The CBE Scroll

Comment by LMcC

August 5, 2010 @ 10:59 am

I believe that in my city, it takes far more courage for a man to go against the status quo and practice mutual submission/Biblical equality than it does for him to be Mr. Macho and earn the praise of his fellow men in the pews.

Sadly, even the “egalitarian” denominations in my city have fallen to some level into traditionalist thought. It took way too long to find a church my die-hard SBC husband would attend. It has a long history of egalitarian practice. Unfortunately, the pastor believes in men as spiritual leaders of the home. *facepalm* I’ve heard rumors of a Christian Reformed Church or even a moderate Anglican church in the area, but the chances of getting DH to visit are slim. Moving up north is not an option.

Comment by Suzanne

August 5, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

I find it so refreshing and most honorable when I find men who refuse to be manipulated by the loud voices and forceful agendas of selfish and faulty social constructs. I too have read the fantastic informative book, My Brother’s Keeper, by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. I wish we would make it mandatory reading for both boys/men and girls/women. Thank you for your thoughtful writings and for sharing them with us.
Blessings,

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 5, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

Thank you both for your kind posts ^_^. LMCC I agree that a good egal church is hard to find. You might try a church from my denominational neck of the woods (Pentecostal Charismatic) I find that my people tend to be at least functionally egalitarian. Also for some extra help, the CBE website has a list of egalitarian denominations. All you do to find it is ( once you’re on the website) click on the rescources tab and click on directories and there will be an icon that says ‘churches’ – hope that helps and may God bless you both to overflow. ^_^

Comment by Christensen

August 5, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

Donald…you the man! Just thought I’d start off with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor! :) But you and I have gone through some similar struggles growing up. I grew up thinking, “society teaches men to be these macho machines that are ready for a fight at a moment’s notice. The Bible teaches people to be peacemakers. Which one do I want to be?” My fiancee has admitted that she prefers men who are muscular, but I grew up with this extremely negative view of such men since they tended to be these machines who could not be emotional, meek, tender and simply other than thick heads. I know this is a generalization, but I grew up trying to be an antithesis to them. When I read the Bible, God seems to be teaching this love that defies many of our societies and loves enemies, is tender and nurturing (as a shepherd with a lamb), weeps…and yet is strong enough to stand up against injustice. This is the image of Yeshua, who would be considered “effeminate” by many churches. So, who are we supposed to emulate? Donald, I commend you on being who you are…despite what pressures societies put on us. For we are trying to live out the fruit of the Spirit…and seek His Kingdom first. But it is hard when even Christian women who value equality seem to even prefer the “masculine” guys.

PS: When I was reading your article, I remembered one event last year when a young lady, who believed in equality to some degree (but was not a Christian) started yelling at me because I dared say that men could be as nurturing as women. She said this was impossible; that women were naturally gifted as nurturers. Possibly, there is something in her past to cause her to react so quickly and angrily. But, sadly, that little episode marked the end of our friendship (I’m not really sure why).

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 5, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

LOL Christensen: One of the winners of the student paper competition at the 2009 CBE conference referred to such women as Complemenwomantarian!! Just the opposite of the comps we’re used to.

Comment by Kim (Donald's Mother)

August 5, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

I would like to start out by stating how very proud and honored I am that God entrusted me with such a blessed child. He has always been a special child and has now grown into a special young man. His dedication to the Lord and his convictions at times put me to shame. I have never seen a young man of his age so dedicated. He currently serves as Sunday School Superintent at our Church also our Youth Pastor and is over the Sunday School materials.

About the article, I like to think that I raised Donald to have an open mind about all things. I am a very strong willed female and that might have influenced him somewhat but I really think his indepth studies into the Bible and life experiences through Church,College,Work have put him on his mission for equality. He seems to have a passion for this cause for both men and women that neither be stereotyped into the typical or the norm catagories. He believes that both can possess gendernameless qualities and be better human beings and Christains for the way they are and I totally agree. Great work Donald Love you, Mom

Comment by ls

August 6, 2010 @ 7:01 am

I am glad for this post. It seems to me that the attempts at constructing masculine/feminine attempt to divide these fruits. But, I think the first fruit of brotherly/sisterly affection, a nonsexual affection, is greatly needed. I wonder if some comps put this need and practice of nonsexual affection in the feminine construct, claiming women are the nurturers and since women and men both need nurture..well…women keep doing it….just let us oversee it and not have to do it. That is very irritating! Then, there is the fruit of patience. We all need help with that one. I’m with you on that, Donald, especially me! I do not agree with a statement that I heard…if God gave women more mercy they ought to use it for the good of the Body( anyone, male or female, ought to use their gifts). Women aren’t duracell bunnies in the patience category or any other categories and neither are men. Women are human, too. None of these fruits are split. But things in this world are split. The church ought to be a place/people encouraging healing of things split.

Comment by EM

August 6, 2010 @ 11:36 am

Donald, as an atypical female in many respects, I too despise gender stereotypes. I appreciate your post and I’ll be looking up the author you mentioned.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 6, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

Excellent! EM I have heard that her books are amazing. To LS I am not sure if complementarians put affectionate love in the feminine catagory or not. I hope they don’t because they would have Jesus (who was male) to contend with who when the children came to him he “took them in his arms and blessed them” sounds pretty affectionate to me don’t you think?

Comment by Michelle

August 7, 2010 @ 8:37 am

I agree with you Donald, it does.

But since it seems that the way complementarians divide traits along masculine and feminine lines is the same way U.S. culture/society does, I’ll bet that affection is classified at feminine. Your point is well taken–looking carefully at the whole of Scripture, these lines would be more difficult to draw, or in my opinion, not drawn at all.

Thank you for sharing this. :-)

Comment by Michelle

August 7, 2010 @ 8:37 am

Correction:
That should be “classified as feminine”, NOT “classified at feminine”.

Comment by Mabel

August 7, 2010 @ 9:15 am

Hi Donald,

Praise God for your article. I’ve recently been thinking of the EXACT SAME THING: the fruit of the Holy Spirit consists of traits some macho “preachers” would consider “chick-i-fied”. To the “manhood and womanhood” advocates: it is not what kind of “hood” you have, it is what kind of “fruit” you bear! Good Grief!

Keep bearing that good fruit, Donald, and God bless you!

Comment by MA

August 7, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

Thanks for writing, Donald. I love that you said, “I was determined to be who I was in spite of the opposition because there was just something inside of me that said that I was fine the way I was.” Press on, brother! My husband is similar in that he is very sensitive and nurturing. It certainly doesn’t make him less “man” because he is what God created him to be.

Comment by LM

August 8, 2010 @ 12:43 am

Wow – I so appreciate your post. I am the opposite of you. I am a female but my traits are more “masculine”. I have just never been very sensitive or nurturing. I like adventure, and the “wild at heart” thing is more like me! I have infertility, and we have never sought “treatment” because we are content without kids. The thought of having a baby does not appeal to me at all. My church really emphasizes the traditional masculine and feminine roles. I am supposed to be the “nurturing mother”. Sigh. Where does this leave me? Am I a freak of nature? Sinful for not being a nurturing mommy? Some rather polarizing things have been said from the pulpit of my church. I have always been “independent” and can manage being different, but it saddens me how the church polarizes people and puts them in boxes. This has not driven me away from God or the church, but I know that it has driven others away! They feel there is no place for them. Is there no room for uniqueness in the Body of Christ?

Comment by Amanda Beattie

August 8, 2010 @ 2:12 am

I was reading a complementarian book one time, which included a list of positive feminine traits that included:

…compassionate, empathetic, enduring, gentle, …hospitable …considerate, …wise, …spiritual, sincere… obedient, trusting… faithful, pure.

I spent a lot of time blinking at that paragraph and wondering how on earth these were feminine virtues, if they were in fact also fruit of the Spirit and the Sermon on the Mount and the book of Proverbs.

Comment by Liz

August 8, 2010 @ 3:30 am

And…it doesn’t leave much left for ‘masculine traits’ which are Christ-like.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 8, 2010 @ 11:54 am

LM there is all the room in the world for uniqueness in the body of Christ at least in Jesus’ eyes. I believe than God makes a person the way they are because He knows the plans He has for us. He knows what He is calling us to so he creates us with personalities and gifts to match that calling. Gender I believe plays no role in this process except for when He creates people like you and me to make people think outside the Box. I tell you what LM you keep on being a wild hearted women and I’ll continue being a captivated man how’s that sound? God bless ^_^

Comment by ls

August 8, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Well, I am continuing to enjoy this post. LM and Donald you both encourage me to think outside the box and have hope within the box. I have both ‘pink’ and ‘blue’ characteristics, probably more sensitivity and nurture than ‘wild at heart’ but I am a thinker. I’m not going to check my brain and logic at the door, even though I believe that logic has its limits. But I do seem to want to use my logic and communication with someone claiming an authority that doesn’t add up to me, according to Scripture. I am willing to respectfully submit to a process of prayerful communication and investigation about what the Bible really says about the roles of people in the Body of Christ. That is one adventure going on for me. I am also a mother and was a wife. Those have been part of the adventure. I’ve also been a ‘warrior’ when my children and I have been threatened by authoritarian ‘leadership’ and sought good help when needed. I’ve tried and am trying to learn better patterns than some I picked up on the way. I do not think that I’ve been formed well to rely on a man as provider and protector, as my earthly father did not do this and my mother was pretty passive. So, I am kind of independent, but have not always trusted my own intuition over other more aggressive or maybe just stronger personalities. It seems to me currently that I do not ‘have’ to take responsibility to learn…I ‘get’ to. It is a privilege.

Comment by Frank

August 8, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

An excellent post, Donald. And much food for thought. However, as I have thought about the concept of “the Christian as a warrior for God and his Kingdom,” which I believe you made a passing reference to–Well, it amazes me how Ephesians 6:10-18 just blows the whole idea out of the water that this is a “male only” task. For it is clear from the context that this is a task for all Christians, enlisted by Christ and the Spirit for service in God’s spiritual army. And so, once again, we see how foolish it is to understand the assignment of Kingdom tasks on the basis of gender, race, age and social status, rather than God’s choice and the gifting and calling of the Spirit.

Comment by jlp

August 9, 2010 @ 10:45 am

Great post!

Comment by Deborah

August 9, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

Hi Donald, I’ve referred quite a few comps to this passage in Van Leeuwen’s book. It helps frame the conversation, since it is so scripturally clear. I appreciate your voice, bro!

Comment by Mabel

August 9, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

I just ordered Van Leeuwen’s book from Amazon.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 10, 2010 @ 11:11 am

Thanks to everyone for your kind posts ^_^. I am so glad you are being blessed by my article.

Comment by Chris W

August 11, 2010 @ 7:36 am

“So it is my hope that we will all become secure in who God has made us to be.”

What if you are born gay? I myself tend towards bisexuality. Biblical Egalitarianism which flattens out the distinctions between men and women cannot justify why alternative sexuality is wrong. Thankfully I sit somewhere in the middle of both camps, though if I were to choose a label, I’d go for ‘soft complementarian’ (quite a funny title when you think about it)! I know that homosexual practice is sinful, so I “put to death” those feelings.

I think the problem is that you seem to be confusing biblical masculinity with traditional masculinity. Traditional masculinity would not allow for a “sensitive, emotional, nurturing man”. On the contrary, biblical masculinity means not militative leadership, but sacrificial, christlike, loving leadership (Eph 5), which encourages sensitivity to your wife’s needs and nurturing care. This is a kind of submission, but it is not the same kind as a wife’s submission (read the reasons for the respective commands to husbands and wives in the passage).

Comment by Don Johnson

August 11, 2010 @ 8:41 am

If you try make the mutual submission passage in Eph 5:21 apply as lesser submission for a husband and greater submission for a wife, then this technique will destroy all the great “one another” verses that help to identify Christianity, like “love one another.”

Comment by Michelle

August 11, 2010 @ 9:58 am

91638: Thank you for your frankness regarding your sexual orientation. That takes guts in this context, despite the fact that you do not act on it.

Secular culture makes lists of “masculine” qualities and “feminine” qualities. Scripture, to my knowledge, does not. Biblical egalitarianism does not “flatten out the distinctions between men and women”. Biblical egalitarianism acknowledges differences–though not necessarily easily defined ones outside of the biological–between men and women while denying an essential power differential between men and women.

Complmentarianism uses the words “differences” and “roles”, but when it is boiled down, is defined by an enforced (though often subtly), “essential” power differential in which men appear to be the winners.

And yes, women are more often in the losing position in this situation. That does not mean, however, that men are winners. Men are losing out on experiencing full vulnerability in Christ, to name one thing.

Comment by LMcC

August 11, 2010 @ 10:10 am

Chris W: CBE does not endorse homosexuality, as you seem to think. From the statement of faith: “We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God’s design.” Far from saying homosexuality is OK, you could actually find people sympathetic to your struggles and your choice to turn away from sinful behavior.

AFA this so-called “flattening out” of differences between men and women: That’s not what’s happening here. Are men and women different? Sure. Is that difference enough to justify the permanent, all-encompassing, rulership of men over women that even the “softest” forms of sexual hierarchy teach? No. Speaking as a female myself, believing in Biblical equality has made me more free to be truly feminine because now femininity no longer holds the stigmas of shame and being “something less” that it most certainly held under sexual traditionalism.

Don is right in 91639. Basically, when the demand for submission is lessened for men and intensified for women, basically the man’s submission disappears and he can rule however he feels like and say he’s obeying God. That doesn’t satisfy Ephesians 5:18-21 at all.

Comment by Chris W

August 11, 2010 @ 11:37 am

91369: Would you say that “love one another.” should be the same in degree and work the same way for all relationships? The way in which a peron loves their child, their spouse, their friend is not the same. Likewise with submission.

91640: The egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3:26-28 is that all distinctions between men/women etc. are abolished by the cross, which would require the acceptance of homosexual practise.

91641: I do not believe in the “permanent, all-encompassing, rulership of men over women”, I think that the authority of a husband does not apply when he tempts his wife to sin or abuses her, since her allegience is first and foremost to Christ and to allow him to continue would be to encourage him in sin.

Regardless of Don’s argument, even if ‘kephale’ can mean “source” (which is doubtful), the contrast with “body” in Ephesians 5 surely implies that “head” is the meaning Paul is using, which does necessitate that (at least on some level) the husband has a kind of authority over his wife. The man must take the initiative and be sacrificial (Eph 5:28), with the aim of empowering his wife(v29), not demeaning her.

Comment by Michelle

August 11, 2010 @ 11:52 am

91642
The understanding of Gal. 3:26-28 that you propose as egalitarian is not one I recognize as egalitarian. I do recognize it as one that is commonly proposed in an effort to discredit egalitarian scholarship and belief.

The scripture you cite concerns the eradication of differences in value and in power: It does not propose that Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, and men and women are suddenly all exactly the same.

Please read this article, available to you at no cost from the Christians for Biblical Equality website, for the mainstream egalitarian understanding of the scripture you mentioned: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/what-counts-new-creation-interpretation-galatians-328

Comment by Chris W

August 11, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

91643: Thanks for the article, it was very illuminating! I have no doubt that the passage has greater connotations than simply salvation (especially given the strong possibility that it may have been a baptismal blessing). It refers to our primary identity, that in comparison to Christ, such distinctions are irrelevant.

I wasn’t sure what you meant by an “essential power differential” earlier though, perhaps stronger, more hierarchal versions of complementarianism endorse that (possibly CBMW do), but I certainly don’t. I simply believe that the man ought to take the initiative in the relationship (Eph 5, Col 3), and given the negligence of many men in today’s society, I think that such a thing would be very welcome.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 11, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

If your non-egalism is to be first in serving the other (only), I do not think any egal would have concerns with that.

What I am concerned with in the family is non-egals who think the husband has a trump card (or whatever else it might be called, 51% of the vote, final decision, etc.) in decision making among spouses.

Comment by Michelle

August 11, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

91644:
No problem: You are very welcome.

Though the language is more subtle, a leader must have at least one follower in order to *be* a leader. If a husband is a leader in marriage, then the wife is the follower. This is a power differential, and it is the one that I am finding that complementarians who do not believe in limiting women outside the home, and with varying opinions on women’s opportunities for service in the church, still insist upon. Thus, “essential power differential”.

I am uncertain as to why the answer to one person not wanting to take initiative is to designate him the “leader”, and why the answer to one person wanting to take control is to designate her the “follower”. I believe a much more sensible, and biblical, way to work through such relationship challenges, such sinful desires and behaviors, is indeed IN relationship.

Both parties should be in relationship with Christ, and in an intimate partnership with an equal who may, as an equal, thereby truly hold them accountable for their sin. To be clear: husband and wife.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 11, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

I think the Biblical model is for both spouses to be co-leaders of the family.

Comment by Chris W

August 11, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

Don & Michelle:

I am talking about sacrificial, servant-hearted leadership. The pastor of a church has a kind of authority over the laypersons, but you wouldn’t like to call it an “essential power differential”, because all parties are (should be) equal and accountable to one another. Where there is disagreement and argument in the relationship, the husband should not just “plough on”, the couple should resolve their differences, because marriage is a partnership.

Using phrases like “trump card” distorts the issue at hand, the husband ought to show initiative in the marriage relationship and the wife ought to joyfully submit to it in love, that does not mean he can get away with sin or abuse her by appealing to scripture. The same would be true (my previous analogy) of a pastor who tried to lead his congregation into sin by twisting the scriptures. They should hold him accountable for his words and actions, but he still has a kind of authority.

Comment by ls

August 11, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

Jesus related to his male followers and female followers in non-sexual activity ways and, it seems to me, that a big goal was to call us ‘friends’ and engage us in His ‘way’ of viewing and doing things. Both male and female need to ‘learn from Him’. It seems to me that the comp power structure deflates friendship possibility or power/control deflates brotherly/sisterly love. IMO what ought to be flattened is the honor/shame societal/manmade constructs so that diversity within the Body can be displayed with honor/honor relating. I do not believe that men need honor and respect any more than women need it. Men are not ‘entitled’ to define women and women are not ‘entitled’ to define men, IMO. In Christ, we are a new creation, made by Him.

There was recently a talk given at the cbe headquarters with the topic being the historical context of Eph. 5. Paul spoke into a shame/honor culture with a head/body metaphor that has its limits. Paul’s words did not affirm the cultural shame/honor construct but rather radically SHIFTED it (in the favor of both genders, (although entitled feeling men would not see it as in their favor,IMO). The shift was in a direction from the object/property view of women to a human/value/influence view. Gordon Fee wrote an article in “Priscila Papers/winter 2002″ pertaining to this topic. It is a different and better focus to consider the SHIFT and its meaning for God’s value of people than the focus of this section of Scripture to define and construct gender ‘roles’. The meaning of head as ‘source’ was discussed. The weight of where/who our ‘source’/'head’ is today, in this culture, is very different than it was back then.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 11, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

A pastor is to follow Christ and set an example and be able to teach from Scripture. By accepting someone as a pastor we need to be willing to allow ourselves to be persuaded by his/her reasoning by listening to it, but if it does not persuade us, it does not.

P.S. I do not think the clergy/laity distinction is Biblical in the new covenant. Yes, there are ministries of service, but they are not above us.

Trump card is a way to simply explain that the husband has more power than his wife in the non-egal marriage model. What do you call it?

Comment by Michelle

August 11, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

I don’t understand where the leadership comes from. I don’t understand the source of the husband’s leadership of/over the wife.

Initiator/responder is more subtle wording than leader/follower, but the essence is the same.

I think what the husband is supposed to sacrifice, as Jesus did when he died as the savior of us all, is his power.

This doesn’t mean that the husband never initiates or leads–it means that he has no exclusive right to lead “unless he’s trying to get away with sin”. His very being is tainted by sin: his motives impure, because he’s no more and no less saved than his wife is. The wife’s leader is the same as the husband’s leader: Jesus, the Christ.

The wife’s leader is also, I’ll note, the same person when she is married as he was before the wedding–as he has been for all of time.

Comment by Michelle

August 11, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

Oy, I messed that one up. Let me try again…

This is my mistake:
“This doesn’t mean that the husband never initiates or leads–it means that he has no exclusive right to lead “unless he’s trying to get away with sin”. His very being is tainted by sin: his motives impure, because he’s no more and no less saved than his wife is. The wife’s leader is the same as the husband’s leader: Jesus, the Christ. ”

Correction:
This doesn’t mean that the husband never initiates or leads–it means that he has no exclusive right to lead. The right of a husband to lead “unless he’s trying to get away with sin” is senseless. The husband’s very being is tainted by sin: his motives impure, because he’s no more and no less saved than his wife is. The wife’s leader is the same as the husband’s leader: Jesus, the Christ.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 11, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

It seems that like most things written in on this blog we have attracted a bit of controversy. Although I must say that everyone has been very cordial I will attempt to answer a few of Chris W’s concerns. First Biblical Equality in no way calls for the endorsement of homosexuality. Homosexual practice is throughly condemned from genesis to revelation. However from the get go we see men and women breaking “gender roles” in scripture. As to any attempt to flatten anything I believe I have not because I see no passage in scripture or implied in scripture that in any way firmly defines what is masculine and what is femmine. However as was the point of my article what God does give is a list of traits that every believer male and female alike is to manifest in their life.

As for the whole issue over headship, that my friend is a different issue for a different time ( Although I would welcome some good discussion at a later time ^_^ ). This article is simply saying that God creates individuals with specific giftings and personalities to fulfill the calling He has on their lives and their biological gender has little to nothing to do with it. Chirs W thank you for being so open as to your struggles and I pray that God grant you complete and total victory!

Comment by LMcC

August 11, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

Chris W: I’m glad Donald spoke up and reaffirmed CBE’s position.

Just because you disagree with CBE does not mean you have the right to make such a claim about CBE’s stance on homosexuality. As a matter of fact, CBE split from another organization precisely because of the homosexuality issue.

Re your comment: “I do not believe in the “permanent, all-encompassing, rulership of men over women”, I think that the authority of a husband does not apply when he tempts his wife to sin or abuses her, since her allegience [sic] is first and foremost to Christ and to allow him to continue would be to encourage him in sin.”

Actually, again speaking from the perspective of someone who would be considered beneath men in traditionalism, I know how it really works. I have heard of many pastors who have sent wives back into the homes of husbands who were abusive, addicted, perverse, or otherwise into serious sin. Some women have ended up injured, diseased, or even dead as a result.

What really happens in these situations is that a frightened wife seeks help from the pastor. All the husband has to say is one word, and the pastor immediately sides with him: “unsubmissive”. That word strikes fear in the hearts of women in traditionalism. That one word covers a multitude of sins for a husband and places all the blame on the wife. Whether the wife is truly the one who cares about serving Christ does not matter to her husband or the pastor at that point. She is presumed guilty of a greater sin than her husband, whether she really was unsubmissive or not. From that point on, she’s forced to choose to “rebel” and do what’s right, or “submit”. Either way, his sin is unaddressed and she suffers.

Comment by Chris W

August 11, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

LMCC: I never made an claim about what egals believe regarding homosexual practise, I said I believed that total unconditional equality between men and women and the wrongness of homosexuality are contradictory doctrines.

Any pastor with his head in the right place would know better than to simply take the husband’s word for it in such a situation as you have described, Jesus obviously believed that the testimony of a woman was more than valid (He chose women as the first witnesses to his resurrection). A bad application of headship does not render the doctrine null and void.

Comment by Chris W

August 11, 2010 @ 7:55 pm

Don: I don’t believe that the clergy are ‘above’ the laity (they are all one in Christ), but the bible does very clearly teach that they have a kind of authority over the church. 1 Tim 5:17 mentions the elders who “govern” the church. Though the dynamic is clearly very different, I would argue that a husband has a kind of authority over his wife. I dislike the use of the term “trump card” because it implies that this is a game and that this isn’t about love.

Michelle: It’s a real shame you can’t delete mistakes on this, eh!

Regarding the husband’s sinfulness, I would say the same of the pastor of a church (see my reasoning above). Headship ought to be about a Grace-filled, God-centred relationship. Obviously, the wife must always be trying to make her husband more like Christ and vice versa, but this is a husband and wife saved by grace trying to provide a picture to the world of Christ’s relationship to the church through their marriage. It’s all about the Gospel :)

Comment by Liz

August 11, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

I read this somewhere recently and think it clearly states the difference.

Female and male are biological categories
Feminine and masculine are cultural categories

As regards the thought of authority in marriage. In the bible, both old and new testaments, the statements attributed to God are all about ‘one-ness’. The Ephesians passage where a husband’s love for his wife is compared to Christ, it is about just that….love, care nurture, building up with not a hint of authority and this idea would have been absolutely foreign to the people in that situation.

Likewise, in the church, it is about the care of people and working within gift areas. Christ makes a point of saying that it is not to be like the world where people are always looking to be ‘in charge’. Sadly, many churches operate with an authority structure and many attendees like it that way.

Comment by Michelle

August 12, 2010 @ 7:04 am

91656
Yes, it is a shame. Were I someone with the technical ability, I’d offer to write some code so that we could preview before posting comments :-).

I can see in Ephesians where the marriage relationship is compared with the relationship of Christ and the church: Where we do not agree is which aspect of Christ the husband is to emulate in the marriage relationship. I won’t quote all the scripture here:

Eph. 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

It does not mention Christ as leader of the church, or Christ as God or King or Lord. So a position of authority, however subtly worded when applied to a husband, is not what is indicated here. Christ as *Savior*, as the one who eschewed earthly power and authority to give himself wholly as a sacrifice out of love for us, is the aspect of Christ that is identified as the example for husbands to follow in relationship with their wives. I do believe the instructions to husbands, in the rest of Ephesians, support this understanding.

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 7:12 am

Michelle: The word “saviour” may not, but the word “head” indicates authority. Look up kephale in any greek lexicon and you will see that ‘head’ is the meaning, not ‘source’. Besides, “head” and “body” are equal, corresponding parts, whereas there is no correspondance between a “source” and a “body”, so this meaning turns the text into nonsense.

Comment by Michelle

August 12, 2010 @ 7:33 am

91660
Right: “head” means “that part of the body which sits on the neck”, and “body” means, well, “from the feet up, stopping at the top of the neck”. My understanding is that the use the head and body as an example in this way, in that time and culture, indicated unity.

Comment by RED

August 12, 2010 @ 8:45 am

Chris W,

I have found your comments on submission within marriage very, very interesting and insightful, as this is an issue that I myself have struggled with, even as an egalitarian. Thank you so much for your frank comments.

I have to state a couple of concerns. First, you bring up the point that many scholars doubt “kephale” could mean “source,” and you instead say that a more accurate translation is the literal word “head” as in, a human head. (I have often heard this too).

I’m confused, though, why the image of a human head automatically means that the man has authority. As far as I know, from reading the writings of those who have studied the passage in Greek, Paul is making a literal head-body metaphor, and the word he choses (kephale) is chosen because it means, LITERALLY, “a human head.” However, only in English is the image of a head attached to connotations of authority. In Greek, “kephale” doesn’t have a connotation of authority, even when it is used to refer to a human head, and thus I’m not sure you can jump to the conclusion that “kephale” means loving husband “authority.” It is my understanding that original Greek readers wouldn’t have gotten that meaning.

Also, the Greeks believed that bodies were formed head-first in the womb, in other words, the head grows first and then the body grows out of it, which would seem to give support to this being an image of “source” rather than an image of “authority”. But that’s a somewhat weaker argument, since it requires one to infer a lot. Still. It could mean something.

I was intrigued by your frequent use of the word “initiative” to refer to the husband. That word is used a lot in churches to explain what a man’s function in marriage is: however, the words “initiate,” “initiator” etc. are never used in scripture towards husbands, and the word “follow” is never used towards wives. So scripture doesn’t say that the husband’s job is to initiate and the wife’s job is to follow that initiation. It says that all believers are to submit to each other (verse 21) and then goes on to say (v 22-33) how that submission will play out for each partner (using neither “follow” nor “initiate”). Yes, Paul is describing different ways of submission, but considering that it’s all within the context of both submitting to each other (v 21) I don’t see how it can boil down to one person having more authority (even loving, leading, sacrificing authority). Especially since, as I stated earlier, “kephale” does not carry the connotation of authority.

Also, verses 25-33 never describe the husband as a leader. They talk about the husband giving himself up (serving, as you mentioned), and loving his wife (as you mentioned), but never do they tell the husband to do these things BECAUSE IT’S HIS WAY OF LEADING. Read by itself, this passage seems to say, quite simply, “husbands, be self-sacrificial.” It doesn’t say “husbands, be sacrificial because that’s the best way to lead.” It simply doesn’t say that, or imply it. (That meaning is read into v 25-33 only because of the above wife verses, which brings us right back to the old arguments about v 21 and “kephale.”)

I think these verses are talking about how each partner can build the other up, as you said, but I simply don’t see, grammatically or logically, why that process of each partner building the other has to be an authority structure of who initiates more and who follows more.

Thanks for the insightful discussion, and sorry if I blasted you with a whole bunch of arguments.

RED

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 11:31 am

Michelle & Red: First of all, I want to say that we share the most important things in common with regard to Ephesians 5. I hasten to point that out because it shows that we have more in common than apart and that our unity in Christ is shown by this. We all believe that the husband ought to show sacrificial love for his wife and that the wife ought to show a kind of submission to her husband (whether particular or general) and that marriage is (should be) a picture of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Amen!

I’m also glad you agree with me about ‘kephale’ meaning ‘head’! Now, onto the connotations of the greek word for head, see Ephesians 1:22,

“And God placed all things under his feet (referring to Christ) and appointed him to be HEAD over everything for the church”

The word head (kephale) used in this passage plainly refers to Christ’s authority and Lordship over all things. The term does seem to have strong connotations of authority which cannot easily be refuted. Thus, as a Christian trying to follow the bible, I would find it hard not to believe that headship (as shown in Ephesians 5) does imply some kind of one-way authority for the husband. However, the kind of authority is a loving, sacrificial authority and this is clearly the main point of the passage.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 12, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

“head over” has a different meaning than “head of”.

Also, where is the body of Christ (the church) in the picture in Eph 1:22, they are above the feet.

Kephale most often refers to a physical head on one’s neck. When it does NOT refer to that, it has a metaphorical meaning and the question is what is the metaphor.

In Eph 5, I think the metaphor is one of one flesh unity in a marriage, a head/body metaphor of unity. No “over” mentioned here at all.

Comment by LMcC

August 12, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Re 91655: “I said I believed that total unconditional equality between men and women and the wrongness of homosexuality are contradictory doctrines.”

This makes no sense. I don’t know of any theological conservative who said that they would take the “one anothers” of Scripture seriously, and then headed out to a gay bar. The equality of the sexes in Christ does not nullify the ban on homosexual practice, as shown in Romans. If anything, the equality of the sexes should discourage non-marital sex, and should encourage a desire for mutual sexual pleasure between the man and the woman who do choose to marry a la 1 Cor 7. The desire of traditionalists to link Biblical equality with homosexuality is false, and honestly just plain vicious.

I could turn that around and say that since traditionalists believe that men rule over women, then it also follows that white men must also rule over other races. I’ve actually run into people who taught that. It’s still as nonsensical as trying to say that those who believe in Biblical equality *must* also accept sexual immorality.

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

Don: I can’t see any reason why the two things would have a different meaning, they are essentially the same. Regarding idolaters, Paul says in Colossians 1:18 that

“[Christ] is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”

The context of this passage is Christ’s sovereignty and preeminence in all things. It seems to me to be fairly clear (given the usage in this passage) that both “head over” and “head of” mean the same thing, namely ‘in authority over’. I understand that Paul is using a head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5 (indicating the equality of husband and wife), but that doesn’t negate the plain meaning of “the husband is head of the wife” (v22).

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 3:07 pm

Don: Sorry, that passage has nothing to do with idolatry! Still, I’m very pleased that I managed to get bold to work! :D

Comment by Don Johnson

August 12, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

In Col 1:18 I read head as the first/head of a line, this goes along with firstborn and beginning.

The point is that there are MANY possible metaphors when head is used. But it is a mistake to teleport the 21st century meaning of leader back into the 1st century automatically.

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

Don: I would agree that we must be careful about reading first century connotations of “head” back into the text, but Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:18 do both seem to be using the term in a similar way, so it would seem doubtful to me that Ephesians 5:23 has something different in mind. The passage from Colossians in particular refers to Christ as head over the church, his body and it does so in a way that is not strictly one-to-one in terms of authority.

Letting scripture interpret scripture, it would thus seem strange if Ephesians 5:23 did not have similar implications for christian marriage. This is especially the case given the textual similarity between Colossians and Ephesians.

Comment by Mabel

August 12, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

Don,
“[Christ] is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”
If you carry this metaphor to parallel husband as head of the wife, and you arrive at the conclusion that in everything the husband has supremacy, where would you tell an abused wife to go? Unless you don’t think that there are abused wives.
Christ is Head of Church. Christ is Supreme, Christ is God
Husband is Head of Wife, Husband is Supreme, Husband is God.
I see that a metaphor can only go so far.
Instead of stressing Christ’ supremacy, I see husband and wife, head and body, to be one united being. It is unity, not supremacy. We are human, not divine.
I was reading the story of Abigail, Nabal and David in 1 Samuel 25. Surely God would not be pleased with Abigail who did not submit to her “head”.
How about Jael of Judges 4 who killed her husband’s good friend Sisera? Surely God should have condemned her?
If Jesus is the wife’s head as meaning supreme authority, would the wife have 2 heads then, since Christ is everyone’s head?
If husband wants to be wife’s head above, does that make him a mediator between wife and God?
I thought the veil was torn when Christ died on the Cross?
Why are we talking about who has authority over whom?
Mabel

Comment by Mabel

August 12, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

Sorry, I meant to address the last post to Chris W, not Don.

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

Hi Mabel! :)

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. The degree of authority Christ has over the church is nowhere near the same as the degree of authority that a husband has over his wife. I’m simply arguing that the same basic meaning is there, ‘head’ implying ‘authority’ in all of the relevant texts. But a husband’s authority over his wife only goes so far, because a husband is evidently not God. Only Christ has supreme and final authority in a believer’s life.

In the OT story you read, Abigail submitted first to God and secondly to her husband, which is absolutely right! A husband has a certain degree of authority in all areas of his wife’s life, but this cannot extend to her relationship with God; there is no mediator between her and God except Christ alone.

And yes, Jesus has died for our sins, the curtain is torn and now Christ’s healing power can transform our marriages. Wives can now freely and joyfully submit to their husbands (as the church does to Christ) and husbands can freely and joyfully love their wives (as Christ loves the church). There is a kind of authority there, but it’s not domineering and there is a kind of submission, but it’s not timid. It’s a God-centred, Grace-filled Gospel proclamation!

Comment by Mabel

August 12, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

I am glad you don’t think husbands have supreme authority over wives, but you still think they have “authority”, which is unfortunate. If wives are told to submit and husbands are told to love, does that mean wives don’t have to love and husbands don’t have to submit? What kind of love does not involve submission and what kind of submission does not involve love? If a husband is told to give of his life for his wife, why would he not give up his “authority”? No matter how many spoonfuls of sugar you throw into the formula, authority means having superiority over another person.
The only 2 times in the bible the word “authority” appears in a marital relationship is in 1 Cor 7:4.

Comment by Michelle

August 12, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

I’m with 91664.

Context is crucial in interpretation, and though I feel very limited being an “English only” person and trying to talk about the Bible, I don’t see that the differences between “head over” and “head of” can be written off.

Christ is described both as “head over”, and as “head of” the church. In Ephesians 5, Christ is described as “head of” only. I don’t know what the Greek is, but I believe that the choice of the word “of” by the translators, if not in error, is important.

In 91673, I join in noting that the only time that scripture clearly gives a man authority over his wife, the woman is also clearly given authority over her husband.
1 Cor. 7:4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

The introduction of authority other than God’s into the marriage relationship disrupts the unity that is intended.

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

Mabel: Paul could have said “wives, submit to your husbands in love, and husbands do likewise.” Obviously wives must love their husbands, but he uses different language when addressing wives and husbands. The husband is said to be the “head” of the wife, the wife is not said to be the “head” of the husband.

“authority means having superiority over another person” – The scriptures seem to teach otherwise. The father has authority over the son, but they are equal. The same is true of a husband and wife (1 Corinthians 11:3). Except for Jehovah’s witnesses, who do seem to believe that men are superior over women (likewise with God over Christ, a rather concerning belief).

Regardless of whether the word “authority” is used, the concept is still there. It doesn’t appear anywhere in 1 Cor 7:4, that simply teaches that a wife owns her husband and that a husband owns his wife. That says nothing about who ought or ought not to be the head of the relationship.

Comment by RED

August 12, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I enjoy hearing everyone’s perspective on it.

I would like to close my comments with the following observations; whatever we believe about Ephesians 5:21-33, the truth is that very very few married, evangelical Christians in this country actually live as though the husband has any kind of authority over the wife, loving or otherwise. I have heard a lot of lip service given to this idea, but at the end of the day, most couples either make all decisions together with an equal say in everything (despite saying that the husband has authority), or the wife exercises a great deal of manipulation over the husband until he caves to her decision. These are, across the board, the two patterns that I see playing out. Neither of them fits the picture of the husband having loving “authority.”

This is not supposed to be an argument for or against egalitarianism or complementarianism, just an observation for everyone to think about.

RED

Comment by Chris W

August 12, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

Michelle: I don’t see any importance in the distinction between “head over” and “head of”. They seem to mean the same thing in both contexts, namely ‘in authority over’. Are we to quibble over the difference between “justified by faith” and “justified through faith”? Slight changes in wording do not necessarily change the meaning and in this case it seems unlikely that they do.

“The introduction of authority other than God’s into the marriage relationship disrupts the unity that is intended.”

As I said to Mabel, the father and the son are in unity and are equal and ‘own each other’ (ie. belong to one another) and yet there is authority there. Authority does not (in the scriptures) go against unity and equality.

Comment by Mabel

August 12, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

“the head of the relationship”: this is where the misunderstanding comes in. There is no boss in the relationship. Head is not boss. Head is a literal head. There has been a ton of studies written on it and this is not the place to repeat it. Again, if it is a doctrine, there should be no exceptions. It is all good and swell in a loving relationship between husband and wife. If it is mutually agreed that one should be the boss over the other, I am fine with it. But one has to be very very careful in preaching that the wives are to joyfully submit to their husbands in all situations, including the abusive ones, and yes, Christian husbands can be very abusive. If you say that wives should not submit to the husbands who abuses them, then the whole deck of cards of this interpretation falls down. This is not to be preached as a doctrine. Again, I believe in mutual respect, love and submission between husband and wife, as one united body, without hierarchy. Head and body is not hierarchy, it is unity.

Comment by Paul

August 12, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

Chris, you might want to consider another view on “head over”, as I’ve tried to explain at this article in my blog.

The bottom line for me is the principle “not so among you”, given by Jesus Himself to His disciples and never negated or contradicted by the apostles. Whether one believes they have privilege, preeminence, power, or control over another or not, the teachings and examples of Jesus and the apostles is to give it up.

Comment by Paula

August 12, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

Oops… my keyboard robbed me of the last letter of my name, which is Paula. :-)

Comment by Don Johnson

August 12, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

What can a head/body metaphor found in Eph 5 mean in the 1st century? I think the first and most direct metaphor is one of organic unity. Paul is doing a mapping and one needs to be VERY carefull not to take the metaphor too far, as one head is Jesus, so going too far would lead to idolaty of the husband.

In Eph 5, Paul is very explicit about what Jesus as head does, he serves the church, there is not a hint of leading or teaching or similar, these are all examples of sacrificial love. So a husband is in strong Scriptural warrant to sacrificially love his wife. Going beyond that one needs to ask what is the limit? I do not go beyond that.

Also, “kind of authority” is a very fuzzy definition that does not give much guidance about what kinds of things a husband should do and more importantly, not do, in order to maintain the goal of love. Since there is no authority used by a head in Eph 5, I simply decline to see it implied there at all.

Comment by Mabel

August 12, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

Paula,
I revisited your post. It explains head really well. Thanks. Everyone, please click on Paula’s link and read her excellent article.
Mabel

Comment by Paula

August 12, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

Thanks for the plug, Mabel. :-)

Another thing to consider is that Jesus is both the head and the feet in that passage. Is he head over himself then?

Comment by Paula

August 12, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

And another thing…

“and gave him as head over all to the congregation”

It doesn’t say Jesus is head over the ekklesia (congregation), but that he is head over all given to the ekklesia.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 12, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

Yes, Paula’s article is excellent.

Comment by Paula

August 12, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

Tanx Don!

Can you see any rebuttals to the other two issues I posted here?

Comment by Liz

August 12, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

Even though it is not possible to change a comment once it is submitted, the comments are looked at every day by the administrators and we often make corrections to make comments more readable. As you have noticed, we sometimes delete whole comments or sections of them if we feel the tone is not respectful or uses degrading language.

Since we live in Australia, there is often a time delay but we try to keep that at a minimum. We also don’t hold the comments until they are approved which would make it impossible to have ongoing conversations. This means that by the time we read the comments and make any adjustments, writers may have corrected things themselves. However…we will always attempt to make comments readable.

Comment by Donald Guffey

August 12, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

I am very suprised to see so many comments on here and I am so glad that my article has sparked a good discussion on Biblical equality. I also would love to thank everyone for being extremly kind to one another. I would like to say Chris W that I think what the Bible teaches about a marriage relationship is one of Mutual Submission. What we see in scripture is one of balance between husband and wife. We read in scripture first and foremost that as believers we are to submit to one another. Second we read that indeed wives are to submit to their husbands yet most people stop there which is where we run into trouble. When we read the rest of the passage we read that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave himself for it and that husbands are to love their wives as their own body! My, I wonder do men spend so much time worrying if he will get to initiate himself??
What we see is a balance; if a husband treats his wife like he would treat himself and wants to be treated, she will reciprocate and thus we have mutual submission which by the way is nothing more than each spouse putting the other spouse’s needs above their own which is precisely what the bible teaches.
So when it’s all said and done what we are left with is a relationship granted to us by God in which who’s in charge never comes up because as long as God is the center of the marriage and love for one another is paramount, authority does not matter. Love ya Chris you’ve brought a lot to the discussion and to all the others thank you for such a positive experience ^-^

Comment by Liz

August 12, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

Thinking about 1 Corinthians 7, which is a great passage for mutuality….if it does indeed mean ‘ownership’ as has been suggested then there is no place for either person to be in ‘authority’ over the other since they have exactly the same ‘rights’

There seems a great silence on these verses from a complementarian point of view and interestingly, when I spoke at a very conservative meeting for young mothers and pointed out the equal status of these verses, the faces before me were lit up as they realised their ‘power’ and freedom. As has been said, we need to take all of Scripture when considering the Ephesians verses as well as what was happening at the time of writing.

Comment by Michelle

August 12, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

I would like to believe that my head is the ruler of my body, but as the night wears on, I must admit that my head is one part of a whole body that is calling for rest. ;-)

Comment by Sonnet

August 12, 2010 @ 11:13 pm

Chris W,

Do you believe this passage is saying God has permanent authority over Christ because he is his head?

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3 TNIV)

Comment by Chris W

August 13, 2010 @ 7:08 am

There’s no way I can reply to all of those arguments!

Paula: Yes, the point of me referring to those passages is that Christ being “head over all” means “in authority over all”, and that likewise a husband being the “head of his wife” means the same thing (though to a much lesser degree).

Don: “The wife should submit to her husband in all things”, that is in every sphere of life, not literally in every case. I can give you some very good reasons why a wife should flee from abuse, look at how David fled from Saul, even though he respected Saul’s authority as “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 24).

Liz & Sonnet: The husband and the wife do own each other (belong to one another) in the same way that the father and son belong to one another. In 1 Cor 11:3, there is a parallel between God the father and the son and a husband and wife. In the same way that the father has authority over the son (the same as with an ordinary christian father and son), the husband has authority over his wife, though it is not total.

Read John 17. There is a mutual submission (a giving of glory to one another), but there is also an authority, the father having a certain authority over the son. Notice how the father takes the initiative, he gives men and women to the son, that the son might bring them eternal life (v2). I think marriage is supposed to be like this, there is a mutual submission and equality (and that is foundational), but there is also an authority (the husband).

I understand that this is difficult stuff to grasp, there is much paradox in the idea of equality & role distinction, but we see the same thing with God, so why not in marriage (1 Cor 11:3)?

Comment by Paula

August 13, 2010 @ 7:54 am

Chris, you have stated your view but not shown how my rebuttal fails to refute it. We need to do more than simply announce what we believe.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 13, 2010 @ 9:35 am

Chris,

Do you not think Eph 5:21 applies to a husband, in submitting to his wife?

That is, a marriage is intended by God to be characterized by:

1. Mutual love.
2. Mutual respect.
3. Mutual submission.

What part of these do you disagree with? They are all Scriptural.

And I really do not like the term “a kind of authority” that is TOO FUZZY, either a husband has authority over his wife or he does not, which is it?
Please speak plainly on this, a believer is to be a plain speaker.

I cannot find in the Bible where God sanctions such in a clear way like God says humans have authority over creation and parents have authority over their children.

Comment by Chris W

August 13, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Paula: In your interpretation, “head” still indicates authority, this being the primary metaphorical meaning of the term. “Head” must surely imply authority of some kind in Ephesians 5 as well.

Don: I agree with all of those. The existence of mutual love and submission does not rule out the existence of some kind of one-way love and submission. This is clear from the context, as Paul is setting out an order of authority in Ephesians 5 and 6, much like in Colossians 3. It goes like this:

Wives -> husbands
Children -> parents
Slaves -> masters

If Paul’s intent was only to emphasise universal, mutual submission, then why did he not mention only mutual submission? Why bring in certain, particular kinds of one-way submission in later sections? There is no ‘husbands, submit to your wives’ or ‘parents, submit to your children’. It seems better not to let Eph 5:21 overrule what Paul has to say in later sections, but rather to let mutual and particular submission sit alongside and complement one another.

Regarding “a kind of authority”, I mean that a husband has authority in all spheres of his wife’s life, except where sin comes into it. I acknowledge that no-one is perfect, but although not in the passage, sin is always an exception, whether it be the husband’s sin in abusing his wife or children or in trying to tempt his wife to sin. This is clear throughout the scriptures.

Comment by Paula

August 13, 2010 @ 10:28 am

Chris, if “head” means authority over the Body, it must also mean authority over His own feet. What possible sense can we make of that?

But as I argued in my article “head over heels”, even in this solitary instance where “head” can be taken as “authority” we see two points: (1) that Jesus is boss over everything else and then given TO the church instead of OVER it, and (2) that it is context, not semantic range, that determines what Paul meant elsewhere. And since the context in the other instances (and here, regarding the church) are all about unity and nothing about authority, then your claim of “head as authority” in the church or home is refuted.

Also, to claim “this being the primary metaphorical meaning of the term” is simply not supportable in the koine Greek. And it does not follow that “Head” must surely imply authority of some kind in Ephesians 5 as well.” There is no contextual reason that it MUST mean authority, and plenty that it can’t, since it is mutual.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 13, 2010 @ 10:34 am

Chris,

What I see Paul as doing in the household codes is UP ENDING the hierarchal authority structures of the pagan culture where they do not conform with Torah/Bible.

Eph 5:21 is the superordinate clause to all the following subordinate clauses in the pericope, to Eph 6:9. All of these are examples of how to practise the principle of mutual submission established in Eph 5:21 in the culture of 1st century Ephesus, which was a Roman colony under Roman law.

He refers FIRST to each of the groups that were legally subordinate to the paterfamilias, this was unheard of.

He does not tell the wife she needs to obey, this was also unheard of. This is one reason I see it as crucial to know the 1st century context of NT texts, so we can compare and contrast them with what was expected. I find it very sad with some interpreters TEACH that the wife is to obey, when Paul NEVER says that.

On the husband’s supposed authority, the Bible says that anything that is not of faith is sin. Do you think a husband has the right to override his wife’s will when she says that for her to do it would be sin, but he does not think it is sin?

Comment by Don Johnson

August 13, 2010 @ 10:36 am

The primary metaphorical meaning of “head of” in 21st century English is “leader of” but we must be careful not to teleport 21st century meanings back into the 1st century texts, which in this case is in a totally different culture and language.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 13, 2010 @ 10:40 am

P.S. There is no question there is an authority structure in the pagan Roman household, Aristotle taught that the paterfamilias RULED his wife, kids and slaves and they OBEYED the paterfamilias. Roman laws enforced this understanding. And this rule extended to life or death, a famous letter from a husband to his wife tells her if the just born baby is a girl to abandon it (to death) but if a boy, let it live. The closest thing we have today to this kind of power is a mafia godfather.

Comment by Chris W

August 13, 2010 @ 10:43 am

Paula: ‘Authority’ is implied by the use of the term, it is a metaphorical meaning. Clearly a husband is not literally his wife’s ‘head’. What other metaphorical meaning do you propose for head in Ephesians 5?

The head-body metaphor doesn’t negate the plain pattern of authority that Paul sets out in Eph 5/6 and Col 3, to reiterate:

Wives -> husbands
Children -> parents
Slaves -> masters.

Comment by Chris W

August 13, 2010 @ 10:51 am

Don: The very fact that Paul replicates these household codes shows us that they still had some validity for him. I agree that the modifications are important, eg. a greater degree of submission is expected of children and slaves (hence “obey”) and equality is emphasised by mentioning those with less authority first.

“Do you think a husband has the right to override his wife’s will when she says that for her to do it would be sin, but he does not think it is sin?”

No. (1 Cor 8:7-13)

Comment by Paula

August 13, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Chris, you keep asserting the much later metaphorical meaning “authority” onto the koine Greek word; it is not a part of the semantic range for that time. Again, it is context that takes precedence over semantic range, as any translator will affirm.

The metaphorical meaning the context of Eph. 5 seems to convey is that of unity and mutuality, not rule or a chain of command. Paul’s instructions were to tell believers how to conduct themselves in whatever way did not bring reproach upon the name of Christ in their societies of the time. Otherwise we must conclude that Paul condoned and supported slavery. Please see my article showing the similarity of reasoning between slavery and male supremacy Here.

Comment by Paula

August 13, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Re. the idea that a wife can override her husband’s will if he is in sin, does this mean we can disobey if we think Jesus isn’t doing something right for the church?

Of course that never is the case but it proves this point: that the burden of judgment falls upon the wife to tell her husband whether or not he is in sin. This puts all the pressure and responsibility on her, not him. And this directly contradicts the sense of Paul’s instructions.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 13, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

The “plain pattern of authority” is from the PAGAN, not a Judeo-Christian, culture.

Paul is making a Christian gloss on Aristotle, as there is an exact match on the 6 types disccussed by both. In order to comment on Aristotle, he uses those types, but there are many many clues that he does not AGREE with Aristotle in all things.

I think you need to take off the spouse hierarchy lenses that you are viewing this text thru, since those lenses come from pagan sources, see Esther 1.

Yes, there is a hierarchy between parents and kids and yes there is between masters and slaves, but that does not automatically mean it is there between husband and wife. Paul did NOT say a wife needs to obey and this silence on Paul’s part SHOUTS, when one realizes that the pagan cultural expectations would be that he would write exactly that.

Comment by Paula

August 13, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

I would recommend Rebecca Groothuis on the matter of “equal in being, unequal in function”. She points out that if a person’s subjugation is permanent and depends upon an aspect of being such as genetics, that subjugation is a statement of lower worth. That is, while the child can grow up, the slave can be freed, etc., the woman cannot change her status because femaleness is not a role but her essence, her being. Thus any statement about her because she is female is a statement of worth.

Therefore, it is logically fallacious to claim as many comps do that a woman can be subjugated for life without being of lesser worth.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 13, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

Head/body – unity of the 2 parties – one flesh.
The metaphor is one of unity.

There is no need to see head as meaning leader. The brain was thought to be used to cool the blood and it does do that. The heart was where the mind, will, and emotions were said to be located and heart means what is thought/felt/willed from the inside, as contrasted with what can be seen, the outside.

Comment by Chris W

August 13, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

Don & Paula: Okay, I think this has gone on for quite a while now, so I am going to call it a day. A few brief remarks (which you are free to reply to, I will be checking just in case!) would be:

Paula: It blatantly is in the semantic meaning around the time, the other passages I quoted demonstrated that, but failing that, check a greek lexicon on the matter. Regarding slavery, that argument is an emotionalistic one which carries no weight (both parties are agreed that slavery is wrong). Finally, regarding the simultaneous equality and role distinction between the husband and wife, the same thing can be seen in God the father and God the son, so this argument immediately falls apart.

Don: “Yes, there is a hierarchy between parents and kids and yes there is between masters and slaves, but that does not automatically mean it is there between husband and wife.”

Yes it does, Paul clearly has a pattern in mind when he tells the wife to submit to her husband, but not the husband to his wife. I don’t really understand where you were going with the last post.

Well, that was rather longer than I expected! Anyway, it’s been a good chat and I wish you all the best. Ciao!

Comment by Liz

August 13, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

Thanks for taking the time Chris. Sometimes our best efforts don’t convince others and equality is not the only issue about which Christians feel differently. Hopefully there is much to be gained by this dialogue. The next post is interesting too…..

Comment by Paula

August 13, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

Ok, Chris, just this last response then. I have to say I disagree with every point you made.

It blatantly is in the semantic meaning around the time, the other passages I quoted demonstrated that

No it isn’t, as any Greek scholar would tell you. The passages are not clearly authoritarian at all, unless one presumes it before reading.

check a greek lexicon on the matter.

The only one I trust anymore is the LSJ. Please also check the research and expertise of Sue McCarthy who has been reading Greek classics for pleasure since her teens.

Regarding slavery, that argument is an emotionalistic one which carries no weight (both parties are agreed that slavery is wrong).

It does not appear that you read my article, or missed the point that many others in the comments picked up. The identical arguments used to support male supremacy are those used formerly for slavery. So if slavery is invalid in spite of those arguments, then so are those for male supremacy. It is illogical to make one argument valid or invalid depending on the subject. No emotionalism here at all, but I resent this flippant dismissal of my point.

Finally, regarding the simultaneous equality and role distinction between the husband and wife, the same thing can be seen in God the father and God the son, so this argument immediately falls apart.

You should be aware that the alleged hard-and-fast “roles” of the Persons of the Trinity are overlapping and interchangeable, except for Jesus in his incarnation. Scripture NEVER maps human relationships to those internal to the divine persons of the Trinity. It only maps Jesus/Church to husband/wife.

And with that I will exit the conversation.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 14, 2010 @ 8:59 am

Chris,

Eph 5:21 tells ALL believers to submit to all other believers, so this includes a believing husband submitting to his believing wife, does it not?

All believers are to be in mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and esp. a husband and wife.

All believers are to practice sacrificial love (Eph 5:1-2), and esp. a husband and wife.

All believers are to respect others, and esp. a husband and wife.

The idea of gender role distinctions (supposedly) being discussed in Eph 5 simply does not fly when the counsel of the WHOLE word of God is used. So what Paul is doing in Eph 5, is providing an emphasis (a reminder) that was appropriate in the 1st century culture of Ephesus and what were some specific temptations to avoid. A wife might disrespect her believing husband, as following a crucified person was status lowering in that pagan culture. A husband could be tempted to not serve his wife.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 14, 2010 @ 9:26 am

A husband might be tempted to not serve his wife as the pagan culture told him he was in charge.

Comment by Sonnet

August 14, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

Chris, if I’m hearing you correctly, you seem to be saying that “head” (kephale) means authority over.

So with that understanding, 1 Corinthians 11:3 could be restated as:

But I want you to realize that Christ is the authority over every man, and man is the authority over every woman, and God is the authority over Christ.

This would then place all women beneath every single man (regardless of age, training, character, etc.) in the home, workplace, government, and educational settings. This interpretation would also lead to giving God (the Father) more power and authority than God (the Son)– for all eternity! Christ becomes a lesser god and this would logically lead to multiple Gods because they could no longer be one in being and substance.

Here is a link to an excellent article that discusses the ramifications of giving God the Father more authority than God the Son.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/new-evangelical-subordinationism

Comment by Sonnet

August 14, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

Here is a link to another article (“The Father and the Son Divided or Undivided in Power and Authority?” by Kevin Giles) that relates to this topic:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/father-and-son-divided-or-undivided-power-and-authority

Comment by Sonnet

August 15, 2010 @ 9:01 am

Thought I should clarify what I said in comment 91716 about age. I was thinking in terms of how gender hierarchy never allows women to become fully adult in relation to men.

It is similar to how during the South’s racist culture (USA) separate classes were maintained for blacks & whites. So, a 20 year old white male or female could address a 50 year old black male as “boy”. But, the 50 year old black male was required to address the 20 year old as “sir” or “ma’am”. Skin coloring determined the level of authority (and respect) one had in that culture for life just as sex determines one’s level of authority (and respect) in a culture of gender hierarchy for life. In both cases, blacks & females were/are never allowed to attain full adulthood.

Comment by Liz

August 15, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

Not having lived in the USA, I can’t imagine what it would have been like to hear such demeaning language. I like to think I would have opposed it vehemently, even though it would have got me (as a white person) in big trouble. How on earth did people justify that sort of discrimination with bible texts?

Reminds me of a few years back when a popular TV host in Australia called a noted US celebrity ‘boy’. He actually said “I like the boy” which simply meant “I think he’s a great bloke” (the TV presenter was much older) It caused a huge offence to the African American man and an apology was demanded even though it was unintentional.

Comment by Mabel

August 15, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

Chris W says,
“Paul clearly has a pattern in mind when he tells the wife to submit to her husband, but not the husband to his wife.”
one of 10 commandments says: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
Does God clearly have a pattern in mind when He says to not covet a neighbor’s wife, but didn’t say to not covet a neighbor’s husband?
Can we covet our neighbor’s husband then?

Comment by Don Johnson

August 16, 2010 @ 8:09 am

FWIIW, Orthodox Judaism, which derives from the Pharisees, says that a woman needs to keep all the negative commandments, but not the positive ones. A man needs to keep all of them. They find a total of 613.