
Why should it be the man?
Confronting C.S. Lewis’s Portrait of Christian Marriage
C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is, undoubtedly, a classic. Through this collection of radio talks, Lewis set out, “to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times” (Lewis viii). On many fronts, he did. Lewis’ trademark logic paired with his personal history as an atheist allows him to “explain and defend” a universal Christianity in a way that is accessible to non-believers and challenging to believers.
There is one subject, however, on which I contend that his nearly impeccable logic does fall flat. The reason for this is immediately obvious — he has chosen to break his own rule. In the preface to the book, Lewis writes:
No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up…I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissible and impermissible gambling…I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers, and expenses from which I am protected (Lewis xii).
Lewis admits that he is not a married man and therefore suggests that this disqualifies him from discussing the subject of birth-control. He does not, however, find it necessary for his bachelorhood to prevent him from discussing marriage itself. Though he reiterates his lack of qualifications at the beginning of his chapter entitled, “Christian Marriage”, he writes the chapter anyway.
In the interest of fairness, it is worth noting that I am not married either — perhaps it would be best if neither I nor Lewis were the ones to discuss such a difficult facet of Christian living. However, since Lewis chose to present his thoughts, I figure it is acceptable to respond with my own.
I take little issue with the first half of Lewis’ chapter on Christian marriage, though I would not argue that it is perfect. My major disagreement with Lewis’ logic arises when he turns to the “unpopular” requirement that “Christian wives promise to obey their husbands” (Lewis 112). Upon reaching this difficult subject, Lewis does ask insightful questions; it is his answers that are lacking.
Question 1: “Why would there be a head at all — why not equality?”
On this front, Lewis’ superb logic still holds. He presents the conundrum of a husband and wife tirelessly exhausting a subject, yet still unable to reach an agreement. Turning to basic mathematics, Lewis purports, “They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority…if marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy” (Lewis 113). Because Lewis has already argued earlier in the chapter that Christian marriage is, indeed, permanent, he does not allow for any dispute to result in separation. Therefore, someone must get the final say, or act as the “head” of the family.
Question 2: “Why should it be the man?”
According to Lewis, a quarrel that cannot be compromised upon in any other way ought to be decided by the man. On this, he provides a variety of reasons — and it is here that his logic falters.
Lewis begins by asking another question, “Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman?” (Lewis 113). Short answer: yes. Yes, there is. If I am to enter into a marriage one day, I would expect that we at least consider that my thoughts, opinions, and decisions are as important as my husband’s. If not, then you won’t find me at the altar. I am not alone in this — I have a troupe of lovely lady friends who will tell you the same thing.
Long answer: Lewis provides anecdotal evidence as to why he does not believe that women would seriously prefer a matriarchal society. He writes:
I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’…There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule (Lewis 113).
Mr. Lewis is correct that there is something “unnatural” at foot here, but it is not the presiding of a woman over a man. It is the daily bossing about. Lewis himself writes that according to Christian doctrine, “man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism — for that is what the words ‘one flesh’ would be in modern English” (Lewis 104). No part of a single organism need spend its days bossing the other parts about — not even the “head”. At each meal, my tongue tastes, my esophagus swallows, and my stomach digests, all without me expending much brain power on the process. Therefore, of course a woman would be appalled to see her neighbor bossed about day in and day out. The bossing suggests that her neighbors are struggling to live as “one flesh” as God intended. Such a relationship should be upsetting regardless of whether it is the man or the woman who is doing the bossing.
There are times, of course, when even a “single organism” must defer to the “head”. For instance, I may decide, in the interest of my future health, to go on a diet, regardless of how I like the taste of ice cream, or whether my stomach successfully processes lactose. It is in these cases, when fair discussion is exhausted and compromise is impossible, that Lewis suggests that it must be the man who is the “head” of the family. In this argument, Lewis provides a single reason:
The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world…The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife (Lewis 114).
This final argument — this one paragraph which Lewis deems sufficient evidence for why a woman should always defer to her husband — is nothing more than basic gender stereotyping.
Gender stereotyping, remember, is unfair to all involved. As a woman, I am certainly upset by the suggestion that my reasoning “is not given its head” (Lewis 114). Though I do not have children (and nor, remember, did Lewis), I do not believe that a mother’s preference necessarily deprives her of all reasoning capabilities. Likewise, I know many fathers that would be aghast at the suggestion that their role is to protect the world from their family, rather than to protect their family from the world. Unlike many of Lewis’ arguments, which tend to be nuanced and thoughtful and detail multiple examples, his depiction of family roles is flat, static, and offensive to all involved. I should like to refer him back to his own advice, “…make quite sure that you are judging me by what you really know from your own experience and from watching the lives of your friends, and not by ideas you have derived from novels and films” (Lewis 110). Fiction might suggest that Lewis is right, but my own experience provides me counterexamples of fiercely loving fathers and wise, analytical mothers.
I do not mean to suggest that Lewis’ observations could never be correct. Stereotypes develop because they are rooted in truth — they just are not true all of the time. Therefore, I would like to offer Lewis a third question, in lieu of his second:
Question 3: Why must the “head” be determined by gender?
I have agreed with Lewis that a council of two cannot reach a majority. Why, however, is gender the determinant for deciding which party has the final say? Are there not more sensible factors than this? For instance, growing up in my parents’ household, I know that my dad always has the final say when it comes to technological decisions for the family. This is not because he is a man; this is because he is the Chief Technology Officer of a major company and therefore has the most knowledge on the subject. My mother, on the other hand, generally has the final say when it comes to finances — her area of expertise, considering she studied economics and teaches financial literacy classes. Yes, even a “single organism” sometimes needs a “head”, but Lewis forgets that it is not really our “head” that directs us, but our brain. Our brain has many different regions, each of which performs a different function. Certainly a Christian marriage, ordained by the same God that designed our brains, can sustain the same complexities within its own “single organism”.
Return, for instance, to Lewis’ own argument. It seems to me that what Lewis is really suggesting is that the “head” of the family ought to be whoever is best suited to decide with their own “head”, as opposed to their heart; to make the most logical, thoughtful, and fair decision for all involved, not just for the child who is the beneficiary of such affection. Maybe, in your own relationship, this is indeed, the man; or perhaps it is the woman. Either way, such a decision would require some honest self-evaluation and open discussion with your partner.
My guess is, you’ll find that neither the man nor the woman is the perfect candidate all of the time. Perhaps Mom played soccer herself all through school, and tends to allow her own memories and passion for the sport get in the way when assessing her son’s struggles with his new soccer coach. In this case, perhaps it is best for Dad to approach the situation. However, when it comes time for little Joey to choose a college, Dad’s own love for his alma mater might make it impossible for him to advise his son on all the possibilities. Here, Mom’s head might be clearer.
Or perhaps Joey has two Moms, but that is another discussion all together.