The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

Serving or Subservience

Filed under: Gender Equality
Written by: on Sunday, May 23, 2010

Sometimes we hear Christian jargon batted about so much that we lose our grasp of what is meant by the terms. Because words like servant and servanthood have been used so much, I’ve chosen to use different ones.

If one has a spirit of helpfulness, it is easy to slip from freedom in serving into the bondage of subservience. Right away we can get a clue from the sub- prefix. It means “under,” “beneath,” “lower,” “further down” or “less important.” That meaning is useful, of course, when we talk about a subway or submarine, subzero temperatures, a subbasement, or a subhead. But sub- connected to service means, not retained and remunerated fairly for aid one has given, but service that is required because the server is under the other. He/she is beneath the one being served, lower and less important.

My purpose in pointing out this difference is that Christians sometimes confuse the two. (As I have done myself.) Too frequently, it can be seen in churches where officials use their position to assume a superior stance over others. They “deserve” their privileges and even if they do not require obeisance, they quite readily accept inappropriate deference. Sadly, it is found in home relationships too. The husband—backed by Scriptural teaching, he supposes, concerning the submission of his wife to his decisions and wishes—domineers or even abuses his family. The wife may not realize there is any other way to interpret those same Scriptures, and hates the position in which they have placed her. In these churches and homes, those who “under” are not able to give freely in serving, but are enmeshed in subservience. While risking oversimplification, I see the two sharply contrasted in these ways.

Serving allows one to understand and minister to others while retaining his/her own identity and objectivity.
Subservience requires one to give up autonomy, even one’s own Spirit-led intentions.

Serving has genuineness about it; it is consistent with the rest of the giver’s life.
Subservience means the giver may have to hide feelings of frustration and anger.

Serving is about honestly assessing need, not always yielding to what is wanted or demanded.
Subservience is allowing oneself to be manipulated by another, even when their agenda might not be particularly self-serving.

Serving means one chooses to be in a caring or giving situation.
Subservience requires one to co-operate or suffer negative consequences.

So what are people to do if they are caught in subservience rather than serving? Some situations can be altered so that the sub- part no longer exists to create an imbalance of power. That’s why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees. Some relationships have to enter a negotiation phase, where both giver and receiver act honestly and graciously. Remember Jesus washing Peter’s feet? And some have to be ended. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas perhaps illustrate this when they went their separate ways, although thankfully, only temporarily. None of these are easy, especially if the inequality is firmly established. But serving is a Christian privilege, fully based on the Scripture; subservience is not.

8 Comments »

Comment by Rachel

May 23, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

I’m new to this site and enjoyed this thoughtful post. If we do not draw these distinctions, those of us who disagree with subservience may end up shying away from service altogether. Like anything else in life, we should look to the example of Jesus, who showed service without being subservient. In domestic life, perhaps if each spouse were trying to act in service to the other, subservience would not be a problem.
-Rachel

Comment by Don Johnson

May 23, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

I like the article.

Note that some non-egals teach super-servience, this is the idea that a husband truly serves his wife by being willing to “step up to the place of God’s design” of leadership in the home with its burdens.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

May 23, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

Interesting thoughts. Thanks. I’d like to see you, or someone, do a bit more with the Paul/Barnabas split. I think you’ve got something good there. To you have any suggestions about where I should look? Maybe you could write some more about it in another blog.

Comment by Marjorie

May 24, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

Some more thoughts on Paul and Barnabas, service and submission:

Why is it that we assume—or at least I most always have—that Paul was the one who was stubborn and caused the disagreement over taking John Mark on the missions trip? The young man had ducked out on an earlier venture, and Paul would have none of that. Perhaps Barnabas, the encourager, wanted to give him a second chance for successful experience in ministry. Apparently both men had strong wills, for the argument became heated and the men decided to go different directions. Actually, the Gospel was furthered by two teams ministering instead of just one: Paul chose Silas to accompany him through Syria and Cilicia, while Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. Even mature, Godly believers do not always agree. Is it possible that sometimes separation—not opposition of purpose, but difference of location—works out for the glory of God?

But the question might be asked, “In this conflict, who should have given in?” Paul, because he was younger in the faith? Barnabas, because he was “just” a helper? John Mark himself, because he was the point of dissension and should have just said, “Forget it, fellows”? It is this very idea of who must give in that fuels many of our discussions here about equality. Who is obliged to keep the rules that someone else has made for them? Who gets to have no voice? Who has to “give in”?

Should it always be women? Should it be the young or the less-educated? Should we disallow the voice of those who have a disability in some area but are fully qualified in others? Should we forego the insight to be gained by listening to someone who doesn’t look like us and may not—oh, my—think like us or act like us?

If you re-read the CBE Mission and History page, you will find that we affirm that all believers—regardless of gender, ethnicity, or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility and without the limits of culturally-defined roles. We are called to mutual submission, love, and service. No one is to be put in the position of always being “under.” Later in Paul’s story, we see him writing to Timothy, urging him to come and to bring John Mark with him, “for he will be helpful to me in my ministry.” Now, not one, but two young men are on Paul’s team, picturing the mutual submission, love and service which we desire for all.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

May 25, 2010 @ 11:01 am

Thanks very much for your additional insight. I particularly related to the “less-educated” and “disabled.”

Comment by margaret marquez

May 29, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

I especially was intrigued by the idea that the gospel was furthered by two missionary teams instead of one. Earlier on in Acts 8, the gospel was furthered by the persecution and scattering of the saints–who up to this time had been ignoring the Great Commission and just hanging around Jerusalem soaking up the blessings. But when they were scattered, they preached the gospel everywhere they went.

Comment by Liz

May 31, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

The distinction made by Marjorie is so important and often neglected as we see people denying who they are designed to be and living what they think is a godly lifestyle. Serving has the element of informed choice where subservience suggests the denying of all individuality and loss of personhood….how sad.

Comment by Rev. J

June 16, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

I also just wanted to comment on Don Johnson’s post in the which he wrote …”super-servience, this is the idea that a husband truly serves his wife by being willing to “step up to the place of God’s design” of leadership in the home with its burdens.” Service to one another requires that both parties be on the same level, i.e. it is rather difficult to serve someone who resides on some type of pedestal or someone who is so far below the server that it is difficult to reach down to that person.

God’s design in Genesis 1:26-7 clearly shows that the Lord God gave to both woman and man DOMINION or AUTHORITY over His creation and in v.27 God clearly states that He created mam and woman in HIS IMAGE. With both created completely EQUAL, whether one is SUB-servient (which puts one lower), or the CLEVERLY worded SUPER-servient (just a mirror image…reversed of sub-servient).

If you look at it like a mathematical equation….

super-servient super-servient
x x
sub-servient sub-servient

I can’t put arrows….but the FLOW on the first is SUB TO SUPER and the FLOW of the second is SUPER TO SUB. There is no change in the positional qualities of the arrangements. One is still over the other. Sometimes how non-egals use their words can be truly slick in their approach. It seems to mollify the holder of the SUB position, but how I see it…is this…those who are stepping up to super-servience are still the Over-Lords. It is like the usage of the terms:

sub-script = printed at the base of a word in smaller type.

super-script = printed at the top of a word in smaller type.

I would simply challenge egals to think about the terms that non-egals use. Obviously, this poster is an egal, if he is posting out here, so please do not think this is an attack on him, just the non-egalitarian compromises of their words. God Bless.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 253 access attempts in the last 7 days.