The CBE Scroll

I am amazed that the small part of Ephesians 5 which is translated “as Christ is head of the church” is extended and explained so that a husband is compared to Christ in so many ways.

What is a simple comparison of the type of care which a husband is encouraged to give becomes in some people’s minds the open door to husband as leader, decision maker, initiator, final authority in the home, and the one who must give account of every family member’s spiritual life. The extension of this is the expected response of a wife which presumably is the same as that of the church—submission in everything. If there is not submission “in everything,” then the comparison breaks down at several points.

The church (bride) doesn’t have a say in the decision making of Christ, whose ways are far above human understanding or reasoning.

Christ is not sometimes influenced by the church (bride) to consider that a decision or course of action may need to be reconsidered.

The church (bride) is not responsible for, or influential in, how Christ performs his “headship” role.

The church (bride) can be disobedient, disrespectful, and ungrateful to Christ without any of these attitudes affecting Christ’s innate nature, which is always loving, just, holy, and perfect in every aspect.

The church (bride) is not “equal but different” to Christ. There is no comparison between the creator of the heavens and earth and the church (bride) which is made up of created humans.

These are just a few thoughts on how these comparisons are not consistent with all of Scripture and continue to prop up the view of what God requires of a husband or wife. There are many others related to just this one verse.

Are there any comments regarding these comparisons or further ones which I haven’t outlined here?

Barb from Langley, BC, who has been conducting research among Christians who have recovered from experiences of emotional and spiritual distress under authoritarian and controlling church leaders has made one last call for those who still might like to participate in her survey.

The original post, with contact information, may be found here.

The results of her survey will provide her with a critical piece of research and will help her on her way to the completion of her dissertation, and so if you can help in any way, please do!

Thanks to Sue for pointing out this interesting bit of news to CBE.

Towards the end of last week’s Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, a debate that dealt largely with foreign policy and the war in Iraq, the debate turned sharply to the issue of marital submission, and by extension, biblical equality.

Here is an excerpt from the debate’s transcript, found in its entirety here.

Governor Huckabee, to change the subject a little bit and focus a moment on electability.

Back in 1998, you were one of about 100 people who affirmed, in a full-page ad in the New York Times the Southern Baptist Convention’s declaration that, quote, ‘A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.’

Women voters in both parties harshly criticized that. Is that position politically viable in the general election of 2008, sir?

The ad mentioned was the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) document ‘You Are Right,’ an affirmation of the traditional definition of the family endorsed by 131 evangelicals including Franklin Graham, Charles Colson, and T.D. Jakes, among others. The ad included, as stated above, the declaration that husbands are to ’sacrificially love and lead their wives’ and that ‘wives are to graciously submit to their husband’s servant leadership.’

Here is how Huckabee, a co-signer and former SBC pastor, responded.

First of all, if anybody knows my wife, I don’t think they for one minute think that she’s going to just sit by and let me do whatever I want to. That would be an absolute total misunderstanding of Janet Huckabee.

The whole context of that passage – and, by the way, it really was spoken to believers, to Christian believers. I’m not the least bit ashamed of my faith or the doctrines of it. I don’t try to impose that as a governor and I wouldn’t impose it as a president.

But I certainly am going to practice it unashamedly, whether I’m a president or whether I’m not a president. But the point… the point, it comes from a passage of Scripture in the New Testament book of Ephesians, is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.

So with all due respect, it has nothing to do with presidency. I just wanted to clear up that little doctrinal quirk there so that there’s nobody who misunderstands that it’s really about doing what a marriage ought to do and that’s marriage is not a 50/50 deal, where each partner gives 50 percent.

Biblically, marriage is a 100/100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other and that’s why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love.

The ‘You Are Right’ ad, an affirmation of the traditional definition of the family, was strong on it’s position that husbands are to ’sacrificially love and lead’ and that wives are to ‘graciously submit,’ and yet Huckabee, speaking from his own experience not only as an SBC pastor, but as a husband, affirmed that marital submission is mutual.

Thoughts, anyone?

(Please feel free here to post comments on political issues as related to marital submission and biblical equality and treat this as a forum within which to discuss political issues.

Please refrain from overly-grandiose displays of endorsement and/or the public denigration of particular candidates, seeing as The CBE Scroll is not a political platform, and platforms aplenty exist elsewhere. Thanks.)

Why do some people say that there is no evidence kephale can mean ’source’ or ‘origin?’

The Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott Greek lexicon lists, among the possible meanings of the Greek word kephale (translated as ‘head’ in English), ‘source’ or ‘origin.’ This is the word translated ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (”Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”) and Ephesians 5:23 (”For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior”).

Here’s the reference from the lexicon, and a link to the same entry, here.

d. in pl., source of a river (Hdt. 4.91) (butsg., mouth, oida Gela potamou kephalêi epikeimenon astu Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.48 ): generally, source, origin, Zeus k. (v.l. arkhê), Zeus messa, Dios d’ ek panta teleitai tetuktai codd.) Orph.Fr.21a; starting-point, k. khronou Placit. 2.32.2 (kronou codd.), Lyd.Mens.3.4; k. mênos ib.12.

And yet, there are those who insist that there is no evidence that ‘source’ or ‘origin’ are acceptable meanings for the word. Why is this?

‘You should learn how to play the piano or something… since you’ll be a minister’s wife someday.’

An older gentleman said this to me as we were walking along toward the Sunday school class where my husband Sam and I were to share about our missionary experiences. When we were single, Sam and I had both individually heard God’s call and confirmation to be long-term missionaries, and both of us had taken steps of faith on short-term trips to answer that call. And, though they had invited my husband to be the speaker that morning, as equal partners in all things Sam of course wanted me to share my story as well. Sadly, the assumption was that Sam was the minister and I was the minister’s wife!

The gentleman’s comment left me dumbfounded and speechless. I wanted to laugh because it was so absurd and cry because I knew he wasn’t joking. It was assumed that because I was a married female, I was no longer a missionary (I was a missionary’s wife), and furthermore, there was no way I would be the minister - but the minister’s wife.

But God is not gender-biased. He gives spiritual gifts according to his sovereign prerogative. To me, he gave the gifts of teaching and shepherding. To Sam, he gave the gifts of service and music. So… in our family, if anybody was to be the piano player, it would be Sam (who plays the guitar wonderfully while I can’t keep a beat or carry a tune for the life of me), and if anybody were to be a minister’s spouse, it would be him. But a ‘minister’s husband’ - whoever’s heard of that? As we move forward in proclaiming the message of biblical equality, may a woman’s call to ministry be as readily accepted as a man’s.

I was completely speechless in this situation, but what should I have said? Please share if you have had any similar experiences and how you responded - or suggestions of what kind of response would be best in stereotyping situations like this.