Couple in elegant wedding attire outside modern venue. Photo Credit: love 4 Ibolya/Pexels
Conversations about gender roles within religious contexts continue to shape expectations in many societies, particularly within marriage and family life. These interpretations often influence how people understand authority, responsibility, and equality, not only in private relationships but also in broader social attitudes. Yet, these conversations frequently rely on selective readings of the Scripture to enforce hierarchy and, in many cases, silence women. Certain verses of the Christian Scripture (which is what is referred to in this essay) are emphasised repeatedly, particularly those referring to male authority and female submission, while others that call for mutual responsibility are overlooked. This imbalance has contributed to a distorted understanding of both faith and equality.
A commonly cited passage describes the man as the head of the wife and instructs wives to submit – Ephesians 5:22–23. For many, this is taken as definitive proof of hierarchy. However, the same text commands husbands to love their wives as themselves – Ephesians 5:25,28. These verses set a standard that is incompatible with domination or misuse of authority. Love, in this context, demands responsibility, care, and respect, not control or entitlement. Moreover, we do not say wives should not love their husbands simply because the writing on love in a marriage was directed at husbands. Just as love is expected to go both ways, so too should submission. A marriage where both spouses practice mutual love and submission fosters respect, humility, and teamwork, rather than a one-sided demand for control. This ensures that true partnership and cooperation exist in decision-making, not a power struggle. It also ensures that there is no place for ego/pride, and that both spouses feel fully valued and protected, without fear of oppression.
The issue, therefore, is not necessarily the existence of such texts, but how they are interpreted and applied. Selective interpretation allows individuals to reinforce pre-existing beliefs while ignoring equally important teachings and instructions that call for accountability and mutual responsibility. When only one part of a message is emphasised, and texts are used selectively or in a biased way, the Scripture ceases to guide relationships and instead becomes a tool for justifying imbalance, often detached from historical contexts and the broader principles of justice, compassion and mutual respect.
In practice, these interpretations can have serious consequences. The emphasis on submission has led many women to remain in unhealthy or even abusive marriages. In my interactions with several individuals, including women in abusive relationships, I have heard accounts of church leaders advising them to remain in such marriages and “keep praying.” Surprisingly, some of this advice also comes from women in leadership within the church. While prayer and faith can be sources of strength for believers, such guidance becomes deeply harmful when it discourages individuals from prioritising their safety and well-being.
In one instance, I reported a case to a foundation that supports women’s rights. One might expect that the woman involved would feel offended by my intervention, but instead, she expressed gratitude. She explained that the situation had left her feeling trapped, and that she had received advice from several individuals, including church leaders, urging her to endure, especially for the sake of her children. My intervention eventually gave her the courage to leave the abusive relationship. Experiences like this highlight that the consequences of misinterpreting or cherry-picking verses of the Scripture are not abstract; they affect lives, real safety, and real choices.
I once had a conversation with a pastor where I expressed that domestic violence is not solely a private matter, but a societal one, and that the church must play a role in addressing it. Religious leaders are often in a position to shape how such situations are understood. When they encourage endurance without addressing harm, they risk reinforcing the very conditions that leave individuals trapped and enable the very injustices they should challenge.
The concept of the wife as a helper is also frequently weaponised to relegate women and make them the inferior partner in a marriage. If you believe that wives are helpers, then it is important to know that helping does not imply silence or inferiority; it includes participation, influence, and shared decision-making. A helper contributes meaningfully and is actively involved, not excluded from important conversations. Furthermore, Scripture speaks of mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21), reinforcing the idea that responsibility within relationships is reciprocal rather than one-sided.
Even within Christian theology, positions and roles do not necessarily imply inequality. The doctrine of the Trinity offers a useful lens through which to view this. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood to have distinct roles – Leader, Redeemer, and Helper. Yet they are equal in essence, nature and power. The identification of the Father as leader does not render the Son or the Holy Spirit inferior. There is no hierarchy of worth within that relationship, only unity of purpose.
So, if equality can coexist with differentiated roles in theology, why should it not exist in human relationships? If you wish to argue that husbands and wives must have distinct roles, should that also be accompanied by insisting on the inferiority of one party? Also, marriage is between two persons, not two persons and society. Hence, it should be up to the individuals to determine how they want their marriage to be and what roles they are willing to take on in the marriage, based on mutual agreement, respect and love; and not abuse, fear or intimidation. Leadership, if and/or where it exists, should be understood as responsibility, not domination. It should reflect care, fairness, and accountability, rather than control.
Revisiting how religious teachings are applied is not an attack on faith, but an attempt to engage with it more responsibly. A more consistent reading of the Scripture is required, one that supports a model of partnership defined by shared responsibility, mutual accountability, and dignity for both individuals. The Scripture should never be used to endorse oppression or unequal treatment but instead be used for encouraging unity and balance; promoting dignity rather than silence, and accountability rather than unchecked authority.
Again, the issue is not whether the Scripture addresses gender roles, but how those teachings are applied. When interpreted with integrity, they point toward mutual respect and shared responsibility. Faith, in its fullness, elevates relationships and does not diminish one party within them. When it is understood in this way, it becomes a force for fairness rather than a justification for inequality.
The post Praise Otito Obanya: Submission, Equality, and the Misinterpretation of Scripture in Marriage appeared first on BellaNaija - Showcasing Africa to the world. Read today!.