Authority in the Home

by Levi A. Russell

Feminism as a social disease has been incredibly effective at infecting our society. It has come a long way in accomplishing its goal of undermining and, eventually, destroying the family. Its primary tool for doing so is the masculinization of women. There are many dimensions to this, including physical characteristics, desire for career success, reluctance to spend time on domestic duties, and a desire for authority in the home.

The question of authority in the home is the best test of a person’s ability to reject the feminist zeitgeist. Regardless of the ideological labels they claim: conservative, traditionalist, pro-family, etc., their answer to a simple question shows their true commitment. It shows you the degree to which they have bought in to the spirit of the sexual revolution.

“Should wives obey their husbands?”

A dyed-in-the-wool feminist will give you a clear answer, something like “heck no!” Those who claim the right-leaning monikers listed above will hem and haw. They will attempt to muddy the water with comments like “yes but…” or “they should obey each other!” Regardless of how illogical the qualifiers are, they all indicate an unwillingness to reject feminism’s most tempting offer: women’s control of men.

Before tackling the question of authority in the home, a word on clarity is needed. In my many conversations with men and women over the past few years on this and related issues the most popular tactic for shutting down discussion is to insist that it is complex. The exercise of authority in the home is such a complex issue, they say, that it can’t possibly be discussed in simple terms. Simple, straightforward examples cannot be used to understand the issue.

I reject this completely because I know that to have standards for human interaction, we have to have clear, understandable guidelines and rules. To say that we cannot analyze and understand authority in the home in straightforward terms is to obfuscate. The only purpose of such a claim is to shut down discussion because the logical conclusions of a straightforward analysis are undesirable for some people. Specifically, these conclusions draw out the feminist preferences of the alleged “conservatives” and “traditionalists.”

So how should authority be exercised in the home? Who should have the final say when a dispute arises within the family? Who is responsible for maintaining order? The clearest and most thorough answer in sacred scripture is Ephesians 5:22-33. Specifically, verses 22 through 24:

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives out to be, in everything, to their husbands. - NRSVCE

Verses 25 through 33 go on to discuss the husband’s disposition toward his wife and echo the same analogy between Christ and the husband and the Church and the wife. It is worth noting that the many dozens of verses quoted by “conservatives” in defense of their underlying feminism do not contradict this clear instruction by St. Paul to the Ephesians. Nothing in Proverbs 31, Titus 2, or the rest of Ephesians 5 indicate that the wife is somehow equal or superior in authority to the husband. No list of duties or ideal characteristics of the husband contradict or undermine the words of St. Paul.

St. Paul’s analogy is instructive for our questions about authority. The husband is the head and his wife should be subject to him in everything. So it is with the Church. To the extent that the Church has authority over us, that authority comes from Christ. The Church has no authority that is not granted to it by Christ.

So it should be with the husband and wife. The husband maintains authority over the wife and the whole of the household. To the extent that the wife has authority over the affairs of the household, over the children, over the interactions between the family and the rest of the community, her authority is always subject to the husband’s authority. No one would claim that the Church has the authority to change the teachings of Christ. So it is with the husband and wife.

The foregoing points are only strengthened by a practical example that leans on what “conservative” or “traditionalist” women so often say they want. They want, they claim, a leader, a provider, and a protector. Leaving aside that they so often refuse to follow that leader (this old clip exemplifies this attitude well) and assuming that they actually want a leader who protects and provides for them, it’s important to examine the role of authority in this leadership.

It would be impractical if not absurd to set the husband to the tasks of protection and provision without giving him authority over the whole household. How can he ensure that the children are protected if he doesn’t have the final word with regard to the rules of the house and how they ought to behave in public? How can he provide if he doesn’t have the final word on how the household spends money? How can a leader lead without the authority to correct those under his leadership?

The answers to all these questions are obvious. “Conservatives” who actually prefer and allegedly benefit from feminism and the sexual revolution will attempt to muddy the water to justify coming to some other conclusion. They actually prefer women to be masculine, to be the head, to have the final word. This disordered view should be seen for what it is, not for some kind of false compromise with the sexual revolution.

Of course, marriage is a beautiful multifaceted jewel. Household management can, at times, be complex. Relationships are dynamic and require care. Ideally the man and his wife should be on the same page about most things. This kind of cohesion generates a peaceful, joyous home. But the complexity of relationships ensures that there will be conflicts. There will be disagreements. In those cases, who has the final say? Whose authority must be respected? The clear answer is “the husband’s.”

At this point, other commentators would offer dozens of qualifications designed to quell the indignance of “conservative” and “traditionalist” readers. What about abuse? What about drug addiction or poor financial management? There’s no reason to be dragged into these edge cases.

The words of St. Paul are a call to holiness within marriage. They show us the ideal we should strive to imitate. Attempts to deflect from the duties of wives, chief among them the duty to submit to her husband’s authority, by diverting to a discussion of the duties of husbands are counterproductive. Christ calls us to holiness, to perfection, and we cannot be slothful. No deflection to the actions or shortcomings of others will save us when it is time for us to account for our behavior.

So here’s my question to those who see themselves as conservatives or traditionalists: what specifically did I get wrong here in your mind? What Bible verses or instruction from the Magisterium of the Church directs us to believe other than the teaching of St. Paul? In other words, I’m asking why you think you have a leg to stand on if you don’t think wives should obey their husbands.

Share