The CBE Scroll

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2009 @ 1:24 am

In the previous post, someone referred to our race, gender etc. being not something which affects our position before God and not a consideration in what gifts the Holy Spirit gives to Christians.

Not long ago, a sincere Christian said to us that he was convinced that God created different cultures and that people of some cultures are therefore better equipped to lead and be the organisers of others.

Having lived most of his life as a white person in an African country, this belief was a satisfactory way for him to explain why indigenous leaders were not managing their country as well as the colonists had before.

We managed to say that we didn’t agree with this premise, but were so amazed to hear this proposition from a fellow believer. Sounded much like the way people say that God created men to lead and women to follow, therefore ‘blaming’ God for the gap between gender, and in this case, the gap between different ethnic peoples.

Comment by Barbara P

January 19, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

I am fascinated by this whole idea of movement of scripture. Shouldn’t this phenomenon be visible, say beginning in Genesis, and reappearing periodically and chronologically all the way to the epistles? Were there specific examples in the book other than the ones you mentioned?

Comment by joanne

January 20, 2009 @ 9:07 am

Barbara, it is. When God created the earth, he charged the man and the woman with the leadership role as his vice regents. They were to fill the earth and govern it.

Then came the fall. The fall changed everything. After that there were power struggles between human beings. I believe that is where ethnic strife and gender strife began. We each seek to make ourselves god or remake god into our own image instead of reflecting God’s image in the earth.

This broadens out to strife between brothers, then nations. Abraham the father of Isreal was charged to bring the message of God to the other nations. but over time the people kept it for themselves and instead of bringing the message to others, the nation saw themselves as chosen and therefore set apart from the unclean gentile nations around her.

When Jesus came he set a new course… the kingdom had come in him. He then sought to heal the nation and invite the nation to participate with him in bringing the good news to the world. He charged his disciples with the charge to make disciples of all nations planting the kingdom of God in the hearts of every person.

As scripture declares, that kingdom was unlike the kingdoms of this world. In fact the kingdom challenged the rule of caesars and kings. The church began to be seen as a threat to caeasar and was suspected of subversion. Hence persecution. According to one author I read on the social aspect of christianity, the christians were suspected because of their egalitarian community defying the roman social codes that had been given by the gods. This was represented at the table fellowship in which christians ate together… men, women, slaves, etc.

Churches at that time were not powerful institutions but small organic house churches without social power. In these communities, relationships were changed from the inside out. It took years for the church to become strong enough to influence society in eliminating slavery.

My take.

Comment by Liz

January 20, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Hi Barbara

I am hoping that JLP (who wrote this post) will be able to more fully answer your question re this book’s content but in the meantime, what I understand as the
‘movement of scripture’ is that there are themes which begin from creation and follow through until the end. Things like God’s character of love, justice, holiness are portrayed right throughout and more specific topics are also seen to crop up in sequence as well.

One issue is the status of people before God and the fact that God sees all people as equal in his eyes. The bible records different social and cultural events and even the institution of the 10 commandments and the ensuing need for sacrifices. All this was just to show that nothing could really take away our sin and that Jesus came to deal with that so that the whole sacrificial system was not needed. The movement in this instance is God’s overall plan ‘from the foundation of the world’ – we just happen to live in this age where we have the freedom to have a personal relationship with God and know complete forgiveness.

In the book mentioned, William Webb would be covering God’s plan from the beginning for people all being equal and serving each other, I would think, but I’ll let JLP answer the question more fully.

Comment by jlp

January 20, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

Barbara,

Here’s a review from amazon.com,by Mark Axelrod. I’ve copied the review here:

I thought this was a very helpful book. William Webb advocates a redemptive hermeneutic, where you interpret the Bible on not only what it says, but where the general movement of the topic is heading. For example, the Old Testament and the New Testament assume the existence and practice of slavery. But Paul talks to the slave about securing his freedom if he can do so (1 Corinthians 7), and he goes on to say in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ, there is no slave or free. Therefore, the movement in the NT is toward the eventual liberation of slaves. Moreover, the pronouncement on the slave trader in 1 Timothy 1 also provides evidence of a move in this direction.

We see the same thing with regard to the role of women.

But unfortunately, we do not see the same movement for homosexuals. Webb goes on to report that with the exception of Sabbath observance, all sins that lead to the death penalty in the Old Testament are still sins in the New Testament.

Webb also mentions “breakout passages” as a sign of movement toward a higher moral or ethical standard. For example, even though women appear to have had limited roles in the cultures of the Bible, the Bible itself mentions passages where fearless women leaders are highlighted (Huldah, Deborah, Priscilla, Phoebe, Mary, Junias, and others). These breakout passages lend credence to the idea that the role restrictions for women in both scripture and society reflect time bound values rather than timeless values. That is, they reflect the culture rather than the Christ.

I hope this helps you understand the idea of movement in scripture. I felt Marc Axelrod explained it better than I could.

{formatted by the Admin}

Comment by jlp

January 21, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

Thanks to the admin for all the work he did formatting for post 88533!

Comment by Hubert Edgar

January 22, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

I’ll have to look into this book. The whole cultural/transcultural interpretation is a tough one for me. Thanks for the review!

Comment by Frank

January 23, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

This new book by William Webb, whom I incorrectly referred to as Timothy Webb in one of my comments on the previous posting regarding submission, sounds like a real boon to those of us needing tools to explain the true nature and scope of the “redemptive hermenuetic” we egalitarians use in reading, interpreting, and applying the Scriptures to modern social, political and theological issues.

Joanne, your “hermenuetical” analysis of the Scripture’s teaching on Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consumation is truly “on the money”; and is the true framework in which this redemptive system of interpretation, that Webb appears to eloquently and pursuasively unfold in his book, works. And of course at the heart of this hermenuetic is what I have elswhere called the New Creation Theology of the New Testament.

Another book to read that shows this redemptive hermenuetic at work in the OT and as a prophetic type of the New Creation inaugurated by Jesus is The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules by Carolyn C. James. Talk about “breakout passages,” this a “breakout OT story” that reveals God always intended us to be equal partners and allies with him in accomplishing his kingdom purposes, and how that is restored by Jesus in the New Creation.

Comment by jlp

January 24, 2009 @ 7:17 am

Thanks for the book suggestion, Frank.

Comment by Lolly

January 24, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

Hubert said:

[em]I’ll have to look into this book. The whole cultural/transcultural interpretation is a tough one for me. Thanks for the review![/em]

I sympathize. For years I believed this viewpoint, but now I’m beginning to wonder. I mean, the gospel was supposed to be this great liberating, world-transforming force, yet Paul spends a fair amount of time telling women to be silent, stay home, and obey their husbands. That’s hardly earth-shaking. It certainly didn’t affect Paul’s world very much. It merely set the pattern for how the Church would treat women for the next 2,000 years.

And if Paul really meant to affirm women in those difficult passages, if they can really be “explained away,” then why has it taken 2,000 years to do so? Why did Paul bury the “real” meaning of those passages so deep that they’ve remained hidden for all this time? Why did he write in such a way that it appears perfectly logical on the surface that women are supposed to be subordinate? Why didn’t he make it clearer in those passages what he really meant? This whole notion of being able to find the “real” meaning in a passage if you only have the “right knowledge” is starting to sound a little fishy to me.

And speaking of breakthrough passages, if you accept that all the Pauline books were indeed written by Paul, then you have a man who wildly contradicted himself. In some places he affirms women (Junia, Phoebe) and in others he tells women to stay silent and remain under the authority of men. So which is it? You almost get the impression that Paul was afraid of the radical nature of the gospel he was proclaiming. I mean, take Ephesians. He tells all believers to submit to each other and then, (again assuming he wrote it) in the very next breath he singles out women and tells them to remain subordinate to men. Those two verses contradict each other. Paul’s writings are such a hodge-podge of social views that it’s no wonder comps and egalitarians both cherry-pick the verses they want to support their position.

Comment by Larry S

January 24, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

Lolly, thanks for your post – lots of issues – I’ll speak briefly to one you raise.

You wrote …. You almost get the impression that Paul was afraid of the radical nature of the gospel he was proclaiming….. (taken out of a paragraph)

I think Paul was very aware of the volatility of the gospel. Especially considering i) how the gospel deconstructed or reinterpreted Jewish nationalistic/messianic aspirations ii) the very real volatility of merging Gentiles/Jewish people into the New Humanity in Jesus (which was an emphasis of Paul’s). We, separated by time/culture from the 1st Century, tend to miss what a big deal this was.

Speaking to Webb’s book. I have it. It’s a good resource with lots of good cultural material. However, imo his arrangement of the material is unduly complex – 18 different criterion that he sets out as a grid, which for me anyway, got a bit boring.

Comment by leigh

January 24, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

Good questions, Lolly.

One thing I–as an occasional writer–have wondered, is whether Paul realized that his letters to various churches would be included in Christian canon, many years later. One’s audience is one of the most important things to consider when writing. So long as you know who your audience is, that is.

Paul’s actions in working with women and recognizing them as fellow workers in Christ are probably some of the very things that lead some scholars to believe that, rather than letters to all Christians for all time, Paul’s letters were written to specific churches – to address particular problems in those churches.

This isn’t to mean that we cannot learn from these letters now, but to be cautious about what we learn.

Have you heard of Katharine C. Bushnell (1856-1946)? To be fair, I have not yet read this book (though I own it), but she wrote a book called “God’s Word to Women”, which was to address the problem of gender inequality perpetuated by the church–seemingly supported by the Bible. But is it really? I thought you might be interested in knowing about her and this book because it predates the 1970′s (and Bushnell and her views predate the 1900′s).

Comment by Frank

January 24, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

JLP, I certainly hope you do get to read Carolyn James’ exposition of Ruth. It will certainly open a person’s eyes to the reality that this wonderful Old Testament book is more than a “romance story”. It is a story of how God brings the ancestors of Jesus together to form what she calls a Blessed Alliance to accomplish the grand vision for humanity and the earth, which though marred by the Fall, has now been renewed and is the driving vision of the New Creation which Jesus, their descendant, inaugurated and which we, the Body of Christ, as God’s allies, are to further til Jesus returns at the end of the Age. Here’s how Carolyn James herself puts it:

“At creation, God cast his grand vision for planet Earth. It was an ambitious vision that included both a people and a kingdom. The people he envisioned would be like him–male and female in his image and likeness–reflecting his character and ways. His image bearers would speak and act and govern for him on earth. This grand partnership with the men and women he created is foundational to how he means to bring about the kingdom aspect of his vision.
Amazingly, God’s idea of partnership places enormous responsibility on his image bearers and also means he wants us to participate in what he is doing here on earth and intends for us to do so, not as isolated individuals, but together. Mirroring the unity and diversity of the Holy Trinity, men and women who join forces in this divinely Blessed Alliance rely on each other and work together as one body to spread his kingdom on this planet. (The Gospel of Ruth, pp. 128-129)”

And I hope that little quote whets your appetite to read and savor what I think is the best and most important recent commentary on Ruth, which gives deep insights and provocative challenges to what men and women typically understand regarding our equality and partnership in service of Christ and his Kingdom.

Comment by Frank

January 24, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Lolly, we understand where you are coming from; for at sometime, when we have thought about the socio-political implications of Gal. 3:26-4:7 and 2 Cor. 5:11-21, we have wondered if the Gospel was as liberating and transforming as it promised to be. So don’t think you are the only one who has ever thought or felt this way.

As Larry said, you have brought up a number of aspects regarding Paul’s teaching and practice that at first glance seem contradictory. And so he attempted to address one of them, which had to do with conflicts with differing expectations regarding Jewish nationalism and the Messianic kingdom, Jewish/Gentile distinctions based on Torah and Tradition,etc.

And some of them were addressed by Hubert and others in the previous posting on 1 Pet. 3:5-7, which is part of a household code teaching that begins in 1 Pet. 2:11 and ends in 3:12, which is the Petrine equivalent to what Paul teaches in Eph. 5:15-6:9. At first glance, it would seem that what Peter and Paul teach simply maintain the status quo. But when you delve into the historical and cultural context, you realize how both paradoxical and revolutionary their teaching is.

Scripture has to be understood in terms of its own literary, historical and cultural context before the modern interpreter can grasp its true significance and application to the modern world. For we live in a totally different historical and cultural framework than that of Peter, Paul, and their congregations scatterd throughout the Roman Empire of the first century. And if we don’t understand how the teaching of Peter and Paul was understood, the reasons for the different emphases in the different letters because of the respective historical/culural contexts of these letters, we won’t see their real significance for our own time and culture.

After all, the Greco-Roman world of Peter and Paul’s day was a totalitarian patriarchy, with the male patron’s rule of the household being regarded as absolute and sustained by Roman law. And the household was not a place of consumption, but of production. It was not a private refuge, but semi-public. And in this world, the sociological model of the household is that of patronage and male dominance, a communal relationship in which the master of the house benefits his wife, children, and slaves by providing them food, clothing and shelter; they by doing his bidding without question or disobedience. And by law, the master had the power of life and death, not only over his slaves, but also over his wife and children. So when Peter and Paul tell these male patrons to treat their slaves not only justly and fairly, but also as brothers if they are both Christians; to love, nurture, and train their children along with their wives; to love their wives and sacrifice themselves for them; well, this is radical stuff indeed. But they start transforming the Greco-Roman mindset first; the change of the structures will eventually come from a changed mindset. So that is something else the book referenced by Leigh might help you with as well in sorting out this and other issues.

Comment by leigh

January 26, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

After posting what I did, I recalled something that I found to be interesting.

I had not read the whole Bible yet (and to be honest, I am still working on that), but I had to be taught that Genesis teaches complementarianism.

When I read in Genesis about creation and the Fall, I did not see that the creation of man before the creation of woman meant that he was intended to lead her. I did not see that he was instructed, in the midst of a list of effects of the Fall, to rule over woman. And I did not understand, when I read the text myself, that my desire for man was a desire to rule over him. I had to be taught those things.

So I think either view could be seen as taking some…additional knowledge.

Comment by Sarah

January 26, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

Leigh – re: having to be taught complementarian interpretation – I think that’s key. Lolly, I can sympathize w/the temptation to become so frustrated w/the whole enterprise & become suspicious of any effort to harmonize Paul, but perhaps it can help to remember cultural and chronological distance aren’t the only problems. There are also centuries of interpretation and teaching as well. Extra-biblical frameworks were laid over Scripture early on. The resulting interpretations not only affected church doctrine, but broader cultural understanding of the concepts involved – which brought another layer of presuppositions to interpreting Paul. That’s why I believe so much in using context to interpret “problem” verses instead of vise-versa, which is the traditional method. Cultural info helps, but isn’t as vital as textual context. Example: what does the word “head” in all of Ephesians emphasize? Is the church subordinated or empowered? Is the church under Christ’s feet in 1:22-23, or identified with Him?

Comment by Gloria

January 26, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

Hi, first time poster!

I was in the same boat as Leigh. Reading Genesis as a child, I didn’t pick up on any “symbolic” complementarian overtones. Even though my mother is a bit of a complementarian, I was taught the Genesis story as an explanation of why Christ’s sacrifice was needed – not as any kind of model for life.

It wasn’t until I was older that I became aware of the idea that women were supposed to submit to their husbands… and believe me, as a teenager I REALLY struggled hard with those NT passages about submission and silence and whatnot! They didn’t make a lot of sense to me, and, honestly, I found them offensive (even though I was a very devout Christian).

Whether or not Paul realized that his words might be misunderstood, I don’t think he ever meant to create a new “Law” for believers! He spent so much time arguing that gentiles need not follow Jewish law… I don’t think laying down rigid, legalistic regulations was Paul’s intent.

Comment by Sarah

January 26, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

Ephesians continued :-). Is the husband anywhere told to lead or rule his wife? Knowing the cultural context may tell us that husbands had legal and cultural authority (perhaps a political reality to be acknowledged, but one that also makes the overall emphasis on unity, sacrifice, and love all the more revolutionary). In short, divine female subordination has to be imported. I did need information I wasn’t given by my culture and traditional church teaching to question the “obvious” reading of the passage, but once I became aware that the word “head” *might* not have had the same implications in koine greek that it has in english (hardly a controversial assertion), the text itself revealed the likely answer. No esoteric knowledge required.

Comment by Sarah

January 26, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

I think the interpretation I just gave has another advantage. Christ is our Lord and King, but that isn’t the sum of our relationship. Paul goes to great lengths in Ephesians to highlight our unity with and in Christ, our unconditional acceptance, our freedom, our exaltation and authority – *His* authority and exaltation shared with us. We are identified with Him. The use of the word “head” in this context should link it with these ideas. 5:28-30 make the metaphor clear. The understanding that Paul is talking about radical unity and mutual self-giving in Christ is open to anyone who knows what a physical head and body are and pays attention to the ways the metaphor is used throughout the letter. Understanding Paul’s point to be hierarchy in marriage requires at least partially disconnecting the marriage passage from what he emphasizes in the letter as a whole and assuming that “head” means leader, an assumption not shared by all cultures.

Comment by jlp

January 26, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

I have actually learned from this conversation. Thank you everyone for contributing.

Comment by Sonnet

January 27, 2009 @ 12:20 am

Leigh and Lolly – I also “had to be taught that Genesis teaches complementarianism.” The more I listened to complementarians interpret the Bible, the more legalistic and misogynistic it became for me. Soon I found it hard to read Paul’s letters without having to wrestle between thinking could God really be that unjust to women or had Paul been influenced by his culture to put women under legalism while at the same time proclaiming freedom for men? If the second option was the case, then why were his words concerning women allowed to be included in the New Testament? Wouldn’t that mean that they were inspired by God? But then that led me back to wondering how could a loving God be that unjust to women and punish them for what He created them to be? It was a horrible spiritual struggle for me. It felt like God’s pure living water had become too polluted or brackish to safely drink. When I read my Bible, which was becoming more and more infrequent, I would choose to read from the Gospels, Psalms, or Proverbs (where wisdom was given feminine pronouns). Drinking from these sources seemed much safer.

One day I came upon a link to “Gender Equality and the Bible” by Rebecca M. Groothuis on a homeschooling forum. Intrigued, I read her article and my spirit rejoiced in the truth (concerning women) I was finally hearing. Many of the “problem” verses suddenly made sense to me and no longer contradicted other verses in the Bible. The Scriptures began to harmonize so beautifully together. Next, I ended up reading Why Not Women? by Cunningham and Hamilton. My soul was so thirsty for its message that I couldn’t put the book down. As I drank in the words, tears of joy and thanksgiving flowed freely down my face from my once dry and dejected soul. It became clear to me that it had been false interpretations and mistranslations that had polluted Paul’s words and consequently God’s word. No wonder my spirit could not accept them before; they were a poison to my soul. Now I am reading God’s Word to Women by K. Bushnell, and it is another amazing book shedding new light for me on the word of God.

I think that going through that difficult season has ultimately helped His word to become even more refreshing and life giving to me and thus increasing my love for Him. God seems to take special delight in raising up the poor in spirit.

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant… He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.” Luke 1:46-48a, 53 NIV

Comment by Liz

January 28, 2009 @ 4:10 am

Gloria – I had the same experience with all my growing up years. I had no idea about the teaching of headship etc. I didn’t see it in the bible which I knew well from childhood through to marriage at 21. As a single girl in the church I was given lots of liberty and leadership roles so I didn’t notice the underlying prejudice against women.
And then after marriage, and while my husband was training for the ministry,
I was politely (and sometimes not so politely) informed of how things worked in church life once you were married. It took my husband and I by surprise (the whole teaching of roles within marriage and the church) and it was many years before we came across Rebecca Grroothuis’ book “Good News for Women” which answered all our theological questions.

Comment by Liz

January 28, 2009 @ 4:12 am

Lolly…it all depends on what you read first. If the ‘debateable’ passages are taught in a particular way, or you come across them early on in your bible reading, then they do seem hard to understand and discriminatory.

But…if you have an overall understanding of God’s character and the multitude of verses about who we (all) are in Christ, then we realise that some verses must be interpreted in light of the gospel of redemption.

Comment by Anca

January 29, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

JLP said,”The purpose of this exercise is to help the reader understand the difficulty of understanding which biblical verses are cultural and which are trans-cultural. His point is that when we try to assess which parts of Scripture are cultural and which are trans-cultural we need to see whether there is any movement in Scripture.”
So does this mean that a husband is no longer required to love his wife like Christ loved the church and give himself up for her? In Ephesians 5:21 we see the requirement of all Christians to submit to each other. In verses 22-24 we see the wife singled out in regards to special submission. What I mean by singled out is not that the husband isn’t also required to submit to his wife as found in verse 21, but that the wife is given special motives to submit to her husband such as he is her head and only she is instructed to submit in everything. Even though the whole body of Christ is commanded to submit to each other only the wife is commanded to submit in everything as long as it is not in sin. Then in verses 25-32 husbands are commanded to not only love their wives as they love themselves(in an equal way)but also to love them as Christ loved the church and sacrifice themselves for their wives. I notice equal things asked of both partners as well as special things asked of both. So if the special submission of wives is out the window because of the movement of scripture what about the special Christ like love and sacrifice of husbands? Does it stay or go?

Comment by jlp

January 29, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

I don’t quite agree with your understanding of the Ephesians verses, however he is not talking about that.

He is talking the verses that are appear to endorse slavery and the subjugation of women. Read the book and you will see what I mean.

What you said doesn’t have anything to do with what the book is about. Perhaps I should have been clearer. But then I would have had to make the blog longer and I didn’t want to do that.

Comment by jlp

January 29, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

I think one of the problems of writing a book review is that you want to keep it short. But then when you do that people misunderstand what the book is about, as Anca did.

Comment by jlp

January 29, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

Anca,

You may not want to read the book, but if you go to a bookstore that has it, flip through it. Then you will understand what it is really about.

Comment by Trevor

January 29, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

Anca, (comment 88575) my immediate response to your hypothetical question is that this is a great example of the movement of scripture that is being put forward in this post. This is one of those situations (Ephesians 5) where we cannot ignore culture and context. We must take into account the social setting into which Paul is writing and the demands that Paul is placing on the christian husbands of that era. These demands were far and above anything that was to be expected of husbands at that time and would have been seen as a radical departure from the accepted norm. Likewise the wives, in that era, were encouraged not to abuse their new found freedom in Christ but to continue to be submissive to their husband’s leadership as the patriarchal head of the home in that culture. Paul didn’t overthrow the accepted household codes but offered a more Christlike modification for both husbands and wives to consider. Our mistake is that we are more inclined to want to import some things in total from the Ephesians 5 setting while ignoring the reason behind the instruction given at that time. There are Biblical principles to be observed, for sure, in the way that we live out these Pauline encouragements, but we are not living in a culture where women, slaves and children are the property of husbands as heads of households. There has to be a different way of approaching this within our own cultural setting. Egalitarians are suggesting that this whole patriarchal approach to marriage is a cultural anachronism and that God’s intention was never that men should have, or maintain, an ascendant position within the husband wife relationship. For us, this does not mean that we do not encourage the highest form of love from husbands or that we diminish opportunities for wives, where it is warranted, to be exemplary in their submission. The difference lies in the context of a willingness of both parties to be mutually and voluntarily submissive. In this respect we take nothing away from scripture but call believers to a higher and more Christlike way of observing these mandates.

Comment by jlp

January 29, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Thank-you Trevor. That was much better than I could have said it.

Anca – I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before but you can flip through the book on Amazon’s website. That way you don’t have to go to a bookstore. Here’s the link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830815619/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Comment by Anca

January 29, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

JLP, I am not quite sure you understand where I am coming from. After I read your post to me I re-examined the whole blog and my question to see if maybe I missed the point of the topic. But I don’t feel like I did. I think that my question is valid to the topic. I would appreciate a valid explanation from anyone who would like to do so.
In my understanding, William J Webb’s book is talking about the movement of scripture. One of the things in his book is that the subordination of woman to her husband is not for today. My question is does this also apply the other way around to the husband’s sacrifice?

Trevor,
You said,” Our mistake is that we are more inclined to want to import some things in total from the Ephesians 5 setting while ignoring the reason behind the instruction given at that time. Egalitarians are suggesting that this whole patriarchal approach to marriage is a cultural anachronism and that God’s intention was never that men should have, or maintain, an ascendant position within the husband wife relationship. For us, this does not mean that we do not encourage the highest form of love from husbands or that we diminish opportunities for wives, where it is warranted, to be exemplary in their submission. The difference lies in the context of a willingness of both parties to be mutually and voluntarily submissive. In this respect we take nothing away from scripture but call believers to a higher and more Christlike way of observing these mandates.”

My understanding of what you are saying is that Paul was not decreeing how God created marriage to be from the beginning but was accommodating as best he could the cultural norms of his day while at the same time introducing Christlike principles into it. In other words he is not laying down new divine laws but is working with what society has already laid down.

I am neither a complementarian or an egalitarian yet. I was what you would call a miserable hard core complementarian my whole life until a few months ago. I have suffered horrible abuses because of the complementarian teaching and life style. While my head knew all the “right” traditional teaching my heart could not accept it and my relationship with God really suffered. I have desperately been searching for answers for the last for 4yrs. Every time I searched the Web or bought a book on gender and marriage I found myself in more bondage and more pain. No one in my life would talk to me about these issues. When I approached three different pastors to ask questions and debate I was rebuked for being rebellious. To me if something is true then the person proclaiming it should not get angry when challenged but respectfully defend it because truth when challenged will prove itself to be true.
Finally after 4yrs of seeking, five months ago I came across a book and found references to CBE. I have been carefully studying every piece of egalitarian material I can get my hands on and have been following the blog ever since. After the things I have learned so far, I could never be a complementarian again. To me their teaching as a whole has been Biblically dismantled from the core. I would believe in nothing in regards to gender before I embrace complementarian teaching again. I am still in shock over some of the things that they teach as God’s word when they have no real biblical roots at all. I still have many questions and I struggle with them. This is why I have not yet fully embraced egalitarianism. While I find it 100 times closer to the truth I still see a few holes in it that don’t add up when comparing it to my understanding of particular passages. I don’t have anyone to ask or talk to about them so I decided to comment on the blog. I am doing some deep searching for the truth. I hope to find answers to the unresolved questions that are keeping me from fully embracing egalitarianism as a biblical life style.

Trevor, what you responded back to me really gave me a whole new perspective on the issue of Ephesians 5.
I would of never have known to see it that way in a million years. While I still have so many unresolved questions your answer definitely helped me.

Comment by Liz

January 30, 2009 @ 12:52 am

Anca..thank you for sharing some of your experience. It is for people like yourself that this blog exists and I’m so thrilled that you have been helped and encouraged already. It reminds us again that there are always people like yourself who read lots before making any comment and that is why we must be so careful how we say things so we don’t discourage folk from making comment or expressing their opinions.

Thank you for clarifying where you were coming from in your comments. It would have been easy for you to move away and feel misunderstood. May you find this community of fellow searchers for truth a safe place to express your concerns and questions.

Comment by Sonnet

January 30, 2009 @ 1:18 am

Anca – I’ve felt your pain. You said, “Every time I …(read) a book on gender and marriage I found myself in more bondage and more pain.” This described me. I faithfully adhered to the gender roles taught to me by gender hierarchy complementarians (GHC). I allowed my husband to be the leader, the initiator, and the final-decision-making authority. According to the books of the GHC’s, I was an exemplary wife by their standards – including inside the marital bedroom. Also, I “turned the other cheek” and “overlooked the offense” when my husband spoke to me disrespectfully and harshly. I thought that was part of being submissive. He seemed to be pretty happy with our marriage, but I was miserable.

Because I listened to the teachings of the GHC, I became a “slave under the law” to my husband. The GHC taught me how to be co-dependent with my husband. My “submission” did not cause him to soften and become more loving to me over time. It made our situation worse. I had to learn that Matt. 18:15, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you” was the appropriate response I needed to make when my husband emotionally mistreated me. Allowing him to continue to sin against me was not the loving response to help him and our marriage to succeed. Two books that have helped me a lot with my marriage are: “Families Where Grace is in Place” by Jeff VanVonderen and “Boundaries” by Townsend and Cloud.

So what I’ve seen and experienced is that the GHC model of marriage encourages a co-dependent relationship with a wife following after her husband and trying to serve two masters. The egalitarian model of marriage encourages an interdependent relationship where the two become one, walking side by side, combining their complementary strengths, and equally building each other up to serve the Lord.

I think if couples seek to live out the two greatest commandments and to honor one another above ourselves, then both husbands and wives will sacrifice for each other in mutual submission.

Comment by Sonnet

January 30, 2009 @ 1:22 am

These verses were supposed to be at the end of my post 88583:

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:29-31 NIV

“…whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Romans 13:9b,10 NIV

“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.” Romans 12:9-11 NIV

Comment by Anca

January 30, 2009 @ 4:10 am

Thanks Liz:-)

Sonnet- Thank you for sharing. I am comforted by your story and am so glad that you have come out of that situation victorious in Christ. I feel comfortable sharing with you my story if you don’t mind.

I was born in a foreign country and raised according to their customs. When I was nineteen I was engaged to be married to a pastor’s son. Following the christian custom of my nationality we had a church binding wedding ceremony that comes before the main wedding and is not yet legal. Even though it is not legal yet a breakup is looked upon like a divorce and excommunication by the church follows. The man I was engaged to was very kind before we had the ceremony but afterwards I was in for a shock. I was not even allowed to talk to him unless he initiated it first and I could only give answers to his questions. He refused to address me by my name and would only call me woman – even in public. I was put on house arrest and was forced to cook and clean for his entire family of fifteen! No matter how good or submissive I was it was never enough and joint decisions were unheard of. All of this abuse was done to me while he would quote scripture and throw it in my face. Finally after being “sexually assaulted” I decided to confront him in front of both our parents and the pastor. I was told that I must be provoking him and that he would eventually change if I would just submit more. What followed next was an attempt by our families and the pastor to legalize the wedding the next day because of the sexual assault. To make a long story short, I decided to get out of there and leave them to their madness. I left that day and so I lost my family, friends, church, and was rejected by a whole culture. I found myself totally alone in a new state with only my suitcase and 20 bucks. Its been five years since then and the road to healing has been long. Even though my new world consisted of western Christians all I found for over four years of searching (until recently) was the same type of teaching that got me in that mess in the first place. I realize that my situation was a bit extreme but the marriage teaching I received growing up was the same as in the western church. I have seen a lot of abuse even in western marriages and churches because of traditional teaching. I was horrified to find out that most comps. did not even see what he did as really “that” wrong and I have been condemned by some for leaving him. I am so glad God gave me the strength to leave and is now showing me the truth in regards to gender and marriage.
Sonnet- I just realized that the verses you have posted should be the very foundation of our relationship with Christ and each other. They are the most basic principles for all Christian relationships. How can someone say they love God with all of their being yet insist they need to go through a human for personal direction? How can someone honor another above themselves yet always take the privilege of making the final decision? How can someone love another like they love themselves yet the other person’s opinion is always second rate? I guess the traditional view works just fine as long as you throw the most basic commandment of God out the window. This commandment is so important that it’s stated in both Old and New Testament!

Comment by Trevor

January 30, 2009 @ 5:53 am

Anca I’m really humbled by you sharing your life experience. Such stories make me feel ashamed to be a man and to think that other men, with the full sanction of the church, could treat another person so badly, falsely believing it to be of God. That extreme, I believe, is where unbridled complementarianism ultimately leads. The potential for abuse is so much a part of such teaching and God’s character is maligned in believing that He ordained such relationships to constitute marriage. I’m so glad that you have felt safe enough to share your painful journey thus far and pray that God will indeed continue to encourage you in His far better ways.

Comment by Jeanine S. Moss

January 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

Several years ago I met with the elders of our congregation to discuss the role of women in the leadership of our congregation. At the time we had a “board of elders” and a “board of deacons,” similar to the senate and house in secular terms. I pointed out the NT evidence of a female deacon. Soon after the elders met and disbanded the “board of deacons.” There was and continues to be a misconception regarding the role of “leadership” in the church, viewing it as a “position of authority” rather than servant leadership.

jmoss@fidnet.com

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

Anca,

When Paul told husbands to love their wives as much as Christ loved the church and to sacrifice for them he was going against culture. So we see movement in scripture against treating women as second class citizens. This is the sort of movement Webb talks about. Husbands at that time were not expected to love their wives.

Are you angry at me?

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

Anca,

Are you angry at me or just frustrated?

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

Anca,

The movement in scripture that Webb talks about is away from the abuse you received. He shows examples of mercy towards women in the Bible that go against the prevailing culture’s treatment of women during Biblical times. These examples are counter cultural. Because they are counter- cultural Webb sees them as being God’s will, and therefore trans-cultural.

I am sorry you were so horribly abused. You were treated in an inhuman manner. This was not God’s will for you to be treated in that manner. I really wished this had not happened to you. It wasn’t fair.

I’m glad you told us about your abuse.

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

Anca,

Another good place for egalitarian discussion where you can also ask questions is:

http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php

I think you would enjoy the people there, and I know they would enjoy you.

Comment by Anca

January 30, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

JLP- I am not angry or frustrated at you:-) I did not get offended when you first responded to me. I think we both misunderstood each other. I joined in on the blog knowing I would be challenged. Its ok to have different views on a subject. When I express my biblical hermeneutic on scripture I would like it to be responsibly scrutinized and challenged by other Christians. In this way I can see if it can stand up to scrutiny as biblically sound.

JLP- You made a good point. Maybe Paul knew that he had to make movement happen on the husbands part before the wife could be liberated. That makes sense considering the fact that husbands are never told to lead or rule their wives. If the husband was to change his ways and treat his wife as himself in the least, than the liberation of women would follow as a natural consequence.

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

Thanks Anca. I think I misunderstood you.

In your second paragraph you are expressing exactly what Webb is getting at. It’s hard for me to condense Webb’s thought because it is new to me. It’s not something I ever thought about before.

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

Anca,

I posted a link to another egal discussion site I think you will enjoy. Posts on this site with links take awhile to show up. It will probably show up tomorrow. Look for the link. It’s good.

Comment by Anca

January 30, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

Thanks, JLP :-)

Comment by Watcher

January 30, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Anca,

Know that I, along with the others, am very glad you joined the conversation.

Comment by jlp

January 30, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

Anca,

The post with the link came through sooner than I thought. It is above in 88592.

Comment by Larry S

January 30, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

Anca

Thanks for much for sharing some of your pilgrimage with us. I pray you can find healthy, supportive, wise and trustworthy Christians to connect with in your off-line life.

God bless

Comment by Larry S

January 30, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

Jeanine

I am agast at your experience (#88588).

I have some familiarity with the dual board: elder/deacons and don’t like it much because it tends to separate things into a spiritual/physical dichotomy (at least in what i’ve observed).

I can see why a local church may wish to collapse into a one leadership team type of structure (the 2 board thing can be cumbersome).

However, for things to have transpired as you’ve outlined them to me seems like a huge statement meant to ‘keep women in their place.’

Comment by Sonnet

January 30, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

Anca – Wow, I had no idea how extreme your experience was. I’m glad you were able to get away from that situation. “The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.” Prov. 18:10 NIV I believe God is safely holding your spirit in the palm of His hands and that the Holy Spirit, our Counselor, is guiding you into truth. I loved the points you made in your last paragraph. (ref. #88586)

Comment by Frank

January 31, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

Anca, my heart truly goes out to you. May God comfort you and heal you, and may he fully restore you as his royal ambassador. For that is what you are, and never let anyone tell you anything different.

Comment by jlp

January 31, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Anca,

Here is another site you may want to visit. It is composed of soft comps and egals.

http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/

Comment by Anca

February 1, 2009 @ 7:53 am

JLP- I just now saw that you posted a link to Webb’s book above in 88580. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in providing me with all of the above links. I am enjoying them all – Thanks!

I want to thank all of you who have so kindly welcomed and encouraged me these last few days. Know that a life is being changed because of your Christlike love!

Comment by jlp

February 1, 2009 @ 9:03 am

Anca,

Keep in touch.

about_biblical_equality@yahoo.com

Comment by Barry

February 2, 2009 @ 3:31 am

I am disappointed by an advocate of a “redemptive hermeneutic” drawing a distinction between homosexuality and the issues relating to slaves and women.

There are just so many developments in the cultural understandings relating to sexuality that it is untenable to maintain such a position. For instance, the cultural belief that the “Seed” was deposited by the Man into an “incubator” women results in many OT “rules” based on wanting to avoid “Wasting the Seed”…

These cultural norms continued to play a role in the NT world and even beyond into the first centuries of the Christian Church. Just because there was little movement during the biblical period does not make them any less cultural, as modern biology confirms…

let’s find common ground in resisting prejudice – women and homosexuals must find common in their experience of prejudice, both in society and the church!

Comment by Barry

February 2, 2009 @ 6:15 am

sorry – they must find common ground in their experience of prejudice…

Comment by Frank

February 2, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

Barry, I would agree that there have been prejudicial attitudes and practices towards blacks, women, and homosexuals of various degrees in both church and society. However, saying that the New Testament’s disapproval of and condemnation of homosexuality as a sinful perversion of normal human sexuality (as defined by Gen. 1:26-27 and Matt. 19:1-10) is merely another “ancient” cultural norm we enlightened moderns can dispense with goes further than Scripture warrants. For this egalitarian thinks that Scripture clearly teaches that homosexuals are redeemable,while homosexuality, both as a lifestyle and ideology, are not. “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were…

Comment by frank

February 2, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

Sorry, everyone, the computer I was working on went down before I could finish my previous comment, so let me start there:

“And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, TNIV).

Furthermore, for those of us who seek to consistently apply the “redemptive hermeneutic” outlined in Gal. 3:26-4:7 and 2 Cor. 5:11-21, we would argue that only what was part of God’s intended creation order (Gen. 1:26-27 and 2:19-25), and redeemed and restored by the Lord Jesus Christ, is to be manifested in the church and in God’s kingdom. In the original creation, men and women, both made in God’s image, were in a relationship marked by mutuality, differentiation (i.e., male or female), and complementarity. As the result of the fall, mutuality was destroyed, and differentiation and complementarity was perverted into a grounds for male dominance of the female. But in the New Creation, which is first to be displayed in the life of the Church, and then in the Kingdom when it comes in its fullness, this threefold relationship between men and women is to be fully restored and manifested. The only aspect of the man-woman relationship that ceases in the Age to Come is the need for men and women to marry and have children (cf. Matt. 22:23-33.) And so while certain biblical commands regarding marriage, divorce, sexual intercourse, and parenting are inforce now in this Present Age, in the New Heavens and New Earth, they will not apply to those whose sole relationship then will be that of Adult Sons and Daughters of God, charged with various Kingdom duties and reponsibilities.

But in any case, there is nothing in either the Old Testament or New Testament that would lead us to believe that polygamy, prostitution, or homosexuality are anything other than perversions of human sex and sexuality that are not to be tolerated or practised among God’s people now, and which certainly will not be permitted in God’s future kingdom. Indeed, Jude condemns false teachers who perverted God’s grace into a license for sexual immorality and perversion (Jude 5-8). And he calls us to stand against any perversion of God’s kingdom ethics.

So while I do not mean to be harsh or unsympathetic towards anyone caught or trapped in this sin, nor cause anyone to think they are beyond the power of God’s saving grace, I as an egalitarian cannot, in good conscience, support a homosexual lifestyle or ideology, as advocated by the gay rights movement.

Comment by Howard

October 24, 2009 @ 6:55 am

This blog has given me great insight into the egalitarian view.

As someone who considers myself a complementarian, I am appalled by the illtreatment that some of you have experienced at the hands of those who consider themselves complementarians.

I humbly submit the following

I do believe that the bible teaches a view of men and women being equal but different. The role of headship given to men is not given because men are better but because Christ has prescribed for us a pattern of living that reflects the relationship of the church to himself. The willing submission of a wife to her God submitted husband should not be onerous as his purpose should be to lead humbly and with her good in mind. In this way Christ instructed christians not to use our leadership in a domineering fashion as the heathens do. Paul also reminded us that we are interdependent. Christ still leads the church and he gave himself for it. Men (not because they are better) are asked to lead their families in a Christlike fashion.

On the item of exercising spiritual gifts the Bible is clear in its afirmation of a woman’s ability to exercise all of the gifts the spirit has made available to humankind. I’m curious as to why this group might think that Redemptive Hermenutics is required to confirm this point when examples of God using women go throughout the old and new testement scripture.

Comment by Mara

October 24, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Howard: “I’m curious as to why this group might think that Redemptive Hermenutics is required to confirm this point when examples of God using women go throughout the old and new testament scripture.”

Howard, since I’m not a Bible scholar and never did know what ‘Hermenutics’ was, I’m probably not the right one to answer your question and sincerely hope those who know what you are talking about will come in and answer your question the way is should be answered.

But I was passing through and thought I’d explain something you may be unaware of.
Since you have no trouble with women exercising their gifts, it may come as a shock to you the number of Christian groups who have very serious trouble with that thought.
Many of these groups attack female Bible personalities such as Deborah and Huldah claiming that the only reason God moved through them was because there were no Godly men available at the time.
And these two women aren’t the only ones torn down or made light of.
I’ve only recently heard of a teaching against Abigail. The preacher, point blank, said that she was in sin for going to David without the permission of her husband Nabel. And that preacher said that the blood of her husband was on her head since she did not submit as a godly woman is supposed to. He held her responsible for her husband’s death.

As I said, I know I didn’t answer your question.
But you would be surprised at how many men and women have been taught to disrespect the role of women in the Bible and in the present day church. And they have learned to see the Bible through this lens of disrespect to the point that when they read about Deborah and others exercising their gifts, they see it as a necessary evil, for God to use women, until God can find a worthy man somewhere to raise up so things can be done right and the world can be set back upon it axis.

I am in no way accusing you or any of your associates of such a warped view. But I’m hoping to help you see why different ones here, some of whom have come out of warped view churches,… help you see why they need to cut through the warped view and connect to the truth. And if Hermenutics (whatever the heck that is) help them get to the heart of the issue, then so be it.

Mara,
A Bible student, not scholar.

Comment by TL

October 25, 2009 @ 10:35 am

Hello Howard. :)

You are absolutely correct that the Bible is clear that a woman is able to be used of the Holy Spirit in the same things that a man is. This is because believers are equipped by the HS not their humanity, to perform spiritual ministry.

As far as male headship is concerned it is not a biblical principle even though you may be sincere in exercising your leadership in a benevolent way. In the complementarian thinking a wife gives up her will to her husband. Most men are not able to handle such power without selfishness. In addition, it is my belief that no one should ever give up their will to anyone but God.

Scripture teaches mutuality; love your neighbor as you love yourself. All are to be submissive one to another. We are to help, honor, respect, and support one another. This does not stop at the threshold of our personal relationships, including marriage. No one gets a free pass.

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 11:27 am

Howard,

I am not a Biblical scholar by any means. But I do know the meaning of the original term “kephale” (translated “head”) is disputed.

Here is a link to a site that contains the views of egalitarian biblical scholars on the correct understanding of kephale.

http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/Ephesians523.htm

In addition, you might want to check out this:

http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/Head-Greek-EnglishLexicon.htm

Egalitarian scholars do not believe that authority or leadership is the correct understanding of the Greek word “kephale.” I think this is important to point out.

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 11:30 am

Howard,

Just to be honest with you, I do not believe that placing a wife under her husband’s leadership or authority is equality.

My definition of equality is letting someone both lead and follow, not follow alone. IMO to be in a position of always following is a position of being a perpetual child. It’s doesn’t allow women to be adults.

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

Christ is perfect and without sin, husbands are not. Christ is without faults, a husband is not. A husband can never perfectly imitate the leadership of Christ, because of this. Wives have often suffered because even Godly Christ centered husbands make mistakes in decision making.

Two heads are better than one. Having two heads making decisions can lead to conflict. But it’s better to learn to resolve conflict than to have one person making all the decisions.

When I was young I forced myself to become a complementarian because that’s what I thought the Lord wanted me to do. But deep in my heart I always knew that if the same person always made the final decision, such as in the comp view – that the best decisions would not be made.

Comment by Lin

October 25, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

Howard, There are NO leaders in a true Body of Christ and a Christian marriage. There are only lowly servants mutually submitting to one another.

I know it is a hard concept but it is true. We are so worldly in our thinking about leadership. We cannot get our heads around the fact that lowly servants disciple new belivers praying that they become mature in the faith. The Holy Spirit does the work, we are just mere instruments. We really do think way too highly of ourselves. And this focus on ‘leadership’ is a huge sin trap. Our thinking that people in the Body need a ‘leader’ is the wrong focus. It is self serving. They need lowly servants who are taking up their crosses and bearing one another’s burdens.

A true godly elder or husband would look so much like Matthew 5 (the salt elements) they would be totally unglamorous to the world and to most professing Christians.

But now we have so many well paid Christian celebrities that thinking on ‘leadership’has become the norm. But it most certainly is not what scripture models.

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

Howard,

The willing submission of a wife to her God submitted husband should not be onerous as his purpose should be to lead humbly and with her good in mind. In this way Christ instructed christians not to use our leadership in a domineering fashion as the heathens do.

Women in the Christian community hear this all the time! Then they get married and willingly submit themselves to their husband’s leadership. Next they find their Christ comitted husband making huge errors that could have been avoided if the two of them had shared leadership. Even unselfish Christian husbands make errors, not because they don’t love their wives but because they are human.

Husbands cannot be followed like Christ because husbands don’t have Christ’s perfection. No human has Christ’s perfection.

Comment by Don

October 25, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

Hi Howard,

I used to be non-egal as that was all I had been taught, but then a Christian counselor suggested I read an egal book and study both sides. This is what I recommend, as a forum like this can just give a taste of some egal ideas. When a paradigm shift is involved, it takes much more than a taste.

In regards to redemptive movement hermeneutics, I agree with it (as a general statement) but it is not needed to do so to be an egal, it simply provides additional support.

Husbands (and wives) have blind spots, weak spots, not yet submitted areas of life, past hurts, etc. any of which can blind them to God’s will for their life. If you read Eph 5 where the husband is called a head/kephale you will see that ALL the examples of Christ as head are serving examples, and NONE are leading examples, so it is best to not bring foreign ideas to the text. It is true that in 1st century culture the husband was seen as the leader, but that was cultural; the challenge Paul gives the husband is to serve his wife; not be a servant-leader, simply a servant, willing to love her sacrificially.

It is true that Jesus was/is many things, savior, Jew, rabbi, Lord, prophet, high priest, etc. But when serving examples are given it is not good exegesis to read more into the text than is there. (I do agree that some teachers say that there is more there, but you need to look for yourself.)

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

Husbands (and wives) have blind spots, weak spots, not yet submitted areas of life, past hurts, etc. any of which can blind them to God’s will for their life.

That describes my life as a believer!

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

My father loved me, he would have been willing to die for me. He was a teacher, and as a teacher he saw many bad things. As a result he didn’t want any of his children to go into education.

When I was young I wanted to be a teacher. But my father told me he wouldn’t give me a penny for college if I became one.

Late in life I became a teacher. I regret not becoming a teacher when I was a young person. I now realize that this is the career that fits my personality the best. How I wish my father had not influenced me to not go into education.

My father made the best decision he could when he told me he would not give me money to become a teacher. He was thinking of my best interests. But it was still the wrong decision. How I wish he had supported what I wanted.

We would like to think that God would always lead parents to make the right decisions for their children and husbands to make the right decisions for their families. But the truth is different, God wants us to work together to make decisions.

Comment by jlp

October 25, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

Howard,

The Christian community puts enormous effort into convincing wives to be obedient to their husbands. What if instead they took that same effort and put it into helping husbands and wives work out their problems? What do you think would happen?

Comment by Crayon Christian

October 26, 2009 @ 6:18 am

The Christian community should spend its precious resources on something other than convincing people that husbands need to rule and wives need to submit to that rule.

If it spent its resources instead on marriage seminars, and other programs that look at the problems underlying marriage, it could help a lot of Christian marriages avoid divorce.