gender

•

What I read in Genesis 1 and 2 is that God created male and female differently and He treats them differently and (where instruction is given to specifically men or specifically women) He many times gives them different instruction.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is not mentioned in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 we are told that Adam is given instruction independently of Eve - before she is even created. This infers that Eve was dependent on Adam for instruction. This was before the fall. The first recorded instance of a woman learning from her husband is from before the fall.

Also before the fall - God proclaimed: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Eve was created differently - out of man. Man and woman are created to be two parts of the whole.

In Ephesians, Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) writes,

"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. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

This reference to before the fall comes at the end of one of the longest passages in Scripture instructing (specifically) husbands and wives.

In that last sentence that I quoted, the word for "respect" is φόβος - phobeō. From which we get the word "phobia" - to fear. Strong's also gives the definition: c) to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience

Does the context of the word indicate that wives are to live in "fear" of their husbands, or that they should treat them with deference?

Especially give that a related word, φόβος - phobos is used in the same chapter of Ephesians.

...submitting to one another out of reverence (φόβος ) for Christ....

The "mutual submission" clause. We need to decide whether this statement rules out what follows, or whether this statement is explained by what follows. I believe that the statement is the instruction, what follows is the application.

We see that a general instruction of "submit to one another" is here, but then there are the specific instructions to husbands and wives that are different. Husbands and wives are instructed differently.

Why?

...it refers to Christ and the church ...

•

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.

• 33 Comments

•

And a plea for logical thinking.

The bottom line (one) is:  Is Scripture sufficient?

The bottom line (two) is:  Is Scripture trustworthy?

The text for our Palm Sunday was one that I had not heard preached on Palm Sunday - Acts 14.

(3)So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

(...)

(19)But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

When the truth is preached, people respond. Paul consistently preached the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Here is Acts 16:

(19)But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, "These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice." The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

Paul was a man who preached the truth. Every chance he got, he preached the truth. He was beaten, imprisoned, threatened with death, beaten more, imprisoned more, threatened more.

And still he preached the truth.

He knew that he was going to be martyred

2 Tim. 4:6For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Peter watched James be martyred by Herod.

Acts 12:1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.

and Peter watched. Peter was also threatened and imprisoned.

So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison.

We read of Paul being beaten, imprisoned, beaten more, threatened with death.

We read of Peter being imprisoned after watching James be martyred.

And yet they continued to preach the gospel...even under the threat of death...and the eventually DID die for the gospel; one was beheaded, the other crucified.

And yet...these are the same men who wrote PRIVATE letters to congregations and wrote

(1 Peter 3) Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands (...) Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

and

(Col. 3:18) Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

These are men who suffered and died to preach the truth of the gospel. And yet, in private letters to congregations, we see not one specific instruction to (specifically) husbands to (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about what the authorities would say?

It would seem that men who were willing to die for the truth would be willing to write to congregations in private letters what they were really wanted to teach.

We have the same man who wrote that we ought to obey God rather than man...pandered to the culture and neglected to write that (in the face of impending martyrdom for the truth) (specifically) husbands should (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about the authorities.

These are questions that egalitarians don't appear to like...at least I've asked it a number of times and I don't recall seeing it addressed when I've asked it.

1) Why would the same Pater who said, "We must obey God rather than men!" have obeyed the culture of those same men when teaching the truth of God concerning the submission of husbands to wives?

2) Why would the same Paul who was beaten, imprisoned, and martyred for preaching truth of God in the face of governmental persecution - why would this Paul have neglected a teaching about relationships between husbands and wives out of concern for what the governmental authorities might think?
3) If we believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work"...why did "inspired" Scripture leave out this teaching (unless it isn't really a teaching)?

4) If Paul wrote what God breathed out, why was GOD pandering to the culture?

5) Paul preached Christ crucified (the equivalent of us teaching to follow a common criminal executed by hanging) - why would he have been concerned about what culture thought...when preaching such an UNcultural truth?
NOTE ON COMMENTS: stick to the specific questions or comments will be closed.

Back to the bottom lines:

(one) Is Scripture sufficient?  Or does it leave us on a "trajectory"?

(two) Is Scripture trustworthy?  Or does it leave out specific instructions in order to pander to culture?

• 26 Comments

•

I linked to the list of abuse patterns - the question arose whether or not the simple (and perhaps solitary) act of preventing one who you are in a relationship with from doing something that they want qualifies as "abuse".

I say "no." I believe that you must look at the motive behind that prevention. If someone prevents you (generic you) from doing something that you want to do for reasons such as the good of a group, or for your own good, I don't think that you can rightly call that abuse.

If you (generic you) are routinely kept from doing something that you want to do for the sake of control, then I think you need to exercise great caution in that relationship.

We should (I believe) recognize that some people really thrive on structure and when they have certain restrictions, kept from doing something that they want to do, have a feeling of safety within that close structure. That's not what I write about today and falls under the "if it works for you, go for it" category.

If a man follows you around when you're out with your sister, insists on driving you to work (or school) and goes through your purse to find your cell phone in order to find out who you've been talking to...that's controlling.

If, on the other hand, a man prevents you from eating chocolate peanut butter cheesecake at Cheesecake Factory (my absolute favorite) or butter-garlic mashed potatoes at Rock Bottom (they are SO yummy!) - you would have fallen for that temptation had you not had the accountability...and he knows that peanut butter is the fastest route to an asthma attack and potatoes make your knees hurt...that is not abuse.

Last semester I was sitting next to a young women in the computer lab.  She was talking to me while we were waiting for "stuff" to come up. She was talking about her current boyfriend that she's thinking about breaking up with. I recognized some from that list and (since we were sitting at computers) I brought up that website and showed her the "controlling" list.

"That is SO him!" We talked about patterns of abuse, patterns of control and what the signals might be that should send up red flags. Ultimately, she needs to make that choice, but what we need to do is to make sure the information is easily available so that every woman knows what it is that she is looking for.

The best way to prevent domestic abuse it to avoid being in a relationship with a person who will abuse you.

That was an easy statement. Implementing that could be one of the hardest things to figure out how to do.

Teaching girls young how to spot abusers before they have a serious relationship is one way.

***We teach about birth control in high school, we teach about HIV, drinking, drug use and smoking, diet and exercise. Why can we not teach young women how to identify young men who show those signs exercising the level of control that sends up red flags?

Teaching young men how to relate to young women in a healthy way is another.

***NLP teaches me that there are two angles to reaching a goal - a negative and a positive:

  1. Having a goal ahead of you that you want to reach for
  2. Having a bad thing behind you that you want to get away from

We can have the goal of "don't be an abuser" or we can have the goal of "be a Godly husband".

"Don't be an abuser" comes with a list of "don'ts"

  • don't hit your wife or girlfriend
  • don't be controlling
  • don't follow her around
  • don't be angry
  • don't be selfish

"Be a Godly husband" comes with a list of "dos"

  • do love your wife as Christ loves the church
  • do be ready to give up your very life for her
  • do be selfless
  • do be humble
  • do be kind, gentle, faithful, honest
  • do have Christ as your example of a husband
  • do be a servant-leader

There are three ways to come at teaching young men:

-We can give them a "negative goal", which does nothing to encourage positive behavior

- we can give them a "positive goal", which offers no solutions when abuse does occur

- we can blend the two.  People sin.  Abuse is sin.  As much as we attempt to teach that it is wrong, it will happen.  We need to teach young men that abuse is sin.  We need to make it clear that if they are abusers, the church will discipline the abuser and the law will be involved.

We need to make it clear to young women that Godly leadership is NOT sin, that there are very high goals set for men in leadership positions (and that includes husbands) and that it is sinful for that leadership to be perverted into abuse.  We need to communicate very clearly that it is a good and right thing to confront sin and to get the church leadership (and law if needed) involved.

• 3 Comments

•

As a gender role discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abusers and abuse approaches one.

Godwin's Law:

Basically, Godwin's Law is the natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin concerning Usenet "discussions".  It reads, according to the Jargon File:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Fallacy Files says:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association. (...)
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".

Let's think for a minute in terms of the gender role "conversation".

try this:

As a gender role discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abusers and abuse approaches one.

• 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?

• 10 Comments

•

The quote: from Husbands Who Love Like Christ and the Wives Who Submit to Them:

Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It's a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership. And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That's not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.

In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.

(...)

There is no contradiction between mutual submission and a relationship of leadership and response. Mutual submission doesn't mean that both partners must submit in exactly the same ways. Christ submitted himself to the church in one way, by a kind of servant-leadership that cost him his life. And the church submits herself to Christ in another way by honoring his leadership and following him in on the Calvary road.

So it is not true that mutual submission rules out the family pattern of Christ-like leadership and church-like submission. Mutual submission doesn't obliterate those roles, it transforms them.

What this means to me:

If we see headship and leadership within the framework of responsibility, not right, it becomes a loving response to a loving God. Godly submission of a godly wife becomes a loving response to a loving husband.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from "Do you believe in 'mutual submission' the way Paul teaches in Ephesians 5:21, 'Submit to one another'?"

Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren't if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ's headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

What this means to me:

The key is love. The key is different. There is no conflict between love / leadership / submission. As sinful mankind, we can inject a conflict where one does not belong, but a man or a woman sinning in an authority structure does not make the structure wrong, it makes the sin wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from "Building a Christ Centered Marriage: How Husbands and Wives Can Complement One Another in Marriage"

The traditional camp, on the other hand, advocates equality before God, but is committed to complementarianism, rather than egalitarianism. This is the belief that, while men and women are equal before God, they serve him in complementary roles which are not always identical and in some cases ought not to be. These complementarians recognize that there is "neither male nor female" in terms of our relationship to God (Gal. 3:28). But they also recognize the other biblical texts which counsel that men and women possess distinct abilities and callings (such as 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:9-3:7). In the home there ought to be male headship (though not domination) and womanly submission (though not fearful servility). Complementarians insist that to be truly evangelical we must confess that there is no contradiction over this matter in Scripture, and to be truly biblical we must affirm both the spiritual equality of men and women and also the distinctions and differences in roles that are taught in the Bible.

What this means to me: Men and women should fit together like a jigsaw puzzle - heart to heart, mind to mind, soul to soul. Not like identical and interchangeable gear cogs.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from Armorbearer:

i agree, women are not afforded the courtesy of dignity in many cases, but the problem is not patriarchy. the problem is men acting like buffoons. the remedy then is not feminism and matriarchy or swapping one bully for another, the remedy is mutual submission. rightful authority.

What this means to me: Some parents abuse their children; that does not mean we should remove parental authority. Some pastors are abusive; that does not mean that we should abolish pastoral authority. There are some bad bosses; that does not mean that the position of "boss" is bad. A president may lie under oath, or knowingly accept bad intelligence; that doesn't mean that the office of presidency is evil.
Abuse is sin, it does not follow that the structure is sinful, but the person within that structure.

• 5 Comments

•

This is a beautiful verse about the way a marriage should be handled. I'm still trying to figure out how to get Greek letters in here...

But Young's Literal Translation (awkward but accurate) says:
Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;

A couple of things really popped out at me...

Defraud is just like it sounds. I've done some studies on Old Testament marriage contracts and there were three things that were always guaranteed. A home (the husband provides and the wife maintains), food/oil (the husband provides and the woman prepares) and bed (sexual relations). These three things were so important, if any of these three were denied on a regular basis, it was grounds for divorce. To enter into a marriage and refuse the marraige bed was to defraud the mate of marital rights.

except by consent: this really caught my eye, concerning marriage in general.

sumphonou - sounds like "symphony" and means, in harmonious accord. Isn't that the way a marriage should work? Each half of the whole striving to be in harmonious accord. Just like the word that we get from this, symphony - it doesn't imply that you are in lockstep. Just like a symphony, each partner plays his or her own instrument. One time, one will have the melody, another time, the other will. And each time, their mate will be behind them, harmonizing, supporting. A symphony wouldn't be a symphony if everyone played the same note! So it is with marriage.

pros kairos hina scholazo - for a limited time, in order to give oneself to

fasting and prayer

and again may come together, (be one flesh, husband and wife, give one another comfort and pleasure)

that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence; How many people have fallen, because their spouse didn't pay attention to the consequences of denying their other half? I submit that a husband or wife that denied his or her spouse is a stumbling block the likes of which few people ever see.

This verse communicates the importance of "one-flesh-ness" and the importance of setting it aside only for the things of God, and then only for limited times.

I would submit that a husband or wife should not have to go without marital relations (unless there are special circumstances that prohibit them) for any longer than they also expect their husband and wife to go without food.  There is no reason for denying one's spouse the comfort and pleasure that a marriage bed should bring.  (The last paragraph has been edited just because it  was an awkward sentence and didn't quite say what I wanted it to say.