The Age of Rebellion
What if women actually are supposed to obey their husbands?
Novel thought, I know.
If you so much as whisper this idea today, you are bombarded with stories of some married gone wrong, some awful monster who abused his family and made his wife miserable.
But when you read older books, women were, in many cases, obedient to their husbands’ wishes to a great degree and there is something quite charming about it, something that feels right—as of the family and society work better when this is the case.
Same thing with children. I grew up thinking that children were supposed to be equal to adults and that it was perfectly fine—even honoring to one’s parents—to question one’s parents at every turn and argue with them.
But what about all the mean parents, the shrill mothers, the evil fathers? Kids have to disobey them, right?
We live in an Age of Rebellion. Everything is about rebelling, resisting, throwing off the yoke, chopping down the pillars of society, etc., etc., etc. A great deal of our politics are led (by the nose) by the ideas from a book that was dedicated to:
“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.” (Rules for Radicals)
This whole period of time has been about rebellion: wives against husbands, children against parents, workers against bosses, etc., etc., etc.
As the dedication above reminds us, rebels are often not the good guys.
What if we are supposed to be obedient to those God has placed above us, even as we are supposed to be obedient to God?
In the past, I have had no answer for the “but think of all the evil husbands and parents” argument. Today, however, as I was contemplating this subject, something occurred to me.
During the Nuremberg Trials, the standard was put forth that it was not okay to do something immoral just because you were following orders. This seems to be a standard that much of the modern world agrees with.
But no one says to new recruits, “Don’t ever obey a superior officer because the Nazis were given illegitimate orders.”
Rather, they are told to obey their superior officers unless the order given was immoral.
I wonder if we might apply the same standard to husbands and parents. A wicked husband or parent is like an officer who gives an immoral order. Under those circumstances, it is right and just to not obey.
Or if God whispers to you that the order you have been given—by husband, parent, or superior—should not be followed, for whatever reason God sees fit.
But under all other circumstances, what if obedience is actually a virtue?
What if we should obey?
It is a weighty matter and worth contemplating.
As for me…I am taking it under advisement.
*
PS: I was considering writing this article when I came upon a video about how a man who saw a vision of Hell, and 70% of the people he saw there were women…because they were listening to feminism and chased freedom instead of honoring and obeying God. It seemed somehow appropriate to the topic.
I have not listened to the whole thing yet, but…should anyone be interested:



I saw a thread on FB yesterday that essentially said, "Married women: you listen to your personal trainer, your listen to your career advisor, you listen to so many other people. Why would you not listen to your husband?"
I expected the vitriol in the responses. What I did not expect was the form it took. Paraphrased: "I pay those people for their expertise and advice! I didn't marry my husband to listen to him!"
WHY would you join your life with someone who's opinion you value so little that you would discard it without even considering it? My wife is my FIRST counselor on every matter and every decision I encounter. I turn to her because I have complete trust in her. I am confident that whatever she says, she will have my best interests at heart.
It boggles my mind that someone would even consider marrying someone who does NOT meet that criteria.
"Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth...
"Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.
"...Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful."
St. Thomas Aquinas. Secunda Secundae Partis q 104.5