The CBE Scroll

“Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet…” I Timothy 2:8-12 (TNIV)

I’m about as much a literalist as any complementarian. The rule I learned, and largely use, is: “If the common sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense.”

Biblical interpretation is so much about context, context, context. So, when we read I Timothy 2 about female submission and silence, we need to see the context so we can see the common sense of this part of Paul’s instructions.

Does the complementarian argue that men must raise their hands whenever they pray? Are women in the church never allowed to have stylish hair? What about those golden wedding rings? How about that really nice coat she got for Christmas last year?

They’re not doing all of this? Then why is the female submission and silence part taken so differently? The first part is obviously a localized command with a general lesson in it that we should always be praying humbly and thankfully and be more interested in living godly rather than being involved in just “looking good.” We understand the specifics of the injuctions are localized in time and place. Why should this one part be general to all times and all places? To me, the answer seems relatively simple to deduce. If everything but one part of a multi-part instruction is for a certain time and place, with those instructions having informative use elsewhere but are not binding elsewhere, then the one part is also specific to a certain time and place.

Mind you, there are more radical groups that require their women to not cut their hair, to wear head coverings, to not wear jewellery, men’s pants, etc. I’ve got to give them this: Their exegesis is more consistent than the less radical. This simply makes their errors greater, but they are more logical and more consistent.

John R. Rice was a major theologian for me in my youth. Try out his “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers” sometime. Really radical.

I draw encouragement from the fact that mainline complementarian thought has reached the current, less logical stance. It’s a movement in the right direction. Now, we need to pray for our sisters and brothers to take the next step toward understanding the context of this part of Scripture.

I haven’t thought much about Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages in a long time, but recently my Family Life Education class did a presentation on this subject.  I tend to see most evangelical book empires of that sort as an attempt by publishers to cash in on an author’s popularity, and I am not a big fan of Christian pop psychology to begin with.  Still, I am reasonable enough to acknowledge that there is something to the five love languages.  I’m not crazy about limiting ourselves to a magical five, but the general principle that different forms of expression mean more to different people is hard to argue with.

I could argue, however, with the gender stereotypes I saw in our class’s brief discussion of the love languages.  Skits tended to put women in traditional roles (whether the homemaker or the career woman with a second-shift), and the sorts of ideas thrown out by the class were also discussed in a stereotypical manner.  For example, a wife putting on sexy lingerie and having some fun with her husband somehow got put under “acts of service,” rather than more appropriate categories like “physical touch,” or even “quality time.”  Inspired by my frustration, I decided to survey the online love language quizzes for husbands and wives to see to what extent gender stereotypes just come with the territory.  When we think of caring for one another through words of affirmation, physical touch, gifts, quality time, and acts of service, do we need to make intentional efforts to avoid unhelpful assumptions about gender?

Between my class experience (at a moderate seminary!) and my perusal of the online quizzes, I think so.  It seems Chapman—in the quizzes, if not also in his books or various teaching materials—thinks certain love languages express themselves differently along gender lines, something that should be known by those potentially using his work in their churches or recommending it to friends.  As innocuous as we might assume the five love languages to be based on their decidedly less-than-revolutionary level of helpfulness, we must be aware that along with the good, the decent, and the obvious lurks a potentially more damaging element.

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7 TNIV).

Some hierarchical teachers stress that submission is a choice and cannot be forced. When a husband is careful to never force or coerce his wife to submit, the assumption seems to be made that the wife’s submission is completely voluntary. Yet many hierarchical teachings also tell a wife that God wants her to willingly and joyfully submit to her husband’s final decision anytime they are unable to agree on something—unless he is asking her to sin. These teachers go on to explain that sometimes a husband might choose to defer to his wife’s decision and other times he might not. He has the freedom to choose. She does not. These teachers emphasize that God wants wives to give up this freedom of choice for the health of their marriage.

But how healthy is this?

Say that a couple has been discussing an important decision that will affect them both, and it has become clear that they don’t agree. Under these hierarchical teachings, the wife has been led to believe that it is her role, responsibility or obligation to submit to her husband on the matter. And remember, she has been instructed that her submission must be willing and joyful. So if the wife were to say, “Honey, I don’t agree with you, but I’m choosing to submit to what you believe is best for us because I don’t want to disobey God,” would her submission really meet the criteria of being both willing and joyful?

Speaking those words out loud could make it sound like she isn’t completely behind him and backing his decision. Instead, they could convey that since she is acting under a sense of compulsion, her submission is being given reluctantly rather than willingly. She might be thinking, I’m really only doing this because I have to so that I don’t sin against God. Whether she wants to defer to him or not, she really doesn’t have a choice—not if she has been led to believe that to “choose” otherwise would be a sin. Without the freedom to admit that she still does not agree, she has to veil what she is really thinking in order for consensus and harmony to be reached. And, even if she doesn’t like the final decision, these teachers expect her to act like she is joyful about it.

So how does this help their marriage when communication lines have been impaired and healthy conflict resolution has been averted? How can her submission remain completely voluntary when choosing not to submit becomes equated with sin and with missing out on God’s best plan for their marriage?

Acting under compulsion is not the same thing as submitting willingly. When “no” is not a permissible option—without sinning—then a “yes” cannot be authentically and freely given. Thus, this lack of freedom can lead to wives giving resentfully. Could this be one of the reasons why God loves a cheerful giver? I believe that the hierarchical model sets up wives for failure. Basically, they are told that they must give willingly and joyfully or they are sinning.

If a wife is denied the free choice to submit to her husband, then her compliance isn’t submission—it’s obedience. The Bible exhorts wives to submit to their husbands—not to obey them. Submission isn’t just for wives; it’s also for husbands (Eph. 5:21). One could just as easily argue from Scripture that it is the husband who should defer to his wife when they are at an impasse. After all, husbands are instructed to lay down their lives for their wives (Eph. 5:25).

In conclusion, I think that giving each spouse an equal say in decision making allows both spouses to submit freely from the heart and allows for more truthful communication and self-disclosure that leads to healthier and more intimate marriages.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Which marriage model (mutuality or hierarchy) do you think best strengthens intimacy, communication and conflict resolution? Why? 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I’d like to thank Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend for their book Boundaries, which helped me to see that giving (submitting) under compulsion can lead to resentment in marriage and that gender hierarchy teachings manipulate wives into offering this type of submission to their husbands.

Some bad words have more than four letters.

Here is a ten-letter word, with terrible meaning for many people:   SUBMISSION

Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” But  you perhaps didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.

The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we most often hear is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, “Women, be like Jesus.”

We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) There are many ways in which women are not weaker at all, although it is true that females often lack the size, the muscular strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger:   His prayers will be ineffectual.

Submission was not intended to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure; it was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”  (I Peter 3:8, 9)  Have men and women alike forgotten the calling we have to live in harmony and be a blessing to one another?

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

There it is, plain as day: “For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” I Peter 3:5&6 (TNIV). I guess Julie had better start calling me lord, huh? I’ll settle for “your highness.”

Or, maybe not.

This verse has been a favorite club with which the complementarian can browbeat the egalitarian. I read it and I think, “Tell me it ain’t so, Joe.”

It ain’t.

In real estate, it’s location, location, location. In exegesis, it’s context, context, context. This section, I Peter 3:1-7, starts with “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands…” (TNIV). In the same way as what? Clearly, in the same way as Peter discusses submission at the end of Chapter 2.

Chapter 2:13-25 is about submission to rulers and other leaders. It talks about kings, governors and slave owners and, in Chapter 3, husbands. It’s important to note how Peter describes this submission. It is “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men…” Peter is talking about obeying the law of the land. This is not divine law. It’s not the Law of Moses. Husbands are here lumped in with kings and slave owners. That’s pretty consistent with history, eh?

I Peter 2:16&17 is also important when interpreting this passage of Scripture. It reads, “Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (TNIV) To my reading, this is Peter saying to submit ourselves to each other.

When Peter talks about obeying husbands as the local laws may require, he makes two comments about husbands. The reason to submit is if the husband is unsaved. The hope is that the unsaved husband will find Christ because of his wife’s actions and attitude. I actually know of a case where this happened. It took the Spirit decades. What a Christian woman! Christian husbands are told, in verse 7, to be considerate and respectful of their wives. The key word, for this discussion, is “respectful.” They are to respect their wives because of their weakness under human law and because the two of them are both “heirs… of the gracious gift of life.” That is, because they are equal heirs of life from God.

Zowie! Peter was an egalitarian after all.