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.
Anon
So you don't believe that the use of a word in literature is part of the definition of the word. That is what I gave you from the scriptures from other Greek literature. But you don't acknowledge what another person puts into a conversation and only wish to assume that your view of God is the only correct one.
You believe that submission to the male is confrontation and judging. I will leave it at that. I don't want it. I don't want to be obliterated and I don't want to do that to other people.
Ellen
I have acknowledged over and over again...I've said that I seldom use your favorite target (Grudem) as a reference...I've said that the words in the discussion have more than one potential meaning.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.
If you need to bring accusations into it, then I guess you must. I don't feel like playing that game.
I will continue to pursue (from sources form all sides) the meanings of the words (why should I take your word for it any more than I should Grudem's?)
I will continue, and I will continue to strive to keep to the topic (in this thread, submission) and not be accusative.
I said earlier that I would address more later, that brought an attack. This is wearying and (frankly) the attitudes I see on the part of the more militant egalitarians turn me away from that point all the more.
Anon
This is the question asked in your post,
If a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, what does that mean?
You then asked,
In what practical ways does the church submit
I answer,
Respect, honour, appreciate, show gratitude. That is how the church responds to Christ.
I then ask you,
How do you define “submit?”
And you say,
That’s what I’ve been trying to get you all to articulate.
Then, as if you hadn't said that, you add,
It doesn’t matter how I define submission. It matters how God defines submission.
It does appear that you have such an issue with “submit” that you cannot even use it, substituting instead “respond”.
No, I did not define the word "submit" with the word "submit" because that is the normal thing to do, not because I have an issue, but thanks for the accusation.
Why would you try to get me to articulate an definition if you don't intend to articulate one yourself? Why would you then, after writing this post, in which you pose the question, then say to the one person who is attempting to respond,
It doesn’t matter how I define submission. It matters how God defines submission.
I guess I have to ask why you would treat someone like that.
You respond,
Anon
PS Last two words should have been edited out. Thanks for letting me post here.
Ellen
I know that "I will respond later" means little or nothing to you. At least it appears that way. I am backing away because your anger is discouraging.
No, I did not define the word “submit” with the word “submit” because that is the normal thing to do, not because I have an issue, but thanks for the accusation.
Except that that's not what you did.
You had a choice:
Respect, honour, appreciate, show gratitude. That is how the church responds to Christ.
Respect, honour, appreciate, show gratitude. That is how the church submits to Christ.
The first sentence is the definition, the second explains what you were defining.
I guess I have to ask why you would treat someone like that.
I understand that this entire issue is not about how I define submission, or about how you define submission. Or at least it should not be. This entire issue should be about trying to get at how God defines submission.
The questions I asked were out of curiosity: what do egalitarians need to do to the submission of the church to Christ, in order to get around the issue of a wife's submission to her husband.
Comps - well, we don't have to get around it. We agree with it.
The reason I would treat somebody "like that" - I guess it's because I hope to get an answer that is based on the questions that I asked, not an answer that appears to be based on anger.
Anon
I understand that this entire issue is not about how I define submission, or about how you define submission. Or at least it should not be. This entire issue should be about trying to get at how God defines submission.
So by your own admission, when you asked
If a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, what does that mean?This is not how you or I define submission, this is about how God defines submission.
You act as if the word "submit" does not need a definition, or that you actually have the mind of God in this case and do not need a definition yourself.
I have shown you how the word was used in Greek literature, that it is used in parallel with "yield to someone's request" "give thanks" "respect" "do not neglect." This is the kind of thing which is called primary evidence in scholarly circles.
However, you say,
Comps - well, we don’t have to get around it. We agree with it.
By which you clearly state that you are above the need to define words but you ask the question of others because you are "curious."
When you treat someone like this there is a fair chance that they will consider themselves subjected to verbal abuse.
Anon
(Some lines are missing in the comment above.)
You wrote,
I understand that this entire issue is not about how I define submission, or about how you define submission. Or at least it should not be. This entire issue should be about trying to get at how God defines submission.
So by your own admission, when you wrote in your post,
If a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, what does that mean?
you did not want the answer to this question at all and in fact you intended all along to say,
This is not how you or I define submission, this is about how God defines submission.
You ask for an answer and then you act as if the word “submit” does not need a definition, as if you actually have the mind of God in this case and do not need a definition yourself, as if you have a spiritual truth that others do not have.
I have shown you how the word was used in Greek literature, that it is used in parallel with “yield to someone’s request” “give thanks” “respect” “do not neglect.” This is the kind of thing which is called primary evidence in scholarly circles.
However, you say,
Comps - well, we don’t have to get around it. We agree with it.
By which you clearly state that primary research is "getting around it" and that you personally are above the need to define words. However, you ask the question of others because you are “curious” and wish to point out to them that they do not care about God's definition.
When you treat someone like this out of your own personal "curiosity" and the desire to trap someone and then make spiritual judgments, there is a fair chance that it won't be appreciated.
Ellen
Since I openly stated in the post that the point of the questions were to inform about how egalitarians see the issue, your blaming me for wanting just that seems a little misplaced.
As far as how I define "submission", I had said (please read it again...and again if needed) I said that I would respond more later (since I was already late for work that day and my internet was screwy).
Curiosity does not = trap. It equals curiosity - and perhaps a dialog. I said that I would respond more later - and there are, in fact, two posts in my draft folder. One is titled "As the church submits to Christ (2)" exploring the roots of the words and the other is titled "God as Husband, Christ as Husband", looking at the background of the Godhead as husband to Israel and to the church and the implications for us.
But you continue to attack. We have a different interpretation than you do. For 2,000 years. You can't blame your favorite target, Grudem, for 2,000 years. You have no problem with claiming that 2,000 years of Christianity has been wrong; doesn't that give you any sort of pause at all?
My internet is running intermittently and when it is up, can be very slow. Yes...it crashed while I was typing this and hasn't been up since...I am in a coffee shop using their fee internet right now. I had said that I would respond later.
I had an exam and an essay due yesterday, homework that had to be done online (difficult with internet problems) and Phil's grandma passed away last night.
I do intend to continue the conversation as I said that I would but frankly, your continued attacks are not pleasant.
You are anecdotal evidence that the cycle of abuse does continue. As you were abused, you now abuse others.
Is this how you treat those who disagree with you on such things as baptism, perseverance, Calvinism, Roman Catholics, etc.? (have I mentioned that I said that I would have responded later, except that you went on the attack.
Your spiritual abuse of those who disagree with you is not real high on the list of fun things to do just now.
Ellen
Just so you know...I'm getting ready to pack up and go home. I don't know if I'm going to have internet access or not. If you feel the need to continue the attacks, irrational accusations and general abuse toward me for disagreeing with you, I guess that's your choice.
At this point, I have not changed my stand. I have been convinced from Scripture before and if God wills, I will be again. I am going home.
Anon
You have no problem with claiming that 2,000 years of Christianity has been wrong; doesn’t that give you any sort of pause at all?
Not in the least. Think about slavery. Think about the monarchy. There are verses which have been used to prop up these structures.
I thought that you should know that your comments come across to me as spiritually accusing and very hurtful.
I understand about your internet. There is always something to fix around the house. I have a long list myself.
I don't think that I will change your mind but maybe you could at least think about the safety of women, and never teach unilateral submission without teaching women to also protect themselves from abuse. Perhaps you could think about the fact that reaction and response to the crime is small comfort to the victims. It would be a small compensation for giving up functional equality. I can think of no benefits that the male can bring to women above companionship, but that is destroyed in a marriage that lacks functional equality. The honeymoon is short.
Would you really want to teach something that would cause even one person to live out a life of abuse?
Naturally it grieves me to see that the leadership of the male is taught as if it were in scripture when no one can show me where. However, I must accept that for some people the authority of the male does not actually need scriptural backing, but is accepted as our natural state.
I will continue to view this as the abolitionists viewed slavery and mourn for those held by this belief.
Anon
I'm going to give it up now and go out for coffee myself.
Ellen
Enjoy the caffeine.
Anon, most of your good points get very lost in the "you're spiritually abusing me" and Grudem's a liar" diatribes.
I strongly suggest that the next time you're ready to cry "spiritual abuse", please take a look at the mote in your own eye.
Anon
At least one of my diatribes is demonstrably true. Your way of saying it only matters how God defines something, s reminiscent to me of much of the spiritual abuse that I have suffered, and it is not negligible. These things have ruined many peoples lives, they hurt.
How do you think it feels for me to uncover facts and have people say that facts have nothing to do with the case, and that we proclaim God as we intuit him to be - patriarchal, and we don't need accurate exegesis to prove it, we only need history. The fact that history is patriarchal is enough.
This is not my view of theology. I am struggling to accept that others don't want facts. I am really trying.
To me uncovering facts is not spiritual abuse, it is liberation from falsehood. However, it is nonetheless not wanted, so I'll go do my motherly errands.
Ellen
I am willing to interact with the facts, but I'm really tired of the accusations and the "grudem is evil" line. REALLY TIRED
Anon
"grudem is evil”
You said it, not me.
Ellen
Yes and I will say it again...YOU have a way of bringing Grudem into it when nobody else does. We can be looking only at Scripture and you interject "Grudem"...it is your attitude.
I am willing to interact with facts, but the (again) having to sort out the "I'm abused" and "Grudem is evil" is not worth the trouble. I continue to do research (and I've said before that I don't use Grudem much).
Your way of saying it only matters how God defines something, s reminiscent to me of much of the spiritual abuse that I have suffered, and it is not negligible. These things have ruined many peoples lives, they hurt.
So are you saying that the way God defines things doesn't matter?!?!?!
and you would still expect to be believed when you say you have a high view of Scripture?
Although I guess if Christ is not an authority to you (as some egals have said) then it truly doesn't matter what His meaning is. That's your deal...God is my authority.
Ellen
Yes and I will say it again...YOU have a way of bringing Grudem into it when nobody else does. We can be looking only at Scripture and you interject "Grudem"...it is your attitude.
I am willing to interact with facts, but the (again) having to sort out the "I'm abused" and "Grudem is evil" is not worth the trouble. I continue to do research (and I've said before that I don't use Grudem much).
I am NOT willing to continue to pick through "Grudem is...(name Anon's pejorative) and the "poor me".
Your way of saying it only matters how God defines something, s reminiscent to me of much of the spiritual abuse that I have suffered, and it is not negligible. These things have ruined many peoples lives, they hurt.
So are you saying that the way God defines things doesn't matter?!?!?!
and you would still expect to be believed when you say you have a high view of Scripture?
Although I guess if Christ is not an authority to you (as some egals have said) then it truly doesn't matter what His meaning is. That's your deal...God is my authority.
Anon
When you say,
God is my authority.
Do you mean that you do not use dictionaries or commentaries or the original languages? You say to others,
and you would still expect to be believed when you say you have a high view of Scripture?
Although I guess if Christ is not an authority to you (as some egals have said) then it truly doesn’t matter what His meaning is.
But you say this to someone who cares enough to read the original languages, to read literature in the original languages, to study translations over thousands of years. Someone who cares about how God expresses himself in language.
The question for me is "What did the words which God used to express himself actually mean?" That is the question for me.
For you it seems to be "What does my own inner spirit tell me that God means when he uses certain words?"
The question for me is what did God actually say in the scriptures. I cannot deal with the subjective inner voice to explicate actual words which God has caused to be spoken and written in historical time. I am tied to the reality of the words. I am tied to the meaning of the words. God expresses himself in language and that is basic creedal belief of the church.
If you call this a low view of scripture then I claim it.
Ellen
God is my authority.
Well...um...that IS why they call Scripture "God's Word", is it not?
Is Scripture not God's Word to us, and thus carry the authority of God?
The question for me is what did God actually say in the scriptures.
Then why are you so "abused" when I say that it matters what God's definition is?
I do know that whatever I expected,
I will deal with what I believe Scripture is attempting to communicate with the word "Submit" another day (please don't take that as a reason to attack). And yes, it does differ from yours (as has 2,000 years of Christianity)
Anon
I will deal with what I believe Scripture is attempting to communicate,
I would rather attempt to find out what scripture is intended to communicate.
with the word “Submit” another day
Yes, now we are talking about the basis of our belief.
(please don’t take that as a reason to attack).
You mocked me on this one. It hurt.
And yes, it does differ from yours (as has 2,000 years of Christianity)
Not homogenous, and not necessarily defensible. We just don't defend slavery on that basis. We actually don't defend much on that basis.
The question is why do we believe what we believe.
The question is not whether God has authority. The question is how do we know what God intends to say in the scriptures. We must take away what humans have added on, and get back to how the words were used at the time that the scripture was written.
I won't bring up s****t. Best of luck with your courses. I love my job more every day.
Ellen
You mocked me on this one. It hurt.
I'm crying "bull" on that one. you get to cry "abuse!" and I felt attacked because I didn't follow your timeline.
You don't want others to treat you in the same way that you treat them.
Other egalitarians HAVE said, "we don't follow Christ as authority, we follow Him because He loves us and is our savior." So yeah...it IS about whether you all see god (Trinity) as authority.
THAT was the whole point of this post (which you very nicely sidetracked with your palpable hatred of Grudem and your need to bring abuse (which is a sin, complementarianism is not a sin) into every single conversation.
Does the church submit to Christ as an authority? you have yet to say so.
Anon
Does the church submit to Christ as an authority? you have yet to say so.
That is a good question.
Christ is an authority because he is God. He derives his authority from being God.
However, as God, Christ cannot ever be the "head" of the body. God is not the head of the body. God is power and authority, but because of the different nature of God and humans, God is not to humans as the head is to the body.
Christ humbled himself and put off power/authority. Phil 2.
Christ is only head of the body because he became human and put off divine power. It is the absence of power that made him head of the body. It is explicitly his sacrifice for us that made him the head.
So, no, absolutely not. We do not submit to Christ as authority but as the one who gave up power for us, and died to give us life. It is an entirely different paradigm.
That is the salvation which Christ offers.
It is also true that Christ is God and has all power as God. He is above all things as God. But he can only be head of the body, if he is one with the body, that is human.
So, while the husband is the head of woman as Christ is head of the body, this is modeled by Christ giving up the power he had as God, and sacrificing his life as man. After his incarnation and death, he is now head of the body.
The husband cannot be the head of his wife, unless he gives up superior power/authority, and surrenders his own goals, or sacrifices himself.
Only after giving up any superior authority which he may have as a male in society, does he become head of his wife. He must seek unity with his wife, as the head seeks unity with the body, sameness of nature.
If we submit to Christ as an authority then we are still under the law.
Ellen
I guess it becomes more difficult, then to see egalitarians as having a concept of Christ as Lord.
It is your opinion, I cannot change that.
Anon
I guess it becomes more difficult, then to see egalitarians as having a concept of Christ as Lord.
Christ revolutionizes what it means to be Lord. He can be both sacrifice and Lord at the same time. He is human and divine. The human male is not.
Egalitarians have to absorb the counterintuitive and more than humanly understandable aspects of a God who is his own sacrifice.
C's who follow a rigid comparison of -
as Christ is to God, (submittng to God's authority and thereby suffering as the sacrifice)
so is woman to man, (submitting and becoming the sacrifice)
These people actually end up putting woman on the cross. There is no other way.
For E's it is,
as Christ to man, (taking on the same nature)
so is man to woman
and God to Christ.
If you don't believe that C's teach that the submission of women is her identity with the death of Christ for man, read this,
Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women's ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior. CBMW Blog, Feb. 7, 2008.
What is the work and submission of Christ? It is his death for us. This is the role of woman.
Every relationship between men and women must reflect the woman walking in the steps of Christ, and imitating his work, his death for man.
They also teach,
Our ministry to men and women must be rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of God. Being created in his image means ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.
So the male imitates God and both provides and accepts the sacrifice of someone other than himself. He is apart from the suffering.
It is not a theology I embrace.