The CBE Scroll

Comment by Makeesha

January 31, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

My husband recently posted about this issue, here. I think it’s a good point he makes.

Comment by SingingOwl

January 31, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

I recall reading a book which, based solely on this Scripture, expounded about the husband’s roles as prophet, priest, and king of his home. These were, said the author, Christ’s functions and thus the husband’s functions as well.

Why stop there? Who says which ‘roles’ of Christ the husband gets to assume? Why not redeemer and savior? Is everything ‘under the husband’s feet’ and so on? Of course not. So who decides where this supposed open door stops?

Let’s return to sanity, a simple ‘comparison of the type of care a husband should provide.’ That has quite a few less pitfalls - and no frightening implications whatsoever!

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 31, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

What amazes is that in Ephesians 5 gender hierarchalists compare the husband to Christ in terms of power, but in their Trinitarian theology the wife is compared to Christ in terms of being under power.

So in one situation being compared to Christ results in power, whereas in another situation it results in a loss of power. Does anyone else see the contradiction in this?

Comment by Liz

February 1, 2008 @ 12:41 am

Sure… that’s why I like to point out the inequality of these comparisons and the fact that no matter how it is worded, the wife cannot look to her husband as being like Christ.

Comment by Mary

February 1, 2008 @ 12:55 am

Good thoughts, SingingOwl. I hate to think that in a marriage, only a wife can recognize Christ in her spouse. One of the priceless things I’ve learned about the grace of God is that we ought to be recognizing Christ in one another. If the husband has the ‘role’ of Christ to his wife, that means that in her ‘role’ as the church to her husband, he is going to see the church, not Christ. Would it be so awful for a husband to recognize Christ in his wife?

Or am I taking the analogy way too far, as I believe hierarchalists do when they say that the Christ/church analogy is about Christ’s authority over the church. Why not his sanctifying grace? After all, some do say that husbands are supposed to ‘wash their wives in the water of the Word.’ No, that’s what Christ does to the church. Or do they think that husbands can also save their wives and atone for their sins and intercede for them at the Father’s right hand?

Why is sacrificial love not sufficient for the analogy, which is what the only commandment for the husband is said to be? ‘Husbands, love your wives…’ is very different from saying, ‘Husbands, lead your wives and be authorities over them.’

ILike, I see that contradiction too. At best, it’s a confused argument in support of a fatally flawed premise.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 1, 2008 @ 6:33 am

When a man is compared to Christ, it’s in the sense of having power or authority, when a woman is compared to Christ, it’s in the sense of being under authority.

If God put all things under Christ’s authority, is the husband then supposed to put all things under the wife’s authority? I think I got this idea from Makeesha’s husband.

Comment by Judy

February 1, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

A few comments…

1. Although Christ had exousia, the authority to say do it and it is done (my definition), as seen in his conversation with the centurion in Luke 7, he rarely used it. Instead he was merciful and chose persuasion over dictatorial power. (Many people forget that ‘authority’ in the Bible is actually many different Greek words, with different connotations regarding the type of authority they represent.)

2. If wives are suppose to obey their husbands, how is this like the way most churches are run? How many churches actually refuse to make a decision unless they are in unity similar to that of the Upper Room in Acts 2? While I do not see this unity as necessary given the rest of the Epistles (at times decisions were made, as Paul admits, without God giving an answer), isn’t that the type of obedience that is in question here?

3. Christ sacrificed himself for the church. How is it that this is not the type of headship being taught?

4. Abigail disobeyed Nabal (to save her household) and fed David, then was rewarded for it and praised. I have heard people teach that a woman is to obey even when her husband is in error as she will be judged for her obedience, while he is judged for the decision…

Comment by Theo

February 1, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

All right, let’s assume we now have some idea what the analogy between the husband and Christ does not mean. What then does it mean? What are its implications for our understanding of both marriage and the relationship between Christ and his church? That there is some asymmetry between the partners seems evident from the passage in Ephesians. I don’t see how we can get around that.

Comment by Mary

February 1, 2008 @ 8:11 pm

Head + Body = United Being

Christ + Church = United Being

Husband + Wife = United Being

Unity. Life-giving unity. Heads without bodies can’t live. Bodies without heads can’t live. Two become one.

As Christ gives himself freely for the church in love, so husbands must give themselves freely in love to their wives. For the husband/wife side of the analogy, there’s functionally no difference between the self-sacrificial love prescribed for husbands and the willing submission prescribed for wives. Both are believers, so both are commanded to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Elsewhere, all believers (not excluding wives) are commanded to love one another as Christ has loved us.

We make it far, far too complicated when we forget that both husbands and wives are included in the commands to submit and to love. Both are part of the body/bride of Christ, after all. Both need to grow up into Christ and give themselves completely up for one another. Christ didn’t withhold himself, even to the point of dying for us. Why should husbands withhold submission from their wives? No one expects that wives ought to withhold love from their husbands, simply because they’re not told in Ephesians 5 that they have to love their husbands.

Comment by Makeesha

February 1, 2008 @ 8:26 pm

Yeah, I think it’s a simple reminder to men to stop trying to be such macho men and love and serve their wives (hehe)!

Comment by Watcher

February 1, 2008 @ 10:08 pm

I’m just hanging out, lurking a bit, enjoying people’s posts and their different takes on this. I don’t have much to say on this thread, but thought it was a perfect place to insert what I heard a wise old preacher once say about this passage in Scripture.

He said that he didn’t read the parts that didn’t apply to him. in other words, he focused on the ‘Husbands love’ and let his wife work out ‘Wives submit.’ He didn’t feel a need to explain it to her, define it for her, or beat it into her head. He knew that she loved Jesus and would do what Jesus impressed on her heart concerning Scripture, even Ephesians 5.

I guess you could say he trusted her and her faith in Jesus and the Scriptures. And, he trusted Jesus to speak to her.

I can’t even tell you if this man leaned more heirarchical or egalitarian. I just know that his words hold a wisdom that transcends far above the pettiness of those wanting to force their views of ‘God’s divine order for the family’ on others.

Comment by David

February 2, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

I’m not sure the name of the author of this post, so I’m not sure who to address this comment to, but, to the author of this post: I do not see how you can say that the analogy of Christ to the husband ‘is a simple comparison of the type of care which a husband is encouraged to give.’

This is only halfway true - it fits verses 25-32 just fine. But, it doesn’t fit verses 22-24 regarding the wife. Just as the husband is to care for the wife in the way Christ cares for the church, so also the wife is to submit to the husband in the way that the church submits to Christ. So, the analogy also holds with respect of the attitude of the church toward Christ. Hence, the wife is to be subject to the husband just as the church is subject to Christ.

I’m surprised that you say the bride has no role in Christ’s decision-making. In fact, doesn’t God leave many things up to us? He has created us free! Our churches fulfill their task to the best of their ability by the lights of their own reason. It seems that a great deal is left up to us.

Also, I think it strange that you think Christ does not ever react to our communication and requests - Christians typically think that God hears and responds to prayers. Presumably there are lots of cases where if we did not pray then God would not act in the way that he does.

You’re right that ‘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’ but I don’t see how that’s a counter-argument to the patriarchal view. Presumably sometimes at least wives can fail in their work and yet their husbands don’t respond sinfully to that failure - even if it’s true that many husbands react poorly at that point.

I agree with you that ‘The church (bride) is not “equal but different” to Christ’ but I don’t see how it follows that ‘There is no comparison between the creator of the heavens and earth and the church (bride) which is made up of created humans.’ I don’t think you can mean strictly no comparison is possible between God and humans - that would be problematic in all kinds of ways, not the the least of which is that it would be nonsense for God to command ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’ So, granting that comparisons can be made, why cannot a comparison be made between kinds of submission? Certainly they’re not identical, but they are to be similar. In fact, if no comparison can be made, how can the husband possibly be expected to be comparable to Jesus in terms of sacrifice? That’s just not a good argument!

The idea of the comparison is not to say that all things being compared are identical in every way. It is just to say that they are the same in a certain respect, namely, the submission of one to the other and the sacrificial leadership of one to the other. That’s the idea of the comparison in Ephesians 5.

I would welcome your thoughts on my comments and how to futher understand the comparison in Ephesians 5.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 2, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

I don’t think Ephesians 5 is about the sacrificial leadership of the husband. Christians assume ‘head’ means leader or authority. But in this case, I don’t think Paul is using it with that meaning. If Ephesians 5 were about sacrificial leadership, Paul would have expounded on the leadership part, which he doesn’t. He only expounds on the sacrificial part.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 2, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

Since we who are regular posters here don’t believe that ‘head’ in Ephesians 5 refers to leadership, should we even be discussing this issue on this particular blog?

After all, there are other blogs on this site where we have discussed what Paul meant when he used the term ‘head,’ such as the ‘Kephale as Source or Origin’ blog. Perhaps that blog would be a more appropriate place for a discussion on whether Ephesians 5 is about the husband having a leadership role in the marriage.

Comment by Mary

February 2, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

I think it’s worth discussing because those who oppose biblical equality do conflate a husband’s ‘role’ with a selective list of those things only Christ can be. ‘Authority over’ is one of them, and the one most commonly asserted. What I think is central to the post was why that? Why not savior, or judge, or atoning sacrifice, or any of the many other things that Christ is to us, but a husband in his humanity cannot be?

I think it’s because this world has historically, tacitly permitted men to be ‘authorities over’ their wives and the church has approved. It’s an issue now, as it has also come to be with slavery, because the world has hit critical mass in understanding that it doesn’t need to be that way, and in fact is wrong for it to be that way. We’re not all the way there yet, though further along for slavery than for subordination of women, but it’s telling that so much of the church is fighting tooth and nail for men to get to be ‘authorities over’ their wives, when so much of the world sees that for the sinful shortcoming that it is.

Comment by tiro

February 2, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

See comment 79558.

This is only halfway true - it fits verses 25-32 just fine. But, it doesn’t fit verses 22-24 regarding the wife. Just as the husband is to care for the wife in the way Christ cares for the church, so also the wife is to submit to the husband in the way that the church submits to Christ. So, the analogy also holds with respect of the attitude of the church toward Christ. Hence, the wife is to be subject to the husband just as the church is subject to Christ.

The difference is that the wife is submitting to the husband in the same we all submit to Christ as Messiah who suffered death for us to live and from whose side we are born.

‘For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and he is the Savior of the body.’

The ‘and he is Savior of the body’ is the key here. As Savior of the body, Christ is rescuer, provider, and protector. These are the things that Paul is homing in on. These are repeated to the husband in verses 28-29. Christ is many things to us. Paul is not talking about Christ as God, Lord, Judge, Creator, Word of truth, etc. He is talking about Christ as Suffering Servant. We rush to him trustingly with our hearts because he has rescued us. He is Savior.

Husband is to emulate Christ’s sacrificial love in daily provision, protection,cherishing her very life; and wife is to emulate the willing selfless submission to honor and do for her husband to promote his well-being.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 2, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

David, you left out verse 21:

‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’

Verse 22 is a continuation of verse 21:

‘Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.’

When you leave out verse 21, it takes away from the meaning of verses 22 through 24.

Comment by Liz

February 2, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

Hi David. The author’s name for these posts is always at the top and in this case it’s me (Liz). I’ll make comments regarding some of your statements, if I may.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make - that the wife cannot be subject to her husband in the same way and at all points as the church is subject to Christ, because that would be making her husband to be the same as Christ, which he obviously cannot be.

Also, the husband cannot love his wife in the same way and at all points as Christ does the church because once again, the husband is a mere human being.

It is the type of love and submission which is being described - not a comparison of husband to Christ or wife to church. These comparisons break down at many points and give occasion for the thought that husbands (men) are at a higher spiritual level than wives (women) just as Christ is at a higher spiritual level than the Church.

Please consider that these verses are just about a type of love and submission which is required of all believers to one another. It’s a love and submission which was demonstrated by Christ and is possible only as we allow Christ to live through us.

My point was that these instructions to both husbands and wives have been enlarged and enunciated to mean much more than it would appear was the author’s intention. To the people of Paul’s day, the exhortation for men to love their wives in a sacrificial way would have been unheard of and the wives with their new-found freedom in Christ needed to be encouraged to be submissive and not lord it over their men now that they had ‘equal rights and freedoms.’

Comment by Makeesha

February 3, 2008 @ 10:07 am

Well put, Liz.

Comment by Ellen

February 4, 2008 @ 8:26 am

What amazes me as well is the lack of discussion in terms of how Paul took these household codes which were so central in the Greek/Roman society and pushed the envelope in a radical way by encouraging men to love their wives (the Romans would more likely say rule your wives) or, what is more, even address the women (and children).

Comment by Makeesha

February 4, 2008 @ 8:33 am

Ellen, absolutely. Paul’s context must be kept in the forefront.

If we were to have the same subversive, radically just tone today, what would we be focussing on? Not telling women they can’t be decision makers - that’s for sure.

Comment by Mary

February 4, 2008 @ 9:08 am

Good point, Ellen. It’s as if the traditionalists are trying to re-make the household codes into something very closely resembling the Roman version that Paul was actually transforming. It’s always about ‘the wife must submit in everything’ and then a whole lot of twisting of ‘husbands love’ so that ‘love’ means ‘be an authority figure’ and ‘be her leader.’ Nuh-uh - not what Paul said or meant.

Comment by fjs

February 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

It’s so sad. Paul was seeking to transform the current reality of women and men caught in the household codes of the Greco-Roman society. It was considered treason for Christians to not obey them.

It’s so awful that what complementarians do is sanctify a secular construct and place God’s authority behind it. I think their interpretation is way off the mark because social, cultural insight is ignored. I think it shows a greater disrespect for Scripture if it is not interpreted in light of the first century thinking.

The first rule of biblical interpretation that I learned was about context… who was it written to and what was the situation in which the letter was written. To forget that rule is to be blinded by our own presuppositions.

Comment by Makeesha

February 4, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

Well said, Mary and FJS, very well said.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 4, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

What disturbs me is that some gender hierachalists water down Ephesians 5:25 through 33, from ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…’ which implies Christlike sacrifice, down to ‘display loving leadership.’

They miss the point that Paul is giving husbands directions on how to sacrifice for their wives, not how to lead them. When they interject leadership into these verses (which is not there) they weaken the force of the sacrifice Paul was asking them to make.

Comment by LMcC

February 4, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

See comment 79736.

Are the hierarchs missing the point or deliberately avoiding it? Some of the die-hard defenders I’ve dealt with have displayed attitudes toward women that really make me believe the latter. I can honestly say I’ve never heard of a man who simultaneously defended patriarchy and defended men loving their wives as Ephesians 5 really teaches. I’ve really only heard one hierarch pastor who really pushed men loving their wives without driving home the rule stuff, but he slid from relatively close to egalitarian to pretty hardcore hierarch now so he’s probably not doing any of that now.

Comment by Mary

February 4, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

Well, let’s look at it this way.

‘Lead’ and ‘love’ both begin with the letter ‘L,’ also contain the letter ‘E,’ both contain two vowels and two consonants, and both contain exactly four letters.

I suppose it would be very easy to confuse the two words if one is reading quickly… especially if one’s church is teaching that being a husband is all about leadership.

Comment by Liz

February 4, 2008 @ 11:53 pm

I have seen complementarian men teach and show love to wives as Christ loved the church. These same men also teach loving leadership but they don’t see the inconsistency of the two instructions. They won’t allow themselves to examine it because it appears to be doubting or questioning the word of God. Obedience is seen as the first priority and route to blessing. Somehow we need to have the opportunity to show people that reasoning and right interpretation is not negating the authority of the Bible.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 5, 2008 @ 5:25 am

Liz, to be honest I haven’t seen much effort on the part of gender hierarchalists to teach men to show love to their wives as Christ loved the church. Instead what I have seen from these men is a lot of effort to make sure wives are submissive to their husbands.

Sometimes I feel that what some of them are really teaching is that wives should submit to their husbands and love their husbands as Christ loved the church and that husbands show lead and take authority over their wives.

I think the only reason some of them are switching from teaching that husbands should lead and take authority over their wives to husbands should lead and take authority over their wives in a loving manner is because they are under pressure from people bringing up Ephesians 5:25-33 to them.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 5, 2008 @ 5:33 am

My remark about gender hierarchalists teaching that women should love their husbands as Christ loved the church (a reverse of what Ephesians is talking about) comes from hearing gender hiearachlists talk so much about all the things a woman is supposed to sacrifice for her husband. Yet these same men limit what a husband is supposed to sacrifice for his wife to ‘loving leadership.’ They don’t discuss the day-to-day sacrifice on a personal level that Ephesians 5:25-33 discusses.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 5, 2008 @ 7:19 am

I should add some positive things I’ve seen recently. I’ve started to see some Christian men (both egalitarian and gender hierarchalists) begin to encourage other Christian men not to use any form of pornography and not to look at women other than their wives. They also encourage men to get more involved with their families. I think that typifies more of what Paul was trying to get across in Ephesians 5:25-33 than ‘loving leadership’ does.

But in my experience, this is coming more from the men in the pews than from the men who teach about marriage from the pulpit.

Comment by Liz

February 5, 2008 @ 8:52 am

Then of course there is the issue that even though some men do sincerely try to love their wives sacrificially, they are seen as heroes rather than just doing what God requires of us all. Maybe some women enjoy being ’submissive’ as it makes them feel more sacrificial too.

Comment by fjs

February 5, 2008 @ 9:33 am

To be fair to complementarians… there is a range of thinking. Some are complementarian by the skin of their teeth reserving only top positions for men, treating wives in a nearly egalitarian manner of functionally egalitarian. Others are so stuck on authority and concerned that women might error in thinking that they do not hear their wives or respect them as fully human. Then there are all of the ones in between.

I have even observed complementarians who are so focused on sacrifice as Christ loved the church that they have given away their selves and voices in much the same way women do.

I knew a man in a bad relationship that was told nothing but to go home and sacrifice for his wife as Christ did. Unfortunately the meaning was skewed and he just gave himself away which led to depression and later divorce. The marriage was hampered by a variety of issues that were bigger than authority and sacrifice… to apply such a remedy for a sick marriage is to ignore the the serious relationship dysfunction that existed.

I think pastors and counselors must be very careful about working with couples and eshew quick fix verses without really diving into all of the relationship dynamics affecting the marriage.

Comment by Makeesha

February 5, 2008 @ 10:41 am

FJS - and that is precisely why this should be about men or women, this issue should be about submitting one to another, loving the other, respecting the other - which means healthy boundaries can and should exist when ‘the other’ isn’t making an attempt to live that out. It really should much matter what sex the other is.

But I maintain that complementarianism is simply a more palatable form of patriarchalism no matter what. Because eventually it comes down to what women cannot/should not do that the man needs to do. It ultimately comes down to the man having the final say simply because he has a penis - and they can dress it up and clean it up and play with words as much as they want (saying things like, well, the man has more responsibility in this, he pays the price if he’s wrong - as if somehow that makes it better) but it’s still the same old patriarchalism tune both in the home and in the church. Yes, there are some ‘barely complementarians’ but none the less, it’s still patriarchal hierarchalism.

Liz makes an excellent point here too:

Then of course there is the issue that even though some men do sincerely try to love their wives sacrificially, they are seen as heroes rather than just doing what God requires of us all. Maybe some women enjoy being ’submissive’ as it makes them feel more sacrificial too.

Comment by Mary

February 5, 2008 @ 11:03 am

I, too, agree that ‘complementarianism’ of the ‘male headship’ variety is a renaming of patriarchalism. The reason is simple: in at least one area of a shifting, nebulous spectrum of human rights, so-called complementarianism requires that a woman’s rights be abridged in a way that a man’s are not, and abridged by a man or men. Even if it’s ‘only’ not permitting God to call and use women as ‘head pastors,’ right on down to forbidding women to hold paying jobs and preventing them from voting, to everything in-between, patriarchalism restricts women because they’re women.

I also think that the total lack of consensus on just what rights ought to be abridged is very telling. There’s no cohesion or agreement, except that men are authorities in some way that women aren’t. Any school of thought that is so incoherent hasn’t got much of a basis in fact, it seems to me.

Biblical equality, by contrast, is elegantly simple. Jesus Christ is our head, and we are his body, with all members supporting one another. We have no scriptural evidence that certain ‘members’ have to be male or female; toes and eyes and stomachs and muscles aren’t male or female, they’re specialized body parts that can’t afford to despise any other body part.

I continue to pray that those who are caught up in the ‘complementarian’ deception wake up to how scripturally bankrupt it is. It’s not that hard, but there is some personal risk, especially for men. But if they’d just give mutual submission a try, they’d realize that the only cost is to positions of power that God didn’t give them in the first place. Is it more important to be ‘the leader,’ or to be in unity with the body (whether we’re speaking of marriage or church or both)? ‘The leader’s’ position is already assigned: to Jesus.

Comment by Mary

February 5, 2008 @ 11:11 am

Let me just observe, also, that usually there’s a protest against anyone daring to notice that ‘complementarianism’ abridges women’s ‘rights.’ The objection seems to be that women aren’t supposed to be concerned about their rights, that that’s not what the Christian faith is about.

So to head off any potential for that, please notice that the same ‘it’s not about your rights, buddy’ is never lobbed at the men, who are the ones in ‘complementarianism’ who have the rights: the right to be the ‘leader’ in marriage, the right to be the ‘authorities’ in the church, the right to be submitted to by wives/women, the right to be the ‘head of the home’ or the ‘high priest of the family,’ and so forth.

I’m looking for women to be treated wholeheartedly with the same basic human rights and respect that men demand in ‘complementarianism.’ Can’t do that? Then it’s not the women who are ‘demanding rights,’ is it?

Comment by tiro

February 5, 2008 @ 11:45 am

Very astute observation, Mary, in comment 79790.

I’ve often wondered why they think women shouldn’t have basic human rights.

Comment by Makeesha

February 5, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

Absolutely, Mary - I complain about that very thing constantly - that women are seen as brash and selfish and power hungry when we want to be recognized as legitimate and fully-fledged leaders in home or church but when men demand it outright, they’re seen as strong and godly. It’s ridiculous. I even had a woman say that exact thing to me once - but she was the wife of my husband’s boss so I didn’t get into it with her.

Comment by fjs

February 5, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

I am in agreement with all of you. I think that the egalitarian viewpoint promotes emotional and marital health more than the complementarian view. Each is held accountable in the relationship for how they are relating and decisions and power. Each is given a voice and sense of self. I am not endorsing the complementarian view, only noting the range and the unhealthy potential for both persons in the marriage.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 5, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

I knew a man in a bad relationship that was told nothing but to go home and sacrifice for his wife as Christ did. Unfortunately the meaning was skewed and he just gave himself away which led to depression and later divorce.

The Christian community needs to relieve our leadership of being put in the position of marriage counselors. I knew one pastor (who just happened to be a woman) who used to advise people who came to her for marital advice to see marriage counselors. I always thought that was a wise decision on her part.

Marriage is so complicated that we really ought to be sending people with problems in this area to specialists. Putting our Christian leadership in this position really puts a very difficult burden on them.

I have to commend the person who told the man ‘to love his wife as Christ loved the church’ for his very (I’m assuming it was a man) unselfish advice. However, what the man really probably needed was a counselor to help him sort out what was really going on in his marriage.

It reminds me of how many times I’ve innocently given advice when it would have been better off if I’d suggested the person see a specialist.

Comment by Liz

February 5, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

One of the thoughts behind the original post was that when wives are compared to the church in the verses in Ephesians, it is like the ones relating to husbands - just a simple statement to illustrate a point. This is then expanded in some people’s thinking to include ways in which wives can influence/support/build up, etc. their husbands. The comparison breaks down there because Christ is not influenced by the church, doesn’t need our support or building up. The very nature of God is perfect and unchanging - very different from human husbands who with their wives are joint heirs of Christ.

Comment by Mary

February 5, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

I don’t know, Liz, about Christ not needing the church’s support and building up. I would agree up to saying that Christ doesn’t have to rely on the church for these things. However, it seems clear to me that Christ chooses to rely on the church for these things.

So maybe even there, there is more for husbands to emulate than your run-of-the-mill patriarchal pattern ever teaches them: even if this world makes you the king of your abode and the boss of your wife, it doesn’t give you any excuse for following the world instead of Christ in renouncing the world in favor of something infinitely better.

Comment by Sue

February 5, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

Here’s what I learned about my egalitarianism when I visited the Complementarian Christian Coalition forum:

Since feminism is essentially driven by a rejection of the old order of patri-archy, it is thereby a clamour for power and advantage.

So, when the patriarchalists insist that they maintain authority in the home, the church, (and for some, all of society) and they expect obedience from women because they are women and not men, they are being godly leaders. When egalitarians support mutual submission, love, and respect in the home and the church, they are ‘clamouring for power and advantage.’

Somehow they believe that and it makes sense to them.

Comment by fjs

February 5, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

Ilikerading2, I totally agree with you on the idea that pastors do not make good marriage counselors. I think too that it is better to refer couples to therapists who have the skill and knowledge to really help them. Biblical principles are great, generally, but throwing a verse at complex marital issues is not responsible.

Comment by Mary

February 5, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

You’re absolutely right, Sue, and isn’t that a frightening state of affairs for the church?

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 5, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

I think that much of the Christian community has a problem with throwing out one-liners at inappropriate times. We do it because we see others doing it and we think it works. We think we are doing good, but what we are really doing is underestimating the seriousness of the situation. And that is what appears to have happened with this man and his marital situation. We need to learn when things are really out of our ability to deal with, and to learn to refer people to those who can deal with their problems.

Comment by Watcher

February 6, 2008 @ 10:02 am

Sue, they are openly admitting that men have power and the advantage or upper hand in patriarchy over women?

ILikeReading2, the gender heirarchalists you mention in comment 79766 along with what Sue mentions about men being entitled to power and advantage that women aren’t reminds me of that old song, ‘Put Another Log On the Fire.’ These heirarchalists are promoting a man-centered, put-another-log-on-the-fire gospel for women and then act all surprised that women aren’t interested in it. ‘Come and tell me why you’re leaving me.’

And how they find this one-sided serving in Ephesians 5, or anywhere in the Bible, is absolutely astounding. Even when you do take the Jesus/husband, church/wife too far.

The Bible says to humble yourself under the mighty hand of God and he will exalt you. When women humble themselves under this sort of patriarchy, they remain humbled and put down, not exalted, or if exalted, in word only - i.e. lip service, not in action, i.e any real authority. Which is amazing, viewing how much authority the churh has been given.

So yes, things do break down very quickly when people major on the authority part to the neglect of what is actually being said.

Comment by Sue

February 6, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

No, Watcher, they are not admitting that they have or even want power or advantage. You see, when men say they have authority over women and that women are to obey them, it is not because they want power or advantage. It’s because they are only following God’s plan. See how noble they are? On the other hand, women who do not accept the premise of male authority and who believe in mutual love, submission, and respect are the ones who are clamoring for power and advantage.

Did I clear that up for you? It makes sense now, right?

Comment by Liz

February 6, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

Mary (comment 79817, without getting into a theological discussion about the nature of Christ, my reason for using the example was to point out that in equating a husband to Christ there is inconsistency when people suggest that a wife can influence her husband by making suggestions and yet at the end of the day, he always has the last word. With our relationship with Jesus we do not influence him but as he lives in us we become more like him -a totally different relationship than that of husband and wife. In the Ephesians verses there are two simple comparisons made, but in some people’s minds they are stretched to include many facets which take the illustration way too far.

Comment by ILikeReading2

February 6, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

I agree Liz, the analogy is carried way too far.

Comment by fjs

February 7, 2008 @ 9:49 am

I think that Paul was equating man with Christ only in the householder sense and that what he was advocating was to do like Christ and not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but to make himself a servant (Philippians 2).

That is the only equation that can be made. Women were already servants, Paul only affirmed that. I believe he needed to be more directive to the men because of the household codes present in that day. Only that is consistent with Jesus kingdom in which the great become least and the least become great.

True disciples as Jesus pointed out are those willing to become the least and willing to lift of the weak.

Furthermore, I think when Paul told householders to wash the bride and present her pure and spotless… there is a reference to Ezekiel 16 in which God finds Israel as an abandoned baby, kicking in her blood. He washes her and clothes her and prepares her to fulfill her vocation in the earth as people who bear God’s image.

I think it is a call for householders and husbands to nurture and empower those in their homes to that they can participate in the mission of God in the world. It’s not about who obeys who so there can be order. It is about equipping and empowering and lifting up so all can participate in the work of the kingdom.

Comment by Mary

February 7, 2008 @ 10:36 am

Paul didn’t tell husbands to wash and present the bride, FJS. Christ, and Christ alone, does that to both husband and wife as members of the body of Christ, the church. Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loves the church; the washing and presenting is part of the description of the lengths to which Christ went in his love.

That said, I think your overall observation is exactly right. Just because whatever the household code is in our day and time, as in the first-century Greco-Roman world, Christ calls the powerful to give up their ‘authority’ and serve the ‘lower,’ even as the nature of the ‘lower’s’ service is shown to be transformed by virtue of both ‘authority’ and ‘low’ being brothers and sisters in Christ. They are to serve willingly, not because they’re forced into it. Same with the ‘authorities.’

Today’s (largely unspoken) ‘household codes’ look a lot different. It’s mostly ‘look out for number one’ and ‘everybody go for as much as you can get, take no prisoners.’ For many in the church, however, we’ve just kept on assuming that Paul was endorsing the standard first-century household code that made the husband/householder the king of his domain, with everyone else toeing his line. No, Paul was subverting it big-time. Everyone loves as Christ loves. Everyone submits to one another out of reverence for Christ. Everyone serves. Everyone puts others first. Everyone. Husbands included.

It’s no wonder Paul was considered an enemy of the state, and it’s no wonder that we egalitarians get so much flak. Mutual submission is subversive. It undermines the power structures of this world in order to make our relationships more Christlike. This world has little desire to be Christlike, even those parts of the world that are represented in the church’s love of hierarchies and power structures.

Comment by Liz

February 7, 2008 @ 11:52 pm

One time I was encouraging a husband to love his wife in the same way as Christ and lay down his life for her and the reply was ‘But that’s impossible,’ and my answer was ‘Exactly - that’s why we have the power of the Holy Spirit available to be the people we could never be in our own strength.’ The verses in 1 John 5, and particularly verse 3, can be translated ‘Loving God means doing what he tells us to do and really that isn’t hard at all, for every child of God can obey him, defeating sin and evil pleasure by trusting Christ to help him’ (LB). To love one another and submit to one another is a supernatural act but the ability is available to every one of us.

Comment by fjs

February 8, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

You are right, Mary, I did not use language well there.

The implication is that because Christ loved the church… husbands are to love their wives. He gave up his life for her… husbands are to be like Christ, to make her holy… Christ’s purpose was to make her, wives, holy… therefore the church is no longer unclean. By implication husbands cannot see their wives as unclean. Why… ‘he, Christ, did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish…’ (verse 28). ‘in the same way… like Christ… is a husband to love his wife, see her as holy, spotless - not as those in the world/culture see her.’

I think there is something to be said about women in that time being seen as unclean, immature - that were usually married very young in comparison to their husbands, they were very sheltered and kept behind closed doors, etc. and considered easily corrupted. Instead of being seen in such a way, unclean, child-like, Paul is calling husbands to see them as holy companions in the kingdom reign of God. I think that Paul is calling husbands/householders to be lifters, nurturers, and encouragers so that their wives, slaves, and children can become all they are meant to be in the kingdom, in order to bridge and heal the cultural disparity that existed, the disparity that hampered true relationship. It is a redemptive call so that all might be built up and one in Christ.

I think the transferable principles have to do with building one another up so that all might be able, capable, strong, equipped, etc. in the church. These acts eliminate clean/unclean boundaries, stratifications based on heirarchy… so that unity may be fostered in the community and strength encouraged though growth.

I don’t think that this is primarily about marriage, while it includes marriage. It is primarily about community and the new way this community is to function. I do not believe it teaches hierarchy but servanthood - the kind that is transformative and brings growth and unity and tears down social barriers that prevent transformative community. We have to consider what Paul was doing in the early church in that day and time before we can transfer ideas and principles to this generation, this culture, etc. I think, it must first and foremost be informed by the gospel, by redemption, and only then applied to current marriages and relationships in the community.

That’s my take and how I am thinking right now - wacky as it is.

Comment by Mary

February 8, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

Ah… I think I get it now. Husbands are to see their wives as clean, because Christ has made us all (his bride) clean. You didn’t mean that husbands make their wives clean. (Did I comprehend you correctly this time?)

I would totally agree with that. It’s like Peter learning not to ‘call unclean that which God has made clean,’ or God saying ‘You shall be holy to me, for I, the Lord, am holy.’ And good point about wives being considerably younger than husbands, as a rule, in Greco-Roman society. Between being considered less than men in intellect, education, and status, and then finding freedom in Christ as believers, women had to find a way to live in both ‘camps,’ as it were. Men had to learn that what they’d always been taught about being rulers over women was not Christ’s way; they were to treat their wives as co-heirs with them. A huge thing, that. There was, and is, no excuse for men to consider their wives unclean or subordinate to them or in any way less than; instead, their husbands and male fellow believers were to honor them as they themselves would wish to be honored. Hard for men to honor, and hard for women to responsibly accept the honor while extending genuine honor in return. Outward behavior wasn’t sufficient, for either men or women. Still isn’t, which is why the whole ‘roles’ model of male-female relationships taught by so many in the church is such a sham.

Comment by fjs

February 8, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

Mary, sorry I worded it so poorly. I was too off-the-cuff and was not clear. I also think that Paul was calling husbands to live redemptively (participate with Christ in doing justice) toward their wives to help them become all they are meant to be and fully part of the body. Radical!

Women are also called to live redemptively (speak the truth in love, forgive, be a co-laborer in the gospel, etc.)!

Comment by fjs

February 8, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

Mary, I agree with you, I don’t think it’s about roles at all. We are all to live redemptively… toward our children, neighbors, spouses, etc. That eliminates the concern for the family because those who would live redemptively would have a deep concern for the welfare of children, the welfare of neighbors, spouses, and the church. It eliminates self-ish living for everyone. The hierarchialist position does not have the power to do that… it maintains the status quo for those in power only softening it so it is a kinder, gentler slavery.

Comment by Lolly

February 8, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

See comment 79862.

These hierarchalists are promoting a man-centered, put-another-log-on-the-fire gospel for women and then act all surprised that women aren’t interested in it. ‘Come and tell me why you’re leaving me.’

It reminds me so much of the Civil War. Thousands of slaves fled their plantations as the Union Army conquered more and more territory. Then, the white owners were surprised to find out that the faithful old Mammys and Uncle Toms really didn’t like being slaves after all…

Comment by Mary

February 8, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

Got it, FJS, and fully agreed there!

Comment by cokhavim

February 10, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

Wow, what a great thread! I just want to thank Mary for her great comments which I quote here (they deserve to be said more than once!).

Biblical equality, by contrast [to complementarianism], is elegantly simple.

For the reasons Mary cited, and many others, Occam’s Razor favours the egalitarian reading of Ephesians 5 over that of complementarianism.

I continue to pray that those who are caught up in the complementarian deception wake up to how scripturally bankrupt it is. It’s not that hard, but there is some personal risk, especially for men. But if they’d just give mutual submission a try, they’d realize that the only cost is to positions of power that God didn’t give them in the first place. Is it more important to be ‘the leader,’ or to be in unity with the body (whether we’re speaking of marriage or church or both)? ‘The leader’s’ position is already assigned: to Jesus.

See comment 79789.

I pray this too. There is also a lot to risk for some women too, particularly for those who like to have others decide for them. It’s scary to realise that God actually holds them fully accountable for their decisions. They actually have to be mature and responsible adults!

See comment 79926.

It’s no wonder Paul was considered an enemy of the state, and it’s no wonder that we egalitarians get so much flak. Mutual submission is subversive. It undermines the power structures of this world in order to make our relationships more Christlike.

It’s humbling yet encouraging to be reminded that by getting this kind of ‘flak’ we are identifying, if even in a very small way, with Paul and the martyrs, and ultimately with Christ.

Comment by Watcher

February 10, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

I don’t know.

This may be completely off topic. I’m sorry if it is, but it’s this thread that made me think of it again.

Mary and FJS were discussing what washing with the water of the Word meant and whether it extended to husbands and wives or whether it is exclusively a Christ and church thing.

Anyway, to the point. Whether or not men/husbands have the power to actually make their women/wives clean and not just clean up their attitude about women/wives, I don’t know, but I do think that men/husbands have the power to make women/wives dirty, and not just have a dirty attitude.

And, I’m thinking very specifically about sexual sins which include, but are not limited to, human traffiking, pressuring women to become prostitutes even outside the traffiking industry, pressuring women to have sex before marriage (statistics from secular studies state that usually teenage boys were ready for their first experience whereas teenage girls usually felt pressured into it before they were ready), sexual abuse of young girls (young boys experience this as well, but not at the percentage of girls), rape and sexual assault, and husbands who demand demeaning sexual acts from their wives in both secular and Christian homes.

The above list involves both attitude and action and violate the victims making them dirty to themselves and to society and opening the door for them to slide on into further sin. This has been going on for centuries, men against women. (Not all men against all women. There have been many good men who have tried to stand in the gap against such things.)

Christ, on the other hand, does not treat his bride in this manner, but rather makes her clean and considers her clean. Like I said, if this is off topic, I’m sorry. But it’s this threads fault. It made me think of this again.

Comment by Mary

February 10, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

Watcher, I think you’re definitely onto something there. I would say that what you’ve described is exactly the kind of purifying that Christ, and Christ alone, must do for us, his bride.

Let me say, in addition, that both men and women commit these sins. Thank you for noting that boys are also victims of sexual predators. I can’t believe that majority matters, in terms of what percentage of victims are male and what are female. It’s human suffering. The difference is that in many/most parts of the world, the female (adult and child) is at greater risk of victimization because of her greater societal vulnerability.

Anyway, I think you’ve given us a good way to look at the problem as well as the solution. We can’t expect men to be the ones who ‘wash away impurity.’ Women can’t do that, either. Only Christ can, which is why men are told to love as Christ loves and not to presume to take on the uniquely salvific aspects of Christ that benefit both male and female human beings. (Things like lordship - that includes ‘authority’ and ‘headship,’ atoning sacrifice, redeemer, sanctifier, priest, etc.) It’s an analogy, which means that two non-identical things are compared at a limited number of similar points. Husband is not Christ, and wife is not church. Neither can be all or even very much what their analogy is.

So anyhow, Watcher, good stuff!

Cokhavim, I thank you for your more than kind words. I’ve thought some more (dangerous, that is) concerning the simplicity of biblical equality vs. the myriad contradictory versions of patriarchy/complementarianism floating around out there. It seems to me that one problem with people giving up male-rule hierarchies in favor of biblical equality has to do with Paul’s worldview.

By that, I mean that Paul was a real live East-West kind of guy, especially given how long ago he lived. He was both a Jew’s Jew and a Greek thinker. He synthesized more of the dual worldview than I find with any other New Testament writer.

Now, the Greek view we tend to have little problem with. No wonder: we’re heirs of Greek philosophy. But rabbinic Judaism’s worldview is more problematic for us twenty-first century westerners, it seems to me. We don’t like contradictions and paradox; we try to harmonize everything with a decided bias toward the harmony of binary/yes-no easy answers. Some of the best advice I ever received in biblical study was this: ‘Paul was not a systematic theologian.’

The tired old complaint, ‘But if everyone submits to everyone else, what are they submitting to?’ illustrates this for me. Behind that complaint is the following flawed logic: ‘You’ve got to have an authority to submit to, or else there can’t be submission, and if you’re submitting, you can’t be the authority, so if you’re the authority, you can’t be submitting, therefore it’s impossible for everyone to submit to everyone else, hence the need for wives to submit and husbands to lead.’

But Paul knew that the seemingly contradictory ‘all submit’ prescription was based on a deeper truth. It’s not a linear logic, it’s circular (in the good sense). If something is good, it is good for all. If all practice it, all benefit from it. You might say that Paul was an early advocate of the truism, ‘What goes around, comes around.’

Jesus taught that way all the time. ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’ (Matthew 5:43-44, NRSV) That was, and still is, utter nonsense to those who insist on a cause-and-effect, tit-for-tat, fair-play ethic. It makes no human sense for us to repay evil with good.

I guess what I’m getting at is that if we’re going to insist that the Bible measure up to our twenty-first century western sensibilities and logic, we’re going to continue to have to make up complex work-arounds when we encounter its frequent examples of paradox. But if we would attempt to set aside our insistence on making the Bible subordinate to our worldview and instead try to understand the Bible writers’ worldview a little better, the treasures of truth would come into sharp focus for us. We can’t feed thousands on a few fish and loaves, but we are commanded to do it anyway. Such is the power and logic and economy of God. The process doesn’t have to make sense, that’s what faith is for. The results are undeniable.

in my opinion, the patriarchalists are arguing for their preferred process (which is rooted very much in this world and never prescribed by Scripture) in order to ‘obey Scripture.’ Meanwhile, we egalitarians bypass their process altogether and simply obey Scripture. The Holy Spirit provides the process; we don’t need to strive to reinvent one that is just warmed-over worldly positional power that gets in the way of the self-sacrifice so clearly called for in the first place. So, to protect the patriarchal process, they risk sacrificing the help of the Holy Spirit and the very goal they claim to be working toward: holiness in marriage, family, and church.

(I don’t know how much sense any of this will make even to me once I’ve had some sleep and re-read it.) Thanks again, Cokhavim, for your kindness and for wading through what I wrote.

Comment by Liz

February 11, 2008 @ 2:37 am

Makes very good sense, Mary, and we just hope that we have opportunity to speak some of this good sense to people who believe otherwise with all good intentions. As I was reading, I was reminded of another verse from Hebrews which is translated ‘let us outdo one another in love and good works.’ No authority, no ‘winner,’ no scores, just everyone allowing God to love and work through them - who could resist this once they’ve seen it in action?

Comment by fjs

February 11, 2008 @ 10:43 am

Regarding the washing text… I am reading a book about the atonement community by Scot McKnight. There is something to a community that lives the will of God in the earth. Yes, in the text Christ does the washing… but in the community of those who participate in the work of Christ… I agree that we too must deal with attitudes and mindsets that perceive women as unclean or defiling.

In the honor/shame culture, a woman defiled in anyway brought shame and dishonor to the family. Though she were raped or compromised or abused… her defilement was the shame, not the rapist or abuser. I think the teaching that Christ has washed the bride - his bride the church - is pertinent to reveal that since he has made the woman clean… therefore, the husbands should not see her as defiled or defiling or unclean, etc.

It is redemptive… the gospel applied to the situation in that world in which women were seen as temptresses, protected from defilement behind closed doors, considered the source of dishonor when raped or abused, etc. Such women were made clean by the gospel -the Word, the good news, Christ. Men should no longer see them as impure or potentially defiling of them and their honor.

It is similar to Galatians 3:26-28… the baptismal formula in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female in Christ… the relations that formerly made one unclean… Jew defiled by contact with Gentile, etc. are of no importance because all are baptised into Christ. Clean, holy (it’s the context because Paul is dealing with issue).

We cannot look at one another from a worldly point of view. Paul said… we must see one another as if we are seeing Christ.

Comment by tiro

February 11, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

See comment 80053.

It’s humbling yet encouraging to be reminded that by getting this kind of ‘flak’ we are identifying, if even in a very small way, with Paul and the martyrs, and ultimately with Christ.

That is a very good wake up.

Comment by Mary

February 12, 2008 @ 6:46 pm

Isn’t it odd that on the one hand, christianized patriarchy is telling husbands that they must be ‘authorities over’ their wives as Christ is in authority over the church, yet they’re also telling wives that they must be subordinate to their husbands because Christ is (allegedly) eternally subordinate to the Father? So on the one hand they’re making husbands analogs of Christ, but on the other hand they’re making husbands analogs of the Father. And where, oh where, is the Holy Spirit in any of their doctrines?

Comment by Lolly

February 13, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

Mary, I’ve wondered that for a long time. Patriarchs are obsessed with the Father/Son, dominant/subordinate relationship within the Trinity. So where on earth does the Spirit fit into this picture? Is he subordinate to anybody?

Comment by Greg

February 14, 2008 @ 10:21 am

See comment 80304.

That’s the thing, isn’t it. When examined critically, the doctrine of an eternal and linear subordination in the Trinity goes from flimsy to untenable.

Comment by Mary

February 14, 2008 @ 10:30 am

And egalitarians are the ones adding to Scripture?

Comment by Betsy-Jo Mehltretter

February 18, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

I am reading your thoughts with interest and would like to share an understanding the Lord gave me as I was teaching on the roles of husband and wife. If we made a chart with two columns and titled one “husband” the other “wife” and placed under each column the traditional “Biblical” directives for the role, we would find under “husband” the items; head of the woman, decider of direction, the one to be obeyed, (should also include agape but usually this is ignored or subverted to make the point.) Under the “wife” role we would find; be silent, be submissive, be plainly dressed, have no authority, etc. Now let’s relate this teaching to Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:32). Does Jesus (the husband) ask the church (the wife) to be silent, plain, hold not authority, etc? Pretty hard to take the gospel to the world if He does. If he does not ask this of the church who does? Our enemy, satan. He has usurped the role of the husband to the church through this erroneous message. He wants the church to be submissive to him and as such has placed the Church in the current powerless, voiceless, subservient place in society. The scripture is clear that what we sow, we will reap. The dogmatic church has sown submission for the wife and is reaping submission for itself (the wife, in the Ephesians analogy.) Jesus commanded us to occupy until He comes. That means acting in His stead, accomplishing the works He did, and greater works as the Spirit leads. In Christ there is neither male nor female, we, collectively, are to occupy. As we flow together as husband and wife with Christ as our head, we properly exemplify the loving relationship of our precious Lord and His body. It is only in the understanding of the two being one as He has stated in John 17 speaking of God and Jesus, Jesus and the church, and Eph. 5 of the husband and wife, that we can connect with the divine and accept the position He has placed us in, seated in Him in the heavenlies. When we stop looking at ourselves and fussing about who has control, perhaps we can get on with His program of love and honor, live victoriously, shine brightly to attract the unbelievers and shorten the time to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Comment by Mary

February 19, 2008 @ 1:12 am

Good comment, Betsy-Jo! I’d never thought of it quite that way. Jesus empowers us — the church — to be the industrious, enterprising woman described in Prov. 31, but the church is insisting on being an insular, self-serving, powerless yes-woman who is unwittingly serving a different (and sinister) master, because she does not trust Jesus Christ and does not accept from him the promised Holy Spirit to guide and empower her.

Here, Jesus has entrusted to us all that is his. In the Great Commission, he says that all authority in heaven and earth are his, THEREFORE, go (as his own Bride, his EZER, his own body on this earth) and make disciples of all the nations, teaching in his name and doing all that he has commanded us.

And we’re merely content to remain ingrown, at home, never living up to his trust in us and never daring to exercise his power and authority to serve in his name.

Some church!

Comment by Watcher

February 19, 2008 @ 9:49 am

Excellent, Betsy Jo.
You have eloquently stated what I’ve also seen.
Sometimes I don’t feel like I belong here on the scroll because I do believe in Ephesians five for families and the church.
But I KNOW I don’t belong in the comp. movement because their idea of submit is so screwed up.
How can they hold Ephesians five so high and ignore Ephesians six, where Christ is empowering His Bride to the teeth with the armor of God.
His headship (interpreted as either authority or source or a mixture of both)is not domineering. His headship is completely liberating, freeing, and empowering.
When I meditate on Ephesians five and think of how empowering Christ is, it is beautiful, especially in context with ALL of Ephesians, like the verse in chapter one that states “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with EVERY spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.”
The first three chapters of Ephesians go on and on about the goodness of God and all that He has given the Church through Christ.
But Patriarchalists ignore all that goodness and focus on who is boss according to their darkened interpretation of Eph. 5.
Where is the rest of that wonderful, beautifully extreme, and empowering book of Ephesians? They have cut it off, even a verse that is part of the “family” verses that states clearly that mutual submission is part of the plan.
They have taken it out of context and reduced it to something that does not liberate, but enslaves and oppresses.
And I cannot be a part of that.
Not when it was intended to be so beautiful.