Headship on "Lost"?
by
Motte Brown
on Mar 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM
It's not often you find profound truth about marriage on television. But it happened last night. A married man from the hit series Lost took responsibility for his wife's affair because of his "abdication."
Let me explain.
Before married characters Jin and Sun crashed on an island somewhere in the Pacific, they had a tumultuous marriage. Jin had fits of rage and was distant. Sun had an affair (which was revealed to Jin in last night's episode "Ji Yeon"). Jin was devastated but after a time of reflection, he recognized his culpability in his wife's unfaithful act and forgave her.
Just like the way Douglas Wilson describes in his book Reforming Marriage.
When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for the all the problems. Some may be inclined to react to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.
... Husbands are responsible for their wives. They are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the church. Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.
Okay, so maybe this wasn't exactly what was portrayed last night. Maybe Jin didn't have a sudden conviction of biblical headship. Still, given the reality that only 14.5% of marriages remain "intact and are characterized by improvement or growth" after an affair, it was a welcome message.
1. kman had the following to say on Mar 14 at 11:56 AM:
Can you provide some Scriptural support for this?
If we equate a husband = Christ and his wife = the church. by this logic Christ is responsible for the sins committed by the church.
Wife commits adultery, wife guilty and husband responsible.
Logically becomes
Church commits adultery, Church is guilty, Christ is responsible.
So Christ is responsible when we sin?
2. Denise Morris had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:10 PM:
I wanted to blog about Lost today! But only because I love it so, so, so much.
What on earth is going on on that crazy island?!
3. Denise Morris had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:27 PM:
kman,
Interesting thoughts. Here's something you may disagree with: I think Jesus/God did take responsibility for us.
If you study the Old Testament and the way Jews think about the OT, you learn that the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. The law represents the "vows" between God and the people. Also, if you study convenants in the Ancient Near East, you learn that a covenant is always made between a greater and a lesser party. Both walk through blood as a symbol of their promise and their commitment to keeping it. Basically they're saying, "If I don't keep my promise, feel free to do this to me." If you read Genesis 15, you see this convenant being performed between God and Abraham. The cool thing is that God appears twice and walks through the blood for Abraham. When He does this, He sentences Christ to death.
So, all that to say, the people of Israel made a covenant with God and "married" Him. She committed adultery, and she was guilty. However He was responsible for her and paid her debt through Christ's death on the cross.
God was not responsible for our sin, but He did "take responsibility" through His saving death and resurrection.
Just some thoughts...
4. kman had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:32 PM:
From Websters online dictionary-
Responsible
Adjective
1. Worthy of or requiring responsibility or trust; or held accountable; "a responsible adult"; "responsible journalism"; "a responsible position"; "the captain is responsible for the ship's safety"; "the cabinet is responsible to the parliament".
2. Being the agent or cause; "determined who was the responsible party"; "termites were responsible for the damage".
3. Having an acceptable credit rating; "a responsible borrower".
I don't think #3 has any relation to this article. But 1 and 2 do. Not sure how the author determines that the husband is responsible (1.Worthy of or requiring responsibility or trust; or held accountable) or (2. Being the agent or cause;) for the wife's adultery.
In the case of Christ He ,he voluntarily chose to be responsible for taking upon Himself the penalty of our sins. So that would fit the first definition. Christ cannot fit the second definition as He did not cause anyone to sin.
So is the author implying that the husband take on the penalty of the wife's sin as this is the only definition of responsible left. unless of course the author is using his own definition....and then all bets are off.
5. Shane had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:35 PM:
That sounds exactly like what is being said.
And Christ is responsible. He took the punishment upon himself to bring us peace. He paid the price for all our iniquities. He is the most responsible figure ever. He claimed headship and he fulfilled it perfectly.
6. Eliza had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:48 PM:
I absolutely LOVE Jin and Sun! They are, to me, THE most romantic couple I have ever seen on television.
I thought last night's episode was amazing. I was definitely crying at the end :). I was so impressed with the way Jin has changed on the island, and how he sees his wife as the intelligent partner that he needs. I was quite surprised and, like I can't stop saying, so impressed.
7. Motte had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:51 PM:
kman:
Didn't Christ take responsibility for the church's adultery by dying on the cross? I think responsibility in this context -- and why it works in marriage -- refers to who's held accountable. And the Scriptural support I believe can be found in Ephesians 5:25-27:
But I see what you're saying. You're talking about Wilson's implication of culpability. I think that's where sin enters in. Man is a sinful head where Christ was a sinless head. Christ wasn't culpable but took responsibility. Man is culpable and must take responsibility.
8. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Mar 14 at 2:19 PM:
I agree with kman on this. The logic is seriously flawed here. To say unequivocately that the man is always responsible for a divorce or marital problems is just plain wrong.
Furthermore, this just reinforces the victim mentality of both many men and women (women in this case). I can just see it now. "I had an affair with this man because my husband is (insert excuse here)".
This theory seems to contradict what's in the Bible:
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." (Ezek 18:19-20)
The problem with the semantic wording here is that perhaps most equate "X is responsible for Y's actions" as "X caused Y's actions." This may be true in a select handful of circumstances, but more often than not, Y still has to make a conscious choice to do something. If I had a problem with shopping and spending too much, shall I start blaming Wal-Mart for my grief because they "made" me shop?
I have always believed it takes two to Tango. Very rarely can you say that either is completely free of blame when a divorce occurs.
What I DO agree with though is the idea that men are the leaders of the household and thus are more responsible for keeping things in line. But to extend that into "wife does something wrong, must be the man's fault" is ludicrous.
9. kman had the following to say on Mar 14 at 2:35 PM:
I love Lost too BTW. One of the few network shows I watch.
I wonder does that author also advocate the husband going to jail if his wife steals? Or murders someone? etc. Why limit the husbands responsibility to just adultery? Certainly Christ didn't limit which sins He bore on our behalf.
10. kman had the following to say on Mar 14 at 2:41 PM:
Another point while I think of it. :)
Christ CHOSE to be responsible, I do not believe that HE was in any way required to bear the sins of the world. He didn't OWE us anything, but CHOSE to give us forgiveness. We were dead in our sins and the initiative was on God to do the rescuing.
And Christ became the head of the Church, which is all those who are saved. He is still Lord of all creation but has a special relationship with His Bride.
OK anyway I'm rambling..
11. Sarah P. had the following to say on Mar 14 at 2:46 PM:
Something seems really wrong to me about Wilson's statements as well. Wouldn't it be better to clarify by saying that the husband is not "responsible" for making the wife sin if she does, but rather, he has taken on the awesome responsibility of "dying for" sins she commits? Christ is the head of the church because He died for it, not because he is to blame for its sins. Quite the opposite; if He were to blame, we would not owe Him any fealty.
And then it works both ways, because the church is instructed to "die daily" to follow Christ's example. Similarly, just as the leader does in any situation, the husband will set the tone in a marriage by his habits of forgiveness and humility. So, like Jin did, a husband will ideally take responsibility for his wife's sins, without necessarily having caused them.
12. David had the following to say on Mar 14 at 3:17 PM:
Give me a break.
While I certainly was not a faultless husband, I wonder how I was "responsible" for my ex-wife's repeated adulteries while I was deployed to a war zone? As she told me upon my return: "I just don't want to be a wife or a mother anymore. I want to be single."
She did what she did simply because she wanted to. In fact, she will readily admit to it. If Wilson had said to us what was quoted here we both would have thought him nuts.
13. rivergreg had the following to say on Mar 14 at 3:28 PM:
A couple of thoughts --
First, we need to be careful not to fall into the trap that, in order to forgive someone, we need to first understand why he/she did something wrong. It makes it a whole lot easier to forgive someone when you start to feel a bit guilty for something you've done wrong, but we're called to offer forgiveness unconditionally :)
Second, though Jin may have "abdicated", Sun is still responsible for her own choices - including the choice to have an affair. It is very dangerous to view her as a captive to her surroundings - that kind of victim mentality robs people of the responsibility that God has bestowed on them.
That said, I've got to honor Jin's decision to offer the "grace of understanding" to Sun in this midst of this trial. That's a blessing and it's something we can all learn from!
14. Adam had the following to say on Mar 14 at 3:34 PM:
Hey Everyone!
I think the main problem with the logic is the problem of headship meaning that you are responsible for every evil that those under your authority commit.
For instance, you might be the head of a group that works together at work. However, if one of the people in your group is always slacking off, and never does the work you assign him, are you responsible for that? If your boss comes to you, and you tell him that this person is slacking off and misbehaving, would it be rational for him to say that you take responsibility for that person's actions as well?
Here is another example. In the middle ages, the king was the head of the people. Does that mean that when some of his people committed murder that the king was responsible for the murder? In other words, is it not possible for someone to act independently of their head Such seems obvious.
The weakness in this argument is the idea that you can have guilt and not have responsibility. That is a major problem. Ethically, you cannot divorce the two. If a person is responsible for a murder, he is guilty of the murder. That is why Christ bore both our guilt and our responsibility.
Now, are there certain instances in which both will be responsible? Yes, most definitely. However, they are both guilty and they are both responsible. You cannot divorce the two.
As a classical Presbyterian, this is an easy argument to answer. Christ is the head of the new Covenant, but not every member of the new covenant is saved. Therefore, Christ did not take responsibility for everyone in the new convenant of which he is head. However, this argument is coming from Wilson's Federal Vision theology. Wilson believes in Baptismal Regeneration. In other words, everyone in the new covenant is regenerate. That is contrary to classical Presbyterian theology. Hence, he is just simply taking this view of Federal Vision, and making it consistent with his view of marriage. Very consistent, but very flawed.
God Bless,
Adam
15. k. had the following to say on Mar 14 at 4:09 PM:
Yuck! We are individual, independent human beings, and we're responsible for our own actions.
16. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 14 at 5:05 PM:
Good episode, but next time you blog about a TV episode, include a spoiler warning!
17. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 14 at 5:06 PM:
I really loved this episode, too, and thought that despite some of the other yucky things in the episode (karma? COME ON) that this was an awesome example of the characters growing, maturing, and forgiving each other.
18. Leah had the following to say on Mar 14 at 5:59 PM:
kman, not all metaphors work perfectly in every way!
k.- nobody is saying the woman ISN'T responsible for her actions. They're just saying the husband is AS WELL.
19. Michael had the following to say on Mar 14 at 6:55 PM:
From some of the comments, it sounds like people are confusing "responsibility" with "guilt," even though the difference is pointed out in the quoted portion. And I think the author would same the same distinction exists between "responsibility" and the phrases "the one at fault," "the one to blame," "the instigator," etc.
At the same time, I think some qualifications are in order. For example, few would argue with the idea that parents are responsible for their children. But that doesn't mean every bad thing a child does is directly the fault of the parents — only that the parents are (legally and otherwise) responsible. If I child breaks something and can't pay, guess who gets to pay for it?
If you think about it, the marriage vows (at least the traditional ones) are voluntary affirmations of responsibility. The husband, being head, could be said to be *more responsible*.
I think the basic idea here is really true. If the woman proves unfaithful to her vows, a faithful and virtuous husband will assume responsibility. But that doesn't mean he is necessarily the one at fault. It just means he takes his headship responsibilities seriously, and is willing to take the heat if it doesn't work out.
20. Anna had the following to say on Mar 14 at 9:36 PM:
I haven't read all the comments, and I am a complementarian in the usual sense of the word, but along with others, I would hesitate to say that a husband is responsible for his wife's adultery.
21. David had the following to say on Mar 15 at 8:24 AM:
I know that my comments are colored by having actually lived through what is being so calmly discussed in theory here, but for the sake of discussion ONLY:
If I was responsible for my wife's multiple adulteries while I was deployed 1,000 miles away, as Mr. Wilson and some here think, then what concrete actions should I have taken when I learned of them?
22. Heidi had the following to say on Mar 15 at 9:49 AM:
Well said, Michael.
23. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 15 at 1:30 PM:
Leah:
"nobody is saying the woman ISN'T responsible for her actions. They're just saying the husband is AS WELL."
And, similarily, the wife is responsible for the husband's actions as well?
24. Jacob M. had the following to say on Mar 15 at 1:46 PM:
Michael's comment is wrong. In just the two-paragraph quotation from Wilson, he attempts to forestall controversy by saying that "responsibility is not the same thing as guilt," but then in the very next paragraph he says "men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home." There is no other way to interpret this statement than that when a wife does something wrong, it is her husband's fault. If a woman has an affair, it was either because her husband was a tyrant or because he somehow abdicated his position. In my opinion, no one who says anything like this deserves to be taken seriously at all.
What I want to know is, when and why did such misandry become common in the evangelical world, and in the conservative Reformed subset of it at that?
25. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Mar 15 at 2:12 PM:
Michael,
The problem there is that according to the blog post that, is NOT what is implied:
"When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for the all the problems."
That makes a very strong implication that regardless of what the wife did, she is off scot-free while the man takes all the blame and consequences of the matter. If we were to extend this to a legal standpoint, a wife should be entitled most of the posessions because the man was at fault.
The author does try to spell out the difference between guilt and responsibility, but as stated before, the problem is that most interpretations of "X is responsible for Y" is that X caused Y's actions. And that isn't always true. And using this kind of language tells most people, "It doesn't matter what wives do. They can just say, 'It's my husband's fault that I'm doing such-and-such.'"
26. Anakin Niceguy had the following to say on Mar 15 at 4:28 PM:
And what the does the Holy Spirit have to say about this headship theory? Who does the Holy Spirit hold responsible? ....
"Every wise woman buildeth HER house, but the foolish plucketh it down with HER HANDS." (Proverbs 14:1)
I rest my case.
27. rivergreg had the following to say on Mar 15 at 7:13 PM:
I think a part of what is making this "responsibility vs guilt" discussion difficult is that we're not answering the question "responsible for what". With the term "responsible", we could be referring to several things:
So just saying, "The wife had an affair. The husband is responsible." is a big recipe for miscommunication :)
I think it is very biblical to say that in any situation in a marriage, the husband is responsible for providing godly leadership. After his wife's affair, this husband should take on the responsibility for leading and rebuilding.
But to use "responsible" in the sense of "the cause of" is simply wrong in this case. I think we've all agreed on that, it is just that the word "responsible" can carry that connotation whether we want it to or not :)
To say that a husband is responsible for his wife's actions in the same way a parent would be held responsible for a child's actions would imply that a wife is required by scripture to obey her husband in the same way children are required to obey their parents. Scripture doesn't say that. It uses a different term with a different meaning, and so we can't equate them in terms of the same sense of "responsibility".
28. Christina had the following to say on Mar 15 at 7:33 PM:
So those that don't agree with the idea or the presentation of the idea that is given in this blog, what is your take/interpretation on the Ephesians verses?
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
29. Glenise had the following to say on Mar 16 at 12:46 PM:
I don't know.
Looking back at the story of Hosea and Gomer, I wouldn't say that Hosea was responsible for Gomer's adultery. Some people are just difficult to satisfy, especially if they have a long history of these things. Maybe he should had stopped preaching for a while and followed her every move. But I think the beauty of his headship came out when he took the burden on himself (the responsibility) to buy her back, like Christ bought the church with His own blood (awesome!).
30. Jo had the following to say on Mar 16 at 1:59 PM:
I think this concept is taking the "Christ and church as husband and wife" analogy too far.
Yes, Christ voluntarily took both responsibility and blame for our sins. Yes, husbands are called to model this kind of sacrificial love in their marriages (and I think wives are too). But in a human marriage, sacrificial love has to take a different form. Why? Because no human being can take responsibility for another human being's sin. Christ did for us what we could not do for ourselves, or for each other.
A Christian marriage is centred around the Biblical truth that both spouses have been justified by Christ (not one spouse by the other), and that Christ is doing a redemptive work in them. This happens with each person on an individual level and on a relational one, and the marriage itself of course plays a big part in their redemption, because of its intimacy, its particular trials and difficulties and its high level of commitment. So the marriage DOES provide opportunities for each spouse to show sacrificial love in various ways, but not the assuming of responsibility for sin that has been committed by another person and has already been paid for by Christ.
Sacrificial love is demonstrated by the couple accepting and loving each other because Christ has first accepted and loved them; forgiving each other because Christ has first forgiven them; staying loyal and committed to each other because Christ has first shown loyalty and commitment to them. Christ's example of sacrificial love is always taken, but it is played out practically in different ways.
Now, I think it's true in *most* cases that problems in marriage are the responsibility and fault of both spouses. The example from 'Lost' is a wonderful one because the husband acknowledges that the wife's affair did not happen in a vacuum; that he played a part in breaking down the relationship. This IS a Biblical principle: We are both flawed, we have both made mistakes, Christ is redeeming us and we will work together to rebuild our relationship because we are committed to one another, for better or worse.
31. Matthew Speights had the following to say on Mar 16 at 7:24 PM:
So was the prophet Hosea "responsible" (in the sense of guilty and blame-worthy) for Gomer's adultery? The Bible gives no hint that Hosea is at fault--Gomer is just a willfully unfaithful woman. My personal opinion (not inspired!) is that marriages usually break up because of problems on both sides. But the relationship between God and Israel mirrored with Hosea and Gomer shows that sometimes one side is entirely to blame. Let's have more Bible and less opinion!
32. Alyss had the following to say on Mar 16 at 9:41 PM:
I think its a good point to note that BEING responsible and TAKING responsibility for something are two very different things entirely.
A person can be the origin of a problem, and a person can also take on that burden by their own choosing even though they might not be the root of the problem-- what latter being what Christ did for us. He didnt cause our sin, but he chose to take the negative outcome for it anyway. True love :)
33. Trevor D. had the following to say on Mar 17 at 7:36 AM:
Having read some of Douglas Wilson's books, I can say that he seems to be quite sound on many issues; he's certainly thinking about things in a Godly way (which is not meant to imply he's always right!).
However, I fear the quote in the blog entry leaves me wondering what he would say about God's laws in the Old Testament. Adulterous women were stoned to death, without any implication of the men being "responsible" (whatever that word might mean).
On the other hand, for the more "venal" (as opposed to "deadly") sins, I think he's got a point. Assuming that the man has power as well as responsibility, then it makes to insist that he use the power for the good of his wife.
A possible example could be a case where the wife is always irritable, and seems to be nagging her husband to distraction. If this is due to her not being able to say "no" to people asking her to do things and therefore getting over-tired, then the husband can be held responsible for not having insisted that she simply do less.
I'm unsure about how to apply this to adultery, though :(
34. Louise had the following to say on Mar 17 at 7:43 AM:
Mr. Theemling, the divorce property laws of the individual United States are no longer written to "reward" a "wronged spouse" with more property.
I don't know what it is like in other nations, of course.
35. EM had the following to say on Mar 17 at 7:20 PM:
Comments like this one are the reasons why Wilson should not be quoted in public.
He consistently classes women with children in some of the most condescending terms. He is patriarchal and legalistic.
Anyone whose counsel to David centers on the fact that he's responsible for his wife's infidelity b/c he married her or b/c he had the temerity to go off to war or who just ignores David as ya'll have here, isn't really worth listening to.
The fact is that marriage is a God-ordained partnership between equals who are both responsible for their own actions and are together responsible for raising their children.
Of course, there is a sense in which both partners are responsible for the way in which they help and protect and serve the other too. But to make absolute statements about how one person is always responsible for all the problems in a marriage is to miss a valuable opportunity to search out the issues in a relationship, get to know the partners and seek to care for their souls. When your operative assumptions color your interactions as strongly as Wilson's, you can miss the joys of understanding and helping someone else as Christ did - through insightful questions and discerning personal care.
36. Christina had the following to say on Mar 17 at 9:13 PM:
Ok...the husband is NOT guilty or responsible inherently. Just like Christ.
The thing is is that he ASSUMES responsibility. Which is what Christ and Hosea did.
37. Adam had the following to say on Mar 17 at 10:01 PM:
Christina,
So those that don't agree with the idea or the presentation of the idea that is given in this blog, what is your take/interpretation on the Ephesians verses?
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Simple, husbands are to love their wives with the same kind love that caused Christ to lay down his life for the church, in order to sanctify them, having cleansed them, washing them with water and the word. The same kind of love that Christ showed us in doing all of this is the kind of love we are to display to our wives.
This is vintage Paul. He starts on one topic, and then just goes off on a tangent, leaving the original topic far behind. He may decide to return to it, he may not.
Of course, that has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with the topic of the thread. The issue that was brought up is whether or not the man himself must all of the responsibility. There is simply no Biblical warrant for such a teaching.
God Bless,
Adam