The CBE Scroll

Comment by Mabel

August 25, 2010 @ 6:55 am

Excellent point. I never thought of it that way. Another hole punched in the “spiritual covering” false teaching.

Comment by EMBG (formerly the other "EM")

August 25, 2010 @ 9:50 am

Agreed. I wrote an FB blog post on the “husband-priesthood” doctrine after a good friend of mine received bad advice from a mutual friend on this issue.

In the note, I reviewed the primary roles of the priest in Scripture and concluded by saying:
“So, we have seen that the husband is not uniquely called to be a priest to his wife. He is not an intermediary between her and God. The church of Jesus Christ, of which both believing spouses are members, is a kingdom of priests – not as mediators between God and man but as yielded vessels who image the Savior to each other and a lost world, as worshipers of the One who is worth all of our devotion and as intercessors together.”

“The Word of God never calls the husband to be his wife’s priest. [Scripture never calls him the head of the home either, as so many have stated.] But affirming male leadership in the home in no way requires believing in husband-priesthood as a unique office in the church. Indeed, insisting on such an extra-biblical doctrine puts the gospel at risk by placing a husband between his wife and Christ, who is Lord and Savior of both (if believers).”

Comment by Don Johnson

August 25, 2010 @ 10:49 am

It is a sin (as in missing the mark of God’s best) to teach that a wife should follow her husband’s lead except in matters of sin.

You make some good points.

Another point is that according to Paul, anything that is not of faith is sin, so if a wife cannot follow her husband’s “leading” in faith, it would be sin for her to do so. That is, it is not just concreate specific sins that should be avoided, the sin of not acting in faith is to be avoided also.

Comment by Deborah

August 25, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

Good thoughts, Sonnet. This passage alone would obviously not cause me to become an egalitarian if I were a comp, but after wrestling through to an egal conclusion, this is a fine read of the redemptive message of the gospel.

Comment by TL

August 26, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

Equally problematic is the statement that the husband is the spiritual head of wife and children. That is nowhere near the picture that Paul painted in Ephesians 5.

Paul describes an interdependency of husband being viewed BY THE WIFE as her head. Husband needs to view the wife as his body which he nurtures and cares for as he does his own. Nothing in there about authority, leading, etc.

Comment by Sonnet

August 26, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

Earlier in my marriage when I was following gender hierarchy teachings with their “chain of command” philosophy, I found myself feeling more and more like I was going through a spiritual desert. After embracing egalitarianism, I began to understand why.

Jesus tells us in John 15 to remain in Him. He is our vine, our source of life. The chain of command places wives into positions as sub-branches. No wonder I was drying up! In many ways I had grafted myself into my husband’s branch instead of remaining directly attached to Jesus, the vine. And the really sad thing is, I thought that I was following God’s will by being a sub-branch (lower in the chain of command).

I find it very telling that Jesus’ metaphors in John 10 and John 15 are void of any kind of gender hierarchy teachings.

Comment by EMBG (formerly the other "EM")

August 27, 2010 @ 7:11 am

Well said, Sonnet. Even being in a hierarchial complementarian church, which would still agree that wives need to go directly to Christ (it’s not as extreme as some of the patriarical groups), I can still find myself tempted in this way.

Comment by Karen

August 27, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

Logically, an argument from silence is a poor argument. I could make just as strong an argument for works-based salvation from the sheep/goats passage, since faith is not explicitly mentioned. Clearly I would be in error.

You are right in saying that a husband was never intended to be a priest or mediator of any kind between his wife and God. Men and women are created equally in the image of God, and Galatians 3:28 affirms their equality through Christ. The Bible is very clear, however, in asking the wife to willingly submit to her husband’s headship, and is equally clear that the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the Church. It never commands a husband to forcefully rule over his wife, nor does it ever direct a wife to be the head of her husband. If both parties choose to do what Scripture commands, there is no inequality inherent in that. It’s a difference in intended role, not worth. The notion that someone’s role within the Church or the home indicates his worth is a Western idea that is never taught in Scripture.

Comment by Mabel

August 27, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

The word headship is not found in the bible. Submit is not obey, and head is not headship. This is a metaphor. Christ can exist without the church, the head cannot without the body. It is inter-dependent on one another The husband cannot love the wife exactly as Christ loves the Church. She is not saved by him. Submit is voluntary, not a “role”. There is inequality if head is turned into headship, meaning authority over, or rule over, or have the last say, etc.
“Someone’s role within the Church” is fine as long as it is not gender based, since we are all free to do God’s work as the Holy Spirit gifts. Role in ministry is problematic as soon as you lock it into gender based boxes.
If we really want to do away with the association between role and worth, we should first of all do away with all titles. I have come to see that personally I will not call anyone “Reverend” any more. That is just my personal conviction. I cringe when I read in Christian magazine that some man is the “Most Reverend so-and-so”.
Concerning the teaching of wife submission and husband headship, I ALWAYS come back to this one reality: domestic abuse, with the victims overwhelmingly women. If we teach that all wives are to submit (meaning obey) to their husbands, what message are we telling the abused wife? Would they feel comfortable coming to the church for help? We do not live in ivory towers unfortunately. Last year, in my city, in a sister church, a wife was stabbed to death by her husband. It happens. Do these women feel comfortable coming to the church to share freely? Think about it, not just gloss over it, but think about it long and hard.

Comment by Michelle

August 27, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

Eph. 5:21 “21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

This verse does not say, “unless you are a married man, in which case you are not to submit to your wife.”

If “one another” in this verse does not actually mean “one another”, then doubt is cast on all of the other times in scripture that we are instructed to “[verb] one another”.

Comment by Don Johnson

August 27, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

Eph 5 says that a husband IS the head of his wife, it does not say he is to ACT LIKE the head, or BE HEAD OVER his wife. The Bible IS clear about headship, in that this is a human tradition, not found in the Bible.

Just earlier in Eph everyone is called to love another as Jesus loves the church, so the command to the husband is not unique to him, rather it is just an example of a general principle that is to be true for all believer; that is, Paul is saying it to husbands for emphasis. Just before a wife is told to submit, Paul says that ALL are to submit, again, Paul is telling the wife for emphasis, not making a special role for her.

Comment by KM

August 28, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

Clement of Alexandria said very much the same thing around 200 A.D.

From the Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.iv.html

Comment by Sonnet

August 28, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

The idea that “headship” means the husband is the spiritual leader and is accorded the privilege, or obligation, to be the final decision maker within the marriage can easily place the wife in a lose-lose situation.

Gender hierarchy teaches her it is a sin if she does not “joyfully” and “willingly” submit to (obey) her husband’s leadership as the final decision maker. If she doesn’t submit, as in obey, then she is acting out in rebellion to “God’s” creational order. While at the same time, if the wife believes that her “woman’s intuition” is really the Holy Spirit’s leading in which way she should go, to not obey that would cause her to sin. What is she to do? Where are the checks and balances under a government of gender hierarchy within the marriage? The spouses are not in a relationship of mutuality.

Since it is not a mutual relationship, husband and wife cannot both remain attached to Jesus, the vine. For the hierarchy to work, the wife has to become a sub-branch of her husband. Unless her husband is perfect and infallible, so that his final decisions are NEVER wrong, telling a wife to always submit to her husband’s final decisions can lead her into sin even if the decision is not clearly violating a “thou shalt not _____” type of sin.

Yes, women are encouraged to stay attached to the vine —- as Christians. Yet, simultaneously they are being exhorted to become subordinate helpers to their husbands — as wives. Mutually remaining attached to the vine is not possible if the wife becomes a subordinate, sub-branch of her husband. And no, I’ve never heard the term “sub-branch” used to describe the “role” of a wife, but her role logically leads her to that placement.

Therefore, women are receiving contradictory and confusing messages.
Stay directly attached to the vine.
Take on the permanent role as a sub-branch of your husband.

Here is what I internalized when I believed in gender roles:
Either A. Men/husbands can discern God’s voice and direction better than women/wives
Or B. God chooses to make His will known to wives through their husbands, that is, he speaks to men more directly than he does to women even though they are both equally able to hear from God. He just prefers to speak and give directions through men.

So, as a woman, I felt that if “A” was true, then I was spiritually inferior to men based on being born female. Period. This was not just a role to play but a part of my very being.

If “B” was true, then God was acting unjustly by showing favoritism to males based purely on their outward flesh. While I tried really hard not to let it bother me, and tried to believe that, in this case, “God’s ways are higher than our ways”, it affected me deeply inside and my relationship with God. That was part of the spiritual desert I was going through.

Comment by Sonnet

August 28, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

It’s not just that those metaphors (comments 91758/91762) are silent about gender hierarchy. They teach the opposite. Equality. All believers (sheep) can hear God’s (the Shepherd’s) voice. And all believers are told to remain directly attached to Jesus as our vine.

As Rebecca Merrill Groothuis wrote in “Goods News for Women”:

“Why, then, is a male believer, solely by virtue of his maleness, deemed fit to act as the “priest” or spiritual leader in his home and church? Does not God make his will and Word known to women as well as to men? And if so, why must a woman subordinate her understanding of God’s will to a man’s understanding of God’s will? How can it be said that women and men stand on equal ground before God, and that in Christ there is no distinction between male and female, if persons of one gender are obliged to obey and hear from God by hearing from and obeying persons of the other gender?” (p. 77)

“A woman cannot be served by a man’s spiritual rule unless *her* ability to discern the will and understand the Word of God is inferior to the ability God has given men in this regard. In other words, the husband’s spiritual leadership of his wife is a service to her only if she is in fact spiritually inferior to him.” (p. 78)

“… a man who makes final decisions for his wife is not acting as one who serves her, but as one who represses her spiritual growth and personal maturity. Rather than laying down his life for her sake, he may instead be sacrificing her maturity and ministry for the sake of his own male right (or “responsibility”) to lead.” (p. 79)

I highly recommend her book, especially for women who have struggled with feeling spiritually inferior to men purely because they were born female.

Her book can be purchased through CBE at this link:
http://equalitydepot.com/goodnewsforwomen.aspx

Comment by Trevor

August 30, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

Interestingly, for me one of the greatest evidences of the reality of Biblical equality is that on a number of occasions throughout the Old and New Testament when God could have initiated His purpose through a male person, He didn’t. If, as some would have us believe, men are so designed and ordained, either by creation order or their maleness more accurately imaging God, then why would God break with His own divine rule and speak to women apart from their husbands? If this should occur even once then it would raise a question over the fixed nature of the issue.

The facts are that it occurs at very significant junctures in Biblical revelation. One such OT occasion that comes to mind is the episode of Hannah’s plea to God for a child. God not only heard but granted her a special child, Samuel, whom Hannah dedicated to a life-time of service in the Tabernacle in Shiloh. Her husband Elkanah submitted himself gladly to Hannah’s judgment (1 Samuel 1: 19-28) and Hannah’s subsequent prayer of praise (1 Samuel 2:1-10) says something of the depth of her personal devotion to God. Subsequently the life of Samuel as a judge and prophet of Israel and his part in the setting up of the dynasty of King David speaks for itself.

Equally, in the NT, the angelic visitation announcing the birth of Jesus was given to Mary before her fiance Joseph (Luke 1:26-38). Joseph, who by now was aware of Mary’s pregnancy and being a just man had decided to simply and quietly break the engagement so as not to shame Mary. It was then that he too heard from God (Matthew 1:18-25) and brought Mary home to be his wife. In Luke’s account (Luke 1:26-56) we read of Mary visiting her cousin Elizabeth a few days after the angelic announcement. It was then that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and uttered a word of prophecy concerning the child which led Mary offer a song of praise. These events happened independently of the men.

In both these instances, and there are others, if headship and hierarchy were of such importance to God, there is no way that He would have broken His own rule and given women prior insights into His purposes in this way. Therefore, from where I sit, headship and hierarchy are definitely not as set in concrete as complementarian theologians would have us believe.

Comment by Mabel

August 30, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

Trevor, excellent! Well put!

Comment by Alison

September 3, 2010 @ 9:54 am

One could also cite the prophetess Huldah (see 2 Kings 22:15-22), who was speaking the words of God independently of any man. Hilkiah and the other advisors to the king needed her wisdom in order to figure out what to do next after finding the lost book of the Law. Out of all the prophets they could have gone to, they went to a woman, which is yet another example of God working through a woman without the intercession of a man. What about Deborah, the judge and prophetess in her own right? I could go on, but it would fall into belaboring the point.

The point, as Trevor has picked up so well, is that divine revelation isn’t limited to men, nor is gender hierarchy as clear in God’s purpose as complementarians make it out to be. Otherwise, the Scriptures would likely have NO examples of women carrying the Word of God faithfully. Thank you, Trevor.

Comment by margaret marquez

September 3, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

i think the most telling remark is this one–women being encouraged to be followers of men rather than followers of God–in the book of Acts, when the apostles were ordered to cease and desist preaching in Jesus name, they declared that they must obey God rather than man

Comment by Sonnet

September 3, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

And women are being told to serve two masters, which places them into a quandary — “no one can serve two masters.” Matt. 6:24

Comment by Shirley Barron

September 6, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

Let’s carefully look at the line that is so often mistranslated: “The man (i.e., a specific man, evidently
Adam) is the kephale (Greek, source, as in head of a river, fountainhead, etc.; this is the primary meaning according to Liddell-Scott lexicon) of the woman (i.e., a specific woman, evidently Eve). In other words, THE man Adam is the source of THE woman Eve. Kephale does not mean leader or authority or ruler, in Greek. English-speakers have placed their own metaphorical meaning (of ruler) on this term, and then have generalized this NT line so that it seems to refer to men in general and women in general, or to husbands and wives. This passage is very clearly discussed in Philip Payne’s recent book (q.v., Man and Woman, One in Christ).

Comment by Liz

September 6, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

Thanks for the reminder, Shirley. It still amazes me that most people just go along with the ‘headship’ teaching. I suggest that many struggle with the whole concept but it is modelled in most church groups and households and to speak out can cause others to look with suspicion as though the person is a heretic.

Comment by Sarah

September 7, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

Re: “kephale:” understanding that it was even possible that “head” did not necessarily imply authority in nt Greek was key to me becoming egal. It freed me to look at the Biblical passages in which it occurs as a whole, contextually, without the superimposed hierarchical filter. I’ve heard the objection that “Christ is the leader of the church, so the husband must be the leader of the wife!” True – Christ is the leader of the church. The King, in fact. But he’s also her sinless redeemer and creator – and I’ve heard very few claim those roles for the husband! Given the principle of limited analogy, and understanding that kephale doesn’t necessarily mean leader or authority, maybe context helps. Ephesians, where the analogy is most clearly drawn, is chock-full of guidance. The first few chapters, leading up to the household codes in Ch. 5-6, consistently point to Christ’s role as victorious rescuer, nurturer. He’s not shown as ruling the church here (even though he is her king, that’s not what’s emphasized). He’s consistently *lifting her up to be with him, share in his authority and power.* Even when he is head over all things, placing principalities and powers under his feet, the church is identified with him, NOT with those things being subjugated.

Comment by Sarah

September 7, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

In my thinking, given the Biblical context and the cultural context (which granted the husband legal and cultural authority), the easiest reading is that Paul isn’t telling wives that they must submit to their husbands’ divinely ordered spiritual authority, though there is perhaps a nod to cultural norms. The husband is told to love his wife as Christ loved the church, nurturing and caring for her – and, as the whole book has emphasized over and over, sharing his authority with her. In Christ’s case this is divinely given, unmerited grace; in the case of husband and wife, the authority is cultural and given their equal standing before God as recipients of the gifts of divine authority and exaltation Paul has just gotten done explaining, has just been nullified. I believe Gordon Fee said that Paul didn’t overthrow the cultural authority structure – he rendered it irrelevant.

Comment by Don

September 8, 2010 @ 8:54 am

I think Paul DID overthrow the pagan marriage hierarchy. He did not endorse a wife needing to obey her husband, even tho the pagan culture and law said this was the case. He made it mutual for those with eyes to see, unfortunately, there are still some believers who decline to see that.

Comment by Sarah

September 8, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

Don, I agree – but he didn’t come right out and say so – overtly condemning. He transformed, even demolished, it from the inside out.

Last night I was commenting on the fly – dangerous business when dealing with such sacred things. I forgot the most obvious imagery of Christ’s relationship to his church, one specifically alluded to in Eph. 5: radical unity and identification. Again, the parallel isn’t absolute in the ontological sense as Christ’s identification with his body is far more radical – pure gift, as he, creator and king, descends to become one with her. Man is not thus independent of woman as Genesis 1-2 and 1 Cor. 11 demonstrate, as does the basic fact of their common human nature. I think this makes the example more pointed though – if the holy, perfect, divine Christ reaches down and draws his created, fallible bride to himself, how much more should a mere fellow human being, especially finding himself in a cultural situation that grants him power that his wife doesn’t have, lay aside his privilege and identify with and serve her.

One of the comp. objections that really saddens me is that egals have to engage in exegetical gymnastics to come to their conclusions. I think that Paul’s letter to Ephesus is a classic example of why the opposite can be true – imposing the imagery of hierarchy on the argument and turning Eph. 5 into a description of divinely ordained authority structure diminishes the whole thrust of the discussion – we aren’t our own, we’re not subjects of this world – we’re members – heirs – of another kingdom, radically devoted to Christ and through him to each other. We’re not to be identified according to our social standing – we all take our identity from Christ. My gut feeling is that’s part of the reason why Paul didn’t outright condemn the social structures – not only would doing so have created uneccessary offense re: an already hostile culture (cf. Titus 2:3-6), but those worldly rules ultimately can’t limit Christians. So sad when we re-impose them in Christ’s name.

Comment by Don

September 8, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

Yes, if you actually read the text in Eph 5, you see the non-egals have pulled the idea of hierarchy out of …

nowhere in the text.

Comment by Stormy

September 11, 2010 @ 11:17 am

I am almost afraid to comment on this subject, everyone who has commented is obviously well educated. I do not have a college degree but, I have read extensively on the topic of headship and covering doctrines. I currently go to a church that holds to these doctrines. I do not agree with them but, the Lord has not impressed me to leave yet.

Sonnet, I just want to say that your original post and comments speak so true to what I believe the Lord has been revealing to me regarding this subject.

I just recently returned from a mission trip to India and Africa. Before I left the Lord placed a deep burden on my heart for women in India and Africa who are Christ followers and being abused in their homes. While in these countries, I discovered that the church leaders were accepting cultural norms in the marriage, such as, a husband in Africa beating his wife once a week to show his wife that he is still interested in her. The wives expect this treatment and if they don’t get beaten, they believe that their husbands are seeing other women.

I went on this trip to equip and train the church leaders in Africa. We quickly discovered that we needed to hold workshops for the men so that they could be told that this behavior is not Christ-like, while realizing that we were not going to be able to change the culture overnight.

When I returned I became more and more convinced that in Ephesians 5 this is exactly what Paul was doing with the church in Ephesus. I think that Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians because in Ephesus the women had absolutely no choice in whom they married and they were treated like property. This treatment would naturally lead to bitterness and disrespect, especially if the man was cruel. I believe that Paul was addressing the heart issues that result from not having free will.

To the husbands he was addressing the the idea that the men could treat their wives any way they wished. I believe Paul basically was telling them that under Christ there is a new way of doing things. You don’t get to be cruel any longer. Now it is required that you love like Christ and that you have to treat your wives like you would treat yourselves. Funny that that is the second commandment that Christ himself spoke of. Love your Neighbor as yourself.

I believe Paul was addressing cultural issues and as it was stated by Gordon Fee – rendered irrelevant. Paul was not going to be able to change the culture like we could not just with our words but, God can make it irrelevant.

These are just some thoughts that have been rolling through my head since I have been back. I have realized that my ministry is with people who are very simple and have to have things broken down to simple terms. I could not resist commenting on this post. It was so refreshing to read others’ thoughts and realize I am not alone in my thinking.

Comment by Stormy

September 11, 2010 @ 11:19 am

P.S. I really wish that they allowed you to edit your comments! Please excuse all of the errors.

Comment by Sarah

September 11, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Stormy – wow. Just so you know, I’m no theologian, but I try very hard to seek and learn what God’s word means. Looks like you’ve gotten quite an education too from the Great Teacher, and that he’s been using you wonderfully. Ditto on the church situation – most of my fellowship has been and is with those who don’t share my views on this. I’m a Christian first, egal second. Perhaps if we’re with Christians who are committed to following God on the vast majority of Scripture we agree on and if we’re committed to do the same, much of our “cultural” problems can be disarmed, too. (hey, a girl can dream! :-))

Comment by Sonnet

September 14, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

Stormy, thank you for commenting. No one needs a college degree to add their thoughts. The Holy Spirit is our greatest teacher. Good point about Christ’s second commandment.

Regarding Christ’s first commandment:

How can a wife love God with ALL of her heart, soul, MIND, and strength if she isn’t allowed to use all of her mind within her hierarchical marriage?

Comment by RED

September 15, 2010 @ 11:45 am

I add my agreement with Stormy!

Regarding Don’s last comment…LOL! I have often thought the same thing. Every time I discuss my non-hierarchical interpretation of Eph 5 with a comp friend, they have to do a lot of gymnastics and human reasoning to explain why this text is not incompatible with a hierarchy system. Mind you, they’re not showing how the text expresses hierarchy–they can only get as far as claiming that it doesn’t conflict with it.

Comment by Don

September 16, 2010 @ 5:02 am

I have seen comps say something like “the roles for men and women in Eph 5″ but there are no roles defined there.

Every believer is to submit to other believers (Eph 5:21); a wife submitting is an example of that.

Every believer is to love and serve others like Christ did (Eph 5:1-2); the husband doing this later in Eph 5 for his wife is an example of that.

Every believer is to respect others; a wife respecting her husband is an example of that.

Comment by RED

September 16, 2010 @ 11:15 am

Don, you make some really excellent points!

The interesting thing is, even if you were to somehow agree that Eph 5 lays out different “roles” (which I am not convinced it does), the “role” that is laid out for the husband looks nothing like the “role” that complementarians claim husbands are to take.

“Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. He did this to dedicate the church to God by his word, after making it clean by washing it in water, in order to present the church to himself in all its beauty–pure and faultless, without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection. Men ought to love their wives just as they love their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself. No one ever hates his own body. Instead, he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ does the church; for we are members of his body.” (Eph 5:25-30)

This paints a picture of a guy who always puts the woman first, treats her wishes as if they were his own, considers caring for her person to be as important as caring for his own person.

Where in there does it say that men are to lead while their wives follow? That men are to initiate? To be sole interpreters of God’s will for the family? To be somehow less involved in child-rearing but more involved in working outside the home?

It says nothing like that. It only says that they are to consider how to treat their wives like themselves.

If complementarians truly followed the “role” they believe Ephesians 5 lays out, I am confident that they would take on the responsibilities of cleaning and cooking more often, be willing to be stay-at-home dads so their wives could have a fulfilling career, and treat their wives’ opinions as being just as valid as their own.

Granted, I’m sure some complementarian husbands do this. But the point is that the complementarian movement as a whole does NOT put forth these types of things as being the husbands’ “role”; instead it relies on a definition that cannot be gleaned anywhere from the text. That does not make a strong argument for their standpoint being Biblical.

Comment by Don

September 17, 2010 @ 8:44 am

The basic point is once one adds or subtracts from Scripture, one can end up anywhere as it is eisegesis.

Comps are now claiming that marriage represents Jesus and the church, which is exactly backwards from what is taught in Eph 5, where Jesus serving the church is used to show a husband that serving his wife is appropriate. I see that comp backwards mapping as ultimately idolatrous, as it puts a husband in the place of Jesus, very dangerous and God will not tolerate it.