The CBE Scroll

Not long ago we were alerted to an article written by the Rev. Dr Marie Fortune on her blog (see FaithTrust Institute) in which it was reported that a key spokesperson for complementarians stated that there were just two options for husbands whose authority was threatened.

“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority by either being abusive…..or more commonly to become passive, acquiescent and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches”

Dr Fortune writes that this ‘insight’ was prefaced with the opinion that the problem begins with women who ‘rebel’ against their husbands who have been given authority over them by God; once again blaming the victim.

We could assume by these statements that here we have someone who has limited experience with domestic violence and has attempted to excuse behaviours which are obviously ungodly.

The third option of course is for husbands and wives to stand side by side as equal partners, faithful to each other and submitting to one another in love. No abuse here by either person and an opportunity to demonstrate true Christ-like qualities.

I think there’s nothing more important than revision. When God matures us and leads us to a new vision or better understanding, we must revise our way of thinking even if it’s a complete embarrassment to ourselves. Looking back on my life, I can see so many times when I was sure of a thing and then it turned out differently. I don’t have regrets about following Him down those paths because of the lessons I learned as a result of them, but it’s funny how in the end, it was not as I was so convicted about.

For example, having an egalitarian view for marriage and the church is completely different than what I had taught and been so convinced about for so long. Only a few years ago, you would find me teaching that men should lead and women should follow. I taught it quite passionately — but even so, what always bothered me was that it always required so much defending. I saw the difficulty in the position when it came to couples who didn’t fit the mold. What about couples where the wife is the more naturally gifted leader and the husband, the follower? “Well,” it was explained to me, “the wife needs to hold back and give the husband a chance to lead.” That sounded all right to me theoretically (after all, the wife has the opportunity to ‘deny herself’), but in practical terms, I saw that it just meant that the wife would continue to come up with the ideas and visions and then have to prod and persuade her husband toward those ideas. It often becomes a subtle game of manipulation as she convinces him that something was his idea, because if she were to remain silent (in order to not lead), then they would not go anywhere. But as I have seen it, the wife rarely stays silent in this situation. The reality is that most couples end up having a more egalitarian marriage than they would profess. It just wouldn’t work if pure hierarchy was the modus operandi. God really has given women brains, gifts and visions — and without her voicing them, a couple really might possibly miss out on God’s will.

I can see though how despite encountering these real-life obstructions to the complementarian mindset, revision might not take place. When I think of a Christian community which I was involved with for many years, I just think of how its culture is built on the hierarchical way of life, and if things were to change, it could cause the whole structure to crumble.

To revise when God gives you new revelation requires true humility and courage. It means you have to admit you were wrong somewhere — and it means you need courage to step forward in a whole new direction.

In what ways have you had to make revisions in your life as you have followed God in your journey toward biblical equality?

In order to evaluate an ideology it is a good idea to project it to its extreme end to see what it would look like were it brought to its logical conclusions. Most would have to agree, then, that the extreme end of the ‘headship’ model of marriage would be the physical, emotional, and mental abuse of the ’submissive’ partner by the ‘head.’

It is well-documented that abuse of all kinds and to varying degrees occurs more in homes where the hierarchical model is practised. This model of marriage puts a huge responsibility on the wife to behave in such a way that her husband will be the ‘loving, servant leader’ he is encouraged to be. This, in itself, is nonsense, if the husband can only effectively be the leader if his wife allows him to and encourages him in his role.

What, then, would be the extreme end of the ‘mutuality’ model of marriage? There are no negative aspects to equal love, respect, honour, and submissiveness to one another’s opinions and desires and when the top priority is equal desire to love and obey Christ.

This model of marriage only looks better as the couple learns to esteem one another more, listens to and considers one another, and truly wants the best for one another.

I am amazed that the small part of Ephesians 5 which is translated “as Christ is head of the church” is extended and explained so that a husband is compared to Christ in so many ways.

What is a simple comparison of the type of care which a husband is encouraged to give becomes in some people’s minds the open door to husband as leader, decision maker, initiator, final authority in the home, and the one who must give account of every family member’s spiritual life. The extension of this is the expected response of a wife which presumably is the same as that of the church—submission in everything. If there is not submission “in everything,” then the comparison breaks down at several points.

The church (bride) doesn’t have a say in the decision making of Christ, whose ways are far above human understanding or reasoning.

Christ is not sometimes influenced by the church (bride) to consider that a decision or course of action may need to be reconsidered.

The church (bride) is not responsible for, or influential in, how Christ performs his “headship” role.

The church (bride) can be disobedient, disrespectful, and ungrateful to Christ without any of these attitudes affecting Christ’s innate nature, which is always loving, just, holy, and perfect in every aspect.

The church (bride) is not “equal but different” to Christ. There is no comparison between the creator of the heavens and earth and the church (bride) which is made up of created humans.

These are just a few thoughts on how these comparisons are not consistent with all of Scripture and continue to prop up the view of what God requires of a husband or wife. There are many others related to just this one verse.

Are there any comments regarding these comparisons or further ones which I haven’t outlined here?

Thanks to Sue for pointing out this interesting bit of news to CBE.

Towards the end of last week’s Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, a debate that dealt largely with foreign policy and the war in Iraq, the debate turned sharply to the issue of marital submission, and by extension, biblical equality.

Here is an excerpt from the debate’s transcript, found in its entirety here.

Governor Huckabee, to change the subject a little bit and focus a moment on electability.

Back in 1998, you were one of about 100 people who affirmed, in a full-page ad in the New York Times the Southern Baptist Convention’s declaration that, quote, ‘A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.’

Women voters in both parties harshly criticized that. Is that position politically viable in the general election of 2008, sir?

The ad mentioned was the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) document ‘You Are Right,’ an affirmation of the traditional definition of the family endorsed by 131 evangelicals including Franklin Graham, Charles Colson, and T.D. Jakes, among others. The ad included, as stated above, the declaration that husbands are to ’sacrificially love and lead their wives’ and that ‘wives are to graciously submit to their husband’s servant leadership.’

Here is how Huckabee, a co-signer and former SBC pastor, responded.

First of all, if anybody knows my wife, I don’t think they for one minute think that she’s going to just sit by and let me do whatever I want to. That would be an absolute total misunderstanding of Janet Huckabee.

The whole context of that passage – and, by the way, it really was spoken to believers, to Christian believers. I’m not the least bit ashamed of my faith or the doctrines of it. I don’t try to impose that as a governor and I wouldn’t impose it as a president.

But I certainly am going to practice it unashamedly, whether I’m a president or whether I’m not a president. But the point… the point, it comes from a passage of Scripture in the New Testament book of Ephesians, is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It’s both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.

So with all due respect, it has nothing to do with presidency. I just wanted to clear up that little doctrinal quirk there so that there’s nobody who misunderstands that it’s really about doing what a marriage ought to do and that’s marriage is not a 50/50 deal, where each partner gives 50 percent.

Biblically, marriage is a 100/100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other and that’s why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love.

The ‘You Are Right’ ad, an affirmation of the traditional definition of the family, was strong on it’s position that husbands are to ’sacrificially love and lead’ and that wives are to ‘graciously submit,’ and yet Huckabee, speaking from his own experience not only as an SBC pastor, but as a husband, affirmed that marital submission is mutual.

Thoughts, anyone?

(Please feel free here to post comments on political issues as related to marital submission and biblical equality and treat this as a forum within which to discuss political issues.

Please refrain from overly-grandiose displays of endorsement and/or the public denigration of particular candidates, seeing as The CBE Scroll is not a political platform, and platforms aplenty exist elsewhere. Thanks.)