The CBE Scroll

Comment by Adam Omelianchuk

March 4, 2008 @ 9:32 am

“In order to evaluate an ideology it is a good idea to project it to its extreme end to see what it would look like were it brought to its logical conclusions.”

I don’t know, Liz. I don’t think there is any logical tie to abuse and headship as complementarians define it. The reduction to the abuse you make is based on a straw man that just isn’t respectful of dialogue we want in this discussion. For example, I think we can all agree that it is a straw man argument complementarians make when they say we don’t believe men and women are different.

Perhaps it would be better if you worked your thesis from a sociological angle?

Comment by Watcher

March 4, 2008 @ 9:42 am

Adam,
Could you explain what you mean more clearly when you say it would be better worked from a socialogical angle and give a couple of examples of what you are looking for?
Thanks

Comment by Suzanne

March 4, 2008 @ 10:06 am

I believe that there is, in fact, support for the notion that male entitlement and abuse is associated. There are some studies which link these. However, there are other studies which do not.

Personally I think that one person having authority over another in an intimate relationship, ie a sexual relationship, is abuse. Our society has decided that it is innappropriate for those in an authority relationship to develop an intimate relationship, so why would we agree that such a thing is desirable in marriage?

This not about whether women should remain in the home, or whether tradional roles throughout history have been abusive. Not at all. There is much to be said for women having a different role, although I do not define this as complementarians would.

Rather, this is about whether a man may step into the domain designated to the wife, whatever that is, and simply override her decisions. That is abuse. If she raises the children, the husband must allow her to make decisions. Otherwise she cannot function.

So, it is the distribution of authority that is the abuse and not the traditional configuration. There are no studies which separate out demographics along this line.

Comment by Adam Omelianchuk

March 4, 2008 @ 11:52 am

What I mean by “sociological angle” is to work from a social scientific perspective rather than a logical one. I agree that a good case against male headship can be made on those grounds, but I don’t see a logical connection that can reduce male headship to abuse by simple deduction.

Suzanne’s comment is an example of the kind of logical argument I take issue with. It is absolutely black and white. By her comments Wayne Grudem is an abusive husband. That is simply false. All one has to do is furnish one example of a complementarian husband who is not abusive. Unless you define the terms to fit your perspective you can’t make such claims. And just why would anyone agree to that?

It is the same kind of tactics complementarians engage in when they say anyone who has an inkling to feminism denies biblical authority/ Perhaps a historical/sociological argument could be made in that regard, but not a logical one.

Comment by LMcC

March 4, 2008 @ 12:24 pm

Adam, I’ll give a description of the issue a shot. I grew up hardcore traditionalist and saw for myself what taking traditional sex roles to the extreme looked like. I also remember a heated conversation I had with a very proud modern complementarian. What he said and did and what I grew up in meshed together perfectly. AFAIC, there is no way to separate so-called “soft complementarianism” from the strict traditionalism of years past. Although some assumptions differ, the conclusions of both complementarianism and traditionalism are the same, so I have no reason to believe the practical results are different.

1) All humans are sinful and easily deceived. For all the complementarian/traditionalist talk about women being more easily deceived than men, there is nothing preventing a man from being deceived into believing that he has unaccountable power, that he has a right to whatever he wants from his wife, that his place as Ruler and Priest of the Home means he is always right, etc. With wrong beliefs will come wrong actions as the man acts on his beliefs. R’s behavior as he defended his beliefs and insulted mine was disgraceful. He _almost_ made me grateful I grew up in a single-parent home. If R was supposed to be a model Christian man the way he was smacking off, I wanted to be the first Baptist nun.

2) Headship, even so-called “loving headship”, is utterly unaccountable to the one being led. R proudly held his head high as he said “I am accountable to Christ” when I asked who would hold him accountable for his behavior toward his (future) wife. Since Hubby is sinful and easily deceived like any other person (see #1), he will do the wrong thing at some point; but since he is in charge and doesn’t answer to her, she can’t stop him. She can only depend on God to stop him. Unfortunately, Jesus doesn’t walk into a home and stop Hubby from treating his wife like she’s an idiot, blowing the rent check on boat accessories, or yanking back Hubby’s hand before he takes a swing. So Hubby is effectively unaccountable and free to continue the wrong behaviors — that is, until he faces Christ in person at the end of his life. On Earth, there are no checks and balances. (It’s truly sad when Christian women have to rely on unbelievers to escape the abuse because they know that their churches will take their husband’s side and accuse her of wrongdoing.)

3) Since these hierarchal husbands are sinful and easily deceived (#1) and unaccountable (#2), someone has to take responsibility when things go wrong. Since Hubby has the power to let himself off the hook (#2), who is left? The wife. He’s free to blame her for everything — and does. I actually had to take a so-called “child psychology” class run by a very patriarchal professor who liked pushing his book about the family and who found a way to blame the wife for every problem in a marriage. She cheated? Her fault. He cheated? She didn’t meet his needs, so again it’s her fault. Kids turn out wrong? Hubby has a bad day? Another war in the Middle East? All her fault. (R would have loved this guy.) Since Hubby is the wife’s head and ruler (#2), he believes he has the right to discipline her when things go wrong. Maybe it’s restriction of activities like she’s a child, maybe it’s denial of needs, maybe he demands sex when she just doesn’t want it, or maybe even a good slug. It’s left up to the wife to keep everything running smoothly, to keep him happy (or at least keep him from going off on her), to fix all the problems (even if he caused them)… and somehow she has to do it in the absence of having any real power in the relationship (#2).

After all I’ve seen, I now strongly believe that a purely patriarchal/traditionalist/complementarian marriage cannot work — at least, not for the wife. It works great for the hierarchal men because they get unlimited and unaccountable authority over another person who can take the blame for everything, but do they really grow as mature and responsible people? In the end, it can’t work for them either.

Comment by LMcC

March 4, 2008 @ 12:50 pm

OH, your post while I was posting shows more of what you want. OK, I can work with that.

Back to my original post:

#1) Deception. Even if a complementarian man never abuses his wife, he may still believe that he has some special God-given power, that he is the priest of the home (an utterly un-Biblical concept), and that her role is to submit, period. No matter how much he says he loves her, there’s no way to maintain any real belief in her equality with him when everything he believes says she is still something less than himself.

#2) Headship. He may consider himself head of the home, but he and his wife may be functionally egalitarian. That functional equality can disappear in an instant, though. All he has to do is say one time “I’m the man, and what I say goes”, and all of the previous experience of equality goes out the window. Even if he never does such a thing, he knows he always has the option.

#3) Blame. Maybe a complementarian man can on own up to his faults or recognize that things go wrong and not blame his wife. That said, if his deception leads him to believe that his wife is somewhat less than himself, and his belief in headship can put him unaccountably over her, there’s really nothing stopping him from giving her more responsibility and blame than she should have. After all, she can’t really say anything about it.

So, even if a complementarian man has not been abusive toward his wife and claims he would not be, he may still carry a fundamental belief that their assumed God-given statuses place her in a permanent lowered position to his rulership that is completely unaccountable to her. Maybe they can live for years peacefully that way. All it takes is one crisis, one abuse of his assumed authority, and it can all crumble in an instant. He can instantly take control over her and dump all of the blame on her, with no way for her to defend herself without being accused of being unsubmissive and rebellious. He may never use the authority he believes he has, much less misuse it… but he always, always, always has the option. Complementarianism may not be the direct cause of abuse, but the beliefs that are part of it certainly can set the stage for it under the wrong conditions.

Comment by Watcher

March 4, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

Okay, Adam,
I believe I see what you are saying about a logical line of thinking and I believe you have given a couple of examples of this.
But did you give an example of a social scientific angle? If you did I missed it because I’m still unsure of what you mean.
Was LMCC’s example a social scientific one, or a logical one?
If you could give an example, even if it has nothing to do with gender roles and headship, etc. I’d really appreciate it. If you had one in your previous post, I apologize for being so dense and hope you will be kind enough to point it out to me.

As far as a logical argument, let me throw this out as one based purely on logic to make sure I’m seeing the differece.

A. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
B. Authority is a form of power.
C. Men have the authority in the marriage relationship.

Therefore…

D. Men are corrupt by the degree that they believe they are in authority in their marriages.

Okay now, please give (or point one out in your previous post) a social scientific example. Otherwise, I’ll think that you mean that I’ll have to
set up an actual scientific study or research everything on record in studies concerning this.

If others on this board have access to such studies, I suppose now is as good a time as any to share such things with me and anyone else who is interested.

Thanks

Comment by fjs

March 4, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

LMCC… sounds like a classic co-dependent/narcissistic relationship to me. they fit together perfectly. Both are pretty darn unhealthy though and do not lead to genuine spiritual and emotional maturity.

Comment by myste

March 4, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

i would take it a step further and say the extreme end of mutual love and submission is self-sacrifice even unto death. which is exactly what we are called to in love relationships. to be Christlike one must be willing to sacrifice one’s will (and by extension one’s life) for the sake of love.

whereas the extreme of Christlike modeling in traditionalist relationships is lopsided as one partner is expected to sacrifice their will only (female submission) and one to sacrifice their life only (male responsibility).

if we were truly to look to Christ as he models love and sacrifice, we see that he both sacrificed his will and his life, and it is he that all Christians are told to be like. to have a Christlike marriage would entail neither party demanding the sacrifice of the other but both bringing to the marriage a willingness to sacrifice both their will and their life, ie. mutual submission.

Comment by LMcC

March 4, 2008 @ 2:50 pm

FJS (81646):

Exactly. I was reading a Christian book about co-dependency many years ago that said that churches will all too often reward co-dependent behavior. After all, who appears to be a better, uncomplaining, hard-working servant than someone who has co-dependent behaviors mastered?

To make things worse, a good man would not want a wife who exhibits those behaviors. A lot of complementarian men think they want this perfectly submissive being for a wife, but she gets boring fast. Is it any wonder that pornography use, adultery, and divorce are spreading so rapidly in complementarian Christian circles?

I actually experienced a bit of this on a smaller scale back in high school. I dated a guy who didn’t like women wearing makeup. I couldn’t stop wearing make-up because I had skin problems, but I toned it down as much as I could. He dumped me after less than a month — and apparently not because I still wore too much make-up, for my replacement was a Tammy Faye clone. Go figure!

One reason so many Christian women date and marry outside the faith these days is that they get treated better by unbelievers than they do by their so-called brothers in Christ. If that’s not a sad commentary on sex relations in the church, I don’t know what is.

Comment by Mary

March 4, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

But surely that’s the woman’s fault too, LMCC. If the women just wouldn’t insist on their RIGHT to be treated decently, if they’d just accept that their god-given role is to be subject to men, they’d be so much happier! But no. They’re being selfish, and here the Christian men were just trying to be biblical about insisting on their subjecting themselves to the men. It’s always all about women. Why don’t they put the men first once in a while?

(Have we not all heard that excuse before?)

Comment by fjs

March 4, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

LMCC, i can relate with your story. in my life, the traditional/complimentarian practice contributed to emotional immaturity for both my husband and I. what jolted us toward maturity was recognizing our humanity in Christ and equality in the relationship. schooled in traditional/complimentarian thought, i did not have the biblical support to challenge my spouse in ways that were healthy for the relationship.

Equality actually challenged both of us to grow and become more mature. We had to learn to hear one another… the complimentarian perspective does not invite hearing because, if women are so easily deceived, why would her spouse take her thoughts and opinions seriously?

I actually think submit to one another involves hearing one another… because one has to place oneself under to be able to hear.

Comment by Suzanne

March 4, 2008 @ 5:28 pm

I’ll try to clarify my meaning. I believe that the practice of male (gender based) authority is abusive. This practice involves the male having the right to impose his will on the female by appeal to the scripture, based solely on the fact that he is male. Yes, she is only to submit willingly, but the use of appeal to scripture as a higher authority is emotionally coercive.

I do not believe that the practice of traditional gender roles, as in housewife and breadwinner, are abusive. I do not think that all those who teach gender based authority practice the abuse of power.

I do believe that the practice of the male getting his way because he is a male, through appeal to a religious teaching, is abusive. If this is about servanthood, fine. But the servant does not tell the mistress what to do. If gender based authority is practiced, it involves overriding the participation, on equal grounds, of the female.

I have read many complementarian blogs and books and I have read about women who said that in 30 years of marriage they felt that their voice had not been heard. That is emotional abuse. Or take the woman who needed permission from her husband to move about the house. Or the women whose daughter said that she wouldn’t ever get married if her husband were going to treat her as her dad treated her mom. These are examples quoted on complementarian blogs or books.

These are not isolated examples. Since not all those who teach male authority practise it, statistics are impossible to come by.

But casting woman in the suffering role, makes women suffer.

These are my opinions from what I have seen and heard and are not statistically based but anecdotal. This is my testimony and belief. Gender based authority is damaging. There is no appeal to morality in the privacy of an initimate relationship where the wife is silenced by her husband’s higher authority.

Comment by PS

March 4, 2008 @ 6:27 pm

Interesting discussion. I’d like to add another wrinkle. I was raised in a male dominated household. My father and mother went to church, although calling my father an active Bible-knowing believer would be a stretch, but I’ll not judge his salvation. My female relatives, were, for the most part, also in traditional marriages. My father had emotional issues (son of an alcoholic) and took his unhappiness out on my mother in abusive ways. I would doubt that any good pastor who believes in the headship of the man in the house who would see that would condone it. Problem is, this type of stuff isn’t done in public.

But my family was overwhelmingly female. The women often got together. It was clear that they asked the men’s opinion about things, but then did things their own way when the men weren’t around. Some of the men were good, kind men, so they were no problem for the women, but there was also an underlying atmosphere of genuine lack of respect for the men, in general. Surely, that wouldn’t be condoned by a traditionalist either.

I married a man who had/has a great respect for women. This was one of the reasons I was attracted to him. I was and am respected. We each have our own talents and roles, certainly. For practical reasons, we’ve spent a large part of our marriage in “traditional roles” but with respect for what we each do.

During a difficult time in our marriage, when we had problems, I found myself disrespecting him and he wasn’t treating me with respect in certain things as well. There was no “abuse” in the usual sense, but I felt that I wasn’t treated as a marriage “partner.” We went to counselling. One eye opening thing that happened there was my husband being completely silent, with no hint of body language, when I was expressing something extremely important to me. Fortunately the counselor was wise enough to see this as a problem. He actually named it as “abuse” because my spouse was ignoring me when I was in deep emotional pain. When we were able to work out some communication issues, we were back to equal respect for each other.

I would venture to guess that a person, in the case of this discussion, usually the man, who disrespects and/or abuses another person is, at heart, an unhappy person inside. Maybe he was treated in the same way by his father. There probably was a role model rather than coming to the conclusion that this way of acting is OK based on some so-called Biblical model.

And the woman who puts up with this sort of man but is disrespectful behind his back has probably heard the same sort of thing from others as well.

Yes, all people are sinful and slip up in their behavior. But I think that believers who have had a healthy upbringing ask for forgiveness when they make mistakes in the way they treat others.

Comment by LMcC

March 4, 2008 @ 6:43 pm

PS, funny you should mention the women disrespecting the men. The women at my old church knew the men’s negative attitudes toward them, and it didn’t help those men earn their respect at all. We knew, for example, that the pastor’s marriage was a joke. Why everyone stayed in the church instead of getting out at that point remains a mystery. (Oh yeah, blind obedience.) We knew about affairs among church leaders. Mom actually caught one of the choir hotshots on a date with someone who wasn’t his wife. There were very few decent marriages at that church. It got to the point where I thought I could have a loving marriage or a Christian marriage, but not both. Naturally, love and respect cannot grow in that kind of environment. The men looked down on the women because they were mere women, and the women tuned out the men because they knew their husbands didn’t give a rip about them.

If complementarianism has anything in it that can foster true love and freely-given respect, I don’t see it. Male obligations and female obedience, sure… but no love and respect.

Things did get better at the old church. It will never be egalitarian in any sense of the word; but the pastor got the clue about his marriage, and the church has a female worship leader. Mom says things are radically different now. (Of course, it doesn’t hurt that one of his own kids went egalitarian and is trying to sneak new ideas into his head during visits home. *tips hat to Lee Grady, don’t ask who bought his books for the kid*)

Comment by Trevor

March 5, 2008 @ 2:16 am

When I read Liz’s draft of this particular post I mentioned that she would probably need to supply some hard evidence for the assumption that, quote, “It is well documented that abuse of all kinds and to varying degrees occurs more in homes where the hierarchical model is practised.” We both decided that perhaps it would be best to see where the comments headed before acting on that concern.

Because of the issues raised by Adam O (comments 81623, 81639) and Watcher’s plea for empirical data, quote, “If others on this board have access to such studies, I suppose now is as good a time as any to share such things with me and anyone else who is interested.” (comment 81644) I guess that now is the time.

In April 2004, Dennis J. Preato, Master of Divinity – Bethel Seminary, delivered a paper at the Evangelical Theological Society titled, Empirical Data in Support of Egalitarian Marriages: A Theological Response. I came across his article on the God’s Word to Women website and it can be accessed by the following link.

http://godswordtowomen.org/egalitarian_marriage.htm

I used the substance of his research when Liz and I ran a Biblical Equality seminar at the Nation’s Heart Church in Canberra ACT, Australia (Aug. 2005).
My purpose in using that material was to encourage those present to opt for egalitarian marriages as a means of stemming the tide of unhappy and broken marriages within the christian community. I believed then, and do now, that the church would have far greater missional impact on a watching world if we lifted our game in the area of marriage.

Our 35 years of Pastoral ministry and many hours of marriage counselling had provided ample anecdotal evidence that marriages based on hierarchy were more prone to failure. The principal reason being that husbands, under this arrangement, were more likely to use the apparent licence of scripture to rule than to serve. Egalitarian marriages, on the other hand, because they require consistent, Christlike behaviour of both partners, is far more likely to succeed.

Comment by fjs

March 5, 2008 @ 8:19 am

Trevor, fascinating stats on marriage. I went to some of the linked statisics used in the article and was intrigued by the statistic that the highest divorce rate was in the Bible Belt states and the midwest. I live in the midwest and am the only person I know who believes in Biblical equality in marriage.

Other factors I found curious… level of education and age of marriage were also factors in marriage failure in the bible belt states and midwest.

I think that culture affects religion in some sense… I know in my area I notice a sort of folk religion or civil religion that is more a blend of culture and religion. The assumptions of the average believer is that one can merely open the bible and know the mind of God on any given subject… the problem is that one reads through ones culture and worldview–especially if one does not examine their assumptions. And the ones who say they are most biblical might not be.

Comment by Watcher

March 5, 2008 @ 10:00 am

Trevor,
That link isn’t working for me.
I’ll try again later, but I was wondering if you had another way to get there.
Thanks

Comment by Liz

March 5, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

Hi Adam. I’ve just been re-reading your excellent article in the Winter edition of Priscilla Papers. I agree with you that complementarians may not agree with my suggestion about logical conclusions but the point I was trying to make was that ..

If you have one person in authority over another in any situation, there is always the possibility of the extreme of abuse. On the other hand, where there is no authority structure but mutual consideration of each other, the extreme of that can only be ultimate good.

Comment by Liz

March 5, 2008 @ 10:07 pm

And in response to the comment by FJS about culture and religion, I think it’s a valid point, particularly among groups of people who are not taught or encouraged to think things through for themselves. I have read some appalling books written by Christians which show their ignorance (and criticism) about any people outside their tight circle of understanding. I guess many of us have been there at some time or another in our spiritual journey.

Comment by fjs

March 6, 2008 @ 8:17 am

Here is a quote from article related to our discussion…on men who do housework.

Joshua Coleman, a San Francisco-area psychologist and author of “The Lazy Husband: How to Get Men to Do More Parenting and Housework,” said equitable sharing of housework can lead to a happier marriage and more frequent sex.

“If a guy does housework, it looks to the woman like he really cares about her — he’s not treating her like a servant,” said Coleman, who is affiliated with the Council on Contemporary Families. “And if a woman feels stressed out because the house is a mess and the guy’s sitting on the couch while she’s vacuuming, that’s not going to put her in the mood.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_re_us/sharing_chores

The most interesting comment is a husband who shares in the housework is not treating his wife like a servant. It sounds like intimacy is increased because he treats her like a person who is valuable.

There was a point in time when our family began to see the home as “our” work. The kids were old enough to do their own laundry, my husband did his, I did mine and we each had areas of reaponsibility in the home. We also each had work and school lives outside of the home. The home was everyone’s responsibility because there is more important things in life than housework…

things like intimacy in the marriage… and beyond that service in the community and church.

Comment by Trevor

March 7, 2008 @ 6:16 am

Perhaps others of you, like Watcher (comment 81704) have attempted to follow that link to Dennis J. Preato’s Empirical Data article and failed. I notified the God’s Word To Women website and they do have an ISP problem that they hope to have rectified in a couple of days. In the meantime you can try another way in through one of Jon Trott’s blogsites. Follow this link and click on the expansion line.

http://aremenreallyhuman.blogspot.com/2006/07/divorce-violence-linked-to-non.html

This has worked for me the couple of times that I’ve tried it and it’s well worth the look. Otherwise you may have to wait a day or two for the other link.

Comment by Jesk

March 7, 2008 @ 7:07 am

We must remember that behind every attitude, there actually is a spiritual climate. Only when such a climate changes, can attitudes, traditions and ways of thinking change. Our battle, of course, is not against flesh and blood , but against the principalities and powers of the air (i.e. the powers in the spiritual realm). It requires change there for people’s minds to be changed, which in turn requires us spending lots of time with and before God.
I know this is way off topic, but I don’t know where to ask…Does anyone here know anything about freemasonry or can recommend resources on it?

Comment by fjs

March 7, 2008 @ 8:12 am

one can just visit the site, God’s Word To Women… search for it, go to the article section and find the one by Dennis Praeto.

It’s worth the effort.

Comment by Theo

March 7, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

Liz wrote:

“If you have one person in authority over another in any situation, there is always the possibility of the extreme of abuse. On the other hand, where there is no authority structure but mutual consideration of each other, the extreme of that can only be ultimate good.”

I make no claims for a hierarchical model of marriage per se, but I have grave problems with both the original post above (Adam O is right; it’s a straw man argument) and with the one just quoted. Everything in God’s creation is capable of being abused due to the reality of human sinfulness. This includes authority, but it also includes sexuality, friendships, commerce, art, technology, etc. Dispensing with authority because it can be abused would call for dispensing with all these other things as well.

The point being that the fact of something being abused cannot itself be an argument against the legitimate use of that thing. Applied to any type of authority, for example, in government, church or even parents over children, this statement is an argument for anarchism.

Moreover, the exercise of authority by no means excludes “mutual consideration of each other.” Parents and minor children love each other and ought to be thinking of each other’s good, but that does not mean the parents exercise no authority over the children. In fact, the exercise of authority is part of the task God has given to parents as part of their care for their children.

Now I recognize marriage is different because it involves two adults. My only point is that opposing authority to mutual consideration doesn’t work. If you propose to argue against a hierarchical conception of marriage, you can’t do so by slamming authority as such.

Comment by Kathryn

March 7, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

Another great posting. Jesk, you stated it exactly right. We are in a spiritual warfare. Time alone with God is absolutely essential for the Christian life. I guess patriarchal women aren’t supposed to spend time alone with God. After all, their husbands are also their spiritual leaders, so just replace “God” with “husband”. How sad. As so many have pointed out before, it is idolatrous. It definitely leads to theological and emotional abuse, and sometimes may lead to physical abuse. On the other hand, the extreme result of biblical equality sounds mighty loving and godly to me.

Comment by Suzanne

March 7, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

The point being that the fact of something being abused cannot itself be an argument against the legitimate use of that thing. Applied to any type of authority, for example, in government, church or even parents over children, this statement is an argument for anarchism.

On the contrary, this was the argument for democracy. Otherwise, we would have an absolute monarchy and preachers trying to persuade kings to be the perfect Christian, and masters also. But no, society has reformed the institution of government to make the governor responsible to the collective.

There is nothing in the marriage ceremony in which a wife vows obedience to the husband which forces the husband to form his dictates in accordance with the wife’s will. There is no corrolary to the “will of the people.” I claim that giving the male authority because he is male, is abuse. It really takes living a life under this regime to realize how utterly destructive it is.

We have to remember how the Bible clearly upheld the divine right of kings, and most clergy in the US taught that the Bible supported slavery. The argument was that a Christian monarch, and a Christian master would seek the best of the governed, as a Christian husband would seek the best for his wife. This cause some women now to live a life or virtual slavery.

Comment by Suzanne

March 7, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

This causes some women now to live a life of virtual slavery.

Comment by fjs

March 7, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

just for the record, children grow up and are not at that time under the authority of their parents. My relation with my adult children would be really dysfunctional if I exercised authority over them.

women are not children.

We also should not confuse civil authority in which laws are enforced in cities with marriage. Marriage is an intimate union of oneness… it is not a civil institution needing the exercise of authority.

In fact i think that to make marriage about civil authority and heirarachy, is to make it not about intimacy and one flesh union.

Comment by jlp

March 7, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

Since marriage is a sexual relationship, introducing authority into it can affect that relationship in a negative manner.

I’m not against authority, I’m against injecting it into a relationship that has intimate sexual relations at its core.

Comment by Theo

March 7, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

“Since marriage is a sexual relationship, introducing authority into it can affect that relationship in a negative manner.

I’m not against authority, I’m against injecting it into a relationship that has intimate sexual relations at it’s core.”

This is an argument that I can more easily accept. It’s one thing to argue that a relation of authority and subordination is inappropriate to a marriage. It’s quite another to argue that authority itself is wrong because it is subject to abuse or that it is incompatible with mutual care and consideration, which it clearly is not.

“We have to remember how the Bible clearly upheld the divine right of kings. . . .”

Not so. The divine right of kings was the invention of the early modern monarchs who wanted to break the countervailing power of church and nobility. The Bible teaches nothing of the sort. It freely admits both the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, which is to be expected in a book that understands both the potential and the failings of human nature.

Comment by Theo

March 7, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

“On the contrary, this was the argument for democracy. Otherwise, we would have an absolute monarchy and preachers trying to persuade kings to be the perfect Christian, and masters also. But no, society has reformed the institution of government to make the governor responsible to the collective.”

Of course democracy itself is capable of being abused. I assume we would not discount it for that reason. Challenge the existence of authority within marriage if you think it appropriate; just don’t do so for the reason of authority’s abuse. Again, everything in God’s world is subject to abuse.

Comment by Suzanne

March 7, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

Clearly the scriptures were used to support monarchy as the scriptures are used to support male authority. The power of the monarchy was specifically restricted because of the abuse of power. It was not restricted simply because of scripture verses which called it into question.

The abuse of authority plays an enormous role in the creation of responsibility structures. If there are two people and both are responsible to the other, then the relationship is mutual, and less open to the abuse of one or the other. If one has authority over the other, then the relationship is not mutual, and the one under authority is more vulnerable to abuse. Of course, any system can be abused, but abuse is still the reason why we restrict power. You cannot deny this.

People who have been abused, women, children, slaves, employees, citizens, etc. would like to think that the very real injury that they suffer will cause others to call unrestricted authority into question. Authority needs to be restricted and in the case of marriage made equal and responsible. The vow of obedience deprives women of their civil rights.

People who have been physically abused are also marginalized from the discussion.

Comment by Liz

March 7, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

I’d like to make one small point about authority. I didn’t mean to suggest that all authority was bad, in and of itself. What I was attempting to say was that authority can be abused whereas mutual love, respect and submission cannot be abused.

Comment by Beth

March 7, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

I have a very loving, respecting relationship with my husband. It’s absolutely wonderful. I’m totally on the biblical equity side, he was raised complimentarian but sees more and more the point of equity. :)

His mother and step father are both complimentarian, she’s co-dependant and he’s controlling, and neither are happy in their relationship.

Comment by Liz

March 7, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

Hi Jesk. I’ll email you privately with the details about how to get info. on Freemasonry rather than bring it into this discussion.

Comment by Theo

March 9, 2008 @ 9:10 am

“I’d like to make one small point about authority. I didn’t mean to suggest that all authority was bad, in and of itself. What I was attempting to say was that authority can be abused whereas mutual love, respect and submission cannot be abused.”

I can agree with this as long as you do not portray these two as polar opposites along a single continuum. A proper understanding of legitimate authority sees it as exercised in a way that is loving, respectful and submissive – or, better, obedient – to the will of God. Insofar as we are called to love God and neighbor, this has profound implications for the exercise of authority, which will not be self-centered but other-centered – healing and reconciling rather than alienating.

The point is that emphasizing love and respect within marriage cannot itself decide the issue of whether or not (husbandly) authority properly belongs within it. Something else is needed here.

Comment by Liz

March 9, 2008 @ 9:37 am

Theo..what do you have in mind as the ‘something else’ needed ?

Comment by Suzanne

March 9, 2008 @ 9:54 am

Theo,

If the husband has authority over the wife, he deprives the wife of authority over herself. He cannot have authority over her without taking from her what he wants for himself. He does not love his next one as himself but subordinates her.

There is no command in scriptures that one Christian ought to have authority over another in an assymetrical way.

Comment by Theo

March 9, 2008 @ 10:31 am

“If the husband has authority over the wife, he deprives the wife of authority over herself.”

This argument doesn’t work, because the exercise of authority is not a zero-sum game. All authority is limited. Government has legitimate authority over citizens without depriving them of authority over their own personal lives. When government oversteps its own limits, then we rightly take issue with it.

Again you may be right about marriage working better without authority and subordination. But I would like to hear an argument that does not entail a negative assessment of authority in general, and thus far I haven’t heard it.

“He cannot have authority over her without taking from her what he wants for himself. He does not love his next one as himself but subordinates her.”

Once more this assumes that the exercise of authority is simply about personal wants. Only in its distorted form is this the case. Legitimate authority is not to be identified with its distortion.

“There is no command in scriptures that one Christian ought to have authority over another in an assymetrical way.”

Read the pastoral epistles, for example, 1 Timothy 3, about the qualifications for office-holders in the church. Were they not exercising authority? Were not the members of the churches expected to obey those in authority?

Comment by jlp

March 9, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

Theo,

The elders only have the authority the members give them. If the members don’t like what the elders do, they do not have to obey. They can leave the church and not return.

I have heard many people say the elders have authority over the people in the church. But what they fail to mention is that people are not under any obligation to stay with the church. As soon the member decides to leave the church, any authority that elder claims over that member ends.

Comment by jlp

March 9, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

Theo,

Elders are constantly abusing their authority UNINTENTIONALLY all the time. As a result, people are constantly leaving churches.

The Christian community needs to learn how to confront our elders about their mistakes in a manner that they can understand without hurting their feelings. But it’s painful, challenging and difficult to confront people higher up in the hierarchy. People lower in the hierarchy always fear not being listened or being shunned as a result.

The issue here is not that elders have authority, because elders are constantly making mistakes that cause people to leave their church. The issue here is how the people can communicate with the elders on the mistakes they have made in an effective manner.

Comment by Suzanne

March 9, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

Every human authority uses power in the interests of maintaining itself. There is no exception to this rule. It is not a distortion of power but it is the nature of power.

Therefore, all governing entities are made subject to their subjects, or subject to dissent. The church was once on the principle of territory, you attended the church of your parish. But no more, you now attend the church of your choice and you are free to come and go.

We live under laws that the collective has helped create. We have courts and laws, we have representation in government and in the courts. We have the right to a defense.

Only marriage is feudal arrangement whereby the husband as a human being exercises power in his own interest, by the law of sin, this is a truism, and thus deprives the wife of her interest. Our churches condemn women to this fate. Some women are able to reinforce their own interest if they have been instructed in boundary setting, rebuke, dissent, protest, third party appeal, and passive resistance. Other women lose their own self.

This evil is being promoted. There is no redeeming feature in gender based authority.

Comment by Suzanne

March 9, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

Nor does the Bible contain one verse which tells the husband to exercise authority over the wife. The vow of obedience is in clear contravention of Christ’s teaching on vows.

Comment by jlp

March 9, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

Matthew 20:24-27 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—

Christians need to take this verse more seriously.

Comment by Theo

March 10, 2008 @ 9:23 am

“The elders only have the authority the members give them. If the members don’t like what the elders do, they do not have to obey. They can leave the church and not return.

“I have heard many people say the elders have authority over the people in the church. But what they fail to mention is that people are not under any obligation to stay with the church. As soon the member decides to leave the church, any authority that elder claims over that member ends.”

Out of curiosity, how would you interpret Romans 13:1?

“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.”

This doesn’t seem to fit with your voluntary notion of the authority of elders. Anyone possessing authority, even personal authority over the course of one’s own life, owes this authority to God, not to other people. It is true that consent of the governed is an important component of legitimate political authority, but it is not the origin of authority, as the Bible clearly indicates.

Let me ask you this question: if elders sometimes abuse their authority and drive people away from the church, isn’t it just as likely that people will dislike a correct decision made by elders and leave the church for all the wrong reasons?

The scenario you describe above is hardly to be encouraged. Because of the current fragmentation of the church, it is nearly impossible for it to maintain any form of discipline over its members because they can simply pull up and go elsewhere. I know of cases where a husband has cheated on his wife and his church’s attempt to hold him accountable have been frustrated by his going elsewhere.

I guess what I’m trying to get across is that in a relationship properly based on authority and subordination, abuse can occur on both sides. Democracy is not always a remedy for the abuses of authority; it often allows the people to express their own willfulness.

The tendency to sin is found equally among office-holders and among those subject to these offices.

Comment by Lolly

March 10, 2008 @ 10:44 am

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant in this case has presented a worldview. He would like you to believe that this worldview is respectful and loving towards women. However, every shred of evidence that he can offer actually says just the opposite.

For instance, the defendant has offered several examples of authority, and tried to compare them to marriage. Since these examples are good, then by extension authority in marriage must be good. Let’s take a look at those examples, shall we?

A church needs people who are spiritually mature to guide it and to try and interpret God’s will for that church. Therefore, they elect elders.

A company needs a boss to make sure everything runs smoothly and that the employees do a good job.

America needs a president to make sure that our country is defended and that we have things like roads to help us.

I believe that’s a pretty fair and positive assessment of authority, don’t you? But do you detect a pattern here, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see what these examples have in common? I saw the pattern right away, and since most people are of reasonable intelligence, I bet you did, too.

Every example that the defendant listed is an example of [b]mutual[/b] authority. Every one of them. Let’s go back and look at that list, shall we?

If those elders do things the congregation doesn’t like, then the people can get together and demand the elders step down. Or the people can leave.

If a boss abuses his authority, the employees can get another job.

If the people don’t like a president, then they can choose not to re-elect him.

So what can the wife do if she doesn’t like her husband? What recourse does a wife, in the defendant’s worldview, have if her husband chooses to abuse his authority?

Can the wife leave and choose a new husband?
Can she vote herself a new husband?

No, the defendant will tell you that the wife has no recourse. Think about that, ladies and gentleman. [b]The defendant will tell you that the wife has no recourse.[/b] The wife can do nothing because her husband is accountable to God, not to her. You heard the defendant’s own words. [em]A proper understanding of legitimate authority sees it as exercised in a way that is loving, respectful and submissive – or, better, obedient – to the will of God.[/em] So the husband submits to God, not his wife. The husband is accountable to God, not his wife.

Ladies and gentleman, I don’t know about you, but the last time I heard God wasn’t speaking through the burning bush anymore. He wasn’t smiting people for disobeying him. I was always taught that we have a choice whether to follow God or not, that God wants a relationship with us and not just empty rituals. In that case, ladies and gentlemen, then under the defendant’s worldview [b]the husband has a choice whether to follow God, but the wife has no choice whether to follow her husband[/b].

Ladies and gentlemen, does that sound like any church you’ve ever attended? Any business for which you’ve worked? Any politician for whom you’ve voted? Of course not. Therefore, I challenge the defendant, and all who believe like him, to produce one single, solitary example of a relationship in which one person has [b]all[/b] the power and the other person has [b]none[/] of the power. I challenge them. They can’t do it, though. They can’t do it because, in a Western country, there is no such example. So the next time the defendant says, “Well, marriage is like this…” ask yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, which way is the power flowing? Is it flowing both ways? Because if it’s not, then his example is as faulty as the ones he’s already presented.

“But…but…but” the defendant will say. “That’s not how it works. In true patriarchy, the husband loves his wife like Christ. He practices servant leadership.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this “should theology.” You see, in the ideal world, the husband [b]should[/b] love his wife like Christ. He [b]should[/b] be loving and respectful towards her.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know about you, but I live in the real world, not in an ideal world. I wish that ideal world existed, I really do, but it doesn’t. So what happens in the real world? What happens when the husband does [b]not[/b] act loving and respectful towards his wife? Is there anything the wife can do about it? Well, of course, that just takes us back to what we already know: the wife doesn’t have any recourse. So the next time the defendant talks about how a husband “should,” ladies and gentlemen, ask yourself: what happens if he doesn’t? And if the answer to that is, nothing happens, then ask yourself how loving and respectful the defendant’s worldview is towards women.

Comment by Theo

March 10, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

Oh dear. It seems I’ve been misunderstood. Let me try again. I am reasonably certain I made it clear in previous posts that I am not making a case for a hierarchical marriage. I too think it’s absurd for people to say that somehow God communicates only to the husband and that the wife relates to God through her husband. It would be nice not to have words put in my mouth.

What I am saying is that opposition to a hierarchical conception of marriage must be done on grounds other than a general deprecation of authority (which is a created good, though admittedly fallen), and thus far I haven’t seen it.

As for the ideal versus the real, I’m with you, Lolly, in affirming that we live in the real world with real people, with all their considerable flaws. But this cuts both ways. Should we take away the right of citizens to vote because the vote can be abused? Should we take away the right of employees to switch jobs because they sometimes do so for the wrong reasons?

There are many contexts in which, if you disagree with an authoritative decision and try to get out of it, you bear the consequences of so doing. Break the law and you’ll get arrested and, perhaps, convicted. Live a flagrantly unbiblical lifestyle, and your church could excommunicate you. Break company rules and get fired. This doesn’t sound quite as “mutual” as you make it sound.

Notice, however, that I’ve said nothing about marriage in this last paragraph. I agree that this needs to be treated differently. I’ll stop at that.

Comment by jlp

March 10, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

Theo,

In the Dred Scott case of the 1850′s, runaway slaves were declared property, not people. If someone harbored a known runaway slave, as a result of this decision they would now be in trouble with the law.

Out of curiosity, how would you interpret Romans 13:1?

“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.”

in this particular situation?

Comment by jlp

March 10, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

Theo,

Out of curiosity, how do you interpet this statement of Jesus’:

Matthew 20:24-27 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—

Comment by Suzanne

March 10, 2008 @ 7:01 pm

If you aren’t going to talk about how to rescue women from the spiritual abuse of being bound to obey emotionally and physically abusive husbands, I am not interested.

The rest is all airy fairy. It hurts to be hit and when you are being hit the finer philosophical points are amazingly uninteresting and irrelevant. It all sounds to me like standing in front of a starving person and debating the finer nutritional points and not producing a meal.

Comment by Theo

March 11, 2008 @ 7:20 am

JLP,

On the Dred Scott case, this proves my point that at least political authority, including that of a court, is hardly mutual or voluntary. You disobey that authority and you pay the price. In this case, of course, civil disobedience may be warranted, but you still have to be willing to bear the consequences.

Once again authority is capable of being abused, as in this case, but that does not itself invalidate authority as such. What it does indicate is that human authority must always be subjected to institutional checks. This was acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Johannes Althusius and many others.

Comment by Theo

March 11, 2008 @ 7:29 am

As for Matthew 20:24-27, the Greek word for what the NIV translates as exercising authority is κατεξουσιάζω (katexousiazo), which is a rare word occurring elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mark 10:42 (the parallel passage). Without going into too much detail here, the addition of “kata-” to the verb attaches a negative meaning to it, as it does to other verbs. In other words, Jesus is by no means slamming authority per se; only the abuse of it. The NRSV captures this meaning better than the NIV:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant. . . .”

Servanthood is not incompatible with the exercise of authority; it is incompatible with its abuse.

Comment by fjs

March 11, 2008 @ 8:01 am

re authority: I think when only men have it and women are not allowed it, that is dysfunctional. In a society authority is necessary and functional and given according to experience, education, job description etc. To deny all women authority or to limit her authority only to certain spheres is where I drawn the line.

If one runs a company, one has authority in the company… a new person may be hired and given authority. It is based on performance and need. But it is believed that only men run companies or only white men run companies then it is off base.

I agree all and any authority should be excercised in respect of others as fellow human beings, with a servant motive and in an ethical manner.

Again, the error is the notion that all women must be under male authority for all time. In marriage, we shift in authority based on our own expertise and gifts. Often I will defer if it is something I know my spouse is knowlegeable in or something that I do not care about. If I do care,,, I must speak my truth. And we must negotiate or find other ways to problem solve so that the union of the marriage is served well.

Comment by Liz

March 11, 2008 @ 8:35 am

Theo, in your comment 82038 you wrote..”grounds other than a general deprecation of authority” The original post was not a statement re authority in general but rather the suggestion that a marriage based on mutuality would have no possible ramifications for abuse.

And in respect to Romans 13:1, as with all quotations, they must be used in context, not only of the chapter but the whole of the new testament teaching.
There are many examples of the apostles not obeying the government when the authorities commanded them to stop preaching in the name of Jesus etc.

Implicit in the thought of obeying authorities/governments is the idea that the governing people are there for our benefit, as it says in 1 Timothy that we may live a peaceable life. Surely if a government or other authority is not working for the constituents’ welfare, then it should not be obeyed or supported.

Comment by Lolly

March 11, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

Theo in 82038:

[blockquote]There are many contexts in which, if you disagree with an authoritative decision and try to get out of it, you bear the consequences of so doing. Break the law and you’ll get arrested and, perhaps, convicted. Live a flagrantly unbiblical lifestyle, and your church could excommunicate you. Break company rules and get fired. This doesn’t sound quite as “mutual” as you make it sound.[/blockquote]

You asked for a positive assessment of authority. I gave you one. I said nothing about the breaking of any rules. You are the one who has returned to the negative.

However, I find it absolutely fascinating that, despite your stated desire to hear good things about authority, you have now brought up bad things about it.

Let’s translate this to the real world, shall we?Thoreau didn’t think it was right for the US government to support slavery. He refused to pay his taxes, and was willing to pay the consequence of going to jail.

I grew up in a patriarchal household. When I grew up, I found a husband who didn’t believe in it and learned to shed my beliefs. But let’s say the opposite happened. What if I married a patriarchal husband and then, purely on my own, decided that I didn’t like it anymore? What punishment or consequence should I have suffered?

I also found it fascinating that you returned to the examples of business, church, etc. and said that their power is not mutual. So, then, what is? Can you give an example of [b]any[/b] power structure where the power is mutual? If not, then that says volumes.

[blockquote]On the Dred Scott case, this proves my point that at least political authority, including that of a court, is hardly mutual or voluntary. You disobey that authority and you pay the price. In this case, of course, civil disobedience may be warranted, but you still have to be willing to bear the consequences.[/blockquote]

Again, your repeated talking about punishment and authority is fascinating. So I’ll ask the question again: is there [b]any[/] example of mutual power? Or do those in authority always hold exclusive power, and the right to dole out consequences without being held accountable?

And you still didn’t answer the question. Congress passes a law. You break the law. You get punished. And? What if you don’t like the law? What if a bunch of people don’t like it? What if you’re a Christian serving as a county registrar in Massachusetts, and you refuse to give a marriage license to a gay couple? You go to jail. Fine. So that’s it? There’s nothing you can do about it? You’re powerless? The government can pass a law and there’s nothing you can ever do about it?

So let’s translate that to marriage. A woman decides she doesn’t like the law of patriarchy in her household. She disobeys her husband’s authority by refusing to submit in a given circumstance. How should she be punished? And is her husband allowed to enforce that punishment, no matter what?

And let’s step back and look at the bigger picture. In the beginning, God created earth. Then He created man because He wanted to have a relationship with him. Then He created woman so that man could have a relationship with her. Patriarchy teaches that men being the head of the household was God’s plan from the beginning. It was there before the Fall. So, then, from the very beginning God decided that women needed to have male authority over them. Would you agree with that, Theo? And if so, then why? Why do you, Theo, personally believe that God decided women needed to have authority over them? Why do you think that God decided marriage needed to be run like a church, a corporation, or a political office? And what does God think the punishment should be towards women who disobey?

So why did God decide

Comment by Theo

March 11, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

FJS wrote:

“Again, the error is the notion that all women must be under male authority for all time. In marriage, we shift in authority based on our own expertise and gifts. Often I will defer if it is something I know my spouse is knowledgeable in or something that I do not care about. If I do care,,, I must speak my truth. And we must negotiate or find other ways to problem solve so that the union of the marriage is served well.”

Agreed. I couldn’t have said it better myself. There is nothing proper in the notion that women in general are subject to men, and Scripture doesn’t teach this. That said, I think the shift in authority you speak of in marriage is an authority based on knowledge and not precisely the same as the authority of office. These are two different things. I would be willing to speak of both husband and wife having an authoritative office that each is obligated to respect. It is not clear to me, as it is to professed “complementarians,” that one is set above the other.

As for Lolly, I’m not certain how to reply further to her, because she seems to be under the impression I am making a case for something I have repeatedly denied.

One point that I will address more clearly here – and perhaps should already have done so more explicitly – is the issue of checks on authority. All human authority needs limits placed on it. All authority comes from God, but that does not mean it should not be held accountable to other human authorities. It definitely should be. To confess that all authority comes from God hardly implies that it is beyond all critique or questioning and that it is answerable only to God.

Yet even in a democracy where we have the opportunity to pass judgment on our politicians, we are still obligated to obey the laws they put in place, whether or not we disagree with them. True, at some point civil disobedience may become necessary if government is perpetrating a manifest injustice. Martin Luther King was right to do what he did in defying the segregationist laws in the South. But he did go to jail. And unfair as such treatment was, he was willing to suffer it to draw attention to the injustice of those laws.

Nevertheless, the injustice of laws does not discredit the rule of law as such. More generally, the abuse of authority does not rule out authority in general. Marital abuse does not invalidate marriage. I hope we can all agree with this.

Comment by Suzanne

March 11, 2008 @ 6:07 pm

No one is talking about invalidating marriage, accompanied by a vow of loyalty and hesed between two people. However, I would rather go to jail than make a vow of obedience in a marriage ceremony.

Comment by LMcC

March 11, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

Theo:

From 81866 “Moreover, the exercise of authority by no means excludes “mutual consideration of each other.” Parents and minor children love each other and ought to be thinking of each other’s good, but that does not mean the parents exercise no authority over the children. In fact, the exercise of authority is part of the task God has given to parents as part of their care for their children.”

Actually, in traditional circles, exercise of authority can exclude whatever the one in charge wants. Lived through it, saw it for myself.

“Now I recognize marriage is different because it involves two adults. My only point is that opposing authority to mutual consideration doesn’t work. If you propose to argue against a hierarchical conception of marriage, you can’t do so by slamming authority as such.”

Actually, going from an authoritarian relationship to one of mutual regard works unbelievably well. My husband and I started dating when we were both traditionalists, and he’d tell you now that things got better for us once we dropped the traditional model and were just allowed to be ourselves. If we had remained in an authoritarian relationship, we could not have stayed together because he didn’t have the “leadership” abilities and really made a jerk of himself when he did what he thought he was “supposed” to do.

From 81811 “This is an argument that I can more easily accept. It’s one thing to argue that a relation of authority and subordination is inappropriate to a marriage. It’s quite another to argue that authority itself is wrong because it is subject to abuse or that it is incompatible with mutual care and consideration, which it clearly is not.”

This is so easy for you to say since you are a man and therefore exempt from being under the type of authority you believe we should have. Male authority over women (or husbandly authority over wives, if you prefer) is not based upon characteristics of normal leadership. There is no qualification required that is applicable to the job. Maturity? Experience? Temperament? Not important. Only the existence of the man’s Y chromosome is necessary for him to lead, and the absence of that chromosome is an automatic disqualifier. By that standard, an ignorant brute is perfectly capable of leadership, but an intelligent and diplomatic woman would never be. That kind of authority is completely unearned and unaccountable to the one being led, so it is utterly incompatible with mutual care and consideration.

“The divine right of kings was the invention of the early modern monarchs who wanted to break the countervailing power of church and nobility. The Bible teaches nothing of the sort. It freely admits both the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, which is to be expected in a book that understands both the potential and the failings of human nature.”

This is true, yet the Bible was certainly misused to defend the concept; just as it is misused today to defend the most horrific of abuses against women and children. See what Paige Patterson had to say about “Stop Baptist Predators”, a group for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy, about that one.

From 81882 “Challenge the existence of authority within marriage if you think it appropriate; just don’t do so for the reason of authority’s abuse. Again, everything in God’s world is subject to abuse.”

So how about if we just limit it to opposing unearned and unaccountable authority? Can we agree on that?

From 81977 “This argument [that husbands take authority away from their wives] doesn’t work, because the exercise of authority is not a zero-sum game. All authority is limited. Government has legitimate authority over citizens without depriving them of authority over their own personal lives. When government oversteps its own limits, then we rightly take issue with it.”

I’ve lived under complete authoritarian rule — not as a spouse, but as a juvenile church member and a Christian school student. Authority that allegedly comes from God is *not* limited in the minds of those who choose to abuse it. When misuse of authority is combined with a fostering of an attitude of mistrust for outsiders, the people in these systems have no room for escape. That’s also true in an abusive marriage.

From 82081 “On the Dred Scott case, this proves my point that at least political authority, including that of a court, is hardly mutual or voluntary. You disobey that authority and you pay the price. In this case, of course, civil disobedience may be warranted, but you still have to be willing to bear the consequences.”

Lolly has asked you several times about this part of your post. Shall I repost it for you so you can answer? Or do mere women not deserve any answers, only the command to obey?

“I grew up in a patriarchal household. When I grew up, I found a husband who didn’t believe in it and learned to shed my beliefs. But let’s say the opposite happened. What if I married a patriarchal husband and then, purely on my own, decided that I didn’t like it anymore? What punishment or consequence should I have suffered?”

“Again, your repeated talking about punishment and authority is fascinating. So I’ll ask the question again: is there *any* example of mutual power? Or do those in authority always hold exclusive power, and the right to dole out consequences without being held accountable?”

“So let’s translate that to marriage. A woman decides she doesn’t like the law of patriarchy in her household. She disobeys her husband’s authority by refusing to submit in a given circumstance. How should she be punished? And is her husband allowed to enforce that punishment, no matter what?”

She deserves an answer. If you believe in husbands having authority over their wives, then answer the questions.

From 82115 “All human authority needs limits placed on it. All authority comes from God, but that does not mean it should not be held accountable to other human authorities. It definitely should be. To confess that all authority comes from God hardly implies that it is beyond all critique or questioning and that it is answerable only to God.”

While this is true, you are sadly mistaken if you believe the last part. Spiritual abuse is rampant. Pastors, teachers, and husbands have been claiming their allegedly God-given authority is absolute and above questioning. There is no chance for the ruled to question or appeal. I strongly suggest you read “The Subtl Power of Spiritual Abuse” by Jeff Van Vonderen and David Johnson instead of continuing to claim that all authority has limits. In the mind of one who lets power go to his head, there are no limits, and those he rules suffer as a result. Or at the very least, google “spiritual abuse” and read what happens when the rulers don’t have any accountability. You’re living in the ideal world, while many of us have lived in the real one. Your ideals about male authority and your apparent assumptions about us do not translate into the real world with real people and real consequences.

Comment by Larry S

March 11, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

I’ve been reading this blog thread with interest and appreciate the Christians for Biblical Equality website. Although, jumping into the discussion late I have 2 comments to make.

1. Regarding the opening post and the extreme end of love & mutual respect. One critique that I’ve heard from the hierarchical side regarding the egalitarian position is that the extreme end of egalitarianism is a type of competition between the husband / wife with no one in “authority” to make the final decision. IMO this is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the egalitarian marriage model.

2. Several posters have said that within the hierarchical / complimentarian model, in the case of a husband misusing/abusing his authority, that the wife has no recourse. Actually, the wife would have some recourse. She can take her concerns to the church. The husband would be told to become the loving servant leader and told to consider her wishes prior to exercising his God given authority. Within the Christian hierarchical / complimentarian marriage model the husband is accountable to the leadership (male) of the local church.

It seems to me that when we are impassioned it becomes easy to overstate or misrepresent positions. If we do so, the cause we argue for is not well served.

Comment by S

March 11, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

She can take her concerns to the church

And if she is ordered not to?

Comment by Larry S

March 11, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

I assume you mean if she is ordered by her husband not to report him to the church.

She could still do so. If the husband is misuing/abusing his authority he is ‘in error’ and needs to be corrected by the spiritual leadership of the local church.

Comment by S

March 11, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

The pattern of abuse built up over the years as the husband uses the vow of obedience and the spiritual teaching of submission of the wife creates a situation in which we see that 70% of abused women never leave their abusers in their lifetime. A lot of people are living in a lot of pain so that men can claim a leadership role.

I would ask the churches to completely do away with the vow of obedience and teach mutual submission.

Seeking to put some people in power over other people is against the teaching of Christ.

Not rescuing the oppressed, those who live in psychological and physical abuse, is against the teaching of Christ.

Not treating your next one as you want to be treated is against the law of Christ.

I regard those who teach gender-based authority to be on the same level as those who supported slavery. It is an apostate church.

I regard every single person who teaches male authority and ignores the abused in their midst to be guilty of supporting violence. There is no excuse.

Comment by S

March 11, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

I mean that even if the churches ignore women who are in the church and are being abused and don’t divulge it. IF the church teaches male authority and there is even one person suffering violence in silence, that church is guilty because they taught that authority which prevents the woman from getting help.

The church is guilty for teaching something which facilitates violence.

Comment by Larry S

March 11, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

82130 S wrote: I regard those who teach gender-based authority to be on the same level as those who supported slavery. It is an apostate church.

I agree that gender-based authority has many similarities to those who supported slavery. However, to make the statement, “It is an apostate church”, is a little over the top.

I have been labeled “apostate” by Christians who hold to the hierarchical view of marriage.

In my view, throwing red flag terms/labels at the other side doesn’t help. More ground can be gained by comparing the models and their supporting biblical interpretive methodologies and explaining why you choose yours – of course doing this in a respectful, loving manner.

Comment by jlp

March 11, 2008 @ 9:35 pm

Larry,

You make some very good points. Honestly though, if a marriage is in trouble I’d rather see the couple (or perhaps the wife alone) go to a marriage counselor or an abused women’s shelter. They are much more experienced in handling domestic problems than the church leadership is. They understand more of the psychological and emotional issues that underlie and sustain abuse.

Comment by Larry S

March 11, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

response to JLP 82136

I agree with your post – especially the part where you say i make some very good points :)

My comments (82123 + 82127)reflect my understanding of hierarchical/complimentarian models and attempt to be fair to that side.

Personally, i would be very uncomfortable with a woman expierencing any issues within a hierachical/complimentarian marriage going to a male led church elder with issues.

But then i’m an egalitarian.

Comment by S

March 11, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

If I tell the truth people will say that I exaggerate in order to gain sympathy for my position.

The vow to obey entails incredible suffering. Men have, over the centuries, transformed institutions to create escape from coercion. The church has been made voluntary rather than territorial. The government has been made responsible to the people. Colonies have rebelled from the crown. Slaves have been set free. Employers are responsible to the collective. Every contract includes protection from abuse.

The marriage contract includes no protection, no rights for the wife. She is not protected from abuse concerning what she wears, what she reads, what she cooks, if she works, what she earns, what she saves, what debts she agrees to, who she votes for, how she cares for her children. There are no clauses to offset, “obey your husband” or “submit to your husband.” She forfeits all these rights. She has no right to confide private information about her marriage in another human being. No man would live this kind of life.

Her father does not get up at the ceremony and say, “If you hurt my daughter I will protect her.” The woman is cut free from all human aid. She prays and the violence does not cease.

Maybe she now has Alzheimer’s and she has never known a day in her adult life that is free from abuse. These women live among us, they are us.

The minister’s wife does not read books on abuse or stock books on abuse because there are no abused women in her church. She is sure of that! So abused women suffer in silence without recourse.

But if we were imitators of Christ we would pay attention to his sermon,

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Who ever preaches on that? When will those who want men to have power over their wives just close their mouths and shred their papers and reach out and rescue those who suffer?

When will Christ’s teachings have priority?

Comment by Liz

March 12, 2008 @ 1:20 am

Larry. In your post 82123 you suggest that if a woman is being abused she can take the matter to her spiritual leaders. In some cases this is true and the leaders would deal appropriately with the erring husband.

What has been suggested is that often (and I use the word often carefully) the leaders do not support the wife and she is told to return home and try harder to be the kind of wife which will cause her husband to stop abusing her. This was part of the original post which included the truth that many men in authority in their homes only have that authority because their wives allow them to ‘lead’ by their extreme submissiveness.

Your other point about complementarians saying that an egalitarian marriage could turn out to be a competition with no one in authority to make ‘the final decision’ is a nonsense because if it was truly an egalitarian marriage then there would not be anyone ‘in authority’ and decisions would be made either by mutual consent or the ‘right to decide’ given by one partner to the other for a variety of reasons.

Comment by fjs

March 12, 2008 @ 7:16 am

Larry S, in my experience, taking one’s concerns to the church results in being blamed. Sorry, I don’t buy that one.

If a church assumes male leadership, and they have no women in leadership, women will not be heard or believed. The whole women are easily deceived deception has led to a culture in which one does not need to take the word of a woman seriously. her word is most always suspect… especailly in church.

my experience….

Comment by Larry S

March 12, 2008 @ 8:54 am

Liz regarding your post (82147).

The point I was trying to make in 82123 was that within Christian hierarchical / complimentarian models of marriage a woman is able to bring issues to her husband’s spiritual leaders. In my experience in dialoguing with men in those models “accountability” is a big deal (for example: the Christian men’s movement stresses accountability). So in theory, a wife has some recourse and I don’t doubt what you are saying about the response women receive from those churches (or what FJS discloses about her experience (82166).

The hierarchical / complimentarian critique viewing egalitarian marriages as competition or anarchy isn’t viewed as “nonsense” by those voicing the critique. I’ve thought about this for some years and have the following comments based, not on any empirical studies, but my own observations.

The people who’ve raised this concern to me had a very rigid worldview and could not conceive of a true marriage partnership that was not based in power. I think there is both a theological / cultural component to their worldview that is very enmeshed and difficult to separate. The theological perspective is very conservative and wooden. The cultural perspective was American and based on the need for order. I am a Westcoast Canadian and spent some time in the heartland of the American Midwest where I had very negative experiences with hierarchically inclined Christian males. As a person raised in British Columbia (in many ways the culture of BC is quite liberal) I found the Christian attitudes I encountered in the American Midwest bewildering.

Comment by LMcC

March 12, 2008 @ 10:19 am

Larry S:

I’m with everyone else on this. Going to the church all too often results in the abused wife being blamed for the abuse, not action against the abuser. In fact, we have a long blog thread a while back about a well-known Southern Baptist minister who openly acknowledges that he sends women back to their abusive husbands even when he knows they will be in harm’s way.

The link under my initials will connect you to a blog post with the audio file and transcript.

He’s not a rare exception. This man has helped train many pastors, and more pastors out there share his views. It is rare for a pastor to take a strong stand against spousal abuse and help the wife, not the norm.

Comment by S

March 12, 2008 @ 11:08 am

In response to the link.

What is so disturbing about this is that those who are violent will repent and repeat on a weekly basis for a lifetime. At a certain point a woman can no longer take the weekly/daily beating.

This is criminal. If the church wants to participate in criminal action then so be it, but Christians had better rise up and call it what it is.

It would be better to have a millstone about the neck than ignore this kind of thing.

People can worry about whether the scriptures call for male leadership when the last woman has been beaten, and not before.

Comment by Larry S

March 12, 2008 @ 10:53 pm

What do you do with the church?

Recent posts point out the deficiencies of local church leadership in responding to the plight of women who are in troubled marriages (hierarchical / complimentarian) due to the actions of their husbands.

As an Anabaptist person with a strong theology of the local church, as well as a theology of following the peaceful example of Jesus, I’m troubled. Are posters rejecting the local church?

I’m not sure about what to do with the local church and perhaps this post pushes the thread too far off topic. However, I believe that egalitarian Christians should struggle with both the theology of marriage and the theology of church. I agree with S’s posts, if women are being told by church leadership to return to abusive situations something should be done.

My temptation would be to “right off” the local church – providentially, my local church has not been an issue – indeed within the last year I actually heard an egalitarian marriage sermon (although, with a change of pastoral leadership there are winds of change in the air).

I guess I’m wondering how other forum members have dealt with the tension between their egalitarian marriage theology and theology of the church?

I think of Acts 6:1 where “the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.” In that case, leadership acted to rectify a grievance. In a perfect world, leadership responds to grievances – unfortunately we live in all too fallen a world.

Comment by Trevor

March 14, 2008 @ 4:11 am

I’ve been following all of the more recent comments on this topic and would like to make the observation that it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for a male (Adam, Theo and Larry) to argue this issue in a way that will be acceptable to a woman, even though you may consider yourself to be egalitarian. Especially if that woman has been subjected to marital abuse (or knows of its existence) or has been marginalised by male leadership in the church. Both of which are all too frequent. My point is not to demean women by saying that but simply to say, a man can never know what it feels like to be a woman in this situation.

I can identify, for example, in my wife’s pain and personal hurt when she has been subjected to gender discriminatory, derogatory comments, but I’m still a male and cannot feel it as fully as a woman does. I can be sympathetic but there’s going to be a limitation, in my ability to totally identify the indignity suffered because I still belong to the privileged male class. Frankly, at such times, I’m embarassed by my being a male , but I can’t change my gender.

What seem to us (as men) to be perfectly reasonable lines of argument can appear to a woman to be totally condescending and dispassionate. Try as you and I might. As soon as a woman makes an impassioned, emotional appeal we appear to be dismissive and accusitory by suggesting that we bring the discussion back to a more reasoned, theological or philosophical debate. From their perspective they ARE arguing theologically and philosophically! To imply otherwise is really hurtful to a woman and I’m trying to see that my very maleness is a barrier. I may need to approach the discussion differently.

While on the subject let’s keep our comments within marriage and the church and not get into issues of authority per se. The original intent of the post has been re-stated a number of times. Simply put it was that hierarchical marriages, by virtue of their authority structure, are more likely to be abusive than egaliarian marriages. Sufficient evidence has been offered by all the commenters within this blogging community to confirm that assessment.

Which brings us Larry to where you finished up in comment 82228 with the question, “What do you do with the Church?”

The Church, as a gathering of, ‘called out ones’, is God’s instrument in the world to reveal His love, mercy and grace. We are called to be a therapeutic community that demonstrates love, acceptance and forgiveness. Sadly that is not always the case and these gender issues certainly don’t help our image or improve our credibility to a watching world.

If the Church were to remain as it was in the beginning, a loosely structured relational ‘organism’ rather than a hierarchical and institutional ‘organisation’ I’m sure that that would help. While we are stuck with the imperfections of the ‘visible’ church and its multifarious infrastructure, we as the Body of Christ and members together of the ‘invisible’ family of God, can and should behave differently. We can demonstrate a far better way. What do others of you think?

Comment by fjs

March 14, 2008 @ 10:12 am

thanks, Trevor, I feel validated by what you said. And it is often the institution that I mistrust. I wish a simple dialogue and biblical case would make all of the injustice go away and I wish a reasoned appeal to pastoral leadership would make the injustice stop. But it is not about appealing to authority or making a solid biblical case… we are confronting a pernicious worldview that seems so right to those who hold it because in reality, truth is not a good biblical case but what seems right in the light of patriarchial/cultural christian pre-understandings.

I might have a good, solid biblical case or appeal to the right church authority but my words evaporate like the morning mist when I say the words.

Comment by LMcC

March 14, 2008 @ 10:46 am

Trevor:

I think I see what’s going on now with Larry and Adam (and, I hope, Theo). These guys really want to give their pastors the benefit of the doubt. They really want to believe that their pastors would no more tolerate abuse against women than they would. It’s evidence that they believe others think like them, and that’s normal and usually good… but not in this case.

One of the core elements of so-called complementarianism is that man and women are radically different at their core. As Rob M said with such pride so many years ago, “I can’t think like a woman”. As hierarchal Bible translators have argued, it would be insane to them to say that Jesus was made like his brothers *and sisters* in every way in Hebrews 2:17. These pastors whose theology is steeped in this world view therefore cannot see women as like themselves, identify more with the abusive husband who is believed to be like themselves, and therefore pass unjust judgments accordingly.

I have concerns about the way things were worded about men using logical arguments and women using emotional ones. A man may be using cold, hard logic or think he’s being practical (talk to the pastor, he’ll help); but if his logic and advice is not based in real attitudes and experience, he’s off-base. Emotionless logic based on a wrong assumption is not based on reality. If the women’s arguments come off as emotional and passionate, but those emotions come from the actual experiences of abuse and the aftermath thereof (including harmful pastoral counsel), these people are arguing based on what is really happening or has happened. Underneath the passion and emotion is actually a very solid logic: Abuse is bad, the abuser is wrong to do this and deserves consequences, the abuser did not care for the victim, and anyone who cares for women should not want to see the women they care for treated so badly and have the abuser excused or let off lightly.

I’ve reached the point where I would never tell a woman to talk to her pastor about abuse unless I know without a doubt the pastor is egalitarian (IOW, I’ll never tell a woman to see her pastor where I live now). Instead, I would have her call women’s shelters, the police, maybe even an attorney once she’s safe. As long as men and women are seen as being so different we might as well be from different planets, and as long as women are barred from church leadership because of our allegedly radical differences, she has no chance at any real assistance from a sympathetic minister. (Egalitarians, please get a big group and invade Nashville.)

Comment by Larry S

March 14, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

Response to LMCC’s 82342 post

LMCC wrote: “I think I see what’s going on now with Larry and Adam (and, I hope, Theo). These guys really want to give their pastors the benefit of the doubt. They really want to believe that their pastors would no more tolerate abuse against women than they would. It’s evidence that they believe others think like them, and that’s normal and usually good… but not in this case.”

The paragraph I’ve quoted assumes a great deal and appears to read a great deal into my posts (Adam of course can speak for himself). My posts have been about hierarchical / complimentarian models and have been theoretical in nature. From my perspective, it’s quite a stretch to go from my posts about hierarchical / complimentarian marriage models (which incidentally I detest) to the paragraph I’ve quoted above. And it feels a little condescending to have someone presume so very much about what I believe.

I get what Trevor posted (82320) regarding the differences between male/female communication styles. It is my hope that on a forum such as CBE the differences between our approaches can be celebrated. Furthermore, it appears that people from around the world post to this Forum. Think of the different cultures, church experiences, and marriage/life experiences that we bring. No wonder we will misunderstand one another from time to time.

I agree with LMCC regarding advising a woman to speak to her pastor. I wouldn’t advise anyone (male or female) to speak to their pastor about marriage issues (especially if it was an abuse issue) without knowing ahead of time that the pastor held an egalitarian view of marriage.

LMCC, you may be interested to know a bit about what I believe and life’s experience: raised in a hierarchical controlling environment, been in an egalitarian marriage for 33 years, theologically trained, presently working in the Canadian criminal Justice system supervising persons under criminal court orders. I supervise a wide assortment of individuals including: sex offenders and domestic offenders (mostly male, some female). My work, although, primarily with the offender puts me in touch with the victims of horrific crime.

To get back to the ‘what do we do with the church’ question. It appears that the general consensus in this thread is that church leadership is to be avoided when we deal with issues of abuse. I struggle with that but concur.

Comment by fjs

March 14, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

Larry, i understand what you are trying to say. I do wish things were different in the church and that one could trust the church on matters of marriage and matters of abuse. Perhaps in some churches there is more safety than others. I don’t think church is an entirely lost cause. I just would want to know more about the church and the pastor before I directed anyone to seek counsel there.

There are changes… but…

The church has taken a stand to be for family. I think that in the anxiety to protect “the family” from abortion and feminists and other social evil ones, the church has come to see egalitarian proposals and interpretations as somehow associated with them.

Instead of thinking more deeply about what is just toward women and what is just toward children and what is just toward husbands… many in the church resorted to the conservative 50′s view of home and family and sought to protect it. They are protecting a middle class white image of the 50′s family in a world that is no longer 50′s.

I think egalitarians are seeking to rethink the whole thing in terms of the kingdom of God and what might be just and of shalom (well-being, justice) for all concerned in a fast-paced quickly changing and very diverse world.

My point is that because of the anxiety about “the family” or the idol of family and the changing social roles of men and women and the hyper fear of feminists, the church can’t always hear abused or voiceless women…

Egalitarian marriage models force us out of 50′s defined roles and authority based marriage models toward something better for everyone.

Comment by Trevor

March 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

My purpose in commenting as I did (82320) was to validate the experiences that women feel and have expressed in respect to this post and interpret something of what may be being missed in the men’s responses. I’m glad that you FJS (comment 82337) felt validated. I’m also encouraged by the way that you, LMCC (comment 82342) elaborated on what I attempted to say. Let me hastily add though that I was trying to avoid the stereotypical attitude that men think logically and women emotionally.

What I was driving at is that when women express emotion it is often dismissed as a fallacial argument. Men can, and do, use emotive reasoning too, but are not often subjected to the same dismissive criticisms as women. I personally loathe the ‘typical woman’, ‘typical man’ type statements. We share a common humanity and should be able to move backwards and forwards using the same kinds of argumentative reasonings without being accused of being influenced by our gender. Moreso within the Christian community!

While there can be differences in communication styles it doesn’t have to be a male/female thing. That wasn’t my objective Larry (comment 82356) because, for the reasons stated above that can be too simplistic and negate a women’s perspective (in some circles). Perhaps I can better express it this way. Let’s take the gender aspect out. I am an Australian of European extraction. It is impossible for me to know, within my being, what it would feel like to be of Australian aboriginal descent. Especially when all aboriginals may be vilified for the behaviours of some. I cannot know how that feels, or how it appears to be an attack on me as a person. Or perhaps, how to conduct myself knowing the angst of the average Australian’s attitudes to aboriginal people. In the same way we men cannot feel, in ourselves, the depths of discrimination that women have endured since the beginning of time.

Having said that Larry I am glad that I flushed out the breadth of your own experience and what you are bringing to the table. That’s one of the problems with this type of communication. Words can be a powerful medium but can also lack personality and be subject to so much interpretation. We need to know the person and appreciate their heart. Thank you for those revelations about yourself, your marriage and your work. Sadly I think you have been accused, on this forum, of saying and believing things that are untrue. The same may be said for Adam and Theo. That would be unfortunate.

This is something for us all to keep in mind. Regardless of gender we need to assume the best of one another (Philippians 2:3) and get to know the person behind the comments. Like you Larry, quote, “It is my hope that on a forum such as CBE the diffences between our approaches can be celebrated.” I too would hold out for that. The only rider I would add to that is that the differences not be seen as male/female but simply our life experience. As you’ve also taken up, quote, “Furthermore, it appears that people from around the world post to this forum. Think of the different cultures, church experiences, marriage/life experiences that we bring.” Yes, that’s definately worth celebrating. That’s where the differences are legitimised, not in our gender alone.

Comment by Julie

March 15, 2008 @ 4:53 am

Hi all, I have just read through all the comments on this page and feel I must come to the defence of Theo, who some seem to think is commending and promoting male authority in marriage. I do not think he is doing so; quite the opposite in fact. What Theo is saying is that not all authority is bad, rather that all bad authority is bad. And that it is the bad authority we should get rid of, not authority per se. For example: if a person commits murder, he or she will come under the authority of the law: court, judge, jury etc and be sentenced. Now, we have cases of corruption within the above authorities where evidence, juries and judges have been fixed, but this does not mean that we should get rid of police, courts, juries or judges etc. We should rather get rid of the corruption. (Throw out the bath water, but not the baby)
As for marriage, I rather got the impression from Theo (an egalitarian, I thought) that he would be just as happy for the woman to take up leadership/ authority when she is the better one of the two to do so, in a particular field, and that the male should submit to this. Authority is still there (in a sense of reason and logic and love) but it is not absolute, one way, or final, or oppressive.
Another example would be with children. We cannot tell parents they have no say (authority) in what their children do, or whether they punish a child for wrong doing, because some parents abuse children. It is the abuse that is wrong, not the authority. After all, we parents also have the authority to give our children wonderful things and reward them for good – must this also go?
Authority is wrong when it is given to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. I.e. male, just for being male; rich, just for their wealth; white, just because of their colour….
Authority has to be earned, and put into its proper place of servanthood and love.
I can understand a person who has known ‘bad’ authority only to hate it, but true authority is not so, and is often a necessary part of government. If it is shown to be unjust or dictatorial it should be dismantled, and we as Christians should be the first in line to insist it is and oppose injustice, particularly now, when we have freedom of speech etc to do so with good effect.
True (bible) authority recognises a higher authority and place itself under that. ANY AND ALL authority that refuses to do so should rightly be abolished! This would include ‘male over female’ based authority which for no other reason than that claims the right to rule; as this is illogical, oppressive, foolish, and negates the Genesis declaration that they should rule together… which I am sure would also include mutual submission to each other’s natural abilities, qualities. (variable within both genders!) ;-)

Comment by Liz

March 15, 2008 @ 6:27 am

Hi Julie and welcome to this discussion. I also did not imagine that Theo was necessarily a complementarian or against mutuality – maybe others agree with us. What I did keep trying to say was that in marriage there can be no misuse of mutuality and each person thinking of the other and working for the good of the whole as they become one. It was not to discuss authority which all would agree has its place but to suggest that in marriage where authority or headship is practised, there is the potential for abuse where true mutuality has only good outcomes.

Comment by jlp

March 15, 2008 @ 7:05 am

Julie-

As for your remark:

Authority has to be earned…

Amen and Amen!

Comment by Julie

March 15, 2008 @ 8:06 am

Hi Liz, I agree, fully practised mutuality, equality, justice and the like cannot be misused as the misuse of them would in itself nullify them – they would no longer be, equality, justice etc. Wheareas authority can be grossly misused (or not) and still be authority, (some may even say Godly i.e. the male having the right to rule as he pleases, though I think these people would be few). But earlier you seemed to give the impression that you though all authority ought to be stopped. I am sorry if I misunderstood you on this.
I also agree that to say to the man, ‘you have all authority’ without considering whether he is able, spiritually, emotionally, intelligently or personally to correctly wield this is in itself an abuse of rights to the woman (who very well may have such an ability), and could become an abuse of power.
It could also be a abuse to the man however: if he feels under constant pressure to lead, decide, etc, yet knows he is not able he may feel inadequate, or a failure.

Just one thing, I feel this discussion has become a little ‘tense’ at times….please let’s talk in love, even where we seem to disagree. Sorry again if I am wrong about this.

Comment by jlp

March 15, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

There’s so much pain behind our words, so sometimes they do get a little tense. It’s hard to know how to discuss this issue without accidentally hurting someone else’s feelings.

Comment by LMcC

March 17, 2008 @ 11:50 am

Larry: Wow, sorry you got offended over the idea that someone might believe you wanted to see the _best_ in people. *shrug* I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt there for something you posted back in 82123:

“Several posters have said that within the hierarchical / complimentarian model, in the case of a husband misusing/abusing his authority, that the wife has no recourse. Actually, the wife would have some recourse. She can take her concerns to the church. The husband would be told to become the loving servant leader and told to consider her wishes prior to exercising his God given authority. Within the Christian hierarchical / complimentarian marriage model the husband is accountable to the leadership (male) of the local church.”

Also here from 82127:

“I assume you mean if she is ordered by her husband not to report him to the church.

She could still do so. If the husband is misuing/abusing his authority he is ‘in error’ and needs to be corrected by the spiritual leadership of the local church.”

I’m sorry you’re offended that I gave you the benefit of the doubt over these comments. That said, I’m even more amazed and confused that I should have to apologize for giving someone the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming the worst. *boggles*

Comment by Larry S

March 17, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

Hi there, LMCC

It appears that there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding between us. May I try one last time to clarify or reiterate a point or two.

I entered this thread quite late, as I read the posts it seemed that posters made the point, inaccurately in my view, that a women in a hierarchical / complimentarian marriage is without recourse to address any issues she may have with her husband since the husband was accountable only to God.

My post #82123, which you quote, makes the point that hierarchical / complimentarian marriage models allow a wife to bring issues to the church – since the husband is accountable to the church’s leadership. My further posts assume that readers will have noted the word “model.”

In retrospect, I would have communicated more clearly had I not assumed that other posters would understand that the word “model” was a comment about a particular marriage model and not endorsement.

I respectfully invite you to consider my perspective in this matter. From my perspective, my posts about a particular marriage model drew i) speculation about my attitude towards my pastor ii) the “benefit of the doubt” comment which I find surprising since why would merely discussing a marriage model be reason to raise doubt.

Regardless, I am quite ready to move on. I hope to continue participating in the CBE forum. It is truly refreshing place!

Comment by jlp

March 17, 2008 @ 8:22 pm

Larry,

I think we overstress any church leadership, either egal or comp, by putting them in the place of marriage counselors.

Sometimes Christians think that Christian leadership should be able to do much more than they are actually capable of doing.

I know that your point isn’t whether or not we should bring marriage problems to the church, but whether or not there is a church model that provides recourse to an abused wife. Perhaps there is, but I think the model would be for the church to facilitate access to those individuals with the training and skill to handle such issues as marital abuse, rather than thinking the church leadership (who do not have the skill)can handle it.

Comment by Larry S

March 17, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

agreed,JLP (82599)

for example, when my daughter was married my wife and I paid for the young couple to go to a ‘credentialled’ counsellor (by credentialled we meant a counsellor with a recognized professional degree and a part of a professional association)for premarital counselling.

Comment by Theo

March 17, 2008 @ 8:50 pm

Julie writes: “Throw out the bath water, but not the baby.” Precisely. Thanks, Julie, for summing up my position so well.

Comment by Abused

March 17, 2008 @ 9:57 pm

As an abused wife I am quite shocked at the lack or reality expressed here. Anyone who recommends that a wife vow to obey her husband recommends abuse. The scriptures clearly teach that to be under a vow of obedience to someone else is to be enslaved and is evil,

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Romans 6:16

As someone who was under a vow of obedience and was asked to obey, I can say that it is incredibly humiliating and dehumanizing. It is also extremely difficult to take this to the church or to anyone as abuse. What can you say? He doesn’t let me read out loud to the kids. He tells me what to say in public and punishes me if I don’t. It is incredibly embarrassing and even skilled counselors often do not get what is going on. Sometimes women need permission to leave the room or the house, or to do anything of any significance. The wife who vows to obey has to become disobedient in order to get help. It is completely ridiculous.

This vow should be made against the law. Women should not be treated like slaves. I really don’t care what anyone says about how outlandish I sound. I find the level of understanding among many people to be appalling and people don’t want to sound overly critical so they soft pedal it.

If the wife vows to obey it is slavery and it is evil. The church has missed the boat.

Comment by jlp

March 17, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

Abused,

I’m glad you feel you can express yourself here.

Comment by jlp

March 17, 2008 @ 10:07 pm

Abused,

Some people are going to try to stop you from sharing your feelings. Don’t let them do that to you.

Comment by Mary

March 17, 2008 @ 11:52 pm

Any system that gives power to a husband but denies that power to the wife, is by definition a system that will shelter an abusive husband and endanger his abused wife. Patriarchy does not cause abuse; human sin does that. But patriarchy puts all the power in the hands of the husband and renders the wife powerless to do much, if anything, about it. The church has historically done very little to help wives who are abused by their husbands, and there’s evidence that such institutional sin continues to this day; current pastors are telling women to “just submit” to abusive husbands and telling them that if they leave them or divorce them, the wives are the ones who are sinning. The evidence is there.

The church has no need, and needs to repent of, endorsing the worldly practice of elevating men to positions of “authority over” their wives and start taking seriously the “unto others” teachings of Scripture when it comes to marriage. A marriage can be built on patriarchy, or it can be built on an “unto others” model, but the two are mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ came not to be served, but to serve, and he calls all his followers–including the married men–to do the same. We don’t get to emulate this world by disregarding this model when it comes to husbands in marriage.

Comment by Mary

March 17, 2008 @ 11:58 pm

Abused, I am sorry for what you have experienced in marriage. I know how widespread and accepted the practice of unilateral vows of obedience have been throughout modern history, and I’m glad that that practice is being discontinued in many parts of the church. It is not only unscriptural, it is anti-biblical for a wife to vow obedience to a fellow sinful human being. Wives, by definition, are adults, not children or slaves or employees, that a husband should be elevated to a place of “authority over” his wife and entitled to her obedience. That is not how a one-flesh unity relationship works.

It’s time for the church to stop adapting itself to the historical cultural mores of the world in its endorsement of patriarchy. Christian principles are not compatible with patriarchy.

Comment by Abused

March 18, 2008 @ 12:29 am

I do believe that patriarchy is abuse, and most people are afraid to say so. It is like when the majority of the church supported slavery.

I would not say that all complementarians are abusive, not at all. However, if the husband “rules” the wife that is abuse and some women suffer utter humiliation.

Are we just going to stand by and watch? At least this blog is trying – but very few women who have been abused speak out. Then others speak for them. Please do not minimalize the sin of patriarchy.

One cannot say that a certain theory or paradigm is always abusive but bible.org put up new wedding vows with obey in them. I don’t want other women to suffer from this kind of misery. I would like to see abuse prevented rather than just prevented from continuing.

Comment by fjs

March 18, 2008 @ 7:00 am

Abused, I hear you… If Paul really knew how his writing were being used to keep women enslaved, he would roll over in his grave. I share your frustration with the whole system that promotes such harm to women.

Comment by LMcC

March 18, 2008 @ 10:32 am

Abused: You’re safe here. Those of us who are regular posters and CBE members do not wish to minimize the problems of domestic abuse, clergy sex abuse, and other misuses of power in which the abuser falsely claims it is his right from God.

Comment by Larry S

March 20, 2008 @ 3:32 pm

My heart goes out to Abused.

I’ve had a thought that takes me back to the original content of this thread. In Post #82320, Trevor recapped the primary thesis of this thread: “Simply put it was that hierarchical marriages, by virtue of their authority structure, are more likely to be abusive than egaliarian marriages.”

I had another thought that, I think supports this thesis: Entitlement. (In not sure if this word has been used in any of these posts, although the concept surely has). Entitlement is a word used by the criminal justice system to describe an offender’s attitude towards society and victims (See the bottom of Post #82356 for a bit of information about my background). For whatever reason the person feels “entitled” and are thus able to engage in criminal behaviour. In the case of domestic violence, the offender feels entitled and offends violently against his/her partner.

In the case of male on female domestic violence attitudes of entitlement come from a variety of sources: cultural, family of origin, religious. So in my opinion, it would be accurate to add to Trevor’s summary statement to say that it is more likely within a Christian hierarchical marriage for the husband to have a sense of entitlement (i.e. he feels entitled to the submission of his wife). This sense of entitlement makes it more likely for abuse to occur within a hierarchical marriage than within an egalitarian marriage.

Comment by Suzanne McCarthy

March 20, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

Larry,

I notice you mention ‘entitlement’. I do think that teaching on the subordination of women encourages ‘entitlement’ which is a necessary component of abuse according to Lundy Bancroft “Why Does He Do That?”. It is also mentioned in Evan Stark’s work on Coercive Control (available by google or by searching my site).

I would like to see more use of these works.

Comment by LMcC

March 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

Entitlement _is_ a big part of it, Larry. I’m with you there, and I believe that’s a bigger problem than many people realize. You’re right about the word not being used even when it fits the situation, AFAIK.

The same problem exists in cases of clergy sexual abuse. The power they believe the ministry position gives them goes straight to the heads of some abusive clergy members, especially when they figure out that they can move on to another church without a problem even if a victim comes forward. They’re in charge, they’re “men of God”, they are supposedly above reproach, and the victim coming forward would “damage the ministry”.

Never mind that the authority is in the message and not the messenger, the ministry is supposed to be a position of service instead of power, we’re all capable of sin, and the victim coming forward only exposes the damage the ministry has already suffered.

The whole idea about authority in modern Christianity is skewed. We’re jockeying for position like the rest of the world, building power structures, earning special privileges, looking down on the “little people” if we make it to the top, and completely losing our real mission of service to one another regardless of sex, class, or ethnicity. No wonder Christian marriages are not pictures of unity, and no wonder there are abuse survivors working to expose problems in the church. We’ve got to get back to the humility Jesus taught and put aside the worldly view of authority and the corruption that comes with it.

Comment by fjs

March 20, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

entitlement: an interesting concept applied here. maybe entitlement is the whole issue, and why the debate roars on.

Comment by jlp

March 20, 2008 @ 10:49 pm

I agree, Larry. The entitlement aspect creates all sorts of problems. The good thing about an egalitarian marriage is that it doesn’t set up either spouse with an attiude of entitlement.

Comment by Watcher

March 21, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

Larry,
I read your comment yesterday and thought it was pretty good and expected to come here today and see that others thought it was pretty good and then add their two cents.

But nobody did, mostly because it is a very busy weekend for many Christians. Around Christmas, things were dead here for over a week. I just about went crazy and posted how much I missed the interaction and then related a personal story.

My job is in social services and we see a lot of this entitlement as well, so I’m glad you brought it up.
We work with the wives, girlfriends, and children of a lot of incarcerated men.

And the sad joke is that God really must be in prison because inmates almost always find him there. Unfortunatly, they usually leave God in the prison when the get out. And they are back on that entitlement road again.

I wish that the truth of the gospel would stick a little better with these men. And I suppose the gospel doesn’t sound like such good news when you can get a whole lot for yourself by bullying and intimidating and actual physical violence against those who can’t defend themselves.

But which is worse, that, or those who use the gospel to bully, intimidate, and justify abuse?

Was it Paul who warned us about using the gospel for personal gain? Most think he was talking about money. But I’m thinking that using the gospel to undergird entitlement thinking is an effective way to get on God’s bad list, if God has a bad list. And most days, with what all I see, I believe God does have a bad list.

Comment by fjs

March 23, 2008 @ 6:48 am

Watcher, I think that you are right about Paul… using the gospel for personal gain. I actually think that the commandment that states, do not take the Lord’s name in vain also applies. To take God’s name in vain is to use it to support or authorize our own agenda–not only swearing.

I sometimes feel that the complimentarian agenda smacks of that. Maybe not for all complimentarians but for some.

Comment by Larry S

March 25, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

Hi there, Watcher

I find it interesting that you and I are in similar fields – kind of like working on different sides of the same coin.

I’ve noticed that the men I supervise for domestic abuse often share similar characteristics: very verbal, try to use intimidation, don’t listen well, try to control the conversation. When they exhibit this behaviour when they are trying to present their best side – it gives me just a glimpse into what it might be like to be their intimate partner.

If a male finds entitlement in his culture, family of origin and religion he has a strong cord interwoven that supports for his mindset and behaviour.

Comment by Marilyn

March 26, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

A recent mass e-mail from CBE referred to this post. The title caught my attention, so I clicked on the link. I have to admit that I’m very disappointed by what I read. I echo Theo’s concerns. If you want to compare and contrast, then compare the strengths of the complementarian marriage model with the strengths of the egalitarian marriage model. Alternatively, compare and contrast the weaknesses of the two models. Instead of a fair horse race, you compare comp marriage at what you assert to be its worst with egal marriage at what you assert to be its best. From your comparison, you then conclude that the egal marriage model dominates. The problem with your conclusion is that you would have drawn the opposite inference from a comparison of a strong comp marriage with a weak egal marriage.

I’m also concerned by what your argument seems to imply. You seem to be arguing that egalitarian marriage is a solution to sin. Enter an egalitarian marriage, and you’ll experience nothing but love and respect. Are we not all sinners? Are we not to look at the log in our own eyes, rather than the speck in someone elses’? I’ve read a fair amount of CBE materials. I’ve seen writer after writer criticizing complementarian marriage, but I’ve yet to see a single article or book addressing sin issues/problems in the egalitarian marriage model. Rather, I read assertions like yours that there are no negatives.

Comment by Suzanne McCarthy

March 26, 2008 @ 7:27 pm

If a male finds entitlement in his culture, family of origin and religion he has a strong cord interwoven that supports for his mindset and behaviour.

That is why I believe that putting women under male authority and encouraging women to vow obedience and many of the other doctrines of the complementarian agenda enable violent abusers.

I believe that telling women they are under male authority plays into the hands of the violent offender and contributes to violent domestic abuse. One step would be to actively discourage, and take a strong stand against the vow of a wife to obey her husband.

I do think that this is used to extract compliance and justify violence. These things need to be changed and egalitarian Christians should not pussy foot around but say outright that the practice of male authority aids and abets violence and should not be taught or practiced. And shame on them that do so.

Why should one more woman be beaten for the sake of this teaching? Or deprived of their free will? Women under this teaching may never tell their story to the authorities. They may just quietly suffer or escape and disappear. They are not attracted to making an appeal to the civil authorities. The better educated a woman is the more difficult it is for her to go to someone with her story.

Comment by Mary

March 27, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

So, Marilyn, just what do you think ARE the “sin problems” in the egalitarian marriage model? I’m serious in my question. Just what could you possibly see as inherently sinful in biblical equality, applied to Christian marriage?

The problem with patriarchy is that it is a worldly model, which while it is described in Scripture, is simply not a scriptural principle. It involves the stronger ruling over the weaker, as God told our first parents would happen once they had sinned; God specifically described that sinful principle in marriage (woman inordinately desiring her man, and her man ruling over her). That’s patriarchy, and it’s sin.

So there is a problem with confusing patriarchy with God’s way and demanding that people equate it with a Christian model for marriage. By contrast, biblical equality IS biblical, and it is the portrait we are given as Christians for marriage. So again: what possible inherent sin are you choosing to see in Christian equality in marriage? I submit to you that there IS none, since it’s our scriptural pattern for marriage.

Comment by Egal wife

March 28, 2008 @ 1:40 am

Abused 82618

Your story opened up a lot of eyes and brings a dose of reality to an other wise academic subject for many who have not been in your shoes. May I recommend a web-site from an egalitarian Christian marriage minsitry that has a hugely successful track record, offers free phone counseling, wonderful books and DVD’s and a forum? godsavemymarriage.com

They really know how to hold an abusive husband’s feet to the fire, so he can repent, learn to lay aside his own life for his wife, listen to his wife’s heart, mature and heal emotionally and spritually and become the man of God he is called to be. I had been looking for this type of ministry for years after wasting years of time and money on ineffective counseling.

Comment by SSM

March 28, 2008 @ 3:35 am

Well said, Mary

Comment by Sue

March 28, 2008 @ 9:10 am

Marilyn, I appreciate your comments and I’m glad you decided to comment. I hope you’re still with us. Maybe we are comparing the strengths of the egalitarian model to the weaknesses of the complementarian model. Are you saying there are advantages to following the complementarian model as opposed to the egalitarian? Do those advantages apply to the women? I am asking sincerely because I honestly do not know what those advantages would be. In other words, if my husband and I now have a relationship which we truly enjoy, how would we benefit in our practical everyday married life by deciding to convert to a complementarian marriage as opposed to egalitarian?

Comment by Leigh

March 29, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

I could be off-topic, but I’d like to pipe up for a minute here, and mention that certainly I don’t think anyone here believes that those engaged in and committed to an egalitarian marriage do not sin–including against one another (in addition, obviously, to against God).

Regardless of the model of marriage followed, both of the people involved are still human, after all, and so they sin. I believe that understanding is, in fact, a key point in the conversation.

Comment by Sarah

March 29, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

Hi all,

I’ve been skimming thru this thread and will apologize ahead of time if I misunderstand where anyone is coming from. First off, thanks to the guys who have posted here & faced some confusion when trying to explain yourselves. From what I understand, Theo, Larry, et al., were trying to critique one part of the discussion(the legitimacy of authority in general in the church) while affirming that they are egalitarians who reject the notion of gender-based hierarchy. Am I correct? For the record, I also had a similar concern; I think that many contemporary churches have difficulty exercising appropriate authority in such areas as confronting sin (including and especially abuse) and putting consequences in effect when necessary (a Biblical mandate). I personally take the idea of the authority of the Church and, yes, authority within it, very seriously. I think legitimate authority is a positive good despite the presence in some places of abusive authority and power structures. I also believe that the notion of male authority over women is a distortion of legitimate authority, not an expression of it.

Regarding the church and abuse: in my experience, complementarian pastors and church leaders CAN deal effectively w/the problem, especially if they are emphasizing the “responsibility” interpretation of male headship rather than the “chain of command” model. The Holy Spirit is bigger than we are, and transforms all who come to Christ, not just egalitarians. I’ve seen complementarians stand up for vulnerable women on the grounds of Biblical love reflected in Christian demands for justice and the overarching ethics reflected in the “one another” passages of the Bible. To not recognise the efforts of some complementarians in this area not only diminishes the work Christ has done through them, it alienates allies in the fight.

On the other hand…and this is a biggie…I know from hard personal experience that this is not always the case by a long shot, and that complementarian theory can take the most sincere Christian’s actions to harmful areas. I married young; my husband, who had told me that he had “come around” to the egalitarian view, became incredibly irresponsible, manipulative, demeaning, and dishonest after our marriage. I was afraid to bring the situation up to local pastors, as I felt (and sadly still feel) that they would make things worse by blaming me for “unsubmissiveness” while avoiding the real problems in our marriage. Further, my belief in mutual submission didn’t release me from my obligation to submit despite his refusal to do so, and in the face of accusations and distortions (and some really bad teaching) I submitted to the point of ridiculousness. In the end, he left, and after some pretty one-sided efforts at reconciliation, I filed for divorce (still grateful for the support of complementarian Focus on the Family there).

Throughout all of this, I had Christians all around me telling me to submit more, encouraging me in my “obedience to Christ”…and not once confronting my husband’s overtly bad behavior or in any meaningful way intervening in the situation. Since then I have been raising my 15 yr. old son alone, and have faced a curious combination of well-meaning ineffectiveness and sporadic assistance on one side, and suspicion and accusations on the other. The most negative responses have come from certain complementarians, whose presuppositions lead them to dismiss my insights, distrust my claims, and see me as an obstacle to my son instead of as the only stable influence in his life (“do you think he might be better off with his father?”) (and this without even revealing that I am egalitarian :-)). Add to this the onset of chronic illness leading to a “hidden disability” (“you’re using your illness as an excuse…you need to memorize more Scripture”) I can say that my overall experience of complementariansim and some of our other Western evangelical quirks has not been overwhelmingly positive. On the other hand, there are bright spots that deserve to be honored and built on.

Re: strong complementarian marriages: I have been blessed to see a few of them, as by default most of my Christian friends have been complementarians. For what it’s worth, the best I’ve seen have tended to emphasize mutual sacrifice, commitment, love, and unselfconscious service. They may credit their success to a complementarian structure, but in practice they are almost….egalitarian ;-).

Comment by Sarah

March 29, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

another note: my husband had been gone for the better part of a year and, despite attending counseling with a non-Christian therapist of his choosing, was avoiding participation to a spectacular degree (as noted by said therapist). After months of this, with the encouragement of Focus on the Family (see above), I set *gasp* a boundary: if he was willing to participate, I would commit to the process 110%. If not (I eventually set the deadline at a month), I would file for divorce. I didn’t hear from him once during that month, and filed. Prior to the divorce date I took him into my home when he ran into trouble, then entered Christian counselling with him, which he quit when confronted, afterwards admitting that he did in fact want the divorce. After the divorce itself, he “came back to church” (ran into trouble again) and I again took him in, entered counseling, and eventually the pattern repeated itself. I ended the counseling, and the relationship.

I think Christian response to my divorce bears looking at. Most Christians, egal. and comp., murmered sympathetically and said they would pray, then moved on. Two complementarians took me to task for the divorce. The first, a former Bible college roommate, felt that divorce was wrong and evil, I was filing for divorce, therefore I was wrong and evil. Given her conviction, though, she treated me with real concern and eventually called (a couple years later) and apologized when, as she said, she recieved more adequate teaching. The second was more disturbing. He told me that I was selfish, obviously had not studied the Bible (I can’t count how many hours I spent in tears over the Word, sobbing to God), and had NO RIGHT to set ANY boundaries on my husband. This man has gone on to a teaching/mentoring position, training pastors in a Bible college, and has described himself as a “moderate complementarian” in online discussions. Hopefully that reflects a change.

One of the books Focus sent me was Dr. Dobson’s “Love Must Be Tough.” A prominent complementarian, Dobson stresses the need for respect in conflict and states that the doormat submission preached by many is the worst thing for relationships. Sadly, he had to devote a portion of the book reiterating his complementarian stand and defending some very good counsel from accusations of heresy and liberalism.

“Ideal” complementarianism may aspire to harmony and love, but in practice it does often lead down some pretty dark roads, where an abandoned Christian wife is put under scrutiny and judgement, abuse and irresponsibility are not confronted (re: Paige Patterson), and women are treated as second-class citizens, and bear the burdens of and blame for failing marriages despite the logical conclusion that, if complementarian theology is true, the men should be held responsible for everything as the priestly representatives of the home. Up is down, black is white, evil is tolerated in the name of defending a “righteous” principle.

As troublesome to me is the lack of accountability (dare I say authority?) and support the church exhibits in these situations. Craig Keener has written on the subject of divorce as a justice issue…all I can say is amen!

As far as I can see, the latter is neither a complementarian nor an egalitarian problem.

Comment by Sarah

March 29, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

thanks for letting me ramble :-)

Comment by Watcher

March 30, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

Suzanne McCarthy wrote in comment 83185
“I believe that telling women they are under male authority plays into the hands of the violent offender and contributes to violent domestic abuse.”

And

“I do think that this is used to extract compliance and justify violence.”

To many, especially those who support patriarchy on any level, these may seem like inflammatory remarks.
And perhaps not knowing the context of what others have seen, they also make no sense.

But for those of us who have witnessed men with Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Antisocial Personality Disorder go from church to church to church until they found the one that declared them god/king (the most extreme end of patriarchy) and gave them absolute authority over their wives and children, the statement isn’t inflammatory but makes perfect sense.

On the other end of the spectrum, a woman with the above mentioned personality disorders would have a very hard time finding any Christian church, complimentarian, patriarchal, or egalitarian (even the most extreme egalitarian you can find) that would declare her goddess/queen and put her in the position of absolute authority in her home and thereby create an atmosphere where she can abuse to whatever degree her disorder leads her to.

Comment by jlp

March 31, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

Sarah,

Thanks for sharing your insights with us. I’m glad focus on the Family was there for you when you needed them. And I hope your medical problem gets better. How are you feeling?

Comment by sarah

March 31, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

jlp…thank you :-). Barring miracle, better is relative, but I am upright and mobile. My “stuff” isn’t life threatening in and of itself, but it interferes w/life to a really annoying degree. Disability issues and awareness rank high in my causes of interest list. There are blessings all around, tho…spring is springing…happy ducks.

I’m very grateful for Focus and other sources of God’s support in human form.

Comment by SSM

April 3, 2008 @ 4:27 am

Sarah,

I think I can sympathise and maybe empathise with some of the issues you are dealing with.

I agree that divorce is neither an egal nor comp problem particularly. It is something Christians have difficulty dealing with. My situation many years ago was made worse by the book that helped you – Love must be tough – my husband seemed to read that although he didnt feel any emotion of love, he still had to be ‘tough’ to make the marriage work! I felt the Lord say to me, after agonising about divorce, that although it was not ‘ideal’ – believing for a miracle and having the faith and patience to see it fulfilled was ideal – it was a path I could take and He would be with me… and He was.

I too hope your health problems improve more. I am also struggling with ‘disability’ and it colours the whole of life. Good days and bad days….counting blessings and being thankful are what I am learning also. Joining CBE has been very encouraging.

Comment by Sarah

April 3, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

ssm,

I am sorry to hear about your experience. I can see that book being used as a bludgeon. Other books I have seen misused are “Boundaries” and “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.” Books like these, while not perfect, have real potential to help people in difficult situations…provided those people are willing to humble themselves and not just cherrypick what they want to reinforce their biases or justify their behavior. Of course, the book possibly most often abused (and used to justify abuse) is the Bible itself.

God bless and thank you for the comment. I hope your health improves as well.

Comment by Watcher

April 12, 2008 @ 9:17 am

Sorry to revive this topic if no one wants to “Go there” with me on this.
But I’m sure I’m not the only one following this FLDS thing in Texas on the news.
Do ya think we could perhaps maybe list this polygamous ranch as one example of the extreme end of patriarchy???

What are your thoughts?

Comment by Liz

April 13, 2008 @ 12:16 am

Sure Watcher..I have only seen one small snippet of what has been happening, but patriarchy has to be at the back of any situation like this where the males assume oversight and control of women and children.

Comment by jlp

April 13, 2008 @ 3:19 am

The men don’t just assume oversight and control of women and children, they sexually exploit them.

Comment by Liz

April 13, 2008 @ 8:30 am

True and that is what I had in mind, given the reports, but this comes from the assumption of control and superiority. Obviously not all patriarchy ends up as abuse,but mutuality doesn’t give that opportunity.

Comment by jlp

April 13, 2008 @ 10:03 am

Yes, Liz, some gender hierarchalist men would never sexually exploit anyone. I appreciate them a lot even though I disagree with their views on hierarchy. But I agree with you, the hierachalist assumption can be used to support sexual abuse, whereas mutuality can’t.

Comment by JBH

April 13, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

A hierarchalist assumption perhaps, but not a complementarian one.

Comment by Liz

April 14, 2008 @ 8:37 am

JBH..maybe you could explain what you mean when you use the term “hierarchalist” and also “complementarian”

Comment by JBH

April 14, 2008 @ 10:08 am

A hierarchalist view need not use the Bible to support its position, while a complementarian view uses the Bible as the highest and final authority on every position. A hierarchalist could advocate male subjugation of women without qualifications, while a complementarian advocates the male leadership of Ephesians 5:25 – “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (ESV). Thus, when carried to the extreme end of the spectrum, a hierarchalist view would result in the “physical, emotional, and mental abuse of the ’submissive’ partner by the ‘head.’” but a complementarian view would result in radically loving, tender, Christ-like leadership. To complementarians, the most extreme example of male leadership is not some macho autocratic husband, but Christ himself, who “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7 – ESV).

Comment by jlp

April 14, 2008 @ 2:56 pm

Liz,

I know you asked JHB, not me about the definitions but I just want you to know I personally use gender hierarchy interchangeablely with complimentarian, since both are about men having authority over women.

Comment by JBH

April 14, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

That’s where the problem lies, because using a term such as “gender hierarchy” implies that all women should be subject to all men, which is light-years away from the complementarian position. The complementarian view does not advocate any sort of mass subjugation, but defines headship as such:
“In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (Raymond Ortlund, Jr. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)
First, this definition says nothing about authority. In the vast majority of male-female interactions, neither party has (or should have) authority over the other party. Even though he has no special authority, the man still has a responsibility to look out for the spiritual well-being of the relationship. Only in the institutions of the family and the Church does authority come into the picture (note that Ephesians 5:21 says each wife should be subject to her own husband).
By using the terms “gender hierarchy” and “complementarian” interchangeably, egalitarians are implicitly saying that the complementarian view is the same as the traditionalist patriarchal view. This is to the detriment of their own position, as most arguments are aimed at refuting the traditionalist view, which is a “softer” target, and not at the objections of the complementarian position.

Comment by jlp

April 14, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

JBH – The comps I’ve read are very much into male authority, husbands over wives in the family, and men over women in church. And some believe in men over women in civic affairs as well (but not all).

Your position is a new one, and one that I’ve never heard of before from a complimentarian.

Comment by jlp

April 14, 2008 @ 7:40 pm

Gender hierarchy implies that one gender makes the decisions, and the other gender is expected to comply with those decisions. And from everthing I’ve learned about complimentarian doctrine, that is the essence of what complimentarianism is about.

Men make are the decision makers, and women are expected to comply with those decisions. Since decision making is based on gendcer, it’s gender hierarchy.

Comment by Sue

April 14, 2008 @ 8:52 pm

JBH, You may want to reread “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” The book most certainly does assert that husbands have authority over their wives and it defines authority as being “the right, power, and responsibility to direct others.” The book tells men they make the decisions in the family, and the book tells women they are to submit to those decisions. It sounds like you are trying to rename “authority” as “headship” or “leadership,” and you are trying to make it sound like “leadership” as defined by CBMW is better than “authority.” They’re the same thing. It is still hierarchy.

Comment by JBH

April 14, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

Perhaps you just haven’t heard the complementarian view laid out in such a fashion. I would not say my views are anything new. One complementarian whom I think would agree with my definition of headship is John Piper. Note this passage from a sermon he gave back in 1989:

Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It’s a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership. And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That’s not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.

In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.

Comment by Liz

April 15, 2008 @ 12:55 am

JBH..You will notice that one of your comments has disappeared from this site.
Don’t know how this happened, but I have the technical expert trying to get it back on for us so please bear with us as we sort it out

In that particular comment and in the next one where you describe the ideal complementarian marriage relationship, I would have a serious question about people suggesting that God ordained women to always need a male to care for/supervise/shelter/oversee them. However you word it, it still means that there is something intrinsically weaker about women that God had to put them in submission to a man.

If a woman remains single all her adult life, then she would be in a better position (by your description) to be in direct communion with God and obey him in whatever God has planned for her life. What then would be the advantage in a married relationship?

Comment by jlp

April 15, 2008 @ 5:41 am

JBH,

Liz states you as saying:

In that particular comment and in the next one where you describe the ideal complementarian marriage relationship, I would have a serious question about people suggesting that God ordained women to always need a male to care for/supervise/shelter/oversee them

You do realize that type of belief makes me, as a single Christian woman, glad that I am single don’t you? If what you say is the case, it’s better for women to remain single.

Comment by jlp

April 15, 2008 @ 5:44 am

Everytime a complimentarian makes a case for their belief structure in marriage, it just reinforces my belief that if they are right – is better for a Christian woman never to marry. Marriage is good for men, but not for women.

Comment by Sue

April 15, 2008 @ 7:22 am

JBH, John Piper defines submission by the wife as being “a disposition to follow a husband’s authority and an inclination to yield to his leadership.” It’s still hierarchy. In fact, John Piper believes so strongly that women should not have authority over men that he believes this applies to society at large. He believes that if a woman offers leadership to a man in any situation, she is compromising his “God-given manhood,” and that includes the workplace. The exception would be if she is doing it in such a way that he does not know he’s being led by a women. For instance, if a woman designs the traffic patterns on city streets, that’s OK because even if a man is obeying those traffic patterns, he doesn’t know he’s obeying a woman when he drives on those streets. However, a woman should not have a direct supervisory role over a man, according to John Piper, because that would compromise his manhood.

JBH, it comes across to me like you are trying to put a pretty face on what you call complementarianism and make it seem like it’s something it’s not. Hierarchy and complementarianism are still the same thing. It is a man assuming control over a woman on the basis that he was born male and she was born female.

Comment by Mary

April 15, 2008 @ 8:47 am

Those who support hierarchy in marriage should admit that they’re arguing from silence. God never commands or even recommends that husbands be leaders of their wives. In fact, the very metaphor they proof-text to make such an assertion — that husbands are heads of their wives — is a metaphor for unity of the one-flesh relationship. To divide that up into leader and follower ignores two facts: A head separated from its body is just as dead as the body would be; and Jesus Christ IS the leader of all of us Christians, the married ones included. Why should a husband WANT to usurp the place of Jesus Christ to his wife, and why should she be deceived into believing Christ has delegated that place to her husband?

Comment by Rob

April 15, 2008 @ 11:15 am

JBH..You will notice that one of your comments has disappeared from this site.
Don’t know how this happened, but I have the technical expert trying to get it back on for us so please bear with us as we sort it out

Sorry about this folks. I’m one of those “technical expert”, getting to the bottom of it. It was purely a technical glitch with our spam software.

Comment by LMcC

April 15, 2008 @ 11:38 am

JBH:

One thing I find disturbing about hierarchal attempts to redefine “headship” is that there is absolutely no resemblance between the hierarchal ideal and cold hard reality. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but what Piper says is not how hierarchal marriages work.

>>Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It’s a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership.<>And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That’s not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.<>In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.<<

Actually, the safeguard is in Ephesians 5:21: “Submitting yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ”. Grudem and other hierarchs believe that mutual submission makes about as much sense as mutually killing each other, so this true safeguard is stripped away. As a result, the emphasis on husbands loving wives is left unenforced or redefined into something purely sexual, while wifely submission is enforced with a heavy hand. When I was growing up, I was convinced that Christian men would have gladly stripped away all the verses about husbands loving their wives and would have duplicated all the submission verses to take their place.

Forget that. I’ll keep my mutual love and mutual submission marriage. The unity we have beats anything that could come out of a power structure relationship. I’m grateful that God led me out of the hierarchy trap before the wedding day.

Comment by LMcC

April 15, 2008 @ 11:39 am

Hey, where did part of my post go?

Comment by candytoosweet

April 15, 2008 @ 11:42 am

re: God ordained women to always need a male to care for/supervise/shelter/oversee them

This makes marriage a very unattractive option for women.

Comment by LMcC

April 15, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

Candytoosweet: *high fives*

I do find the idea that a woman always needs male supervision/protection/oversight to be complete foolishness. Did God create us to be permanent children in every part of our lives (but still OK to sleep with)? Are we utterly incapable of developing our intellect, of using discernment, of learning life skills? Are we God-ordained idiots, only good for sex and childbearing? If so, why would a man want a woman in his life when he could instead have male companionship? If not, why should we put up with this kind of nonsense?

When my husband and I married, I was the one with greater life skills experience. I’m the one who bought a home. I’m the one with better financial, technical, and home skills. I’m the one who learns anything more easily and seeks out opportunities more readily. Yet I’m the one who allegedly needs supervision?

If anything, I’m the one watching and trying to guide him as he learns new things. Unlike the hierarchs who believe women must be under eternal supervision, I guide my husband in some areas with the express purpose of getting him up to speed with me and not having to supervise him anymore. What good would it do me or him to keep him permanently less capable in important areas, especially if I pass away before him? Absolutely none.

Of course, my big question to hierarchs is that if women need protection, from whom must they be protected? As someone who grew up in a denomination in which men abused their power over women and children with no way for the victims to stop them, I’m no longer believe the idea of selling out my spiritual liberty for a promise of temporal security is such a good idea.

Comment by fjs

April 15, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

JHB, define what you mean by the word leader.

Comment by JBH

April 15, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

Liz and/or JLP,
Could you clarify what you mean by “marriage is good for men, but not for women” ?

Liz,
I would also seriously question anyone who claimed that “God ordained women to always need a male to care for/supervise/shelter/oversee them” I believe that God calls some – both men and women – to singleness and others to marriage. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that women cannot be single, or that single women need to have a male authority over them. If anything, 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 gives the opposite impression.
This does not mean, however, that there is therefore no situation at all where God has ordained male headship.

Mary,
Headship does not mean that the husband takes the place of Christ, but that his leadership models that of Christ. Just as the fact that Christ is the head of the Church does not mean that pastors and elders usurp the authority of Christ in leading their congregations, so also the fact that Christ is the head of all Christians individually does not mean that a husband usurps Christ’s authority in leading his wife.
Also, God does command that husbands lead their wives. You can try to dismiss Ephesians 5:23 by claiming that we are reading more into the metaphor than it says, but there are still two problems.
First, you claim that “A head separated from its body is just as dead as the body would be.” But Ephesians 5:23 doesn’t just say that the husband is the head of the wife, but that Christ is the head of the Church. Does this mean that if the Church was somehow separated from Christ (an impossibility I know, as seen in Romans 8:35-39, but let’s consider this hypothetically), that Christ would be somehow dead? This is obviously not the case. If this objection does not hold up for one half of the metaphor, how can one claim that it is still valid for the other half?
Secondly, how does one deal with 1 Peter 3:1-7 or Colossians 3:18? These two passages give the same commands as Ephesians 5, but do so directly, without the head-body analogy. In fact, they seem unmistakably straightforward.
If you are able to convince me that none of these passages (or any other passages that discuss headship and submission) are commands, I will admit that the complementarian position is an argument from silence.

Comment by fjs

April 15, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

I have read the book Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and do not feel that the whole sense of the book promotes equality between men and women. If women are for all time to be submissive to their husbands and to affirm their husbands role as leader, and if women are not to pastor, teach or lead in the church, then one must beg the question, why? the answer provided in the book is that women were designed to support and affirm male leadership. If she is designed only to support and affirm male leadership, work with children and other women, then she is by virtue of that design somehow inferior because she is deemed incapable of leading.

I do not believe that a woman’s design requires that she support and affirm male leadership and that by her design she is unfit for leadership in the church. Her design only means she will lead as who she is just like a male will lead as who he is.

Comment by Mary

April 15, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

So, JBH, are you claiming that head + body is NOT a metaphor of inseparable unity? Are you making the very common mistake of thinking that kephale means “leader”? Are you also making the too-common error of thinking that husbands are to be all to their wives that Christ is to the church, simply because Paul’s metaphor for the unity of marriage compares the love a human husband is commanded to give his human wife should be of the same kind as the divine Christ gives to his human bride?

It appears to me that you’ve done all these things. You’re saying nothing new; it’s all the same warmed-over misinterpretations that simply assume that a husband is to be his wife’s leader because that’s the way the world does things and the church has unthinkingly followed suit and proof-texted the practice. But nothing, nowhere, in Scripture shows us any such thing. Until a human husband becomes divine (which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon), he is simply told to recognize that he, like a head, is inseparable from his wife, like a body. THAT inseparable two-in-one is likened to the inseparability of Christ and his body on earth, the church. IF the body sunders itself from the Lord, it kills itself and the body is no longer in operation. This side of the veil, Christ is no longer apparent when that happens. (Dead churches do abound; they’re so frantic over who has the power and who gets to lead whom and who is prohibited from obeying God, that they show nothing of Christ to the sinful world around them…and the world looks on with scorn at the self-interest and power struggles. They expect to see something different from the world’s M.O., but it’s like looking into a mirror.)

Read “husband is leader of the wife” into the Scriptures all you like, L., but though “love” and “lead” are both four-letter words beginning with “L,” they are hardly synonyms. And remember: ALL Christians are called to submit to one another, and all Christians are called to love one another. Husbands aren’t exempt from the former, and wives aren’t exempt from the latter. And neither husbands nor wives are commanded to lead one another. Serve, yes; lead, no. That’s the world’s self-interest trying to creep into the body and sunder it. That’s what the patriarchalists preach. It’s extrabiblical and it’s wrong as can be.

I don’t especially care if you are convinced that calling a husband his wife’s leader is wrong or not, L. You’ve shown not one shred of evidence that husbands are ever scripturally commanded to lead their wives, which isn’t surprising; there’s no such commandment IN Scripture.

By the way: You asked how to deal with the other supposed “commandment” passages into which you prefer to read husbandly leadership. Dealing with them in context is a great way to start. And dropping the presupposition of “husband as leader” is necessary if one is to avoid eisegesis of such passages.

Comment by jlp

April 16, 2008 @ 7:19 am

Men get to supervise and oversee women? That means men dominate the relationship. That’s good for men, but bad for women. Only the dominating partner benefits from such as you describe.

In addition, the relationship you describe as being ordained by God is a description of the parent child relationship, not an adult to adult relationship.

If I was turned off to complimentarianism before, I am even more turned off to it after your description of it.

Comment by jlp

April 16, 2008 @ 7:41 am

JBH,

When you say men need to supervise and oversee women, you are getting the parent child relationship mixed up with the adult to adult relationship. Women don’t want to be treated as children. They want to be treated as adults, and being supervised and overseen by their husbands is not being treated like an adult. In addition, it gives all control over to the husband. Wives don’t like being controlled by their husbands anymore than husbands like being controlled by their wives.

Not only that, but saying that husbands should oversee and supervise their wives implies (and you may not realize this) that women aren’t competent enough to run their own lives. It implies that men are brighter than women. I know you probably didn’t mean that, but that’s what it implies.

Besides, if a husband is to oversee and supervise his wife why would she want intimate relations with him. Most women do not want to “sleep with the boss.”

Comment by Watcher

April 16, 2008 @ 8:07 am

Back to the FLDS for a second. This group uses its religion to give men tyrannical authority over women (and children) in marriage. It gives no woman the right to serve God directly, insisting that her only purpose is to produce children for the man. And she can ride into heaven on his shirt-tail having no way to get there without him.

I guess I can think of two Christian groups in history that helped women escape the tyranny of men in the culturally accepted ideal of the Christian marriage.
One was the Catholic convent where women went to serve God rather than men.
The other was the Shaker movement which went with abstaining from marriage and everything that went with it. The focus was to serve God rather than men.
Sadly, both of these turned away from marriage all together rather than to deal with the problems within it. But can we blame them? The idea of male tyranny had such a stronghold on our culture, what else was there to do?

I know the present day egalitarian movement wants to address the issue of male tyranny, among other things, and wants to point to a marriage that is a blessing for both men and women.

Most Christains hold that marriage should be a blessing for both men and women. But the reality of hierarchy both historically and presently really can throw a wrench in it.

I was wondering two things.

Could those of you supporting complimentarianism please explain how you believe your position blesses and empowers women in marriage and ministry? And I’d appreciate examples and support with this, if you would.

Those with a better understanding of history than what I have… Do you know of other Christian movements or groups that supported either women escaping marriage all together or built up the woman’s position in marriage to a more equal place?
Quakers come to mind for me first. What comes to your mind.

The reason I ask the second question is that I used to wonder what woman would want to be part of a convent (Or be a part of the Shaker religion) when she could be happily married. Then, of course, I lived a little and now I understand that many marriages were not happy for women and these movements were reactions to that. And I’d like to be aware of more of them.

Thanks

Comment by jlp

April 16, 2008 @ 8:11 am

JBH,

Husbands are not called to “lead” their wives as Christ leads the church, but to love their wives as Christ loves the church:

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Comment by fjs

April 16, 2008 @ 8:22 am

Recoverning Biblical Manhood and Womanhood contains some research that speaks about the differences between men and women but then interprets it to mean that women need to be under the leadership of her husband. That interpretation assumes that women are not designed to lead and are therefore inferior.

Most leadership books I read speak of things that leaders do, like cast vision, chart a course, maintain a non-anxious presence etc. Women can do that as well as men. Some men should lead in organizations and some women should lead in organizations if they have the maturity, skill, experience and character. Those are aspects that are important and not gender specific.

For the record, I know certain men who are lousy leaders. leadership ability is not intrinsic to being a man. It requires wisdom, maturity, emotional health and character. Such attributes are available to both men and women followers of Jesus in the Bible. As I read scripture, both men and women disciples are to cultivate such qualities.

Comment by LMcC

April 16, 2008 @ 10:07 am

Mary: Who is this “L” you mentioned in post 84375?

Unless there’s a deleted post I missed, every person who has posted with a handle beginning with “L” is an egalitarian except for maybe one, and that person hasn’t said so one way or the other. I’m confused.

Comment by CandytooSweet

April 16, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

How did “husbands love your wives” get turned into “husbands lead your wives”?

How I am supposed to trust what someone says when they change scripture around like that?

Comment by JBH

April 16, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

Mary,
I would encourage you to read “An Open Letter to Egalitarians” by Wayne Grudem. It deals with many of what you call “misinterpretations,” such as the idea that kephale has connotations of authority.
And no, I am not claiming that the head/body metaphor is not one of inseparable unity. But I realize that just because it has this one meaning, that doesn’t mean that it has nothing to say about headship and submission.

Comment by JBH

April 16, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

Also Mary, I have read the pertinent passages in context, and I have found nothing that inclines me to think that they are not to be taken literally. Perhaps you could show me what I am missing?

Comment by JBH

April 16, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

JLP,

1) Yes, it is true that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say “husbands, lead your wives,” but it does say “wives, submit to your husbands” multiple times.

2) I never said women need to be constantly supervised or overseen, or that husbands have complete control over their wives. you seem to have a habit of distorting my definitions of headship until the husband becomes a domineering overlord and the wife a mindless, will-less doormat.

3)I believe it is possible to lead an adult without treating them like a child. It seems that you are implying that it is impossible to have authority over someone without treating them like a child.

4)Perhaps the reason why Paul says “wives submit to your husbands,” and then says “husbands love your wives” is because he is trying to guard against two common ways that wives and husbands fall into sin with regards to how they relate to their spouse – wives try to subvert or usurp their husband’s authority, and husbands try to control and dominate their wives.

Comment by JBH

April 16, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

LMCC,
It appears I have similar bad news – egalitarian marriages don’t work out how they are described in theory either.
The reason why hierarchal marriages do not work out the way Piper describes them is because
1)Piper is not describing heirarchal marriages, but biblical.
2)We are all fallen human beings and cannot live out any of our relationships perfectly. Just because a husband’s headship will never be perfect does not mean that we should get rid of it, just as the fallenness of our elders and pastors does not mean that we should get rid of all authority in the Church. In clarifying his definition of “mature masculine leadership,” Piper states that “…mature masculine leadership realizes that the call to leadership is a call to repentance and humility and risk taking.” A husband exercising mature biblical headship is very aware of his inadequacy to lead. Like everything else, the point is not that the husband is able to or better suited to lead, but that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that he can lead in a biblical manner. I don’t believe that women are less suited to leadership than men. I believe both are equally incapable.

Comment by Mary

April 16, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

Once again, JBH, you show no biblically sound reason for men to presume to usurp Christ’s place as leader of their wives in the first place. IMO, if a man is taking seriously the biblical command he DOES have — namely, to love his wife as Christ loves the church, something all Christians are supposed to be showing to one another — he’ll find that presuming to the “role” of “leader” isn’t a part of loving her.

And as you say, both husband and wife are ill-suited to lead the other, which is probably why Scripture never tells either of them to do it. Christ is MORE than capable of leading them both, after all, and they’re supposed to both be submitting to Christ and to each other out of reverence for Christ.

Comment by Sue

April 16, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

Hierarchy is defined as “any system of person or things ranked one above another.” It is undeniable that Piper is hierarchical. In fact, he not only is hierarchical when it comes to marriage and the church, he is hierarchical in every situation involving male/female interaction. Piper believes that if a woman has authority over a man in the workplace then she is compromising his God-given manhood. It does not matter what her education level or her experience may be. Piper believes that as long as a male is present, a truly Chistian woman must not accept a promotion over a male in deference to his manhood.

I’m hearing a lot of double talk here. You say that both genders are equally incapable to lead, but I am not hearing Piper or complementarians saying that both genders are equally incapable to lead. I hear them saying that men are designed to lead and women are designed to support and affirm that leadership.

And by the way, JBH, there are countless egalitarian marriages, such as mine, that do in fact work out how they are described in theory. If you and your wife are happy with your complementarian marriage, that’s up to you. But there is no reason to impose a hierarchical structure on an adult relationship that is functioning in mutuality. To be honest, a complementarian marriage as described by you and Piper seems very regressive. It has the same effect as you saying to give up cordless phones because it’s more spiritual to use a phone with a cord. If the cordless phone is working so much better, then why go back to using a phone with a cord? If an egalitarian marriage is working so much better for us, then why go back to hierarchy?

Comment by LMcC

April 16, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

JBH:

I’m afraid the only thing I can agree with you on is three sentences: “A husband exercising mature biblical headship is very aware of his inadequacy to lead” and “I don’t believe that women are less suited to leadership than men. I believe both are equally incapable.”

Something hierarchs do not understand is that we do believe in headship, but we use the Scriptural definition of self-sacrifice and Christ-like love instead of the extrabiblical definition of control and rulership. The Bible never says “husbands, rule your wives with an iron fist, for they are troublemakers who will otherwise lead you into sin”. Neither does it say, “husbands, lead your wives gently, for they are less intelligent than you and need a loving leader.” If you want verses that tell men how to rule their wives, I have a Quran that I’m not using. The Bible much more clearly states “husbands, love your wives”, yet churches would much rather spend their time on the extrabiblical “husbands lead”.

A man who is truly seeking God’s will for his relationships has to realize that he is not allowed to act like Ephesians 5:21 is not part of the Bible. Mutual submission works, and it is the truly Biblical way to live. After all, there is no room for the mutuality needed in the marital bed for truly good relations as described in 1 Corinthians 7 if there is no place for mutual submission.

I’ve come to realize that the hierarchs’ favorite accusations against believers in Biblical equality is seriously misdirected. It is not egalitarians who have a problem with submission. We believe in it and practice it far more than hierarchs do because we all are doing it. Belief in submission did not go away for me when I went from traditionalist to egalitarian, contrary to what hierarchs believe. If anything, it’s stronger now. It is hierarchs who have the problem with submission. After all, when only half the church is paying any attention to Ephesians 5:21 and all the other “one another” verses, and the other half is actually exempting themselves from submission, that’s a problem.

Comment by LMcC

April 16, 2008 @ 8:50 pm

Bwah?

>>1) Yes, it is true that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say “husbands, lead your wives,” but it does say “wives, submit to your husbands” multiple times.

So it’s OK for you to point that out and act like we don’t believe it when we have said we do practice submission, but when we point out that the command is part of a passage dealing with the mutual submission of all believers, that’s OK to ignore? As I said, we don’t have a problem with submission around here, since we believe we _all_ are supposed to do it. It’s hierarchal men who have specifically exempted themselves from submission, not us. Oh, BTW, the bible also says “husbands, love your wives”. If you’ll point what you see as our part for us, we’ll do the same for you. Love your wife sacrificially, like Christ loved the church.

Truth be told, I don’t know why submission is seen as such a threat to manhood like Grudem and Piper make it out to be. It’s not like husbands practicing mutual submission is going to cause chest hair to fall out. (Trust me, it doesn’t.) If anything, it takes an incredible amount of courage for a man to practise mutual submission instead of taking the reins for himself. That kind of Godly courage is so rare, but so precious. (A husband with that courage is also crazy hot, but that’s for another post.)

>> 2) I never said women need to be constantly supervised or overseen, or that husbands have complete control over their wives. you seem to have a habit of distorting my definitions of headship until the husband becomes a domineering overlord and the wife a mindless, will-less doormat.

No, maybe you haven’t said it openly; but what you do not understand is that many people here are ex-traditionalists. We know what hierarchal ideals turn into. We understand all too well that the absolute power given to husbands corrupts absolutely. For all the talk about “loving leadership” and “servant leadership”, we know the loving and servant parts drop off very quickly and just turn into the men running the show just like the rest of the world.

I’ve learned through many years of observation that the more a husband emphasizes wifely submission, the less he loves his wife. The more important wifely submission is to a man, it’s amazing how much his obligation to love her goes right out the window. I’ve seen it too many times to count.

>> 3)I believe it is possible to lead an adult without treating them like a child. It seems that you are implying that it is impossible to have authority over someone without treating them like a child.

Of course it is possible, if you recognize that leadership has limits. My pastor, for example, cannot tell me how to knit a scarf. He has authority in church, but not my hobbies. (In fact, he’d probably ask me to teach him a little if his children get interested in it.) I know more than he does in that area. He knows more about church and children, so he would be an authority in those areas; but the tables could turn if the issue is something I can do better and he wants to learn.

Hierarchal male leadership of women has no such boundaries. It is all-encompassing, it is permanent, it is allegedly God-ordained, and there is no room for the tables to turn in a good way. The woman is in a permanent state of God-ordained lesser status, never free to mature and develop past her husband or even to his level. She must always stay in this extended childhood/adolescence in relation to him. I don’t know about you, but I’d have real trouble relating to someone who is permanently above or below me, especially intimately. (That whole taboo in this culture about subordinates not sleeping with the boss would be a major stumbling block.)

>> 4)Perhaps the reason why Paul says “wives submit to your husbands,” and then says “husbands love your wives” is because he is trying to guard against two common ways that wives and husbands fall into sin with regards to how they relate to their spouse – wives try to subvert or usurp their husband’s authority, and husbands try to control and dominate their wives.

Oh, yes, women are just naturally out there ready to steal men’s authority and emasculate them. Actually, that myth couldn’t be any more wrong, especially in traditionalist churches. I grew up traditionalist, probably stricter than anything you’d know about (unless you’re IndyBaptist, of course). Women weren’t going around trying to rule over men. Far from it. They were actually sacrificing themselves in order to find a husband. They gave up hobbies they loved, wore their hair and makeup just the way the guy they liked wanted it, and pretty much lost themselves in an effort to please a man. After all, we were taught that our highest calling was to be a wife and mother, so we had to do what it took to please a man enough for marriage. usurping a man’s authority never came into play once.

Thank God I didn’t marry until after discovering true Biblical equality, so my husband and I can have a truly unified and truly loving marriage.

Comment by Liz

April 17, 2008 @ 1:13 am

JBH … some time back I understood you to say that you didn’t believe that single women needed a male over them (servant leader, authority or….)

That being the case, I have a couple of questions.

1. Why would a woman’s relationship with God and her brothers in Christ change just because she married. What is there about marriage that necessitates such a change of behaviour?

2. If the complimentarian position regarding husband and wife is the correct way to behave, why would a mature Christian woman want to be married at all?

Comment by jlp

April 20, 2008 @ 12:51 am

JBH,

If your definition of marriage is correct, why would any woman in her right mind want to get married? Marriage is supposed to exist for both parties equally, not just for one.

Comment by madame

April 21, 2008 @ 8:33 am

JBH,
I agree with you when you say that just because a husband fulfills his headship role less than adequately it should not mean that we get rid of it. God instituted husband headship in marriage. But God didn’t just say “the husband is the head of the wife”. He also said “Christ is the head of the husband”.
What does Christ require a man to do? A lot. For himself? No. Jesus will definitely instruct a husband to love his wife, lay his rights down for her, put her first, serve her and submit to her ( Eph 5.21). I don’t agree with the teaching that a husband has the right to “veto” and impose his wish, simply because it’s nowhere to be found in the Bible. Period.
Husband priest? Hebrews says we are ALL part of the “royal priesthood” talked about in 1. Peter 2.

My dad gives some very good advice to his children before marriage.
He says “go into marriage looking for what you can do for your spouse, not what he/she will do for you”.
And “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness”.
(he’s very complementarian, but 32 years of marriage have made him a very giving person, especially to his wife).

I believe there’s a reason why Paul and Peter never gave exhaustive lists of what each spouse should do. I think their instructions should lead us to seek guidance from the Holy Spirit to fulfill our role in marriage (no matter what model you subscribe to).
I don’t believe that simply switching models (C to E or vice-versa) will change a marriage significantly for the better. If selfishness, and a bad or non-existent relationship with God is still there, the problems will arise again.

Comment by madame

April 21, 2008 @ 9:38 am

JBH, you stated

“In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (Raymond Ortlund, Jr. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)

First, this definition says nothing about authority. In the vast majority of male-female interactions, neither party has (or should have) authority over the other party. Even though he has no special authority, the man still has a responsibility to look out for the spiritual well-being of the relationship. Only in the institutions of the family and the Church does authority come into the picture (note that Ephesians 5:21 says each wife should be subject to her own husband).

First, you state there should not be authority from one part over another, but the man has the responsibility to look out for the spiritual well-being of the relationship. What type of relationship are you talking about?

Then you say that
In the institution of the family and the church, authority does come into the picture.
Do you mean marriage and the church?

Do you mean to say that all men have responsibility for the spiritual well-being of their relationships to all women? And further, that they are responsible for the spiritual well-being and have authority in church and in marriage?

I’m a bit confused….

Comment by Watcher

April 22, 2008 @ 8:31 am

Madame,
Do I perceive correctly that you are a bit like me?
Though I may not be able to swallow everything that comes from the egalitarian camp, hook, line and sinker, I’m so totally not able to accept patriarchy or complimentarianism because of the negative implications of their doctrines for women.
I went to your blog and saw some of your struggles. And they are struggles many women have. What has been presented as gospel portrays that God favors men over women, giving women little to no recourse in the face of injustice within the home and church and binding women’s hands who feel the calling of God on their lives.

I find I am more comfortable with the egalitarians because they seem less judgemental as I struggle with these things. They give me plenty of room to question what has been standard tradition for so long.
From my experience (which is not exhaustive by any means) Complementarians and Patriarchists are very uncomfortable with these questions and seem to want to shut them down rather than trusting that a person with honest questions will accept honest answers. They are uncomfortable with exploring and looking deeper and challenging the status quo.

But I find that God is not uncomfortable with these things. He say, “come let us reason together. Though your sins are like scarlet, I will make them whiter than snow.” He also says to the wicked, “You did all these things and I kept silent. Therefore you thought that I was like you.” (Psalm 50:21)
God wants us to ask the hard questions and not assume anything. It’s not wrong. When things aren’t working doing it the traditional way, seek God.

If I have totally misread you, I’m sorry. I’m just going with what I thought I picked up from your posts above and your blog.

Comment by Liz

April 22, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

Good thoughts Watcher and it’s interesting that your comments tie in with the newsest post which is about reasoning.

Comment by madame

April 24, 2008 @ 3:41 am

Watcher,

I think you are right. I read a few more posts you’ve made (some other post about headship), and it sounds like we are facing similar “struggles” with the traditional interpretation of scriptures on marriage.

Interestingly, my husband (who believes he is the leader/ruler/priest of the home), has taken us to a church with a woman pastor. Very interestingly, because that, to me, is a huge contradiction.

I’m with you in your comments about Complementarianism and their unwillingness to reassess their position.
But God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4.6, 1 Peter 5.5). We must remember that.

Thanks for having a look at my blog. As you can see, I’m a bit confused, because, essentially, the complementarian teaching for women is good, but the teaching for men is based on assumptions.
You are right. It’s hard to shake a tradition. I think there’s a lot of fear involved in Complementarian adherence to extrabiblical doctrine.

I am afraid of digging in deep and finding that Egalitarianism is closer to what God intended with the verses of Ephesians 5, because my knowledge is not going to change my situation. All my knowledge won’t free me from God’s command for me to submit to my husband, in everything. It’s just there. I can’t erase it, much as I would like to.

Comment by Liz

April 24, 2008 @ 9:43 am

Madame…please do not be afraid. Those words are in the bible 366 times (one for every day of the leap year) and if you decided that egalitarianism was close to God’s intention then it would be God’s responsibility to work out your home situation.

As was suggested in another comment…what if those words re wive’s submission was just for a time and place in history and not God’s word for those of us who are redeemed and living in this culture and time. There is so much in the bible which is situational and I firmly believe that many of those verses were related to the immediate situation.

There are countless verses about how we should behave to one another which are timeless and not related to an era and these would always apply to yhour situation at home as it does to all of us. Being submissive to one another and esteeming others better than ourselves is a good place to begin.

I also looked at you blog and wanted to make several comments but didn’t have time. Would love to have a cup of tea and just listen to you and maybe encourage you in some things. I’ll have another look at your blog in the next couple of days.

Comment by madame

April 24, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

Thanks, Liz.
You are welcome any time and I like tea!

Somehow, I think submission makes sense. It fits in with the way Jesus lived.
I also believe that Ephesians 5. can be taken literally. I only really see a problem when we start adding extra meanings to “head” and “submission”, otherwise, it’s a good set of instructions on how to be Christlike in marriage.

Comment by Watcher

April 24, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

Thanks Liz.

Madame, If I could direct your attention to one thing that has helped me, it would be this. It’s something I stumbled on my own from observation.

There has been a huge emphasis on Ephesians 5 and like verses. It is asserted that they contain everything there is to know about marriage to the exclusion of all other verses. Any verses on relationships that don’t specifically speak about marriage including the words of Jesus Christ Himself are completely ignored.

People have placed the words of Peter and Paul as the foundation and chief cornerstone of marriage when really only the words of Jesus belong there. And by doing this, they have created a house with a faulty foundation.

Of course the words I believe that really belong as the foundation to all relationships are “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself,” and “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” and “If you would be great in God’s kingdom, learn to be servant of all.”

It seems to me that Patriarchs and Complementarianist let Ephesians 5, the words of Paul, completely cancel out the words of Jesus.

The Lord abhors a false balance and false weights and measures. And I feel that Ephesians 5 et al have been falsely used against women.

Do I want to ignore Ephesians 5?

No.

But I refuse to look at it alone without balancing it against other words in the Bible.

Jesus came to set the captives free, all of them. He didn’t come to set men 100% free and women 59% free.
When submission is taught in a way that oppresses, I become very suspicious.

One thing I appreciate about Egalitarians is that they put first things first. They recognize the words of Jesus, the ones I mentioned above, as being the heart of God. Anything else said needs to line up with what Jesus says. Where there seems to be contradiction, I’m sure Paul would want us to study it deeper as well as pursue the words of Jesus over his own.

Comment by Watcher

April 24, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

Oh,
Madame my response 85286 is to you 85252.

Now as far as your comment 85272 I would say this. I don’t mind headship teaching if it is clearly shown how God does His thing and men are encouraged to copy God.

The places I suggest to see how God treats His bride and her proper responses are Ezekiel 16:1-14, Hosea 2:14-23, and Proverbs 31:14-23 (Most people don’t look at the Proverbs 31 woman as an allegory of Jesus and the church. But I can’t help but see a few definate parallels).
Also, after Ephesians 5 comes Ephesians 6 – the armor of God that Jesus gives His bride to strengthen and empower her.

I don’t mind headship teaching if it is taught to promote and empower women to serve along side their men. But if headship teaching is used to make women weak and needy and remain in a permanent position of inferiority, I, again, suspect it.

Jesus told us to not choose the best seats in the house but rather take lower seats and let others promote us. The problem with much submission teaching is that when women take voluntary lower positions, many men are content to keep them there rather than promote them. Jesus teaches us that that whoever is faithful with a little bit will be given more. Many men in the “submission of women doctrine” camp refuse to copy Jesus in their dealings with women. Therefore, they are not exercising headship the way Jesus does.

I’ve dumped a bunch of my opinions on you tonight and hope I haven’t overwhelmed you. So I guess I must close with my bottom line. I seek God to know His love for me so that I can be filled with His love to the degree that His love spills out onto others. I must search the scriptures to understand God’s heart and God’s will for me. I do not want to overstep my bounds. But what a horrible thing to limit myself based on the traditions of men rather than the teachings of God. Therefore it is best for me to bring these questions to the table to be examined so that I don’t miss God’s best for my life on this earth. We have such a short time.

And I thank God for His patience and graciousness with me as I search these things out. Again, my questions don’t make Him nervous or impatient. As long as I’m respectful, He welcomes them.

Comment by jlp

April 24, 2008 @ 10:08 pm

I don’t think submission refers to obedience. I feel Paul uses it in the sense of putting another’s interests above one’s own, at least in Ephesians.

Comment by jlp

April 25, 2008 @ 12:28 am

Another reason why I believe Paul was using “submit” in the sense of putting another’s own interest above one’s own is because of the way he sums up what he says in Esphesians 5:

33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

In the summary he tells husbands to love their wives, and wives to respect (not obey) their husbands.

Comment by madame

April 25, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

Watcher, responding to your last two posts,
I agree with you.

While I think the passage of Eph. 5 where Paul addresses spouses is a good guideline, I’d never go and call it “God’s blueprint for marriage”. As you said, there is a lot more. But if each spouse would read what is said to them, wouldn’t read more into it than what is said there, and read it within the context of the whole letter, then it’s a fine set of instructions.

But I agree with you, it is dangerous to base a whole doctrine on one or two verses pulled out of context. I hate that, to be honest.

Definitely, Jesus is who we should be looking at when it comes to how we should live.

I read the passages. Thanks!

Comment by Watcher

April 25, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

I’m right there with you JLP concerning obedience.

I was astounded when someone posted the vows put out by whatever group that was that included wives vowing to obey their husbands. And this is what I mean by off balance teaching. These people have gone off the deep end. And this is why I CANNOT embrace this complementary doctrine.

Whatever conclusions I come to concerning submission and headship as I study it, I can never agree to women vowing to obey their husbands. Then they would have two masters, God and their husbands. When their husbands gave the order to do something against God’s law, the woman would have to break either her vow to her husband or disobey God. Very, very bad position to be in.

No man would want to be put in that position. Therefore no man should feel entitled to pressure a woman into that position.

Comment by jlp

April 26, 2008 @ 6:50 am

Watcher,

We think alike. Historically humans have constantly put others into a position where the others have to obey them. You can’t pick up a history book without finding that sort of behavior repeated over and over again. And when it comes to women, almost all societies have expected women to obey men, and live to their lives for men. This is where Paul is so different. He doesn’t expect wives to obey their husbands, rather he uses the word submit, and uses it in a manner that doesn’t imply obedience but rather respect. Paul is definitely revolutionary in his views towards women.

Comment by fjs, Faith

April 26, 2008 @ 9:25 am

I think submitting to one another has much to do with doing the hard work of relationship. Listening involves a self-directed act of submission to stop speaking, be present to the other person and listen carefully to hear their perspective. Pursuing goals and dreams involves submission to one another as we seek to meet one another’s needs, respect their dreams and desires. Raising children is an act of submission by parents to one another and to their children as they seek to do the challenging task of parenting, meeting needs, caring for one another and seeking one another’s best.

Any genuinely healthy relationship involves give and take between two people who seek to live in one household as one flesh. submitting to one another involves many aspects of living together in community. What Paul asks of his well-loved children in community is equally important in the marriage between two well-loved children of God.

I would argue as does the original post that mutual submission is the more healthy and other-oriented interpretation and has the most potential for human beings to flourish and develop into mature people.