The CBE Scroll

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

November 17, 2006 @ 1:04 pm

This is the best summary I’ve ever read on the subject of mutual submission, Trev. It’s also far more satisfying than the hierarchalists’ party line of “it doesn’t have to make sense to us, we just have to do it that way” in their defense of hierarchy in marriage. Hierarchy requires exactly the division of one into two, that is precluded by the “head+body” and “one flesh” metaphors that are the consistent scriptural standard for marital unity.

Thank you very much for posting this.

Comment by Trev

November 17, 2006 @ 8:26 pm

Thanks Psalmist for your encouragement. I had actually intended to add another paragraph to that post but somehow it got missed, so I’ll add it here.

This is a great mystery. Paul acknowledges it as such (Eph. 5:31,32 NLB). To see it as anything less does it, ‘oneness’, a grave injustice. We would do well to explore the mystery rather than have it minimised by mute acceptance of the ‘traditional’, patriarchal, hierarchal, or in modern parlance, complementarian model. I’m reminded that Jesus came to explain the mysteries of God, things hidden since the beginning of time. Surely then Jesus’ own counter cultural treatment of women, in His own highly volatile, male dominated patriachal society speaks volumes to us of a better way.

Blessings, Trevor

Comment by Alone

November 21, 2006 @ 11:35 am

I was listening to a sermon on a Christian radio station that was talking about how men must submit to God and women must submit to their husbands. I grew up in a complementarian church, and for the longest time I REALLY didn’t want to get married, because by this definition, it’s essentially a “demotion” in my walk with God. Seriously - if I were single, I could sit in God’s executive board room, but if I’m married (as a woman) I’m no longer invited to the board room - my husband is there to represent me. Why would anyone want that, other than they think “that’s what God intended?”

Comment by Francine

November 21, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

Alone
I’ve heard the statement before about the husband submitting to God and the women submitting to the husband, even if they know the husband is wrong. The question is if that is so, is that making the husband a demi-god? If so, then isn’t that idol worship? And doesn’t God hate it when we worship something other then Him. I’m not talking about mutual submitting, but the fact that men are between God and the women. This is just food for thought
Francine

Comment by Can Dance

November 21, 2006 @ 7:01 pm

I have a friend who is a Messianic Jew who has done some word study related to this passage and Genesis. She has found some pretty interesting things. Hebrew is mostly made up of word pictures and basically the union between male and female is a picture of oneness, echad oneness as its called. There can be no hierarchy in oneness. It also makes Paul’s comments make more sense in light of his very Hebrew mindset.

Comment by Kathryn

November 22, 2006 @ 12:22 am

Re: comment #4: Well said.

Comment by LJR

November 23, 2006 @ 5:01 pm

Alone: I know what you mean. I was completely convinced that the church I grew up in would have ripped out every Bible verse about men’s obligations to their wives and made sure to repeat every obligation of the wife twice. Although we were trained that our highest calling was to be a wife and mother, I didn’t see a whole lot of love to make that worth doing (although I looked for a husband out of obligation anyway).

Francine: Back in college (strict Christian, complementarian place), a woman was allowed to give her testimony during Sunday School about preparing for marriage. She said she was concerned about the time she spent with her fiance cutting into her time with God. An older woman told her that because her future husband was to be her head, any time spent with him was just like spending time with God. Bwah!? Those words were clearly idolatrous, but it seemed like I was the only one who noticed. I knew even in my steeped-in-complementarian days how wrong that was, but I didn’t know what to say to fight it. I also had a psychology/family living professor who always found a way to make any marital problem the wife’s fault. Wife cheats? Her fault. Husband cheats? Still her fault. The guy also had no mercy for students from broken homes. I’m surprised I didn’t graduate magna cum ulcers as a result of all that. I didn’t know there was any better Christian teaching out there, so I was just stuck with all that.

Can’t Dance: “No hierarchy in oneness”. Amen. The permanent hierarchy comps preach divides and assumes that one person is necessarily in an inferior position to the other. No amount of “equal in being but not in function” talk can ever change that. There’s just no possible way to have unity when one is always in charge, when one can always overrule the other. Control, sure… but that can never take the place of unity, nor can it satisfy our need for true oneness.

Comment by TL

November 25, 2006 @ 11:38 am

re: post #2

“I’m reminded that Jesus came to explain the mysteries of God, things hidden since the beginning of time. Surely then Jesus’ own counter cultural treatment of women, in His own highly volatile, male dominated patriachal society speaks volumes to us of a better way.”

I really like this statement.

Also, Can Dance’s point about the Hebrew “echad”, is eye opening. Echad is about separates that come together perfectly joined as one entity. It truly is a mystery that two humans with all their differences individualy and sexually can live as one entity. When it happens it is awesome.

Christ did speak volumes by his actions. Someone should do a study and analysis about every female interaction with Christ as well as all the things He sent the women to do.

Comment by Trev

November 26, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

Thanks for your comments TL. Roger Nicole in the Spring Issue of CBE’s Priscilla Papers, Volume 20, Number 2, has an excellent article titled, ‘Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture’. There is a section within the article headed, ‘Jesus’ Treatment of Women’, which is an excellent summary. Brief yet comprehensive. I’d agree with you, a lengthy and expansive study would be very worthwhile. Perhaps another contributor to these posts knows of one, or more?

Comment by Lori

November 29, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

Alone
I’ve heard the statement before about the husband submitting to God and the women submitting to the husband, even if they know the husband is wrong. The question is if that is so, is that making the husband a demi-god? If so, then isn’t that idol worship? And doesn’t God hate it when we worship something other then Him. I’m not talking about mutual submitting, but the fact that men are between God and the women. This is just food for thought
Francine

I’ve never personally heard this argument, but I’ve seen it mentioned on other egalitarian forums. I had the same thoughts as you, Francine. What happened to the entire Protestant Reformation and “the priesthood of the believer”? In fact, it seems to me that the concepts of “headship” and men being the “spiritual head of the household” also undermine it. Just what does the spiritual head do that the wife can’t do? Is the husband somehow more important or closer to God since he’s “over” the family?

Comment by amanda

November 29, 2006 @ 9:09 pm

Lori, you have raised a question I have been giving some thought. If you view 1 Cor 11:3 as the description of a heirarchy (which I don’t) is it then possible to say that Christ is the head of the wife? In other words, does taking it as a heirarchy mean that there is then a difference between Christ’s relationship with the husband and Christ’s relationship with the wife? I’m sure you could argue for a difference based on heirarchy, but I’m wondering if it is a necessary conclusion (I suspect it is). To me this would seem to conflict with the rest of scripture.

Are you aware of anyone who has written on this (I think it is more theology than exegesis)? I’ve done a quick search and found nothing - although forests have died in the argument over what ‘head’ means!

I’m planning to run the question past a theology lecturer here at college. He (and the college in general) is complementarian. I’ve asked a few students here and they’ve never thought about it so I suspect it isn’t something that is usually brought up at least in the less extreme versions of the complementarian interpretation. And Sydney does tend to take a less extreme approach to the issue.

Comment by Kathryn

November 30, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

Re: comment # 11: Good question Amanda. For those who follow the patriarchal view of that passage, that conclusion would seem almost inevitable, that is, assuming they believed wives even had a relationship with Christ after salvation.

Comment by Liz

November 30, 2006 @ 11:10 pm

In response to your question Amanda re more writings on 1 Corinthians 11: 3, I’m reminded of Gilbert Bilezikian’s comments on this passage. It is in chapter 5 of the book “Beyond Sex Roles” and covers several aspects of these verses. He does talk about the meaning of head of course but also points out that the order of relationships is not as we would imagine if it was a true “pecking order”
Maybe you could get this section online from CBE from the archives ? Try http://www.cbeinternational.org and see what they can suggest.
Also…..when you mentioned Sydney in the last sentence, is that Sydney Australia?
We live in WA and are keen to keep in touch with Australians who are grappling with these issue. This reply will appear in our inbox so if you would like to be in touch, please let us know.

Comment by Marissa

December 1, 2006 @ 10:23 am

Re: comment #11, resources around 1 Corinthians 11.

Gilbert Bilezikian’s book is an excellent resource and deals with this passage in depth.
There are also several Priscilla Papers articles which are helpful.

This article by Alex Bearden specifically addresses the issue of an egalitarian exegesis of this passage.

Unfortunately CBE does not currently have any free articles that deals specifically with this passage.

Hopefully this provides a good starting point for your research!

Comment by God's kid

December 1, 2006 @ 12:32 pm

I’d like to speak to this issue out of my own experience. In the first 2 decades of our marriage, we were part of a very traditional, heirarchical congregation. Our marriage was a disaster because of the extreme rule of men being the head of the wife, which translated into a very much control-based relationship. I was totally miserable, and recall, so was my husband.

Once we were no long part of that group, we started thinking through scriptures in the total context rather than proof-texting everything, and that line of thinking regarding wives/husbands became totally unsupportable.

We now have a very reciprocal, mutually submissive relationship; it is also now a very happy relationship. It is really moving toward that state of ecahd. I don’t think this is at all possible in the power structure view of marriage. This is even backed up by modern research on which marriages are the happiest. There is always mutual love and affection, respect, and a lack of power-over the other.

Regarding the word echad, that is also the word used in the Shema - the famous God is one passage. It denotes a unity that is truly beautiful.

Comment by Lori

December 2, 2006 @ 10:11 am

The book Why Not Women? by Cunningham and Hamilton also presents a very good study of 1 Corinthians 11.

Comment by Lori

December 19, 2006 @ 11:13 am

Here’s a teaching from the complementary side. I recently bought a Hebrew-Greek study bible, and the footnotes on passages dealing with gender relations are all written from the patriarchal perspective.

When it comes to 1 Cor 11:3, the author first talks about the ancient Greek culture, where men had great freedom and women wore veils “to symbolize the protectiveness they enjoyed from their husbands.”
Ok, let’s set aside the fact that the author has just ignored how extremely misogynistic the ancient Greek culture was. It’s what comes next that really irritates me. The author extrapolates from this and says that modern husbands are to be the protectors of the household, and the wives are to abide under the care of their husbands. But, the authors says, “husbands are to remember that they, too, have a head, who is Jesus.”

So, to answer your question, Amanda, I guess you could say that from a complementarian perspective there is a hierarchy in that verse. The husband is over his wife, and in turn Jesus is over the husband. The logical implication of this is that the husband is somehow closer to Jesus, since he’s in the middle. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how you can reconcile that with the teaching of every believer being equal in the sight of God.

Comment by Trevor

December 19, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

Lori, I think we should begin with the ‘priesthood of all believers’ when attempting to understand these ‘headship’ passages. We surely have to keep in mind the audience to whom these instructions or encouragements were given. We cannot ignore the fact that that culture was very different from our own and that the terminology will have had some specific meaning and application within that patriarchal culture. Even in that culture the application of ‘headship’ teaching as encouraged by the NT writers was far more liberating than as was practiced previous to the birth of the church and christian community life. I’m convinced that we won’t ultimately find answers in lexicons or commentaries alone because the persons offering the meaning of words or interpretation of scriptures are influenced by their own culture, tradition or experience. Far better to look at the overall teaching of scripture than to attempt to resolve issues related to specific ‘headship’ verses. The facts are that any form of headship teaching or interpretation that results in, or suggests a mediatorial role is opposed the the clear Biblical teaching of the priesthood of all believers. So that is the place to start. If anything is in conflict with that, to my mind it should be ignored in favour of a ‘higher’ truth. Some of these statements, again, to my mind, only have meaning and application to the persons or community of believers to whom they were written at the time. Our error could be that we attempt to make the passages fit for all time. It could only finally be resolved by the Apostle Paul being here to firstly, explain what he means by ‘head’ in those contexts and secondly, to answer our modern questions and offer a cultural fit. Of course that won’t happen so we have to go with the clear teaching of scripture alluded to in the OT and expounded in the NT, the ‘priesthood of ALL believers’ is paramount. Some would say that we have the Holy Spirit to interpret these passages to our correct understanding of Biblical truth and I agree, it’s just that people stiil keep coming up with different things believing them to be God revealed. So I’ll go with the things that I know for sure and attempt to live a life pleasing to God on the things that are difficult to fully comprehend.

Comment by Gina

December 30, 2006 @ 1:10 am

There’s just no possible way to have unity when one is always in charge, when one can always overrule the other.

Really? You must have a tough time with thinking of yourself united to Christ, then?

Comment by Gina

December 30, 2006 @ 1:18 am

The facts are that any form of headship teaching or interpretation that results in, or suggests a mediatorial role is opposed the the clear Biblical teaching of the priesthood of all believers.

I assume you would make the case that the “priesthood of all believers” comes from Scripture. Why, if it means what you say it does, would St. Paul tell his disciples to imitate himself?

Is there a mediative role in preaching the gospel to someone? If so, does the fact that human beings wrote, collected, and distributed the Scriptures constitute a mediative role on the part of a human being in our salvation?

I ask these questions as an Orthodox Christian who also affirms the priesthood of all believers, but recognizing that God does indeed mediate our salvation to us not only via the ineffable and immaterial, but through material things, including people. Though most evangelicals have consciously abandoned the idea of sacrament, the one thing that evangelicals still practice that is like a sacrament is preaching and teaching. In reality none of us can get around the fact that though our communion with God cannot be anything other than personal and immediate, it is also communal, visible, and embodied, and that is exactly how our Lord wanted it.

Comment by Trevor

January 3, 2007 @ 5:10 am

In reply to both of your posts Gina.

Firstly, being united to Christ is an entirely different matter to that of one human being having authority over another human being, as in the case of a woman being expected to be in submission to her husband and deferring to his spiritual leadership. True, we are united to Christ, once we are saved, by virtue of being indwelt by His Spirit, but it is an entirely different relationship in that Christ died to make this possible. Even so, we still have the free will to choose to live by the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit. Sadly, often no such freedom, or opportunity for negotiation exists for most women under male headship teaching, even though husbands are encouraged to ‘give up their lives for their wives in the same way that Christ gave His life for the church’.

Secondly, my point in respect to mediatorial interpretations was, as you follow the quote above, related specifically to ‘any form of headship teaching.’ The examples that you have cited fall outside of that category. Even so, I think that you run the risk of pushing the analogy too far by suggesting that preaching, teaching or imitating other saints is in effect mediatorial. At best we are pointing the way, or modelling desirable Christian behaviours. I don’t believe that in those instances we are acting as ‘go betweens’ which is the role of a mediator. There is but one mediator between God and humanity and that is the man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Also, on the matter of the ‘priesthood of all believers’, yes I do see this in Scripture, as expressed in 1 Peter 2:5 and 9.

Comment by paul

January 19, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

One of the most amazing stories of those whom Peter in his letter calls holy women of old is of the ways in which this tribe or Eber according to a contemporary Egyptian account of them “called his wife his sister.” Now getting beyond the text book evangelical response, “ah, see he sinned,” and treating the Eber culture with the respect that is due to it, we can see how prophetically in these first days of our religion a mutual respect and love is a characteristic of these marriages where again to quote Peter, “they cosmos/arranged themselves.”

If I am right on this God will reveal more.