The CBE Scroll

Comment by PSoftly

July 5, 2006 @ 7:52 am

I’ve only started reading this blog recently and I’ve been impressed by the good give and take in the comments.

I’m wondering about the term “complementarian” or “complementary” when applied to the male/female relationship, presumably with the husband in authority, the wife as subject.

This somehow sounds like a euphemism. When there is an authority figure, then the other party is secondary, less important, not “complementary”.

But in a complementary relationship, as I would define it, each person brings his and her strengths, as well as their weaknesses, and they work to fit them together, as complicated puzzle pieces fit together, so that there is, ideally, a seamless joining. One of the people may have more talent or intuition in one area of the house and family life, and the other in another area. There has to be give and take due to changing ages of children, income needs, health conditions, etc.

One quality that attracted me to my husband was his high regard for women. We’ve had a great relationship, most of the time, in which we look to each other’s strengths for leadership in certain areas. And we are both followers in certain area where we know the other has more knowledge/talent/strength.

When we went through a bad patch, we had both been doing some things without consulting, or even informing, the other, which I look back on as disrespectful. When I was upset, I was disrespectful of him and what he wanted. When he was upset, I felt as though he treated me as a child in his authority. There is a big difference between saying that I have decided to make this decision because of ___, and I am making this decision because I am the boss.

Is this term Complementarian widely used in those circles where people assume that the man rules the home? Is this a traditional term?

Comment by Craighton

July 5, 2006 @ 3:05 pm

PSoftly in comment #1 is right when she says there is an awfully important difference between making a decision within a marriage because of a reason (knowledge, talent, experience, timing, etc.) and making it because “I’m the boss.” Marriage is not like the workplace. Unilateral decisions in marriage disrespect the one who is not in on the decision, the one acted upon, although even in the workplace it is always wise for employees to be consulted about decisions that affect both employer and emplyee. Just like employers, church leaders and husbands will make many more mistakes by acting unilaterally or by acting falsely (I deign to consult you and pretend to take your opinion seriously.).

The term complementarian seems to be a recent term designed by scholars to steer themselves away from terms like heirarchicalist and patriarchalist. The term as defined in this context seems to mean that men and women are complementary to but different from each other, and whatever those differences and complementary abilities are, they make women ineligible to be church leaders and equal partners in marriage. The irony here, of course, is that the very institution, the church, that is supposed to lead culture in morality is taking a clear immoral stand when it comes to gender equality.

Complementarians castigate egalitarians for being overly influenced by 1960′s culture while overlooking their own ties to patriarchal cultures of the past. And Ron’s point that when the authority of vested cultural interpreters is challenged or wains, egalitarianism gains ground is right on. Education is the great equalizer (there are now more women in college than men), and those who have the most to lose will fight like cats.

Comment by LJR

July 5, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

Craighton is right about the way the term “complementarian” is being used (and misused). Kevin Giles also addresses the issue in one of his books. The issue is not and never has been whether men and women complement one another. Certainly we do. The issue is whether men are supposed to be in charge of women, period. Giles chooses to deal with the issue by calling the two sides “hierarchal-complementarian” and “egalitarian-complementarian”. (I look at that and want macros for my posts, then just wind up sticking to “hierarch” and “egalitarian”).

The taking-over of the term “complementarian” by the hierarchs both covers up the real issue about unilateral male authority and indirectly accuses us of denying the complementarity of men and women and… how does it go again?… saying we think men and women are “the same”. *checks anatomy textbooks* Uh, no.

From my Fundamentalist background, I learned that Christians are to be different from the world. From my later evangelical training, I learned that different isn’t enough… what we have must be radically counterculture and set to a higher standard than the world’s views. To be brutally honest, I see very little difference between hierarchal views in the church and in the world, except for degree. I see the same negative POVs about women and sex from hierarchal men that I find on secular websites and websites of most other religions. What’s the big deal about a seemingly kinder, gentler form of what everyone else is doing thanks to the Fall when we can look at our original perfect Creation and our redemption in Christ to give us a new, different, and totally Biblical form of relating to one another? Mutual submission and respect.. now that’s radical, liberating, and completely counter-culture.

Comment by Lori

July 6, 2006 @ 4:36 am

In regards to post #1, I, too, have always been confused by the term “complementary” when it comes to marriage. I always understood the term to mean two things coming together to form a whole; each side possessing strengths and weaknesses that balanced each other. And yet how can any relationship be balanced when one person has all the authority? Yes, I know that husbands are supposed love their wives like Christ, but that’s the ideal, not the reality. Earlier here on The Scroll I quoted from an article where Wayne Grudem said he decided to move across the country so his very ill wife could attend a special clinic. He decided to move. He made the decision for his family. Well, what if he had decided to stay right where he was? What if he had decided that God wasn’t calling them to move, or that he didn’t want to give up his job, or whatever? What would have happened to his wife then? Would she have suffered in silence?

The topic of “where did the term complementary come from” came up on another egalitarian forum. Many people said that it was a term that had been devised to make patriarchy sound all “soft and fuzzy.” I agree with that assessment.

Craighton, I think you make an interesting comment in your post #2. Education is the great equalizer (there are now more women in college than men), and those who have the most to lose will fight like cats. All the egalitarian women I know are college educated, including myself. Of course, many people from the comp. point of view would simply say that this is another evil put out by those liberal, feminist-run institutions of higher education. :)

Comment by sally

July 6, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

The real questions arise around the authority of the interpreters or the vested cultural authority [usually in men]. When the latter authority [male cultural authority] carries the day, complementarians rule. When Scriptural interpretive authority outweighs the culture, egalitarianism wins.

I’m not sure I really understand the point Ron is trying to make. Where I come from, evangelical Sydney, ‘Scripture’ rules supreme, and the majority who are complementarians would argue that the interpretation of Scripture backs up their case. I don’t think it does, but it would win me absolutely no arguments to say they start from a vested cultural authority… am I being dense?

Comment by sally

July 6, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

Oh, I should add:

It’s interesting that we all do this. “Don Carson believes this, so I will.” “John Stott says this, so I believe it.” “I like Piper’s ‘Desiring God’. Oh look – he is a complementarian. I will be too.”

And even CBE does it on the site, with a list of ‘authorities’ to add strength to the egalitarian position.

The idea of authority figures adding credibility is not just confined to sports stars eating margarine.

Comment by Ron smith

July 7, 2006 @ 6:02 am

About Sally’s first post re: discussing “culturally vested authority.” The point is that the patriarchal and Victorian attitudes brought to the Scriptures as baggage will color the final [and complementarian] interpretation. Australia [and I have been there many times] is one of the strongest if not the strongest culture with this attitude. I agree that both [complementarian and egalitarian] opinions state that the Bible is their final authority. The issue is interpretation and presuppositions brought to the text. God bless.

Comment by PSoftly

July 7, 2006 @ 7:16 am

One of the problems I see in the non-egalitarian (meaning the man always rules) way of designing the relationship between men and women is that it doesn’t take into account the strengths of particular women or of women in general. It is sort of like hearing about a person of renown in a certain talent, but his junior high teacher told him he was a no-good who would never go anywhere in life. If the authority figure has blinders on, he would never recognize what is right before his eyes.

I think we would think it wrong to deny a boy the use of a talent that God has given him. Ditto for a girl.

I was raised in an (supposedly traditional) extended family where there were many more women and girls than men and boys. The men went off to work and didn’t do all that much around the house or with the children. The women did EVERYTHING else, including working parttime. We girls saw what women could do, and we learned what we could do. The men were nominally the head of the households, but that is sort of like having a boss who doesn’t actually know what the job entails. When the women became widowed, they already knew how to take care of themselves and run a house.

There is a saying, Give your children roots and wings. In a marriage, I see the ideal as both people encouraging each other in their strengths, picking up where the other has weaknesses, but also trying to help the other improve in the area of weaknesses. One party always being the “boss” does nothing to help the other person grow.

Comment by Liz Sykes

July 8, 2006 @ 5:51 am

In our home we have coined a phrase, “We all choose our own experts,” and this is so true whether it concerns biblical issues, health, scientific theories or whatever.

The only difference is that some of us say, “this is how I see it,” while others say “this is how it is and there is no other reasonable point of view.”

Ron is absolutely right about Australia being so entrenched in the culture of the “man being the head of the home” in church and everywhere else. It is more so among people who are not so well educated or well read, which is sad because these are the very people who suffer most under the abuse of heirarchy.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 9, 2006 @ 10:32 am

Re: post #2
The term complementarian seems to be a recent term designed by scholars to steer themselves away from terms like heirarchicalist and patriarchalist. The term as defined in this context seems to mean that men and women are complementary to but different from each other, and whatever those differences and complementary abilities are, they make women ineligible to be church leaders and equal partners in marriage. The irony here, of course, is that the very institution, the church, that is supposed to lead culture in morality is taking a clear immoral stand when it comes to gender equality.

The term “complementarian” was coined by patriarchalist leadership who thought that the term “patriarchalist” had been given a bad reputation and wanted something less harsh and more easily acceptable by the average Christian. They also coined the term “equal but different” to go along with it. So what we have is really just a new hat for patriarchalism, but nothing has changed in the patriarchalist camp.

The term hierarchalist is really a much clearer view of what these people believe. Any time you have a top-down, sorted-by-a-fixed-standard-line of privileged responsibilities, then you have a hierarchalist mindset. In the arena of complementarian/patriarchalist thinking, the standard is always male dominance to varying degrees. As the “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” bluebook says, women must not behave with men in ways that demean men’s natural leadership inclinations. It’s a nice way of encouraging women to become “men pleasers.”

Education is the great equalizer (there are now more women in college than men), and those who have the most to lose will fight like cats.

Exactly! And the interesting thing is as the article says, when male cultural authority rules, then people do not seek to educate themselves. And the way that ALL Christians are supposed to educate themselves is by searching the Scriptures diligently to see if what their leaders say is really what Scripture is saying. Instead, they are subtly coerced into accepting whatever the authorities are saying by fear of not being submissive to authority. A catch 22. Very clever. And very bad.

Comment by Jorge

July 10, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

I think it would be helpful to hear, from the standard complementarian “blue book” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, why the term “complementarian” was chosen:

A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence. (xiv).

TeriLynn said: “So what we have is really just a new hat for patriarchalism, but nothing has changed in the patriarchalist camp.”

It is said that “Nothing has changed” yet many egalitarians (including I. H. Marshall in DBE) have noted that complementarians, according to them, act more like egalitarians! So which is it?

When the latter authority [male cultural authority] carries the day, complementarians rule. When Scriptural interpretive authority outweighs the culture, egalitarianism wins.

It is interesting how this is worded. I don’t know what this is supposed to accomplish. I can very well say the same thing by switching some words around:

“When the latter authority [current Western cultural assumptions of authority] carries the day, egalitarianism rules. When Scriptural interpretive authority outweighs the culture, complementarianism wins.”

Comment by Jorge

July 10, 2006 @ 6:42 pm

Re: Post # 7

Ron, you said: “The point is that the patriarchal and Victorian attitudes brought to the Scriptures as baggage will color the final [and complementarian] interpretation.”

Isn’t the opposite also true, namely that “*current Western* attitudes of *equality* brought to the Scriptures as baggage will color the final [and egalitarian] interpretation”?

Comment by Lori

July 11, 2006 @ 5:11 am

Once again I think it’s interesting to compare the definitions of words with how comp. leaders try to define them. For instance, here’s “complement.”

1. a. Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection….c. Either of two parts that complete the whole or mutually complete each other. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0528700.html)

Now, this definition sounds like it comfortably matches Grudem’s. However, we seem to run into a snag when it comes to “equality.”

“The state or quality of being equal.” (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/e/e0187200.html)

And “equal” means:

adjective: Agreeing exactly in value, quantity, or effect:
equivalent, even, identical, same, tantamount.
Idioms: on a par, one and the same.
See same.

noun: One that is very similar to another in rank or position: coequal, colleague, compeer, equivalent, fellow, peer. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/e/e0539200.html)

So, this is what we have.

…we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both [identical, same, coequal, equivalent] and beneficial differences between men and women….we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of [identical, same, coequal, equivalent] or the beauty of mutual interdependence.

Now, am I the only person who cannot understand how you can tell someone “You’re identical, same, coequal, and equivalent to Mr. X; however, you’re not allowed to do everything he can do because we believe God says you can’t. And God says you can’t because you were born the wrong gender.” In other words, I don’t think I will ever be able to reconcile the words “separate” and “equal,” quite frankly.

Comment by Lori

July 11, 2006 @ 5:28 am

Isn’t the opposite also true, namely that “*current Western* attitudes of *equality* brought to the Scriptures as baggage will color the final [and egalitarian] interpretation”?

Deborah served as the leader of Israel, and an Israelite king appealed to Huldah the prophet, who pronounced judgment upon that nation. Paul said that women were to prophecy in church, and to help teach others. He also commends a female apostle, Junia, and a female deacon, Phoebe, not to mention Priscilla and other female co-workers. And of course, that same Priscilla helped disciple Apollos. Therefore, I would question just how “current” or “Western” our ideas of equality really are.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 11, 2006 @ 6:45 am

I’m not Ron, Jorge, but your question is easily answered when we remember that egalitarianism, unlike patriarchal complementarianism, acknowledges that Scripture teaches us all to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. This fundamental scriptural teaching runs counter to any cultural “baggage” any of us may bring to our understanding of how men and women should interact in home, church, and society. Any worldly practices, including the patriarchal complementarianism, seek to invest certain classes of people with more worldly positional power than others (for this discussion’s scope, of course, placing positional power in the hands of men over women). Scripture, however, teaches us that we are to empty ourselves and serve one another, regardless of what the culture’s prevailing practices are. Such distinctions of privilege and position are melted away in Christ, with all parts of the body working together in the power of the Holy Spirit, that the will of God may be done.

The thing is, biblical equality is exactly that: biblical. Try as you might, you cannot escape the mutual submission and servanthood that the Bible sets as our standard. Patriarchalism, by whatever moniker and however it may be “baptized” as Christian, remains a worldly institution that cannot be reconciled with this biblical standard.

I will acknowledge that those who have spent the majority of their lives in societies that give the place of privilege and power to men, will have a harder time properly interpreting Scripture on this issue than those who have seen that men and women can healthily serve one another and share leadership. To that extent, interpretation may well be colored by one’s own zone of experience and comfort.

As for “nothing having changed,” I think that’s partly true. What has changed is that new terms, old fringe theologies presented as orthodoxy (including eternal subordination of the Son), and new restrictions on women are being set forth as patriarchalists promote their preferred worldview as though it’s THE Christian worldview. What hasn’t changed is that for most people who simply haven’t thought much about why they do what they do, they practice a mixture of patriarchalism and equality in their marriage and church relationships. They do what they’re comfortable with, and much of it is functionally egalitarian. Biblical equality challenges us all, however, with the truly radical nature of the Bible’s standard of mutual submission. Complementarianism would have them more rigidly restrict what women are permitted to do in order to secure masculine rule. The former means some aspects of their life become uncharted territory, with the Holy Spirit alone helping them determine how to order their homes and churches. The latter offers easy “answers” based on Victorian and 1950′s Western stereotypes of mutually exclusive “roles” that fit very few people well.

The way I see it, those promoting “complementarianism” are seeing the last of Western society’s worldly patriarchal system giving way to a more equality-based worldview, and they’re clawing tooth and nail to keep the only way they know alive. I really do think there’s a fear of allowing God to be in charge, of relinquishing a comfort of “knowing one’s place,” of embracing the responsible freedom God offers us all in service to one another (including service of husband toward wife and men toward women). Wives don’t stop submitting to their husbands, but husbands also humble themselves and submit to their wives. Women don’t stop learning in quietness (just as men should), but when they have learned, if God calls, they are good stewards of their learning and teach, just as called men should. Position becomes unimportant. Obedience to God, not gender, determines both authority and position.

Those of us who’ve tried it both ways can attest to the blessings God offers through mutual submission. Too many people refuse to believe it’s possible. I find that a tragedy.

Comment by LJR

July 11, 2006 @ 10:18 am

“Equality” and “mutual interdependence” in hierarchalism? Never saw it. All I ever knew in those days was women depended on men to be their spiritual priests and their financial providers, while men depended on women to be their domestic servants and… uh… “reproductive vessels” (I’m trying to be subtle here). Of course, if women failed to do their job, there was condemnation in spades. If men failed to do their job, well, tough luck for the woman while nothing was said to the man. True equality and interdependence simply did not exist.

“*Current Western* attitudes of *equality*”? Where? I live in the Southern Baptist version of Paradise. If hierarchalism is supposed to be a success, we should have the best marriages and families in America right here. In reality, our divorce rates are through the roof, and I understand the abuse rates are also nasty. The pornography business is also very big in this town, so we get the secular view of women as well… and it’s anything but “equal”. Women as subhuman is more like it. Our non-Christian religious population is also growing, and they’re not exactly pushing equality for women. A little bit of an attitude of equality would be a welcome relief to the women here, that’s for sure.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 11, 2006 @ 11:47 am

re: post #11

It is said that “nothing has changed,” yet many egalitarians (including I. H. Marshall in DBE) have noted that complementarians, according to them, act more like egalitarians! So which is it?

LOL I agree it’s confusing. Christian egalitarian principles follow the dictionary meaning of complementarian better than the so called “complementarians” do IMO. Many complementarians arrange their marriages in a manner more relevant to Christian egalitarians (or equalitarians). Even Christian egalitarians can rightly claim the term “complementarian”.

My not-so-well-stated point is that even patriarchalists claiming the term “complementarian” have not let the term “complementarian” change their patriarchalist claims. Instead, they have attempted to change the meaning of “complementary” to fit their patriarchalist beliefs. But as you pointed out, it hasn’t worked very well. Instead, people cling to the dictionary definition and start acting complementary according to Christian egalitarian beliefs.

The reason this happens is because the meaning of complementary is one of side by side correspondent, interdependent, unity and harmony versus the patriarchalist hierarchies of leaders-followers.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 11, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

re: post #13

Now, am I the only person who cannot understand how you can tell someone “You’re identical, same, coequal, and equivalent to Mr. X; however, you’re not allowed to do everything he can do because we believe God says you can’t. And God says you can’t because you were born the wrong gender.” In other words, I don’t think I will ever be able to reconcile the words “separate” and “equal,” quite frankly.

Remembering that “identical” in the meaning of the word equal does not imply that people being equal means Siamese twins kind of sameness, our constitution’s words of equal rights to pursue happiness, etc. is the kind of equality all humans should seek to preserve for one another.

It’s the same kind of equality that Galatians 3:26-29 is portraying. IN Christ the walls of preferential division are broken down and in humility each should spur the other on to the good works and maturity of Christ so that all might attain the promised inheritance of a “son” of God. We are ALL to be like soldiers and fight the good fight of faith. We are to ALL be as athletes and discipline our bodies toward holiness. We are to ALL be like a bride and according to the intimacy of the Song of Solomon bare our souls to Him who loves every part of us even the uncomely parts. We are to ALL be like living stones and cry out praising God when no one else does. We are to ALL behave as Priests to the world bringing God’s word to convict, encourage and point the world towards Christ our Savior. We are to ALL be like the first born son who inherits the full blessing of his Heavenly Father.

The depravity of selective hierarchies is that they wish to separate who can mature, who can fight, who can run, who can speak and who can inherit the full blessings of being IN Christ. The more that I read in Scriptures of the fullness of God’s love for all the believers the more astonished I am at those who seek to hoard gifts for special groups.

But I must remember that so many do this unwittingly from wrong teaching and conditioning. And I must remind myself that I grew up living in these traditional hierarchal teachings and remember how difficult it was to believe otherwise. And I must remember how much they devastated my life and so many of my relative’s lives by living according to them.

So, Lori, yes, I see that the phrase “separate but equal” is a real misnomer. Either we are equal but different — Biblical equality. Or we are separate and unequal — traditional cultural hierarchy. It’s our choice. We WILL reap the benefits of what we choose to believe.

Comment by Jorge

July 12, 2006 @ 8:34 am

Re: Post # 15. Dear Psalmist in Texas,

Thanks for responding. I believe that some of our disagreements (between complementarians and egalitarians in general) stem from significant misunderstandings of the other’s position. I have certainly been guilty of this at times and have welcomed corrections when they apply. There is much in what you wrote that I wholeheartedly agree with. There are also some things I disagree with.

It was said that egalitarians acknowledge “that Scripture teaches us all to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” while “patriarchal complementarianism” doesn’t. To the contrary, I do believe in what Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:21 – we are to submit to one another out of reverence in Christ. The main question here is what does Paul mean?

Egalitarians understand “submitting to one another” here in that believers are to love one another, consider others above themselves, honor one another, live in harmony with one another, care and comfort for one another, serve one another, etc. Complementarians are not against such wonderful practices and should not be accused of not believing these things. In fact, all these things are specifically found elsewhere in Scripture (John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10, 16; 1 Corinthians 12:25; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Galatians 5:13, etc.).

But it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that this is what Paul meant by the use of the verb “submitting.” A look at all the instances in the NT where this verb is used shows that it means “to come under the authority of another, to be subject” etc. (See standard NT Greek lexicons). Also, the wonderful descriptions above of how believers are to treat one another, although clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture, are not in the semantic range of the verb “submitting” used here. Add to this the context of Ephesians 5:21, namely vv. 22-33 plus 6:1-9, and we find Paul reiterating the one-sided submission (in the “coming under the authority of another” sense) between husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and slaves.

Regarding the submission of wives to husbands, he grounds it (Gk. conjunction hoti meaning ‘since, because, for’- i.e., this is Paul’s reason) in the fact that the husband is the head of his wife even as (Gk. hos kai) Christ is the head of the church (v. 23). Is this reason a temporary, cultural one? Has this changed? Regardless of what one believes “head” means here, has the husband/Christ stopped being the “head” of the wife/the church? Is Paul’s reason passé?

Other Scriptures testify to this, such as Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1, 5. No mention is made of the reverse being true, that is, that husbands are to submit to their wives. This exhortation from Paul and Peter assumes the authority of the husband. But now husbands are exhorted to love their wives and not to treat them harshly. Wives are heirs of life with them and are the weaker vessel. The way a Christian husband is to treat his wife is changed significantly from the way pagan men treated their wives. But Paul did not do away with the husband’s authority nor did he call on wives to seek their freedom from their husband’s authority. Instead they are called on to submit voluntarily.

Paul gives the general command for believers to submit to one another and then immediately explains how that is to look in differing relationships: wives submit to husbands (vv. 22, 24), children to parents (6:1-3), slaves to masters (vv. 5-8). This order is never reversed in Scripture. You will never find Paul using the verb “to submit” while having husbands as the subject of that verb and wives as the direct object receiving the action of that verb. In fact, Paul repeats the one-sided submission in Col. 3:18-25 and does not say a word about “submitting to one another” as well as Peter in 1 Peter 3:1, 5. How would their readers have understood it?

Concerning slavery – Paul knew slavery wasn’t something God instituted, and so we find him exhorting slaves to seek their freedom (1 Cor. 7:21, see also the Epistle of Philemon). Yet no such exhortation can be found encouraging wives not to submit to their husbands or children to disobey their parents.

You said: “Try as you might, you cannot escape the mutual submission and servanthood that the Bible sets as our standard.” If by mutual submission you mean all those wonderful things Christians are exhorted to do to one another above, then God-forbid I should try to “escape” from living that way. If that is what you mean by mutual submission, then complementarians agree wholeheartedly with you. But such wonderful exhortations do not do away with authority structures. Believing that they do sets up a false dichotomy. Yes, we are one in the body of Christ but we have different functions in the body of Christ as well (e.g. we are one body but the leg isn’t the hand, nor the toe an ear).

Authority isn’t evil, although it can be used for evil. Just because one is Christian and has God as their ultimate authority doesn’t mean all other authorities on earth are done away with. Christians are called to submit to governing authorities, to elders and leaders of the church, etc. So while we are called to consider others before ourselves, and love each other, this does not mean that now authority structures are therefore done away with. Just as authority structures were alive and well in the Christian church in the first century so too can they be today without having to do away with all the wonderful things (such as loving each other, considering others before ourselves, etc.) just mentioned.

Contrary to what was stated, “positions” are not done away with in Christ. Aren’t there still teachers and pastors and leaders and parents and guardians? Authority is not done away with. But certainly, in Christ authority is transformed from what it looks like in the pagan world. Those in authority are to show the love of Christ; they are to lead with humility considering others above themselves. Our Lord was the perfect example of this. Though he was great, he made himself nothing for our sake. But let no one doubt for a minute that he stopped being our head, our leader, just because he humbled himself.

Comment by Lori

July 12, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

re: Psalmist in #15

The way I see it, those promoting “complementarianism” are seeing the last of Western society’s worldly patriarchal system giving way to a more equality-based worldview, and they’re clawing tooth and nail to keep the only way they know alive. I really do think there’s a fear of allowing God to be in charge, of relinquishing a comfort of “knowing one’s place,”…

I like to call it the “June Cleaver” syndrome. It seems to me most comps. wish that they could go back to the golden age where Ward went off to work and June stayed in the kitchen, wearing her pearls and washing the dishes. Everything was so cut-and-dried, so orderly, and so comforting because everybody knew their place. There was no confusion and disorder. That’s why the patriarchal system has appealed to mankind for most of its history. I think it’s been amply demonstrated, however, that this doesn’t leave much room for the Holy Spirit to operate.

Comment by Ron Smith

July 13, 2006 @ 9:00 am

For Jorge on Post #19:
I note from your web site that you read Stuart and Fee this year. I suggest that you look around on this CBE web site for some of the things Fee has written that address the very issues of submission etc. about which you are writing. I think you will find some of his thoughts both interesting and challenging.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 13, 2006 @ 11:20 am

Jorge, I’m glad that you acknowledge that mutual submission is the Christian standard that we should all practice. What I believe you are still missing, and indeed what I believe most of those who call themselves complementarians are missing, is that the submission called for is a chosen self-subjection that is not authority-driven. It doesn’t matter that not every occurence of “submit” in English translations of the various Greek words, is HUPPOTASSO in the middle voice. The fact that we have such a thorough treatment in Eph. 5 of all believers submitting themselves to one another, simply cannot be ignored and is part of the larger context that must be considered when one is tempted to make “submission” over into mere obedience or yielding to an authority.

What’s more, authority of husbands over wives is not ever, even once, commended in Scripture. Instead, we see examples of how those who live within worldly societal authority structures are to behave. Husbands are indeed told to submit themselves to their wives. All believers are to do so if they revere Christ. There is no exemption for husbands, fathers, and slave owners. That is what I see so-called complementarians either ignoring or negating in their insistence that worldly authority structures are somehow baptized as Christian. We Christians are to be in the world, not of it. Out of his love for Christ, a Christian husband is to submit himself to his wife as his fellow believer, just as she is to submit herself to him. The Bible gives him no authority over her, except for the authority they each have over the other’s body. The fact is, a husband’s authority over his wife is frequently DEscribed in Scripture. It is never PREscribed.

You appear to continue to misunderstand this distinction. Your claim that because Scripture never encourages wives to not submit to their husbands or children to disobey their parents is somehow indicative that husbands are authorities over their wives, is flawed. So many so-called complementarians say that egalitarian wives don’t submit to their husbands. Not so! The difference is, egalitarian husbands also submit to their wives because they recognize that despite the world’s male-authority patterns, we’re ALL to submit TO ONE ANOTHER. No one is exempt, not even husbands and fathers.

Positions of leadership within the body of Christ are based on God’s will and the Holy Spirit’s equipping of such leaders. They have the authority to serve as God calls them to serve. This is illustrated well in Acts and the Epistles. What a marked contrast to the patriarchalist claim that husbands, by virtue of their being men, are leaders of and authorities over their wives! The world has often said this, but God does not. That doesn’t prevent Christian men from going that route, of course, either because they wish to or because they’ve been falsely taught that this is godly. While parents are authority figures over their children because they must be taught and must mature into godly adults, wives have no need of a peer–their husbands–to teach or guide them into maturity. They are to learn and grow together under the guidance of those to whom God has entrusted that responsibility and whom the Holy Spirit has annointed for these tasks.

I agree that Christ never stopped being our Lord when he humbled himself to live an earthly life and die on the cross for us all. Indeed, once and for all, the Lord did this. Husbands are not little lords to their wives. Rather, husbands and wives are to serve one another as though they were serving the Lord. There is an important difference. Marriage remains an integral institution in human society. The Bible remains radical in its illustration of this institution as a unity of one flesh, indivisible as a head is from a body. Dividing husband and wife into an authority figure and a subordinate is neither biblical nor necessary.

Comment by Kathryn

July 13, 2006 @ 8:13 pm

Yes, Christ humbled Himself to be our Savior. He is also our leader. He is many things a husband cannot be to his wife. Any husband attempting to be his wife’s leader is circumventing the Holy Spirit in her life, no matter how well-intentioned he may be. No husband can take the place of the Holy Spirit. The reference to the “June Cleaver” syndrome in comment #20 is so true. Most people think the 1950′s was a peaceful time. In fact, it was anything but peaceful. It was more like a restless volcano, quiet on top, but a lot of activity down below. The “peace” was deceptive. Patriarchy and racial segregation had taken their toll on large segments of people, and things erupted in the late 1950′s and early 1960′s. The “June Cleaver” syndrome doesn’t allow God to move as He desires. I’m thankful we don’t have to live that way to live as God wills.

Comment by Lori

July 14, 2006 @ 1:47 am

Years ago I read How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth and was really impressed with the author, Gordon Fee. Then later I discovered CBE and was surprised to learn that he was a major figure in the egal. movement! I’m really happy that he is, though. His stature as a respected biblical scholar really lends the movement credibility. I just read his article on the CBE web site, “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9″ last night and really enjoyed it.

Comment by Jorge

July 15, 2006 @ 11:36 am

Re: Post # 22 – Psalmist in Texas

I agree with you that the submission Paul calls for is voluntary. Husbands, for example, have no right to demand the submission of their wives. Paul’s appeal is to the wife to submit to her husband, not the husband to force his wife to submit (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5). But for the husband, Paul’s appeal is for a radical love toward his wife – one like the love Christ has for his bride, the church. Paul does not call the husband to be preoccupied with ensuring his wife is submissive to him. That should be her concern, not his. Submission is self-driven rather than imposed on. Regarding Eph 5 and its surrounding context, I did not ignore it; I gave you my reasons for why I understand it the way I do.

Now, I grant that understanding the words, “submitting to one another,” in Eph 5:21 to mean something like “put other believers’ needs ahead of your own” or “consider others more significant than yourselves” is a possibility contextually (due to the preceding verses 18-20 + the word “one another” in v. 21). But this is unlikely due to the reasons I discussed before (i.e. the semantic range of the word, its use a few verses after, not to mention its use in other places in the NT). This is a serious objection, and I feel many egalitarians have not taken it seriously enough.

Nevertheless, the “mutual submission” view (i.e. deference, loving one another, etc.) in Eph 5:21 is acceptable within complementarianism. See for example George W. Knight’s essay, “Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church: Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, (esp. pp. 162-163 of the online pdf version) and Thomas R. Schreiner’s essay in the second edition of Two Views on Women in Ministry, pp. 299-301. These authors understand v. 21 to be teaching mutual submission in the ‘voluntary yielding to all believers’ sense as described above. However, they still affirm the unique submission of wives to their husbands due to the other explicit verses found in Scripture (Eph. 5:22, 25; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5) and due to Paul’s grounds for that submission (Eph. 5:22-33).

The editors of RBMW, Piper and Grudem, write the following in footnote in Knight’s essay:

“Dr. Knight presents a clear argument for the view that verse 21 teaches mutual submission of all christians to one another and that verses 22ff. teach specific kinds of submission. This interpretation is widely held and its implications are consistent with the overall argument of Dr. Knight’s chapter and of this book. It is also consistent with the overall ethical teaching of Scripture that we should submit to one another in the way Dr. Knight defines submission, that is, to act in a loving, considerate, self-giving way toward one another. However, within the broad range of agreement in this book, there is room for another interpretation of Ephesians 5:21: that it does not teach mutual submission at all, but rather teaches that we should all be subject to those whom God has put in authority over us—such as husbands, parents, or employers. In this way, Ephesians 5:21 would be paraphrased, ‘being subject to one another (that is, to some others), in the fear of Christ.’” (Footnote 6, p. 172 of online pdf version).

I disagree that a husband’s authority is not commended in Scripture. It is true that a husband’s authority over his wife is assumed in Scripture, yet the major reason why complementarians have not viewed this authority as simply a temporary cultural authority is due to the fact of Paul’s reason or ground for the submission of the wife to her husband in he fact the husband/Christ is the head of the wife/church. You did not comment on this. I will repeat what I said before:

Regarding the submission of wives to husbands, he grounds it (Gk. conjunction hoti meaning ‘since, because, for’- i.e., this is Paul’s reason) in the fact that the husband is the head of his wife even as (Gk. hos kai) Christ is the head of the church (v. 23). Is this reason a temporary, cultural one? Has this changed? Regardless of what one believes “head” means here, has the husband/Christ stopped being the “head” of the wife/the church? Is Paul’s reason passé?

Therefore, husbands are not told to submit to their wives in the same way wives are to submit to their husbands. If you mean by “submit” that mutual submission clearly taught all throughout Scripture (i.e. deference, loving one another, etc.) then I agree that husbands are to submit to their wives (regardless of whether or not Eph 5:21 is actually teaching this). But because of the clear instances of the appeal for wives to submit (in the normal way this word is used in the NT – coming under the authority of another) to their husbands – which is not reversed – and the ground of this submission being that the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church, it is false to say the husband should submit in this same way to his wife. Again, husbands (as well as all believers) are required to submit in the one-sided way to their elders and leaders, to the governing authorities, etc.

If you want to take the submission in Eph 5:21 as reciprocal, that’s fine. That would teach a general deference for all believers (which is found all over the Bible anyway). Yet the Scriptures continue to clearly maintain a one-sided submission (in the ‘coming under the authority of another’ sense) between husbands and wives, parents and children, believers to their elders and leaders, and believers to governing authorities. Both existed in the 1st century in harmony (though Slavery in the NT was regulated and discouraged (1 Cor. 7:21 and Philemon).

Quickly, leadership in the church should indeed be something Spirit lead, but also not against Scripture and its proscriptions. I agree that this is wonderfully demonstrated in Acts and the Epistles. I agree that husbands are not ‘little Lords’ (was this really necessary?). My point was that a leader need not be a despot or ruler to be a good leader. A leader, as so many of you well know, can be humble and self-sacrificing while not necessarily relinquishing his leadership.

Comment by Lori

July 16, 2006 @ 6:38 am

If you mean by “submit” that mutual submission clearly taught all throughout Scripture (i.e. deference, loving one another, etc.) then I agree that husbands are to submit to their wives (regardless of whether or not Eph 5:21 is actually teaching this). But because of the clear instances of the appeal for wives to submit (in the normal way this word is used in the NT — coming under the authority of another) to their husbands, which is not reversed, and the ground of this submission being that the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church, it is false to say the husband should submit in this same way to his wife.

So how exactly does a husband submit to his wife, and how is it different from wives to husbands?

Regarding Eph 5:21, here is “one another” as translated by The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon:

allelon
Definition
one another, reciprocally, mutually

NAS Word Usage – Total: 100
another 1, each 1, each other 1, one another 90, one another’s 2, other’s 1, themselves 1, together* 2, yourselves 1

I don’t see any one-sided relationships — pastor-to-man, boss-to-man — delineated here. Perhaps you could explain how this word means that?

Comment by TeriLynn

July 16, 2006 @ 10:26 am

Re: Post #25

I disagree that a husband’s authority is not commended in Scripture. It is true that a husband’s authority over his wife is assumed in Scripture, yet the major reason why complementarians have not viewed this authority as simply a temporary cultural authority is due to the fact of Paul’s reason or ground for the submission of the wife to her husband in the fact the husband/Christ is the head of the wife/church.

Let’s be clear here. Is it assumed or is it commended? If it is commended then we need to see Scriptures where it is commended clearly and not assumed.

Slavery is assumed but not commended. And now we finally get why. Yes in that era, in that place and pretty much world wide both slavery and husbandly authority were assumed acceptable behavior. Just because more people were doing something than not doing it, does not legitimize the activity.

Regarding the submission of wives to husbands, the “grounding” of it is in verses 5:1-21. It is part of speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; of singing and making melody in ones heart to the Lord; of thanking God always for everything; it is a spiritual loving of one another, not in any way confined to specific groups. Not being confined to specific groups means husbands are commanded to have this spiritual attitude also. It would take more than one epistle to really deeply contemplate the scope of this spiritual submission one to another. Paul didn’t try to do that in his epistles. I rather wish I could have been present in his and Peter’s two hour or more “sermons”. No way would I fall asleep.

What Paul did make small, gentle, but firm attempts at doing was to point out where these attitudes were lacking in the household relationships. For wives they were lacking in respect and honor and likely in joyously seeking to do good for their husbands in everything. Where they were lacking for husbands was in loving their wives, thinking of her as part of himself, honoring her the same as he honored and cared for his own interests. This is likely because of the poor status of women in that time. Men did not marry for love often. Men mostly married to have children. They had concubines and prostitutes and professional companions for love, pleasure and social activities. This is what Paul was seeking to upset and integrate into true godly attitudes. What he said was radical for those times. Equally radical was for fathers to be concerned with not provoking their children or for masters to have sincerity of heart, as servants of God, doing service toward their slaves as to the Lord (remember the do the same things to them in vs 9).

So yes, Paul told husbands to submit to wives in the same way that wives are to submit to husbands, in the fear of God. UpotassoMAI is a submission that is self instigated. It is not about responding to other’s orders, demands, or requests, although certainly one can freely choose to do that also. It is about instigating heart servant activities for the good of others, for the other’s benefit. There is no inherent meaning in the root word upotasso that instills the idea that the one, one is submitting to must have authority. We can be submissively serving anyone regardless of their social status in life.

As for the concept of husbandly authority, while it is evident that it has been a common idea throughout the world throughout history, yet Scriptures do not teach it. You know what they say about assumptions, we must be careful with them. When a person assumes a leadership they have not been given and refuses to relinquish it, does it make any difference really if he is a benevolent leader in his estimation? He still coerces others to an authority not given to him and makes decisions, demands, etc. of others that they might not make of themselves. And of all places, marriage should not be viewed in terms of leader-follower. Marriage should be in terms of ”my beloved is mine and I am my beloved’s.”

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 16, 2006 @ 9:29 pm

Responding to Jorge, #25:
I can’t agree with you about how narrowly you seem to be defining huppotassomai. C’est la vie. I believe you are engaging in an assumption that is very common among those who call themselves complementarians, in this case considering an illustrative example, the love described in Eph. 5:25-33a, to be exhaustive of a husband’s obligation in fulfilling Eph. 5:21. By doing this, and apparently by setting aside the obvious obligation for a wife to love her husband (despite Eph. 5:22ff not explicitly saying so), you are asserting that a husband’s submission is somehow different than a wife’s. How any Christian ought to submit to any Christian is a matter for the Holy Spirit’s controlling guidance, not a set of context-less illustrations wrongly taken as an exhaustive list of his-and-hers requirements for submission.

Far from not taking patriarchalists’ objections on the semantic range and various biblical attestations of huppotaso seriously enough, I rather have read these objections a number of times and find none of them at all compelling, let alone consistent or contextually valid. I am convinced that the patriarchalists I’ve read are not taking Eph. 5:21 anywhere near seriously enough as it applies to men in general and husbands in particular. As even the writers whom you quote concede, there are patriarchalists who actually deny that it applies at all to husbands toward their wives. This is what happens when positions of authority are eisegeted into passages that are explicitly NOT about human authority (in the case of Eph. 4:1-6:9, it is about unity as fellow believers under the authority of Christ—and Christ alone.)

You’re correct; I disagree with your assertion that a husband’s authority is commended in Scripture. As TeriLynn observed, there is a big difference between a worldly practice being a fact of life for Christians, and God approving of that practice. You appear, in your defense of a husband’s assuming a position of authority over his wife, to be ignoring the fact that head+body is a metaphor of unity, not of authority, particularly since the larger context is overwhelmingly one of unity in the body of Christ. I say again, this passage simply is NOT a commendation of patriarchal authority. The correct contextual question is therefore not one of “is it temporary and cultural, or eternal?” but rather “what does it mean for a husband to be inseparably connected to his wife, as the church is inseparably connected to Christ.” Again, if one eisegetes worldly authority into the passage, one can (wrongly) conclude that God approves of pariarchy. But the price of doing so, apart from the damage this has done and still does to the body of Christ, is in missing the meaning of the passage and, therefore, missing what God would teach the church through this passage.

I absolutely disagree with your belief that the Scriptures “continue to clearly maintain a one-sided submission…between husbands and wives, parents and children, believers to their elders, and believers to governing authorities.” The reason I disagree is that even in those relationships in which the “authority figure’s” position is of worldly derivation (from your list, that is husbands and governing authorities), only in the case of the governing authorities is the submission described as one-sided. Even when Paul describes these other cases, he radically transforms the household/obedience codes by his assertion that those with worldly power over others are nevertheless bound to submit as a fellow believer to those over whom he exercises that worldly power. By this assertion, he causes those who would hear what he says, to challenge the practice of wielding the worldly authority, as with slavery, paterfamilias rulership (over wives and children), and unchristlike exercise of gifted authority (church leaders) without reciprocal submission to those who accept that godly authority. Submission must be reciprocal within Christian relationships. Eph. 5:21, read contextually, demands this. There is no exception if one belongs to Christ.

It appears to me that you see a difference between the worldly authority of masters over slaves, and the worldly authority of husbands over wives, because you find no parallel “regulation and discourage[ment]” of marriage like you do for slavery. There’s a rather obvious reason for this. Marriage, as God designed it, is wholely good. Slavery was never designed by God, though God did not forbid it and, in the Law of Moses, in fact regulated it. God does not commend slavery. God does commend marriage. However—and this is where I believe you’ve missed the distinction—God does NOT commend a husband claiming and exercising authority over his wife. That was not in any way a part of the good design of marriage. The only way such a division of the one flesh of marriage can be read into God’s design for marriage requires complex proof-texting. I’ve heard/read all of these proof-texts (including “creation order,” “head=authority over,” “God spoke to Adam first,” and many others), and none individually or taken together can stand the test of contextually sound exegesis.

Re: “little lords,” I think it was appropriate to point out the ridiculous nature of ascribing qualities of the Lord Jesus to husbands, on the basis of Eph. 5:23-24. That is precisely what people do when they claim (wrongly, IMO) that because Jesus is in authority over the church, husbands are in authority over their wives. That’s what a “lord” is. Now you seem to have made a distinction between “leader” and “ruler.” Okay, that’s all well and good, but it begs a similar question: Where in Scripture do we have any contextually sound requirement for a husband to be a leader to his wife? The question is rhetorical because the answer is clearly, “Nowhere.” Here again, while “husband as leader” fits nicely into a patriarchal worldview, this is not a part of God’s design for marriage. Marriage is consistently commended as the same kind of inseparable unity as the church has with the Lord Jesus Christ. Just because Christ is Lord, Ruler, Savior, Leader, Atoning Sacrifice, Judge, and so many other things to the church, does not mean a husband is any of these things to his wife. The passage says two things: a husband is the head of his wife—and it also says that the wife is as his body, just as Christ is the head of the church and the church is the body of Christ– (unity metaphor, given in parallel); and a husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church (self-sacrificial love illustration). Rather than arguing from silence in this passage, we should remember the obvious in our exegesis: Wives are not exempt from loving their husbands self-sacrificially, even though they are nowhere in Scripture singled out with a command to do so. Similarly, husbands are not exempt from submitting themselves to their wives out of reverence for Christ, though nowhere in Scripture are husbands singled out and told specifically to do so. We cannot allow a lack of class-specific commandments to nullify general commandments.

Comment by Craighton

July 17, 2006 @ 7:31 pm

I think we need to be careful about accusing our fellow protestants of eisegesis since we’re all in the same pond and see as darkly as any of the other fish. In fact Catholics think that all Protestants eisegete since they don’t see scripture through Holy Tradition. I know, horror of horrors, if that should be the only option.

There’s a handful of you who are engaging in intellectual/logical swordplay, and I have to admit that it’s fascinating. Well, horridly fascinating, anyway. I have a theory, that my complementarian pastor vigorously disagrees with, that no one is convinced one way or the other on issues like this solely through logical analysis or scripture proof-texting. Unless one experiences the horror of sexual discrimination directly or through a significant other, why would anyone change their viewpoint away from the culturally accepted norm? My goodness, if all these culturally sanctioned religious leaders say God has authorized these prettily painted evils for my own good, then who am I to go against the flow?

I suspect that there are many readers of this blog lurking and not participating because they don’t have the Greek training that some others have. Just remember that the person with an argument has nothing over the person who has an experience.

Comment by Kathryn

July 17, 2006 @ 10:11 pm

I mentioned in another blog that Biblical submission does not always mean submission to authority, and that submission is one of the most misunderstood words in the Word. One must take it in context. If I submit to the law of the land, that is one thing; if however, I make myself available to the people in my immediate circle, that does not mean they have any authority over me.

Comment by Lori

July 18, 2006 @ 7:51 am

First, a clarification. In my post above (#26), I was thinking about my earlier post concerning Wayne Grudem. He has said that when his wife grew very ill, he deferred to her desires and moved across the country so she could attend a special clinic. How is a husband deferring to his wife different from a wife submitting to her husband?

Re: post 27

Let’s be clear here. Is it assumed or is it commended? If it is commended then we need to see Scriptures where it is commended clearly and not assumed.

I would highly recommend Gordon Fee’s article here on CBE: “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:1.”

In it, Fee says that in the ancient Roman Empire, men had complete authority over their households–wives, children, and slaves. Many of the converts in Paul’s churches had probably lived this way for years. To come in and suddenly say that they needed to totally change their lifestyle would have been too radical and upsetting. Therefore, Paul assumes the continuance of male authority (just like he does slavery), but begins to chip away at attitudes by emphasizing submitting to each other as a church, loving your wives, and treating your slaves kindly. As Kathryn and Psalmist brilliantly pointed out, however, Paul does not commend male authority. There’s a big difference.

From post 28:

The only way such a division of the one flesh of marriage can be read into God’s design for marriage requires complex proof-texting. I’ve heard/read all of these proof-texts (including “creation order,” “head=authority over,” “God spoke to Adam first,” and many others), and none individually or taken together can stand the test of contextually sound exegesis.

The book of Genesis does not teach that Adam had authority over Eve. You can read the creation account as many times as you like, but you won’t find it there. The only way you can see it there is to assume that it must be there based on a misinterpretation of Paul’s teachings. Again, I couldn’t agree more with that statement of CBE’s that it’s dangerous to build an entire theology of marital relationships based on a couple of dodgy passages [without a holistic approach to Scripture]. You can read the entire OT and you won’t find God saying it’s good for a husband to have authority over his wife. So complementarianism seeks to build a theology based on a couple of obscure and highly disputed passages that are nowhere supported in the rest of scripture.

Comment by Lori

July 18, 2006 @ 8:02 am

Re: post 29

I have a theory, that my complementarian pastor vigorously disagrees with, that no one is convinced one way or the other on issues like this solely through logical analysis or scripture proof-texting. Unless one experiences the horror of sexual discrimination directly or through a significant other, why would anyone change their viewpoint away from the culturally accepted norm?

With all due respect to your pastor, Craigton, I completely agree with you. I grew up in a comp. culture and accepted it because that’s what everyone thought, so it must be true. I read a couple of egal. books, but mainly as an intellectual exercise. “Yeah, maybe that stuff is true, but I don’t know. I mean, it seems so obvious that Paul wants to restrict women. What if this is just unhappy people not wanting to accept the truth of God’s Word and trying to explain away their sinful attitude?”

Then I became a part of YWAM for a couple of years and man oh man, it changed my life. For those unfamiliar with it, it’s one of the largest missionary organizations in the world and it’s run pretty much on egal. lines. I felt such freedom there to exercise my spiritual gifts (preaching and prophecy), and it was awesome seeing women serve right alongside men. It really was like being part of a NT church. I knew then that my beliefs had been culturally conditioned, and I had a choice: either stay with a belief system that I felt stifled me, or step out in faith and accept that egal. might be true. It took a lot of courage but I did it, and I’ve never looked back. That was six years ago, and I have studied this issue ever since then. The more I study it the more I am convinced I made the right choice. All the egal. women I have talked to privately have basically shared a story similar to mine, so I really think there’s something in what you said, Craighton.

Comment by Jorge

July 18, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

Re: Post 26 – Lori,

You asked: “So how exactly does a husband submit to his wife, and how is it different from wives to husbands?” I answered this in my post. If one defines “submit” in Eph 5:21 as “mutual submission,” meaning to love one another, show deference to one another, etc., then it is in this sense that a husband should biblically “submit” to his wife for all those things are taught all throughout Scripture. It is here that complementarians and egalitarians practically act the same, in my opinion (yet for some reason, as has been discussed on this blog, egalitarians are surprised by this).

All believers are encouraged to live this way (wife to husband and husband to wife) all throughout Scripture – regardless of whether or not in Eph 5:21 is actually saying that. Nevertheless, there remains another kind of submission which is not mutual, one in which a person comes voluntarily under the authority of another (as in the normal meaning of the verb “to submit” in Greek and English for that matter).

These verses are found in many places in the NT: Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22-24; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5 and have not been adequately explained here by egalitarians on this blog. This kind of submission is not reciprocal. You will search in vain for an exhortation by Paul or Peter for husbands to submit to their wives, or parents to submit to their children. Why? Because Paul saw no contradiction between believers mutually showing deference (“submitting”?) to one another (as described above in loving and caring for one another, etc.) and voluntarily submitting to those in authority over them.

Authority is not done away with. It is transformed but not eliminated. Indeed, I. Howard Marshall in DBE calls what Paul taught “love-patriarchy” (not egalitarianism!). He, however, concludes that this transformation of authority by Paul sowed the seed for its termination down the road – something, he says, Paul probably didn’t even conceive of! While I don’t agree with Marshall’s conclusions, I found some things helpful. I encourage all of you (if you haven’t already) to read his essay in DBE. And to be fair, I encourage all to read George W. Knight’s essay in RBMW too.

I did not say “one another” is defined as “one-sided submission.”

In Christ.

Comment by Jorge

July 18, 2006 @ 6:04 pm

Re: Post 27 – TeriLynn,

A husband’s authority of both assumed and commended. It’s commended most clearly in Eph. 5:22-24, as I have explained several times already. And I agree with you that “Just because more people were doing something than not doing it, does not legitimize the activity.”

The ground for a wife to submit to her husband according to the immediate context is that he is her head just as Christ is the head of the church. You basically ignored this. I will repeat what I said before:

Regarding the submission of wives to husbands, he grounds it (Gk. conjunction hoti meaning ‘since, because, for’- i.e., this is Paul’s reason) in the fact that the husband is the head of his wife even as (Gk. hos kai) Christ is the head of the church (v. 23). Is this reason a temporary, cultural one? Has this changed? Regardless of what one believes “head” means here, has the husband/Christ stopped being the “head” of the wife/the church? Is Paul’s reason passé?

This point has been repeatedly ignored on this blog and yet I have presented it several times. I read Gordon Fee’s essay on “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9″ and he does not discuss this either. Neither does I. H. Marshall in his chapter on Eph. 5 in DBE. This is quite revealing, in my opinion.

Again, I agree that the verb “to submit” used for wives is in the middle voice, which means that it is something that should be initiated within them. Why are we still discussing this? What you, however, have repeatedly failed to acknowledge is the verb’s basic meaning: to come under the authority of another. I encourage those reading this thread to look up the verb “to submit” (Greek: hypotasso) in standard Greek lexicons and look up the range of meaning. Look up all the verses where this verb is used. What do you conclude? And so a husband’s authority – evident in the fact that the wife is to submit to him because he is her head, just like Christ is the head of the Church – is taught/prescribed in Scripture.

Comment by Jorge

July 18, 2006 @ 6:08 pm

Re: Post 28 – Psalmist in Texas

Concerning my “narrow” definition of the verb “to submit,” I once again encourage the reader to look this word up in a Greek Lexicon, such as BDAG – the standard lexicon for NT studies – and judge for yourself. Why is it assumed that I am “setting aside the obvious obligation for a wife to love her husband”? This is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture, contrary to your claim: (e.g. Titus 2:4). I have not gone into specifics as to how a wife is to submit to her husband. Where is this exhaustive list I supposedly presented?

That there are complementarians who do not view Eph 5:21 as teaching “mutual submission” does not mean they do not believe in mutual submission. As the quote I provided from RBMW (published in 1991) shows, all complementarians believe in mutual submission, defined as loving and caring for one another, showing deference towards each other, etc. because it is clearly taught all throughout Scripture. Egalitarians need to understand this.

You talk so dismissively of “human” authority, as if human authority can’t exist within Christianity. Yet we both know this is false. God is our supreme authority. Yet your pastor is an authority over you; parents are an authority over their children. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1, ESV). Authority and unity/harmony are not incompatible.

I understand that the head/body metaphor does include the concept of “unity.” But what you seem to overlook is that the context in Eph 5:22-24 indicates that “head” + “submit” does refer to some sort of authority and that it is *not* incompatible with unity within the body. Paul is saying that the reason a wife (not a husband) is to submit (what does submit mean lexically here?) to her husband is because he is her head (not the other way around) just as Christ is the head of the church. This is clearly something one-sided. A wife is never said anywhere in Scripture to be the husbands head. The church is never said to be Christ’s head. And it is in this sense that neither Paul nor Peter (nor anyone else) exhorts husbands to submit to their wives. And the fact that we find this one-sided submission repeatedly many times in the NT testifies to this very thing.

Again, between believers, it is true that the way authority looks is transformed. What you have failed to show is that authority and unity can’t exist together. If you haven’t already, read I. H. Marshall’s essay in DBE. You liken “authority” to “division” in your second to last paragraph. Why? You are setting up a false dichotomy which is governing your exegesis.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 18, 2006 @ 9:00 pm

re: post #30

In it, Fee says that in the ancient Roman Empire, men had complete authority over their households–wives, children, and slaves. Many of the converts in Paul’s churches had probably lived this way for years. To come in and suddenly say that they needed to totally change their lifestyle would have been too radical and upsetting. Therefore, Paul assumes the continuance of male authority (just like he does slavery), but begins to chip away at attitudes by emphasizing submitting to each other as a church, loving your wives, and treating your slaves kindly.

Great article. Thanks. If a man truly thinks of his wife compassionately, he will not seek to boss her around, telling her what she can or cannot do, or coerce her to do this or that to please him. Unfortunately, I do see complementarian types who are nice guys, but who think they know best what their wives should do.

While I do think Paul’s approach was the wisest way to deal with an overtly patriarchal society, I also think it was the only way that could have worked to achieve any amount of true harmony. But even so, there will likely always be only a certain percentage of guys who will be willing to sacrificially serve their wives in the way Paul encouraged. First some are just so engrained in hierarchic views that they cannot comprehend it. Second, some who do are not willing to come down from their higher place of esteem and control.

Shrug! ?? :(

Comment by Kathryn

July 19, 2006 @ 2:21 pm

Some of the complementarian misunderstanding concerning women in ministry, marriage, and authority revolves around the word “submission.” Our English language uses that one word to describe several different situations, but the Greek and Hebrew have different words for them. Submission does not necessarily mean submission to one in authority over me. That interpretation definitely does not apply in marriage or in the way believers are to relate to one another. Obedience to those in authority, such as national leaders, is a different subject entirely. To see the differences in English, you have to take these passages in context, as we should anyway. As Lori pointed out above, (thank you Lori for the compliment), the comps have built their “submission” theology on a couple of obscure Scriptures. Good Biblical scholarship demands that we weigh Scripture with Scripture.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 20, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

Perhaps we have a divergence of opinion/interpretation on this point when we look at “husbands are never exhorted to submit to their wives”: Paul’s audience in Ephesus. It is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that Paul’s audience was only men. What is much more likely is that the audience was the believing assembly, that is, the adult Christians who worshiped and broke bread together. Thus, it was a shocking thing for these first century believers, living in a highly worldly first century culture, to hear “All of you subject yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ; yes, including wives to husbands, as to the Lord.” The “all of you” cannot, must not be ignored. This is what turned the household code inside out. Wives, children, slaves submit? No surprise there…but the attitude and totality of that submission, well, that was the kicker for them. Outward only was not enough; it was a matter of wholehearted, chosen submission for the adults (and obedience for the children, as would be expected for them). But for free MEN to also subject THEMSELVES to the slaves and women, as well as to other free men? This was HUGE. (In some Christian circles, it still would be, were it only taken seriously.) How did a first-century free man subject himself voluntarily to his wife? In ways such as Paul commended: loving her as the inseparable one-flesh partner she was intended to be, loving her by sacrificing himself as Christ modeled for all believers. She was expected to sacrifice herself for him in their culture…now it was commanded for both. For what is self-subjection, if not a sacrifice of self in favor of another? And by emphasizing the love, Paul parallels the “step beyond” that he just a few words earlier gave the wives: your whole heart must be in it. Mere courtesy is not enough, husbands. It must be love, for Christ loves you.

This mythical “non-submission” clause for husbands simply isn’t there. All Christians, bar none, are to subject themselves to one another (submission). All Christians, bar none, are to love one another as Christ loves us (love). We cannot, must not, claim that because Paul does not single out husbands as commanded to submit specifically to their wives, the submission of a husband to his wife is either negated or “different” than the submission she owes him and we all owe one another.

This is where, quite frankly, I see the pro-patriarchy advocates changing Scripture to fit the world’s pattern of patriarchy. I will concede that the Bible’s commandment for all believers, including husbands and wives, to subject themselves to each other, does not mesh at all well with the world’s understanding that a man is an authority over his wife. It’s not surprising that those who will not let go of the latter tradition, will deny or minimize the former.

Now, if someone can show conclusively that Paul’s audience was only free men, and the passages that are specifically addressed to women and slaves are included so that the free men will teach them to these subordinate groups, then there’s a leg to stand on to claim that “all of you submit” excepts the husbands, fathers, and slave owners. It still doesn’t make sense, though. If these were exempt from submission, Paul could have just reiterated the secular household codes. But he didn’t. Under God’s influence, he wrote eloquently to make his case that the authority figures were no less obligated to submit wholeheartedly to their fellow believers…for an eternally important reason: reverence for Christ. For such a cause, a man could certainly humble himself and set aside his positional privilege. After all, the husband expected his wife to do so for a much less holy cause (cultural and legal mandate); he could certainly do so for Christ’s sake.

So the way I see it, whether one buys into or rejects this present world’s inherited tradition of patriarchal positional privilege, the choice is still the same: Will we ALL, for the sake of Christ, set aside whatever positional privilege this world grants us in order to serve one another?

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 21, 2006 @ 9:54 am

Jorge, I’m not overlooking the connection you are making between “head + submit”; I’m simply denying that the connection rightly makes a husband into an authority over his wife. Nothing you’ve posted here, nor anything I’ve read any pro-patriarchalist say, is going to change what the Scriptures actually say on this, and I cannot remake them into commending a position of authority for husbands over their wives. Paul dealt with what was (worldly positional authority for husbands). He did not commend it. He transformed it so that even in that sinful paradigm, marriage would more closely resemble the Creator’s original design. It doesn’t change a thing to use a fragment of a unity metaphor (head+body) to make your claim that this means Paul commended the practice. He commmended the one-flesh unity of marriage, not the division of it into leader and follower.

You referred to a “semantic range” for submission. Based on what you wrote, I merely commented about how narrowly I believe you’ve construed that range. It still appears very much that way to me. And for the record, I’m not completely unfamiliar with the lexicon. What I find there is part of why I must reject your preferred conclusion of husband positional authority.

I find your argument for authority-mandated submission unconvincing, based on the context of the passage under discussion and the patchwork method of infusing a concept that is not part of that passage. This is the same problem with the insistence that “woman created for man and not man for woman” means that husbands are authorities over their wives. No, it does not. That appeal to the Creation story provides the needed corrective for a community in which something other than the Creation story was being taught as truth. Paul uses this reminder to defend his contention that conventional modesty and propriety are required in worship. One cannot construct a valid defense of husbandly authority out of a fragment from a unity passage plus one from a propriety in worship passage. That’s simply not good exegesis. Repeating the contention doesn’t make it any more valid than it was the first time.

I don’t appreciate your false contention that I “talk so dismissively” of human authority in Christianity. I recognize very well that it is described over and over in Scripture. What I reject is the contention that Paul specifically *commends* the world’s practice of husbands as authorities over their wives, for the reasons I’ve outlined several times now. Yes, in a sense such a practice can coexist, imperfectly IMO, with unity. People are free to accept all kinds of practices that God neither requires nor commends for them and agree to remain unified. But making marriage into a leader and a follower IS a dividing of a union back into two individuals. It sets one over the other in a way that God does not intend. I see it over and over again. If I’d never seen a mutually submissive marriage, maybe I’d never have noticed the difference. It is marked, though I’m the first to admit that hierarchical marriages can be good marriages. I just don’t think they’re as good as they could be if the in-authority spouse would let go that positional privilege and embrace the full equality and unity that God intended.

You appear to have missed something I’ve mentioned several times now, namely the difference between the authority God gives to use the Spirit’s gifts in service to others, and the world’s positional authority (exemplified in patriarchal practices in marriage). My pastor has the authority to shepherd, preach, and teach; we all submit to her as she serves with that godly authority. She submits to us by using these God-given gifts in that service. (I practiced the same kind of submission to those entrusted to my care when I pastored, by the way.) Husbands, by contrast, are given no specific spiritual gift of “husband authority” by God, nor are wives given “wife authority.” They both have the inherent relational authority to serve one another, and specifically authority over each other’s bodies. God grants no positional authority to husbands or wives.

Again, I reject the proof-texted, pieced-together arguments for positional authority in marriage. We are never expected by God to re-create the first-century Roman world’s authority structures in our present-day marriages, nor should we attempt to do so. We have a more-or-less equality-based culture, much different from Paul’s day. It is a misuse of Scripture to tell husbands to reject that equality in order to take authority over their wives and tell the wives that it is their duty to submit to that authority. The Bible simply tells wives to submit to *their husbands,” right after it tells us *all* to submit to one another. We submit to other people, and only in the world’s power structures do we submit to authority figures. Jesus was very clear that it was not to be so (positional authority) among his followers.

Frankly, you’re not going to convince me to adopt your complex, cross-passage intuitions that you’ve outlined here, Jorge, in order to set aside the much simpler biblical teaching of full equality among believers. I’ve heard all the arguments for continuing in patriarchal traditions, many times, and for a long time sought to live that way. The Scriptures are what finally convinced me that positional authority in church and marriage is not godly. We are to be different from the world and its traditions, not emulate them.

Comment by Kathryn

July 21, 2006 @ 9:04 pm

As was stated in comment #39, the system of patriarchy is a worldly system, with power for power’s sake as it’s goal. We have probably all known men and women caught in that patriarchal system where women submitted and submitted, yet blamed themselves whenever anything went wrong; they weren’t “submissive enough”. Men suffered too as they were forced to deny their emotions and assume rigid “roles” that denied their humanity. Re: comment 38: I agree: For the sake of our Lord, let’s forget the worldly system and love one another.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 22, 2006 @ 11:14 am

Re: post #38

The “all of you” cannot, must not be ignored. This is what turned the household code inside out. Wives, children, slaves submit? No surprise there…but the attitude and totality of that submission, well, that was the kicker for them. Outward only was not enough; it was a matter of wholehearted, chosen submission for the adults (and obedience for the children, as would be expected for them). But for free MEN to also subject THEMSELVES to the slaves and women, as well as to other free men? This was HUGE.

One of the ways that we can see that Paul meant everyone be submissive toward everyone else was in the part about the master and slave.

Ephe. 6:5-9
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one of you for whatever good you do, whether you are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. TNIV

When Paul said for masters to treat their slaves in the SAME WAY, he was telling masters to serve their slaves as if they were serving the Lord not people. This goes right back to verse 5:21 of being submissive one to another in the fear (awe and respect) of God.

You can also see this in the picture of the husband loving his wife in the same way that Christ “gave Himself up for the church.” Part of Godly serving one another is in sacrificial “giving oneself up” for the other to their benefit instead of serving self interest. That is what mutual submission is about. That is part of the spiritual glue that causes churches to explode and radically effect their country for good. That is what causes marriages to blossom BOTH spouses for good and they tend to become as one person joined at the hip.

This makes a much more beneficial relationship than one person losing their identity into the other while they become two persons co-existing; with one person the head as in authority/leader and the other the tail as in follower. Paul’s picture is that the wife view the husband as her head (similar to how she views Christ) , and the husband view the wife as his body (similar to how Christ views the church). This is a view of inseparable interdependency.

Comment by Jorge

July 27, 2006 @ 3:20 pm

Re: Post # 38 & 39

Psalmist in Texas, I’ve read and thought about your posts several times this week. There is much in what I read that I agree with; especially on the way husbands are to treat their wives. But I disagree on how you’ve defined and controlled the word “submission” in the NT, particularly in view of Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1-7. I’d like to take a calm and close contextual look at each of these passages with you, since you have accused me of: “changing Scripture to fit the world’s pattern of patriarchy,” using a “patchwork method of infusing a concept that is not part of [a given] passage” and “proof-texted, pieced together arguments,” and adopting “complex cross-passage intuitions.” Well, saying this is one thing, but demonstrating its accuracy is quite another.

For the sake of argument, and because it is an acceptable interpretation within complementarianism, I’m going to take for granted that Ephesians 5:21 (“submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ” [ESV]) means contextually “voluntarily yielding to one another in love” or something similar. Verses 18-21 are actually one sentence in Greek so it’s best it we look at them together. Paul tells his audience to “be filled with the Spirit.” This is characterized by,

(1) addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs
(2) singing to the Lord with all your heart
(3) making melody to the Lord with all your heart
(4) giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
(5) submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ

Paul seems to be addressing the assembled congregation and how being filled with the Spirit is supposed to look for all believers. Our concern is with the last of these. In the assembled congregation (and I presume outside as well) believers are to willingly yield to the needs of each other in love. For the record, complementarianism teaches this. (Some complementarians don’t think this is what Eph 5:21 is saying here but they would still hold that believers should yield to one another in love in the sense of service and humility because it is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture).

What Paul does next is discuss what many have called “the household codes” (Eph. 5:22-6:9). There is a slight shift in Paul’s focus, going from the assembled congregation and how believers are supposed act with each other being ‘filled with the Spirit’ to how believers are supposed to act within particular “household” relationships. The first relationship he deals with is the ‘husband-wife’ relationship (vv. 22-33). Wives are addressed first, so let’s deal with them first:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” (Eph 5:22-24, ESV)

The key terms in this passage are “your own” (Gk. idios), “for” (Gk. hoti), “head” (Gk. kephale), and “submit(s)” (Gk. hypotasso). I’ve cited the lexical form of these words for any who wish to look them up. Important questions to be considered are: How are these terms to be understood here and on what basis? What do we make of the husband/Christ-wife/church analogy?

So as to better understand your position, I’d like you to explain *contextually* your interpretation of Eph. 5:21-24. What connection you see in the submission required for *all* believers in general in v. 21 to the particular submission *specifically* mentioned for wives in vv. 22-24? How do you define submission in v. 21 and vv. 22-24 (some lexical sources would be helpful here)? Why are husbands not *specifically* told to “submit” in vv. 25-33 as wives clearly are in vv. 22-24? Why does Paul tell wives to submit to their “own” husbands if the submission in v. 21 was clearly everyone to everyone? Did wives really think that Paul meant in v. 21 for them to submit to everyone except their own husbands so as to require him to state that specifically in the next verse? If so, why on earth would the *wives* think that and not their husbands?

Does a wife’s submission to her “own” husband, according to Paul, look any different from the submission she is to have for, let’s say, her best friend’s husband (assuming her husband’s best friend is also a fellow believer)? How do you define the word “head” here and on what basis (lexical source would be helpful here as well)? Is the husband still the “head” of his wife today? Is Christ still the head of the church today?

Your brother in Christ.