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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Topic ideas include, but are not limited to:

• How convictions about biblical equality and gender justice apply to resolving conflict
• Biblical alternatives to ‘the tie-breaking-vote’ model of conflict resolution by female submission to male headship
• The importance of prayer for resolving conflict
• Whether there is a ‘middle way’ between egalitarianism and male headship
• Appropriate and inappropriate anger
• Biblical reflections: examples of how Jesus handled conflict, Jacob and Esau’s reconciliation, rivalry between Sarah and Hagar, etc.
• Examples of Christians who are/were reconcilers as well as examples of Christians who refuse(d) to compromise on truth
• Practical tips and reflections on race and gender reconciliation in Christ

Please send specific ideas or proposals to mgreulich@cbeinternational.org.

It was assumed, of course, by all of our family and friends that I would take my husband’s name. For not long after we had walked down the aisle we started receiving letters and invitations addressed to ‘Mr. and Mrs.,’ and it was frequently in the traditional form of, ‘Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.’ When I received those letters, I wondered where I went in the midst of the addressing process. Suddenly, my identity was completely lost in my husband, and it made me very ‘angsty.’

The angst, however, was no slight on my husband. I am ineffably in love with him and still breathless thinking about the incredible romance God has unraveled before us. However, I had spent almost thirty years with a certain name. How could I suddenly change it to something else? Losing my name felt like losing my identity. It felt like losing a certain part of me – my culture, my heritage, and the woman I had grown into – complete and whole, called and gifted by God without a husband/man’s ‘leadership’ or ‘covering.’ And, putting my first name with my husband’s last name resulted in a person I did not know. She was a stranger to me, and I wasn’t sure I was ready to be her.

I wrestled with the name change for months before and after my wedding and was told, more than once, of all the spiritual reasons for why I needed to change my name. Some reasons given to me included:

1. You need to embrace your husband’s identity as your own identity. (My response: Of course! But my question is: why doesn’t he need to embrace my identity as his own identity, too?)

2. It is a standing truth that God made Adam and Eve in his image, but at the same time he refers to both as ‘man.’ (I think that the person who said this meant that since God referred to both Adam and Eve by the man’s name ‘man,’ so too, I should take on my husband’s name.)

3. You need to change your name because ‘the beauty of God’s image is in a man and woman becoming one. Each needs to be lost in the identity of the other, being fully represented and affirmed. The Father was willing to identify with the Son and the Son totally submitted to the will of the Father.’ (My response: But why is it, despite this ‘equality’ sounding reasoning, do I feel like I’m the only one losing her identity here? I don’t feel like I am being fully represented and affirmed.)

4. Changing your name to your husband’s demonstrates your submission to him as your spiritual head. (My response: What about the idea of mutual submission from Ephesians 5:21?)

5. You need to show your oneness and unity in order to do battle against Satan. Satan attacks marital unity, after all. (My response: Is a name capable of scaring off Satan?)

I was perturbed by these reasons given to me by older, spiritual men whom I respected. Their arguments made it sound like changing my name was God’s will and akin to being spiritual and godly. Not changing it was not being a submissive wife and therefore being a bad Christian. However, I don’t personally believe a woman changing her name is a biblical mandate. It’s a part of Western culture and tradition, one that has been deeply influenced by patriarchy, but it is not the equivalent to godliness.

In a way, my desire to keep my maiden name is a resistance against some of the inconsistent lines of thoughts that were presented to me. I don’t want to simply fall in line with patriarchal traditions that pose as biblical mandate. To change my name would feel to me like I was making a public proclamation that I subscribe to mainstream interpretations of spirituality – i.e. headship and submission roles in marriage – when on the contrary, my husband and I have spent the last year establishing a biblical marriage based on mutual submission.

So, I haven’t changed my name. But, I still wrestle with all this because while I want to be able to represent the uniqueness and individuality which God gave to us both, I also want to represent the oneness. I don’t want to be so focused on the ‘twoness’ in the midst of the oneness that there is no oneness to be seen. And, ‘oneness’ is important to me too.

I still haven’t come to a final conclusion yet. Maybe you could help me.

What do you think about the name-changing tradition? Biblical, unbiblical? What are pros and cons to a woman changing her name? What is your personal experience?