This article by Alexandra Ghaly called “Why One-Way Submission Between Co-Heirs Is Dangerous,” has me a bit peeved.
Right out of the gate, I dislike seeing “submission” labeled as “dangerous.” It’s like saying, “OMG, if I don’t constantly keep this man under my thumb the power-hungry mongrel is going to take over like banana republic dictator!” If that is a genuine concern, I would advise not dating banana republic dictators and certainly not marrying them. If you are already married to a banana republic dictator, you should submit to the fact that you are in way over your head and prepare to sneak out of the country with a new identity.
I am probably being totally catty here, but my nose was already bent out of joint because an article I wanted to write on marriage was turned down in favor of another’s. It was free work and it is somewhat pathetic for me to be pouting over the loss, as if I really need to take on more unpaid work. Just the same, it was a lost opportunity and one I lost to a 27-year-old single woman, a former witch and yogi.
Don’t get me wrong, we’re all fallen women here at some point in our lives. I think it is just beautiful that Jesus Christ found a former witch and yogi and made her His own. But she is 27 years old and single, only a Christian for a few short years, and yet she was deemed more qualified to write an article on the nature of complementary marriage than I was. Single, as in never married. Needless to say, her perception of complementary marriage was not very complimentary.
So, still reeling from that tragic blow to my ego, I stumbled upon Alexandra Ghaly’s article and soon clicked her author bio and read this, “Her master’s thesis, a memoir titled Power in the Blood, vividly narrates her early life as a witch and yogi, conversion to Christ at age twenty-three, and first months as a Christian.”
Oh for crying out loud! Is there some requirement that the only one’s allowed to write articles about Christian marriage these days must be recovering witches and yogis? Yes IB, we know you’ve been married for 30 years and are a Christian, but unless you can show us you’ve also dabbled in witchcraft and been a yogi, we simply have no use for you. So should I pad my resume a bit now?
Back to Alexandra’s article however, as she proceeds in her complete take down of the complementary nature of marriage, she makes several assumptions, such as, “I believe that if you consistently follow complementarian theology to its natural end, the husband takes the place of God in his wife’s life.”
My husband is quite charming, but I have never confused him with God. I’ve never seen him confused about that either. Should he ever discover he is actually God, he’s going to have some explaining to do about why he was unable to fix the broken dishwasher.
I know we are in trouble here when she mentions the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention of 1848. Anytime the Seneca Falls Convention enters into a discussion on marriage, somebody has a chip on their shoulder.
She goes on to say, “This is not to say that complementarian Christians are members of a religious cult, of course.” Well, that’s generous at least. Not everyone who believes in the complementary nature of men and women are members of a religious cult. That’s a good thing, because I’m about the only one still connected to a church. The rest of the family is sporadic with their cultian attendance at best. So if cult membership was an actual requirement, we’d all be in a world of hurt.
Sigh. Yogis and witches, oh my. Complementary simply means, “combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another.”