Suppose a Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) arrive at disagreements as to how exactly to move a corporation forward. While not yet known at timing of the disagreements, the CFO’s ideas are better than the CEO’s. Given the CEO outranks the CFO with respect to charting of the company’s path, the CEO’s ideas are adopted.
If we run the scenario I describe above across a hundred firms, in presence of disagreements between a CFO and a CEO, the CEO wins out every time. Why? By every company’s charter, the CEO has final authority over strategy decisions, is first to receive praise for successes, first to receive blame for failures.
Now suppose the CFO to be a woman, the CEO, a man. Does the CEO have his way because he is a man, or does he have his way by virtue of rights conferred by a company’s charter? Can a female CFO accuse a male CEO of chauvinism merely because in presence of disagreements, he devolves to his own ideas, exercises his decision making rights?
But then again, what if the CFO is a man, the CEO, a woman. Can the CFO demand submission from the CEO because he is a man, she a woman? Can he demand waiving of the company charter on the assertion men are more likely than women to be CEOs?
Companies appoint CEOs for order, for ensuring there exists a person who has final authority over company strategy, a person who is first to be praised for successes, first to be blamed for failures.
In Christian Scriptures, a wife is asked to acquiesce (submit) to her husband whenever her husband’s ideas are godly, but there exists disagreements as to how exactly to move their family forward. In an age within which culturally, men and women equally are decision makers within marriages, within homes, this is essence of Christian notion of submissiveness from wives to husbands.
Why does the Christian notion of submission make sense? Why is this notion of submission rational?
If in presence of disagreements, husbands and wives jostle for the upper hand, there always is constant jostling for assumption of power positions within marriages. Some women are known for attempts at sabotaging of husbands’ careers, this because they wanted their husbands to experience what it means to be at home with their kids. They felt they had stayed home with their kids, being homemakers only because their husbands had the upper hand in the marriage — only because husbands had more successful careers, greater earning power.
But Christian marriage is not about dominance of one over another. Christian marriage is about men loving their wives, and wives, regardless of mans’ frailties, respecting their husbands.
Why respect from women, as opposed to love?
So long as a woman respects her husband, she will do him good, not evil — essence of her creation. If men did not have any frailties, God would not have deemed necessary creation of another being — woman — who could complete them. In a world within which women no longer culturally are domiciled at home, can vote, are integral parts of society, by loving them, men also help complete their wives.
In presence of constant jostling for power positions between husbands and wives, marriages never settle down into any sort of peaceful coexistence.
In the designation of the man as CEO, the Christian God has initiated, ever before creation of the first publicly listed firm, exactly the mechanism that ensures corporations do not devolve into chaos, which is, exact identification of the person to whom in presence of disagreements, acquiesce is directed. Just as the CEO designation ensures there always is order within a corporation, so also designation of the man as CEO of the family ensures a man does not have to assert himself for assumption of leadership, ensures a woman does not attempt to snatch leadership position from her husband.
Since the man receives praise for family successes, and blame for family failings, in presence of constant acquiesce to her husband, over time the family arrives at fair estimates of the value of each of the man’s and woman’s ideas. If in presence of disagreements, outcomes constantly prove a wife to be more right than her husband, her husband learns to respect her advice. If it is the husband who constantly is proved more right, his wife learns to respect his judgment. If they each are as right as they are wrong, they learn to listen to merits of each others’ ideas, couple from each other’s ideas for arrival at better aggregated ideas, arrive at more successes than failings. In the constant acquiesce of a woman to her husband, and this in presence of disagreements, there eventually is arrival at harmony in decision making, harmony that renders the family stronger, more successful, more inclusive, more cohesive.
If men and women would take time to ponder the Christian notion of submission in context of marriage, they would realize order put in place is thoughtfulness of a loving God who desires husbands and wives coexist in peace and harmony, who desires families improve on their capacity for arrival at right decisions. Right decisions that foster family successes.
Sub-optimally high competition for resources within capitalist economies such as that of the United States is outcome of husbands and wives, men and women constantly competing against each other for same resources.
If you ever have had current cultural interpretation of Christian submission in context of marriage explained in a manner contrary to exposition put forward in this post, you were grossly misled.
But you may have been misled out of ignorance of true meaning of submission, not out of any attempt at putting you off the truth, this so you lack knowledge for arrival at a stronger more cohesive marriage, so you become emotionally dependent, get divorced, end up depressed, render your children societal statistics.
But then again, yourself excepted, who’s aware of and counting all of the costs?