The quote: from Husbands Who Love Like Christ and the Wives Who Submit to Them:
Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It's a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership. And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That's not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.
In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.
(...)
There is no contradiction between mutual submission and a relationship of leadership and response. Mutual submission doesn't mean that both partners must submit in exactly the same ways. Christ submitted himself to the church in one way, by a kind of servant-leadership that cost him his life. And the church submits herself to Christ in another way by honoring his leadership and following him in on the Calvary road.
So it is not true that mutual submission rules out the family pattern of Christ-like leadership and church-like submission. Mutual submission doesn't obliterate those roles, it transforms them.
What this means to me:
If we see headship and leadership within the framework of responsibility, not right, it becomes a loving response to a loving God. Godly submission of a godly wife becomes a loving response to a loving husband.
~~~~~~~~~~
The quote: from "Do you believe in 'mutual submission' the way Paul teaches in Ephesians 5:21, 'Submit to one another'?"
Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren't if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ's headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.
What this means to me:
The key is love. The key is different. There is no conflict between love / leadership / submission. As sinful mankind, we can inject a conflict where one does not belong, but a man or a woman sinning in an authority structure does not make the structure wrong, it makes the sin wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~
The quote: from "Building a Christ Centered Marriage: How Husbands and Wives Can Complement One Another in Marriage"
The traditional camp, on the other hand, advocates equality before God, but is committed to complementarianism, rather than egalitarianism. This is the belief that, while men and women are equal before God, they serve him in complementary roles which are not always identical and in some cases ought not to be. These complementarians recognize that there is "neither male nor female" in terms of our relationship to God (Gal. 3:28). But they also recognize the other biblical texts which counsel that men and women possess distinct abilities and callings (such as 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:9-3:7). In the home there ought to be male headship (though not domination) and womanly submission (though not fearful servility). Complementarians insist that to be truly evangelical we must confess that there is no contradiction over this matter in Scripture, and to be truly biblical we must affirm both the spiritual equality of men and women and also the distinctions and differences in roles that are taught in the Bible.
What this means to me: Men and women should fit together like a jigsaw puzzle - heart to heart, mind to mind, soul to soul. Not like identical and interchangeable gear cogs.
~~~~~~~~~~
The quote: from Armorbearer:
i agree, women are not afforded the courtesy of dignity in many cases, but the problem is not patriarchy. the problem is men acting like buffoons. the remedy then is not feminism and matriarchy or swapping one bully for another, the remedy is mutual submission. rightful authority.
What this means to me: Some parents abuse their children; that does not mean we should remove parental authority. Some pastors are abusive; that does not mean that we should abolish pastoral authority. There are some bad bosses; that does not mean that the position of "boss" is bad. A president may lie under oath, or knowingly accept bad intelligence; that doesn't mean that the office of presidency is evil.
Abuse is sin, it does not follow that the structure is sinful, but the person within that structure.
Molly
Boy, I am feeling full of questions tonight! lol... MY APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE! 🙂
Regarding the last quote, I just wanted to point out that egalitarianism (and/or Christian feminism), is not promoting one bully being traded for another but is promoting mutal submission ruled by Love's law, Jesus being the Lord of both.
And now, for the questions that sprung up in my mind (drum roll, please)...
1. I am assuming then that you are getting the idea of the husband being the "rightful authority" from Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor. via the word, "head?"
2. You mentioned structure vs a sinner w/in the structure. Do you think the head/body analogy was given to emphasize rightful *structure*, to show us who is the leader in the relationship?
3. Do the other (2) examples of Head/Body in Ephesians support this view of the analogy?
4. Do the other (2) examples given in 1 Corinthians 11 support this view, too?
5. Did the people in the Jewish and Roman/Greek culture think of a human's head as the part of the person that was the authority?
6. Was Paul supporting the *authority structure* of slavery when he gave instructions to masters and slaves in Ephesians and Colossians?
7. If not, why didn't Paul just flat out give orders to abolish the structure of slavery? Wasn't he catering to culture by not just saying outright that it was a less-than-best system?
Answer only if you feel like it, and only if you have the time. I totally understand if you don't!
Love,
Molly
Ellen
I think that the author of armourbearer used matriarchy because that was the system she grew up in - not necessarily that all egalitarians are matriarchalists but rather that swinging to the opposite extreme is not the answer.
The rest of the questions, I'll get to, but not until this afternoon.
(I've got a few posts in the drafts folder - if I post them all in one day...well, I guess I just prefer to stretch them out. I don't like blogs that post 5 times in one day and then go a week without a post!)
Molly
Oh good, I'm looking forward to the responses (though totally understand if you don't have the time).
I personally am struggling with what I deem to be inconsistancy in complementarian thinking. The patriarchs I see as being consistant with their method of interpreting Scripture and with the follow-through. Egals are the same way. I don't view either as an "extreme," either, in that I think they are merely being consistant.
However the comp's, to me, are really hard for me to understand...it gets really murky when it comes to the details, it seems like. *shrugs* I am comfortable with murky, as I think we all see through a glass dimly AND there are times when we are forming a theological outlook and yet to have things come clear, HOWEVER I am not comfortable when a murky outlook is being preached as "God's Way."
If it's God's Way, then let it be shown to be consistant. Patriarchy does that, as does egalitarianism, but the comp seems to lean toward one side and another, depending on how he feels about the question.
*big fat friendly shrug*
:o)
Arland Head
Ellen,
If I may, the following quote was posted in response to the first article on mutual submission.
“What this means to me:
If we see headship and leadership within the framework of responsibility, not right, it becomes a loving response to a loving God. Godly submission of a godly wife becomes a loving response to a loving husband.”
I would like to pose a question to help me understand. Are you stating that a wife can only respond in a godly manner if the husband is being loving?
Thanks for you response
A brother in Christ.
Ellen
No, a Godly husband responds to a loving God by being a loving and Godly leader.
Submission to an ungodly husband is a loving response to a loving God.
Submission to a Godly and loving husband is a loving response to a loving husband (which does not exclude that it is also loving submission to a loving God).
This does not mean that a woman should stay in an abusive or neglectful relationship.
It has been said that submission is not the same as obedience. I believe that they are related, but not identical.
There is a time when a woman should/must submit to God rather than man, and should/must submit to the man's needs, rather than human desires.
I disobeyed my husband and left him because I needed to submit to his need for accountability and a Saviour rather than obey his human desire to stay and live the life he wanted me to lead.
Clay
I think this is very well said and accurate!
I agree completely.
And I cannot understand how you reconcile it with "male leadership" in the marriage. Doesn't a leader need a follower? And don't "the rules" say that husband gets to lead even when he is doing it poorly? If he wants to lead the wife right into the arms of a pagan king, she is supposed to go along, right? Personally, in order to get to the place where I was strong enough to draw the lines as you described, I had to "throw out" my old theology of husband having authority over wife. I had to believe in God's PERMISSION to me that I have authority and power to nourish, cherish, protect MYSELF.
You mention- in the quote- that your husband needed a savior. Well, what if my husband is a well respected, active, prominent christian man. Does his christianity remove my PERMISSION from God, my authority and power to take care of myself when he is verbally, emotionally, spiritually, and sexually abusive? Because, after all, submission is supposed to be unconditional... Doesn't matter if he isn't doing his part right... 🙁
Ellen
If he wants to lead the wife right into the arms of a pagan king, she is supposed to go along, right?
I don't recall that the Old Testament said that Sarah was right to obey unto sin, only that she did.
Well, what if my husband is a well respected, active, prominent christian man. Does his christianity remove my PERMISSION from God, my authority and power to take care of myself when he is verbally, emotionally, spiritually, and sexually abusive? Because, after all, submission is supposed to be unconditional… Doesn’t matter if he isn’t doing his part right…
If he claims Christ (I also believe that sleeping in a garage doesn't make you a car and going to church doesn't make you a Christian)...if he claims Christ, you have not only the right as a child of the King and his (supposed) spiritual sibling to stand in the way of his sinning against God and sinning against you.
You will never hear me say or see me write that it Biblical to tell a woman to stay in an abusive relationship.
Even in leaving an abusive relationship the object should be restoration - even if we are only speaking of the abuser's relationship with God.
If leaving gives him (or her) a "wake up call" and he turns to God in the process, the greater spiritual good is served.
In all of the supposed inconsistencies, the law that runs through it all is the law of love.
If you love your brother abusing you, who is sinning against you and against God, that doesn't mean that you have to stay, it means that you do whatever you can to bring about his repentance and restoration to God. Repentance and restoration is the law of love.
Sue
if he claims Christ, you have not only the right as a child of the King and his (supposed) spiritual sibling to stand in the way of his sinning against God and sinning against you.
Ellen,
This is the point. The husband is always the spiritual sibling, and there are no decisions that are both significant and have no moral value.
Do you mean that
a)the husband may lead only in areas of no spiritual significance, such as matters of taste, whether to spend the holiday in two places requiring equal cost; or
b) do you mean that the husband may lead in areas of spiritual significance and the wife is the perpetual judge of the husband's spiritual discernement?
Isn't putting up with even small sins abuse, and won't this give the message that the wife hould put up with greater sin next time?
Ellen
After my test tonight, I'll pick through these com boxes and try to address points that I've missed (any that are missed are simply missed, not ignored).
A short answer to the last comment, though
This is the point. The husband is always the spiritual sibling, and there are no decisions that are both significant and have no moral value.
You are correct...and in nearly every relationship, one partner emerges as "leader". Complementarians believe that it is husbands who have the responsibility to lead, and to love as Christ loves the church.
If the law of love rules, small sins won't be an issue, love covers a multitude of sins (Jay Adams addressed this in "From Forgiven to Forgiving). When I am a perfect wife, I will expect a perfect husband. Since I am far from perfect, why would I hold a partner to perfection?
Sue
This post is pretty funny actually, but it is no justification for the husband always being the leader.
I know an egalitarian marriage where the husband who is an award winning physicist and registered engineer, always tries to fix home appliances. The wife has to wait until he is out of town to buy new ones, because he takes apart the old ones, can't get them back together and won't admit defeat.
Fortunately, he does let her make these decisions without his input. Men are not designed to be the leader all the time, not even more than half the time.