QUESTION:
How submissive should a wife be?
In what way should a wife BE submissive to her husband?
Whether or not the husband leads, whether or not you call your husband "leader", what does the Bible say about the submission of a wife?
Submit unless he tries to lead, in which case all bets are off?
Submission until submission is hard?
Submission until you don't agree on something? Anything?
Submission to the point of where he asks you to sin?
Submission to the point where he sins against you?
Submission until he is abusive?
Submission to the point of death?
If a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, what does that mean?
Does the church submit to the Lord Jesus Christ as her authority? What example does that set (or does not set) for wives?
There is a point to the questions. Submission of a wife is a tenet of both egalitarian and complementarian marriages. The difference (as I see it anyway) is the way the husband relates to (submits to the needs of) the wife, not the submission (or not) of the wife. Egalitarianism does NOT say the wife should not submit. (I think) that egalitarianism teaches that the wife and husband should submit equally to each other and in the same way (if there is a difference in the way that egalitarians believe that a husband and wife (in general terms, not in a particular relationship) submit to one another), this is something I would like to learn of - with sources from CBE).
AGAIN: the questions are about how a wife relates to her husband. PLEASE do not speculate or comment on how you believe husbands are to relate to their wives.
Shelby
What say you?
Sue
Does the church submit to the Lord Jesus Christ as her authority?
This is not the context in scripture, but the church submits to Christ as her saviour.
Sue
Submission to the point where he sins against you?
This one appears to be a useful one to bring up.
What do you think about this list? Where would you draw the line?
Ellen
Shelby, I say that sometimes submission (to Christ, to husband, to traffic laws) can be really, really difficult. This does not mean that it isn't Godly, that it isn't Biblical and that (eternally) isn't worth it.
Sue, if "authority" of Christ over the church isn't the context in Scripture (the whole counsel of the Word), then it becomes more difficult (I would think) for egalitarians to be offended if complementarians ponder the question of whether the church should should submit to Christ as a non-authority non-leader.
Plus...if a wife should submit to her husband (because he is her head) as the church submits to Christ (as her head), but you say the church submits to Christ because He is her savior, where does that leave a wife?
I think that a husband is not the savior of his wife. Nor do you, I think.
As for the "sins against you", just as you say that there is nothing in Scripture that frees a husband from mutually submitting to his wife (and complementarians believe that they submit, but in different ways), so I believe that there is nothing in Scripture that frees a wife from continuing to relate to her husband as a "spiritual sibling" - including the Scriptural methods of confronting sin in the life of another believer.
As I linked to CBMW's statement on abuse, it is clear that a wife is not mandated to follow her husband into sin, she is not mandated to allow her husband to sin against her. She is not mandated to stay in an abusive relationship. (I believe that a wife MAY choose to do so OR a wife may be pressured by churches that endorse or tolerate sin. When that happens, it is not because CBMW teaches that she must.)
Sue
I think that a husband is not the savior of his wife. Nor do you, I think.
Do you then think that the husband is the lord of the wife? That is established in Gen. 3:16 - in Greek literally, "he will be her lord" can't get clearer than that, the husband as lord is a curse in scripture.
Christ is saviour of the church, this is why the church submits. What would anybody want with someone who is lord and not saviour?
If the one who is head does not do the head-like thing, which is to care for, nurture, shelter, feed, etc. (that is saviour) then what use is it? Is it just so that women can be told what to do? Women don't need someone to tell them what to do.
It is all about mutual respect, the stronger financially for the weaker and the weaker for the stronger. Siblings in spirituality. You put it very well. CBMW should get you to blog for them.
Ellen
Here's the thing: the "C's" don't claim that the husband is God, or even in the place of God. It makes a handy false accusation but has no basis in the actual teaching.
Do I think the husband is the "lord" of the wife? (Of course this question begins the debate over the role of the husband and goes outside where I wanted this post to go)
For the purpose of this post, I believe that Christ and his church are role models for husband and wives. A wife should submit to her husbands as the church submits to Christ.
Once I come to the conclusion that my calling it to submit to my husband as the church submits to Christ, it is only then that we come to the topic of the role the husband plays.
(for men, I believe this is the opposite. Men should be teaching and encouraging men to use Christ as the role model for leadership and loving. Once men get their calling figured out, it is then that they can examine how their wives should relate)
I did want to address this, though If the one who is head does not do the head-like thing, which is to care for, nurture, shelter, feed, etc. (that is saviour) then what use is it?
None. That is why neglecting those things is called "neglect". CBMW puts a big emphasis on the responsibility of leadership, and less (although there have been some personal slips) on the privilege of leadership.
If a man calls himself a "C" in order to get the privileges, and neglects the responsibility, that is outside of CBMW teaching.
Sue
The only word which denotes authority in Eph. 5, is "lord" and this is used for Christ as a correspondence with Jahweh in the OT. The name "Lord" is the identity of Christ with God.
In Gen. 3:16, the husband will "lord" it over the wife, this is the curse. It is the same word in Greek.
So, I do not believe that the lordship of Christ, which is his identity as God, should ever, under any circumstance, be transferred to the husband. Sarah called Abraham "lord" her "adonai," in the context of asking if he was still potent/virile. I don't think this connotation of potency with lordship is appropriate to transfer into the teaching regarding authority in marriage either. In sexual relations, authority is mutual. The question was whether Abraham could still father children.
However, the head, is not the authority, but is explicitly the saviour or the security of the body, and forms a unity with the body.
There is no explicit order to the husband to have authority over the wife. The lordship of Christ is not transferable.
Since all men are sinful, putting oneself under authority, is a sinful impulse to avoid adult responsibility for decision-making. Submitting, on the other hand, is respecting but being able to disagree and do one's own thinking. One can submit to one's functional equal.
So, there is nothing wrong with submitting, what is wrong is the wife giving the husband " authority" and the husband exercising "authority."
The wife should not put herself under authority. Maybe she trusts her husband not to take it. But in a large percentage of marriages, authority will be misused, and then those who model male authority must take ownership for the violence suffered by those women who were told by the church to submit to the husband's "authority."
If the marriage ceremony gives the husband authority, in order not to lead some people into sin and suffering, it must give equal time in telling the wife how to combat abuse of authority. The ceremony is negligent if it preaches authority of the male without preaching the godly self-protection and resistance of the female.
Too many people live their entire lives within the bounds of intense suffering. This is not a joking matter. Which is more important - the protection of male ego, or the protection of the physical, mental and emotional integrity of women?
By the sermon time devoted to this issue, male ego gets the fed regularly and female distress is relegated to the back burner.
No one will ever be able to compensate for the entire lives of some women who live in bondage due to this teaching.
Ellen
Again (sigh), as I said before:
Here’s the thing: the “C’s” don’t claim that the husband is God, or even in the place of God. It makes a handy false accusation but has no basis in the actual teaching.
If you are saying that God's authority is transfered to a husband, you are saying a falsehood.
We have all sorts of authority figures who do not take the place of God in our lives.
Do you believe that our calling to Christianity (love, caring for the poor, forgiveness, etc., ) is dependent upon other people?
Does God give us a pass if we are treated poorly, and so neglect our own Biblical directive?
This is why I want to concentrate on the wife's direction.
regardless of whether or not a husband is leader, how should the wife submit?
Have you answered any of the questions?
How is a wife to submit to her husband, as the church submits to Christ?
That is the question in this post, not any of the accusations, not any of the rabbit trails.
How is a wife to submit to her husband, as the church submits to Christ?
Sue
She respects him and is grateful for what is given. This is clear in Clement which I posted on my blog some time ago.
So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with his special grace.
Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He hath given him one through whom his wants may be supplied. Let the wise display his wisdom, not in words, but in good works. He that is lowly in mind, let him not bear testimony to himself, but leave testimony to be borne to him by his neighbor. He that is pure in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestoweth his continence upon him.
Let us consider, brethren, of what matter we were made; who and what manner of beings we were, when we came into the world; from what a sepulchre and what darkness He that molded and created us brought us into His world, having prepared His benefits aforehand ere ever we were born.
Seeing therefore that we have all these things from Him, we ought in all things to give thanks to Him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
It is all about having respect and giving thanks. It is not about authority. Period.
If you are treated poorly, you had better get out. That is what slaves did in the US if they could - they escaped. So, unless, you want to go back on that, the wife who suffers from being "under authority" needs to pack her bags.
I am not saying all women should leave, I am saying that women who are not treated well should leave. We wouldn't counsel anyone else to stay and be mistreated, why women?
Ellen
Is "respect" the same Greek word as "submit"?
Is "thanks" the same as "submit"? In Greek, how so?
Are you saying that as long as I'm respectful and thankful that I'm off the hook for all of the obedience stuff?
Is THAT how you think the church should submit to Christ?
Seriously, I'm looking for something to tell me that egalitarians think the church should submit (which, come on...is not the same as respect or be thankful) to Christ.
Should we give thanks? Of course!
Should we respect? Of course!
Should we submit? (?!?!?!) How?
hhmmm...in Eph 5:33 (ESV) the word "respect"is used...phobeo.
However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband
Using Biblical terminology, are you then saying that a wife should "phobeo" her husband (fear or to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience?)
AGAIN (sigh) as it has been stated quite a few times...CBMW does NOT (NOTa) advocate that an abused wife stay in an abusive situation!!!!
Anon
Okay, we agree, women who are not treated well should leave. That should be in the wedding ceremony.
Submit depends on the circumstance, it means to do what is appropriate for the other. Read the part from Clement. It is not obedience. It is respect and consideraation of the other person.
If you are in the army, to submit is to sign up for the army. It is the voluntary action of signing up. It does not mean "follow orders." If you are a ruler, submit means to give in, to concede or yield to a demand.
I have repeated this so many times. Submit is to do the right thing, whatever that is.
CBMW puts men in charge of women. Therefore, all abused women are the direct responsibility of CBMW. What are they doing about it. Does a statement do anything? No. Teach women to take authority for themselves, or get out the troops and invade every home in America. Which makes more sense?
I really can't stand it any more. I'll have to take a break. This is the most utterly and incredibly painful and truly disturbing thing I have ever thought about.
If women want to given men authority over them, this should be x-rated so it won't damage other people, just like sub-dom teaching.
Ellen
Sue, I truly do not follow your logic.
CBMW teaches what they believe is Biblical teaching.
Abusers are still sinners and responsible for their own sin. Period.
I know that there are many abused women out there. There are many complementarian churches (and people) that support organizations that are set up to help abused women.
It is the responsibility of every Christian to counsel every abused women on how to proceed in a Godly way.
Anon
Women need to be helped before they are abused. BEFORE. Not after. Like preventing rape and murder. No good after. No compassion in that. There is no compassion.
CBMW teaches what they believe is Biblical teaching.
And I have showed you how in every post the CBMW misrepresents the Greek. This is deliberate and volitional. There is no error, but a deliberate attempt to mislead people. There is no excuse.
They need to be called to account.
Anon
Abusers are still sinners and responsible for their own sin. Period.
Who is responsible for the victims. CBMW only wants to cover the issue. If they really cared, they would take responsibility to train women to know when they were abused and start packing.
Ellen
Another thought...if Dobson and Co think that a child should obey his or her parents, does that mean that Dobson should be responsible for every single abused child?
I think that CBMW should be responsible for every single abused woman out there who is abused because CBMW told her husband that it's okay to hit her.
CBMW doesn't make any man abuse his spouse.
Anon
No, for every woman who is told that God hates divorce. For every woman who is isolated from friends, family and counselors. For every woman who is made to feel less capable and less confident by her husband. For every woman who is at a financial disadvantage because of obedience. For every woman who has lost some of her self-respect through criticism and put-downs. For every woman who has given up her own independence and is dependent on her abusive husband and can't see a way to escape.
They are also responsible for misrepresenting the Greek. I notice that you have infinite tolerance for this. Is it or is it not, important to know what the Bible really says? Is it right to make statements about Greek that are demonstrably not so?
Ellen
There is a difference between misrepresenting and coming to a different conclusion. There have been scholars through a couple of thousands of years that have believed that husband is the leader of the home. Has 2,000 years of Christianity and the rest of the history of God's church been wrong, only to have been corrected in the last...what...few years?
Anon
This is misrepresentation of facts, not opinions.
Grudem wrote,
* the king of Egypt is called "head" of the nation
This is the citation.
"and, in a word, the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings." Philo Moses 2:30
Philadelphus is the "head," the most famous, of all the kings in his family, both before and after him. He is not the authority above them. He is not called "head of the nation."
ALL the citations are like this. NONE of them are accurate. This is NOT interpretation. The historic interpretation is that woman was made subordinate by the curse.
"In the beginning I created you equal in esteem to your husband, and my intention was that in everything you would share with him as an equal, and as I entrusted control of everything to your husband, so did I to you; but you abused your equality of status. Hence I subject you to your husband:" Homily on Genesis
Ellen,
This is evidence and CBMW denies this. It is not a difference of interpretation. That also, but it also the fact that they actually post falsehood.
There is no such thing as an historic belief in the church that woman was created subordinate.
Anon
Chrysostom's homily on Genesis.
Ellen
Also on 1 Timothy 2
"For Adam," says he, "was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. "Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." (1 Cor. xi. 9.) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband.
Either way, creation or fall...Chrysostom agrees with Paul that men have leadership in church and home.
Leadership, that is NOT to say the right to abuse.
Anon
Either way? You don't see the difference between the eternal subordination of women and the temporal subordination of women?
The quote from Philo on the knd of Egypt, is also not accurate.
Other examples -
Grudem writes,
But in spite of all these different forms of submission, one thing remains constant in every use of the word: it is never "mutual" in its force; it is always one-directional in its reference to submission to an authority.
Clement writes,
“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (???????????) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”
Grudem writes,
"To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”
But, an early English translation from 1560, called the Calvin Bible, translated the verse this way,
1 Ti 2:12 But I suffer not the woman to teach, nor to assume authority over the man, but to be silent.
Ellen,
OF COURSE, Chrysostom and others agree on the subordination of women. Of course, all kinds of people agree on all kinds of things that are wrong.
But, explicitly, on the quotes that Grudem uses, he actually says things that he knows are not true. If the Bible is clear, why is it necessary to hide the truth? Why does he misrepresent these things and so many more? Why do you think?
Ellen
It's not all about grudem and (except that CBMW is the chosen vehicle for the comp-egal blog) I seldom use him as a resource.
Either way? well...yes. In this life I will obey the Word as the Spirit speaks to me. In the next, in glory, I doubt that I will care, as all will be perfection in Christ. If wives are eternally in submission to their husbands, as the church is in submission to Christ, that is God's plan - should I nay-say? If there is total same-ness, no difference in leadership between men and women, then that will be the pland of God - should I nay-say? In that perfect world, will I care? I think that (with all of us in our glorified bodies) all will be peace. For what happens in eternity...I am at peace with whatever is in God's perfect plan.
So you are saying that (pretty much) the entirety of Biblical history and Christianity since has been wrong about men in leadership?
Anon
It’s not all about grudem and (except that CBMW is the chosen vehicle for the comp-egal blog) I seldom use him as a resource.
No, the CBMW is THE source of the current paradigm on men and women in the church. You have to pick through all the parts that are false and find what is left. Then you have to ask yourself why the foremost organization which presents the manhood platform hides the truth. You have to deal with truth at some point, or you have to confess that submission to the male is a human desire, not dependent on truth, one way or the other.
So you are saying that (pretty much) the entirety of Biblical history and Christianity since has been wrong about men in leadership?
Why not? For all this time, the leadership of the male has been based on the belief that women are more easily deceived than men. The CBMW teaching is based on men being more disposed to analysis than women. Obviously, Grudem himself, is not disposed to analysis. The whole thing is based on false premises.
It has been scientifically proven that women are not more gullible than men, and are not less moral. But, all through church history the majority have believed this. Some have not, of course, Hilda was the teacher of 5 bishops in the 7th century.
The church has been wrong on slavery for all these centuries, why not women?
Ellen
Ok then. What else is Christianity wrong about? Salvation through faith? Deity of Christ? The resurrection?
What I know is that wives are instructed to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
Is Christ the leader of the church? I think so and I want to follow my husband the way that the church follows Christ.
I don't care if this is Grudem. It is Scripture.
And I covered Biblical submission of a wife when I led a women's study group on "The Excellent Wife" a LONG time before I read Grudem.
Anon
You don't care whether something is right or wrong.
Here is a quote from Martha Peace on the CBMW site,
Study Ephesians 5 and understand that "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" is a general command that is explained through specific commands that we are to be submissive to those whom God has placed in authority over us - i.e., wife to husband, child to parent, and slave to master.11"
Footnote: 11 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 493, n. 6.
She believes in the structure of Eph. 5, that there is no such thing as mutual submission, and that the command to be subject to one another, means for the under people to be subject to the over people. This teaching says that the core of Christianity is that if you are "under authority" you have to submit, but if you are in authority, you don't.
The passage in Eph. 5 does not mention authority. However, Martha Peace believes it does BECAUSE GRUDEM SAYS SO.
If, when I die, Grudem has the keys to the kingdom, I don't get in. But think of all the people who believe Grudem and his teaching that there is no such thing as mutual submission. Believe me, Peace was influenced by Grudem's false teachings about scripture.
Ellen
This is weird...the post shows 25 comments, but only 24 show up when you expand the post. I'd like to address the comment - it's both in my email box and in the wordpress comment management window.
If it doesn't show up in the next few minutes, would you like me to cut and paste it?
Anon
It shows up for me. Maybe that drink you had ... 😉
ellen
Ok...it shows up in IE but not firefox...weird.
Anon...if the vast majority of all of Christian history has held the leadership of men to be Biblical and proper, and if Peace believes the same as Chrysostem teaches that women should be in submission to their husbands and that men should be the leader in the church...are you really so sure that it was Grudem that influenced Peace?
You don't seem to care (I won't put in the absolute as you do) that some people have an honest and sincere difference in reading the passages of Paul that speak to the submission of wives (directly). Most of the history of the church held that position and you think that they are all wrong.
It is possible that Peace joined CBMW because she already held the belief...not that she holds the belief because of Grudem's influenced. I don't know the cause and effect and I'm not going to presume to know.
AS THIS POST ASKED TO START WITH...
I'm concerned with the wife's calling...and Scripture tells me that the church's submission to Christ is the role model for a wife's submission to her husband.
I don't know if you see Christ as the authority / leader of the church or not. I do. And I intend to follow the role model.
Anon
Peace quoted Grudem. She used Grudem as evidence. Look in the Excellent Wife and see if she quotes Piper and Grudem.
if the vast majority of all of Christian history has held the leadership of men to be Biblical and proper,
Well, we should go back to slavery and monarchy, and no anaesthetics during labour. Women should not cut their hair, wear pants ... do you wear pants? And TV. I was brought up with no TV. You could not watch the superbowl in my family. No way, ever.
So, now men chuck everything that is inconvenient to them, like no TV and keeping the Sabbath pure and holy, all the requirements for a pure manhood, and they want to keep women in subordination. It is self-serving. Any man who watches TV should release his wife to the service of God. Women were not created to satisfy male desire and serve goodies while the game is on. 😉
Men also want women to wear pants cause they look more interesting in pants. So, just do everything that men want and you don't even need a Bible.
Anon
The church shows respect and gratitude to Christ. Christ lets us use our free will and discernment to decide what to do.
I don't know how it works for other people but Christ does not follow me around all day, telling me to do this and that.
Ellen
I think it's time to stop.
TV...pants...hair...
It's just time to stop.
Anon
Yeah, sorry.
Charity
I've been thinking about this.
I live to honour my husband, as the church lives/exists to honour Christ.
You asked people to abstain from commenting on how husbands relate to wives - for me it is impossible to expand any more.
Ellen
Charity, the passages in Ephesians uses the word "submit", which you avoid, using instead "honor".
Yes, complementarians honor Christ as well, but we also believe the church also submits to the will of Christ.
We are not afraid of the word "submit" as it applies to either the church or wife.
There is a word for "honor" (transliterated tim?) and there is a word for "respect" (where it is used to mean "respect a person", the word in ESV is "respect", in the KJV it is "reverence" - transliterated "phobos").. "phobos"is even used in Eph 5. There is even a word for "obey" (transliterated hypako?).
I also live to honor and respect Christ. I believe the church (and I) also submit and obey. That is Scriptural.
James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God
Acts 5:32
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
We don't hesitate to use those words. We don't have to slide "honor"(tim?) into the space of "submit".
I don’t know how it works for other people but Christ does not follow me around all day, telling me to do this and that.
I'm sorry.
I think that I am a much better Christian because I DO have and listen to, if not Christ, then the counselor that He sent - the Holy Spirit.
The voice that tells me to give a $25 gift card to the homeless man in McDonald's (I could have given him cash, but then I would not have talked to the sales person, who had been about to have the manager toss him out into the 9 degree weather).
The nudging that nudge that sends me a different way to work, only to discover that there had been an accident in a place I would have been.
God is there and He does direct me. He does tell me what to do.
Anon
But there you see, you have given your conscience the name of Christ, or do you deny that the unsaved have a conscience, also although they do not have Christ.
A woman could call her conscience by her husband's name and "obey" him in this way.
ellen
I merely affirm the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. If you choose to call that "conscience" - go ahead.
I have to admit...it becomes easier for me to accept a belief that there are some egalitarians who have a weaker understanding of the person of Christ, the authority of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer.
I believe that I yield to the Spirit's will, that I am led by the Spirit.
Anon
My point is that Christ is a voice within that operates in conjunction with your own conscience and discernment.
Complete submission to another human being means, and for some, has meant, obeying minute by minute voiced commands.
You can say, for the sake of your argument, that the voice of Christ within you is the same as the physical voice of a physical male in the room, telling you what to do every minute, and you then giving that voice total submission. However, you cannot make anyone believe they are the same thing.
You can say things for the sake of argument, but they are not the same thing. A human male is not Christ and nothing can be done to make him so.
The scriptures are clear, head is to body as sacrifice is to submission. The scriptures do not teach that the man makes decisions for the woman.
ellen
Then answer some the questions. Regardless, does Scripture tell wives (specifically) to submit to their husbands (specifically) as the church (specifically) submits to Christ (specifically)?
How so?
Anon
Eph. 5:33 is a summary of what precedes. It is not a contradiction but a summary.
ellen
Of course it isn't a contradiction.
Regardless, does Scripture tell wives (specifically) to submit to their husbands (specifically) as the church (specifically) submits to Christ (specifically)?
How so?
Anon
Yes, but I have surely shown you from Clement what "submit" means.
"So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with his special grace. Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He hath given him one through whom his wants may be supplied."
The problem is that submission is a word with a very broad semantic range, even a king could submit if he gave in to his people on an issue.
Yes, the husband does submit, but it was told to him as sacrifice. First, because that is what the submission of Christ is, but second I wonder also if it does not represent the role of father in Greek society, to provide safety and security. It is the same Greek word, soteria - salvation or safety/security.
In any case, it is what the husband did in those days. These days, half of households are run by women, and women supply the funds and security of these households. So, for the woman now, she submits to others by caring for them in whatever way she can. You don't have to be biologically male to provide and protect and sacrifice for others, but you do have to be in a position is society where you have resources. Women sacrifice for their children all the time, so it would be nice if men sacrificed for women instead of keeping them "under authority" as if they not quite adult.
Since many women are actually heads of households, and it is the "being head of house" that is used to support men being leaders in church, why aren't single mothers given leading roles in church? Of course, it would be nice to remarry, but half of women our age are single, that is a fact. Why shouldn't they be represented in church?
Does a person have to be the head of a house, AND be biologically male to be a leader in church, or just male? Or is there absolutely no connection between the role of head of household and leadership in church.
ellen
I am the head of my household, since I am single. I also have men in my life that help me out greatly in that regard.
The problem is that submission is a word with a very broad semantic range, even a king could submit if he gave in to his people on an issue.
Or...
Yes, the husband does submit, but it was told to him as sacrifice. First, because that is what the submission of Christ is, but second I wonder also if it does not represent the role of father in Greek society, to provide safety and security. It is the same Greek word, soteria - salvation or safety/security.
Here you lay out very nicely what we have been trying to tell you all along. We have no problem with "mutual submission" that is not "identical submission" because the sacrifice is the submission. Thank you.
What you just quoted from Clement certainly expresses what complementarians teach about the "whole" of the counsel of God. And, like complementarians, Clement also seems to understand the concept that the submission of a wife to husband (and the submission in sacrifice of a husband to wife) does NOT rule out leadership.
The ruling power is therefore the head. And if 'the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,' the man, 'being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.' Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, 'Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.' And in that to the Colossians it is said, 'Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord' (Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8).
It seems that Clement (and most of Christianity after him, including complementarians) understands that Eph 5:21 does not rule out leadership.
(Oh...and on Peace's being influended by Grudem. I grew up with an understanding that my dad was the leader in the household because woman was created to be helper. Can you please shed some light on what book of Grudem's influenced my mom and dad in the early 60's? Particularly since there were not really any books of that genre of theology around?)
Anon
The notion of male leadership has been around forever. The way that this natural human belief is derived from scripture changes all the time.
It is the human desire for male leadership which never changes, not the way we read scripture. Grudem influenced Peace to believe that there was no such thing as mutual submission in Eph. 5.
(My dad ran a business, but my Mom stayed home and raised 8 children. He was the one who earned money and she ran the house. There was no hierarchy between them and no discussion of obedience or submission, except on one occasion relating to church business, but it was a hypothetical discussion.
My dad still mourns her intensely, 15 years later. He would never have thought of asking her to submit, they were equals in every way.)
Although Clement also had traditional beliefs about women, and I never said he didn't, he shows that submission as a concept can be mutual, strong to weak and weak to strong.
Yes, submission is different, depending on who is strong and who is weak. The single mother head of house has to be strong. The wife whose husband is unemployed, sick or disabled, has to be strong. She submits, but as the strong one.
In ancient society, women could be strong morally, but they were always at a disadvantage legally, not having land and ability to work and bank.
So, the men, the husbands were the strong. But now, the women who are in the head of household position are also strong.
The submission of strong to weak and weak to strong does look different, but strength and weakness are not tied to gender.
And no, there are no men in my life. Not useful ones at any rate. I wish there were but there aren't. I work with almost all women and they can give me the advice I need about plumbing, mechanics, tech, etc. The women fill the full complement. I am fairly handy myself. My mom was quite handy too. That always seemed like a good thing to me. My dad was not handy so I don't expect handiness from men.
It is much easier to get things done by myself actually, without a man.
Just out of human interest, what kinds of things do men do for you? Do you need men to do certain things? I have some male friends, but they aren't close buddies that I can ask favours of like my women friends.
ellen
In what practical ways does the church submit (which is a different word than respect or honour)? How does the giving over of the will apply?
How did Grudem influence my mother? I mean, he's the bad guy, right? And nobody thought of Eve as the helper and the man as the leader of the home until he came along?
Anon
Respect, honour, appreciate, show gratitude. That is how the church responds to Christ.
How do you define "submit?" Obedience? Limited obedience? Obedience in all non-moral decisions? Obedience after confrontation? Obedience in all things except where you feel that your physical, emotional or financial health is at risk?
Or total, unthinking, blind reactive obedience. How about being trained like dog? Or like a member of the troops, or like a Moslem wife? Have you ever experienced being trained into total obedience? Would you like to know how it is done? How it feels?
Or do you want to qualify that? Either total is total or it is qualified. With "breathing room."
The majority has always upheld male supremacy. However, when someone points out that there is nothing subordinate about the word "help" in the Bible and it is usually a word refering to God, Grudem writes a chapter in Systematic Theology on how God subordinates himself to us when he helps us. God puts a part of himself temporarily under us, and at that time he is subordinate. However, this does not unGod him, because in spite of his subordination his nature remains as God.
BUT when the word applies to woman, we know that this means she is subordinate because the scriptures say that she is a suitable help. Now suitable must mean that she does what Adam says. Otherwise it would not be suitable. Therefore, we know the woman is subordinate.
And is God not a suitable help? Yes, but he is only subordinate in the moment of his helping us. Woman is subordinate in her being because she is always helping man. This is how she is suitable.
And God ... does not God help us all the time. No, if he did that he would be our subordinate. God only helps us in the moment.
This is taught in many seminaries in the US, because otherwise men would have to admit that "help" does not mean subordinate.
My parents were traditional, so were yours, I assume. I have no argument with that generation. They saw things in their own light and showed integrity with how their life was. This is about integrity.
Why won't you at least admit that Grudem, who is a male theologian, is not showing integrity with the word. He has the authority of being male and look what he is doing with it. This is worth tearing down no matter what.
Ellen
How do you define “submit?”
That's what I've been trying to get you all to articulate.
Anon
I have defined it over and over.
Respect, honour, appreciate, show gratitude. That is how the church responds to Christ.
This is submission. But if the woman is the strong one in a relationship then she is required to consider the weaker.
How do you define submission?
Ellen
It doesn't matter how I define submission. It matters how God defines submission.
You said, Respect, honour, appreciate, show gratitude. That is how the church responds to Christ.
It does appear that you have such an issue with "submit" that you cannot even use it, substituting instead "respond".
I will respond more later, but my connection is (again) running slow and I've waited too long to be able to even write this...I want to be able to stop for coffee on the way to work!
Anon
Do you have any concept of how to talk to other people with basic politeness. If it doesn't matter how you define it then why doesn't matter how I define it.
Don't play word games. I have had enough.
Ellen
Ummm...yeah. You mean "basic politeness" as in not outright saying that a person doesn't care what is right? Like that?
Truly...I believe that it is not how individuals define a word that makes them right or wrong. If our definition differs from God's definition, then we are still wrong.
I remember "Braveheart" - Gibson saying that he did not accept the king as HIS king. the man who was interrogating him said something to the effect of "It matters not whether you accept him as king or not...he IS king." Just so with the definition of submit.
As one preacher said (I'm not sure who it was", if you believe that "should" means "should not" and "cannot" means "can", then you can make the Scripture "say" anything you want it to.
I am articulating that God's definition matters more than mine. I would hope that you agree.