Even a casual read of the blogosphere proves that the debate over God’s order for the family is a hot one. On one side of the debate are complementarians, who argue that while men and women are entirely equal before God, this equality is expressed in different, complementary roles within marriage. Passages instructing wives to submit to their husbands, and husbands to lead their wives with respect (1 Pet. 3:7) are not simply binding, but defining of a marriage. On the other side of the debate are egalitarians, who argue that full equality in Christ means husbands and wives participate in mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), and fulfill roles within the home and church according to particular giftings. The battle rages.
However, even within each view there is not always agreement. Complementarians, for example, are known to disagree about whether the passages addressing women in worship prohibit them from leading any part of corporate worship, or simply from being elders (1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:34-36). And yet both of these views still manage to remain complementarian because the cultural implications keep its integrity intact. But what happens when other cultural implications present a threat?
Steven Tracy, in his fantastic article I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship, argues that while complementarianism supports a patriarchal view, there are enormous problems with the patriarchal culture that in fact deny biblical complementarianism. Quoting Donald Bloesch, Tracy notes that “a very real danger in the patriarchal family is tyranny in which the husband uses his power to hold his wife and children in servile dependence and submission.” And yet Tracy only tries to snatch the term “patriarchy” out of the lion’s mouth. The problem is, I believe, the lion has already devoured it. And the lion is threatening to devour complementarianism too.
The reality, whether justifiable or not, is that patriarchy has become synonymous in our culture with its corruptions. Patriarchy no longer refers to a biblical system in which the father is the loving head of his household, but to a whole host of theological and cultural oddities and abuses. Feminism is enormously to blame for this, of course. But it is not solely to blame. Ask most people—Christians and non-Christians alike—what patriarchy is, and the descriptions are nearly universal: male domination, authoritarian parenting, withdrawal from the world, spiritual manipulation, etc. Again, this is not simply because we have adopted feminist definitions. These stereotypes exist because they are no longer exceptions to the rule. Families and churches in which these abuses occur are becoming more and more common, and the common definitions now carry more weight and have more effect on our culture.
This is an enormous problem for complementarians. Because patriarchy, in its common form, is thoroughly unbiblical, it is a stain on the biblical complementarian view. Andreas Kostenberger in God, Marriage, and Family has suggested that “patriarchy” does not capture the emphasis or full meaning of the biblical idea of covenant headship, but there is also nothing in the word that requires us to use it. And I am concerned that if complementarians fail to recognize the problems that patriarchy—either as a label or as a worldview—presents and distance themselves from it, there will be a host of terrible consequences. The most devastating consequence being that those abused by the patriarchy will have no biblical protection or refuge. As Tracy woundingly notes, complementarians “have been extremely slow to address specific issues of male abuse in a detailed fashion,” and this is a tragedy we cannot ignore.
There. I have tipped my hand. I am indeed a complementarian. But that is materially beside the point. What is more to the point is that I think patriarchalism is a serious enough threat to the church and does enough damage to individuals that we need to call its bluff. Women and children (and some also argue men) are being victimized in numerous ways (as Quivering Daughters illustrates) in the name of patriarchy, and we need to be courageous enough to stand up to sin and administer healing grace. The glory of God requires it.
Oh no! I noticed that when I pasted this post from Word, I lost the hyperlink (and the formatting) to Steven Tracy's article. Here's the web address: http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/A-Corrective-to-Distortions-and-Abuses-of-Male-Headship. I highly recommend it!
ReplyDeleteMegan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting a dialogue going. I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but is there not also truth in saying: "The reality, whether justifiable or not, is that Christianity has become synonymous in our culture with its corruptions." or, "The reality, whether justifiable or not, is that religion has become synonymous in our culture with its corruptions."
And yet (with the exception of things like Peter Leithart's somewhat tongue-in-cheek "Against Christianity") we don't agree with those who would abandon those words or give them over to their abusers.
I would dispute that "patriarchy, in its common form, is thoroughly unbiblical," but probably in large part because we disagree about the "commonness" of the thoroughly unbiblical abuses, not because we disagree about the seriousness. After all, if "complementarianism supports a patriarchal view," then the biblical adherents should vastly outnumber abusers.
Geoff,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Quivering Daughters yet, but sufficient documentation exists even prior to the publishing of that work to demonstrate that there are at the very least abuses present in what has been termed "biblical patriarchy". This abuse spreads far beyond marriages and families and is even seen in the way churches are run and discipline gets exercised in certain denominational circles.
I don't see any need on the part of Megan or anyone else to retain a term like "patriarchy" when the vocabulary itself is somewhat questionable and undoubtedly extra-biblical. We retain the term "Christian" because it is thoroughly biblical despite what Peter Leithart might fantasize about in his obscure reimagination of Christendom. The same holds for terms like "justification by faith" - we do not give these terms over to Roman Catholics and others who abuse their meanings because they are part and parcel to God's Word and defined by it.
The term "patriarchy" however comes with no such biblical pedigree. It is merely an all too convenient way to talk about covenant headship in an unbalanced way and given that abuses are associated with its use I see little reason to retain it without serious qualification. So, I agree in the main with Megan's call to carefully move the discussion about these issues to safer grounds.
Guys, I simply want to thank you both for the tenor of your feedback (and disagreeement). It know these are charged issues, and I'm going to be working with a great deal of prayer to make sure these discussions are charged with respect and the grace of God that equips us to deal with life.
ReplyDeleteMegan,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing you share your ideas, given your obvious God-given abilities. On this subject, I am a little perplexed. We're told that patriarchy carries a lot of baggage, along with the fact that it is not a Biblical word; so jettison it. However, I do not find complementarianism to be a Biblical word either. Reading the literature confirms that this term also has baggage. No matter the term, it must be defined and defended against abuses and straw-man uses.
I think patriarchy is simply the general revelation fact of history. Attaching "Biblical" as an adjective is saying there is a true non-sinful way that headship should be understood and lived out given the natural order. So, let's clarify and fight for a distinctively Biblical understanding.
Your experiences must be different from mine. I see this "abusive" patriarchy movement as so small in comparison to the overwhelming feminization of the church and subsequent culture. Over the years, as a probation officer, the clear fact is that men have been encouraged to abdicate their role by feminist-accepted ideology. In the church, far and wide, men are underrepresented across the board to the point that they no longer go to church, because it is either run by women or men acting like women. I have been attempting, for years, to get churches to take my male probationers on as a project of mentoring by men, but yet to have anyone even call me back. I know that I could get some women to work with my female probationers. Why is that? An irony of the church, is that with its feminization, look at the ministries represented in it. They almost all are completely male model studies from an academic nature. What I mean by that is they are almost entirely lecture based or video run with very little regard for the differences between male and female distinctions. Example, how many churches do you know (in comparison to the above model), have a distinctly Biblical ministry where older women, "...can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." Clearly this can have cultural adjustments but when I see the vast number of examples of "women's ministries" they are simply a non-female distinctive Bible study. A man could attend with very little problem.
Currently, we have people coming unglued (I am not referring to you) when there is this small emphasis on Biblical Patriarchy amidst an ocean of emasculated males. Where is the perspective. I agree sin is sin, whether it is small in number or grand, however is the main problem with gender in the church being brought on by these "prairie muffins" or are we simply doing the work of the already established position in the church feminism and the feminization of men?
I hope my comments are not taken as dismissal of the problem and of your passions. It is another area that needs to be developed to the glory of God. I am sure that the body of Christ will benefit.
Thanks, Tom, for asking me to clarify what I've said. I didn't mean to imply that we stop using the word patriarchy because it's not a biblical word, but because it is no longer a helpful word. I believe it's become harmful, in fact. And because there's no biblical demand that we use it, we have the freedom to stop using it in favor of terms that provide a clearer, more distinctively Biblical understanding (to borrow your phrase) of headship.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with you that these definitions really need to be ironed out, and what I hope I'm doing is opening up the discussion so this can take place. It is difficult to define, or even fully describe, patriarchy, and I plan in future posts to deal with this more directly. So thanks for anticipating me, and for being willing to participate in the discussion!
I also agree that we need to look at issues like the feminization of the church and womens' ministries because they are central to this debate, and I plan to address both of those topics in the future as well. I will NOT tell you what any of the other topics are, though, because then I won't have any surprises left!
I look forward to listening to you, Tom. You've always provided gracious and thoughtful counterpoints, like a good friend should.
Megan,
ReplyDeleteIt is very comforting to know that one can speak freely on such controversial topics here at your new blog. In response to your most recent comment, I would like to to offer my opinion on why it is so important to retain the use of the word patriarchy. But first, I have a question.
Recently, our mutual friend, Andrew Sandlin, wrote the following on the issue of male headship in the family as it pertains to the two central relationships within the family (the one between husband and wife and the other between parents and children):
"the faithful wife must submit to her loving, sacrificial husband, [but]...[t]he father has no more say in the children’s rearing than the mother." (http://web.me.com/pandrewsandlin/New_CCL_2/Blog/Entries/2010/4/9_The_%E2%80%9CPatriarchy%E2%80%9D_Problem.html)
Would you say this summarizes your opinion?
My reason for preferring the term patriarchy is based upon the denial of Andrew's point. The reason why the father has "final say" (if we can call it that) in the affairs of his family, including his children, is precisely because of the fact that the wife must submit to her husband. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that Man in his essence is a Son-Father-Husband and Woman in hers is a Daughter-Mother-Wife.
Son-Father-Husbands shouldn't just seek to be heads of their own households--not if we are talking about believers. This is because leadership by nature presupposes service, literally sacrifice. A man should seek to lead in every area of life God places him, but he has a specific way of doing this within the home. One of the ways he does this is by enabling those he oversees to do the same, which is the fruit of loving his wife well, raising his children well, bringing justice to the widows and orphans, looking out for the down-trodden, and doing other such deeds of service. This is the "rule" needed in our day. Complementarianism as a term offers no such clarity.
The husband-father's service-leadership leads to a proper wife-mother service-leadership. It leads to service-leadership when children become parents, as well. You could say then that I am, in a sense, also a supporter of Biblical matriarchy, or fratriarchy and sororiarchy for that matter. This blessed rule by believers in their various spheres is the fruit of a rightly-ordered Biblical patriarchy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJacob,
ReplyDeleteYour "in a sense" support of Mother-Rule, Brother-Rule and Sister-Rule, without further clarification, could easily lead to confusion, if not outright blurring, of the difference between service/ministry (which all believers are called to, without exception) and leadership proper.
In other words, are you indicating that there may be additional spheres of domestic (and, possibly, congregational) ruling within the larger sphere of Biblical Patriarchy?
Julius
What about male governance, qualified as within the overarching concept of mutual submission as members of one another?
ReplyDeleteOr is mutual submission per the first half of Ephesians 5 right out as well?
Sigh!
Can male governance be also qualified in terms of theological economics (good old house rules, as someone ultimately has to be in charge for the sake of order)?
We make what seems so simple on one had so blessedly complicated.
Julius,
ReplyDeleteLeadership proper, or federal male headship, is undeniable. I believe the rule of fathers over their tribes, say in the OT, the covenant headship of Abraham, the commands for husbands to love their wives, for fathers not to frustrate their children, and for church officers to be men are all intimately connected circumstances of God's patriarchal design.
Yet patriarchy is a starting point. It is not good for patriarchy to be alone. From this grace flows many more graces in our relationships and we should welcome them.
An employee knows how to relate to his employer. A ball-player knows how to treat his coach. Young ladies know how receive advice from the widows. The young elders know how to take correction from the older ones. A man knows how to rule over his own passions. (see Eph 6:10)
This is blurring no more than Paul is blurring in Eph. 5:21-22. He has no problem fleshing out mutual submission by beginning with patriarchy and then moving on to all additional ruling graces. The way we live with one another, the common honor we give, must be similar in every relationship, because it all flows from the same Spirit. This is community.
If we too drastically draw a line in the sand between father rule (patriarchy) in the home and the special relationship between a mother and her daughters (matriarchy), for example, we reduce patriarchy to "pulling rank" and the organic nature of God's design is marred.
Our defense of complementarianism over and against egalitarianism has made for a sort of unwritten yet exhaustive patriarchal confessionalism. We have seen something akin to this in our defense of reformed soteriology with similar failures.
If we must posit something and we can't function without these over-arching labels (which I find are good and necessary, by the way), then perhaps we should move up one more notch on the totem and talk about dominion.
We are all called to rule because we are called to "subdue the earth" and to "go therefore, making disciples." This command preceded "society" itself.
I appreciate the comments of "Occidoxy" (whoever that is) if only because it points out an issue regarding the terms of these various views. I wrote earlier that using the standard vocabulary of the wider evangelical world was a safer place to have this discussion and I still believe that is true. The Reformed world could use a little looking outside of its own box. However, I do think many of these terms polarize the discussion in a way that is somewhat unnecessary. Must we only see this issue either as complementarians or egalitarians? Or, is "biblical patriarchy" really a third and more appropriate view? I question the validity of always seeing things so starkly without the ability to seriously qualify what is being said with a biblical wisdom that recognizes that there is value found in each and/or all of the views in question. That is why I so enjoyed Megan's last post on the Schlissels (a family that is the real deal, would that we had 10,000 ministers' families like that one in Reformed circles). You can't speak to these topics without a sense of measured qualification and to forget that is to paint a very black and white picture that does not generally accord with the reality of human experience and what the Bible portrays.
ReplyDeleteAnd, this is largely the problem I have with biblical patriarchy and especially as it is sort of matter-of-factly presented to us all on the web and in some of our churches as if it is on equal standing with the truth of the Gospel. Nowhere in Occidoxy's two posts above is sacrifice seen in its ultimate sense and yet this is *the chief way* that Paul speaks to us about husbands in Ephesians 5. This use of sacrifice is not merely a matter of give up that half hour you'd rather be doing something else or rule appropriately that you might be an example, but a sacrifice that is seen in light of the ultimate sacrifice--Christ's death on the cross. In short, the whole of who Christ (and by extension, the Godhead) is and why He came is wrapped up in that. I don't see a similar call for death and sacrifice on the part of husbands in patriarchy circles and instead hear a lot of talk about dominion and proper roles and such (almost always with excessive force on how women ought to submit). It is very similar to overreaching spiritually abusive elders who always spend their time emphasizing their authority but never really doing that which they are called to do. If we could just get those who speak of "biblical patriarchy" to approximate the language and emphasis of the New Testament in speaking about these things, we might just be in a better place to start a discussion like this.
And, this is where I part ways with Mr. Occidoxy and side with Andrew Sandlin. It may very well be that the right thing to do in a particular situation is to recognize the reality of a mother's power and authority in the life of her children and give up this idea that there must always be a patriarchal imprimatur to what a mother may say or do in the context of raising the children. Of course, one of the faults of the standard patriarchy line is assuming that everything is always so neat and tidy in terms of an ideal Victorian-like family being nuclear in form with a father, a mother, and the many kids--boys playing with pop guns and girls dressing lacy dolls. Not every family is like that and everyone has family issues that run up and down the line in terms of being different than what is presumed to be the ideal. Further, the Bible quite clearly shows through example that our modern Victorian conceptions of family do not necessarily line up with the way things were done in biblical times.
And so, what I believe Sandlin is advocating and what I second is the use of biblical wisdom in coming to these issues realizing that one size does not necessarily fit all. For example, what about families where divorce has rocked the boat and nearly tipped it over? Is father rule really still in effect when a man abandons his family? I have watched as some elders proposed and then enforced that a divorced woman and her children must come under the authority of a session of elders if no father is in the home. Or, single daughters of age can't really function as heads of their households without a father figure present. But, where is the explicit New Testament or biblical support for such a view? It just isn't there but that doesn't stop elders hell-bent on exercising what they consider their legitimate authority in patriarchal circles especially in more extreme implementations of what is briefly outlined above by Mr. Occidoxy.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I return to what I originally said. There has been a great deal of documented abuse in patriarchal circles that has come out in recent years and where there is abuse there is doctrinal and other errors clouding the way to a legitimate and right exercise of Christianity. These errors need to be rooted out and I'm so glad to see Megan and others doing published work on these topics because protecting the weak from the overly strong and abusive is a clear theme of the Gospel which cannot be ignored (cf. Ezekiel 34/Luke 4).
>>>"We are all called to rule because we are called to "subdue the earth" and to "go therefore, making disciples." This command preceded "society" itself."
ReplyDeleteThe Fall preceded society itself too but was not behavior we want to imitate.
The fact is that the Dominion Mandate (which I have no problem putting in caps and seeing in its glory with a full postmillenial light shining on it) is something to be restored, but only in light of Christ and His work. The same is true of our relationships, by consequence, and especially when it comes to the leadership of husband and wives in the home and wherever else we find ourselves.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteAfter a seven year history of reading your comments, I still find them deeply insightful delightfully eloquent.
........
Coming back to read the continued comments here, I am still prodded by the title of this post, “like a [little] splinter in my mind.”
I first learned of the term “complementarian” only three years ago. When I inquired about what it meant, I was told that because I do submit to the Word conservatively by embracing male governance in church and home (in the context of the mutual submission of love among Brethren), I classified as a “soft comp.” I deferred to the knowledge of others, those who certainly understood the term of this strange and new definition far better than I did. But after a full three years of working through many layers of teachings on the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the group that established the term, I now believe that I embraced this term in error. I am not egalitarian, but I don’t think that I can rightly call myself complementarian, either.
I passionately reject the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine. I reject the ontological subordination of women and the hegemony that is used to affirm the concept. I do not find the Covenant of Redemption to be a clear and plain teaching from Scripture, and I certainly reject that it carries implications that serve as a basis for a gender hierarchy. (Scripture should be sufficient argument alone for a wife’s call to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, my single and sole wedding vow to my husband twenty years ago.) I earnestly believe that gender is an intramural issue and not essential doctrine. I take issue with sophistry used to obscure and complicate the process of exegesis used in complementarianism. I despise the hubris that presumes to clearly discern all that even the Apostle Paul understood as mystery, a hubris which leads to the anthropomorphizing of far too many concepts in process. I have been, on a very direct level, the object of deeply personal, offensive name-calling by specific leaders in the group personally. I have been called an open theist for rejecting all of the complemenatarian package. Can I rightfully continue to apply the term to myself? At this point, I find the far more problematic than that of “patriarchy.”
I am a sinner, saved by grace and sovereignly gifted with womanhood. Working out my salvation with fear and trembling under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I ever grow into greater knowledge of the truth. By God’s grace, I am ever more transformed into the Image of Christ, growing in discernment and intimacy with my Lord and Savior. I grow daily in the fear of our Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, appreciating more deeply every day my own spiritual poverty as wisdom allows me to see the contrast. And I love and honor my husband with the same level of sobriety that I bring to my love and honor for God, the Lover of my Soul. With all the contention I feel regarding all that represents complementarianism, after three years of reading about what this concept means in greater fullness, I think now that it cheapens all of these most precious things.
Will all such terminology cheapen such matters of our faith? I don’t know. In my own right, I find complementarianism more problematic than the term of patriarchy. There was a time that I didn’t find this to be true, but like this whole debate, it has been a journey for me.
Jacob (Occidoxy), you've raised some interesting and thoughtful points, and you've also packed a lot into your comments, so I want to try to address a few of them without repeating what others have said.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you asked me whether the quote of Andrew's summarizes my position. No. At best it could be an implication, but not a summary. And frankly, I might have trouble following him there. But truth is, I have not thought about that particular detail (household authority) much. This is because my problems with patriarchy aren't primarily about household order.
I have serious reservations about the patriarchy for two reasons. One, patriarchy simply does not mean what you say it means, not any longer anyway. No matter how deftly defenders argue it, the patriarchy has lost credibility both within the church and to the world because of how rampant the abuses have become and how poorly defenders of the patriarchy have cared for the abused. This is what I have referred to as "common patriarchy", and it is unbiblical.
Two, I think patriarchy even in its more idealized form places the wrong emphasis on certain biblical truths about God’s order for human society, while completely missing other biblical truths that also inform and govern our relationships. These concerns I plan to develop in future posts.
As for complementarianism, I'm simply not sure why you think it does not offer "clarity" about the husband/father’s leadership in his home. The etymology is not as direct, sure. But we can't limit clarity to etymology. And because there's such a tremendous lack of clarity in the patriarchy (in both views and practice), I'm frankly surprised by your concern. I don’t want to imply that there everything about complementarianism is crystal-clear, but I don’t think you can claim that patriarchy is clearer on the subject.
On the whole, though, you’re right that we can't simply exchange "patriarchy" with "complementarianism" without losing some patriarchal distinctives, and I’m glad you’ve made a point of it. However, I think we must lose many of those distinctives to be faithful to the Word and to be faithful as image-bearers of the triune God. Still, I admit my opinions are continually being formed, so let’s tease it out in future posts and see where it leads!
Wow, Cindy, talk about packing it in!!! I admit I'm really mystified by some of the concerns you've raised, and no doubt that's because I do not have 3 years' (or any years') history of wrestling with these issues in complementarianism. But I am grateful for your willingness to bring them up, and hope in the future to understand better where you're coming from.
ReplyDeleteAw, Megan! I'm well loaded to "pack it in" at the moment, my heart so full as I make yet another new transition in this journey (deeply convicted to abandon the term). Though I hope to be a "salty living epistle," I don't mean for my comments as any kind of condemnation or sign of disapproval.
ReplyDeleteThese are just a few of the problems that I have found with complementarianism, so regretfully! From my perspective and along this journey, I've hoped to find much that could redeem the pleasant veneer that suggests a celebration of gender differences through the term. Others may certainly not agree, and that's fine. God will get us to where we all need to be according to His faithful promises.
I want to find a comfortable home in a "community" of like-minded believers with whom I can rejoice and not worry about circumnavigating so many rough spots of doctrine in these matters. I've found such comfort in conversation with friends like Sandlin and Johnson, along with a growing number of others who do not seem to fit any of these general paradigms very comfortably either. Yet I feel like a "(wo)man without a country." I have only a small village to call my own, it seems. That's quite alright, too.
I long for that unity, that oil that pours down over Aaron's beard and the dew of
Hermon on Mount Zion! I pray that forums like this one you've created can be a new birthplace for such unity as God brings all His people together in the knowledge of the truth. But speaking the truth in boldness and in love without compromise can become so complicated or an occasion to the flesh. It is not an easy thing as iron sharpens iron and sparks fly!
Know that I am so grateful for your own act of great courage and of sacrifice for braving this worthy cause with Hillary. I know that your reward in heaven will be great, but I hope and pray that you won't have to wait that long to reap the blessings.
ANSWERING THE "MUTUAL SUBMISSION" OBJECTION (PART I)...
ReplyDeleteAs this question has already been, helpfully, asked and answered elsewhere, at great length, let me provide the following illustrative (but fictional!) discussion (also found elsewhere) between two Christian wives:
Foolish Christian: "The Bible tells me to submit to my husband."
Wise Christian: "Yes, but the Bible tells your husband to submit to you, also."
Foolish Christian: "Oh, you mean in 1Corinthians where it talks about me having authority over my husband's body, sexually?"
Wise Christian: "Well yes, there's that; but also in Ephesians 5 where it commands us all to submit to one another."
Foolish Christian: "But that 'submit to one another' isn't a command for my husband to submit to me, but for me to submit to my husband. Look at the rest of the passage—it tells us how we're to submit to one another: Wives to husbands, and then children to parents and slaves to masters. That's what it's talking about when it tells us to submit to one another; not everyone to everyone else, but every believer in whatever subordinate position God has placed him, to the superior God has made him subordinate to. It's not willy-nilly, but ordered submission."
Wise Christian: "No, you don't get it. 'Submit to one another' is the heading of that entire section, it's what holds together everything that follows. Lots of Bibles separate it from the rest of the passage, but it shouldn't be separated. It's the principle through which we're to interpret the rest. Look at the rest of the passage; it doesn't just give commands to wives, but also to husbands; not just children, but also fathers; not just slaves, but also masters. A wife isn't the only one given a command, but also her husband. Both husband and wife are to do what Scripture says: They are to 'submit to one another.'"
Foolish Christian: "You think that's saying a husband should submit to his wife? I don't get it. If that's what it's saying, why doesn't it say it? But it never anywhere tells husbands to submit to their wives—only wives to submit to their husbands."
Wise Christian: "What do you mean it doesn't tell husbands to submit to their wives? I already showed you where it says it. Right there at the beginning. 'Submit to one another.' That's where it says it!"
Foolish Christian: "But that's ridiculous! If we're to take that verse as a command for every Christian to submit to every other Christian, what you're really saying is that every Christian in every relationship is equally a superior and a subordinate. And that's pretty convenient since it really amounts to saying that no one's a subordinate. The way you make it out to be, there's no authority at all and no Christian has to submit to anyone!"
Wise Christian: "Absolutely not! I never said there's no authority! All I said is that the wife isn't the only one who's supposed to submit in the marriage relationship. Her husband's supposed to submit, too!"
Foolish Christian: "Well yeah. Duh! Of course he has to submit. He's got a boss at work, a cop on the highway, the IRS April 15th, the pastor preaching, the elders correcting. Yeah he has to submit—all the time! I never said he doesn't have to submit. Everyone has to submit! What I was saying was that my husband shouldn't submit to me, his wife. That's wrong!"
Wise Christian: "What do you mean 'That's wrong?' That's not wrong! It's right! Read the Bible: It says right there at the beginning, 'Submit to one another.'"
ANSWERING THE "MUTUAL SUBMISSION" OBJECTION (PART II)...
ReplyDeleteFoolish Christian: "Yes, 'submit to one another' by wives submitting to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters—those are the 'one anothers' we're to submit to!"
Wise Christian: "I can't believe you. The words are as plain as the nose on the end of your face, but you won't see them! It says right there, 'submit to one another.' One another! Don't you get it, you dolt?"
Foolish Christian: "Well if I'm a dolt, you're a rebel. But let me ask you a question. If my husband's supposed to submit to me, does that go for children and slaves, too? Does the 'submit to one another' mean parents are supposed to submit TO their children and masters TO their slaves? I mean, that's ridiculous!"
Wise Christian: "Of course that's not what it means!"
Foolish Christian: "Why not? Seems clear enough to me. It says 'submit to one another.'"
Wise Christian: "Well, what kind of an idiot says parents should submit TO their children and masters TO their slaves! Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about parents or masters—only husbands."
Foolish Christian: "Yeah, I know you never said anything about them, but why not? I don't see how you get that husbands should submit TO their wives from the text and stop there. If husbands are to submit TO their wives, it's got to be—it absolutely HAS to be—fathers and mothers submitting TO their children and masters TO their slaves, too! Can't you see it?"
Wise Christian: "Don't be ridiculous! You know very well what I mean!"
Foolish Christian: "I'm not being ridiculous. I asked you a question and you're not answering it!"
Wise Christian: "Why should I? You're being ridiculous! Whoever heard of a mother submitting TO her baby? Are you a nincompoop?"
Foolish Christian: "Sure, I'm a fool; that's fine with me. I don't need your kind of wisdom."
[I agree with Cindy's comment that we enjoy taking something very simple and making it complicated. Interpeting and applying this passage need not be rocket science!]
Again, I think that the most significant aspect of this debate involves the pushing of what has generally be understood as intramural doctrine as a critical aspect of essential doctrine. This translates into elitism and demoralizing of anyone who does not accept gender as essential doctrine. If it were a matter of different interpretations within the pale of orthodoxy, it would not be an issue, and those with different convictions could respectfully agree to disagree with one another. But it has been my own painful experience that this is definitely not the case with complementarianism.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just a matter of passing on someone else's "unneeded kind of wisdom" as ROTK's offered narrative suggests. It turns into an exercise where Christians presume to be able to determine who is Christian and who is not. And they aren't very nice about it.
What is with me missing letters when I type lately? The word "be" in the first sentence above should read "been."
ReplyDeleteI do not find ROTK2001's little discussion helpful as it is posted above. For one thing, there is much in the way of inflammatory language on both sides that could be left out. For the language to be appropriate there must be legitimate reasons for it.
ReplyDeleteBut to return to the subject, to better understand what mutual submission (and really the word "mutual" is contrived and not the whole truth of it) is, it may very well be wise to take a look at the Westminster Larger Catechism's section on the Fifth Commandment where the subject is treated in a fuller light. This is valuable not merely because the Catechism helps delineate our thought in regards to the various obligations between superiors, inferiors, and equals, but also because it provides a launching point in studying an issue like this from the standpoint of relevant Scripture passages (cf. the proof-text passages provided by the Assembly).
Notice, for example, that some of the sins of superiors involve dishonoring and lessening the authority of those in place *under* them by "unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior". If that doesn't sum up the patriarchal movement in ten words or less, I don't know what does. But, the overarching point of the duties and sins of superiors over inferiors is that there is indeed a required submission implied in everything that they do for all involved. First, there is a submission to God's Word in both positive and negative senses. Then, there is submission given to one another in love that both sides of any relationship give to each other.
And, lest those unfamiliar with the Catechism object to the words of "superior" vs. "inferior", please remember that it is not implying more than merely the stations we inhabit rather than the fact that we are all one and equal in Christ. Everything must be read in context and importing modern categories into four hundred year old language is likely not wise.
Another weakness of the sample discussion by ROTK2001 given above is that there is little, if any, substantial mention of Christ, His submission, and what that looked like just as we have little reference in Jacob's posts above to the ultimate nature of sacrifice and what it means in practice for husbands.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that as Christ is head of the Church, so also ought husbands to love their wives. How did Christ submit Himself in doing what He did? It is not enough to say He submitted to His Father for his humiliation required a vast amount of submission to the point of death at the hands of the very people He came to redeem. Did He not pay the ultimate price? It is true that he submitted to His Father but the emphasis in Ephesians 5 is hardly merely a matter of submission to a higher authority at least as far as Christ and His submission is concerned. The emphasis in the passage is on a no-holds-barred submission on the part of the husband. If anything, Ephesians 5 makes the simple and profound point that the husband ought to be submitting all the more. The husband provides an example for the wife in how he lives and that His submission in love is a matter of ultimate sacrifice.
Now, while I may grant that the submission on either side of the relationship may look different because of who we are as husbands and wives, the point is that submission of the husband is being referenced here and should be taken into account when we look at a passage like this. And, there are other passages of Scripture which are relevant (cf. 1 Peter 3:7) as well as a fuller discussion on the meaning of biblical love. There isn't, really, much value in arguing for mutual submission and doing so only caves to a framing of the discussion which helps the patriarchal movement establish their case. The submission isn't mutual. The husband winds up, if he follows Christ and His sacrifice, submitting well beyond the point of his wife in her submission.
We should also remember to recognize that this passage is not chiefly about submission over or between husband and wife. The string of participles begins a bit higher than the verses in question and once we go back up the path a bit to the next available main verb we find that what we are really talking about is a Spirit-filled walk of obedience to God. In short, the passage is about carefully walking wisely with one another as children of light, being filled with the Spirit, and having our marriages and the everything else of our own individual lives marked by a submission that can only come from God and whose ultimate referent is God as He moves us by His Spirit.
And in this journey we call living the Christian life, the one in a marriage who really ought to be paying the price is the husband first, the wife second. It is a mutual submission only in the sense that both submit to one another in love and both also to God. But, the degree to which the husband submits must be seen as greater than that which is found in his wife or the patriarchal movement has nothing to say to us at all. This means that patriarchal husbands ought to drop the rhetoric and the browbeating both in the home and in church. Instead, he ought to man up and be as Christ was--not merely a servant but someone who gave everything He was for the one He loved.
Julius, I'm afraid your singleness is showing. Mothers know very well what it means to submit to their babies! But humor aside, I'm concerned that your categories are unnecessarily tight. I look forward to examining what leadership is in future posts.
ReplyDeleteKevin, you make an interesting point about the husband's submission being greater than his wife's, but I'm concerned that this doesn't do justice to the creation ordinance. Created equal in the image of God, man and woman must submit equally to God, and that submission simply takes on the character of our unique sexual natures. I'm afraid that arguing either that men submit more than women, or that women submit more than men, begins to strain at our common human nature. I agree that the patriarchy has generally misunderstood the submission of men, but I wouldn't want to swing the other direction and risk evening the score.
Megan,
ReplyDeleteI do not think your argument is with me per se. I have only taken Paul's analogy regarding Christ and His sacrifice on the cross and applied it here in the most basic of ways in accordance with the passage in Ephesians 5. If what I'm saying is untrue, you need to demonstrate how I've extended that analogy well beyond its usefulness or beyond what the text is indicating. I'm not sure you can as there is more to it than just the above comments that I've briefly made.
For one thing, it should be pointed out that there has been very little definition of the word "submission" in this discussion aside from things like service, strict obedience, or on my part--an ultimate sacrifice. Not a bad thing--I know we are just getting started in talking about this. However, more work needs to be done fleshing out that term as it is used in the Bible and really beyond that, how love and leadership both function biblically within the context of human relationships and especially in marriage. Widening the scope in that regard will help us see that this is not merely a debate about whether or not wives are to strictly obey their husbands and/or a call on my part for men to return the same to their wives in spades. As I have said above, submission may look different depending on our respective stations so I fear I may not have been as clear as I could just yet. To me it is a fascinatingly complex topic and it is no wonder that Paul uses the word "mystery" to describe these things in reference to the Church just a few sentences after his admonitions to us. We need to be careful exactly where we are potentially stretching the text to fit our preconceived notions of these words and their applicability to our lives.
To make a better effort at being clear, I'm going to cut the cord here and discuss more on your objection tomorrow sometime. There are several things worthy of mention that have yet to come up with reference to what you have outlined but a man can only type so much in one day and at this hour without collapsing. :)
Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I can tell that this topic hit a nerve and is causing us all to think more deeply and carefully. However, at this point I think we need to avoid a "pile up" and save some of the discussion about related topics (submission and leadership, egalitarianism, etc.) for their own posts. I hope this will both make discussion clearer and easier to follow, and give us all the room to remember the larger goal of walking in the Spirit as brothers and sisters in Christ. More opportunities to talk will follow!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go ahead and risk the wrath of our moderator here and respond as I originally promised even though the thread itself is (mostly) closed. I am having a sort of dual discussion on Facebook and some of what I have said there is directly relevant especially to Megan's last objection and with that I provide some of what has been said there plus a bit more in response to the objection before me.
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, I believe the terms "complementarianism" and "egalitarianism" are not exactly helpful to the debate and serve to further limit our perspectives as if everything fits in either one or the other boxes. I am not asserting mutual submission in the sense required by egalitarianism and am working to strike a biblical mean between what the text says regarding who we are in Christ as husbands and wives and what that means in light of abuse on the part of patriarchal advocates. If you would like to follow the discussion on facebook and can't because we're not friends, just send me a note with a link to your FB account (via kj@mhephx.com) and I'll add you as a friend.
To some degree, what I have noted is a matter of emphasis and application of the biblical text for the present situation where patriarchal abuses must be noted for what they are but that is no more a problem than our Lord criticizing the Sadducees by inferring the resurrection from a seemingly innocent grammatical drive-by in "I am the God of Abraham". I imagine that I do not have to tell you that we need to be much more rabbinic in our treatment of Scripture and realize it often applies in ways we do not expect.
I do believe we do not fully take into account that two become one straight from the text of Ephesians 5 and built-in to the very creation ordinance Paul originally refers to, the communion that creates, and the biblical love that is demonstrated in such a relationship. And, yet, we see the prayer life of men like David before the Father emulating who Christ was and what He was to become that *demands* of God what He has promised. And, God quite clearly relents and does as He is asked and obeys in a fuller sense than even David realized at the time. This is no slavish obedience equalizing and ignoring all else that has already been established as to the reality of who God is as if commonly put forward in parallel on the part of patriarchal men regarding the unquestioning obedience of wives, but it is seen in a voluntary submission to that which God has promised and then goes ahead and answers in his covenant lovingkindness/faithfulness on request. The fact that God does answer such (loving) demands in prayer and through communion with Him on the part of David does not in any way affect who God is as if He is somehow less because He has succumbed to the demands of a (much) lesser subject. If anything, by sending His Son and answering the prayers of His people the Father has defined submission for us in ways that we can only half emulate, if that. Such actions speak to the infinitely greater nature of such submission on behalf of God and so too with husbands who have a greater obligation (as I have argued) to fulfill their covenantal obligations to their wives than the wives do in fulfilling their own obligations. This is also seen in a less glorious light by the episode of the wicked judge who gives in to a widow (the least among women according to Scripture) who asks him incessantly for justice (Luke 18:1-8). This sort of demand based on God's promises is then magnified to its fullest in the life and continued prayer of our Lord in John 17 and the corresponding intercession He provides us with eternally before His Father.
And, as a point of accuracy, I offer the following to you in line with Bavinck and other classic Reformed theologians--the office of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King is seen not merely in the work of the husband and men but also in wives and women. All members of the Church represent their King in this regard though I immediately grant they do so in regards to their respective callings in their homes, churches, and society at large. But, you would never get that from patriarchal folks who are rabid about dominating women and ordering their life to some sort of prejudicial Victorian ideal and less so about maintaining their own obedience to God.
ReplyDeleteSo, properly understood and brought forward, I don't believe I'm giving way to an egalitarianism between men and women but merely being true once again to who we are in Christ in light of the concerns brought to the fore by patriarchal abuses.
Nor am I offering you a vision which lessens the common humanity present in each of us (if we can speak of such a thing without taking the time to define it) by noting that the husband is under a greater obligation to submit in line with the Scriptures as I have outlined above. Noting the presence of a grander responsibility does not negate the equality we all enjoy as brothers and sisters in Christ anymore than the greater responsibility the President of the United States carries in executing his office somehow makes him ontologically a better citizen than the average Joe on the street before the law. The language of Ephesians 5, the creation ordinance itself, and the marriage ordinance which closely follow it (and incidentally quoted in Ephesians 5) rightly maintains an equality of personhood that cannot be denied even though responsibilities and roles in marriages between husbands and wives may and do differ.
This is further amplified by passages such as Philippians 2 where we are admonished to consider one another as more important than ourselves and have the same mind as Christ in submitting to one another and to the Father in obedience even though, like Christ, the fact may be that one has greater responsibility or even status than another in the covenant community. So, even if equality exists (and it surely does) the husband is to assume his wife is not merely more important than his own interests but *better* than himself.
Isaiah 58:7 makes it quite clear that even our brother in need is our own flesh and there is a union and communion here being emphasized that preserves the equality necessary to justify submitting to one another on the basis of both need and obligations, whatever that obligation may be without fear that we are somehow compromising the common humanity we all share by saying someone submits more than another. To give you a more concrete example removed from the immediate context but relevant to the Isaiah passage, providing shelter, clothing, and food is certainly a greater responsibility than rightly accepting the same on the part of one who receives such kindness. In truth, what we are saying is that each submits to God and to the partner in question as God has required of him or her. And, so, speaking of it that way I manifestly agree on the one hand that we can speak of greater responsibility and yet mention as Megan does that we all submit equally in accordance with who we are as husbands and wives.
Kevin, as a point of etiquette, when I mentioned that I'd like to close the discussion because it was getting off topic, I would have preferred that you hold off with your comments until a more direct topic opened up (as I indicated they would). Or I would have been fine with you posting a 2-line comment with a link to your facebook discussion. I'm afraid I need to flex my blog muscles here a bit and mention that I'm not really the moderator, but the gate-keeper here. I have very earnest hopes for this blog, and want to be sure that I maintain it in good faith for everyone who wants to participate. Thanks for understanding.
ReplyDeleteMegan,
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I didn't think you'd mind and was speaking in jest about the wrath of the moderator. As it is, I did write specifically that I'd be responding further in my comment just prior to yours closing the thread and you didn't really specifically address me personally in terms of it. So, given that I felt like I didn't really say all that I felt moved to say and you didn't specifically prohibit me from commenting further except in perhaps the most general way, I went ahead and posted. I would have posted a couple of lines referring to my FB but as it is, the privacy settings currently in place only allow friends to read it. I felt my consideration of your objection and the corresponding material I brought to the table above were deserving of a hearing and I look forward to a further response from you when and if it becomes relevant again on the blog.
I know you have high hopes for the blog and I welcome full discussion of these and perhaps many other things. I'm not a real fan of limits on discussions as I feel it is best to be as transparent, free, and open as possible in thinking and writing these things. That said, it's your blog and I'm not here to interfere with whatever purpose you have in putting it forward. I am hopeful, however, that you and others continue to find some value in what I've already put forward and look forward a continued conversation albeit an apparently limited one for the time being.