Jenna left a comment on my post
“Podwig” that really caught my attention.
I’ve been meaning to come back to it.
She said:
Love the podvig and the podwig. As
to the whole submission thing, I have been studying about the Hebrew
language/letters. (If you've not studied even the alphabet – well, aleph-beit
in Hebrew – you're so missing out!) One word for man/husband is ish – aleph, yod,
shin – which imply the strong leader of God's power. Isha, for woman or wife,
is aleph, shin, heh – the strong leader's power revealed. So I'm picturing the
CEO who is the face and responsibility of the organization and the COO who
makes it all happen.
I have never studied Hebrew, but I
do love to understand the linguistic roots of any word or idea, so I found that
really fascinating.
I was also particularly interested
because of the relationship of this model – CEO (Chief Executive Officer) and
COO (Chief Operating Officer) – to my own understanding of gender roles.
Jenna describes the
CEO/man/husband as “the face and responsibility of the organisation, and sees
the COO/woman/wife as the director of operations, the one responsible for the
daily running of operations. There’s a good article about these two roles (CEO/COO) on Wikipedia.
When my children were little, I read
as much as I could get my hands on of A.S. Neill’s writing – he who founded and
ran the free school Summerhill in 1960s England.
In his school, children were free
to be just whoever they were, and gender stereotypes were not imposed upon them
– see something of the ethos of Summerhill in this excellent article.
What strikes you immediately,
coming from the world outside and talking to the kids at Summerhill, is that
you can’t tell the boys from the girls.
This is important. It’s not just
hair styles and jeans. The girls are so
self-reliant and the boys so concerned, the girls so calmly tough and the boys
so gentle. No boy’s voice has that
conditioned flick of off-handedness that says, ‘I am male.’ They are interested voices, friendly and
lightly generous, and their bodies are not tautly aggressive but trusting. You are startled when you hear their names. You begin to wonder how early children are
warped in the world outside, dumped straight from the cradle on to one side of
the line they must never step over, separated from one another and from their
complete selves, permanently angered.
Neill once said, at a progressive school conference, listening to them
talk about how to keep the boys from the girls and pressed for his opinion,
‘Why don’t you put up barbed wire?’
On one occasion when Neill was
speaking about his pioneering work, he was asked what differences he noted
between boys and girls (I think it is in his book Summerhill School that he
describes this). I no longer have the
book in front of me to quote exactly, but I certainly remember what he said. He referred to the summer camps on which all
the children were taken each year – a chance to live out in the open under
canvas – and he said that the girls tended to stay near the tents whereas the
boys were inclined to roam further afield.
This coincides exactly with my own
personal experience of life. In our family – my parents, grandparents,
great-grandparents, aunts and uncles, in-laws – there is a tradition of strong
and capable women, working alongside their menfolk as equal partners. Take for example my great-grandmother who was
up at 4.30 to make the baked goods for the village shop she and her husband
started and ran together. She was its
book-keeper, as was my grandmother for her husband’s farm (a successful
enterprise started from one rented field of peas). Those women were a force to be reckoned
with. You could not call them the weaker
partner. This was also true of my mother
and father. She stayed at home buying
and selling property through the long boom, creating the wealth of the family,
growing fruit and vegetable and keeping hens and sheep, while he travelled
abroad and later within the UK on his own business affairs.
The difference between the men and
women was neither of strength nor ability, but of what you might call public
and private face: the man was the Foreign Secretary and the woman the Home
Secretary, to use UK parliamentary terms.
In my own marriage, the Badger and I see ourselves as adult equals. There is no such thing between us as a
‘casting vote’ or ‘final say’. Where we
are in disagreement over any issue, we talk and wait, wait and talk, until we
come to a common mind. Neither of us is
happy with something unless the other is happy with it too. But he is definitely the public face of us as
a couple. He goes first into the room,
he is the one you are more likely to know, he is the one who will make or take
the phone call.
As to matters of submission, it’s
all laid out in Ephesians 5, and my book The
Breath of Peace that I have been trying for so long to get published
is an in-depth study in fiction of this whole question.
Here’s an excerpt from The Breath of Peace, ©Penelope
Wilcock, all rights reserved. In this
passage, the abbot is in conversation with his sister.
“I’m thinking about the
fifth chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians.
The bridge from our life here in community to your life at home with
William is in the verse that tells us to humbly give way to one another – submit
to one another – in the fear of Christ. Subiecti invicem in timore Christi. Sister,
I’m sure you must realise, that doesn’t mean anything like ‘knuckle under
because you’re frightened of Christ.’ It
means that because we aspire to holiness and want to make our whole lives into
a reverential space, cultivate a reverential mind, practicing recollection, we
maintain an attitude of humility. Are
you with me?”
Madeleine understood him
perfectly, but she wondered where in the passing of time the teasing urchin she
had played with by the streams and on the moors had grown up into this. “Yes,”
she said. “Go on.”
He looked at her, his
lips parted in uncertainty. “I’m listening, Adam,” she reassured him: “you
don’t need to keep checking.”
He nodded, with a smile
at the unintentional asperity. “All
right. Then, this is where the apostle
comes to teach about husbands and wives. He takes as the model for marriage the
relationship between our Lord and the church – because we think of the church
as the Bride of Christ. Gazing on that
relationship, he sees that our Lord has suffered and died for the church,
stopped at nothing in the self-giving of his love. And he sees that the church is the community
of people who call him Lord, who give their lives in his service. So the model is of a relationship in which
neither party has held back anything; each has surrendered all they have to the
other. Each gives their whole life in
order that they might be made one. This
is a picture of absolute trust and vulnerability; Christ pinned helpless to the
cross in love of his Bride, and the church kneeling in submission to his
lordship. Do marriage like that, the
apostle says. Wives, love your husbands
like the church loves Christ, offering your very lives in submission to your menfolk. Husbands, love your wives like Christ loves
the Church, holding back nothing, suffering everything, laying down all you
have because you love her so much.
“Now then, this is a
beautiful picture, we can all see that.
As a picture it works wonderfully.
Where it all comes unstuck is when real people really try to do it. Then, without fail, the same old problem
crops up: who’s going first? Human
beings are scared of being trampled.
When it comes to actual flesh-and-blood mortal beings, not one of us
wants to put up our hand to take the risk of doing our part of the bargain
until we’ve satisfied ourselves that the other half is on the table first. So we never begin. Do you see?
“Actually . . . in your marriage to William – dear sister,
don’t be hurt or take offence, bear with me – I can see him struggling to do
his part, but I can’t see you doing yours as well as you might. He’s a proud man, and used not only to
absolute governance but also to admirable competence. To set that aside and let himself look
foolish and inept will be completely crucifying to a man like William de
Bulmer; but he thinks you’re worth it.
“What he needs from you
is what the brothers here in their charity and humility give me;
obedience. Not to him, I mean, but to
Christ; just as in their vow of obedience to the abbot, the way the brothers
here are taking is not obedience to me,
John Hazell, but to Christ. Sister,
William needs you to trust him enough to submit to him, even when he isn’t
doing all that well. Even – indeed
especially – when he’s said or done something stupid, he needs you to submit to
him for the sake of divine order, out of reverence for Christ.”
John looked anxiously at
his sister. He could not imagine this
going down well. Madeleine could not
have been described as meek in any imaginable circumstance.
“So… what does that mean
in practical terms, in daily life?” She frowned. Her tone of voice expressed the suspicious
end of caution. “It hasn’t got to be all
‘Yes, William’ and ‘No, William,’ ‘Of course, William’ and waiting on him hand
and foot, has it? Give me a few
instances.”
John thought about that.
“Well…” he said slowly,
“let’s say you were out at the market all day and when you got home it turned
out he forgot to shut the hens in and as a result a fox had caused mayhem and
you’d lost half the flock. Might that
happen?”
Astonished, his sister
searched his face. “Has he spoken to you about that?”
John grinned. “Oh. I
see. It did happen. No, he never told me so. Still, it makes a good example, then! Well, ‘in the flesh’ as the apostle would
say, if a man did such a thing his wife would go beserk and think she had every
good reason to do so. She’d call him
every name she could think of and pour indignation on his head until boiling
pitch began to look like a merciful alternative. She’d scold him until he felt completely
humiliated, and he’d go to bed scowled at and unkissed and lie awake in the
moonlight trying in vain to think of some way of making amends.
“But the apostle is
saying, that’s not how we do it under Christ.
That’s because Christ really sees us, with the insight of love. Christ is quick to compassion, and knows full
well the man is more ashamed of himself than he can bear already. In marriage as the apostle imagines it, the
wife offers not a word or look of reproach.
She accepts that accidents happen.
Her love is magnanimous and generous.
She hooks up the dead birds quietly, out of sight. As she spins at the fireside that night,
maybe she seems a wee bit quieter than usual – that would be because through
gritted teeth she is silently praying: ‘O Fountain of Wisdom, Thou hast saddled
me with this dolt, this nincompoop, this addle-brain: right then, give me the
grace not to kill him!’ But she takes it to God and she leaves it with God. She offers her husband no reproach, because
she is submitted to him.
“But then, let’s suppose
this is all too much for the wife. She comes home, she finds the hens dead and
dying, and she lets rips like thunder and lightning. What’s her husband to do? Well, ‘in the flesh’ as St Paul has it, he
might go on the defensive. Where was she
all day anyway? What did she mean by
coming home so late? Aren’t they her dratted poultry in the first place? How much is it going to cost to replace
them? This will be the last time she
goes to market if that’s where it’s all going to end up. He might even hit her, if her scolding winds
him up past what he can bear.
“But the scripture
teaching says no, don’t do it like that.
Submit to one another. Love her
like Christ loves the church. If she
wants to hammer nails in, lie there and take it. If she’s minded to jam a cap of thorns on
your head, bite your lip and wipe the blood out of your eyes. Keep your eyes fixed on one thing and one
thing only: letting nothing – but nothing – sour the sweetness of love. Let it hurt you, let it shame you, let it
lacerate you; but don’t let it stop you loving her.
“Have I exhausted your
patience? Have I said enough for now?”
Madeleine was sitting
very still, her face brooding. “Go on,”
she answered him.
“Well, then: this thing
has to be mutual, it has to be reciprocal to work properly, to get the result
it’s meant to achieve. If in our
community here, the brothers are humble and submissive and the abbot is
arrogant and self-serving and demanding, it all starts to unravel. If the abbot is gentle and humble but the
monks are proud and lazy and insubordinate, the whole thing collapses in an
instant. Same in a marriage. If the woman serves her husband humbly and he
thinks ‘Oh, good!’ and sits back self-satisfied, ‘Wife, get me this, get me
that!’ then it isn’t what the apostle envisaged. If the man is forbearing and
gentle and the woman takes it as her opportunity to get away with being a nag
and a shrew, then it’s just hell on earth.
It takes two.
“How do you keep your
hens from roaming too far afield and roosting in the trees, Madeleine?”
“What?” surprised by the
sudden question, she turned her face to him. “You know what I do. I clip their wings.”
“Oh. And how do you do that?”
“What are you talking
about? You know perfectly well how to
clip a hen’s wings.”
“Pretend I don’t. What do I have to do?”
“You just trim the tips
of the flight feathers on one wing. It
unbalances them, so they can’t fly.”
“Exactly so. That’s why the apostle urges that in marriage
a man and a woman be not unequally yoked, but be both submitted to Christ;
because it takes two to make this work.
Unbalanced, it can’t take off, it can’t fly. One of you can start the ball rolling maybe,
but in the end the thing takes two. The man must be as humble and vulnerable as
Christ stripped naked with his arms opened wide on the cross. The woman must be as gentle and submissive as
the faithful people of God kneeling in simple humility before their Lord. Madeleine, am I describing your marriage?”
No sound followed this
question but the settling of slow-burning logs on the hearth as the smoke
drifted peacefully up the chimney above their red glow.
“What do you think?” she
asked at last, her voice low.
“I think it’s a hard
lesson to learn and it asks a lot of anyone.
I think even when we’ve practiced for years it takes more than most of
us have, to get it right. And again and
again I have to ask my brothers’ forgiveness when I forget myself and say something
cutting or contemptuous or intolerant.
And I imagine it must be exactly the same in a marriage. Except, in the silence of the night you are
blessed with one extra way to put things right.”
She said nothing. Then she moved uneasily, her face contorted
in puzzlement. “This sounds all very
attractive, but… well, in real life I can’t always be stopping to think about
William. There’s work to be done, and
only the two of us to get through it all.
That’s mainly where we fall out – there’s so much to do, and I get
exasperated with him when he forgets things and he’s clumsy and slow. It’s all very well for you, there’s a
veritable army of men here to work together; at home it’s only me and William.”
John nodded. “I know
what you mean. Not all our men are
equally skilled of course – if you’d ever stood and watched Brother Thomas
trying to work alongside Brother Germanus you might think twice about saying
it’s all very well for us; but I do know what you mean.
“I understand that the
work has to be accomplished – the beasts fed and the place maintained and the
crops sown – of course it does, but… shaping a life as God meant it to be
involves paying attention to the way
we do things. The thing is, the journey
determines the destination, if you see what I mean. The way we take is what settles the place we
will arrive at. If you spend the next
ten years bickering with your man and belittling him, you will be sowing the
seeds for a harvest of misery in your old age.
He won’t leave you. William would
never leave you, of that I am sure. He’s
no slouch – he has the most phenomenal application and tenacity. But you could
lose him in other ways. He could become
very bitter and withdrawn, and he is capable of great coldness. He was a ruthless man, once.
“I think, if you are
willing to let things go sometimes, not have to have everything done right, that will help. So what if the fox steals a hen or two? Is that more serious than letting the devil
steal your marriage? Do you really want
William dancing like a puppet while you pull the strings, afraid to offend you,
frightened of what you’ll say if he makes a mistake?”
He observed her
quietly. “Is that… am I being too
harsh?” he asked her gently.
She shook her head. “I think you’ve put your finger on it,” she
replied, her voice dull and defeated. “I’m not a very good wife at all.”
John’s hand moved in a
gesture of protest. “You’re the right wife for William. It’s hard, in middle
life, to make adjustments, is the only thing.
It’s the same here when older men who have been widowed feel a vocation
to monastic life. But never mind
that. Could you do it, do you
think? Might you be able to make the
choice to be kind a higher priority than being right? Could you keep your
mind’s eye on the way you’ve chosen and trust it will arrive at somewhere
worthwhile?”
If, on reading this, you think you would enjoy to have the
opportunity to read the whole book, please do leave a comment here, as it will
be under consideration at a publishers' meeting tomorrow.
Also in the comments please continue and develop this
conversation about the roles of men and women, on which Jenna shed a wonderful
ray of light.