Can you call your husband ‘Lord’?
Doug Phillips, the founder of Vision Forum and a big noise in the Christian patriarchy movement, told the audience at a convention about watching his wife counsel young women who are thinking about marriage. She always asks them “Are you willing to call your husband ‘Lord’?” The answer tends to be shocked silence followed by No. He goes on:
We’re not talking about Lord as in the Creator, but your earthly head. And one that you have to follow, even when he makes bad judgments. Are you ready to do the most vulnerable thing that a woman ever can do and submit yourself to a man, who you are going to have to follow in his faith, who is incredibly imperfect and is going to make mistakes? Can you do that? Can you call your husband ‘Lord’? If the answer is no, you shouldn’t get married. [Quiverfull p 3]
Harsh, isn’t it. You have to follow him even when he’s wrong. It doesn’t matter that he’s wrong, it matters that you submit.
That’s not just harsh, it’s immoral. It’s wicked. Not just because of the arbitrariness and the official subordination of the woman, but because it mandates obedience no matter what is being obeyed. That’s anti-moral; it’s the opposite of moral. If someone tells you to gas this room full of people, it is immoral to obey.
Oh well, when they screw up (as they will), at least we can apply the Yamashita principle to the lot of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility
I used to hear crap like this from fans of Bill Gothard, back in the day (ie: early 1970s). Creeped me out then, like it even less now.
Well, if only the result was that they did indeed not get married. No such luck, I’m sure.
I guess I’m about 23 years too late to get that deal. The Spousal Unit didn’t even submit to taking my last name…
Quite seriously, I just can’t fathom treating a woman that way. Or anybody.
Yeah, I’m sure me darlin’ Mrs. will just fall right in line.
Or laugh herself breathless…
This is really scary stuff! But it’s there, if you look, and no amount of special pleading is going to wish it out of the scriptural sources. Feminist Christians have been taking a liberal line for years, but, if the Bible is the standard by which Christian beliefs are to be judged, it is quite clear that women come second. Paul tells them that they are to regard their husbands as their husbands regard Christ. And that, given the crazy submission of fundamentalist men to practically anything that is claimed to come from the Bible, no matter how mad, is very very scary. Has the United States taken leave of its sense?
Regarding:
I’m confused by the implication that this is not the same as the “most vulnerable thing” that a man can do. Is the implication supposed to be that something else is the most vulnerable thing for a man to do? Or is it just indirectly referencing the idea that men are not supposed to be vulnerable at all, at least in that specific way?
Because I’m pretty stumped when thinking of any greater display of “vulnerability” whatsoever than complete abject slavery to another human being.
I always think of marriage as a companionship between friends, with the added sexual element, or not even that necessarily. It certainly is the cause of happy marriages. A man who demands this kind of sevitude is practically telling his future wife that she will have a miserable mispent life with him.
If you wanna be a christian, thems the rules. like it or lump it.
They conveniently forget that section in the book of Matthew where Jesus says you should call no man “Master” — then again, most of them probably don’t understand that different translations are possible…
Eamon – yup – Bill Gothard is in here, along with his Institute in Basic Life Principles.
Shudder.
This. Nail. Hammer. Hit.
gave yourself a look at this website : http://modernreject.com/2011/02/christian-women-and-the-s-word/
sick brains are not out of the world and indoctrination is powerful.
Let me have a go at rephrasing that:
That’s not just harsh, it’s evil. Repeat: evil. Not just because of the arbitrariness and the official subordination of the woman, but because it mandates obedience no matter what is being obeyed. That’s evil; it’s the opposite of good. If someone tells you to gas this room full of people, it is evil to obey.
Evil.
There’s an understatement. Would ‘useful idiots’ apply in this case?
Thanks, lemur, that’s a find.
Because if we are told to submit it means we’re inferior. We dislike that. That’s why.
I’ve just been reading about the New Apostolic Reformation that you linked to Ophelia, about the dominionists and Perry’s prayer rodeo. No doubt the NAR millions mentioned hold a position about the relative postiions of women and men reflected the views of Doug Phillips and his wife. It really is scary stuff. Indeed, it raises serious questions in my mind about the stability and suvivability of democratic forms of governance in this age of hyper-religion.
My Jehovah’s Witness sister adheres to this horrifying belief. When her flawed husband makes “mistakes” she excuses them because he is trying to be better. As far as I can tell her two daughters have made other arrangements with their spousal units.
The submission contract is yet another reason many in the U.S. hope that the presidential hopes of Mrs. Marcus Bachmann go nowhere near the White House.
What the fine print in the Bible does not add: Thou as husband shalt have this power and not be corrupted by it. Thou as wife shall do this submitting and not be destroyed by it.
Mission impossible.
Ha,
I do call my husband ‘lord’. But, I do it in a ‘you’re being an officious ass and need to stop. pronto!’. It’s shorthand. “Yes, my liege” works as well.
Eric, I know; same here. I just keep desperately hoping they’re a small minority. But I already know they’re not small enough.
[…] Ophelia Benson: Doug Phillips, the founder of Vision Forum and a big noise in the Christian patriarchy movement, […]
[…] Notes and Comment Blog Tags: Equality, Submission Here’s another submitter, courtesy of pittigemaki. I like the whole idea and practice of submission. I have heard far too many Christian women […]
Something tells me you could use a little comic relief now:
LOLDoug
It’s infantile. These people want more obedience from wives – adult women – than I want from my *children*.
Dear humanity.
We have finally finished interpreting the Word of God for you.
What we say may not be very clear to you. But tou can trust us because we are Very Sophisticated Theologians. You can tell this is true because what we say may not be very clear to you.
The gyst of it is that women, non-whites, and poor people should submit completely and without question to white educated men of independent financial means.
We even have some women around that say this too, so it’s not just us. Also, we deign to have black and poor friends, so it’s not that either.
Trust us.
We thank you in advance for your coöperation.
– A group of white educated men of independent financial means
Eric @#6
Actually, me darlin’ Mrs gives me much more love and respect…
[…] a touching and illuminating example of the blessings of patriarchy. Remember Doug Phillips? We’re not talking about Lord as in the Creator, but your earthly head. And one that you have to […]
The scripture doesn’t end there. Submission is the wife’s responsibility.. While love is the husband’s responsibility. We are talking modeling Christ’s love. That is a bigger responsibility. I can imagine love meaning a husband putting his wife before himself perhaps? Afterall Christ bought our ransom with His life. Husbands are going to HV a hard time modelling christ’s love.still, ladies try our best to submit n men try their best to love, with the help of God. Both are selfless acts the way I see it.