Review: "The Good Wife as the Help-Mate" (The Good Wife, Part 1)

The creation of Eve

This is Part 1 of my review of “The Good Wife,” a 5-part lecture series by the influential American Orthodox priest Fr. Josiah Trenham. You can read my introduction post here. The first lecture, “The Good Wife as the Help-Mate,” focuses on the role of a wife as a subordinate helper to her husband. This is the only lecture in the series you can hear for free.

In this lecture, Fr. Trenham* offers a theological justification for male supremacy—to use his preferred terms, male "primacy" or "headship." He then outlines practical ways that the God-ordained gender hierarchy manifests itself in a good Christian marriage.

The doctrine of male headship is inescapable in Orthodoxy; after all, the Church only ordains men to the priesthood. Still, Fr. Trenham's extreme views on gender roles go far beyond the current norms of Orthodox Christian belief and practice.

Fr. Trenham begins his lecture by examining the Genesis 2 account of the creation of Adam and Eve. The origin of man and woman, he argues, is the basis for the hierarchical relationship between them (For those following along with the recording, I’ll cite the start time of each excerpt in parentheses):

(6:40) Here in the creation of primordial man and woman, according to the account of our most fundamental sacred text, we see the primacy of man, of the male sex, in the created order. We see the origin of the man and the origin of woman: man first and from the earth, woman second and from the rib of man. Here we see the fundamental realities of marriage and the relationship of man and woman in marriage. Adam was primary. He was created first, and Eve second. Man was not created for Eve, but rather Eve was created for Adam [. . .] Woman is not man’s vocation. Man already had received his vocation: to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the Earth, and to rule it, and to subdue it. Woman was created to be the one and unique means of Man accomplishing his vocation, the one and unique helper in Man's work, the Help-Mate.

Man’s purpose preceded and is independent of woman, while woman's purpose exists only in relation to man. Fr. Trenham appears to forget that God gave the command “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” to both Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28).

He continues his argument for male primacy based on creational order, quoting from St. Paul’s letters:

(7:50) And this primacy of man in creation is something that St. Paul appeals to several times in his letters. He writes in his first letter to the Corinthians, “Man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. Man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed, man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”

(8:39) This order in creation also provides an order for interaction between the sexes in chronological time. For instance, St. Paul writes in his first letter to Timothy, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet, for it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” Here the creational order is what lies behind the fact that in marriage the husband is the head of the family.

Fr. Trenham then gives a practical application of man’s headship, describing with surprising explicitness the proper sexual dynamic between husbands and wives:

(9:20) The man shows his headship in courtship by taking the initiative to leave his father and mother and to cleave to his wife. He takes initiative in conjugal union by joining himself to the woman to become one flesh with her. He is her pursuer. He exercises his headship in marriage by being a leader, and the corresponding reality for the woman, who St. Paul says is the “glory of man,” is to be the one and only unique help-mate of the man, the one to register and receive his pursuits, to be his final earthly destination after he has left his parents, the one to receive the august embraces in conjugal union, to partner with and enable and facilitate man in his vocation so that the new reality of their union in the governance of the earth is “very good.” [Emphasis mine.]

Translation: No topping, ladies.

In Fr. Trenham’s view, the act of intercourse is an expression of woman’s subordination to man. Paradoxically, this view places him in the company of radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin. The key difference is that Fr. Trenham believes the sexual subordination of women to be proper and good. A good wife, per his definition, yields to her husband’s passion. It is not her place to initiate sex (and in a later lecture, “The Good Wife as the Lover and the Healing Potent Drug," he will argue that it is not her place to resist her husband's advances, either).

Fr. Trenham compares the authority of a husband to that of a monarch:

(19:37) St. John Chrysostom says, “There is no democracy in the Christian home.” In general, the Holy Fathers were not fans of democracy. Rather the Christian home must, in John Chrysostom’s words, be a “benevolent monarchy,” a monarkhia, quote, “in order that the one might be subject and the other rule, for equality is oftentimes the mother of strife.”

If the husband rules as a monarch, are there any limits to his authority over his wife? Fr. Trenham assures his female listeners that “no domestic violence is tolerated by Christ” (23:01), but he undercuts this assurance by repeatedly asserting that a wife must obey her husband regardless of his behavior:

(25:14) Listen to the words of St. Peter in his first epistle: “You wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that if any of them are disobedient to the Word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”

Wow! That’s 1 Peter 3. Here, besides the universal apostolic call to wives to obey their husbands, St. Peter posits the immense power of wifely obedience. The obedience of the wife is so powerful that it’s actually able to win a disobedient husband to obedience to God without speech. This is the power of the feminine submissive spirit that is so influential over men.

Men don’t care about fighting women. Men like to fight. Men are used to blood, men are used to fights. If their woman becomes a man by fighting with him, it means nothing to him. But a woman enduring him, exercising holy patience and submission, can absolutely change his life. This is what St. Peter says. That’s how powerful a woman’s obedience is, that it triumphs over a bad husband’s disobedience and alters him, literally alters him.

(27:37) This wifely obedience and powerful virtue is especially tested and demonstrated when the husband tempts the wife by his own arrogance, by his pride, or by a tyrannical spirit, or sometimes by his own irresponsibility or even radical incompetence which might even threaten the safety of the family, or the well-being of the family in various ways. We men can do all of these things fairly easily. It’s at times like that when the good wife manifests her character by refusing to act in the face of her husband’s craziness, by refusing to act as her husband’s head, or as his teacher and judge. The good wife does not fight with her husband, she does not raise her voice against him, as though she is his head, or as though they’re co-heads. There are no co-heads. To do so is a sure and certain and certain way to cause the husband to react even worse, and to disdain whatever of importance the wife may be attempting to communicate to him.

(31:00) For a husband to unjustly yell at his wife is horrible, no doubt. But, sisters, it’s not as horrible as a wife yelling at her husband. Those are not equal acts. It is a much more serious thing for a wife to yell at her husband, especially if there are children, because the very structure and the very order of the home is completely overturned in the latter case. The good wife must seek to win her husband by her gentle and quiet spirit and without words. [Emphasis mine. Perhaps it is not horrible for a husband to yell at his wife justly?]

(34:32) The good wife obeys and submits to her husband at all times. This is where her true power and her influence lies. And it takes a lot of courage and a lot of trust in God to do this.

There is no check against a husband’s abuse of power, except the hope that his wife’s silent obedience will somehow change his behavior. It’s not clear at what point, if any, domestic abuse becomes severe enough to justify a wife’s leaving her husband. Indeed, submission to a “tyrannical” husband is, according to Fr. Trenham, the greatest demonstration of feminine power and virtue. Surely a faithful Christian woman would not run from such an opportunity to “manifest her character” as a good wife and to display her “courage” and “trust in God.”

Fr. Trenham continues, offering a breathtaking litany of the practical duties of a good wife:

(38:09) The good wife is the helper of her husband. She enhances him, she strengthens him, she nourishes him, she feeds him—this is one of the central functions of a wife, and how she can save her husband, is that she lovingly feeds him so that he doesn’t destroy himself by not eating, or by eating too much, or the wrong things, because he’s not even thinking about what he’s eating.

She adds value to his life. She contributes value to his work. Her presence energizes him, her presence comforts him. She’s at his side at important moments when he absolutely needs her. She dignifies him, she encourages him, she delights him, she cheers him, she sobers him, she calms him. She clothes him, she oversees his health, she ensures his sleep. She tames him sexually. She teaches him fidelity. She becomes involved and interested in his vocation. She helps him to find and fulfill new vocations [. . .] She counsels him. She listens to him. She calls him by such beautiful and powerful wifeliness to become a good man and a devoted husband and father.

(40:31) She also is the mother of his children [. . .] Yes, motherhood is at the heart of this help-mate role, for sure, since multiplication is the fundamental vocation of Adam. But it is not first. Being a wife is first.

(41:18) The wife also practically helps him by managing not just his children, but the whole household. She is the steward of the home.

Joan put it more succinctly in the first episode of Mad Men: "Most of the time they're looking for something between a mother and a waitress. And the rest of the time, well..."

 

Joan Harris, Orthodox theologian

Fr. Trenham's Good Wife is one who submits her entire self to her husband. Her purpose is to support his purpose. She is utterly secondary.

There are also things a Good Wife never does, Fr. Trenham instructs us:

(41:27) And she doesn’t shame her husband. Women can be smarter, they can be more pious, they can be more talented, they can be more able in every way, they can even be better at doing the very job their husband does outside the home [. . .] None of these are in any way inconsistent with a wife being a help-mate or in any way justify stealing a man’s role as the leader and head of his home. Just because the wife could do it better doesn’t mean she should do it. Just because she’s smarter doesn’t mean she should always be showing him that.

I wonder how Fr. Trenham squares this opinion with the Parable of the Talents, in which Jesus warns of the dire consequences awaiting those who neglect to use their God-given abilities.

He concludes his lecture with a diatribe against feminism and the evils it has brought upon society, including contraception, lesbianism, daycare, and shoulder pads.

Look what you've done, feminists. Look. What. You've. Done.

On a slightly less humorous note, he also asserts that "The whole date rape thing is very much the fruit of the feminist advance," because promiscuous women have caused men to lose control of their sexual aggression (58:13).

You may wonder how Fr. Trenham’s worldview ever appealed to someone like me, a college-educated millennial woman steeped in feminist theory. In short, here’s how: Fr. Trenham acknowledged all of the nagging fears that lay buried at the root of my feminism. Why had men dominated the arts, the sciences, politics, and every other field of intellectual achievement in almost every culture since the beginning of history? Why was it still so hard to achieve gender equality after decades of feminist progress? And the most disturbing and personal question of all: why did sex feel like humiliation? That feeling was not always predominant in my mind, but I had a vague and persistent sense that sex was a power struggle I was biologically destined to lose. Feminism, particularly radical feminism, answered all of those questions, but its answers left me in a state of hopeless rage. Fr. Trenham (and other conservative Orthodox thinkers) gave me an alternative explanation: women's historical and current subjugation was inevitable, natural, and good. Our position as men's subordinates was our divinely ordained rank in the cosmological hierarchy. I could embrace a submissive gender role without shame, knowing I was fulfilling my God-given vocation to be a help-mate. Instead of being a perpetually enraged feminist, I could be a saint.

St. Keela the Vanquisher of Feminism

It sort of worked for a while. I felt less angry. I got a bit obsessed with wearing headscarves to Church and even wore them outside of Church for a while. The Christian rationale for female head covering, according to St. Paul, is to symbolize man's authority over woman (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). I think I believed that if I embraced the symbol hard enough, I would eventually grow comfortable with the meaning behind it. I threw myself into the all-consuming work of a stay-at-home mother and felt very satisfied with the coherence between my lifestyle and my belief system. Whatever frustrations I felt with my role I attributed to sinful pride and the lingering influence of feminism.

But the relative peace of soul didn’t last, because I could never quite shake the shame I felt at the idea that God created women inherently inferior to men—inferior, in the sense synonymous with subordinate, "of a lower station or rank." I also suspected that the other sense of inferior applied: "less important, valuable, or worthy." Proponents of male headship try very hard to deny that the first sense implies the second. They argue that women are in some abstract, metaphysical sense equal in value to men, even though they say women were created for the express purpose of serving as men's assistants. Adam was the pinnacle of God's creation; Eve was the helper to the pinnacle of God's creation. Am I supposed to believe those two roles are of equal worth?

Congratulations, you've been awarded the position of Assistant to the Regional Manager for all time.

None of this was my husband’s fault, by the way. It was I, not he, who embraced Fr. Trenham’s reactionary version of Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, I made him into an authority figure he never asked to be, and it was tempting to blame him when I chafed against my self-imposed bonds. My effort to become a Good Wife backfired, straining my marriage instead of strengthening it. As it turns out, silent submission is NOT a great way to influence your husband's behavior, but it is a pretty good way to build up resentment. If none of my other objections to Fr. Trenham's arguments stick, the simple fact that his principles did not work in practice ought to cast doubt on them.

As you might have noticed, I have not addressed the question of whether Fr. Trenham's views on male primacy represent "True Orthodoxy." It will be clear to anyone within the Church that his views do not represent the common practice of Orthodox Christians, but that's not really the same thing. Most Orthodox Christians don't follow the fasting rules or show up on time to Liturgy, either. The truth is, I'm not prepared to say what is or is not "True Orthodoxy." All I can say is that if Fr. Trenham's arguments in this lecture are legitimately Orthodox, there's no path for me back to the Church.

*It is common in the Orthodox Church to address priests by the title "Father" and their first names. The usual form of address felt too familiar for the purposes of this review, so I instead refer to Fr. Josiah Trenham as Fr. Trenham.

Finding a Way Back

Today I had a very helpful conversation with a priest from my former parish. He has given me hope that I might be able to find my way back to the Church.

I can't go back the way I came. As a new convert, my faith was sincere and zealous, but it was simplistic and tainted by pride. I embraced the most extreme, conservative version of Orthodoxy because I thought that was the way for me to be the best possible Orthodox Christian. I thought that if I followed the strictest fasting rules, the most conservative gender role, and the most rigorous prayer rule, I could flip a switch from sinner to saint, like St. Mary of Egypt whom I chose as my patron. It's an error many new converts make, I think.

As I said in my last post, I have been working on my review of Fr. Josiah Trenham's lecture series "The Good Wife." Those lectures greatly influenced my early understanding of Orthodoxy. I still want to do that review, but I have been too motivated by anger and a desire for some sort of revenge, as if through my insignificant blog I could strike back at Fr. Josiah for teaching me a version of Orthodoxy that ultimately backfired on me. Now, I think I need to approach this review with a different attitude, with humility and a desire for understanding. Not everything Fr. Josiah says in his lectures is wrong, even though I still think much of it is harmful.

If I have offended any Orthodox friends with my posts, I want to apologize. I hope you can understand that I am struggling in my faith and forgive me for my anger. I'm thankful to the friends who have reached out to me in kindness.

I'm a writer, and I work out my thoughts best through writing. Everything I have said represented my understanding and my emotions at the time. I don't want to recant or delete my past posts, because they are a record of my thought process. Maybe they can even help someone else who is struggling, if I am able to find my way back to the Church and show my path to others.

Thanks you to everyone who reads this-- even you Twitter trolls who only read it to find things to disparage. Knowing that a few people are actually reading my words makes me consider them more carefully, so that I can make my arguments understandable even to people who disagree with me.

I'll soon be posting my review of "The Good Wife, Part 1: The Good Wife as the Help-Mate." I hope it will be of interest to some of you. I value your feedback.

Thanks for reading.

Upcoming Review of Fr. Josiah Trenham's Lecture Series "The Good Wife"

Fr. Josiah Trenham

Back in 2014, when I was an eager and naive inquirer into Orthodox Christianity, I listened to Fr. Josiah Trenham's lecture series "The Good Wife." His words shaped my conception of my new faith and my proper role as an Orthodox wife. I took his teachings to heart and sincerely tried to implement them.

I didn't know at the time that Fr. Josiah is arguably the most reactionary voice in American Orthodoxy. I now realize that his views are more extreme than those of the vast majority of Orthodox Christians I have known. Yet, Fr. Josiah's podcast "Arena" is featured on Ancient Faith, the most popular English-language Orthodox media outlet. He also founded Patristic Nectar Publishing and is a prolific author. I have seen his books sitting on the shelves of my parish library.

In other words, Fr. Josiah is not an obscure, fringe voice. If he were, I wouldn't bother to address his views. But despite his extreme positions, he is mainstream and highly influential among American Orthodox Christians. As such, his work merits scrutiny and critique.

When I was a wide-eyed catechumen, I didn't think I had the authority to dismiss the teachings of an Orthodox priest. "The Good Wife" shocked and disturbed me the first time I listened to it, but I convinced myself that my reaction was due to my own prideful nature, which had to be conquered if I was to become a Good Wife. It's difficult to convey the damage this did to my marriage and my faith, damage which I am still working to repair.

For an Orthodox Christian, criticizing a priest is tricky. Our faith teaches us that a priest is an icon of Christ, and as such demands respect. We aren't required to take the word of any one priest as doctrine, but rigorous critique may be perceived as bordering on blasphemy. If we take issue with the teachings of a priest, we are to expected to respond meekly or not at all.

Well, I'm not going to do that. I don't have much status to lose within the Church at this point, and that gives me some freedom that well-behaved Orthodox Christians don't have. I want other Orthodox Christians to see clearly the extreme (and, I will argue, un-Orthodox) ideology that Fr. Josiah propagates, so that they can approach his work with skepticism. Towards that end, I will be writing a multi-part review of his lecture series "The Good Wife."

I have a very small blog with few if any readers. I don't know if my words can make a difference, but words are the only tool I have. If enough Orthodox Christians speak out against Fr. Josiah, maybe we could pressure mainstream outlets like Ancient Faith to stop giving him a platform. He could be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. Hey, I can dream.

The full series of "The Good Wife" is available for pay through Patristic Nectar Publishing, except for Part 1 which you can listen to for free. Part 1 is also available through Ancient Faith Radio, which is where I first heard it. In my reviews, I will summarize the content of his lectures for the benefit of those who can't or won't pay to hear them, and I will include extensive quotations.

Stay tuned.

The Problem of Misogyny in Christianity

Nine months ago I wrote a blog post called "The Problem with Orthodox Tradition on Female Virginity," and seven months ago I shared it on Facebook. In it, I had some harsh words about misogyny in Orthodoxy, and I proclaimed that I would no longer be taking Communion at Church. The Facebook post generated, shall we say, a stir among my Orthodox friends and my family.

I'm not going to take back anything I said. I have not been receiving Communion as I said wouldn't, because I still have not resolved my deep reservations about Orthodoxy, and I can't repent of what I don't regret. I do have one regret about the post, though. I wish I hadn't shared it on Facebook, at least not before I had private conversations with family and close Orthodox friends. I could have avoided some drama that way.

This is a follow-up post to the arguments I put forward in my last post.

First, I want to say that misogyny in religion is not a problem confined to Orthodoxy. It is entwined in the roots of all forms of Christianity. Other branches of Christianity may not venerate the saints I mentioned in the last post, but all Christians hold up the Bible as the primary source of doctrine, and the Bible itself contains numerous passages that devalue the spiritual worth of women. I will point out some of these passages in a moment. Misogyny is mixed up in many other major religions as well, but I will leave it to people of non-Christian backgrounds to critique their own religions.

Second, I want to say that individual Christians are not necessarily misogynists just because there is misogyny in elements of their tradition. Christian tradition is self-contradictory in its messages about the status of women, and many Christians choose to focus on the messages that affirm the spiritual equality of women. So why can't I do the same? Why can't I turn to the verse in Galatians where Paul says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," and ignore the rest? 

Because I want to be intellectually honest and consistent. If you believe the Bible's teachings are true and good, you have to reckon with the WHOLE Bible, not just the pieces you like. If you cherry-pick, then deep in your heart you believe the Bible is not completely trustworthy. To be intellectually honest, you must have some systematic way to determine which parts are true and which are false, or else you must admit that you are relying on your own value system independent of Christianity. It's fine to rely on your own value system, but to be honest you should admit to yourself that Christianity is not the foundation of your worldview, even if you may still value your faith as a source of community, comfort, and inspiration.

My crisis of faith was the result of realizing that I cannot accept all aspects of the Bible and Orthodox Tradition as true and good. I haven't yet come up with a systematic way to determine which parts are good and which are bad, so right now I can't trust any of it.

In case you are a Christian who doubts my claim of misogyny in the Bible, I'll give you a few examples.

• Deuteronomy 21: The Israelites are instructed by God that in war, they may seize women as captives and force them to be their wives.
• Deuteronomy 22: Under Mosaic Law, if a woman is raped in a city, she is to be stoned along with her rapist, "because she did not cry out." It is incumbent upon the woman to prevent rape. There is no mercy for women who are coerced but did not cry out, or presumably even for women who cry out but are not heard. (This situation, by the way, is exactly what happened to me. If I had been a Jew living before the time of Christ, should I have been stoned?)
• Judges 12: The tribe of Benjamin is saved from extinction through the violent capture of women in Jabesh Gilead and Shiloh. The other tribes of Israel ultimately had sympathy for the tribe of Benjamin and condoned their actions.
• 2 Samuel 11-12: David "sent messengers and took [Bathsheba]." There is no indication that Bathsheba had any say, and it seems unlikely that she would feel free to refuse the king. God sends Nathan the prophet to David to accuse him of his sins, but David is not accused of any offense against Bathsheba herself, only against Uriah for murdering him and taking Uriah's wife as his own. Furthermore, part of God's punishment of David is that his wives will be taken captive and raped.

This is not a comprehensive list, but it's enough to make my point. I'm focusing here on sexual assault because it's the most obvious example to me, but we could also talk about the scapegoating of Eve, the acceptance of polygamy, the general lack of agency women had in choosing their own husbands, and the treatment of women as possessions of men who are passed from father to husband.

These examples come from the Old Testament, and Christians may argue that they are superseded by the teachings of the New Testament. But are we saying that God used to disregard or even approve of rape under certain circumstances, but after Christ He didn't anymore? What kind of God would EVER approve of rape? Isn't God eternal and unchanging?

There is a very simple answer. These passages were written by men, fallible human beings who were influenced by the thinking of their time. They were not divinely inspired, and hence not completely trustworthy. This is hard to swallow for Christians, but it's better than trying to reconcile yourself to the idea that women's value is subject to change the same way that Jewish rules about unclean foods were subject to change.

I am not aware of passages in the New Testament that so obviously condone rape. However, that does not mean that the New Testament is free from deeply problematic teachings about the status of women. For one example, consider Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." This analogy likening the relationship between husbands and wives to the relationship between Christ and the church is even incorporated into traditional marriage vows in many Christian churches. (I had to fight hard against the Methodist officiant at my own wedding to omit that part.)

Think what an extreme statement this is of the authority of the husband over the wife! The wife is to be subject to the husband IN EVERYTHING. The relationship of the church to Christ is total, worshipful obedience. Christian marriage, according to this teaching, is in no way a relation of equals. This is similar to the statement in Ephesians 6:5 about the relationship of slaves to masters: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ." (The implication here with regard to the morality of slavery is another troubling matter.) Wives must therefore be as obedient as SLAVES to their husbands.

I will not and cannot accept these misogynistic Biblical teachings. I have tried to reconcile myself to them through all kinds of mental gymnastics, and the effort tore at my heart. I am angry at the Church for encouraging me to do so. I am angry that the Church exacerbated the pain of my own internalized misogyny instead of helping me to heal. As painful as it is to reject my faith, it is more painful to believe in a God who would condone such treatment of women.