couple to negotiate their own ground rules; it’s quite another for Conservative Christians to attempt to dictate what marriage must look like.
“He’s only expressing what most churches still preach on a weekly basis, what has been the common theme of Biblical marriage for thousands of years, and is still part of most wedding ceremonies today, reminding wives to, ‘submit to your husbands in every way,’” Horus Gilgamesh writes. “Did the secular world really not have any idea that this type of inequality is readily taught in scripture and practiced in Christian households around the world?”
Unfortunately for the institution of marriage, too many Christian churches are still preaching that wives should submit to their husbands. The idea that marriage should be a partnership, a union of equals, seems to pose a threat to the Conservative, male-dominated power structures in most church organizations.
This isn’t to say that the male-superior model of matrimony is invalid. It may well work for some couples, and that’s certainly their choice to make…but to preach that wives must submit to their husbands is as arrogant and presumptuous as it is insulting. Of course, “submission” can and does mean many different things, depending on who’s doing the interpretation. In the context of traditional Christian philosophy, though, “submission” has a very clear and distinct meaning. Men are the unquestioned head of the household and are charged with making the important decisions. Women are to concern themselves with managing the household and keeping hubby happy. In other words, women are to be subservient and to place the needs and happiness of their husband over their own.
Not surprisingly, this archaic definition of marriage isn’t universally well received among the distaff half of the population, especially those with knowledge of what the Bible has to say on the subject:
As a female minister who has studied the Bible at a seminary level (in a conservative evangelical university), I can tell you that there is not one scripture in the Bible that calls for husbands to lead their wives. I assume that Kirk is referring to Ephesians 5:23 because his sister, Candace Cameron Bure, has made similar unbiblical and unhealthy statements[.]
I am not sure of Kirk and Candace’s biblical academic qualifications to make such strong statements, but obviously the two have studied the ancient Greek word “head” (kephale) very little. Since these two are “celebrity” Christians, who hold great influence globally, it is imperative that they understand how to read the Bible before making remarks that could easily lead to women being treated as “less than” in their marriages, and even to domestic abuse in some cases.
The idea that women should “obey” their husbands works well for a male-dominate power structure that likes things the way they are and has no desire or incentive to make marriage more equitable. That the biblical definition of “obedience” may, in fact, be somewhat different than the partiarchy’s penchant for interpreting Scripture to their advantage is hardly surprising. That this is still happening in the 21st century should be considered disturbing and anachronistic.
Each marriage is and should be a process of negotiation, of accepting and assigning responsibilities in a manner acceptable to both parties. That’s one of the ways successful marriages thrive. To proceed from the assumption that the man is the unquestioned head of the household and that the woman should obey him hardly seems a recipe for an equitable, mutually satisfying relationship. That arrangment may work for some, but to hold it to be the gold standard for ALL marriages is as absurd as it is insulting.
I’m not one who could credibly claim standing to expound with authority on the institution of marriage. My own track record is hardly stellar, but I do know that no one has the right to define marriage in the global sense. From the outside, it seems the traditional definition of marriage has worked for Cameron, his wife, and their six children. That’s a good thing- but it’s their thing, not something that will necessarily work across the board…and certainly not something that should be preached as one-size-fits-all “correct, moral, and godly” model of marriage.
Here’s a pro tip: If you’re going to use the Bible to justify treating women as property, as “less than” and therefore required to defer to their husbands, you might want to be certain that’s what Scripture actually says. Otherwise, you’re just going to sound like a self-important, know-nothing, hyper-religious zealot.
Also, if you’re convinced your religious beliefs bestow upon you the right to preach that your model of marriage is the One, True, and ONLY correct model, you’re doing it wrong. Or did you just choose to skip the part of the Gospel about acceptance and tolerance?
