The CBE Scroll

Comment by jlp

January 11, 2009 @ 9:17 am

I Peter 3:5&6 (TNIV). I guess Julie had better start calling me lord, huh? I’ll settle for “your highness.”

Give me time and I think up more.

Comment by Charis

January 11, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

Thank you, Hubert. That was very insightful.

I have a question:

It’s important to note how Peter describes this submission. It is “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men…” Peter is talking about obeying the law of the land. This is not divine law. It’s not the Law of Moses. Husbands are here lumped in with kings and slave owners.

Does the “husband authority over wife” that is taught from many a pulpit, christian radio station, and christian book and embraced by many a husband qualify as “authority instituted among men” to which a woman should submit?

My answer would be “yes”. But I do not take “submission” to equal “obedience”. Submission is an attitude of humble cooperation in the best interest of another, HELPing him to maturity, not enabling ongoing immaturity. In submission, I do not give up my freedom of conscience nor my identity as child of GOD and equal heir (no matter what his opinion may be), nor do I give up my responsibility to “be about my Father’s business” (see the boy Jesus in submission to his parents in Luke 2:48-51)

Comment by John Umland

January 11, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

This interpretation does not seem to fulfill the typology of Christ’s relationship to the church. As the church we will always call Jesus Lord, and he’ll always help his church who is weak. I think there is a bigger context that you are missing. I have further thoughts at http://umbl0g.blogspot.com/2007/01/call-him-master-what.html

God is good
jpu

Comment by Frank

January 11, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Hubert, I agree with Charis about your comments on 1 Pet. 3:5-6. But I do have a question. It would appear from Gen. 21:8-14, that regarding their debate about who was the true heir of Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant, God sided with Sarah against Abraham, declaring that in this matter of understanding and applying God’s Word, Sarah was more attune with the mind of God himself and that Abraham was to follow her advice, which he would approve. How do complementarians square this passage with their interpetation of how Peter interprets and applies the story of Sarah and Abraham? It seems to undermine the idea that Abraham was an “absolute” lord and master in his own home.

Comment by PS(anafter-thought)

January 12, 2009 @ 9:07 am

“Peter is talking about obeying the law of the land.” Do these same male preachers ever preach to other male preachers about obeying the law of the land? I mean in day to day things, such as obeying the speed limit?

Comment by Liz

January 12, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

Good point! It always intrigues me that there can be such an emphasis on ‘who has the final say’ or ‘the husband being the spiritual leader’ when the same guys are quite childish when it comes to matters of obeying road rules, making inane jokes, having an inordinate affection for sport or fishing….I could go on.

This sort of behaviour goes right against the whole thought of loving God with our whole heart and our neighbour as ourselves and yet it is most often overlooked and sometimes even lauded as being ‘how God created males’…..poor excuse!

Maybe this is just Australian men ??

Comment by TC

January 12, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

Wait… I’m confused. So if wives aren’t supposed to submit to their husbands (’cause it’s just a human law), then, by applying this mode of “exegesis” consistently, I conclude that I’m not supposed to submit myself to kings, governors, etc.

Sweet!

Off to rob a bank or start a riot or something…

I *love* this “exegesis” stuff.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

TC,

Would obey a law that says if you are a medical person you must engage in the performance of an abortion. Some people are trying to get that kind of law through.

Would you have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Law during the 1850′s that required people in free states to return slaves back to their owners?

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

TC,

Kings, Kaisers, and Czars used to send men off to war to die so they could enrich their coffers. Do you think the young men should have “obeyed” their rulers and gone off to die to enrich them? Was that right?

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

TC,

Someday you might want to study how Christians in the American South used the Bible to justify owning slaves.

Comment by Liz

January 12, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

TC…in the time of the writings of the apostle Paul, the law of the land was for women to obey their husbands but it is not so now so to my mind, the suggestion stated previously applies – it was a human law at a time in history so why make it a law for all time.

As regards obeying government etc. there is is description of the reason for obeying kings and so on….”so that you may live a peaceful life and be able to worship God” (my paraphrase) Where this is not the reason for the law, and in fact the law demands the opposite, we are not required by God to obey human laws.
Countless Christians in much of the world today disobey the government in order to practise their faith and share the good news.

Comment by Suzanne

January 13, 2009 @ 12:49 am

Hey, TC, is that you?

Welcome!

Comment by joanne

January 13, 2009 @ 9:37 am

i think we need serious discernment around issues related to government and laws and the bible and faith.

I think the scripture reveals a sense that women are free in Christ, equal in Christ, full Sons in Christ and inheritors of the kingdom. I think Paul and Peter asked women to submit themselves not because it was something God ordained but because they needed to live safely in a culture and nation that saw adherance to the household codes a matter of social order and citizenship. I think there is research to support that to disobey was considered treason. The church was vulnerable and considered subversive in that day.

Also god and country were not separated… to disobey country was to disobey the gods. Christians then needed to discern areas in which their behavior meant treason and areas where they needed to stand for alligience to God.

Paul and Peter were seeking to help the church flourish in a hostile environment much like the middle east and islamic cultures today. Paul and Peter never say women are subordinate because that is God’s design. They ask women to subordinate themselves for a particular purpose that existed at that time.

I do not see subordination as a timeless truth equated with the gospel and the doctrine of God etc.

Comment by TC

January 13, 2009 @ 10:00 am

JLP,

You list several valid exceptions to the principle that we are to obey governing authorities. However, your exceptions only serve to “prove the rule.” In other words, precisely because you and I agree that those circumstances *are* exceptional, we can agree that the general principle holds true.

Christians *should* as a rule obey governing authorities, except where doing so would clearly cause them to violate other commandments.

Likewise, wives *should* submit to their husbands, except where doing so would clearly cause them to violate other commandments.

Welcome to the complementarian side. :-)

Comment by TC

January 13, 2009 @ 10:40 am

Liz,

The law may change from time to time, but the principle of submission to authority does not, because this principle is woven into the very order of creation. Angels submit to God, the human race is “a little lower than the angels”, and within the human race, God has ordained particular hierarchies.

One of these hierarchies is that between the governing authorities and the governed. This principle (of submission within the order established by God) does not change, though the individual laws or directions that we are required to obey in living out this principle may change.

Thus, Peter can say “submit yourselves to the governing authorities” as a general principle for all of us at all time. (Of course, as I indicated in my response to JLP, we may recognize occasional circumstances which cause this principle to be subverted temporarily.) From this context, it is clear that Peter also intends us to understand husband/wife relationships in the same way.

This is what led to my original (somewhat trollish, I’ll admit) comment. If we claim that the idea of ordered authority is just a “law of the land” and subject to my own personal interpretation, what is destroyed is not simply the husband/wife relationship, but the idea of submission to any rule of law.

Comment by TC

January 13, 2009 @ 10:41 am

Hi Suzanne,

I appreciate the welcome, but since I don’t think I know you, I’m probably not me. :-) Sorry.

Comment by TC

January 13, 2009 @ 11:01 am

Joanne,

You said, “I think the scripture reveals a sense that women are free in Christ, equal in Christ, full Sons in Christ and inheritors of the kingdom.” And I say, “Amen to that! Sing it!”

Unfortunately, it appears that we disagree on the remainder of the substantive points you raise. Specifically, I’ll just address one phrase: “I do not see subordination as a timeless truth…” But of course, subordination is a timeless truth, first of all because it defines our eternal relationship to God. Subordination is woven into the very fabric of our existence. The only question open for discussion is “who submits to whom?” And when it comes to the husband/wife relationship, Scripture gives a clear answer.

In fact, Peter goes out of his way to make it obvious that this is not conditioned by the contemporary cultural situation. This has nothing to do with what is safe or acceptable to his readers. No, he takes us all the way back to Abraham and Sarah, where the roots of our faith begin! The first people to be justified by faith in God demonstrated this order of relationship. How much more so we who have received the greater fulfillment of those promises!

Comment by jlp

January 13, 2009 @ 11:53 am

TC,

I am famaliar with the complementarian arguments you give above. I know all about them. As you can probably guess, I don’t agree with them.

I just want you to know you are not bringing any new thoughts to the forum. Most of us once believed somewhat similiarly to you. But over time our minds changed and we became egals.

Comment by TC

January 13, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

JLP,

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that, from a perspective of logical argument, your rebuttals provide more cover for comps than egals. If you’re going to use a weapon, it’s best to make sure it’s pointing away from you. :-)

Comment by Frank

January 13, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

TC, it seems to me that, like so many complementarians, you assume your “Chain of Command” ontology (which is far more rooted in Greco-Roman philosophy than in Scripture itself)and then use that as your key in interpreting the Trinity, the clergy-laity, employer-worker, and husband-wife relationships. But nothing I have read by those in your camp has convinced me that this “Chain of Being” ideology, without some serious scripture twisting, can be consistently drawn from or supported by Scripture as a whole.

As my friend Dr. Robert K. Wright has shown in one of his essays, this “Chain of Being” concept was incorportated into the Church’s theological thinking by a number of influential Early Church Fathers whose minds were tainted by this pagan philosophy. The later stuggles connected with the formulation of Nicene Creed, in which the consensus was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were coequal and coeternal in divine power, authority, and majesty, as well as in omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence–show how hard it was to expunge this false, foreign view of ultimate reality from the Christian understanding and appliction of what Scripture taught regarding the true relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit.

Furthermore, as others will know from my previous discussions on the Trinity, the Neo-Arian view, which you complementarians hold (i.e. the Son is eternally subject to Father and so must eternally obey him), is not truly based on what the Scriptures teach, but on the foreign “Chain of Being” ontology that tainted the thinking of Arius and his followers, and so, due to this foreign interpretive system, they perverted the doctrine of the Trinity. It was Athanasius and Augustine, who using John 1, John 13-17, and Phil. 2:5-11 as the true, Scriptural intepretative key, showed that the Three Persons of the Trinity were coeternal and coequal in every way, that though their work in creation, redemption and providence were distinctive, yet were also cooperative and inseparable in nature.

And as far as allowing foreign systems of interpretation being imposed on Scripture and made “the rule” of how we are to understand and apply the Scripture, David Wells offers this warning:

We need to conclude, therefore, that it is dangerous to assert that God the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures but somehow omitted to give us the key to understand them! Systems of understanding are legitimate and proper only to the extent that arise from the biblical Word and are themselves disciplined by it. No one can legitimately impose a [foreign]system on the Word…If we do not assert the right of Scripture to stand in authoritative relationship to every presupposition, custom, and tradition; every teaching, practice, and ecclesiastical organization, then that authority will be co-opted either by an eccelesiastical magisterium or by a scholarly one (David Wells, The Use of the Bible in Theology, p.187).

If you will recall, when Martin Luther began the Reformation, many questioned him as to how he dared to challenge 1000 year old Church doctrines and practices. In essence, his reply was that it was Scripture, properly understood and applied by its own internal principles of interpretation and application, which caused him to oppose doctrines and practices that were more rooted in foreign “pagan sophistory” that had been imposed on the Bible. And it was on the same basis that I and many others have given up the traditionalist “Chain of Being” view of reality.

And so, our challenge to you, TC, is to give us solidly exegetical, rationally consistent and coherent arguments from Scripture to demonstate there is any legitimate support for your “Chain of Command” ideology. As they say in philosophical circles, the burden of proof is on your side.

Comment by TC

January 13, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

Frank,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. With you, I suspect that our differences run much deeper than disagreeing about what submission means in marriage. Since “nothing you have read” from a complementarian perspective has changed your mind on these fundamentals, it would be presumptuous for me to assume I could do what others undoubtedly more eloquent than I could not.

On the other hand, my original comment was an attempt to respond to the original posting on its own terms, i.e. as an internally and logically consistent exegesis of 1 Peter 2 & 3. (As you point out, my subsequent responses did invoke a hierarchical ontology, but this was only in response to other commenters first positing a “flat” ontology.) On its own terms, then, the original exegesis is plagued with poor logic and coherence. There may be other ways to explain 1 Peter from an egalitarian perspective, but this cannot be it.

Since my first comment in this thread was somewhat flippant, I’ll try to make the point more didactically. The orignal posting argues that we are to submit to the ruling authorities because it is the “law of the land.” This is either simplistically tautological or it is argument by fiat, yet it forms the basis for the conclusion that Peter’s instruction regarding submission in marriage can effectively be disregarded.

I have tried to diagram the reasoning as a syllogism. It is difficult to even get a bad syllogism out of it, because it is so full of non-starters and non-sequiturs. Nevertheless, here’s what I came up with.
P1: Submission within marriage is to be understood “in the same way” as submission to governing authorities.
P2: Submission to governing authorities is a “law of the land”
C1: Therefore, submission within marriage is a “law of the land”

And

P3: Instructions based on “laws of the land” may be disregarded when the “laws of the land” change.
P4/C1: Submission within marriage is a “law of the land”
C2: Submission within marriage can be disregarded because the current “laws of the land” have changed since Peter wrote his epistle.

Now, the whole thing clearly falls apart if P2 can be shown to be false. And that is what my original comment was trying to do, by resorting to an ad absurdum argument. If submission to rulers (along with other “laws of the land”) is as malleable as submission in marriage is presumed to be, then surely that submission must also give way to my own interpretation, which allows me to riot and steal and whatever else I deem appropriate.

But of course, the command regarding submission to ruling authorities is not a “law of the land.” It is, contra the original post, a divine law, encapsulated in 1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13, and numerous other scriptures with which you are undoubtedly familiar.

P2 gives way, and thus the entire argument crumbles. Again, there may be other egalitarian ways to deal with this passage, but this one falls apart on its own, without any resort to external ontologies, ideologies, pathologies, or numerologies.

Comment by jlp

January 13, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

TC said:

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that, from a perspective of logical argument, your rebuttals provide more cover for comps than egals. If you’re going to use a weapon, it’s best to make sure it’s pointing away from you. :-)

I didn’t use a weapon. Giving historical information is not a weapon. And the information I used did not prove your point as you feel it did. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I think you thought I made a point for you that I didn’t make.

Comment by jlp

January 13, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

Perhaps before you think that someone else has made your point for you, you should see if they agree with what that analysis.

Comment by Liz

January 13, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

Regarding hierarchy and governing authorities etc., it seems to me that this issue revolves around which hierarchies God has set up for all time and which are temporary. The answer to this is not to be found in a couple of verses in Peter but is found by reading the redemption story as a whole.

Surely TC, you would agree that there are instructions in scripture which were written for the time and circumstances. The crucial thing is for us to decide which ones are for a particular time and which are eternal.

The only reasoning I have ever heard or read as to why complementarians hold to a hierarchical system between men and women is based on one or of these theories..
Creation (Adam was created first and so is ‘in charge’) or the meaning of the word translated as ‘help’ as given to Eve.
God’s statement to Eve after sin entered the world (Your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you)

I believe that these statements have been misapplied and used to prop up a system which goes right against God’s character and eternal plan of redemption for all people.

More recently, some complementarians have been teaching the eternal subordination of the Son to give weight to the argument for the subordination of women. As history proves, this reasoning was soundly debated and set aside during the formation of the Nicene Creed.

Comment by Frank

January 13, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

TC, I don’t have time today to give a full answer to your reply to my previous comment (88315). But let me point out a few items that I hope to address later. As someone who has studied logic, as both taught by Aristotle and Gordon Clark, one thing I have learned about logical syllogisms is that they may appear perfectly logical, consistent, and coherent; but if the premise they are built on is defective or false, so is the syllogism. Secondly, 1 Peter 2:11-3:12 is a unit of exhortation of how Christians are to conduct themselves in the world and among themselves. And it seems your interpretation of 3:7 tends to ignore its place in the context. But as I say, I can’t give a full answer today; I have other pressing matters.

Comment by jlp

January 13, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

You list several valid exceptions to the principle that we are to obey governing authorities. However, your exceptions only serve to “prove the rule.” In other words, precisely because you and I agree that those circumstances *are* exceptional, we can agree that the general principle holds true.

That’s where you missed my point. You mistakenly thought I was presenting these as exceptions. Absolutely not, this type of event have been the norm through most of history. It’s only recently that governments have ruled in some parts of the world with some measure of decency. And that’s only because those governments were in countries in which advocacy was not quashed.

Comment by jlp

January 13, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

In other words, precisely because you and I agree that those circumstances *are* exceptional,

I’m absolutely stunned that you thought that I thought these circumstances were exceptions when I was really trying to prove the opposite.

Comment by Liz

January 13, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

Ah well….it just goes to show that we can misinterpret one another easily and with the best of intentions.

When I read your first comment TC, I thought you were egalitarian and just being funny so there you go……we all make mistakes!

Comment by Suzanne

January 13, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

And I thought you were another TC, but also complementarian. So that’s all good.

I don’t think there is much disagreement about whether Christians ought to submit either in general or in particular.

The problem arises as to how to deal with tyaranical power. As each generation of peasants or dissidents or women are injured or die from exposure to tyranical power, each generation of Christians takes on tyranical power in new ways.

First, the power of the one visible church on earth. Church structure was transformed and made accountable to the congregation and to civil powers.

Second, the divine right of kings. Monarchies and all ruling powers in Christian countries have been made to submit to the voters. The relationship is reciprocal between governed and governors.

Third, slavery has been made illegal, and worker solidarity and unions have gained fair treatment for workers.

Fourth, now we need reciprocity in marriage, so that women submit to a person who is equally accountable to them.

Christians *should* as a rule obey governing authorities, except where doing so would clearly cause them to violate other commandments.

Christians have transformed the concept of ruling power.

Likewise, wives *should* submit to their husbands, except where doing so would clearly cause them to violate other commandments.

Christians must equally reform the concept of marriage, so it accords with the law of Christ, that each one love his neighbour as himself.

The new law, the rule of consent for both parties, siblinghood, equal regard and mutual respect. These are all the endowments of Christianity to humankind. May we use these gifts well.

Comment by Sarah

January 14, 2009 @ 3:57 am

Ah, fools rush in . . . so here I come . . . ;-)
tc – might it be possible that the example of Sarah was given not to illustrate eternal subordination but as an example of righteous behavior in similar patriarchal cultural circumstances? After all, nowhere in Scripture are men told to lead or rule their wives (excepting a drunken pagan royal council) and nowhere are we told that the patriarchy reported in scripture is God’s ideal. As a matter of fact the only command for spousal obedience in Abraham’s story is when God tells him to obey Sarah.

Comment by Mary

January 14, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

I noticed, TC, that you advocated submission to authority as what a wife must do.

In the world, throughout history, submission is essentially obedience, given to a worldly authority (that is, by someone of lesser power and rights to someone with greater power and rights).

However, we’re supposed to be Christians. Christians are taught in Scripture to submit TO OTHER PEOPLE. We’re all to submit to one another out of our reverence for Christ, and that includes wives to their husbands, while husbands aren’t given a loophole on it, either.

Christian submission, unlike the “submission” of the world, is always to a person. Jesus taught us that we who have more power in this world, are not to lord that power over another, but rather to serve the other. Christian submission is always, ALWAYS, relational. Christians do, of course, have to give what the world thinks of as “submission” to those who have worldly “authority” (that is, greater positional power). And some Christians continue to have worldly positions that give them a great deal of earthly power. That is like the husbands, fathers, slaveholders, and ruling authorities of scriptural description.

But note that nowhere in Scripture are those worldly positions prescribed for Christians. In the body of Christ, regardless of one’s worldly power, all serve so that all ARE served. The body functions as an undivided organism, led by Jesus Christ. Christians are given the authority of Christ himself, who came not to be served but to serve. The ways of the world, according to Christ, are not to be the way it is with his disciples. And there’s no exception to that extended to husbands (or wives). Even if their societies grant great “authority” to men as husbands and fathers, Christian men of discernment and maturity recognize that they are to be transformed into the likeness of Christ, no less than their wives, in their love. Their wives already have a Savior and have no need for their husbands to usurp the place of Christ in their wives’ lives — husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loves. It’s worth noting that like a wife is included in the repeated commandment all Christians have to submit, a husband is included in the repeated commandment to love as Christ has loved us.

I think it’s a tragedy that so much of the church, for so long, has gone in the diametrically opposite direction of Scripture’s teachings on love and submission, in order to preserve this world’s “order” of husbands being “authorities over” their wives. Scripture never gives husbands any such position, even if the society in place in the first century of the Christian era DID grant such unilateral positional power to husbands. Scripture describes a great deal that it never condones. By doing so, it illustrates quite accurately the human propensity to sinfully exploit others for personal (perceived) gain. Jesus quite rightly asked what it profits one to gain the whole world, if one loses one’s own soul. It’s a matter of deciding if one’s model is going to be the Lord Jesus Christ, or the world’s ways.

Comment by Mary

January 14, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

So long as (some) Christians settle for this world’s sinful versions of authority and submission, and overlay them onto Scripture, those Christians will continue to demand that Christians behave like the world instead of showing forth the redemptive power of God in their lives. They will continue to grasp for the seductive thrill of “authority over” others (spouse, children, neighbor), whether overtly as the patriarchalists advocate for husbands, or in covert manipulation as advocated for their wives. No matter how they dress it up, it’s still worldly power struggles. It’s not biblical submission nor godly authority. God offers the Holy Spirit to truly empower us, giving us genuine authority to serve others in a submissive and loving, godly way. But God does not force us to do this. That’s why there are so many who oppose biblical equality — they’d have to give up the world’s way of “submit to authority” and instead surrender to the God who calls us all to deny ourselves in order to love and serve others. They’ll continue to see submission as something only women must do, then glory in how “submissive” they are (the women) or what remarkable “leaders” they are (the men). They’ll continue to be respecters of men, showing great partiality to some and appalling disrespect for others, all based on whether it’s a man or a woman.

Comment by Charis

January 15, 2009 @ 5:31 am

TC 88332 “The orignal posting argues that we are to submit to the ruling authorities because it is the “law of the land.” This is either simplistically tautological or it is argument by fiat, yet it forms the basis for the conclusion that Peter’s instruction regarding submission in marriage can effectively be disregarded.”

and 88293 “If we claim that the idea of ordered authority is just a “law of the land” and subject to my own personal interpretation, what is destroyed is not simply the husband/wife relationship, but the idea of submission to any rule of law.”

I don’t think the passage in question can be used to prove “that Peter’s instruction regarding submission in marriage can effectively be disregarded.“.

To the contrary, the passage says ““Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men…”. The error is the assumption that “instituted among men…” applies only to laws of government.

I assume you are male, TC? YOUR wife would do well to carefully follow the passage because your theology gives you “authority instituted among men”….

I am deeply troubled when people seem to use cultural arguments to throw out wifely submission as of contemporary value. Submission is a Christian attribute. Wives have the high calling of role modeling Christlike submission (not to be confused with powerlessness).

Comment by Liz

January 15, 2009 @ 6:29 am

I think that scripture teaches that husbands also have the high calling of role modelling Christlike submission (not to be confused with powerlessness)

Comment by Charis

January 15, 2009 @ 8:58 am

Liz,

Yes. Jesus is the role model described at the end of 1 Peter 2 for BOTH wife and husband in dealing with their spouse- note “Likewise…” in verse 1 and 7). But what if my husband is not doing his part of the “Likewise…” instruction? Then God wants me to go first. I have the responsibility of leading the way! I have the responsibility of behaving Christlike! Is that hard? Yes and no… It is a process, it takes time, falling down and getting back up again… BUT whatever God is calling me to do, HE is ready willing and able to EQUIP me to do! And I believe the passage is for TODAY. I believe it remains as powerful, anointed, and redemptive for me- the wife of a modern patriarch wannabe- as for a 1st century woman or a 19th century slave. Going deeper under HIS mighty hand, Going deeper into submission and obedience to HIM is a very rewarding pathway, no matter what choices my husband ultimately makes.

Theoretically (for me, anyway) in a marriage where both husband and wife are walking in sincere submission AND obedience to Christ, unilateral submission gives way to unity of the spirit, the bond of peace, oneness, mutuality. Both are humbly submissive and obedient to God’s instructions for them .

Comment by TC

January 15, 2009 @ 11:17 am

Oh my! Life gets busy for a day, and I find myself far behind… I may not be able to respond to each comment, but I’ll give it a whirl.

First, to clear up any confusion, I do hold to views that are usually described as complementarian. The flippancy of my first comment apparently obscured my perspective. I am also a husband and father, blessed to be married to the most wonderful woman in the world.

Second, JLP, I apologize for misunderstanding your views. I was attempting to be (I thought) generous in interpreting your remarks. I did not realize that you (apparently) view all governing authority as intrinsically evil. I assumed that you were pointing out instances of “authority gone bad,” which, as I remarked, would really only make logical sense if authority was a normative good. I think I understand now that you view all human authority and, thus, all submission to authority, as inherently wrong. I apologize for misunderstanding earlier.

Frank, your comment on fallacious syllogisms was precisely my point. The syllogisms weren’t mine; they were simply restating the original post. By showing that one of the premises was untenable, I demonstrated that the conclusion was false. Also, I didn’t comment on 1 Peter 3:7, but I do hold that this command, as with 1 Peter 3:1, is for all people at all times. Would you argue that 1 Peter 3:7 is also tied to the particular context of Peter’s time and is therefore also no longer appropriate for application in our current culture?

Everyone else: :-) I’m afraid I won’t be able to respond in depth to the other issues raised. We have some fundamental disagreements that probably can’t be resolved over the internet. I obviously disagree with the idea, which seems to be popular here, that human authority is a purely human construct. Some examples of human authority are, but I am convinced from reading all of Scripture that God is the one who ultimately authorizes human authority. We have Moses and the Levitical priesthood; the judges; the kings (even though the establishment of the Israelite kingship was against God, He clearly is the one authorizing it); Jesus recognized that Pilate’s authority was from God; (contra Mary) the apostles at the Jersualem council in Acts; Paul’s apostolic authority over the churches that he planted, etc. Clearly God sets some humans over other humans for His own divine purposes. Just as clearly, this authority is often abused, but this does not render God’s command to submit to those authorities void.

To the argument that some commands are based in the cultures of the time in which they were given: with Liz, I agree that this is sometimes true, and the rub lies in finding which these are. I am convinced that God’s commands regarding the relationships within a family are for all time. I can no more construe as culturally bound the repeated instruction for wives to submit to their husbands than I can the instruction for children to obey their parents or for husbands to love and respect their wives.

Now, to the very valid concern about authority abused, particularly within a domestic setting, I acknowledge that this is a difficult and important question, and one not well addressed in Scripture. However, because it is not addressed in Scripture, it must be addressed pastorally according to the needs of each circumstance. That the church is, generally, poorly equipped to deal with the realities of abuse and violence is a troubling reality, but it does not therefore nullify the clear statements of scripture. Indeed, when Peter (who also wrote “submit to governing authorities”!) and John said “we must obey God rather than men,” they were not nullifying the instruction to submit but were indicating that the instruction to submit to authorities was itself subordinate to the instruction to submit to God. Likewise, there may be (and there are) circumstances in which a wife’s responsibility to submit is being placed not in service to God’s purposes but in service to the sinful desires of her husband. Yet this example of abused authority does not eliminate the general instruction of submission.

Or to make a very long comment short, I think everyone should grab a copy of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” and carefully digest his synthesis of the nuptial meaning of marriage. :-) Once you come to understand that everything about marriage (even submission and authority) is based in the idea of giving one’s self to one’s spouse, I think you’ll find it hard to be unhappy with the way God has ordained marriage.

Comment by jlp

January 15, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

Thanks TC. I guess I took your comments harder than I should have. I have been reading “Team of Rivals” and the description of the legal status of African Americans had me extremely on edge. I also study history a lot, and can’t believe the horrible things governments have done. So I took your comment harder than someone else would have. All these things were going through my mind when I read your comment, and thus read more into what you said than you meant.

Comment by jlp

January 15, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

TC,

I did not realize that you (apparently) view all governing authority as intrinsically evil.

I think authority where the majority has a voice in the decisions, such as in democratic countries can be used positively. But in situations where the majority doesn’t have a voice, authority is used in a negative manner.

Comment by Liz

January 15, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

Charis, what would you advise for a Christian husband whose wife was not walking in a godly manner. Shouldn’t he be submissive to his wife in the same way you described so well?

Comment by joanne

January 16, 2009 @ 10:39 am

about biblical interpretation:

I find it hokey that we get it right on the slavery thing but not wives.

It seems to me that Paul and Peter were addressing the way things functioned in that day and were seeking to help believers live within a world that existed at the time and to bring as much gospel light as possible.

when we interpret slavery texts we do this:

1. look at the Pauline and Petrine world and understand the cultural nuances on slavery and the household codes.
2. look at how God through the church has abolished slavery and notice the trajectory of liberation for humans in light of the gospel.
3. conclude that God does not endorse slavery and that the kingdom is not about making people into slaves, even benevolent slavery.
4. finally, we also draw conclusions about racism and community and call for justice between people groups.

with wives we do this:
1. look at our world and consider feminism to be anti-biblical.
2. go to the bible and look at the Pauline and Petrine world and see that Paul and Peter tell women to be subordinate.
3. tell women in this world to be subordinate.
4. conclude that women were made to be subordinate by their design and that God endorses it.
5. call for benevolent subordination and rename it loving leadership, having the final say.
6. call men to be kind and loving to wives, listen but remain the final say and knower.
7. sanctify benevolent subordination of all women to all men.

We do our interpretation backwards. No one stops to discern what in feminism is good and what in feminism is anti-the kingdom of God. Instead of redeeming the system of the world that diminishes the voice of women, we reapply the first century system and sanctify that system calling it God’s will.

I don’t get it. I don’t think the logic is consistent with our interpretations on slavery. It is better to be a slave than a woman because Jesus liberates slaves but women must still atone for their sin and remain under the authority and knowing of the husbands and men church leaders.

OH when… will we truly be redeemed.

Comment by Charis

January 16, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

Charis, what would you advise for a Christian husband whose wife was not walking in a godly manner. Shouldn’t he be submissive to his wife in the same way you described so well?

Paul and Peter didn’t use the word “submissive” for the husband and I think some men have as hard a time today with the thought of being “submissive” to their wives as they did then. So, to a man I would point to their “likewise” instruction in 1 Peter 3:7

Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

which- as you observe- points back up to the role model of Jesus (just like the “likewise” instruction to wives in 1 Peter 3:1)

I take 1 Peter as quite relevant and powerful NOT just in the 1 century context but in the contemporary culture. For example, I see the passage as evenhandedly addressing verbal abuse in marriage whether the abuser is the husband OR the wife (The latter perhaps being more common nowadays than in a 1st century context where women did not have the freedom we do?):

Look at the calling and the *promises*

21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

…

1 ¶ Likewise, ye wives, …

7 Likewise, ye husbands, …

8 ¶ Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a *blessing*.

10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

I noticed the instructions for responding to verbal abuse (no insulting back, but blessing).
And I noticed a “no guile” sandwich (2:22; 3:10) around the renowned Sarah role model of submission . For me- timid, wimpy, weak, doormat type that I was- it meant I had to start speaking up. God would not allow me to continue to be conflict avoidant and brush things under the rug in denial. It was scary and I was absolutely horrible at it at first… Takes practice.

In reflecting upon this passage and upon the role model of Sarah, I have come to identify with Sarah. She goes through a maturing process and comes to the place of having a great deal of influence and authority in her household. (see Gen 21:9-12).

Comment by Frank

January 16, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

Hello again, everyone. I wish I could more fully interact with the discussion, but as I said in an earlier comment, I have some pressing matters to deal with that keep me from giving as full a response to TC and others as I would like. I hope to work on such a response over the weekend and post it earlier next week.
However, I will say this, it is true that TC and I have a difference of viewpoint that involves more than some isolated texts on submission. It is an interpretive/theological scheme, the heart of which is derived from the New Creation Theology shared by both Peter and Paul-that with the coming of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his redeemed people, has been inaugurated God’s Eschatological Kingom in which the Blessed Alliance of Man and Woman as CoRegents under God is restored; both men and women, receiving the adoption to Sonship, are given the full rights and privileges to rule and serve like their Elder Brother; and that it is the Age of the Spirit, when the Holy Spirit, in mutual agreement with the Father and Son, gifts and calls men and women to proclaim the Gospel, help the poor and needy, and contend together as equals against all falsehood, injustice, and iniquity until Christ returns. So that is where I am coming from.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

January 16, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

I’ve been away. This one got interesting, didn’t it? Let me address a couple of things from early on.

Charis, I do think a husband’s “authority” is an “authority instituted among men.” I don’t know nearly enough Hebrew to get into the meaning of submission here.

Frank, I think you make an excellent point on Sarah determining the will of God. I don’t know how complimentarians answer that.

TC, I would like to talk syllogisms. In comment TC 88332, the problem is probably my poor communication skill. I have not at all intended to say, “Submission to governing authorities is a “law of the land” Submission to those in authority over us, be they political leaders, owners, or spouses, is a Law of God. Those in authority make laws that we are to obey (unless, of course, they contravene the Law of God). Human laws established and now define citizenship, ownership, and marriage. At present, for example, the U.S. Gov’t is trying to create a definition of marriage. That definition will have the weight of law to those under U.S. law. That law will to some degree agree or disagree with the Law of God and we as Christians have to obey unless to do so would make us disobey God.

And

So your “P4/C1: Submission within marriage is a ‘law of the land’” is not what I was attempting to say, either.
It was the law of the government or other authorities who had the right to make such laws, as in the time of Peter’s writing. We do not have to obey Roman law or the laws of Israel in the First Century because they are no longer the law and we are not under submission to either of those authorities. We are under the laws of our own country at our own time. Those laws do not require a woman to be a subject in her husband’s home. In our laws, women can own property, can become of majority, cannot be forced to marry, and a number of other things that are fairly recent historically.

If your understanding of my arguments had been correct, “the whole thing clearly falls apart if P2 can be shown to be false.” However, because of our mis- communication, your syllogisms become straw men because they are built on different premises than the ones I am proposing.

P1: God expects Christians to submit to lawful authority unless it means not submitting to Him.
P2: The laws of the country in which you live are what you are to submit to.
P3: In the past, one of those laws was submission of wives to husbands.
P4: In our country, and in the West generally, submission to husbands is not the law of established authority.
C1: We do not have to submit to laws that no longer exist.
C2: Since the temporal authority under which we live does not require submission of wives to husbands, we do not have to do so unless God requires it.

I do not go on to discuss whether or not God requires the submission. I assume He does not. That is, actually, beyond the scope of my blog. I’m only showing that this portion of Scripture does not say submission of wives to husbands is Divine Law. Peter here is only discussing temporal law.

Hopefully, this makes my argument clearer. As I have with others, on other subjects and this one, I suggest we can agree to disagree.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

January 16, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

Oh yeah, and thanks to everyone who both clarified and added new insights I didn’t have!

Comment by Lin

January 17, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

“TC, it seems to me that, like so many complementarians, you assume your “Chain of Command” ontology (which is far more rooted in Greco-Roman philosophy than in Scripture itself)and then use that as your key in interpreting the Trinity, the clergy-laity, employer-worker, and husband-wife relationships. But nothing I have read by those in your camp has convinced me that this “Chain of Being” ideology, without some serious scripture twisting, can be consistently drawn from or supported by Scripture as a whole. ”

This is exactly right. It is incredible when one really realizes that the focus of ‘who is on top’ is really of the world. They have to read into the Genesis account to find this before the fall. One other thing I have noticed is they forget that the Isrealites begged God for a king like the other pagan nations had. They forgot that God was their king. It would be good to go back and read what God warned them about earthly kings.

In the NC, we are to mutually submit. There are just too many ‘one another’ verses. And they apply to all believers whether married or not.

Comment by Lin

January 17, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

Oh, and yes, we are to submit to the civil ruling authorities. That includes the woman police officer who pulls us over for speeding. :o)

Comment by Frank

January 17, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

Hubert, it’s good to have you back. And I think we know the answer regarding how some complementarians treat Gen. 21:8-14 and its bearing on husband-wife relations and responsibilities concerning God’s kingdom purposes. If you note, TC, in his comments on Abraham and Sarah, totally ignored my comments and Sarah’s comments on this passage. And that fact that there are social structures like marriage, goverment, etc, where Christians must defer to the proper authorities, he did not disprove his permanent, hierarchical ordering of these social structures is rooted in pagan Greek philosophy, not the Bible. So I think he’s got some more research and thinking to do.

Comment by Sarah

January 18, 2009 @ 3:13 am

Frank, I’m honored to be ignored if it’s for a good cause :-D

Comment by Frank

January 18, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

Sarah, I’m not quite sure what you meant in your last comment (88516). But I do agree that, in the service of a good cause, whether or not we’re personally recognized is not the point. As long as we have used our God-given gifts and abilities to advance the good causes he supports, that is the most important thing.

And as I am reviewing the various comments, I realize that in my own previous comment (88515), I need to clarify and expand on my comment regarding “social orders,” which in the original was stated somewhat clumsily. And so I will do so now.

What I want to say is that when it comes to “social structures” such as marriage, the family, the state, the church, work, etc., it is one thing to debate whether they came directly from God’s hand, or are they outworking of what theologians have called “the cultural mandate” of Genesis 1:27-28. But it is completely different to argue that these “social orders” are eternal, hierarchial, unchanging, static realities, in which one’s class, race, gender, age, etc., determine whether one is at the top or bottom of this social structure. And in his essay on “The Seven Pillars on which the Case for the Permanent Subordiantion of Women Stands,” Kevin Giles exposes the serious flaws in this complementarian argument. So I’m not the only one who is not convinced by this argument.

Comment by Larry S

January 18, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

Frank,

Giles’ 7 pillars paper sounds interesting.
Is it available on the web? I couldn’t find it.

thanks

Comment by Mary

January 18, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

TC, by the following comments, it appears that you missed my point:

“(contra Mary) the apostles at the Jersualem council in Acts; Paul’s apostolic authority over the churches that he planted, etc. Clearly God sets some humans over other humans for His own divine purposes. Just as clearly, this authority is often abused, but this does not render God’s command to submit to those authorities void.”

My point was that a Christian’s submission is always TO ANOTHER PERSON. And a corollary is that a Christian’s authority is always TO SERVE. In our human love of worldly hierarchies, we try to make it out to be who’s “over” whom. However, every Christian is endowed by the Holy Spirit with the authority to serve according to God’s calling and the Spirit’s gifts to carry out that calling. Some are given as gifts to the church as apostles, some teachers, and so forth. Such authority is the empowerment to serve in the name of Jesus Christ in the church and in the world. And those who receive that service are to submit TO THE ONE SERVING, not to somebody’s notion that their authority to serve puts them “over” the other. We are all to serve, we are all to submit to one another. It makes no sense to the world, nor to Christians who prefer this world’s positional hierarchies of “authority,” but it makes perfect sense in God’s economy.

Jesus said love of positional power was not to be so among his disciples. The greatest is to be the servant of all, and that service is offered by the authority of God. Simple, but only if one steps outside the box of the world’s thinking and seeks instead the ways of God.

Comment by TC

January 20, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

OK, this will probably be my last comment, since the constraints of life-beyond-the-internet are making themselves known. However, I wanted to tie up a few loose ends after a weekend away.

Hubert, thank you for your clarification. I apologize for misunderstanding your original intent. It helps to see your argument outlined in that manner. As I have made clear, I disagree with P3, the contention that the marital order described by Paul and Peter is to be understood simply as a “law of the country that you lived in.” By referencing Sarah and Abraham, Peter goes out of his way to show that this instructions transcends the current legal or cultural milieu. Besides, as we see in Acts, Peter had no problem crossing the legal authorities of the day when he saw that they were in the wrong. If the submission of the wife to the husband is intrinsically wrong, surely he would have had the wherewithal to state this clearly.

Sarah, I was not attempting to ignore you; I thought that I had satisfactorily responded to your comment in my general response. (And, hey, it’s five or six against one, here! :-) However, I will remind you that an argument from silence cuts both ways: nowhere are we told that a patriarchical order is bad, either. We are, however, given explicit instruction at least three times in the Epistles that wives are to submit to their husbands. I’ll also note that I absolutely agree that husbands are not to “rule over” their wives. Goodness, being the head is hard enough; I don’t even want to think about what “ruling” would entail!

Regarding Gen 21:8-14: I see no problem squaring this with a complementarian view. Maybe I’m being dense, but I see a husband being instructed by God to pay attention to his wife’s counsel. The husband is still the locus of the decision, and the obedience or disobedience of his family is on his shoulders. Being a complementarian doesn’t mean that a husband ignores his wife or never defers to her. I will gladly agree that in many marriages (including my own) the wife possesses superior intelligence and insight and holiness. Still, in the end, the decision that we make after deliberating together is ultimately my responsibility as husband. If we sin in our decision, God will judge me first (as exemplified in the Garden of Eden, Gen 3:8-9).

Mary, I agree that Christ-like love and service is the end or goal of all the instructions we are given about marriage. Both headship and submission are truly realized (i.e. aligned with God’s eternal purposes) only when they manifest love and service. This is why I will again recommend John Paul II’s _Theology of the Body_. Marital roles are nuptial (gift-giving) because they involve fully surrendering one’s self to one’s spouse. And this surrender requires headship from the husband and submission from the wife. It is not about who is “on top”, but on what the gift of self requires.

Frank, I suspect you would disagree with me that “grace perfects nature.” In other words, I believe that the eschatological vision is illuminated by what we can determine about the nature of things as God has created them. If God gives us instructions about our relationships here and now, those instructions also give hints as to what the renewed creation will look like. His grace will transform us according to our natures (1 Cor 15)–our “ousia”s, if you will. In other words, Scriptural instruction for our earthly lives is meant to align us with what we will become in the fully realized Kingdom of God. What we can discern about our nature here and now (i.e. ontology, I guess) gives us clues about what we will be when perfected. And vice versa. For this reason, I am very cautious to throw the mantle of “culturally-bound” over any exhortation in scripture; even when the exhortation arises from particular cultural circumstances, it will always give us a clue as to the true nature of the things being discussed.

And finally, this leads me to Joanne’s (88506) comment and others who hint at the motives of those who disagree with the egalitarian perspective. Some comps may fit the model of persuasion that you describe, but I don’t know any. Every complementarian that I know personally began with scripture and then looked out at the culture. This was true of me, who saw a clear ordering of authority in the Bible before I even knew what feminism was or had heard of the debate between comps and egals. Call me a fundamentalist, but the passages instructing submission within marriage are pretty straightforward for a young reader who has no other hermeneutical framework than a plain reading of the text. This was also true for my wife, who arrived at a complementarian position (long before she knew me or even really thought about marriage) by a careful study of scripture, and did so within a milieu that should have produced a strong egalitarian (ELCA background, tutelage under liberal professorship, close and favorable association with egalitarian ministries, etc.) Claiming that all, or even most, complementarians are angsty traditionalists with their shorts in a bundle because they don’t like the prevailing cultural winds or plain just want power, does not do justice to the truth nor does it further this very significant discussion.

OK, the last word is yours. :-)

Comment by Hubert Edgar

January 20, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

Nice talking with you, TC.

Comment by Liz

January 20, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

Hi TC! I hope you are still reading as I would like to thank you for your graciousness and clear explanation of where you and your wife stand in looking into the issue of equality. It reminds us again that not all people of either side of this ‘debate’ are angry or super-critical of other people’s opinions. We appreciate your taking the time on this site and showing us that we can discuss this issue with fairness and kindness.

It shows again that we can see things differently without any hidden agenda or axe to grind and that we all need to listen carefully and see God at work in each other.

Comment by Frank

January 22, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

I see a lot of ground has been covered since I last participated in this discussion,which has now moved on to a discussion of Timothy Webb’s book on Biblical intepretation. And I certainly do not want to detract from Hubert having “the last word” in the dialogue we have had with TC. However, I have written a little commentary on some related matters that this dialogue stimulated in my thinking about the Bible and interpreting and applying Scripture, which I hope will be a good transition to and stimulus for the discussion on Webb’s book.

I think it is safe to say that TC and I would agree that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Written Word of God, the final rule by which all Christian doctrine and practice is to be measured and judged. But in case we have a different understanding of the sola Scriptura principle, I want to make my view clear before I making a final comment on what it is that truly divides us.

Sola Scriptura, contrary to what some might think, does not mean that all the truth that is to be discovered and known can only be found in Scripture. There are many truths of mathematics, history, science, and medicine, for example, that are not specifically found in the Bible. The motto, “All truth is God’s” is itself true. And so Sola Scriptura would affirm that all such truths, if indeed true and not the mistaken notions of fallen minds, must cohere with the Bible’s true teachings about the spiritual and material realms. It would also affirm that such truths are useful in correcting faulty interpretations of Scripture that have been held in the past. As Robert Bowman, Jr., puts it:

Sometimes our knowledge of the Bible will lead us to correct our mistaken notions about history or science or psychology. On the other hand, sometimes advances in our knowledge of these fields will force to reexamine and refine, even correct, our understanding of the Bible. This happened, for example, when Galileo proved the earth moves around the sun and therefore that the earth moves, contrary to the standard interpretations of the Bible at that time…A simplistic “Bible-0nly” application of this protestant principle that refuses to allow such corrections to our understanding of Scripture is destructive, in two ways. First, it divides Christians, because those who are open to all truth will not allow themselves to be held back by those who are closed to anything that will not fit their set interpretations of the Bible. Second, it hampers evangelism, because intelligent non-Christians can see that such “Bible-Only” fundamentalism blinds its adherents to proven truth, and this discourages them from taking Christianity seriously (Cf. Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctinal Discernment, p.61).

Nor does Sola Scriptura hold that the meaning and significance of any biblical text is self-evident, or that the Bible is self-interpreting to such a degree to render how others before us have read and interpreted the Scripture. After all the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a high view of Scripture and hold to a “Bible-Only” principle. Yet their understanding of the Trinity and of Christology is anything but orthodox.

No, it all has to do with how we read, interpret, and apply the Scripture, and whether or not our interpretive methodology is derived from Scripture or imposed on it by some ecclesiastical or scholarly magisterium. That’s where TC and I truly differ.

Comment by Frank

January 23, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

I’m sorry, Larry, that in my previous comment, I forgot to respond to your inquiry (88518) about Kevin Giles “7 Pillars” paper. I found it by going to the CBE home site, then clicking “free articles” under the Resources window there, and then put his name in the “Search” box. So you should be able to find it there. I hope that will help you to find it and print it.

Comment by Jamie

January 26, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

TC said:

“Still, in the end, the decision that we make after deliberating together is ultimately my responsibility as husband. If we sin in our decision, God will judge me first (as exemplified in the Garden of Eden, Gen 3:8-9).”

This is a complete misunderstanding regarding the story structure of Gen. 3.

An inverted order moves cyclically in the narrative:

Order of Disobedience:

Serpent — Woman — Man

Order of Trial:

Man — Woman — Serpent

Order of Judgment:

Serpent — Woman — Man

The fact that the man was initially questioned by God bears no relationship whatsoever to the erroneous idea that as a “husband” he has “responsiblity” for BOTH himself and his spouse and he will (somehow?) be judged “first”.

The man (or husband) is not always “first” in everything.

Notice also that it is the woman who is consistently at the center. Which, I would think makes sense since salvation is through her seed, not his (Gen. 3:15)

Comment by Mary

January 26, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

TC said:

“Marital roles are nuptial (gift-giving) because they involve fully surrendering one’s self to one’s spouse. And this surrender requires headship from the husband and submission from the wife. It is not about who is ‘on top,’ but on what the gift of self requires.”

I agree witih the first and the third sentence of what TC has written here. However, the second sentence is simply neither scriptural nor credible. “Headship” is a construct of social tradition in which men are taught to be authority figures over their wives, and women are taught to submit to that supposed authority without there being any reciprocation of that submission. This “headship” is peddled by the latest “complementarians” as something somehow biblical. However, Scripture, by marked contrast, calls the husband the head of his wife, and refers to his wife as her husband’s body. One flesh. Not divided into a leader and a follower, an authority and a submitter. Yes, I know that many Christians read “head of the wife” and think that the religiously-popular teaching of “headship” is what it means. It is not. “Head” and “body” constitutes a metaphor of the kind of unity that God intended for marriage. So when people settle for “headship” teachings instead of what Scripture actually says about head and body, they are indeed “requiring” that someone be “on top,” and it is the husband. Not the wife (nor should she be), but unfortunately not Christ, either.

Either the husband understands himself to be as fully included in the command to submit to one another found in Eph. 5:21 as his wife is, or he’s fallen for the notion that the adult, intelligent, gifted life partner who is his wife, for some nonsensical reason, requires him to be her leader and an “authority over” her till death does them part. God, revealed in Scripture, certainly does not require any such thing from him. I can understand why a man might be deluded into thinking that his gift to his wife is his leadership (“headship”) of her. It’s a great thing for him…that is, until he considers the “one another” commandments of Scripture and realizes that his treatment of her in a manner he would not wish for himself IS mistreating himself; they’re one flesh! If he then repents of his self-centered, tickled-ears acceptance of the silly idea that a woman needs a mere human fellow sinner saved by grace to lead her, simply because she’s a woman and he’s the man, he’s going to realize that Christian love requires submission from him, just as love and submission are also required of his wife. And then he’ll surrender to Christ the prerogative that should have been reserved for Christ all along: leadership of the marriage. Men and women both need the Savior to lead them, so the leader of a Christian marriage had better be Christ! Christ delegates no “leader authority” to husbands. Instead, he commands that husbands love their wives just as self-sacrificially as all believers are commanded to love the other members of the body of Christ, even though first-century society gave husbands absolute power over their wives and expected wives to obey them in the same way their slaves and children were required to. First century women were reminded that, despite their husbands’ despotic power over them in their society’s version of the fallen world, they were not exempt from submitting to their husbands, just as all believers even today are expected to submit to one another — that is, if they’re going to claim to honor Christ.

Societies change; men in general are not given legal power of life and death over their wives anymore, at least in societies founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Society doesn’t, and Christians shouldn’t, try to re-impose on our world nearly 20 centuries later the sinful patterns described in New Testament Scripture, including husbands’ unilateral power over their wives. Some husbands and wives are wise enough to try the more excellent way in their marriages, and find that it conforms to the examples Christ gave us of setting self aside, submitting to the other purely out of agape love. It’s amazing to me how stubbornly some Christians will denounce such a God-honoring principle, though, offering instead the same man-centered patterns as the world has historically preferred, but proof-texted by Scripture and set forth as though patriarchy (“softened” to the much more palatable concept of “headship”) is biblically mandated. (I have sometimes wondered if this “headship” fad would be reevaluated more readily if there was a similar “bodyship” teaching put forth for wives. But then, they’d have to come to terms with the inconvenient principle that Paul was writing about unity, not authority figures.)

Bottom line: Christian wives understand that they should submit to their husbands, whether they’ve swallowed the most patriarchal restrictions or are following the principle of mutual submission taught in Scripture, or somewhere short of actual patriarchy but still husband-preferential in focus. The determining factor is the husband’s behavior. He either accepts that his wife is part of the “one another” teachings of Scripture, or he considers himself exempt from submitting to his wife as a fellow member of the body of Christ. He doesn’t get to have it both ways.

If submission is such a wonderful thing for a wife to practice, one wonders why so many Christian husbands refuse to model it for their wives. And perhaps the sly, manipulative behavior that patriarchy-focused wives often resort to in order to circumvent the restrictions inherent in their lives, also shows little that is truly godly or attractive to their husbands, giving them zero incentive to dare submitting to their wives out of love for them and reverence for Christ. I believe that a Christian woman or man who truly submits to his or her spouse (Christian or unbelieving) will be modeling Christ to that spouse. When that happens, many times (admittedly not all) the other spouse begins to behave in the same way. (“Won over without a word” comes to mind.) True biblical submission is a mark of a mature(ing) believer. It’s not “for women only.”

Comment by Liz

January 28, 2009 @ 4:05 am

Jamie..I just love your last sentence. Seems so logical to me.

Mary – thanks for a great summary. This is one of the wonderful things about this site – there is such opportunity for people to learn what true biblical equality is all about.

Comment by Morna

November 11, 2009 @ 11:34 am

Has anybody mentioned yet that female submission actually was, in Paul’s time, an “authority instituted among men”? Paul didn’t make up these household codes, they existed in Greco-Roman legal strictures.

Comment by Liz

November 11, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

It’s a good reminder anyway.