(Edit: I don't want this to get lost in the com-box so I'm putting it up here.
Can you rephrase the quote so that it can be easily understood what you DID mean? If I substituted other words and said something like:
A wife who (refuses to submit to her husband's leadership), then, is like a (rebellious teenager who kills his parents). It's a heart thing to do evil or not to do it, right?...
How would you read that?
My interpretation of a comment on "complegalitarian" (although I think it might be time for them to consider a name change)
~~~~~
~~~~~
A wife who chooses to submit to her husband is on the same level as a woman who chooses to have an abortion. Ummm...another "wow".
J.K.Gayle says:
Submission of a wife, then, is like the choice of abortion of a mother. It's a heart thing to do evil or not to do it, right? Jesus wants (us) to change our hearts, to know him, to be free and to make free, right? (Emphasis mine)
Did you get that? Submission of a wife is like the choice of abortion.
Let's look to Scripture:
Col. 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Ex 20:13 "You shall not murder.
and again:
1 Peter 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,
Pro 16...17: There are six things that the LORD hates...hands that shed innocent blood,
Obviously (NOT)...wives that submit to their husbands, as is fitting in the Lord, who hope in God to adorn themselves by submitting to their own husbands...
are like (NOT)
Women who murder their babies and shed innocent blood.
As I said..."wow".
Sue
Okay, that was a weird comment.
I think one problem for complementarians on the complegal blog is that they can't defend
some of the writing put out by influential complementarians.
Ellen
Well, do you want to defend the view of an influential egalitarian (Ann Nyland) in her view of homosexuality? We never claim to be monolithic.
On the comment on compegal...is anybody willing to lay odds on whether or not ANY egal (not triggered by this post) will say ANYTHING bringing that sort of language into check? I could become a rich woman.
Even the moderator?
Sue
Ellen,
Mainstream egalitarians have all rejected and withdrawn endorsement from Ann Nyland. I think this is very sad because she has been alienated and isolated by her realization some time ago that Grudem is not honest. She experienced a lot of frustration trying to explain to Grudem where he went wrong.
She is a good scholar and has contributed many insights.
Frankly, Grudem's material is very bad, and the thought that Christians uphold his teachings as mainstream is astounding to me. One of the last things my former pastor said to me was that Grudem had proven for once and for all that "head" meant "authority over." At the time I had not read the study. This, however, was the final indication that that church, a large mainstream church, could never be a church home for me.
I respect Nyland above Grudem for her contributions. However, if you want to compare them as both being extremes on the edge of the comp egal spectrum, fair enough. Get the entire manhood teaching of Grudem's out and I will look at what is left.
Ellen
Grudem is your horse to beat, not mine. The fact is, kephale was understood to have (as one meaning) "authority".
Way before Grudem.
Explain please, why wives should submit to their husbands, as the church submits to Christ, because He is the source.
How is the husband the source of the wife?
Sue
And slavery was still in style in those days.
Since the abolition of slavery, hierarchy in the home has been called into question. The continued belief in male hierarchy depends on the teaching that kephale means authority. As anyone who reads my blogs might know, kephale clearly meant that Adam was the "source" or "origin" of the human race and this was explicitly taught by Cyril of Alexandria in the 4th century. He wrote,
Therefore of our race he become first head ??????, which is the source ????, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being: indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from Him. Because head means source, He established the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a “head” accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.
He is pretty clear that head means sameness of nature because woman was taken out of man. And Christ became the head of man by becoming human flesh himself. The teaching could not be clearer.
Ellen
If God had ordained slavery, as He did marriage, you might have a point.
We do not deny that there is a "sameness of nature" - in fact, we teach equality of nature, with a difference in roles.
You tell me...why are wives directly and specifically instructed to submit to their husbands?
Why are husbands (NOT) directly and specifically NOT instructed to submit to their wives?
Sue
1. God ordained marriage. Marriage is good, but hierarchy in marriage came in with sin. The Bible is clear on that.
The workplace and employment are a good thing, slavery is wrong.
2. Submit to one another. Submission and sacrifice, for Christ his submission was his sacrifice.
Ellen
Right...God ordained marriage (and genders) and God did NOT ordain slavery.
Why are wives directly and specifically instructed to submit to their husbands?
Why are husbands (NOT) directly and specifically NOT instructed to submit to their wives?
Ellen
At any rate...I repeat...I am fairly cynical that (without prompting) there is anybody on the "compegal" blog who will question the comparison of a wife submitting to her husband to a woman killing her child.
I think that there will be NOBODY (unless they are prompted by a comment such as this) who will speak out.
NOBODY.
Remember what this post was about...not Grudem...not making marriage into slavery.
A woman who submits to her husband is like a woman who aborts her baby.
Anybody? (hears the sounds of crickets chirping)
Sue
To tell you the truth I don't always follow Kurk's reasoning no matter what the topic is, so I usually just let it pass. I wasn't and still am not completely sure that is what he was saying. Since at least 50% of the time, I don't understand his comment the first time around, and this is on other blogs and on other topics, I just thought I would stand back.
However, I do think that the vows for a woman to obey, serve, seek to please, follow submissively, and put the husband as head of the home, without reciprocation are immoral.
On the other hand, some sins are worse than others in their consequence, and certainly depriving a woman of her free will for the rest of her life is not nearly as sinful as killing an unborn baby.
I'm not sure you were around last year when the complementarians just tore a strip of of me on the BBB. It got pretty rough, and I was in pretty bad shape the whole time. I have definitely felt what it is to be in the minority position on this.
-----
On slavery and hierarchy.
God created employment. It is good. Slavery is bad.
God created marriage. It is good. Binding the woman in obedience to the husband is bad.
I have been trying to make this point for about 10 months now. Can you at least acknowledge that this is what I am saying, even if you don't agree with it.
Ellen
Oh...I understand what you are saying, and you are right - I do not agree.
Because the example given is a husband/wife and Christ/church. That is a Scripture that you have to deal with.
As long as the church submits to Christ, wives should submit to their husbands - because as Christ is the head of the church, so a husband is the head of his wife.
How are do you think the church should submit to Christ?
As far as the compegal blog. My question was (and still is)...will ANYBODY say ANYTHING or will the comparison be allowed to stand without comment?
I'm guessing that it will stand without comment. As will the words blasphemy, heresy, idolatry. All of the "conversation stoppers" will continue.
J. K. Gayle
First, Ellen, thanks for continuing the conversation.
Second, I don't disagree so far with most of what you and Sue are discussing. And, Sue, I follow your logic even if my comments have seemed weird or difficult to understand.
Lest anyone care, I was trying to extend your logic, Sue. And I was trying to consider Wayne's original question about Jesus and what he'd do (and what he does).
Can we be clear on some things first, though (as if we might have some agreement)? 1. murder is wrong. 2. slavery is regulated in the scriptures but more liberalized after Jesus comes. 3. Woman-to-man relations are also regulated differently through the flow of scripture. 4. If any one of us says something outlandish and doesn't make sense, then it's fair and kind just to ask.
Sue, you were talking about the French and how they won't give Moslem women any choice about whether they can wear the head coverings. You added that "we" (and I assumed North Americans) "do not allow people to sell themselves." Then, you drew some conclusions about what "choice" would mean: for Moslem girls in France, they'd be ostracized or punished (presumably by the Islamicists who'd resent the choice made NOT to wear head coverings or by the secularists who'd resent the choice made to wear them). Then you speculated that, similarly, wives given the choice "to make vows of unlimited obedience in the marriage ceremony" do face difficulties (presumably from complementarians who say they're not "spiritual" when the brides refuse the choice or from egalitarians who say the choice reinforces sinful hierarchy). Your ultimate conclusion was: "we should not allow" the choice.
Now, my point about "choice." Who should regulate it? The French for the women who are Islamic? The English, Canadians, and Americans for the bond slaves? The Christians who read English translations of Greek words for head and for submission in the different regulations of women among men? The Supreme Court of the U.S. for mothers who would abort?
Now, to be clear, in my view, abortion is akin to murder.
But "thou shalt not murder" is one of God's clear and timeless laws (which no godless society easily disagrees with). But the choice to wear a burqa, and the choice to sell oneself into slavery, and the choice to submit oneself to a husband, and the choice to abort one's fetus -- these choices go to the heart. Jesus (back to Wayne's question) give no clear guidelines himself nor points to no God-given law concerning burqa wearing, self enslavement, self submission to one's husband, nor aborting one's baby. We must interpret. We must talk with one another submissively. We must translate the scriptures (even the difficult ones of Paul). We have to hear Jesus who is alive who does talk with us (individually and collectively).
No amount of legalizing and no amount of quoting scriptures or comments out of context, I'm afraid, helps much with hearing Jesus. Is that weird, or what?
I am sincerely grateful for the conversation. I do believe you both have the best of intentions here. Not happy that I am unclear when it causes grief or confusion! Please know that my wanting to stir things up sometimes is because my intentions are to wake us up, to bring us to our knees, to open our eyes and ears, to be willing to change, to repent if necessary. I am no means beyond meanness but am floored by Jesus's kindnesses to me, to us. And I do hope this comment helps some. Sincerely, Kurk
Ellen
Thank you for popping in. I hope that you understand why I'm commenting here, rather than there. Here, I know that one of the surest ways to be approved is to disagree with me! Here (and on a group that I moderate) I am more likely to censor those who agree with me than I am to censor those who don't. The appearance of one-sidedness is to be avoided.
If the entirety of Scripture is the inspired Word of God, how can we say that Christ (as part of the Trinity) has not spoken?
I understand that your logic tells you that I (who fully intend to incorporate the Scriptural basis for wifely submission into any wedding vow I make) am (at the heart level) like a person who sheds innocent blood.
Sue
Kurk,
Sorry for saying that I didn't understand you. When Ellen quoted you here, that was not how I took what you said and I lost track of what I had originally thought.
I think it is that you have quoted some of the premises in the one direction and the last in the other direction. I assume that Ellen has misunderstood you still. It is simply a matter of whether we allow choice or not. I say we should not allow choice.
However, regulating both a veto on the vow to obey, and on abortion are both extremely difficult to impossible. I don't really see how there could be a veto on the vow of obedience, but yes, I would like to see that alongside a law against abortion.
There must be a law against female circumcision and imported child marriage. The age of consent must be respected. The realities are just criminal. We like to pretend these things are not happening under our very noses.
I am pro regulation on all of these things but I realize that there are pragmatic considerations.
Ellen,
The moderating has nothing to do with me. I have been moderated myself and I thought that I was the reason for the moderation so I really don't know connect to what you are saying here on that front. I resigned as author and asked if you wanted to be an author. So I did what I could and that all I can do. Some things are just not my business.
Wayne Leman
On the comment on compegal…is anybody willing to lay odds on whether or not ANY egal (not triggered by this post) will say ANYTHING bringing that sort of language into check? I could become a rich woman.
Even the moderator?
Ellen, I'm not sure what it is that you are laying odds on. But as Complegalitarian blog moderator, I can assure you that I am continuing not to approve for posting comments from both complementarians and egalitarians which are not godly in tone and do not fit the blog guidelines. Please feel free to email me privately if you still have concerns about the moderation policy at Complegal. I'm away from home at the moment, helping clean the home of my wife's parents, readying it for sale to help pay for their nursing home costs. But I have been able to get my email and even sometimes can access the Internet.
Wayne Leman
Grudem is your horse to beat, not mine. The fact is, kephale was understood to have (as one meaning) “authority”.
Way before Grudem.
Ellen, what is your source for the meaning of kephale being 'authority.' I took all the Greek courses available at my Bible school. I am a Bible translator and recognize the necessity to consult Greek lexicons for the meanings of Greek words. I know of no instance in the Greek of the New Testament where kephale means 'authority.' It's the facts of Greek which should be in question.
Dr. Grudem's claims about Greek can be checked by Greek scholars. Dr. Grudem is not the enemy. I don't know who is the enemy in all of this. I do know that the Enemy of our souls is delighted when any of us speak negatively about other Christians who are devoted to our Lord and his Written Word. I suggest that we look to Greek scholars to determine if kephale has ever meant 'authority.'
I don't want to engage in negative discussion of any public figures in the gender debates. But I would like to be sure that we are being as careful as possible in our statements about what biblical language words mean. Thank you for dealing with this subject on your blog.
Again, what Greek resource have you consulted which tells you that kephale means 'authority'?
Ellen
Wayne, as for your first comment, there are conversation stoppers, and then there are comments that appear to put women who choose to submit to their husbands in the same category as women who choose to murder their babies.
I wondered if there might be anybody who would even notice (without prompting).
On your second comment, perhaps I used the (...) in a way that was misunderstood. the (as one meaning) was not meant that there IS only one meaning, but that it includes "authority" (as one meaning) among several possible meanings. We all know that most major lexicons have "authority" as one (of the possible) meanings, Liddell-Scott being a notable exception.
If there is doubt, then it become more difficult to say without doubt that "source" is the only possible meaning.
I know of no instance in the Greek of the New Testament where kephale means ‘authority.
I understand that you do not believe kephale can EVER mean "authority" in the NT.
That leaves us with a wife, who should submit to her (non-authority) head, as the church submits to her (non-authority???) Christ. That is the parallel. A wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
Sue, I suppose you can make all the laws that you think you can pass to regulate how one man and one woman can promise to relate to each other.
Biblically, I will fight any law you would like to see passed with all my might and if I fail, I will seek to please God rather than man and you will never be able to stop me from promising to submit to my husband as the church submits to Christ.
"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
Sue
Wayne,
I recognize that we have a disagreement as to how to handle this and I have said some unkind things.
I feel this teaching is so damaging.
I respect your opinion highly. I do, however, feel the need to make public something that does not appear quite right. I may not be doing it in the best way, and certainly Ellen might want to give me advice on how best to deal with this issue.
Do these citations look as if they are accurate to someone who doesn't read Greek? Maybe they do.
What is the best way to communicate what the evidence really says.
Is it important to communicate this evidence to others? etc.
I have just checked the BDAG and was surprised to see that authority is not mentioned there either, although it is a lexicon of NT Greek.
The only related meaning is of "superior rank." This is supported by the use in connection with Jephthah, that he would be the leader and head. That is, as I mentioned earlier the only unambiguous use of head as leader, IMO. The other example is of David as head of the Gentiles. I am not sure what this one means, but David sounds like a conqueror in this pasage. It is not a use in normal rule. These are two examples in the entire Septuagint. It is really not very much, considering the amount of material and the extensive use of rosh in Hebrew.
Then, the next examples are in the 4th century AD when "head" begins to be used more frequently with the meaning of master. This comes from the Latin meaning of "head" which is quite different that the Greek use. The meaning of "origin" was still around, but beside it was the meaning of "authority." So, at that time, interpretation was sometimes authority and sometimes origin.
I am not saying that the early church fathers were egalitarian, but that they did not need to quote the scriptures with kephale in them to reinforce male authority, because women were still in legal subordination to their husbands anyway. It was not as contentious an issue as it is today.
My best bet that kephale does not mean authority is that the evidence as presented on Gender blog does not stand up to examination.
Sue
We all know that most major lexicons have “authority” as one (of the possible) meanings, Liddell-Scott being a notable exception.
I don't know this. I would love to know the entries that have authority. Please.
Sue
Ellen,
I definitely think you misunderstood Kurk.
That leaves us with a wife, who should submit to her (non-authority) head, as the church submits to her (non-authority???) Christ. That is the parallel. A wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
Christ is the bridegroom. Explicitly the sexual union must be about mutual authority, not unilateral authority. No matter what our attitude is to Christ, as our Lord, we must also make room for the metahpor of sexual union, which is absolutely not to be about a submission - authority relationship. We have to ask ourselves, in what way is Christ the bridegroom. He is the bridegroom in the sense that the church is his delight and the object of his love, and the mutual other.
Otherwise we deny scripture. I think we have lost a great deal of what was once understood when Song of Solomon was read as a figure of Christ and the church. There is a whole range of theology that is simply missing in the literalist approach to the scriptures today.
Yes, sexual love is important, but it also has a deeper meaning. It should make us think of God who created it and explicitly forbids that it be about authority and submission.
Sue
Thayers and Louw Nida.
The reference to Lord is probably from 4th century AD.
1. the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2. metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
1. of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
2. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
3. of things: the corner stone
The word authority is actually not here.
However, this lexicon is definitely saying that "the head of" means "lord of." But there is no evidence given apart from 1 Cor. 11, where most people agree that "head of" means "origin of". These lexicons are not quoted for a good reason.
Sue
PS, I am not making any laws, and that was Kurk's point to me. I think you missed that he was trying to hint to me to pipe down a little.
Charity
Hi Ellen
I'd like to answer one of the points you make in your reasoning:
That leaves us with a wife, who should submit to her (non-authority) head, as the church submits to her (non-authority???) Christ. That is the parallel. A wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
The debate is on the meaning of kephale literally head. Some have argued, and you seem to align yourself with them, that this means authority. Others, through painstaking study of writings available, conclude that there is no justification for the meaning of authority.
Now I agree with your final sentence that I've quoted above, but not with what you put behind it. There is no indication anywhere biblically, other than if you press the point that kephale means authority that the husband has authority over the wife, in any way that is not mutual (see 1 Corinthians 7:1-5).
However the fact that the husband is not the authority of the wife, does not logically mean that Christ has no authority over the church.
We may submit as the church submits, but maybe not for the same reasons.
J. K. Gayle
Sue,
Thanks for taking care to clarify so many things. Misunderstandings happen in writing so much (especially when quotations are taken out of context and untranslated Greek words too). I have to confess I'm oversensitive to "logic" and to "epistemological" force in argument (which is one reason I've spent the last several years in study of Greek rhetoric). But I'm entirely with you on the need to pipe up 🙂 sometimes and wondering whether and when to pipe down. I think Brian Kaylor's blog "Shut Up for God's Sake," is so smart, so like Jesus, has many things for me to learn (to do). That said, I very very much appreciate when you have so bravely said where you're coming from (what the risks are for you in saying things) and how you and others may be hurt by what others say. If we can't honestly talk from the heart, I think the talk gets reduced to cold logic that only demands the other person needs to change.
J. K. Gayle
Wayne,
Thanks for your comment agreeing with Sue over at Complegalitarian on agreeing to disagree. (Thanks for jumping in here to clarify more how conversation can continue, on kephale and the like). The NT starts our legacy of Christians agreeing to disagree. There are some wonderful stories and teachings there just for us, I think. What will our great great great great grandchildren in the faith think about what we've said here? And how we've agreed not to agree in some cases?
J. K. Gayle
Ellen,
Again thanks for continuing the conversation (and even for pointing out to where there's conversation stoppers, as you say to Wayne once here). Let's do keep talking.
One of my closest relatives who has many disagreements with me said over the holidays: "I'm either going to have to stay quiet, or if I do speak up just agree to disagree with you: we're NEVER going to change each other's minds." But I think that kind of thing is a conversation slower if not a conversation stopper. Are these the only options, the only things Jesus might want? Either to speak my mind so as to change someone’s mind or to be quiet? How about conversation so I can learn? Learn both what you think and why and how and what’s at risk for you? And also learn so I can repent, or think again in my own my, and so I might change (myself).
J. K. Gayle
Ellen,
You have this really smart point here:
“If the entirety of Scripture is the inspired Word of God, how can we say that Christ (as part of the Trinity) has not spoken?
I understand that your logic tells you that I (who fully intend to incorporate the Scriptural basis for wifely submission into any wedding vow I make) am (at the heart level) like a person who sheds innocent blood.”
Then a little later you quote Martin Luther:
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
So I want to say a couple of things on logic here. We think of Luther as refining himself with Solo Scriptura, the principle of knowing anything and everything (about God and others) from the Bible alone. But do you see what Luther is doing in the quotation you give? You know that Luther is a scholar of Aristotle before he (Luther) becomes the great protestant reformer. Luther appeals (alternatively) here to “plain and clear reasons and arguments.”
In my view, Jesus is quite different from Aristotle. Quite different in that he can and does appeal to the Scriptures alone, and quite different in how he approaches logic. Jesus also uses parables (the kind Nathan the prophet uses with his murderer / adulterer / polygamist friend King David. Aristotle views parables as not very logical at all (they’re things of Aesop but also things of that barbarian black man from Lybia).
Yes, Jesus is fully God and fully human. And he goes beyond logic, turns to parable and to hyperbole and to miracle when he teaches the Scripture. “If you don’t understand this one parable, how will you apprehend any of the others?” he asks us his disciples. And “You have heard that it was said, . . . but I say to you . . .”
Now, Martin Luther rightly distances himself from Aristotle, absolutely hates the latter’s teaching that females are botched males. But Luther is a bigot and a sexist, and he’s following Aristotle’s logic (not the Scriptures) to get that behavior, I’m afraid.
The best teaching of Luther, I believe, is his advice to his disciples: “Flee the hidden God; and embrace the Christ.” In other words, what we know clearest from God, is Jesus. Going to the Scriptures without hearing Jesus is like building one’s life on the shifting sands. (Philip Yancey cleverly opens and closes his The Jesus I Never Knew with Luther’s most important observation on Jesus).
So, in trying to understand relations of women to men regulated in Scripture, Wayne asks us, in my view, one of the most important questions. Given parable and hyperbole and Jesus’s miraculous interventions into nature, what does HE say to me, to us?
(Sorry for going on and on here. First, this punches my logical / rhetorical buttons. Too often we think we’re hearing God when it’s just our Aristotelian lens we’re looking through. Second, I’m not going to be able to comment more for a few days because of conferences and work responsibilities. So I wanted to say these things and not have you all speculate about my subsequent silence for a bit. Thanks, thanks, for the dialog!)
Sue
Kurk,
Thanks for commenting here. I was trying to make the point that often comments are not aimed by egalitarians at complementarians, but, in fact, by egalitarians at other egalitarians.
I think Ellen was mistaken in seeing a comment on complementarianism in your comments. I took them as a challenge to myself - in a good way. I don't see questions and comments as threatening, unless someone asks me directly if I would be willing to subordinate myself again.
That is incredibly frightening for me, and gives me a shock to my system, even to write about it in this comment. This is the pain. But, otherwise - how to tackle ideas - that is open for discussion for me.
Sue
Sometimes it seems as if there is a group of us, black and white, sitting at a table discussing slavery. Some of the blacks have been slaves, and some have not been. But, there is the expectation at all times that there should be no consideration for the feelings of those who have been slaves. They too, must be open to the question of whether slavery is scriptural. They must be willing to say "If we decide that the scripture says that slaves should submit, I will return to my master."
Can we imagine this scenario? And if one of the former slaves balked, would he be ostracized? Is that how the matter was handled?
Ellen
We may submit as the church submits, but maybe not for the same reasons.
Sorry, my internet feels like being on for the moment, and it may take me a while to pick through all of this since last night.
Actually, I fully intend to submit to my husband (yes) as the church submits to Christ. Why?
Because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.
So, it really doesn't matter what "head" means, it's still given in Scripture as the reason wives are to submit to their husbands.
1) Christ is the head of the church
2) the husband is the head of the wife
so
1) the church submits to Christ
2) the wife submits to her husband.
This is very parallel...and begs the question...
How DO egalitarians believe that the church should submit to Christ?
Ellen
Sue, on the comp-egal blog, you said that Christ's submission was His sacrifice.
Bingo!
submission can (and is) mutual without being identical. A wife can submit to her husband as her authority (and yes, I recognize that we debate the authority part) while he submits to her needs in a different way.
I've been trying to get that across for quite some time. Can you at least acknowledge that this is what I am saying, even if you don’t agree with it.
Sue
FYI, Kurk has put up a fascinating post on abortion on his site.
No one disagrees with the submission of wife to husband. We disagree on whether this is within the framework of mutual submission or not.
Here are a few other ideas.
Some people teach that the wife submits in that she is "helper" to man. Man's other "helper" is God. God subordinates himself to the one he is helping in view of the task to be done.
Possibly that is how women submits to man, as his helper, as God does. God stoops to help man, and so does woman. (I am quoting from a certain theologian as usual.)
However, that theologian says that when God stoops to offer supportive and subordinate help to man, this does not un-God him. But when woman is named the "helper" of man by man himself, this naming defines woman as unequal to man.
She is equal spiritually but unequal in her position, as is God also in the act of helping.
So, surely if God can stoop to the inferior helper position, then so does Christ. And so, a wife submits to man in that she stoops to place herself under him. And Christ submits to the church also in like manner. Within this framework, we have the submission of woman.
The crux, of course, for Grudem, since this is Grudem's work that I refer to, is this. God helps man with his task. God stoops to help man because man has a task. Woman does not have a task, therefore no one stoops to subordinate themselves to woman. No one helps her because she is not given the role of having a task to be helped with.
It in in this respect that woman is functionally and eternally in the inferior role, in that she can never have a task. God of course, when he subordinates himself, does not subordinate his entire self but that which is needed for the task of man.
If help were defined in terms of plight, as some think, then God would help us in our need, and woman would be the help that God created for man's need. However, in the teaching of those who want a woman to obey, man has no need, but only a task.
Such is the subordination of women. It is because man has redefined himself as one who has a task and not as one who has a need. And a woman has neither task not need, but is created to obey man.
Sue
Just saw your last comment. I said many light years ago, but not often enough that the relationship in Eph. is submission and sacrifice, and not submission and authority. If that is what you mean then we have no disagreement. However, if you read my post above you will see that that is not what the teachers of female submission mean by this. They mean that woman shall obey man.
Sue
If we lay authority aside since, in fact, authority is not mentioned in this passage then we don't disagree.
Ellen
(Yes, I know I'm making many comments, but my brain organizes a little better this way. )
Kurk,
One of my closest relatives who has many disagreements with me said over the holidays: “I’m either going to have to stay quiet, or if I do speak up just agree to disagree with you: we’re NEVER going to change each other’s minds.”
I have a relative like that...
But I think that kind of thing is a conversation slower if not a conversation stopper.
Or, there are families, or groups that - in a way it can be rather freeing. Since you know you are never going to change the other person, there is no "failure" if you don't. Sometimes the debates can be very heated, and yet be almost "recreational".
Strangely, it is this type of debate that can be most hurtful when name-calling is brought in.
That's sort of the freedom of Calvinism. It's not my way of "doing the Gospel" that is going to make a difference, it's the Spirit. Yes...we evangelize. Yes...we witness. Yes...we speak of our faith and our love for Christ. Yes...we share with the poor. Yes...we do all the things that the Bible tells us to do.
But...it's not that US who are doing the changing of the mind and heart. We are the vehicles of the message, it is the Spirit's job to use our actions.
Are these the only options, the only things Jesus might want? Either to speak my mind so as to change someone’s mind or to be quiet?
Sometimes it seems so. What Jesus would want? Perhaps not...or...In as much as it depends on you, to live in peace.
How about conversation so I can learn? Learn both what you think and why and how and what’s at risk for you? And also learn so I can repent, or think again in my own my, and so I might change (myself).
I have shared the wildly romantic image I have of submission to my husband, as the church submits to Christ. It's the dance. Most dances needs a lead and the more intricate the dance, the greater the need for a lead. The more intricate the dance, the more the partner depends on the lead. Can you imagine being a woman, being picked up, spun, tossed in the air and caught in his arms...and not having confidence in his "leading"?
The more Christ-like a man is, the more he models Christ in his leadership, the more empowered a woman is to reach out and grab the stars.
Ellen
Just saw your last comment. I said many light years ago, but not often enough that the relationship in Eph. is submission and sacrifice, and not submission and authority.
Then (if women submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ), does the submission to Christ only go as far as a woman is willing to submit to her husband?
Just how DOES an egalitarian believe that the church is supposed to submit to Christ?
That puzzles me. Truly. The Bible says that we are to submit to our husbands as the church submits to Christ, but our husbands have no authority. If I submit to a husband who has no authority, what does that say about our submission to Christ?
Sue
It says that we submit to Christ because he sacrificed for us. He sends his spirit to indwell us and be our encourager. We are no longer under the law.
If a wife has to obey her husband, then she is under the law. It is not freedom to sin, but it is freedom from the law.
Being in a relationship where the one person is under oath to obey the other person is not romantic.
Wait until both people have to leave for work at the same time, and the person under oath to obey is ordered to drive the order giver to work, even though that will make that person under oath to obey late for work. The person under oath cannot place the duty to be on time in the workplace above the duty to obey.
Now, put into this situation the fact that the order giver has a watch that stops sometimes and does not keep perfect time. The person under oath to obey does not know this and believes that she is being ordered to be late. She protests, but the order giver does not listen, because by his watch it is not too late and the person under oath to obey has time to drive him to work.
Now, take a situation like that, which can happen every day of your life, and ask if the person under oath to obey can survive and meet her other commitments in life or not. In fact, no, she does not. She withdraws from life and dreams of an escape. Maybe she will die of cancer, maybe she should step in front of a car.
There is, of course, no need to have the words husband and wife. All you need is order giver and persons under oath to obey. Once the honeymoon is over, that is what is left. If the person under oath to obey is lucky, then the order giver might not have the energy to give orders all the time. Then life might be bearable.
Ellen
If the person under oath to obey is lucky, then the order giver might not have the energy to give orders all the time. Then life might be bearable.
If the person under oath gives the oath to a Christian, then there is no need for luck.
Yes, I know it happens. Yes, I know that it shouldn't happen.
I had a thought...teaching that submission to a husband as the church submits to Christ is a bad thing also has consequences. It drives the whole thing underground. That is also a bad thing.
But it's rattling around in my head like another post.
Ellen
Sue, do you really think that not having an oath will make a boorish bully any less of a boorish bully?
Most likely not, it may turn them into even more of a boorish bully, because they have to work harder to maintain the status quo.
For a person to "behave" because of the lack of an oath, that is works based "love" and is really no love at all. At best, it's going through the motions for the sake of the status quo.
Myself, I'd rather have both oaths. I would vow to submit as the church submits to Christ, holding the church's total surrender and submission to Christ's leadership up as my role model.
He would vow to love me as Christ loves the church, holding Christ's surrender to her needs, His empowerment and loving leadership up as his role model.
Both sides have a heavy and serious oath and role model to live up to? Who do you think will fail first? Who do you think will love most? The one holding the church up as the role model? Or the one holding Christ up as the role model?
I want a man who will take Christ's relationship with His bride seriously as a role model for leadership in a marriage.
With Christ as the model, with the church as the model...
That still leaves me with the question...
How DO egalitarians believe that the church is supposed to submit to Christ?
Anon
Christians have the same incidence of abuse, and considering they don't consume as much alcohol you have to ask why. These are the two major reasons, alcohol and male entitlement.
Let me tell you about the order giver. The order giver is handsome, strong, attractive, works hard, has only ever dated, kissed, loved, one person in his life. He always goes to church, he reads his Bible every evening, he reads the Bible to the children and he can give his testimony. He prays and witnesses to others. He gives to missions. He leads Bible studies. He is an exemplary Christian. He has the impression that the person under oath to obey is created just for him, to be his helper in everything that he does. She is perfect for that. In fact she is perfect.
The only two things that go wrong is that the order giver gives orders from his perspective and the person under oath to obey hears them from her perspective.
So, the order giver says, "I need you to give me the tool on the right."
The person under oath picks up the tool on the right. It is the wrong tool.
The order giver says,
"Hand me tool with a blue handle."
There are two tools with blue handles. The person under oath hesitates. The order giver loses concentration on his task and has to start again.
The problem is that the person under oath has not been trained to interpret the dance steps. The dance steps are that the person under oath must understand and anticipate every need. She must follow and comprehend the task as the order giver does.
However, she must never have her own tasks. Because if she did then she might need help. It there is a task needed for both of them, then the order giver takes over. He is very capable.
If the person under oath has her own task she can wait until the order giver is out of town. If he does not go out of town, she does not have her own tasks.
Of course, this is the dance - after the honeymoon.
I understand that this can work both ways. The wife can initiate the dance for the husband and get him under oath to serve her and keep her in a certain lifestyle. The only advantage the male has is that the scriptures have been interpreted in a way that gives him the right to be the order giver. In fact, as order giver, he lives out everything he has been taught in the church. (He does after all love his person under oath. That goes without saying.)
Ellen
If we saw leadership as a responsibility, rather than an entitlement, then the question is moot.
In fact, the "order giver" you described is NOT loving as Christ loves the church.
I do not see the goal of presenting the "helper" as holy before God. I do not see "washing her in the Word". I do not see foot-washing.
You said, However, she must never have her own tasks. Because if she did then she might need help.
That, right there...is unbiblical, looking at Christ and His bride as a role model.
Does the church "have her own task"? Absolutely (although it was given to her by her Lord, Master and Bridegroom). Evangelize, take care of the poor, uplift one another.
Does the church need help? Absolutely! And in fact, it is the Bridegroom that sends the Counselor, Helper to come to her aid.
Any man who does not give aid and comfort to his bride, as Christ does His own bride...is unbiblical.
Ellen
Phil and I were just talking a little while ago...
Justice: giving a person what they deserve
Mercy: NOT giving a person what they deserve
Grace: Giving a person the blessing that they do NOT deserve.
Which do we get from Christ? Which should a husband modeling Christ give to his bride? Which should a sister in Christ give to her husband?
Do we truly claim to model Christ?
Anon
The person under oath to obey cannot have her own task. She always has to be ready to obey the order giver.
She takes a now to serve, obey, seek to please and submissively follow. She does not lead.
Anon
She takes a vow, not a now. 😉
Enough for today. I just don't want other people to be under an oath to obey.
Anon
PS CBMW teaches that the wife does not have her own tasks. She helps her husband with his tasks. I am not sure if you would be allowed to call yourself a complementarian or not. Wives do not judge their husband's decisions, wives do not confront, wives to not voice alternate opinions, wives do not have tasks. Wives submit. Period.
Glenn
Anon, your list of 'do nots' have no basis in the Biblical teaching regarding marriage and neither do they have any basis in what CBMW actually teaches (which is in line with Biblical teaching).
(From “Satisfied and Complementarian?”) Nothing in Scripture advocates a demanding, oppressive leadership style from men. On the contrary, the exact opposite is commanded (Matthew 20:25-28).
For more of the same showing what CBMW actually teaches I refer you to Ellens excellent post called "“disproving” CBMW teaching?"
Anon
Did you notice the mention of a study showing that submission empowers the abuser?
J. K. Gayle
Since you know you are never going to change the other person, there is no “failure” if you don’t. Sometimes the debates can be very heated, and yet be almost “recreational”.
Ellen, thanks for the reply. Yes, "recreational" debates (especially heated ones) are not good. But there are other good reasons for pursuing other people: 1) I just might hear them and change; 2) although I might not cause the other one to change, they might be changing for other reasons; 3) others listening to us might change; 4) debate is much preferred to either silence or violence.
Sue,
Above all, there's the need in conversation to reaffirm the other person. To reassure: "no, that's not what I meant when you took it that way." To say (as you do here humbly, and in an exemplary way): "yes, I see something here for me [i.e., something I'm taking as your check on my logic]" and "I think you misunderstood [i.e., I think you Ellen must have misunderstood Kurk as talking about complementarianism when he was saying something about a comment of mine]."
Anyway, I really do think we all want to understand the issues but more than than what is at stake for each of us. Ellen, I've appreciated your candor about the implications of these views for you in relationship with your husband. Sue, You challenge me with your brave admissions of need for safety in our conversations! I do hope you too (and others reading) know that my relationship with my father (and his relationship with my mother), and my relationship with my wife and children (as we all carefully interpret what the scriptures regulate in light of our relationships with Jesus) bring me to my beliefs about his high view of females (as equal to males).