If the deeper intention of 1 Peter 3:1-7 and Ephesians 5:21-33 is to call Christians to follow Jesus within the institutional expectations of their time, the challenge to the contemporary church is to follow Jesus not by transferring ancient views of authority to our own time but by recognizing that those who follow Jesus reject the pursuit of power and the will to dominate. Thus in submitting to their husbands, Christian wives continue to walk in the steps of the crucified one. However, since the call for submission is rooted in the story of the Cross, the Christian husband is also called in the modern situation to share with his wife in reciprocal submission. (See Ephesians 5:21)
What seems so obvious to me after forty-eight years of marriage is that men and women as Jesus’ disciples are called at times to lead and at times to follow their spouse as they both practice mutual submission and reciprocal living. Passive men must step up to this challenge as must passive women. Domineering women as well as domineering men must step down to this challenge, guided every step of the way by Jesus Christ who gave himself up for the church.
Because of the creational differences and the diverse spiritual gifting, both men and women will lead in different marital circumstances. Their leadership styles will be very different and this diversity will bless the marriage. All of us lead as did Jesus Christ, who sacrificed himself for us. We lead in meeting needs and in mutually sacrificing ourselves for each other. We rhythmically take turns leading each other through a day, then a week, and a year. We continually complement each other.
The question of who is in charge never comes up. Shaping all of this is the call on both husband and wife to mutually submit to each other. So every good marriage has two leaders and two followers, both mutually submitted to the one who emptied himself. Every couple I know in the church either practices what I would call “soft patriarchy” or a purely egalitarian marriage defined by mutuality. Both options call the parties to equally submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Decisions are made by the parties submitting themselves to the will of God.
My marriage to Donna is characterized by the egalitarian model. I think it reflects the will of God for us. It’s the only model I know how to do in the name of Jesus. If I actually believed Donna was subordinate and inferior to me, why would I ever give what she thinks any weight? If I am lord of the house, when does Donna make any decision, however small, without my prior approval, and why do I have to ask her opinion before making any decision, however great or small? The questions themselves are repugnant and no longer a part of my life. We are called to co-equal, divine image-bearing.
When I got married, I saw myself as C.S. Lewis saw himself when he got married. Marriage was a hierarchical relationship with me at the top of the mountain. Lewis was never accused of being a feminist, but in his book A Grief Observed, written after Joy’s death, he commented on what he learned about masculinity and femininity in an intimate marriage:
There is, hidden or flaunted, a sword between the sexes till an entire marriage reconciles them. It is arrogance in us to call frankness, fairness and chivalry “masculine” when we see them in a woman: it is arrogance in them to describe a man’s sensitiveness or tact or tenderness as “feminine.” But also what poor warped fragments of humanity most mere men must be to make the implications of that arrogance plausible. Marriage heals this. Jointly the two become fully human. In the image of God created he them. Thus by a paradox, this carnival of sexuality leads us out beyond our sexes.
Being married moved Lewis from a hierarchical model to a mutuality model. So it was for me, forty-eight years later. At the outset I had no idea how much I was starved to become fully human with Donna in a relationship of mutual equality and intimacy.