Male Headship

•

The “soul of marriage” is a mystery. The apostle Paul wrote: ‘“ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.’

Satan, and the world as his helper, is striking at the soul of marriage - in (at least) a two-pronged offensive.

Both of these are an attempt to strike at the very image of God.  If we have a warped view of marriage, we will also have a warped view of God.

If we have a warped view of God, we will end up making Him in our own image...which is no god at all.

The first way I see involves striking at the image of Christ and His bride.

The second way I see involves striking at the image of God in creation.

One aspect of the "soul of marriage" is reflection of Christ and His bride.  The beautiful wedding dance of headship and submission shows Christians what their marriages should look like, and Christian marriages should show the world what Christ and His bride look like.

Egalitarianism teaches that there are no gender roles in marriage - since Scripture tells us that Christian marriages reflect Christ and His bride, no gender roles in marriage = no leadership, stewardship, or headship of Christ over His bride.

This assault on the soul of marriage leads to a warped view of Jesus.

The second front of the battle is "4SR" (State Sanctioned Same Sex Relationships.)

The  onslaught of the world against marriage, to force the recognition 4SR as "marriage," is stunning in its swiftness.  Even five years ago, we would not be having this conversation.

While I fully believe that God the Father is beyond gender (is a spirit,) He DOES get to pick what gender He wishes to be recognized as.  God chose "Father" - so that's what we know Him by.

That said, since He is beyond gender, the Bible makes sense:

 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

It  seems that God - in His own image, created male and female.  Together, they form a "oneness" that reflects the image of God.

There is more, and I want to expand, but in a nutshell, these two points are the main offensives, with various strategies within those offenses, where Satan is attacking the institution of marriage.

•

Thoughts on "Hey John, Is My Femininity Showing?"

The offending podcast is here.

The way I'm reading it goes like this.

The basics

  1. John Piper is a Complementarian
  2. He believes that men should be the leaders in the home and church and further...
  3. women should not be in spiritual leadership positions over men.

The question the podcast answers the question: Can men use commentaries written by women?

The logic:

  1. Piper doesn't have a problem reading spiritual material written by women
  2. Piper does have a problem with a woman sitting in spiritual authority over a man, whether in a church, or seminary class.
  3. Therefore: the mere presence of a female body (in general) is offensive to John Piper.

Apparently, most egalitarians don't see the distinction between reading a book (sitting and gathering information) and sitting under teaching authority.

You don't submit to a book, you do submit to a teacher.

You can put a book down, you can give it away, throw it away, burn it...you can't do those things to a teaching authority. You can get yourself out from under the authority, but as long as you're in that class, you're under authority.

I understand that it's not the body parts, it's the authority. Piper makes that clear when he says, "whereas if she were standing right in front of me and teaching me as my shepherd< /strong>…I couldn’t make that separation"

This is not the voice of "femininity" - it's the voice of worldly feminism (which is antithetical to femininity.) It's the brand of feminism that cannot tolerate dissension, cannot respect differing viewpoints and must tear down those who disagree.

So Rachel, don't worry...it's not your femininity that's showing.

• 2 Comments

•

Wayne Grudem's article is no longer on CBMW.

I'm putting it here as a reference for myself...if Grudem doesn't approve, I'd love for him to contact me and see if he can get it back on CBMW as a reference (and to let him know that I now work with one of his former students 😉

But What Should Women Do In The Church?

Wayne Grudem

...continue reading →

• 3 Comments

•

From "The Gender Blog"

The article is mostly good, but when the whopper comes...

Misconception #4: Submission is a right-a husband has the right to demand his wife's submission.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice-her responsibility... it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It's his responsibility to be affectionate. It's her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband's responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church-not to make his wife submit.

My thought is that a Christian man, who has married a woman who claims to be a Christian, has the right to expect her to act like one.  That includes being a submissive wife.

If he has not rights, then he is effectively in a hostage situation.  Not a pleasant place.

 

She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call.

Agreed.

The "when" is when she says "I do" on the altar.

The "how" is "as unto the Lord."

Anything other than that is disobedience to the Law of Christ, Scripture and love.  It saddens me to see Kassian teach so.

 

 

 

• 35 Comments

•

A wife is compared to the bride of Christ - the church. A wife is instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. In that same parallel, the husband is to model the love for his wife after the love that Christ has for His bride, the church. We have a wonderful privilege and responsibility to reflect that to the world.

Our Christian marriages should point people straight to Christ! If people don't look at our marriages and see them reflect Christ and the church, we are failing.

If the world looks at our marriages and sees anything less than a sacrificial love, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees a husband putting himself before the needs of his wife, we are failing. If the world looks at our marriages and sees the wife with anything less than the willing and loving submission that the church has for Christ, we are failing.

And...we are failing.

That is why the gender debate matters. The statistics say that Christian marriages are as likely to fail as secular marriages (I have my doubts about the questions asked and think that more should have been asked that would "unskew" the numbers)...but the numbers are not good.

Why is the divorce rate so high? Just like in Jesus' time...hardness of hearts. On the part of both parties.

If the love/submission is modeled on Christ and the church...if the love is modeled after Christ and the submission is modeled after the church - it is the model of Scripture. Each puts the other first, in a way that reflects Christ and the church.

We are the shadow; the mirror. How do we reflect Christ to the world?

•

In the creation account in Genesis 2, the animals were formed out of the ground. As was Adam.
Adam (as the animals were) was created out of the dust of the earth that God had created out of nothing...and Eve was created out of Adam. Eve is the only creature that was created in this way.
Elsewhere in Scripture we are told "he [man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." Yes, this is not a creation account, but Scripture does give us the sense of men and women being differently.

Men and women were certainly created differently, they were given different jobs and they were told different things after the fall.

When husbands and wives are given explicit instruction as husbands and wives (beyond the general instruction that we are all given), in many passages, husbands and wives are told different things, they are given different direction.

Scripture treats men and women differently.

Why? I believe that Scripture is trustworthy and tells us what God wants us to know. God wants us to know that He created men and women differently, He treats them differently and He gives them different instruction in Scripture.

In Genesis 2 we are given another creation account; a more detailed story of the creation of man and woman.

v. 15...man was put into the garden with a job to do - to work it and keep it.

v. 16 and 17, man was given the instruction to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

v. 18. God proclaims that it is not good for man to be alone and further proclaimed that He would make a helper suitable for him.
v. 19 and 20, God showed man every animal and man named them...but there was no counterpart for Adam.

v. 21. It is only AFTER Adam was created and AFTER man was given responsibility for the garden and AFTER Adam was told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and AFTER he had named all of the animals...

AFTER all of that, THEN God put Adam into a sleep and formed his wife from his rib.

and

v. 24 God tells us, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. In the jobs they are given, in the roles that they play, in the responsibilities that they have and even in the way and time they were created.

God sees us differently and I rejoice in the difference.

In the New Testament (Eph 5), we are given a parallel. After the general instructions to all members of the church, Scripture goes on with further instructions to husbands and wives.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

We are given, as men and women; as husbands and wives, the wonderful responsibility and privilege of reflecting to the world the relationship of Christ and the church. The beautiful and willing submission of the bride to her bridegroom. The caretaking love of the bridegroom for his beloved.

and God again tells us, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

This is not language that sets men and women up against each other, it does not tell us of a selfishness that demands its own rights. It is a beautiful reflection of sacrifice and submission, love and love, leaving and cleaving. One flesh.

Complementary. Not sameness, but differentness that fits together with created perfection.

• 149 Comments

•

If a Christian marriage is to reflect Christ and the church - if a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church...and if the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church...

what does that mean? What are the Biblical references for Christ (and God the Father in the Old Testament) as husband?

How do Christ the Son and God the Father relate to the church and to Israel?

Husbands, love your wives,
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
that he might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
so that he might present the church to himself in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but nourishes and cherishes it,
just as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh."
This mystery is profound, and
I am saying that it refers to Christ
and the church. (Eph 5:25-32)

Can wives be "sanctified" by their husbands? Maybe not, but they can be saturated with Scripture. She can be loved and cherished and nourished, with Christ as his model.

For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
For the LORD has called you like a wife
deserted and grieved in spirit, (Isa. 54:5-6)

For a short time, the Husband had turned His face from His bride. She had been faithless, yet He redeemed her.

"Hallelujah!For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen,
bright and pure"— (Rev. 6-8)

The bride of the Lamb...

You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you. (Isa. 62:3-5)

You shall be called "My Delight Is In Her..."

In the New Testament, it was John the Baptist who recognized the Bridegroom:

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ,
but I have been sent before him.'
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom.
The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him,
rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.
Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:28-30)

God presented Israel with a graphic picture when He told Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute - knowing that she will act as prostitutes will act...and that he will bring her back.

"Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
"And in that day, declares the LORD,
you will call me 'My Husband,' and no longer will you call me 'My Baal.'
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,
and they shall be remembered by name no more.
And I will make for them a covenant on that day
with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land,
and I will make you lie down in safety.
And I will betroth you to me forever.
I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice,
in steadfast love and in mercy.
I will betroth you to me in faithfulness.
And you shall know the LORD. (Hosea 2:14-20)

There is a Biblical reason to see a Christian marriage as a reflection of God the Father with Israel and of Christ the Son with His bride, the church.

For I feel a divine jealousy for you,
since I betrothed you to one husband,
to present you as a pure virgin to Christ."
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning,
your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere
and pure devotion to Christ. (1 Cor. 11:2-3)

How can the church expect to be treated by her Bridegroom?

...He is her refuge, (Psa 61)

...He stands up for her (Psa 94)

...He nourishes and cherishes her (Eph 5)

...She trust in His steadfast love (Psa 52)

...He speaks tenderly to her (Hos 2)

...He is merciful and full of loving kindness (Tit 2)

...He will wipe away tears (Isa 25)

...He makes her beautiful (Isa 60)

...He carries her sorrows (Isa 53)

...He came to serve (Matt 20)

...He restores her soul, He leads her in paths of righteousness (Psa 23)

• 52 Comments

•

Since I do not wish to ascribe personalities, I won't put a name to the quote, but I do have some thoughts

(no, I will not comment on that blog; there is a reason that has been explained privately. Commenters here are free comment here or there [although there appears to be more freedom for accusations there]. I have also disabled the requirement to enter a name and email address in order to comment - although a name would be nice so there is no need to worry about me using a private email for public reasons or that I might sell it to Russian spam companies. My email IS on the side bar, so I am available for private discussion.

There is also the fact that this post is 5(five) pages long in a Word doc. Very long for a com-box. I will make the same offer - it a poster at the comp-egal blog would like to post it as a "guest blogger", feel free)

Anyway...the quote:

One problem is that this is not a secondary issue to one relatively small group of people: those women God is calling to the kinds of ministry Packer thinks should be closed to women, who receive that calling in churches that agree with Packer. They literally have to choose between obeying their churches and obeying God. And when their churches are teaching them that they aren't hearing correctly from God in the first place, it's got to be a highly difficult dilemma, one which few people (including Packer) could begin to comprehend.

So yes, for most of us, this isn't a super-important issue. But for some of our sisters, it's a matter of spiritual life and death.

This is not so much a commentary on this particular quote, but more or less rambling with my thoughts (so there is no intent [please repeat after me: NO INTENT] to twist words.

I have three personal stories:

First: Two years ago this month, the church I was currently a member of had two guest speakers. Now this is a Christian Reformed Church, the main doctrines are out there for all to see...this is an important point.

The guest speakers were a husband and wife team (no, the problem was not that one of the speakers was a woman). They called themselves "apostle" and "prophet", they were (are) Charismatic, Pentecostal, Third Wave AND Word-Faith. They also have language on their website that is reflective of "Oneness-Apostolic" (They do not believe in the Trinity, but rather "modalism").

I raised concerns and was told "it's a one-time thing". Except that it wasn't. There has been a continuing stream of guest speakers, conferences, workshops, etc. that feature Word-Faith, faith healers, Pentecostals - some Oneness, some Trinitarians, some simply don't say.

I had to take a choice. Do I stay and fight that which I believe to be false doctrine?

Or do I abide by the commitment that I had made when I joined the church: to live under the leadership of the elders?

There IS a direct correlation to the above quote: And when their churches are teaching them that they aren't hearing correctly from God in the first place, it's got to be a highly difficult dilemma, one which few people (including Packer) could begin to comprehend.

For me, in that place, meant that obeying God would mean speaking the truth. The "apostle" and "prophet" were non-Trinitarians, affiliated with a Oneness organization that could loosely be called a denomination.

I spoke out again when it was made public that the church was sending the youth group TO THAT CHURCH to do work after Hurricane Katrina. To work IN that church, to STAY in that church, to WORSHIP in that church. It wasn't long before I was known as the "mom who wanted to wreck our spring break trip".

I really had three choices:

  • stay and fight
  • stay and shut up
  • leave

I chose to leave because to stay and fight would be divisive and to stay and shut up would be counter to my conviction.

Second:

This part of my life actually came first. I had spent my entire life in Arminian churches (although not calling them by that name). I was currently in an Arminian church and had been challenged to at least take a look at Reformed Theology. The more I read, the more I fought. The more I fought, the more I realized it was my pride and my flesh that made me fight. The more I focused on killing the pride and my flesh, the more comfortable I became with Reformed Theology.

Then came the breaking point. I was talking to my kids about when they were saved. My son remembered all of it (I was there). My daughter asked, "Do you mean the first time or all the rest of the times?"

YIKES! Yes, we were in a church that taught insecurity.

The same three choices:

  • stay and fight
  • stay and shut up
  • leave

Again, when I joined that church I had made a public commitment, on the stage, before God and man. Part of that commitment was that I believed the doctrine that the church taught.

What to do when you no longer believe that? I began looking for another church that was in line with what I believe.

Third: (this is not MY story, although I was there to hear and see it)

My sister's husband was a youth pastor for a small church in the thumb of Michigan. The day he resigned to go to be an associate pastor of a church in another state, he spoke from the pulpit. His words were something like (but not a direct quote):

I have come to realize that it is very difficult for a man to be a pastor in the town he grew up in. There is too much known, too much familiarity, too little authority and respect.

and then he quoted Scripture:

"Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." (Matthew 13:57, NIV)

With the pastors I have known, very few have pastored the church they had been a member in (my father-in-law was one; and that didn't last long. The Nazarene church was another, but that pastor had been a pastor in another city and was in Grand Rapids to finish his doctorate; he had only been there a short time when the previous pastor left and he was asked to step in - so this was not a case where he had been a long term member or had grown up there).

SO: To a young woman who feels called to be a senior pastor in the church where she currently is (a church that she knows well does not believe as she does) I would say:

You have three choices:

  • stay and fight
  • stay and shut up
  • leave

1) when you became a member, did you make a commitment to submit to the board of elders and to the doctrines of the church? If so, then are you willing to break your commitment (and most likely cause strife in the church) in order to fill your own personal desire?

If you ARE willing to break that commitment, are you willing to have one of YOUR congregation, a few years down the road, stand up and say that they don't like what you are teaching and they are willing to fight. They will refuse to submit to your leadership, they will refuse to submit to the board. Does this young woman want to look at the possibility of a congregation member treating HER and HER board with the same lack of submission that she is willing to treat hers current pastor and her current board?

2) If you are truly that convicted that God is calling you to be a head pastor, you will be very unhappy with the shutting up option. I know that I was.

3) Why the church that you are in? Is a "comfort zone" thing? (For my brother-in-law, it was) A new pastor has an opportunity to find a new life, a new "place", a place where it cannot be said, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

To this young woman (or any person, male or female, young or old): It is NOT a matter or "spiritual life or death" to look for a church that shares your beliefs. Many of us have done it and become stronger (not dead) for having examined ourselves (and our beliefs) and churches (and/or denominations) in order to find a truly good fit.

To undergo this examinition:

  1. either strengthens a person's conviction or changes it
  2. keeps him or her with a clear conscience because he or she has been able to keep a commitment (and Scriptural instruction) to submit to the church's elders
  3. gets him or her out of his or her comfort zone.

In my opinion, this is a growth process, not a death process. I have that opinion because I have lived it. Twice that I have told of in this post.
Besides these things, there are a few other (practical) questions:

  • Have you been to seminary?
  • Do you intend to go to seminary?
  • If not, does your current church ordain ANYBODY who has not attended seminary?
  • If you do intend to go to seminary, which one?
  • Does that seminary accept women who want to be head pastors?
  • If not, do you intend to fight with that leadership also?
  • If so, will you end up ordained in the denomination of that seminary, or your current church?
  • If you will end up ordained in the denomination of that seminary, would it be a better choice to stay in a denomination where you are credentials?
  • If you want to be ordained in the denomination of your current church, will there even be an opening for head pastor when you are done with seminary?
  • If not, are you going to ask the current head pastor to step down so that you can step in?
  • If you are NOT called by that church to be head pastor, are you willing to accept the possibility that there is a character or maturity issue that they may see, or will you blame it on gender (youth/too well known)?

These questions are questions that men have to answer as well. I know a man who left his church to go to seminary, only to find that the church he grew up in ... already had a head pastor.

• 14 Comments

•

For reasons that have been covered off line, I will not be commenting on the comp-egal blog.  I welcome readers, commenters, I will read there and comment here.  Email addresses will not be disclosed (shoot, I have an alternate email address for using when I know my email address will be disclosed).

Charity said:

Taking the first definiton of someone who has "absolute, unrestricted control" here in a marriage relationship rather than a government, it seems to me that dictatorship is exactly the model propounded by CBMW for the government of marriages/households.

CBMW says:(From “Love and Respect in Marriage“) Since God himself cannot sin, he has not delegated to anyone the authority to command someone else to sin. Thus, if a husband instructs his wife to do something that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, she may properly refuse to obey, saying, “God has not given you authority to command me to do that” (see Acts 4:19-20; 5:27-32).

Thus, in just this one quote (used before on this blog) that CBMW teaches that a husband's authority is NOT absolute, and thus does not follow the first definition that Charity refers to.

I also looked up the definitions within the defintion

absolute: (the definitions that I think are most likely to be relevant)

  • Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
  • Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
  • Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.

As I have already shown, husbands ARE limited (by God), authority IS conditional (a wife may refuse to submit and/or obey if the husband is sinning or telling her to sin) and IS constrained by Scripture.

Thus, "absolute, unrestricted control" is not applicable, even with your chosen definition.

• 12 Comments

•

This is the bulk of Charity's comment from a previous post:

So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?

At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written. I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.

I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.

Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.

Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.

Taken piece by piece:

So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?

No more so than having an authority in place is a dictatorship.  No more so than a Godly husband as head of the home is "dictatorial".

By the way, why use "unilateral" as  a qualifier?  What authority is NOT unilateral? Is the qualifier needed by egalitarians to justify the portrayal of a wife as being without rights?  I'm truly wondering.
I like the Oxford University Press's entry

A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate, that is, authorized by some system of norms to which the speaker assents. The emergence of such norms in human society is a complex matter, with convention, habit, custom, and tradition playing different roles. Social contract theory is one kind of solution to the problem of the basis of authority; the evident utility of some rule-governed systems is another. While it is common to find scepticism about particular claims to authority, the idea that human co-ordination (and hence even communication) could exist without it is usually regarded as fanciful.

Back to Charity's comment:

At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written.

Actually...no.

Democracy was first introduced in the part of world where the New Testament was written...around 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.

450 - 500 BCE

"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericle's view of democracy

Paul, being an educated man, would have had the words to describe democracy.   He would even have had the word to use.

Charity said:

I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.

That is true.  Democracy is not anarchy.  But...in order to have a democracy you must be able to have a majority.  You cannot have a majority with two people, you can only have agreement or a tie.

On the other hand, usinfo.state.gov give the "pillars of democracy"

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

  • Sovereignty of the people.  (this could easily be the CBMW teaching of our equality before God)
  • Government based upon consent of the governed. (If a woman chooses to marry, that could be the "consent of the governed)
  • Majority rule. (here we have a problem, unless on spouse has the slight edge of the weight of the vote)
  • Minority rights.  (if we give the husband the slight edge of the vote, or the tie-breaker), then the wife, functioning as the minority, is protected by all of the Biblical mandates for how a husband should treat his wife.  I don't have a problem with this)
  • Guarantee of basic human rights. (Covered by Scripture - in either egalitarian or complementarian beliefs)
  • Free and fair elections. (We could call these "marriage vows" and choosing your mate)
  • Equality before the law. (or equality before God)
  • Due process of law. (CBMW urges men to listen to their wives, take feelings, thoughts and convictions into consideration.)
  • Constitutional limits on government. (Or Biblical limits - the limits that are placed by God)
  • Social, economic, and political pluralism. (I'm not exactly sure how this translates to marriage, other than the "yours is yours and mine is mine does seem to be more suited to marital anarchy)
  • Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.  (Read CBMW's "Love and Respect in Marriage"
  • A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.

I think that democracy (not dictatorship) better describes a complementarian marriage (there is a majority and minority, there is a tie-breaker, there are the protected rights of the minority, the guarantee of basic human rights)

"Anarchy", on the other hand (per wikipedia)

  • "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. (Ellen says, absence or inefficiency of a "supreme power" (in a marriage, that would be either the husband or the wife.  In so-called egalitarianism [the so-called being a hat tip to Charity] there is an absence of the primary decision maker.  To this definition fits)
  • "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).  (Ellen say, "Again, this sounds like egalitarianism.  No governing person, each individual has liberty, [without the implication of disorder)
  • "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."  (I recognize that some egalitarians would say that one person has authority in one arena, the other in another arena.  HOWEVER, egalitarians seem to balk at the idea of one person having authority over another)

All in all, "anarchy" (which can come without implication of disorder) seems better suited to egalitarian marriages than does democracy (which by definition is rule by the majority and you cannot have a majority with two people, unless one has a more heavily weighted vote).

And (all in all) "democracy" (with its protection of the minority, the limits placed by consitution (or Bible) and the values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise) are well within CBMW teaching.

Back to Charity:

I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.

Right...And this is exactly what CBMW teaches.

  • A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.B

Back to Charity:

Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.

Here are some more actual quotes from CBMW

Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her.29 Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings.30 In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering.31 These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.

and another

We believe that abuse is sin. It is destructive and evil. Abuse is the hallmark of the devil and is in direct opposition to the purpose of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.

Charity, how does this "shore up" abuse?

On the flip side, a wife in marital anarchy could easily neglect her home and family, reasoning "he's not the boss of me!"  There is the potential of abuse on both sides, from both spouses.

Charity says,

Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.

So we should have no consequences for our choices?  (NOTE:  I am NOT saying that an ABUSED woman should stay in an abusive situation.  Abuse is sin, complementarianism is not sin)

But...I know a couple who is in a wretched situation.  They are "egalitarian" and they both have a "you're not the boss of me" attitude.  Neither one has primary responsibility and they both go their own way.  Sexual neglect is the norm.  But, they both have what they chose.

Life without consequences does not exist.

There is one question that has not been answered:  How do egalitarians handle abusive marriages?