I understand that the metaphor breaks down (metaphors do).
I understand that a wife does not exist to worship her husband (nor should she). If the comment thread goes in that direction...it would be a bad idea.
I understand that a husband is not God (see above note about the comment thread).
What Can We Learn From Adam and Eve?
1) Eve was not a "less than". Adam was the only creature that was created in the way that he was and Eve was the only creature created in the way that she was.
2) Eve was created to be a helper fit for Adam. "ezer" was not in any way a "less-than" term. It is used to describe God and it is used to describe help from God. To be an "ezer" from God is to have a very special role and (I would think) would be a privilege and honor. This is what Eve was created for.
3) Eve was created to be a companion. God said, "It is not good for man to be alone", and then, "I will make a helper for him." One flesh - bone of my bone. This is what Eve was created for.
My belief in reading all of this (including the parallels of a husband and wife to Christ and the church) is that Eve, created second, created as a helper and created "out of" man - was the...well...helper. She (as helper) would have filled the need that Adam had for another "pair of hands". God set the "job description", Adam set the path within that job description and Eve (by defintion as helper) helped.
How does that relate to Christ and the church?
How often have we heard the line, "Jesus with skin on?" We (the church) are the representatives of Christ walking around on this green earth.
There is a job to be done, set by the Bridegroom. Spread the gospel. Protect the weak. Feed the hungry. Care for the homeless.
God, the Trinity, set the job description. Christ gave us the "Great Commission". The bride of Christ is His representative on earth to carry out the plan.
And a husband and wife?
God sets the job description - what are we supposed to do? The husband (if the wife is to submit to her husband as Christ submits to the church) sets the path and the wife (as ezer) is his helping hands.
Does this make her "less than"? No - it gives her an honorable part in the job that Christ has given.
Does it make the husband "more than"? In the plan of Christ, no. It gives him the burden of making (and taking responsibility for) the working out of the plan.
What can we learn from Christ and the church by looking at the first husband and wife?
Unity. Job descriptions. Honor in both roles. Honor in service. Job descriptions written by God.
Charity
Hello Ellen
I broadly agree with your points 1), 2) and 3) in this post. One point of minor disagreement may be that it seems to me that there may be a difference between a "help" and a "helper" which may explain why I'm not so sure I agree with all of your conclusions.
In your paragraph immediately after point 3) you say Eve fulfilled Adam's need for "another pair of hands". I don't see that there in the Genesis account and this seems to be something different to your point 3) about companionship, which I am in full agreement with.
I don't see how someone being "another pair of hands" can be in anything other than a "less than" position. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself awfully well here, but I'm trying to put across what I'm feeling on reading your thoughts.
I would see the relationship more in terms of devotion (this is probably the human equivalent of the worship we give to God) and companionship (c.f. your point 3) rather than orders to be obeyed.
Ellen
One point of minor disagreement may be that it seems to me that there may be a difference between a “help” and a “helper” which may explain why I’m not so sure I agree with all of your conclusions.
I guess logically speaking...one who paints is a painter, one who roofs is a roofer, one who sits is a sitter, one who runs is a runner. Logically speaking, one who helps is a helper.
I don’t see how someone being “another pair of hands” can be in anything other than a “less than” position. I’m not sure I’m expressing myself awfully well here, but I’m trying to put across what I’m feeling on reading your thoughts.
You're expressing yourself fine. It's a way of thinking. As "one flesh", it's filling the need and there is nothing dishonorable in that.
I have most often heard the phrase "another pair of hands" in situations where everybody is equal. I grew up on a farm and when we're "in the hay" it's rather frantic, especially when the weather report says "rain" and we're rushing to get the hay into the barn dry (putting wet hay in a barn leads to barn fires and in the time I was a kid I've seen barn fires (due to putting wet or green hay in a barn - the barn was lost, along with livestock. I f there is rain on the way, you must get the hay in).
When you're on a hay wagon, catching 40 pound bales as they come off the baler...and somebody climbs on the wagon and offers "another pair of hands"...it is not a "less than" position.
I'm going to post a new post (and then link to it from here) - a poem "another pair of hands" and the organization it describes.
I would see the relationship more in terms of devotion (this is probably the human equivalent of the worship we give to God) and companionship (c.f. your point 3) rather than orders to be obeyed.
The first thought is that they are not mutually exclusive. You can be entirely devoted while still obeying orders. The second is that "orders to be obeyed" doesn't convey what I'm trying to say (although I see how you get there).
It's sort of the difference between "cooking dinner" and "being a cook". I can go cook dinner - I don't have a great passion for it. My son (and my sweetie)...they are cooks. Both of them will take a recipe and ...a little of this, a little of that, let's cook it this way not that way...and truly enjoy the journey.
The question is not "how can I follow the order to help?" Bur rather "how can I be the help in the most God-glorifying way possible?"
Charity
The question is .... “how can I be the help in the most God-glorifying way possible?”
Complete agreement here on that point, even though we probably disagree on whether there's a difference between being a help and being a helper.
To come back to your example of "an extra pair of hands" on the farm (and I hope this will help me explain what I'm trying to get at. The extra pair of hands could be anybody's as far as I can see - it's depersonalised.
A helper is someone who helps, yes. Describing someone as a help goes beyond that. A helper may be used, to describe a role - the person whose role it is to help. (Ah, maybe I'm getting to the bottom of a lot of what I find troubling in CBMW here...).
If the wife is the husband's help - she is more than his helper. Her very existence, her very being, her personality, who she is are a help to him. It's more than what she does, it's who she is.
Ellen
To come back to your example of “an extra pair of hands” on the farm (and I hope this will help me explain what I’m trying to get at. The extra pair of hands could be anybody’s as far as I can see - it’s depersonalised.
I will (for the rest of my life) remember the name of the farmer who lent his hands.
And...in a one-flesh, there is nothing that is depersonalized. I guess I'm just really not seeing where being the sort of help that a husband needs (no matter what semantics are used) is depersonalized.
If the wife is the husband’s help - she is more than his helper. Her very existence, her very being, her personality, who she is are a help to him. It’s more than what she does, it’s who she is.
You have it exactly right.
It is what we so with that understanding that makes the difference. If we go through life demanding our "rights" (you're not the boss of me), then we miss out on many blessings.
Charity
It is what we so with that understanding that makes the difference. If we go through life demanding our “rights” (you’re not the boss of me), then we miss out on many blessings.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence I've quoted here - maybe there's a typo. I would add that the second sentence works both ways round - I think men also miss out on many blessings if they go through life demanding their "rights" - I'm in charge here, so you'll do what I say.
Ellen
I would add that the second sentence works both ways round - I think men also miss out on many blessings if they go through life demanding their “rights” - I’m in charge here, so you’ll do what I say.
Right...no disagreement. And a man "demanding his rights" is not what complementarian teaching is all about.
Authority, yes. Leadership, yes. "Getting his way", no.
Charity
Right…no disagreement. And a man “demanding his rights” is not what complementarian teaching is all about.
Authority, yes. Leadership, yes. “Getting his way”, no.
Maybe it's a question of perspective.
Sue
The husband (if the wife is to submit to her husband as Christ submits to the church) sets the path and the wife (as ezer) is his helping hands.
The husband expects the hands of the wife to be always available to him to drive him to work if needed, to do all the housework and cooking and childcare, and banking and mail, and garbage, and shopping, and trip planning and social arrangements, and gardening, and Christmas shopping and wrapping and decorating, paying bills, and taxes, and so on.
This frees him up for his career, his prayer breakfasts, his witnessing to others, his ballgames, his further education, and so on.
The wife is an extra pair of hands, of course. She ought to be kept busy.
Ellen
Yeah...and?
If a husband is a full-time bread-winner, wants to educate himself to earn money...would not a loving wife support that?
And (but of course you know this) in non-abusive complementarian marriages, the wife is expected to also have a prayer and witness life (and even an social life).
You can paint the worst picture, but (in most cases) that is not reality.
Sue
If a husband is a full-time bread-winner, wants to educate himself to earn money…would not a loving wife support that?
And then he dies/leaves/gets sick/loses his job.
There have been a few congregations where women back out of work and in the next economic downturn, misfortune befell the lot of them.
Ellen
Sue, it's a choice.
Don't forget, I was a woman who had a "little" job while my husband was the primary bread-winner. And you know what - my kids benefited from having a stay-at-home mom while they were at home. I'M GLAD. It also meant that when he was at home with his cancer...so was I. I'm not going to change my theology because of my own selfishness at having a tough time later.
I'm getting a little frustrated at the negativism that seeps from you. I know that there are churches that teach that women should not work at all - Some of them are even egalitarian. It's not a comp/egal issue. Shoot - even parts of the secular world see that children benefit from having a stay-at-home mom.
Sue, you wish to restrict women to your own personal vision of perfection. Perfection does not exist. We live in a lost and fallen world.
That doesn't make your doctrine correct and it doesn't mean that the church should restrict the choices of their women who want to stay home in order to please your version of perfection.
Charity
I’m not going to change my theology because of my own selfishness at having a tough time later.
You know it may not be selfishness - it may be looking out for the whole family's best interests in the long term, rather than just in the short term.
I know that there are churches that teach that women should not work at all - Some of them are even egalitarian. It’s not a comp/egal issue.
The difference as far as I can see is how the decision gets taken. It seems to me that if a church is taking the decision, that's spiritual abuse anyway.
Ellen
FIRST POINT: nothing (NOTING) in the post precludes a wife from working outside the home. It is yet another negativity-projecting side issue. We can take any beautiful thing in the world, even Scripture and twist it.
You know it may not be selfishness
1) If I want the entire world to change their mind because of what my opinion of "best" is...that's selfish.
2) Prove to me (Biblically) that it's in the best interest of the family in the long term to have the children raised by a child care center.
It seems to me that if a church is taking the decision, that’s spiritual abuse anyway.
1) I said, "teach", which you changed to "take the decision". I was in a church that taught that one should not drink alcohol. I (not the church) took the decision that I was going to have a drink now and then.
2) Does the "spiritual abuse" label apply to any or all situations?
If a church takes a decision that a convicted child molester should not teach children...they are ones taking the decision. Spiritual abuse?
Many churches have sincerely held religious belies that disagree with what other denominations teach. If we cannot allow a church to teach something that we disagree with without crying "abuse", so much for tolerance. So much for religious freedom (something that the United States was founded on)
If a church teaching something that we do not agree with and we call it abuse...consider
- infant baptism
- closed communion
- churches that stress Christian schools and colleges
- complementarianism in general (which is not abuse and I will not let the thread go in that direction)
If a church tried to enforce a woman staying home, that (if the couple disagrees) is problematic. If the couple disagrees, find a different church. But don't cry wolf.
If a husband forces the wife to stay home that is also problematic (although if there are small children, the wife's income is not needed and the desire is to work for the sake of working - I would call her "selfish" for putting her desires in front of the children's best interest in a stay-at-home mom).
I believe that a husband who pressures his wife to work, when there are children at home and they don't require her income is more at risk for being abusive than one who wants her to be at home.
Motive counts here folks. Sue will read the worst possible motive into a man wanting his wife at home. We already know that.
If I marry again, I would want to be one of those "stay at home wives". Yes...I would pick up the dry-cleaning, and the entire "bad" list that Sue gave. And I would find joy in the service. That would also free up time for me for women's ministries, book clubs, walking and hiking in the area, volunteering to drive AIDS patients and meals-on-wheels.
It's sort of funny...women who have to work sometimes see stay-at-home moms as the selfish ones...women who have to stay at home (because of young kids) see women who work as the selfish ones.
It is when we try to force others into our paradigm that we become selfish. And that has nothing to do with the post.
Charity
If I want the entire world to change their mind because of what my opinion of “best” is…that’s selfish.
I don't see anyone here wanting the entire world to change their mind because of their opinion of what's best!
If a church takes a decision that a convicted child molester should not teach children…they are ones taking the decision. Spiritual abuse?
A church has a right and duty to protect those in it's care as a gathered body. So no, that would not be spiritual abuse. However a church putting pressure on the mother of a molested child not to report the matter to the police and let them take care of it, in my opinion is spiritual abuse, if the mother is not allowed the latitude to take her own decision and do what she believes to be right before God.
If a church teaching something that we do not agree with and we call it abuse…
It depends what we mean by "teaching" - if it's just the content of what is said in the pulpit that's not spiritual abuse. If the implication is there, reinforced by behaviours, that to be a "proper" (or good, or whatever adjective you choose to put in there) you have to believe everything they believe, and you get shunned if you don't, then yes, that is spiritual abuse.
Ah, at last we agree!
However:
If the couple disagrees, find a different church. But don’t cry wolf.
For some people that is not an option. Where I live there are some people who have to do an 100 mile round trip to get to the next nearest evangelical church (of any flavour) - if they don't have a car, changes churches is not an option.
If a husband forces the wife to stay home that is also problematic (although if there are small children, the wife’s income is not needed and the desire is to work for the sake of working - I would call her “selfish” for putting her desires in front of the children’s best interest in a stay-at-home mom).
I believe that a husband who pressures his wife to work, when there are children at home and they don’t require her income is more at risk for being abusive than one who wants her to be at home.
This is partly what I was getting at... it's how the decision is taken.
In the absolute I agree in that it seems to me to be a good idea for young children to have a parent at home. Personally I did not work outside the home until my children were in High School. Even now they're grown up, I do most of my work from home. However I would not want to try to make someone who made a different decision to feel that I was judging them for that. I personally have some friends for whom working was the best thing for their situation, and some who had no choice.
It is when we try to force others into our paradigm that we become selfish.
Absolutely. That is what I am trying to say.
Ellen
I don’t see anyone here wanting the entire world to change their mind because of their opinion of what’s best!
It is when we try to force others into our paradigm that we become selfish.
Sue would like to see complementarian teaching to be made illegal.
Charity
That's an understandable reaction to her experience. I don't see here trying to force other people into her paradigm though. Just arguing that people shouldn't get forced into the CBMW paradigm.
Ellen
Wanting somebody's point of view to be illegal seems pretty forceful to me.
That’s an understandable reaction to her experience
Actually, you are correct. And there are many out there that are much, much worse. Sue does not throw around "hate words", such as judaizer, heretic, blasphemer, idolater, and she does not compare complementarianism with Islam or Mormonism.
I respect Sue (Sue, I respect you). There are others...when I see their name pop up on a comment thread, I pretty much can guarantee that it will go downhill fast.
You do notice, though...that when Sue pops in here (not that I want her to stop) the focus becomes abuse.
Sue
If a husband forces the wife to stay home that is also problematic (although if there are small children, the wife’s income is not needed and the desire is to work for the sake of working - I would call her “selfish” for putting her desires in front of the children’s best interest in a stay-at-home mom).
I believe that a husband who pressures his wife to work, when there are children at home and they don’t require her income is more at risk for being abusive than one who wants her to be at home.
I don't care whether a wife stays home or not. This should be worked out by the couple. But for complementarians the husband has AUTHORITY to decide for the wife either way. She cannot make this decision for herself, by definition, only he can.
Motive counts here folks. Sue will read the worst possible motive into a man wanting his wife at home. We already know that.
You have taken me completely in the wrong way. Do I talk about you like this? You don't know anything at all about what I think.
Women have to live their own life after their husbands die, so they should be part of the decision-making. They should not be excluded from making important decisions about their own life one way or the other.
Sue
Yes, if a woman has to worry about her husbands debts when he dies, or when divorced, then it should be illegal to teach her to "obey." She needs to participate in financial decisions.
Sue
I do have a close friend, a former missionary to a Moslem country who calls her husband a "Moslem."' I do have some feelings about this too, but I haven't said that per se. I often share stories from other women I know. Not everything I talk about is personal to me.
Ellen
You have taken me completely in the wrong way.
Fine...Sue comes off as seeing the worst possible motives.
What the evidence points to is that this was meant to be (as most of these are) a working out of what submission looks like for me.
Now, it is about abuse.
Sue
No, it is about not talking about other people.
Sue
Its about not talking about other people. It is about showing basic respect.
Sue
Excuse me on this. I can't see if my comments are going through or not. Time to say goodnight.
Ellen
The post was supposed to be about the beauty of service.