The CBE Scroll

Comment by Nicole

January 4, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

Christ submitted to God.
Husbands are not God.
It seems cruel to put a man in the place of being God (though human pride may like it). Wouldn’t it damage his soul and his relationship with God?

Comment by Charis

January 5, 2009 @ 7:38 am

Jesus role models submission and ALL CHRISTIANS are responsible to walk in His steps. I’m really not sure that a person can be a genuine Christian and lack submission? So, when God gives instructions for wives to be submissive, HE is telling them a way they can role model Jesus Christ to their husbands and the world.

A wife being SUBMISSIVE is simply to have a demeanor role modeled after CHRIST. (see the LIKEWISE instructions of 1 Peter 3) Jesus was SUBMISSIVE, Jesus was “SUBJECT TO” his parents and still followed His Father’s will EVEN to His parents great distress! (see Luke 2:48-51) The Greek word there is the same one used of wifely submission. Jesus was COMPLETELY FREE to follow GOD while not violating “submission”.

WHY are some men so afraid of submission? WHY do they think submission is only for women? Why do they try to “put the pants on” the wives by saying the WIFE is to be “as Christ” in the marriage, when Ephesians 5 singles out the husband for the instruction to be “as Christ”? Because they have a wrong view of what submission IS. They think submission is weak, powerless, easily exploited, lacks authority… My job as a wife is to demonstrate GENUINE BIBLICAL submission

I reject the LIES about submission and I embrace the TRUTH of BIBLICAL SUBMISSION

In submission lies POWER
In submission lies AUTHORITY
In submission lies FREEDOM
In submission is dignity and honor

SUBMISSIVE wives in the Bible did not render their husbands unquestioned slavish obedience. To the contrary. They were willing to risk their lives to defy a husband for his own good and according to God’s leading.

Some time ago, I was lost in a fog and my marriage was a shambles (my husband was the unchallenged KING of the household and I was the servant). I searched Biblegateway, looking for the verses that taught my lifestyle. I looked for “husband”, Ruler”, “household”. I found this:

“every man should be ruler over his own household.”

Have you heard teaching from books, sermons, Christian radio that represents this model as God’s Will and Plan for a satisfying, God honoring, Biblical, Christian marriage?

Now look at the quote in context:

“every man should be ruler over his own household”

The scales came off! What sort of marriage is the quote speaking about? From the world’s perspective WHO had all the authority, power, control and WHO had none? How about from God’s perspective? WHO was anointed, appointed, and empowered with spiritual authority “for such a time as this“? Do you see how worldly authority is trivial? and how spiritual authority is powerful? so powerful, even the gates of hell will not prevail against it!

Comment by Frank

January 5, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

Is Jesus’ earthly submission to the Father a model of submission for the relationships between husbands and wives, or, in addition, for those between leaders and members of Christian congregations. The short answer is of course, no. And you only come to this view if it is presupposed and you reinterpret Scripture to support your preconceived ideas.
First of all, as Phil 2:5-11 makes clear, Jesus’ setting aside of his divine equality with the Father and submitting himself to the Father was both temporary and voluntary, so that he could carry out his redemptive work as our Redeemer, Mediator and Leader. Once he completed this work of redemption and reconciliation, he was restored to his full glory as God the Son, which brought glory to the Father as well. John 17 confirms what Paul teaches in Philippians on this matter.
Secondly, as far more capable exegetes than myself have shown, Eph. 5:15-6:9 is a unit in which the Spirit-filled life of the Church, by the use of participles that show this life, is expressed in holiness, joyful worship and mutual submission in different categories of Christian relationships (i.e.,husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters).
Now I find it interesting that those who argue for female submission in Eph. 5:22 not only ignore its context, but avoid the real significance of 5:25-32. Lawrence Richards, in his Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, argues that there is no hierarchical relationship taught here. Rather, Paul is using kephale in the sense of the Originator and Nourisher of the Church, who exercises his divine power and authority as Lord, not to make oppressive demands of his “wife” (i.e., the Church), but to provide her with everything she needs to realize her full potential as his co-equal companion and partner in the advancement of God’s present and future kingdom. I believe that is how this passage should be understood and applied. But I guess to be Christlike in this way towards women is a scary thing for men who think they are more Godlike than women. May the Holy Spirit bring about revival and help Christian men understand this passage as I think Paul meant it should be understood. Amen!

Comment by jlp

January 5, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

I don’t think the men who believe a wife’s submission should imitate Christ’s earthly submission to the Father understand how powerful submission can be. First they don’t understand how powerful their lives can be if they imitate Christ’s submission to the Father. And next they don’t understand how powerful they can be if they submit themselves to others. They tend to see power as having authority. They don’t understand the power submission has to heal the tremendous wounds in relationships that exist. Or the respect they can gain through submission. Or how much people would be willing to give back to them if they practiced submission. All that they want that they think through having authority can be gotten in a better manner through submission.

Matthew 20
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Just think how much power Jesus gained through submission. If these men who believe so much in male authority over women want power, they should look for it in the example of Jesus.

Comment by jlp

January 5, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

I said:

All that they want that they think through having authority can be gotten in a better manner through submission.

My wording is poor. What I am trying to say is that all that the men who believe they should have authority over women want to gain out of having it can be gained through submission better. They want to be able to have their way; if they submit to others, others will give way to them. They want respect; if they submit to others, others will respect them. If they want to be listened to and taken seriously, if they submit to others they will be listened to and taken seriously. They want to feel like they are important. If they submit to others, they will become important in their lives. What they are looking for in having authority can be gained by practicing submission instead. And it will be gained in a manner that allows them to imitate the behavior of Christ. Limiting submission just to women or wives denies men the experience of imitating Christ’s behavior and all the growth and blessings that come out of it.

Comment by jlp

January 5, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

When men seek to get their needs met through having authority over other people and/or women, they are seeking it through compulsion. Compulsion is the world’s way of getting one’s needs met. When men instead seek to get their needs met through submitting to others and/or women, they will get submission in return. It will be voluntary. This is the way of the Kingdom of heaven. It’s not obtained by compulsion, but by choice.

Comment by joanne

January 6, 2009 @ 9:04 am

The way I read scripture is that both men and women are to model Christ and submit to God. There isn’t a female way to serve God and a male way to serve God. We are just to serve God and participate in the growth of the Kingdom of God by gift and effort and the Spirit.

Comment by Liz

January 6, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

Yes Joanne..that is one of the things which convinces me that equality is God’s plan – the fact that scripture speaks to us all the same (otherwise, women need not read much of the new testament because it doesn’t apply to them)

It reminds me of the JW belief of classes of people. The ‘heavenly class’ are what we would call ‘born again’ and all the new testament promises apply to them but for the rank and file JW believer (‘earthly class’) they don’t inherit all that Christ has done. Sad that orthodox believers can also put Christians in two categories.

Comment by Shay

January 6, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

Many people talk about how there are no rights in marriage – it is all a round submission, and then they criticize women who demand their “rights” as if they were feminists.

What they don’t understand is that there are women who are deprived of their rights – their personal rights over their own body and over their children.

Each and every sermon on submission should also explain that there are basic human rights and if these are denied then the marriage is terminated. These rights would be things like shelter, food, clothes, not being beaten, and being able to leave and enter one’s own dwelling without coercion.

Unfortunately there are too many people who mock those of us who demand our “rights.” Some people need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Here is what John Piper wrote,

“I actually sat in my office once with a husband who believed that submission meant his wife should not go from one room to the other in the house without asking his permission. That kind of pathological distortion makes it easier for people to dispense with texts like these in the Bible.”

Believe it or not, if someone wants to preach a sermon on submission of the wife, they actually have to also include an exhaustive list of the wife’s inalienable human rights. Either that or just assume that she has none at all. Pathological distortions is the common condition of humankind. Just expect it!

I believe that there are legal issues involved in the preaching of the submission of women and would prefer to see some kind of overall social shift similar to what we have seen regarding cigarette smoking that would make the notion of a wife being UNDER a husband’s authority/power simply despicable.

That in this day and age this problem should not be properly addressed is ridiculous. If we can suppress smoking by social opinion, then why can’t we do the same for the conditions under which women lose human dignity.

Comment by jlp

January 6, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

I didn’t expect this out of John Piper.

Comment by Shay

January 6, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

I am sure Piper was appalled. The full post is here. This is not a criticism of him per se. The fact is that theologians are fully aware that their teaching carries huge risk and cost to women, but they don’t deal with it adequately.

Comment by Liz

January 7, 2009 @ 5:49 am

To give John Piper his due, he was using that quote to illustrate what submission is not. If complementarians realised the extent to which their teaching is abused, surely they would take another look at the bible verses and their context.

Comment by Sue

January 7, 2009 @ 9:27 am

I have listened to a lot of CBMW audio messages. They do realize fully that their teachings are abused. They acknowledge that sometimes teaching unilateral submission by the wife causes pain for her, but unless this pain involves physical abuse, they teach that the wife should pray for strength and continue to submit. They usually teach that submission does not mean accepting physical abuse. From their perspective, they see abuse as an unfortunate side effect of men taking submission teachings too far, but they do not accept responsibility for their teachings causing it. In fact, in an audio message given by Bruce Ware during the summer of 2008, he alleges that often physical abuse of the wife by the husband is a result of her refusal to submit to him and his sinful reaction to her lack of submission. The CBMW audio messages do not at any time admit that teaching unilateral submission by the wife to the husband is the problem. They continue to teach that the husband is under no obligation to submit to the wife at all.

Comment by Frank

January 7, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

The exchange between Shay, JLP and Liz on the connection between the doctrine of “unilateral submission by the wife” often resulting in abuse of the wife and children is something that moves me very deeply.
Let me explain: I grew up in a dysfunctional home, in which my father, after going on a drinking binge, would be verbally abusive towards my mother, and on several occasions was physically so. In fact, a couple of times it was so bad that our neighbors, in concern, called the police to intervene in the situation. In those times the legal grounds for divorce and remarriage were a lot more strict than they are now. And in the Baptist church in which I was saved and grew up, the strict interpretation of Matthew 5:31-32 decreed that adultery alone was the ground for divorce and remarriage.
My parents tried 3 times to repair the marriage, but when I was 18 they finally ended it. The impact of this was that for some years I struggled with fears that if I got married, the same thing might happen to me, and my sisters all went through divorce and remarriage, with the first marriage having been with a spouse who proved to be abusive. So I personally know what harm can be done when the doctrine of unilateral submission is also coupled with a strict ruling regarding the biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage.
And some years later, while still at Bible college, preparing for the ministry, I was again in a situation where I was confronted with this issue. I was involved with the international students at a Denver Baptist, which had a number of singles and families involved. We soon discovered that in one of the families, the husband was verbally and physically abusing the wife, for the little child was upset and told us that his father was hitting mommy. So we all began to do what we could to help this family. And it was at this time I seriously reconsidered what I’d been taught in the past about male headship and female submission, the nature of of a healthy marriage, and the true biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. So my “egalitarian” view on these related issues has both a biblical and experiential basis, and I am not ashamed to admit this.

Comment by Liz

January 7, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

In our experience, many pastors who teach headship do not hear about the abuse which occurs so are not aware of the extent of distortion. This is because women in these situations are surrounded with the idea that somehow it must be their fault if they are being abused which means they don’t tell anyone for a long time.

When these women are ready to hear that maybe it is not how God meant marriage to be, they rarely go to their pastor because they assume he wouldn’t understand or support them. So, the pastors don’t get to hear much of what really goes on and the ignorance persists.

Comment by Sue

January 7, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

Liz,
Your comment expressing optimism about complementarians reconsidering their views when they are made aware of the effects of complementarianism was made in relationship to comments involving John Piper, who is strongly connected to CBMW. According to their audio tapes, they are aware of the pain their teachings cause, but they continue to reinforce teachings about unilateral submission of the wife and the authority of the husband.

Are you aware of local pastors who have reconsidered complementarianism once they are made aware of the painful effects of their teachings? It is my impression that when they are made aware of the effects of complementarianism, it only causes them to work harder to justify their hierarchical positions.

Comment by Liz

January 7, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

Yes, Sue there have been a couple, but mostly the situation is as I said in the previous post. These people don’t usually hear about the painful effects of their teaching because the very nature of the teaching makes it hard for women (and men) who think differently to enlighten the teachers. There is always a reason (in their minds) as to why it isn’t working because they are so blindly committed to their ‘ideal’ that they can’t see the ‘actual’

And..there are so many families which operate on the headship system who don’t consider anything else – it’s been that way for generations and they live in very tight-knit communities so they can hardly think ‘outside the square’. While there is a whole lot of abuse within this system, there are also families who are genuinely happy to go along with it all and the kids grow up in it and are happy to continue that way.

There is an old saying that ‘they don’t know what they don’t know’ and that is the sad truth. It’s only when things turn sour that people begin to question long-held beliefs and then it is usually too late to save the marriage and the kids are damaged as well.

It gets overwhelming at times as we see these views so entrenched and considered ‘biblical’ but we dare not lose hope as the message of equality is so liberating and reveals God’s heart for his creation.

Comment by Liz

January 8, 2009 @ 1:23 am

Also, in our 35+years of experience in pastoral ministry most of our colleagues have not experienced dealing with the kinds of abuse with which we are all too familiar. These men (yes, all male) were amazed when we shared some of our situations and said quite honestly that they had never had to decide about such issues. We know that was often the case because people came to us from their churches as word got around that we were sympathetic and accepting of people in all sorts of situations.

Comment by Watcher

January 8, 2009 @ 9:44 am

Frank,
Thank you for sharing your story.
Too many people dismiss the egal view as a bunch of disgruntled women who may or may not have been hurt, but one way or another, simply refuse to “submit” like the Bible tells them to.

It’s good to see you and our other brothers here who are concerned over the same issues and recognize the very real dangers associated with the comp teaching.

You guy know that we ladies don’t hate men.
We hate false and off-balance teachings that bind up large portions of the church.

I appreciate you sharing.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

Thank you Frank for sharing about the problems in unilateral submission. Mutual submission offers so much more in terms of growth possibilities than unilateral submission. And we need growth in order for any kind of relationship to survive.

Comment by Frank

January 8, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

Thank-you,”Watcher” for your appreciative words regarding my story. And it is because I have experienced both woundings and healings that I am willing to share my stories that others may also experience healing and restoration, though the retelling is not always easy. But I really believe what Henri Nouwen, Rick Warren, and others have said about being a follower of Christ. It means that we are also, like him, called to be “Wounded Healers.” And so there are times when, for others’ sakes and not our own, we must tell our stories.

Now on to a less somber consideration of Christ’s submission and the Christian’s submission. I have been reading a study on Ruth, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO RUTH, written by Carolyn Curtis James, which I believe shows through the story of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, God’s heart for women and four lessons he wants his sons and daughters to learn:
1. God never wastes pain, but deepens and equips us through suffering.
2. God is counting on both his daughters and his sons to build his kingdom.
3. God calls men and women to partner together in serving him.
4. Sincere gospel living saturates us with purpose and transforms our relationships.

And regarding submission, the author says, “Submission isn’t a tiebreaker, a fire extinguisher, a reinforcment of male authority, an act of dutiful compliance…It is a

Comment by Lark

January 8, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

“But no such comparison is made in the Bible. In Ephesians Paul compares a husband’s love for his wife to the way Christ loved the church. If Paul had meant to compare a wife’s submission to Christ’s submission he could have done it at this point, yet he didn’t.”

But doesn’t Paul’s comparison of wifely submission to the church’s submission to Christ in verses 22-24 there in Ephesians 5 carry the same implications as a comparison to Christ’s submission would have carried?

Not trying to rile things up or anything, I’m just honestly wondering.

Comment by Liz

January 9, 2009 @ 6:03 am

Frank…is there something missing from the end of your comment ? I would love to know the definition of submission from the book.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2009 @ 7:25 am

Sue and Liz,

One of the big problems in the Christian community is lack of feedback. Quite often people don’t give feedback on the teaching going on in their church because if they do they are considered “rebellious” or “unspiritual” or “not Christ centered.” So all sorts of feedback that the leaders and teachers of the church need they never get.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2009 @ 7:57 am

Lark,

Some hard core comps compare a wife’s submission not to that of the church to Christ, but rather of Christ to God. When Christ was on earth he totally did his Father’s will, he had no will of his own. And everyone should imitate that kind of submission, it’s not just for wives.

I think the type of submission Paul is talking about in Ephesians 5 is a different type of submission. Remember that Paul tells us to submit to each other, and then in a like manner wives are to submit to their husbands as to Christ.

I will talk about this later. I have something else I have to do now.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2009 @ 7:59 am

Does anyone else have anything to share with Lark about the type of submission that is to be practiced by wives? It will be at least 10 hours or more before I can get back to this topic for Lark.

Comment by Nathan Smithson

January 9, 2009 @ 9:05 am

“When Christ was on earth he totally did his Father’s will, he had no will of his own.”

Jesus was an automaton, choosing nothing, giving nothing, simply following a destiny? Perhaps you meant other wording, otherwise, I cannot disargee more with the statement.

As for the story above by Frank, the call to submission, by any party to another, implied to me something or someone worthy of submitting to. A sick individual, through alcoholism and/or other defect, cannot and should not be submitted to. More appropriately, that person should best submit totally till they are in a position to participate in an equal relationship of mutual cooperation. Unilateral submission is not in itself bad, but necessary at times.

Comment by Larry S

January 9, 2009 @ 10:06 am

The opening post notes how Jesus in his incarnation submitted to the Father. And asks two questions: The first is, if Scripture doesn’t make the comparison (comparing Jesus submission to the Father to a wife’s submission to her husband), should we be making it? Secondly: what is the difference between Christ’s submission and a wife’s submission?

Answers: 1. No, this comparison is read back into the wife submission texts. 2. The difference is that the example of Jesus is for every Jesus follower regardless of gender and is not uniquely a ‘word’ for wives.

Musings: The Eph-5 text compares a Christian wife’s and the Church’s submission. One can ask our hierarchically orientated brethren to provide biblical examples of the church’s submission to Jesus. Consider the early church in the book of Acts. We see groups of individuals gathering to discern the leading of the Spirit. At times, we have a sense of mutual discernment of the Spirit’s leading (it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us: Act 15:28). The leading of the Spirit appears quite mysterious.

We should be aware Paul in Ephesians 5 is writing into a patriarchal culture where a wife’s submission to her husband was assumed. The notion of a husband loving his wife was new. That Ephesians 5:21 speaks of mutual submission and in 22 the fact that the word submission must be supplied in our English translations, should give us a clue about the type of submission Paul has in mind for wives. If nothing else it hints of mutuality and interjects something new and unique into 1st century Christian marriages – mitigating a wife’s unquestioning or ‘role playing’ submission.

Why in the name of all that is holy would Christians somehow embrace a cartooned version of role-playing marriage? Paul tips his hat to his use of metaphorical language when he speaks of mystery (Eph 5.32).

Back to the opening questions. Comparing Jesus’ submission to the Father to a wife’s submission can lead to abuse since Jesus went to the cross for his Father. Especially if Jesus as the example in suffering from the 1 Peter 2:21-25 is applied literally to a wife’s submission. 1 Peter 2:23: and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously (NASB).

Comment by Frank

January 9, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

Sorry, Liz, about the incompleteness of my previous comment (87943). I was at the public library, working on one of their computers, when the allotted session time came to an end a lot sooner than I had expected. So let me complete the previous comment and add something about what Carolyn James describes as the “Blessed Alliance” between God,his sons AND his daughters in accomplishing his kingdom purposes in our world.

Here is Carolyn James completed definition of mutual Christian submission, taught by Paul in Eph. 5:21-6:9, and which the Book of Ruth displays as God and his people work together for his kingdom purposes: “Submission isn’t a tiebreaker, a fire extinguisher, a reinforcement of male authority, an act of dutiful compliance, a mindless caving to another’s wishes, or a sign of weakness. It is an act of strength, of sober responsibility, and of commitment to God. It is the pursuit of God’s glory and the good of another. It is becoming more like Jesus. Submission is the gospel–God’s kingdom come on earth” (p.170).

And then she talks of the Blessed Alliance that God began in Eden, before the Fall, an Alliance which the Gospel restores and which we Christians are to reflect in our homes, churches, and ministries. This mutual submission for the purpose of serving God together and working with Him, is the key to understanding the true message of how the relationships between God, Naomi, Ruth and Boaz are to be understood.

Regarding this BLESSED ALLIANCE, James states it was God’s original design for men and women, which the Fall terribly distorted, and which Jesus came to restore and establish among those who accept his message and confess him as Lord and Savior.

“Eve’s legacy–God’s creation blueprint for women–is key to understanding Naomi and Ruth. God created women to be his IMAGE BEARERS–to know him, to become like him, and to represent him in their interactions with others. As theologians, Naomi and Ruth understand that the world revolves around God. Their mission is to center themselves on him–to trust him and advance his kingdom. Furthermore (and this is where Boaz comes in), the Blessed Alliance–God’s design from creation that men and women join forces in serving him together–is alive and well in the book of Ruth. Interactions between Boaz and the women are some of the most instructive aspects of the book. The three present us with an exquisite picture of how God intends for men and women to PARTNER for his purposes–a powerful gospel model that today’s world church desperately needs to see” (p.31). And which I would add, it desperately needs to recover if the Great Commission is to be realized in the 21st century.

And I think this book addresses two key questions that debates on mutual submission tend to ignore. Usually, the debate is on whether or not mutual submission is truly taught in Scripture. Well, I’m convinced it is and most of you reading this comment would agree. But the questions this commentary on the Book of Ruth addresses, and which Evangelicals need to be asking themselves, are these:
a) “Why is mutual submission necessary for the advancement of God’s present and future kingdom?”
b) “In our own times, how do we practice mutual submission so that we, both men and women, properly acknowledge that the Lord is the One who is in charge, and that we are to work with him as partners in accomplishing his kingdom agenda, and not our own?”

And so this is a powerful book every Christian man and woman needs to read, for it shows how the story of Ruth is a story of courage, equality and partnership that reflects the Gospel Jesus and the Apostles taught and practised, and which the Church today needs to preach and practise as well.

Comment by Frank

January 9, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

Liz, I believe you edit the blog. In my last comment(87954), in Paragraph III, there is an exteraneous clause, “acknowledging that He’s in charge and not us”. Please delete that, so the paragraph reads more sensibly and smoothly. Thanks.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

Lark,

Here are the passages:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

The word “submit” doesn’t appear in the original Greek in verse 22. It’s added there because “submit” is in verse 21, and the translators saw verse 22 as a continuation of the thought in verse 21.

Without the word “submit” in verse 22 it reads as follows:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

In verse 21, are believers being called upon to obey one another? No, they instead are called to submit to one another. How is Paul using “submit” in this instance? I would say that Paul is asking believers to submit to each other’s best interests.

In verse 22 he goes on to complete this thought by telling women to do the same for their husbands. And why should women do this for their husbands? Paul goes on to say:

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

In English “head” has the metaphorical meaning of boss or authority. But in Liddell Scott Lexicon we do not find that meaning for head.

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

To the ancient Greeks, the head was thought to be the source of life and nourishment for the body. Could Paul have had that meaning in mind when he said that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? In other words, the husband is the source of life and nourishment for his wife in the same manner as Christ is the source of life and nourishment for the church.

I can’t say for sure that is what Paul meant by “head”, but I’m sure he didn’t mean boss or authority. Head appears to be used in the sense of self giving. So women should submit to the best interests of their husband for the Lord’s sake. They should do this because their husbands should be providing life and nourishment (as their head) for them as Christ provides it to the church. Their husbands should be giving themselves in self sacrifice in which they do nothing for themselves, but all for their wives just as Christ does for the church. For this reason wives should submit to their husband’s best interest in everything.

I hope that answers your question, Lark.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

Lark,

One more thing, the word head used is the Greek word “kephale”. So if you go to:

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

to check out the meaning of the word “head” you will find it as kephale.

Comment by Anne Healing

January 9, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

I am part of a ministry to women and children who are or have been victims of domestic violence (Healing A Woman’s Soul). We support parishes with resouces to help victims heal through the power of Christ’s love.

Marriage is not to be entered into or broken lightly. However, I know from conversations with victims that any sermon, workshop, etc. that claims that submission means unquestioning obedience or preaching “stay married at all costs” creates unintentionally an opportunity for an abuser’s justification or a victim’s excuse to “bear” abuse in the name of “God.”

We cannot predict how our words may be understood or even misunderstood. But I have apologized and do apologize to victims whose pastors demanded they stay, or supported the abuser; or who themselves were abusers. I am equally tired of explaining to women that God does not require that they suffer. So I would argue that preaching on this subject without qualification of abuse may indeed cause unintentional harm.

Pastors may not be aware of the potential for harm for several reasons. One of which is that if you are being abusued by a man you may not go to another man for help even if he is a pastor.

The following is not a theological interpretation of submission. To me, if obedience is to listen attentively so that we might hear the Spirit as well as the law, then we are submitted, obedient and listening attentively when we respect another’s words and ideas but we are not obligated to follow them blindly or without option. Our only obligation is to listen attentively to the Spirit and the law.

Thanks for the opportunity to join the discussion. As you can tell it’s close to my heart.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

Anne,

You are vindicating what everyone here has said so far. Thank you for sharing, your input is very valuable.

And thank you to everyone else who has shared. You’ve all been a blessing to me.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2009 @ 8:18 am

Sue said the following: I have listened to a lot of CBMW audio messages. They do realize fully that their teachings are abused. They acknowledge that sometimes teaching unilateral submission by the wife causes pain for her, but unless this pain involves physical abuse, they teach that the wife should pray for strength and continue to submit

We read this passage backwards when we read it as that the wife must submit because the husband is her boss or leader. Instead the wife should submit because the husband is demonstrating Christ like love to the wife. The submission is a response to the love, not a duty owed to a leader.

Comment by Don

January 10, 2009 @ 9:19 am

All examples of submission in the Bible are to help us understand it better. In SOME cases submission can incorporate obedience, in others not.

An adult in an obedience relationship with another adult is a servant to them, or rather a slave. And the Bible does discuss marriages between a free husband and a slave wife, e.g, Abraham and Hagar but also gives rules in the Torah. So it is possible to have a Biblical marriage and for the wife to be a slave; the question is whether this is God’s best, esp. in the new covenant?

After perhaps shocking some readers, I hope it is obvious that I do not think it is God’s best; I think mutuality is God’s best. Jesus came to set the captives free.

I think the teaching on hierarchical marriage and divorce only for adultery is a 1-2 punch that is a disgrace in the church. Women who believe both out-of-context teachings are highly dependent on the spiritual maturity of their husbands if they hope to avoid abuse in all forms. Just because a very mature husband is able to have a successful marriage under these conditions is certainly no assurance others will also.

While any can be abusive due to our sin nature, there are some structures that facilitate sin. Yes, we are all bad apples in a sense, redeemed by God. But there are also some bad apple barrels that will aid the sin nature in manifesting in many and I believe that both the hierarchical marriage teaching and the divorce only for adultery teaching are such bad barrels.

Comment by Francine

January 10, 2009 @ 11:29 am

JLP you have it right about the wife submitting to the husband as a response to his sacrifice. The husband had it the hardest because back then they were not told to love their wives but how to make them obey them, according to Roman and Greek rules. Paul really stretched out his neck on that one. It a wonder he didn’t get stoned for it. Also, by asking the wife to submit willingly first would help keep them from abusing the husband’s love and commitment to them.
A question on my mind is: aren’t John Piper and the rest of the comps. really following the Roman and Greek philosophy rather than God’s wishes in this matter ?

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Francine,

I would say from my study of history that John Piper is following the traditional hierarchy taught in American culture concerning the position of weaker to stronger. This culture of dominance began to weaken slowly in the 19th century, and accelerated over the course of the 20th century. It applied in all aspects of our society; management to labor, parent to child, men to women, and other relationships.

Most societies are hierarchally structured, with the stronger dominating the weaker. What you have with John Piper is the hierarchal structure of the early American 20th century, but modified with love. With other more conservative hierarchally oriented complimentarians you have more of the attitude of the mid 19th century. At that time women were believed to exist totally for the benefit of men. With the less conservative comps you see more of the American culture of 1930′s.

But their views are coming directly out of the American experience of the stronger dominating the weaker. Perhaps there is some Roman and Greek philophy involved, but since I don’t study that I can’t say.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

I should add that in the past those who were stronger were believed to have the right to dominate those who were weaker. The idea of the weak having rights equal to the stronger is something that had its birth in America in the 17th and 18th century. However, this idea was just in its infancy at that time and did not include women.

In my opinion the idea of the weak having rights actually started with the abolitionist movement in the first half of the 19th century. It gained momentum after the civil war and eventually began to include women.

But the battle for the weak to obtain equal rights with the strong has been long and difficult. It continues to this day.

But the notion that those who were stronger had a “right” to dominate those who were weaker is something that took

Comment by Liz

January 10, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

Even though the headship teaching became very prominent in America in the time frame mentioned, it is assumed to have had its roots in secular philosophy such as the writings of Plato. These early teachers had extremely poor views of women, thinking them to be lesser beings which gave rise to the idea that male homosexuality was a purer form of love than heterosexual love (among other ideas) In Paul’s time, wives were procured to raise legitmate children while men usually had more affection for their mistresses.

It is an amazing fact that some groups which are so strong on being ‘biblical’ in the issue of gender and relationships, are so influenced by secular philosophy.
It is read back into biblical texts without their being aware of the connection.

The key to discovering the better way of mutuality and equality of submission is to be allowed to think and research which is not always welcomed in strict conservative circles. As Anne has found, most women don’t examine these teachings until they suffer under them and then if they are still psychologically strong enough they are ready to look at things differently.

Maybe we should spend more time questioning pastors and other teachers about why they believe in headship and at least give them cause to have the tiniest doubt about what they believe. If we can influence those who teach others it will surely help to change the mindset of the huge majority who just accept these teachings without question until it tragically impacts their lives.

Comment by Sarah

January 11, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

Re: “automaton” comment above: I don’t think that mindless acquiescence is what was referred to here. Jesus himself described his earthly mission as one of complete obedience to the Father (see John 5:19). His followers likewise linked his obedience to the Father to his redemptive work (Rom. 5:18-19). While each follower of Christ is called and empowered to follow his example in humble, loving obedience to God (Phil. 2:5-13), it is inappropriate to apply this example of unilateral obedient submission to the wife in marriage, particularly given the example and context of Eph. 5-6 (submission compared to unity of Christ and Church; given in a context of mutual love and submission. The directions to wife and husband have already been given to all believers in 5:19-21 and 5:1-2). Hope this helps clear things up.

Comment by Sarah

January 11, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

I’m not an expert on philosophy or history by a long shot, but it seems that the Greek influence on complementarian thought is deeper than some of the overtly misogynistic views mentioned here. Those views were based in ideas of foundationalism, essentialism and idealism that placed everything and everyone firmly in his, her, or its place. This philosophy has been interwoven with Christian thought and history (Aristotle, not the Bible, got Galileo in trouble, and rigid class distinctions in general weren’t seriously challenged until a few centuries ago – funny what happens when the Bible in particular and learnin’ in general fall into the hands of the vulgar populace). Maybe what we’re seeing here is one of the last gasps of an old philosophical framework that’s lost its interpretive sway over the Bible in so many other areas. I speak as a protestant (and as one who isn’t an expert here – would love to hear from those who are).

Comment by Anne Healing

January 12, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

The ‘all but adultery for divorce’ teaching does not understand domestic violence (dv). First you don’t have to be hit twice to know the ‘rules’ of the relationship. All the evidence-based research says batterers always batter again. Second, Dv is about control through abuse. Emotional abuse leaves no physical scars but is just as damaging. Third, where there is dv (emotional abuse alone), there is child abuse, including sexual abuse. The experts say it happens frequently but many advocates say child abuse is almost always there – child sexual abuse less often but also linked. The notion that the wife and children are ‘safe’ if there is no physical abuse is nonsense.
Elsewhere Paul also refers to women as “weaker vessel” but the Greek is fragile vase – something of worth which needs protection and gentle handling. I see our discussion as an attempt to reconcile all Paul’s comments and to read his writings in context.
My blessings to all of you. This is such a necessary discussion.

Comment by Emily

January 21, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

The Bible uses Father and Son/God and Jesus. The BIble uses Husband and Wife/Christ and Church.
To say that Husbands and Wives are like God and Jesus, is like saying Husbands and WIves are like Fathers and Sons, which is creepy. I get riled up when people mix those metaphors.