The CBE Scroll

Comment by David

September 7, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

The reported article seems to start bad, and probably gets worse. Where in the Bible do we find that husbands have authority in the judicial sense that I think is implied? It is simply crazy!! If a marriage doesn’t start and end with love, then it is hardly a marriage. The husbands first ‘job’ is to love his wife and sacrifice himself for her. So, sacrifice his interests and hobbies, his sports spectating or participating, his work obsession, his beer drinking, his seclusion with his computer, his pals after work in the bar…our job is to leave all these if they get in the way of our wives’ happiness. Yes a sacrifice; but that’s the call!
The notion of authority against this background is rank obscenity and has nothing to do with marriage: a joining of equals into one flesh.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 9, 2008 @ 6:45 am

I believe the author of this statement is not taking into consideration that in Ephesians 5 husbands are asked to love their wives as Christ loves the church. How does Christ love the church? Look at 1 Cor. 11 to find out.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 9, 2008 @ 6:52 am

I made a mistake in my previous post. I said 1 cor. 11, I meant 1 cor. 13. Here’s the quote:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Since Paul is the author of both Corinthians and Esphesians, this is what I believe he meant when he tells husbands to love and to sacrifice for their wives in Ephesians 5. As you can see in 1 cor 13, there is no mention of abusing anyone in the case they don’t submit to you.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 9, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

I’ve long enjoyed the movie “The Quiet Man” with John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara. However, there is a disturbing scene in which a village woman hands the John Wayne character a branch from a tree and says, “A stick to beat the lovely lady.”

We’re barely past the era of wife beating as a social norm. It is still a social norm in many places. As Christians, we should be avoiding this. We should also be avoiding husband beating, which happens and is less talked about.

It saddens me when Christians talk about enforcing someone’s authority, whether husband, cleric, or whomever. Our authority is given and maintained by God, not us.

Nonetheless, a partner, either partner, changing from complementarian to egalitarian without the other person so changing will cause stresses in a marriage. We egalitarians have to love our spouses and understand where they are coming from. Does that mean to just submit and go on? I think that means that the individual situation must be considered. There’s no general rule to apply to all relationships. But I think either extreme, total submission or violent response, is not really acceptable. Both deny God’s leadership in our lifes; total submission by saying the husband has more rights that God and violence by saying God has called me to commit violence against a fellow believer.

Comment by Jon Trott

September 10, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

Oh, us poor men. We are so helpless, so weak and wimpy and puny, that if our strong and lovely wives don’t unilaterally submit to us we are bound to sin. We’ll beat them or we’ll sulk in a corner.

What the heck happened to the Holy Spirit in this equation? This picture of Christian manhood is the most weak-kneed, whiney excuse for male humanity I’ve seen.

Submission is mutual or it isn’t submission, biblically speaking. Further, one knows when it exists between two people because one only wants to be closer to both of them, as a moth is drawn to their flame of mutual regard, respect, and mutual out-doing of one another in acts of love.

I am so massively disgusted with males blaming females for their own lust, anger, dysfunction, and *sin*! It is a historical reality in the Church that women have taken it on the chin for all the above, and much more.

A quick shout out to my Carol, who embodies a strong, vibrant, and very unpassive woman who often disagrees, challenges, argues with, and (sometimes! Haha) argues down this human being. Good thing, too. She’s a gem and I’m a stronger, more complete man being mutually submitted to her in Christ.

Comment by jlp

September 10, 2008 @ 11:11 pm

I think the men who hold this attitude need to consider this verse of scripture:

Phillipians 2

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

If these men compare themselves to Christ in the marriage, they should take on this attitude of Christ’s towards their wives.

Comment by jlp

September 10, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

Here’s another passage of scripture they should consider:

Matthew 20

27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Again if these men compare themselve to Christ in a marriage, then they need to take on the same as Christ – that of a servant.

Comment by jlp

September 10, 2008 @ 11:53 pm

Dr Fortune writes that this ‘insight’ was prefaced with the opinion that the problem begins with women who ‘rebel’ against their husbands who have been given authority over them by God

If husbands are only expected to love their wives if the wives submit first, what would happen then?

Comment by Liz

September 11, 2008 @ 12:06 am

What would happen is that it would continue in that pattern from then on with the wife taking the initiative to submit and if she didn’t then the love would not necessarily be so forthcoming. Strange thought that the one who is deemed as ‘lesser’ in many ways has to be the ‘greater’ in helping the ‘head’ to remain so.

Comment by faith

September 11, 2008 @ 8:02 am

my spouse and i have been transitioning from the headship complimentarian model to an egalitarian model. we had a lot of misconceptions about both models and it has taken a lot of time and work to learn new patterns. The egalitarian model invites each person in the marriage to speak up and say what they think about a given issue. both my spouse and myself needed to find our voices and express ourselves in healthy ways. We are more honest, hide less, listen better to one another because each of us matters when inconflict.

Comment by LMcC

September 11, 2008 @ 11:57 am

Jon, thank you for speaking up (87333). I’ve been saying basically the same thing for quite some time. It’s not Biblical equality, secular feminism, or any other equality mindset that makes men weak. It’s complementarianism or any other traditional sex role mindset that makes men believe that they must control women or their strength will be gone. It also pits men against women, assumes that the women are just waiting to rebel and sin (therefore making the men automatically more righteous),and takes away any hope that there can be oneness in Christ between a husband and wife — or even unity of men and women within the church in general.

My husband doesn’t need to be told to see me as an enemy, a malevolent force that must be controlled, a masculinity-killer, or anything else that could be considered a threat. I love him. I do what I do thinking of what’s best for him and for our marriage. I enjoy what he brings to the marriage as a man (readers, take that one how you will). He has nothing to fear when I act from a position of strength, for he knows I can make him look really good when I am free to be my best.

Comment by jlp

September 11, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

1st John 4

19 We love because he first loved us.

God does not love us because we first submitted to Him. He loved us before we submitted to Him.

Comment by Don

September 13, 2008 @ 7:26 am

Bruce Ware said this at Denton Bible Church and it raised an uproar.

What he was trying to say I think was that these are 2 possible sinful responses of men (as he sees it), but he sure did not clarify what he saw as the appropriate response of men should be. This goes along with the “Be a man!” statements on CBMW’s website, as in do not do X or Y. But what IS a man to do?

And by suggesting that the wife’s lack of submission was the trigger, this was seen as amounting to a justification for abuse. Again, if Ware did not mean this, he needed to clarify what he DID mean.

I agree that the solution is for spouses to be partners, it is simply asking the wrong question to ask about who is in authority.

Comment by jlp

September 13, 2008 @ 2:22 pm

Marriage is supposed to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church. In what way is it a reflection? In power and authority, or in love? Extremely conservative complementarians would say in power and authority with some love mixed in. But the love part is secondary to the power and authority part. Moderate complementarians and egalitarians would say the love part.

I believe the scriptural witness supports the latter reflection. We see Christ in the Bible dying for us while we yet sinners. We see Him wooing sinners through love and forgiveness. We see Him telling us to forgive others 70 x7 and then some.

I read parts of this sermon and I don’t feel it accurately reflects Paul’s statement that the marriage relationship is a reflection of Christ and the church. When did Christ ever abuse the church, or make justifications doing so?

The danger in teaching that the wife’s lack of submission is the trigger for the husband’s abuse is that this reflects on our image of Christ. It makes Christ look like he will abuse us if we don’t submit. This is not the Christ I know and have experienced.

I was disappointed to read the remarks of some extremely conservative complimentarians praising this sermon.

Comment by Lin

September 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

“What the heck happened to the Holy Spirit in this equation? ”

Jon, You have asked the million dollar question. This teaching is missing from many churches. They are too busy focused on roles, rules and formulas for biblical manhood and womanhood.

If they are filled with the Spirit, this teaching would not be needed. So, perhaps the teaching is focused on the wrong things. Things that lead us away from Christ.

Comment by jlp

September 13, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

Eph. 5:21 says we are to submit to one another. In verse 22 it says wives are to do the same to their husbands. The submission talked about in verse 21 is obviously not submission to each other’s authority, it is submission to each other’s welfare. And in the same manner wives are asked to submit to their husband’s well being, not to their authority.

Comment by LMcC

September 13, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Traditional sex roles, what a great racket. All the power goes to the men, and all the responsibility goes to the women. Hierarchal men can justify being as passive or abusive as they want to be. All they have to do is say their wives aren’t “submissive enough”.

An obvious and appropriate question would be “what’s ‘submissive enough’”? I’ve dealt with my share of bosses and church leaders who wouldn’t be satisfied with less than perfection. There was no room for insubordination, obviously, but there was also no room for unforseen difficulties, illness, emergencies, or other interruptions or distractions.

Another obvious and appropriate question is “what about your own responsibility to act right regardless of the situation?”. Blaming one’s own crummy attitudes and behavior on someone else isn’t exactly a sign of maturity.

Forget that. If I as an adult have to be responsible for my own thoughts and actions, and if I as a decent human being have to acknowledge that none of us can ever be perfect, these traditionalist guys can surely do the same. Oh wait. That would require humility and treating women like human beings, so I’m not going to hold my breath.

Comment by faith

September 15, 2008 @ 6:06 am

i think it all begins with one’s view of God… if one views one’s relationship with God as only about authority and submission, then one views one’s reflection of God about authority and submission and designs systems from church government to marriage and parenting that are mostly about reinforcing authority and submission.

I think the whole view of God and Christ’s mission might need re-examinination in light of His love.

Comment by Frank

September 15, 2008 @ 11:46 am

Thought I would take a break from my job hunting and drop a line or two regarding the current discussion. First,I fully agree with Jon Trott that making women scapegoats for men’s own lust, lack of control, and sin is despicable. Second, I believe so much of the teaching by complementarians, such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, that denies mutual submission, confounds headship with lordship, and grounds the man-woman relationship in a perversion of the inter-relationships of the Persons of the Triune God, only tends to reinforce some men’s inclination to abuse. That means, of course, our continued need to engage in effective spiritual warfare, making the most of the opportunities we’re given to preach and publish the true doctrines of Scripture, and, in the Spirit, to speak and practice the truth ourselves. And though I’m not saying anything new, we all need to remember the issues we face and to advise and encourage one another as to how, together, best deal with them.

Comment by Jon Trott

September 15, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

For me, the flavor of this discussion from the hierarchalists (I refuse to call them complementarians) reminds me far too much of what’s happening on the political Right this year. Everything is couched in us/them. “Roles” must be defined. “Good” is us, “bad” is other. I’m sick of it. Mutual submission is still submission — most of us are light years from submitting fully to God (far too much old Adam/old Eve left in us). But Love, freely exercised between Spirit-filled and directed individuals, is the bottom line of everything Christ came to give us and create within us. It does hurt to submit to my wife when I want something different. It hurts because I’m dying a tiny little death to Self. But it also heals me, makes me more whole, and is an activity directed not out of compulsion (that is, extra-biblical legalism) but rather a desire deeper than the selfish desire! We in mutuality relationships still have to submit, but submit to God and to one another. The fact no strict rules exist in this continuing, ongoing, action of love between us makes it harder but also more powerful. Two become one as they fuse; the sexual imagery is clear. And it is Paul who clearly pictures in the sexual relationship this submission in action — neither “owning” their own bodies but rather gifting their body to the other’s felt need. It is also Paul who reckons that one flesh relationship a mystery mirroring Christ and the Church. Why are we so deaf about this? It is enough to bring on a real rant… I guess I’m proving I live in the Windy City (sigh)….

Comment by Hubert Edgar

September 30, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

Can a wife submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ and still be a egalitarian? Let’s see…

The Church does what God says because God loves the Church and God is always right, being perfect and all-knowing. I’m perfect and all-knowing, right? Oops. If I’m not, then Julie can’t react to me exactly like the Church is supposed to react to God’s leading. Let’s try again. I am going to love Julie the way God loves the Church. Um, God is love. I’m not love. I’m a sinner given to unloving activity. I can’t love Julie the way God loves the Church. It’s an intellectual and emotional impossibility.

“Like” and “as” precede comparisons, not exact relationships. I can’t perfectly mirror God, so I can’t do my part. I honestly hope Julie doesn’t imitate how the Church has submitted to God! I don’t think that’s how God wants her to react to me, either. So, this comparison can’t be about who’s boss because the ways the two relationships are alike are not the owner/slave parts. What we’re left with is the love relationship, flawed though it is by sin. In God/Church, the sinful flaws are all one way. In husband/wife, those flaws go both ways, so both end up being both sides of the relationship: sinning against each other and forgiving each other’s sins against ourselves.

Jon, I have to ask: why not call them complementarians? Do you feel it incorrectly states their teachings, is it because they do/don’t like that term, or are there other reasons?