The CBE Scroll

Comment by Lori

June 12, 2006 @ 1:06 pm

Ok, I’ll take a stab at it. Here is what I believe someone who believes in complementarianism would say.

“Slavery and the submission of women are two completely different things. Slavery means that you have complete control over a person’s life. Under a slaveowning society, the master could buy or sell his slave, and could dictate where the slave lived, what he ate, what sorts of relationships he could have (i.e. whether he could marry), etc.

That is not the picture of submission that we see portrayed in the bible. Husbands are told to love their lives like Christ. Just as Christ does not force us to have a relatinship with Him, but offers His grace freely, so a husband who acted in an authoritarian manner to his wife would not be acting very Christ-like, and would thus be violating God’s Word.

As for wifely, submission, it is voluntary. In the words of the Southern Baptist Faith and Message, a wife should “graciously submit.” Just as Jesus laid aside His divine power and submitted to the will of the Father while He was on earth, wives should lay aside their own power and desires, trusting that the Father is in control of their lives no matter the situation. A husband does not own his wife any more than a wife owns her husband.”

By the way, on another online discussion forum, I saw a comp. say that there was nothing wrong with slavery since the bible doesn’t forbid it. I don’t know if he was serious or not, but if he was, then there’s at least one person who wouldn’t necessarily agree with du Toit’s position.

Comment by Odysseus

June 12, 2006 @ 1:17 pm

I posted something similar on my blog. You can find the post here: http://odysseusjak.blogspot.com/2006/03/from-my-old-blog-031506.html

Some great thoughts going on about this I think.

May mercy, peace, and love be yours in abundance.

+OD

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 12, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

Thank you, D.P. This is a very important consideration when seeking to apply the various biblical household code passages. The sarcastic side of my nature would like to tell the modern patriarchalists, “I’ll take you seriously on what you say about wifely subjection to husbands once I observe how well you treat your slaves.”

Bravo, du Toit, and thanks for this entry, D.P.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 12, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

Hello Lori. You wrote: “As for wifely, submission, it is voluntary. In the words of the Southern Baptist Faith and Message, a wife should “graciously submit.” Just as Jesus laid aside His divine power and submitted to the will of the Father while He was on earth, wives should lay aside their own power and desires, trusting that the Father is in control of their lives no matter the situation. A husband does not own his wife any more than a wife owns her husband.””

There are some difficulties with that theorizing. Christ did not submit to the Father because He was the Son. Christ submitted to His Father because they had agreed upon the plan of salvation in the beginning of creation and had agreed that the Son was the One to do it. And the plan required that He lay aside (restrain from using) some of His Divine power and required Him to place Himself as also 100% human in support of the Father as God for our example. We learn tons about the humility of Christ because He humbled Himself (not for His own benefit or God the Father’s benefit, but for our benefit) in spite of the fact that He is, was, and always will be God equal in all aspect to all the Godhead.

The reasoning behind the wifely submission is not because they (husband and wife) have agreed upon some goal that needs her submission in order to be accomplished. Rather their reasoning is that she is woman and was born to submission and the husband is the leader because men were born to lead. And there just isn’t anything in Scripture to support those ideas.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 12, 2006 @ 8:13 pm

To expand a bit on what I think you’re saying, TeriLynn, what’s missing when the Faith and Message statement says that [only] the wife should “graciously submit” is:

*Submission is required of all believers, toward all believers (Eph. 5:21). Husbands are not exempt from submitting to their wives. The SBC is correct in that submission is a gracious initiative of the submitter. Why, then, so pointedly exclude the husbands from this requirement when the Bible does not?

*If I remember correctly, the Faith and Message statement incorrectly says that wives are to submit (graciously) to their husbands’ leadership. Submission is always one person submitting to another person. You don’t submit to leadership, and you don’t actually submit to the position of a leader. You submit to the person who leads. That may seem subtle, but it is a huge thing when applied to marriage and other one-on-one relationships. That’s where patriarchalists so completely miss the boat on what Eph. 5:21ff is saying. For them it’s all about positions of authority, whereas Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is writing about relationships transformed by self-sacrificial love. The secular household codes are based on the authority structure of paterfamilias over all in the household. That’s what the patriarchalists consistently re-interpret Eph. 5:21ff to say, but it’s radically, fundamentally opposed to such a reading.

Comment by Canopy

June 13, 2006 @ 3:07 am

How about: “I’ll take you seriously on what you say about wifely subjection to husbands once I observe how well you behave when enslaved.”

By the way, the Stanford prison experiment showed that people with authoritarian mindsets are more easily subjugated. In other words, bullies are more easily bullied.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 13, 2006 @ 4:49 am

No, it is not valid to “appropriate these codes into contemporary practice, and then blatantly ignore what they clearly say about slavery.” But we don’t need to ignore what this passage has to say about slavery. Rather, we must include what Scripture as a whole has to say about slavery.

When we think of slavery today, most of us (at least in the U.S.) think of American-style slavery. This type of slavery is clearly prohibited in Scripture. “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Ex. 21:16).

“We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me” (1 Tim. 1:9–11).

According to UCLA History professor Scott Bartchy, in the time of Christ, many people sold themselves into slavery for job security, and to eventually become Roman citizens when they were freed. Most could count on being freed by age 30. Many slaves were educated at their owners’ expense and held prestigious jobs. It was often better to be a slave, than to be a free person who had to look for daily work.

Bottom line is, we don’t need to ignore any part of Scripture.

Here’s another issue: if wives do not have to submit to their husbands, then children do not have to obey their parents either! That’s also in the household codes (Eph. 6:1, Col. 3:20).

Comment by Lori

June 13, 2006 @ 7:04 am

I was just trying to argue the other side–I didn’t say I believed it myself. :)

Actually, I think you refuted it very well. Even as I was typing my original response, I was thinking of a counterargument along your lines, Terri.

That kind of reminds me of the idea that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. The first time I saw that argument, I thought, “Why? What is it about Jesus or His work of salvation that He needs to be subordinated?”

Comment by DP

June 13, 2006 @ 9:18 am

Welcome, Brian. I wonder why you think anyone here is saying wives should not submit to their husbands. This is clearly what Scripture teaches, and I would argue it is one of those universals that transcend the culture in which it was written (as does, for example, the command to “love your enemies”). In the same category I would also place the teaching that Christians are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21)–and that includes husbands submitting to wives, does it not?

I also agree that we are not to ignore any part of Scripture. I certainly don’t ignore the parts that speak of cities of refuge, animal sacrifices, or not eating shellfish. But neither do I believe they are commandments I am obliged to follow.

Thus, the hermeneutical question. How do you tell when the Bible is laying down an absolute command for every time, place, and culture, and when is the Bible giving instructions that must be contextualized to new situations or even jettisoned completely–or at least de-literalized to the point that they are effectively abrogated?

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 13, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

DP,

Wives are instructed to love their husbands (Titus 2:4) and submit to them (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18). Husbands are commanded to love their wives (Eph. 5:25, Col. 3:19). There is no command in Scripture for husbands to submit to their wives. Christ doesn’t submit to the Church; the Church submits to Christ. Christ loves the Church and He gave Himself for her, but He does not submit to her. Christian marriages are to represent Christ’s relationship to the Church. A husband loving his wife self-sacrificially and a wife submitting to her husband is a witness to people of the relationship between Christ and the Church. If the roles are reversed or blurred then the analogy is obscured.

Further, if Eph. 5:21 is taken to mean “mutual submission,” then it must apply to all the relationships in the household code. Thus, parents should obey—or at least submit to—their children and masters should submit to their slaves. But this is out of order. Parents who do this end of having to call “Supernanny.”

As far as your question about hermeneutics, it is not always easy to discern which specific commands are universal and which must be contextualized. Often, there’s something in the Scriptures, themselves, that answer the question. I’ll give my best shot at the examples you gave.

Cities of refuge: Israel was a theocracy at the time. God was setting up a legal system that would protect people from wanton revenge. It’s basically what we have now in our legal system of “innocent until proven guilty.” (See Joshua 20:1-6)

Animal sacrifices: Christ was the fulfillment of them, so they are no longer needed. “Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, “Here I am — it is written about me in the scroll — I have come to do your will, O God”‘” (Heb. 10:5-7).

Shellfish (and other “unclean” foods): Jesus, Himself, declared all foods clean (Mark 7:18-19). So go ahead and “pig out” at Red Lobster! (Actually, if you eat too much, that would be gluttony.)

Comment by DP

June 13, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

I’m wondering what Greek lexical resource you are looking at that translates hypotassomai as “obey” rather than “submit.” Parents most definitely “submit” to their children, if by “submit” we understand to prefer, to defer to their needs, etc. Just ask anybody who grew up during the Depression if their parents ever went without so their children could have Christmas. In that sense, Christ “submitted” to the church when he willingly died for her sake (seems there’s something about that in Ephesians 5). He drove the point home when he washed the disciples feet–taking on the duties of a slave is how I think I’ve heard it preached.

Likewise, all Christians are to submit to one another. But you are right that children and slaves are called on to “obey” (hypakouo). But this word is definitely not used of wives in the household codes.

Comment by Lori

June 13, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

What about the question raised in Du Toit’s blog entry? Paul seems to take slavery for granted in his world. He never says that God forbids it. Since it is mentioned directly after the passage about husbands and wives, should we take the passage about slavery as normative, as well? Why or why not? As you said, Brian, it’s not always easy to discern which commands were meant for a specific cultural situation and which ones should apply for all time. The world may have abolished slavery, but does that mean Christians should do so, also?

As for lexical definitions: Strong’s gives the following for Hupotasso:

to arrange under, to subordinate
to subject, put in subjection
to subject one’s self, obey
to submit to one’s control
to yield to one’s admonition or advice
to obey, be subject

It also says that it was a Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader.” In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.”

I must confess that I am confused, though. In my dictionary, it says that “voluntary” means:

“Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward.”

If a person is told that if they don’t do an action they are violating God’s will and will be punished, then I don’t understand how they can be doing something “without restraint.”

Also, I looked up “subordination” and this is what it said.

Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.
Subject to the authority or control of another.

I don’t know how to reconcile that with “graciously submitting,” either.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 13, 2006 @ 10:12 pm

Husbands are indeed commanded to submit to their wives (Eph. 5:21, 1Peter 5:5, Gen.1:21, and 1:27 to name a few.) That was new teaching and radical, even dangerous, for those days. Biblical submission simply means to make yourselves available. Children are commanded to obey their parents, but that relationship changes as they grow up and women are not children. Women are fully grown adults. They are not told to “obey” their husbands. The word “submit” does not even appear in the original language for wives. It was inserted by the English translators. These women were already legally subject to their husbands by the laws where they lived, and there was little Paul could do about that. He was not concerned with wives submitting, they already had to submit; he was concerned with the manner of their submission (as though they were doing it unto the Lord, not rebelliously or sullenly). Husbands were told to use their absolute legal authority over their wives to build their wives up, not tear them down. The “authority” of husbands over wives was not God-given (Genesis 1:21, 1:27); it was the result of sin (Genesis 3:16), and was a fact of life in the nations in which early Christians found themselves. The principle to be drawn from this is that we must never ever as Christians use any authority we may have to abuse those who are under that particular authority. If I am a manager of a company, I must use any power I have to the building up of the company and to bolster the morale of the employees who are under my particular authority, not to abuse or oppress them just because I can. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit, not men, is our spiritual leader and will guide us into all truth, so “head” definitely does not mean “leader. It more correctly would be rendered “source” or “origin”. In fact, husbands are never, ever told to be the head at all. The idea of husbands being the “head of the house” is foreign to Jesus’s, Peter’s, and Paul’s teachings. Back then, slavery also consisted of conquerors enslaving the conquered. It is estimated that 3/4 of the population of Rome was that of conquered people who had been brought to the city against their will as slaves, not voluntary.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 13, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

“Sean has asked a good question: “Is it valid to appropriate these codes into contemporary practice, and then blatantly ignore what they clearly say about slavery?””

If we think that the patriarchal systems of male rule should be legitimized because Paul didn’t directly refute them, then it is reasonable that slavery also be legitimized. Perhaps, this is why some patriarchalists have tried to soften the concept of slavery with pictures of benevolent masters.

Personally, I think Paul was trying to insert godly attitudes into the systems that were in hopes that as Christians sought to be more Christlike eventually they would not be able to continue in the patriarchal mindset.

Comment by DP

June 14, 2006 @ 5:43 am

As I think about the hermeneutical question (which is where we began, lo these many hours ago…), a couple of important issues come up:

(1) If Christian wives never love their husbands (after all, they’re never commanded to do so, only to respect and submit to them), are we OK with that?

(2) If the laws were changed to reinstate the institution of slavery exactly as it was practiced in the Greco-Roman world, would we be OK with that? (Seeing as nothing in the NT requires us to repudiate that institution.)

On what biblical basis do we say, “No, I’m not OK with that”?

Comment by Can Dance

June 14, 2006 @ 9:36 am

That is why there is something called the REDEMPTIVE WORK OF CHRIST.
I have had discussions about this with people and I am at a bit of a loss as to why this is a hard concept to grasp, but apparently it is.

Slavery, by its very nature, goes against the core of Jesus’ teaching. Love others as you love yourself. Would you want to be “owned”?

Paul did subtly undermine the very structure on which slavery was built, emphasizing the humanity of both parties. So no, I can’t imagine going back to Greco Roman world standards either. Even if its a benevolent kind of master/slave relationship, its still being owned by another.
And even if it’s a benevolent kind of patriarchy between a husband and wife, where the wife gets to remain a perpetual child because she is chosen to or is forced to, its still patriarchy. They are both prisons, though they might be “pretty”

Thanks but no thanks. I don’t think God created women to be eternal children and I don’t see how in hierarchalist thinking she could not be.

Comment by LJR

June 14, 2006 @ 10:37 am

I have to point out something. Hierarchs are shifting in their doctrine when it comes to love, and it’s not going to be to a woman’s advantage.

Back in 1997, 1998… somewhere in there, back in my comp days (I’m so ashamed of that, but I really knew nothing different), I wrote that women were never commanded to love their husbands. Other comps were borrowing my stuff left and right, and men and women alike were saying I was right on. Titus 2:4 was *never* used against me until last year, then several comp men started pointing it out at once. (There are copies of my comp stuff on sites besides my own, so I can’t delete everything. I have rebutted myself on my own site.)

This business of comp men changing their minds and deciding that comp women must be instructed to love their husbands after all frightens me. It’s not that I don’t believe in spouses loving one another, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that I already know that when the emphasis is placed on wives to submit, comps suddenly stop teaching that men are supposed to love their wives. I’ve seen the ugly results of that firsthand in my old church. Submission is supposed to be “unmanly” (whatever that means), so comp men don’t do it. Is love now going to become something that only women are supposed to do, and therefore an “unmanly” activity? The comps have already explained away Ephesians 5:21 to their satisfaction, so are the verses about the husband’s sacrificial love going to be re-interpreted and brushed off next?

As if comp women didn’t face enough trouble, things are about to get worse.

Comment by Lori

June 14, 2006 @ 11:35 am

(1) If Christian wives never love their husbands (after all, they’re never commanded to do so, only to respect and submit to them), are we OK with that?

In the complementary worldview, does it matter whether a woman loves her husband or not? I offer the following illustration from an article in Christianity Today:

A case in point is an episode from the life of Don Balasa, a Chicago lawyer…, and his wife, Kate Balasa,… The Balasas were visiting Buffalo, New York, when the terrorist attacks suspended air travel. They had airplane tickets for September 13 but weren’t sure they would be able to fly home that day.

“An area that Don usually defers to me is travel,” Kate told me. “So he asked me, ‘What are our options?’ After giving him all the scenarios, I told him I’d prefer to wait at the hotel and fly home.” But Don thought it would be safer and a better use of time to drive home to Chicago immediately.

“I told Don, ‘I’m deciding to submit to you here, but I really disagree with your decision.’ He just very lovingly, very kindly said, ‘I think this is the direction we need to go,’ ” she says….

So in this example, Kate really had no choice. Don had made up his mind what to do, and that was that. Did it matter whether Kate loved Don at that moment? Not particularly, because Don had the authority and exercised it to do what he wanted.

I also find it very interesting what Kate had to say next.

Does she feel resentment when Don goes against her wishes?

“No bitterness has built up,” she says. “I trust God that he has put Don in a place of headship in our home, and Don’s leadership is loving.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/003/4.58.html

Kate indicates that she has not sustained any bitter feelings towards her husband in the long term. However, that doesn’t mean that there were no bitter feelings at the moment her husband made his decision. If she did feel bitter at the moment her husband went against her wishes, did it matter? Again, no, since he was able to do what he wanted, anyway.

And Titus 2:4 is not a command for wives to love their husbands. Paul merely says that older women should encourage younger ones to love their husbands.

In light of all this, I would say: Do you feel it’s OK for a woman not to love her husband, DP?

(2) If the laws were changed to reinstate the institution of slavery exactly as it was practiced in the Greco-Roman world, would we be OK with that? (Seeing as nothing in the NT requires us to repudiate that institution.)

Remember the movie Spartacus? Well, I did some research, and at the height of his rebellion he had over 100,000 escaped slaves following him. Obviously, not everybody was content or happy to be a slave in the Roman world. In fact, I also found out that Spartacus led just one rebellion. There were actually three of them before the empire collapsed.

And, as Can Dance nicely pointed out, would you want to be owned? Even if you are the most humane master in the world, you still own another person. You have the legal right to sell them or do anything you want to them, even if you choose not to exercise that right.

So again, I would ask you, DP: would you be ok with reinstating slavery the way Paul envisioned it?

On what biblical basis do we say, “No, I’m not OK with that”?

Very good question. So what’s the answer?

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 14, 2006 @ 11:54 am

DP,

First, as I previously commented, wives are told to love their husbands (Titus 2:4).

“be subject, submit to, obey, be under the authority of; take a subordinate place”—from A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 190), by Barclay M. Newman

“to be subordinated, to be brought under a state or influence”—from The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (p. 423), by Wesley Perschbacher

“subject oneself, be subjected or subordinated, obey”—from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (p. 855), Walter Bauer, William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich

“As in…the commonly required subjection of wife to husband according to the biblical understanding (Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Pt. 3:1; Tt. 2:5) the issue is keeping a divinely willed order, cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34 (Gn. 3:16)”—from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VIII (p. 43), ed. G. Friedrich

What lexical sources do you have that show that hupotasso can mean “prefer, defer to the needs of”? Certainly, we are to “consider others better than [ourselves]” (Phil. 2:3), but this is different from submission. I defer to wife on many things, but that is not submission, that is love. Similarly, when I sacrifice for my children it is not submission, it is love.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 14, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

That’s the problem with a personal–or groupthink–hermeneutic that seems to commend prooftexting. You can divorce a verse or verse fragment from the surrounding text, its book, and indeed from the entire Bible, and use it to support whatever unbiblical principle you choose. That’s how “biblical” patriarchy appears to me.

I have yet to read or hear where a patriarchalist addresses this question:

How do you decide when a general teaching, such as “love one another as I have loved you,” or “submit to one another” should be superseded by the Bible’s silence in applying that general teaching in a specific situation? That’s precisely what this “Husbands don’t have to submit to their wives, but wives have to love their husbands” stuff requires the patriarchalists to do. To turn one of their phrases back onto them: If you can’t trust the whole Bible to apply to you, how can you trust any of it to apply to you?

It might help if the patriarchalists figured out what submission and christlike love really are. They’d discover that they’re virtually the same thing, which is why Paul paired them in Eph. 5. You can’t submit without Christ-like love, and you can’t love as Christ loved without submission.

It must be very difficult to be a patriarchalist. It is far too complicated to figure out, let alone remember, all the “yeah, but’s.”

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 14, 2006 @ 2:34 pm

Yes the Bible does indeed command wives to love their husbands (Titus 2:4). We are all to love one another (John 15:12, Romans 13:8, Romans 13:10, among many). Sorry husbands, you don’t get off the hook with regards to submission, and you wives don’t get off the hook with regards to love.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 14, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

Kathryn,

You used the following verses to support the idea that “husbands are indeed commanded to submit to their wives”:

Gen. 1:21: “So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Please tell me how the above verses support the view that “husbands are indeed commanded to submit to their wives.”

You wrote: “In fact, husbands are never, ever told to be the head at all.” True. Husbands are not commanded to be the head. Scripture says the husband is the head. “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Eph. 5:23, emphasis mine).

Actually, “submit” is in the original in 1 Peter 3:1 explicitly, and in Eph. 5:22 implicitly in that it is a carry over from verse 21. It’s like if I say to my kids, “Clean up your mess. Son, in the basement.” The command to clean up is in the first sentence. The command is implied in the second sentence, but the purpose of the second sentence is to tell him where he is to go to clean up.

Comment by Lindsay Bradford-Ewart

June 14, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

Here’s another point:
If you want to follow the patriarchal line of reasoning where “it says submit to your husbands, therefore you have to do whatever your husband says and you are a subordinate being to him,” then I would say that you need to follow the same line for the husband. He is to love his wife like Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He lived/lives his life for them; he died for them. The husband should lay down all of his life plans, his goals, in order to allow his wife to pursue hers. The husband who loves his wife like Christ loves the church would never play the “what I say goes card” — ever. It doesn’t seem like the patriarchalists ever want to venture down this road, pretending that the Bible commands wives to give up everything and the husbands to rule over it all. This is an antiquated perspective that does not originate from the Bible or early Christian culture.

I agree that when you get right down to it, submission and loving end up being exactly the same thing, making the argument erroneous. Both husbands and wives are to love and submit to each other, because you can’t have one without the other.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 14, 2006 @ 9:04 pm

Interesting that Kate says her husband usually defers to her on travel issues, yet she “decides” to submit to her husband as the “head” when he makes the decisions. Does she then become “the head” when her husband defers the decision-making to her? This underscores just how contradictory and hopeless the complementarian position really is. No wonder Paul never told husbands to be the “head of the home.” The result would have been chaos.

Comment by DP

June 15, 2006 @ 5:56 am

I’m glad so many folks are doing my work for me–and all the more as things at work are about to impose limits my participation in this thread ;-)

Brian, when you wrote, “Further, if Eph. 5:21 is taken to mean “mutual submission,” then it must apply to all the relationships in the household code. Thus, parents should obey—or at least submit to—their children and masters should submit to their slaves. But this is out of order. Parents who do this end of having to call ‘Supernanny’” I misunderstood you to mean that you thought “submission” and “obedience” were the same thing and that the same word was used of wives as for children and slaves. I apologize for the confusion, which led to my question suggesting that you were confused about hypotassomai and hypakouo in Ephesians 5-6. As to where I get the idea that submission has to do with an attitude deference or self-sacrifice, well, we both agree that it is something less stringent or legalistically obligatory than obedience. If you’re uncomfortable with how I see that working out in practical life, I guess we’ll just have to either wrestle that one out or agree to disagree. I do, however, think it is somewhat disengenuous to play the semantic game of bracketing out all the parts of submission that you are comfortable with and call them something else (love, sacrifice, etc.).

When you wrote in comment #7 about slavery in the Greco-Roman world, I assumed (and still assume) that you would have no biblical or theological problems if the same institution were being practiced in your country today. You would not seek to change the laws, would not speak or preach against it, etc. If that is an incorrect assumption, please correct me. It was on this basis that I asked, “If the laws were changed to reinstate the institution of slavery exactly as it was practiced in the Greco-Roman world, would we be OK with that?” (For the record, Lori, I’m decidedly not OK with that, or the idea of wives not loving their husbands ;-) )

On the most basic level, I would oppose Greco-Roman-style slavery because I can’t bring myself to imagine Jesus owning slaves. I was always taught that Jesus Christ was the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted. That is more than simplistic WWJD thinking; it also has to do with a clear understanding of who Jesus is and what he came to do. As I understand it, Jesus’s saving work had to do with undoing all of the negative repercussions of the Fall, which largely (but not exclusively!) have to do with the imposition of satanic systems of domination that put one person or group above another. And as I understand it, at least part of what Nicene/Chalcedonian christology is all about is that Jesus elevates the human condition in its totality by embracing it and lifting it up into the life of God. But that is the subject of a post all its own and, as I said, it’s getting close to the busiest week of the year at work….

Comment by Jorge

June 15, 2006 @ 7:54 am

The issue of slavery in the NT isn’t a new one for complementarians. In fact, they have been addressing it for quite some time. I wonder why egalitarians seem to act as if they are unaware of the detailed explanations put forth by the other side?

For the benefit of all, I have quoted a no. of complementarian sources which deal with the issue of why some codes are valid today (wife, children) while some are not (slavery). I hope this will help. I have not included the footnotes in these quotations.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem,

“15. Don’t you think that these texts are examples of temporary compromise with the patriarchal status quo, while the main thrust of Scripture is toward the leveling of gender-based role differences?

“We recognize that Scripture sometimes regulates undesirable relationships without condoning them as permanent ideals…Another example is the regulation of how Christian slaves were to relate to their masters, even though Paul longed for every slave to be received by his master “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (Philemon 16).

“But we do not put the loving headship of husbands or the godly eldership of men in the same category with divorce, lawsuits, or slavery. The reason we don’t is threefold:

“(1) Male and female personhood, with some corresponding role distinctions, is rooted in God’s act of creation before the sinful distortions of the status quo were established. (See Chapters 3 and 10.) This argument is the same one, we believe, that evangelical feminists would use to defend heterosexual marriage against the (increasingly prevalent) argument that the “leveling thrust” of the Bible leads properly to homosexual alliances. They would say No, because the leveling thrust of the Bible is not meant to dismantle the created order of nature. That is our fundamental argument as well.

“(2) The redemptive thrust of the Bible does not aim at abolishing headship and submission but at transforming them for their original purposes in the created order.

“(3) The Bible contains no indictments of loving headship and gives no encouragements to forsake it. Therefore it is wrong to portray the Bible as overwhelmingly egalitarian with a few contextually
relativized patriarchal texts. The contra-headship thrust of Scripture simply does not exist. It seems to exist only when Scripture’s aim to redeem headship and submission is portrayed as undermining them. (See Question 50, for an example of this hermeneutical
flaw.)

“16. Aren’t the arguments made to defend the exclusion of women from the pastorate today parallel to the arguments Christians made to defend slavery in the nineteenth century?

“…The preservation of marriage is not parallel with the preservation of slavery. The existence of slavery is not rooted in any creation ordinance, but the existence of marriage is. Paul’s regulations for how slaves and masters related to each other do not assume the goodness of the institution of slavery. Rather, seeds for slavery’s dissolution were sown in Philemon 16 (“no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother”), Ephesians 6:9 “Masters . . . do not threaten [your slaves]”), Colossians 4:1 (“Masters, provide your
slaves what is right and fair”), and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 (masters are “brothers”). Where these seeds of equality came to full flower, the very institution of slavery would no longer be slavery.”

“But Paul’s regulations for how husbands and wives relate to each other in marriage do assume the goodness of the institution of marriage-and not only its goodness but also its foundation in the will of the Creator from the beginning of time (Ephesians 5:31-32). Moreover, in locating the foundation of marriage in the will of God at creation, Paul does so in a way that shows that his regulations for marriage also flow from this order of creation. He quotes Genesis 2:24, “they will become one flesh,” and says, “I am talking about Christ and the church.” From this “mystery” he draws out the pattern of the relationship between the husband as head (on the analogy of Christ) and the wife as his body or flesh (on the analogy of the church) and derives the appropriateness of the husband’s leadership and the wife’s submission. Thus Paul’s regulations concerning marriage are just as rooted in the created order as is the institution itself. This is not true of slavery. Therefore, while it is true that some slave owners in the nineteenth century argued in ways parallel with our defense of distinct roles in marriage, the parallel was superficial and misguided.”

-John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 59-61 online edition. (Available online: http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/index.php)

Wayne Grudem,

“Egalitarian Claim 9.3: Slavery: Just As The Church Finally Recognized That Slavery Was Wrong, So It Should Now Recognize That Male Headship In Marriage And The Church Is Wrong.”

Outline of his response:

1) Slavery is very different from marriage and from the church. Marriage was part of God’s original Creation, but slavery was not. The church is a wonderful Creation of God, but slavery was not.
2) The New Testament never commanded slavery, but gave principles that regulated it and ultimately led it its abolition
3) The fact that some Christians used the Bible to defend slavery in the past does not mean the Bible supports slavery.
4) The horrible abuses of human beings that occurred in American slavery made it an institution that was different in character from the first-century institution of being a “slave” or “bondservant” (Greek doulos).
5) Defenders of slavery and modern day egalitarians are similar in one significant way.

-Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Sisters: Multnomah, 2004), pp.339-345.

Robert W. Yarbrough,

“There are in fact important differences to note [between the biblical teaching on slavery and its teaching on male-female relations]:

“1. Neither God nor Scripture ordained slavery, though biblical law and doctrine did regulate and limit it. Slavery is never said by Scripture to have been created by God. Marriage and men’s spiritual leadership in home and church, however, were ordained if Scripture is the measure.

“2. Slavery in Israel had a six-year limit (with one exception; see Lev. 25:39-43; Deut. 15:12-18). M. A. Dandamayev notes, “We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interest of their masters.” But no time limit is stated for men to continue as husbands to particular wives or as elders of churches.

“3. In the New Testament times Paul advises slaves to gain their freedom if they can lawfully do so (1 Cor. 7:21). No such counsel is given to wives or to people in churches with male leaders.

“4. Far from mandating slavery in biblical times and even now “by permitting the ownership of slaves today,” New Testament teaching was the foundation for abolishing the institution of slavery in the Roman world. Bruce notes that the little Epistle to Philemon alone “brings us into an atmosphere in which the institution could only wilt and die.” “The early Christian ideology undermined the institution of slavery, declaring an equality of all people in Christ.” But we have argued above that it is unwarranted to view Scripture as mandating the termination of male leadership. Those who would do so must follow a trajectory beyond and outside the New Testament to arrive at that conviction.”

-Robert W. Yarbrough, “Progressive and Historic: The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9-15” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 2nd ed., eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), pp. 141-142.

Comment by Lori

June 15, 2006 @ 8:11 am

I’m certainly glad that you reject slavery, DP. However, I have yet to see anybody holding the complementary position address Du Toit’s basic point. Paul seems to have no problem with slavery. In the same chapter that he addresses wives he addresses slave owners, with no break in continuity. Therefore, why is slavery considered to be something cultural, something to gladly be abolished, while women’s submission is not?

Comment by Lori

June 15, 2006 @ 8:24 am

Interesting that Kate says her husband usually defers to her on travel issues, yet she “decides” to submit to her husband as the “head” when he makes the decisions. Does she then become “the head” when her husband defers the decision-making to her?

Yes, I thought along those exact same lines when I read that article. Here’s another good example, from the same article. It’s talking about Wayne Grudem and his wife.

For several years, she has lived with constant pain due to fibromyalgia. The soreness eased whenever the two visited hot and arid Arizona, and they entertained the idea of moving there. The move could have hindered Wayne’s career….

“Our decision process did not look at all like mutual submission,” Grudem told me. “I did decide to move to Arizona out of love for my wife, and I believe the Bible teaches a lot of mutual things, like mutual love and mutual deference to each other’s needs, preferences, and desires. But at no time did I submit to Margaret’s authority or yield my leadership role in the marriage.”

So a husband can defer to his wife’s needs, but he can’t submit to her. :)

And Kate Balasa adds this:

“Mutual submission suggests that authority or headship alternates between husband and wife. Deference, on the other hand, is a part of the sacrificial love and wisdom of headship.”

So when Don is deferring to her in travel matters, he’s loving her and sacrificing for her, but not submitting to her. :)

Comment by Jorge

June 15, 2006 @ 8:42 am

Brian asked a great question to DP: “What lexical sources do you have that show that hupotasso can mean “prefer, defer to the needs of”?”

Egalitarians are quick to give creative definitions of the verb “to submit” (Gk. hypotasso) but are very slow in providing lexical evidence to back their definitions. I would encourage my egalitarian friends to also look up every instance in the NT where the verb “to submit” appears: look at how Paul uses it, how Peter uses it, how the Gospel writers use it, etc. It simply does not carry the meaning they claim.

Anyway, here’s how DP responded:

DP said:

“As to where I get the idea that submission has to do with an attitude deference or self-sacrifice, well, we both agree that it is something less stringent or legalistically obligatory than obedience. If you’re uncomfortable with how I see that working out in practical life, I guess we’ll just have to either wrestle that one out or agree to disagree. I do, however, think it is somewhat disingenuous to play the semantic game of bracketing out all the parts of submission that you are comfortable with and call them something else (love, sacrifice, etc.).

Notice the shift - Brian didn’t ask where DP got the idea of submission having to do with an attitude deference or self-sacrifice. He asked what lexical sources he has that establishes hypotasso can mean “prefer, defer to the needs of.”

As far as submission in the way Paul uses it of wives and slaves I agree with DP that Paul isn’t saying to “submit” with an attitude opposite of “self-sacrifice.” But that is not the definition of the term. It might be associated with the action of “submitting” in some cases but it is not its definition. And even if it is associated with the verb, it does not therefore do away with its meaning - to come under the authority of another (be that self-sacrificially or voluntarily, it does not rule out authority structures).

E.g. Luke 10:17 - “Lord, even the demons are subject (Gk. hypotasso) to us in your name!” Now what do you do with the term?

I am having a similar discussion on the “A Complementarian Critique” post.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 15, 2006 @ 7:03 pm

Submission is simply to make yourselves available. There is no connection between the submission enjoined upon all believers, wives and husbands, to one another , and the subjection of demons, who are damned eternally, to the name of Jesus that casts them out. You are taking Luke 10:17 way, way out of context to empower yourself. I know submitting to your wife means losing power over her, but that is the Christian walk. Losing power is what complementarian husbands must fear most. That’s what their stance really boils down to, power, not love.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 15, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

Du Toit wrote:
“So why do some just pick and choose which parts of the code are still valid for today? By what criteria do exegetes attempt this task? Is it just presuppositions which dictate these conclusions? As Gordon Fee notes: To conclude otherwise forces one logically into the position of justifying slavery as a God-ordained structure for the present age, since the two household codes (Eph 5:21-6:9; Col 3:18-4:1) assume both realities in the same structure: the Greco-Roman household of the privileged. Those who advocate the continuation of male authority today have failed to address this problem adequately.”

This is exactly what legal tithers do, too — pick bits and pieces of the O.T. about tithing (ignoring the O.T. purposes of the tithes) in order to claim present day Christians must bring a full tithe and no less into their home church. The dominators will pull what they can find to claim their legal rights to govern the church after their own convictions. And so on.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 15, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

Complementarians make things so hard. They take words like “submission” which are really quite simple in their meaning (to make yourself available) and make something really complicated out of it (hierarchies, chains of command, etc.) They build entire hierarchies that aren’t even in the text. Wayne may not want to admit it, but what he did for his wife was submission. He made himself available to her. Why is he afraid to admit it is submission? Is he afraid of appearing powerless?

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 15, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

One more entry and then I must go. Lori, I love your smiley faces and the way you use them! Please keep them coming. It is interesting to observe the verbal gymnastics of comp. husbands like Wayne who are trying to prove they are not submitting to their wives by helping them sacrificially, as well as the wives like Kate who are trying to do the same. When did “head” become “leader”? Not in the New Testament! Jesus said that the Holy Spirit, not men, would lead us into all truth. The Spirit is our leader. If a woman must be under the leadership of a man, the man has usurped the Holy Spirit’s position in her life, an unscriptural stance. The word “head” has another meaning, “source” or “origin,” and is never even mentioned to husbands.

Comment by Lori

June 16, 2006 @ 2:07 am

Well, if we want to discuss hupotasso, let’s look at Eph 5:21, “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”

I really think Psalmist made an outstanding point. Here in this verse Paul is addressing the entire Ephesian church. So where do husbands, and indeed, all men, fit into this picture? Are wives excluded from “one another”? Are women in general? Is Paul saying that men should only be subject to other men? Who exactly is Paul addressing when he says “one another”? Who is serving under whose authority in this verse?

Comment by DP

June 16, 2006 @ 5:57 am

Welcome, Jorge. Thank you for pointing out my oversight. That’s what I get for writing on the fly :-)

I’m basically following all of the standard lexical resources, such as Louw and Nida, which gives both “obey” and “submit to” and Liddell-Scott, which gives “place or arrange under,” “post under,” “to subject” (in the active voice). What I’m not doing is falling into the linguistic error of illegitimate totality transfer, which stipulates that every possible meaning of a word must be read into every discrete occurrence of it. So what Ephesians 5:21 requires of me is to find a meaning or connotation of hypotassomai that can be logically applied in a mutual way among Christians and not result in chaos. I think we’d all agree that if it means “everybody obey everybody else,” the command would be unworkable. Therefore, connotations that require obedience or a permanent and immutable chain or command must be ruled out. I really don’t have any problems with any translational gloss that makes it clear that Paul is calling on every Christian to hypotassomai every other Christian out of reverence for Christ. There is mutuality there, regardless of how you prefer to translate it. What is far more important than the language we use is the life we practice.

And for the record, what I do with Luke 10:17 is take hypotassetai as a passive form (not a middle voice form as in Eph 5:21), translate it “[they] are subject to,” and assume this is teaching a permanent hierarchical situation where Jesus reigns over the principalities and powers. Once again, I refuse to fall into the trap of illegitimate totality transfer by assuming that I have to get a connotation of mutuality into a passage where it clearly does not belong.

Comment by Alex

June 16, 2006 @ 10:53 am

Let me take one of the claims in comment #26) and respond to it: “(2) The redemptive thrust of the Bible does not aim at abolishing headship and submission but at transforming them for their original purposes in the created order.” Why is that exactly? No biblical support is given, and I think much biblical support can be given *against* such a claim (1 Cor. 1:10-17; 2 Cor. 5:16-21; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11-12). These texts are the lens from which to view the gospel — they place our identity in Christ and Christ alone. No further mediator or head or decision maker is needed in place of Christ.

I would also draw your attention to the work of J. Louis Martyn (particularly his commentary on Galatians and Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul), who argues that Paul’s apocalyptic presented in passages such as these reveals a tension. On the one hand Christ’s work upsets the power relationship of the cosmos (the last shall be first etc.) and gives a new lens from which to view the world. On the other hand, we still live in a world with traditional power relationships of slavery, headship, inequality, injustice, etc. We formerly viewed people according to the flesh, but we no longer do so; in Christ, we no longer regard according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16-21). He compares this double vision of the old age and the new age to bi-focal glasses; we live in the world but we have a new way of seeing it, full of the freedom of Christ — where we find our identity.

Another good resource is Cousar, in The Letters of Paul, the argument is similar based on the “decisive Christ event,” which is God radically breaking into history and bringing about a new age and a new way to view the world. To support a hierarchical structure of gender is to view men and women according to the flesh — the thrust of the gospel is to no longer view one another according to the flesh. For in Christ, there is no male and female.

Comment by Jorge

June 16, 2006 @ 1:15 pm

Kathryn Vance,

Submission is simply to make yourselves available.

Would you kindly provide a Greek lexical reference that would substantiate your claim that “submission” means to “make yourself available”?

There is no connection between the submission enjoined upon all believers, wives and husbands, to one another , and the subjection of demons, who are damned eternally, to the name of Jesus that casts them out.

Kathryn, my point is not to say that submission looks exactly the same for believers as it does for demons. My point is to show that your definition of submission does not hold when applied consistently in the NT (besides the fact that you have not provided any Greek-Lexical sources to establish your definition).

In fact, what citing Luke 10:17 does show is that the verb “to submit” always means for someone to come under the authority of another in the New Testament. How that plays out is not identical for each circumstance, but the fact of the matter is that the verb denotes the coming under of an authority. Isn’t this what the standard Greek Lexicons say?

Look at the way the Gospel writers use the verb: Luke 2:51; 10:17, 20

Look at how Paul uses the verb: Rom. 8:7, 20; 10:3; 13:1, 5; 1 Cor. 14:32, 34; 15:27f; 16:16; Eph. 1:22; 5:21, 24; Phil. 3:21; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5, 9; 3:1.

Look at how the author of Hebrews uses the verb: Heb. 2:5, 8; 12:9;

Look at how James uses the verb: Jam. 4:7;

Look at how Peter uses the verb: 1 Pet. 2:13, 18; 3:1, 5, 22; 5:5

Now, egalitarians do not dispute the fact that the NT writers lived and wrote in a patriarchical society. These writers used words that had meaning already in that culture so that they could be understood. They did not create new words because they would not have been understood.

The verb “to submit” (hypotasso) was a well known word in the culture. Of course Paul and others would want husbands and wives and everybody to make themselves available to their brothers and sisters! This is not in question. However, when Paul and Peter tell wives to submit to their husbands, he is not simply saying “make yourself available.” Please notice that the NT never once explicitly commands husbands to hypotasso their wives. Coincidence? I think not.

You are taking Luke 10:17 way, way out of context to empower yourself.

How did I take Luke 10:17 “way, way out of context” when I simply cited it and asked for an explanation? I did not comment on it in my previous post. Talk about a hair trigger!

You are taking Luke 10:17 way, way out of context to empower yourself. I know submitting to your wife means losing power over her, but that is the Christian walk. Losing power is what complementarian husbands must fear most. That’s what their stance really boils down to, power, not love.

“Empower myself”? It’s all about “power, not love?” This hurts Kathryn. Now the debate has shifted from the text to personal attacks. Do you know me? How could you say the things you did? You are guilty of what’s called “ad hominem” - “Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives” (Dictionary.com).

This is how debates get ugly. What good would it do if I spent my time guessing your motives rather than engaging in the text. It is so easy to dismiss an opponent that way. I take it for granted that you deeply love the Lord as well as your fellow Christian brothers and sisters and that you seek to serve the Lord to the best of your ability. Why can’t complementarians be granted the same courtesy? Unfortunately, you have labeled us all as power-hungry, and fearful, and driven by something other than love.

Kathryn, I call on you to end your personal attacks towards your complementarian brothers and sisters who are trying to serve the Lord with all their hearts just as you are. Consider your tone and your words.

Comment by Brian Andrews

June 16, 2006 @ 7:33 pm

Kathryn,

You keep commenting that submit means “to make yourself available.” From what lexicon are you getting that definition?

You also wrote: Wayne may not want to admit it, but what he did for his wife was submission. He made himself available to her. Why is he afraid to admit it is submission? Is he afraid of appearing powerless?

I happen to know Dr. Wayne Grudem. I took some classes in seminary from him. I know him to be a man of utmost integrity, as well as a very able scholar who knows his Greek. I have never perceived in him any fear of appearing powerless as you suggest. I have found him to be a humble man who takes the Word of God seriously. Your accusations against him by innuendo are unfounded.

You also wrote: Losing power is what complementarian husbands must fear most. That’s what their stance really boils down to, power, not love.

If you want complementarians to listen to your arguments, you should not make blanket judgments of their motives or impugn their character. Argue facts, use Scripture, reference scholarly material, try to prove your point based on solid evidence. Attack your opponents’ position—not your opponent, himself.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 17, 2006 @ 10:12 am

The problem with Piper and Grudem’s arguments about headship is their fundamental error in claiming that it is a part of creation. It is not. The unity of male and female, together, is what God created. They were one flesh from the beginning, not a separate head and body. When woman was created from man, what God’s very good creation shows us is that from the one, two were formed to continue in that unity. Not until the two disobeyed did God declare that the one would rule over the other. And note, God never, anywhere in Scripture, mandated such subjection.

In Jesus Christ, the two are redeemed and admonished to continue as one flesh, again not as leader and subject. Such subjection of one by the other is proscribed by the Lord himself. And we see even in the household codes (Ephesians, Colossians) that in Christ, the world’s order is turned upside down so that those who have worldly power follow Christ’s example to serve the less powerful as the Holy Spirit empowers them. The less powerful serve the more powerful as the Holy Spirit empowers them. In short, they build up the one body of the Lord–even in the two-in-one one body of marriage.

The religious patriarchalists have a fundamentally flawed understanding of God’s created design for humanity. It is no wonder that they go so far afield into the world’s style of hierarchy and power in their conclusions.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 17, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

When you put wives and demons in the same position, you are taking Luke 10:17 way, way out of context. You might expect some hard statements in reply; that does not mean lack of love on the part of the other person. It is not hard to read “male domination” in your statement, for that is exactly what it is all about. Demons are judged and condemned; that is why they are subject to the name of Jesus. It is you, not I, that is being harsh–to wives.

Comment by Jesk

June 18, 2006 @ 7:44 am

I’m not sure whom to address this to…. I’d like to know what you think about the correct construction of Ephesians 5:21. As far as I understand, it should really read: “Honor Christ by submitting to each other - wives as to the Lord” [LAB] Thus, the wives’ submission is tied to the mutual submission (”to each other”) to show how wives were to submit (putting them in a new relationship with their husbands). In no ways are the “submitting to each other” eliminated when wives are introduced, but instead extends to wives. There isn’t really a verse 22 - it’s part of 21 (actually, I understand starting at 18) and “wives submit” does not appear in the original Greek. Verse 22 is actually ” - wives as to the Lord”, which is really part of v.21.

I found a very beautiful article on marriage on godswordtowomen.org called “One Flesh”. I would really encourage people to read that. I think it very clearly and adequately addresses Ephesians 5:21-22.

Comment by TeriLynn

June 18, 2006 @ 10:20 am

Jorge,

You wrote: “In fact, what citing Luke 10:17 does show is that the verb “to submit” always means for someone to come under the authority of another in the New Testament.”

Upotasso in all of it’s forms has a very wide range of meanings. The issue of authority is not inherent in the word. Arrangement is inherent to the word. Whether or not authority is part of the picture depends solely upon context.

There are other words available using the roots of words such as archo and despoteo , which would include the concept of authority in the meaning. Upotasso does not.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 19, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

I am from the South, a strongly comp. part of the country. I was reared in a Christian home and accepted Christ as my Savior at age 8. My Dad was a wonderful father, but he was a Southern Baptist pastor with all the comp. theology that that implies. My trek to egalitarianism began as a child reading about the great suffragist Susan B. Anthony. It was the first time I knew that the Bible had been misused to hurt people and to keep women from voting, and it was a real eye-opener, the first of many such. Of course, Miss Anthony knew the Bible and was able to answer her critics, but it still came as a shock to me. God used that book to begin me on my journey to where I am today through Bible study, prayer, and background study on these issues we are discussing. By the time anyone told me outright that women could not preach or lead men, it was too late. I had already read about Deborah the Judge, the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, and other stories! These many years later, I am egal. to the core. It is the only position that makes solid, scriptural sense from Genesis to Revelation when discussing the relationship between the sexes, how believers are to relate to one another and the world, and how women may serve God.

Comment by Lori

June 20, 2006 @ 4:26 am

“…I believe the Bible teaches a lot of mutual things, like mutual love and mutual deference to each other’s needs, preferences, and desires. But at no time did I submit to Margaret’s authority or yield my leadership role in the marriage.”

From yourdictionary.com:
Defer: To submit to the opinion, wishes, or decision of another through respect or in recognition of his or her authority, knowledge, or judgment. See “Synonyms” at “yield.”

And from yourdictionary.com’s thesaurus:
Defer: To conform to the will or judgment of another, especially out of respect or courtesy:
bow, submit, yield.

Or in the words of the “immortal Bard”:

What’s in a word? That which we call submit
By any other name would smell as sweet. :-)

Of course Paul and others would want husbands and wives and everybody to make themselves available to their brothers and sisters!

Wow, that hupotasso is one magic verb. Not only does it appear in a verse where it wasn’t before (vs. 22), but it changes meaning when it reappears. And it only took 7 words! David Copperfield must be jealous. :-D

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 23, 2006 @ 9:19 pm

Thank you Lori for that witty and to-the-point analysis of the comp. position on this issue. Sad but true that for hundreds of years two words, “head” and “submit,” have been taken to mean things they emphatically do not mean and even contradict. Wayne Grudem’s “deferment” sounds an awful lot like submission to me.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 28, 2006 @ 1:41 pm

In posting #13, I made a reference to Genesis 1:21. The correct reference is Genesis 1:26.