In a previous comment way back somewhere (I can’t find it now), I ruminated about the possibility that in our debating over roles and the meaning of roles, we might be skipping over some important distinctions in the frenzied tossing about of concepts back and forth.
After much private ruminating, I think have enough text for a series. I won’t consider this a work of academic proportions, as I didn’t engage in extensive research and won’t have a barrage of citations. However, as something to chew on, I hope it passes muster.
Between Complementarianism and Patriarchy
As I see it, ground level complementarianism simply states that there are divinely purposed roles for men and women to function in the family and in the church (yes, some roles not being swappable). Patriarchy can be seen as an extreme form of complementarianism, but I believe that its characteristics are less an extension of Complementarianism and more like Complementarianism’s ‘cult,’ like the Jehovah’s Witnesses are to Christianity(1). Therefore, I find much about patriarchy’s views on complementarian principles objectionable.
1. Husband/father headship. Complementarianism simply gives the husband/father the role of representative leader that carries a unique accountability to God (Genesis 3). With that role logically comes a certain amount of authority. Complementarianism does not place the husband over the wife in terms of authority but logically maintains that deference be given to him because of his position. Is this a “priviledge?” If it is, it is a slight one and one not without narrow limits. This is not male hierarchy or male superiority any more than it is female inferiority.
Patriarchy seeks to centralize all authority to the head position and expands its reach into areas of life that minimizes the other figure in the marriage and home, namely the wife. Patriarchy views wives as means to the husbands’ ends. From this point of view comes all the examples of husbands micromanaging (to put it nicely) their wives’ lives for the purpose of making husbands’ lives fulfilled and convenient. This is neither biblical nor justifiable. Scripture gives to the man a wife as a helper. Nowhere does the Lord God call her a maid, a butler, a servant, a tool, and certainly not a slave. As my pastor once preached as well, “Marriage is not to make you happy; it is to make you holy.” Indeed, God commands the man to leave his home (meaning his familial identity) and cleave to his wife, yet patriarchy insists on the husband making the wife conform to his leanings and identity. One could more biblically state that the husband should be the one conforming more to his wife’s identity instead.
What does the position of head contain? A man has the responsibility to make sure that what he and his family does is right in the sight of God, simply put. He is the one that has to answer for the collective state of his household; this doesn’t mean that he speaks for his wife as an individual, but for both husband and wife as a unit.
2. One flesh unity in marriage. Complementarians and Egalitarians both agree that husband and wife should act together in building the character of their marriage and family. Patriarchy seeks to make this task univocal rather than in unity, and since authority is centralized in the husband, he then might find himself deciding things that he likely has little wisdom to give, like how many babies his wife should bear, what clothes his wife should wear, determining the occupations of his children beforehand, etc. The result is clearly not one flesh unity, but forced conformity (as discussed above).
3. Eve was created to be Adam’s helper/helpmate. Complementarianism acknowledges that Eve wasn’t just any female, but Adam’s wife, pointing to a relationship between the two that existed the moment she began to exist. Outside of this relationship, who Adam and Eve were to each other would have been meaningless. Similarly, as Complementarians apply the Adam & Eve theme to the rest of humanity, it only makes sense in a marriage relationship that a woman is her man’s helpmate. Therefore, there cannot be any patriarchal generalization that females in society are helpers to males in society. Thus, it is not wrong for women to hold positions of civic authority over men and similarly not wrong for women to have authority over men in the church provided that their authority does not violate a more foundational principle of 1 Tim. 2:12 (that women cannot have authority in church over their own husbands).
4. Wives are to submit to their husbands. That ‘wives are to submit to their husbands’ does not conversely mean that husbands are not to submit to their wives, yet this is precisely what patriarchy implicitly holds. (Oh, perhaps husbands may submit to their wives, but in patriarchal terms, such submitting must be done only if he wills or desires to submit. Pathetic.) A wife’s submission is to God first and to her husband second and that submission to her husband is because of her submission to God. I am not now going to kill wifely submission with a thousand qualifications, so please don’t misunderstand when I say that when a husband is sinful in his treatment and demands of his wife, her obligation not to sin is greater than her obligation to submit to her husband, so a wife should not feel compelled to obey the will of her husband in those times. Let me be redundant for clarity: a husband’s sin need not be his wife’s sin as well.
5. Should a husband submit to his wife? We’ve asked this question before on Complegalitarian without making this particular distinction, so allow me to make it here. Patriarchy says ‘no.’ Complementarians should correct the question to read “When should a husband submit to his wife?” As stated above, the mandate that wives are to submit to their husbands doesn’t negate the fact that husbands need to listen and submit to their wives–when?–on the occasions that they should submit to their wives. This is what “mutual submission” means to me. It isn’t 50/50, because 50/50 can be unjust by disregarding the nature of the subject.
First of all, these are not contrary statements. One may now try to accuse me of using an argument from silence, but I’ll remind us that it is legitimate when we would expect circumstances to otherwise contradict the silence. In a couple of instances in scripture, we see married women acting without any explicit direction from their husbands in action very much in accordance to the providence of God.
Example 1 – In Genesis 2:1-4, Moses’ mother orchestrates the saving of Moses’ infant life by putting him into the basket in the river and then directing Miriam to watch over the baby.
Example 2 – To Moses again, his wife is the one that decides to circumsize their sons without his intitial knowledge.(Exod. 4:24-26) If patriarchy (the kind we’re talking about) were the case, we would expect to see a reprimand of some kind of both women for making decisions that their husbands had to comply with–ahem–submitted to. But we don’t. Instead, we see Yahweh’s implicit approval of these women as having acted in accordance to His will when (especially in the latter case) the husband had not.
As a Complementarian, I see many problems with Patriarchy and agree with many of our Egalitarian commenters about them. However, I do object to the blurring of Complementarianism to share Patriarchy’s views in the same way and in the same relationship.
(1) The most striking similarity about this comparison is the psychological irony that both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Patriarchalists seem to play out, that all things so done by the ruling authority in the name of loving God and loving family actually end up robbing God and family of the love they truly ought to receive by substituting a false love of cultish control and demanding compliance in all things.
FANTASTIC post, Letitia. Thank you for so clearly drawing the lines. This has been very helpful for me.
PS.
Where do you see CBMW fitting with these two distinct groups?
Letitia, I echo Molly’s thanks, and I look forward to other posts in your series.
I understand you to say that a husband is the “representative leader” for the marital unit (“one flesh”). Did I understand correctly?
Who then, if anyone, is the representative leader of a woman who is an adult and unmarried? Does she represent herself to God? If an adult single woman marries, does her role change from representing herself to God to her husband representing the family unit to God? Do I assume correctly that you would believe that for some matters the woman would still represent herself to God even after she is married? Would only issues pertaining to the marriage unit would be represented by the husband?
“What does the position of head contain? A man has the responsibility to make sure that what he and his family does is right in the sight of God, simply put. He is the one that has to answer for the collective state of his household; this doesn’t mean that he speaks for his wife as an individual, but for both husband and wife as a unit.”
Where is this pointed out in scripture that the husband will answer for the state of his “wife” to God? How is not speaking for her ‘individually’ different from speaking for her as a unit made up of both? Are you saying that he will be judged personally for his wife’s behavior, beliefs, etc?
Are you also saying that the wife will not have to answer for the collective state of the family? Only the husband?
The husband is, of course, responsible and answerable for HIS own actions, thoughts, etc. toward his wife as she will too.
Both are responsible for the state of the family.
I liked your post but unfortuantly, the ‘mainstreamed’ arbiter of complimentarian teaching, CBMW, does not teach what you presented here.
“In a previous comment way back somewhere (I can’t find it now), I ruminated about the possibility that in our debating over roles and the meaning of roles, we might be skipping over some important distinctions in the frenzied tossing about of concepts back and forth.”
I would like to ask why we allow the word ‘role’ to be assumed in any biblical discussion. As if there are roles to play in this Christian life. there are no roles. We are to love God and others. We don’t play a role. We are to ‘be’ in Christ.
I am offended by this invented new ‘Christianized’ word. It is not biblical.
Thank you, Letitia. I appreciate the clear thought you bring to the discussion.
Yet, I cannot agree with some of your conclusions, because, as a military brat with a Mom who exhibited amazing leadership skills during the long absences of my Dad, and the wife of a senior management engineer gone two weeks out of every month, the reality is that yes, roles are swappable.
I am absolutely equally responsible for representing our family in the public and private arenas, and I am no less responsible when the BH is in the building.
This is what I do not understand about comps…in the real world, there is very little in the way of family and public interaction dynamics that may not be handled by either husband or wife/ Mom or Dad.
Thanks for this post, Letitia. It definitely narrows in on some of the most salient points in the gender debate.
I hope you’ll indulge me a few questions:
1. I can’t help but wonder how there can be a distinction between man and wife regarding male/husband headship that at the same time amounts to no distinction at all in terms of equality. How might a husband possess a certain amount of authority as representative leader yet not, at the same time, be placed over his wife in terms of authority? It seems to me that if there is some deference owed him that does not have a complement in some deference owed his wife, then he does have a certain amount of authority over her, and therefore is placed over her in some way.
I can accept that a man can be the representative of his family and receive honor and deference for being in this position. Yet this seems to be closer to “different yet equal” than him being a representative leader. It is the “leader” language that I have difficulty finding proper defense for.
Further, I do not see this defense in Genesis 3. If the defense is found in Genesis 3 (:16), then this husband-leadership is a result of the Fall. Yet it is my understanding that complementarians find basis for such leadership pre-Fall, in the creation means and order.
Or, if the defense is found in the fact that Adam (“the man”) was driven from the Garden of Eden, and Adam is held responsible for sin entering the world (Romans 5), I would counter that perhaps Adam is held responsible because he partook of the forbidden fruit in a more deliberate way than did Eve – she was deceived, and ate; he, not being deceived, still ate.
(cont.)
Back to the matter of equality – It’s one thing to be different yet equal, yet another for one to have an authority that another does not, to which that other is accountable, and call that equality. It is true that Galatians 3:28 states that we are all one in Christ, which does indeed show that there can be equality and oneness in relationships in which there is some sort of hierarchy of authority. Yet is there indeed an inequality of authority in marriage? I wonder, because in marriage there is a unity and oneness that go beyond that which all humans have in Christ, one that is not present in parent-child or slave-master relationships. And there is no inequality of authority between people of different races.
(cont. again!)
btw, Letitia, I think your points #s 2, 4, and 5 are terrific.
What does the position of head contain? A man has the responsibility to make sure that what he and his family does is right in the sight of God, simply put. He is the one that has to answer for the collective state of his household; this doesn’t mean that he speaks for his wife as an individual, but for both husband and wife as a unit.
I’m wondering how a man can rightfully control his wife to the extent that he could rightfully be held more responsible than her for a unit that she also has responsibility toward. I do not think that this is a rightful burden for a husband to bear. He can’t help if one of his children goes prodigal, past whatever he may have done to contribute; the child is still responsible for his (or her) part of it. He is responsible to manage his household well, as far as he can, but…so is his wife.
(and…part IV
)
Letitia, I’m curious to learn the exegetical basis for interpreting I Tim. 2:12 as being directed toward husbands and wives specifically. (There is a similar problem in I Cor. 11.)
It seems to me inconsistent to say that a woman can lead other men in church but not her own husband. If it is true that she can have authority over a man in a civic position, yet not over her husband in church, would she be allowed to have authority over her husband in a civic position?
It also seems inconsistent to make a distinction, spiritually, between civic and church positions in terms of gender authority. A Christian serves/ministers in every type of work s/he does regardless of setting, doing it all as unto the Lord, in the Spirit and wisdom of God in Christ. Therefore, while the specifics of the work in different settings may be different, nevertheless the same moral laws govern them all.
(and…this is the last installment!)
I think where you and I differ, Letitia, is that I see basic hierarchical complementarian doctrine as the basis for patriarchy, which is not merely a cult or complementarianism gone wild, but simply a hugely ramped-up version. If we start with a flawed premise, even if mild, when lived out to its extreme, it will look pretty ugly. Yet even in its mildest form, it will still be wrong. The flaw, imo, is the notion of a hierarchical authority based upon gender, because it represents an inequality, no matter how you slice it.
I’ll also throw in that a lot of the problem for me lies in what I see as a conflict between ontological and functional interpretations of the identity and purpose of the sexes. Where comps see functional definition, I see an ontological one. Yes, ontology will be realized in function, but not in obeying certain rules of function. Function is a natural result or playing-out of actual ontology, and a redeemed ontology will result in redeemed function, while un-redeemed or dishonest (not true to created purpose) ontology will result in an assumed role rather than a genuine one. (Bad explanation, sorry, but best I can do at the moment!)
A great deal of complementarianism seems to me to make assumptions about what proper gender roles are, way above and beyond what they actually are. That is to say, I don’t deny the complementary nature of the sexes, far from it. But I don’t see it defined as roles gender-specified near to the extent that complementarianism spells them out.
(And, yes, I could be wrong about the hierarchy/equality thing as it applies to marriage, and to men and women. Maybe there is one. But my brain is currently too feeble to grasp it.)
Thank you, Letitia,
for your willingness to note agreements with egals and disagreements with extreme forms of your own position.
As I see it, you are seeking to speak of the exercise of authority of a husband in marriage in a way that conforms with the holiness and perfection (be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect) Christ calls all to embrace.
I am not a comp nor the son of a comp, to play off the words of the prophet Amos, but I have no trouble affirming with you the convictions you express. For example:
What does the position of head contain? A man has the responsibility to make sure that what he and his family does is right in the sight of God, simply put.
I have been blessed and am blessed to have many traditional evangelical and traditional Catholic friends with precisely this notion of what headship means. It is a beautiful thing to see a husband who knows, and is humbled by the responsibility that comes with knowing, that “the buck stops here.” This does not get the wife off the hook should the husband abuse that responsibility for selfish or evil ends. But it confers a dignity on the husband that in no way amounts to a put down of the wife. I have seen the the quiet beauty of this dynamic at work, particularly in couples of previous generations or in younger couples but of Asian culture, on many an occasion. It is not an easy dynamic to replicate in a society like our own, in which people think in terms of rights rather than responsibilities. Egals no less than comps need to redress the cultural balance in favor of clear and active lines of authority.
You also say:
Patriarchy seeks to centralize all authority to the head position and expands its reach into areas of life that minimizes the other figure in the marriage and home, namely the wife. Patriarchy views wives as means to the husbands’ ends. From this point of view comes all the examples of husbands micromanaging (to put it nicely) their wives’ lives for the purpose of making husbands’ lives fulfilled and convenient.
I detest the micromanagement of which you speak as much as you do, but I wouldn’t label it patriarchy. Healthy patriarchal culture, such as that legislated in the Old Testament and that which characterized Christian households in Greco-Roman times, accorded women domains of authority in which she reigned supreme. A close reading of a text like Proverbs 31 makes this clear.
Historically speaking, the micromanagement of which you speak is a perversion of patriarchy. Of course, no one wants to be labeled a patriarchalist, so the label is often used to describe tyrannical attitudes and behavior of husbands who claim to have the Bible on their side, but clearly do not.
Here is a statement I find to conform to Scripture perfectly, but which is very challenging for many egals:
Complementarianism acknowledges that Eve wasn’t just any female, but Adam’s wife, pointing to a relationship between the two that existed the moment she began to exist.
The truth of this statement is backed up by human experience on multiple levels. But the principle is fiercely challenged by a part of feminist culture and by gay culture with few exceptions. According to the challengers, the mutuality to which we are hard-wired and towards which we should be nurtured should not be defined at its most basic level in terms of male-female complementarity, but rather, in terms of same-sex mutuality, female to female, and male to male.
This is not to say that same sex friendships are wrong in the least. They are not however to be understood as foundational to the created order to the same degree as marriage.
On the one hand, both consecrated marriage and consecrated singlehood are understood by Paul to be spiritual gifts, or charismata, which God endows. On the other hand, marriage alone is grounded in both the order of creation and the order of redemption. Consecrated singlehood is grounded in the order of redemption alone.
Letitia, I look forward to your upcoming posts. As I found to be the case with David’s recent posts, your careful distinctions and clear reasoning go a long way to clearing up misunderstandings to which egals are prone.
Molly,
Everyone should know that I’m no fan of CBMW, as I think their argument on primogeniture is considerably overstated. Their current posture on gender
roles puts them closer to patriarchy than to me, but then again, I wouldn’t use myself as a measuring stick.
Wayne,
A federal headship like the one I’ve described only applies within a marriage relationship, and it is, as I stated, representative of the couple/family together.
If an adult single woman marries, does her role change from representing herself to God to her husband representing the family unit to God? Do I assume correctly that you would believe that for some matters the woman would still represent herself to God even after she is married? Would only issues pertaining to the marriage unit would be represented by the husband?
As I understand marriage, everything changes for both women and men, as they are not known together as two individuals anymore, but a married couple (try as I might I can’t find a stronger word to indicate togetherness of the married kind other than “married,” go figure). But I fear that hardening what is supposed to be a general principle into a bunch of little rules artificializes how it works in everyday life. A married woman has taken on a dominant relationship in her life, but she does not lose her identity or class in marriage. (Notice that in the Garden God asks Adam first for a confession, but also asks Eve what she has done.). I see that the husband is appointed to speak for the household, but that doesn’t mean conversely that wives are shut out.
Lin said:
Where is this pointed out in scripture that the husband will answer for the state of his “wife” to God?
I didn’t say that he will answer for the “state” of his wife, but now that you’ve brought it up, there is a sense in which that is true. As for a scriptural reference, this is what systematic theology does–glean principles and truths from examples in scripture. So, I hope that God’s encounter with Adam and Eve after they ate the fruit is good enough. I hope that the mandate to produce a good homelife as a qualification of a worthy leader in church is good enough (1 Tim. 3). And I hope that Eph. 5:25-33 is explicit enough that a husband is responsible for the “state” of his wife.
How is not speaking for her ‘individually’ different from speaking for her as a unit made up of both?
Because marriage is different.
Are you saying that he will be judged personally for his wife’s behavior, beliefs, etc?
I would think that depends on the context to which you refer.
Are you also saying that the wife will not have to answer for the collective state of the family? Only the husband?
As a general rule of logic, the converse of any statement is not automatically the case unless there is warrant to believe so. I think I said something like that in the post and in other comments by way of example.
ahunt,
Thanks for the insight into your family dynamic growing up. I like to think that I, myself, am a Mom that exhibits great leadership skills.
I think a further distinction that needs to be made here is not in ‘how much’ but rather ‘what kind’ of representation husband and wife differ relative to the family as a whole. I find no problem that a wife represents her household at all or how often and I say nothing about a woman’s ability to do so (I do it all the time). That seems beside the point. As I stated in the post, it seems there should be a logical deference attributable to the husband for his unique position in the home, relative to the wife, relative to God.
I see that the husband is appointed to speak for the household, but that doesn’t mean conversely that wives are shut out.
Both parents are legally responsible for their children. If something goes wrong each parent is equally a responsible. Are we saying that the husband has at least 51% of the vote all the time? The wife can always be outvoted.
I have trouble with the legal position of this doctrine as it relates to the law. I am surprised that it is legal to teach something that counters the legal system when it comes to the welfare of children. A social worker makes a phone call to tell the mother about some trouble the children are in, the mother is liable in the same way the father is. That is just the way it is. I don’t think God excuses mothers from their responsibility either.
Just because we know of complementarian or traditional couples that are attractive to us, that does not make this teaching right. It is irrelevant.
Oh, Letitia, sorry I wasn’t clear. I’m aware that you don’t follow CBMW, but I was just wondering where you, as a comp, feel that they fall on the spectrum you’ve shared in the post between comps and egals. (Unfortunately, I think they’d disagree with your take on what a comp is, and unfortunately, you don’t have a handbook of Biblical manhood and womanhood published and they do). But, if it’s of any worth, I wish you did.
I have to say that this blog is a little bit surreal. Men and women together discussing how men have more rights than women. Women who suffer and men who think its okay for women not to have the same rights as men do over themselves. A little callous, don’t you think? Its a bit dark ages.
bonnie,
Take a look at Greg Koukl’s article concerning the common translation of “man”/”men” and “woman”/”women” 1 Tim. 2:11-15, titled “Women Teach in Church?”
“As for a scriptural reference, this is what systematic theology does–glean principles and truths from examples in scripture. So, I hope that God’s encounter with Adam and Eve after they ate the fruit is good enough. I hope that the mandate to produce a good homelife as a qualification of a worthy leader in church is good enough (1 Tim. 3). And I hope that Eph. 5:25-33 is explicit enough that a husband is responsible for the “state” of his wife. “
Only if they are misinterpreted!
) But we have been through each one ad nauseum so I won’t go there.
A husband is responsible to love his wife in a sacrificial way. Not to sanctify or purify her. Only Christ can do that.
Whose ‘Systematic Theology’ are you referring to?
“(Notice that in the Garden God asks Adam first for a confession, but also asks Eve what she has done.)”
This could very well be because of this:
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. (Gen 2)
The Hebrew is ‘protect’ or guard. The man was given a job in the Garden he did not do.
The first thing we hear after eating the fruit from God is this:
9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
“I see that the husband is appointed to speak for the household, but that doesn’t mean conversely that wives are shut out.”
If we take your belief to it’s logical conclusion that this means Adam was appointed to speak for the ‘household’, then it only follows that he fell down horribly on the job and is not qualified for any leadership. He even blames Eve AND God. Yet Eve, admitted she was deceived.
Adam was in charge of guarding the Garden even before Eve was created. Not once does God make it clear that this means authority over Eve. As a matter of fact, the manner in which she was created (animals first so Adam would see HIS need for help comparable to him) shows us a ONE FLESH UNION. Not an ‘authority/follower’ union. NOt once does God say anything about Adam being responsible for what Eve did. Adam was responsible for not doing his job and for going along. He did not even take responsibility when questioned.
Everything taught about Adam’s authority over Eve in the pre-Fall Creation account has to be READ into it. God never ONCE makes it clear there is an authority/follower relationship with Adam and Eve. We insert that Greek concept of hierarchy (Chain of Being) because we cannot fathom that someone is not always in charge of others. And we do it now within the Body usurping the authority of Jesus Christ.
A little callous, don’t you think? Its a bit dark ages.
While I understand the “dig”, if a “system” is Biblical (and most here recognize that both egalitarian and complementarian meanings can be read into the Scriptures that speak to husbands and wives…
For those of us who are after the most Biblical reading (on either side), “callous” and “dark ages” are not exactly terms to further conversations.
But (I guess), such is life.
Ellen,
I’m not sure if wyn meant it as a “dig.” For someone coming in from the outside of Christianity, I think this would seem a little dark ages. Consider the reaction of your typical curious bystander to the things we usually talk about in these discussion boxes…
Often, these sorts of conversations are not the thing that would make someone want to know Jesus (my humble opinion).
It’s just an observation.
But I think it’s an important one.
Letitia, Koukls article is excellent except that he totally ignores the interpretation problems with ‘authenteo’. Kind of a big thing to ignore within the context.
)
Often, these sorts of conversations are not the thing that would make someone want to know Jesus (my humble opinion).
I guess my response would be: how would a Christian marriage best reflect the church’s submission to Christ? Christ’s headship of the church? The love each has for the other, including the leadership/submission/sacrifice?
It is no secret that the Christian world view is very different from a secular world view (until the church chooses to reflect the world).
That being said, may I refer to the tag line on this blog?
This is the best articulation of this subject I’ve read to date. The best.
bonnie x5,
For the sake of brevity, I will try to address your installments in one shot, only picking up on the highlights.
It is the “leader” language that I have difficulty finding proper defense for.
…
I’m wondering how a man can rightfully control his wife to the extent that he could rightfully be held more responsible than her
I think you’re hitting on another distinction that needs to be made, that of leading and controlling. Not the same thing, IMO. (I’ve added it to my list of things to write about) Certainly no man can be held accountable for things beyond his reach in a couple’s relationship. But there is also certainly a very wide gulf between omnipotence and a shrug.
Your questions about authority, inequality, and hierarchy…
I think it is important that we do not confuse roles with status or value. I often think of an analogy of marriage as being on a corporate team of workers trying to please the boss. I don’t know of any team that doesn’t have a team leader that has a unique position in the group but it doesn’t also make that person better than everyone else. It’s a hierarchy that doesn’t spell inequality, so neither do I think hierarchy in marriage spells inequality for women.
But interesting you should bring this up, because I’ve held a maverick view of hierarchy in C for a long time now which I intend to flesh out at the end of this series.
It seems to me inconsistent to say that a woman can lead other men in church but not her own husband. If it is true that she can have authority over a man in a civic position, yet not over her husband in church, would she be allowed to have authority over her husband in a civic position?
I don’t see an inconsistency anymore than any other conflict of interest issue. The marriage relationship should take primacy over other relationships that a couple might find themselves in. For example, a woman may be a police officer, but she should not be made to arrest her own husband if he breaks the law (or vice versa)! As far as I can tell, the context of 1 Tim. 2 is confined within the church.
john hobbins,
Thanks for reading. I agree that our usage of the term “patriarchy” is not historical. Patriarchy of late refers to male dominance and control of women in a more abusive fashion rather than a societal structure. Thank you for your comments.
‘It is the “leader” language that I have difficulty finding proper defense for.”
That is because there are no leaders in Body within the NC. There are only servants. The only authority is the Word. We have mistaken ‘head’ for leader/authority. We have mistaken elder for human authority when it is really about spiritual maturity.
Who would follow a false teacher, wolf or hirling because they have a specific bibilical ‘title’ conferred by men and not the Holy Spirit?
Unfortuantly, lots of people do.
lin said:
Whose ‘Systematic Theology’ are you referring to?
I am referring to the act of working out a systematic theology, not someone’s ST.
A husband is responsible to love his wife in a sacrificial way. Not to sanctify or purify her. Only Christ can do that.
No argument there.
wyn,
I’m not sure, but interjecting categorically different content into the discussion to demean the participants might be a little callous, don’t you think? Honest questions are always welcome, but ungracious comments will be moderated out.
I’ll try again.
What is the difference between a hierarchy with a 51-49 split and a 100-0 split? If the husband can always outvote the wife then there is a hierarchy. It is a hierarchical relationship.
This is observed in many cultures and we deal with this all the time. Legally we contact one parent, either one, but in reality, the wife may have no say. This is not uniquely Christian, nor even predominantly Christian. In fact, I would have said that this was a problem less likely to be encountered among Christians. I could understand if both parents had to agree, but medically and legally one parent has to sign many documents.
But now I know to be more aware of Christian mothers who don’t have authority over their own children. I suspect that sometimes they may be told to sign documents against their will. But in the law a mother has equal responsibility for her children.
Letitia,
Refreshing! I truly appreciate you taking the time to put this altogether. As a very squishy comp and someone who is very concerned about the patriarchal doctrine being taught in my circles (and very much edging in on mainstream complementarianism), I am happy to see these sorts of distinctions.
I pretty much agree with your beliefs as stated in this post. Except that I do not see the bible giving fathers the term of “head” of their daughters or their sons. Patriarchalists will teach that a father is head to his daughter until he transfers his authority over her to her husband, if and when she gets married. If she never gets married, then she is to always be in her father’s house, under his roof, serving him and fulfilling his desires and vision.
I see that the Bible tells the child that he/she is to obey and honor BOTH father and mother and I see no distinctions given in scripture as far as a father’s authority over a child or a mother’s authority over a child. They are always seen as a unit, as far as I know, and the child is told to obey and honor them both.
The only time I see “head” being used is in the husband/wife relationship.
I do agree with your assessment on what patriarchy teaches about the authority to the head position.
Again, your post is refreshing for a struggling complementarian who is quite tired of patriarchy being taught as the only biblical way to view family.
But now I know to be more aware of Christian mothers who don’t have authority over their own children.
Which (in reality) happens seldom outside of the “hard patriarchy” movement (which most of us here either recognize as the extreme or choose to see as “mainstream comp”)
Most of the “comp” women I know recognize an “order” within the home (the husband as the head, as we define it today), but with her full participation in decision making.
When I found myself fighting for that straight-up 50-50, I started looking at the pride issues. Why do I not want to submit as the church submits to Christ? What is in me that needs to get my way?
WYN: But now I know to be more aware of Christian mothers who don’t have authority over their own children.
ELLEN: Which (in reality) happens seldom outside of the “hard patriarchy” movement (which most of us here either recognize as the extreme or choose to see as “mainstream comp”)
That was not my experience. I was never in any “hard patriarchy” movement. In fact, the churches I was attending at the time when dangerous things where happening to my children were Nazarene and Wesleyan- both of which ordain women. Somehow, I had believed and I was attempting to live a paradigm that the christian husband has “final decision making authority”. I am married to a man who is self referenced and has empathic failure. ie. If the lack of adequate heat and hot water doesn’t bother him, then we should cheerfully live without.
If a child of ours had died from abuse or neglect, I would have been held criminally responsible as an accessory. Interpreting my husband’s actions with the help of a professional Christian therapist’s perspective helped me to learn to PROTECT my children and myself in a way which I was failing to do previously. I had to start making adult decisions for the welfare of my children and myself despite my husband’s intense disapproval.
“Which (in reality) happens seldom outside of the “hard patriarchy” movement (which most of us here either recognize as the extreme or choose to see as “mainstream comp”)”
More accurately, Ellen, we are getting double-speak and mixed messages from those who are recognized as mainstream comps but teach and act as if they are hyper-patriarchalists.
No one is choosing to see this as “mainstream comp”. We are seeing that so-called “mainstream comps” are actually hyper-Ps in comp clothing.
Wyn,
I see your point about children and I agree. The Bible, as I see it, does not say that the father has more authority than the mother. The Bible always includes both when telling children to obey with no distinctions.
The patriarchalists and some “mainstream comps” teach that the father delegates some of his authority to his wife so she can exercise authority over his (yes, many pats believe the children belong to him and not to her) children in his absence. And, when he gets home, he takes back that authority and is now the main authority in the home.
Silly stuff but it is being gobbled up by people who don’t bother actually studying what Scripture says.
My authority as a mother to my own children is not given to me by my husband but by God and it is not something my husband can take away from me since God gave it to me. I do not fall into the shadows when my husband is around nor do I cease to be the full parent I am.
I know that I am fully accountable in the eyes of the Law to protect my children. There are some pats that teach that it is a dangerous thing for a mother to protect her husband’s children from her husband’s abuse and perversions because she has no more right to protect her husband’s children than she does to protect her neighbor’s children. She is merely the womb by which her husband receives his gifts and rewards from God.
That means that a mother, in this system, has no right to intervene on her own child’s behalf because they belong to her husband and they are his to do with what he wants.
Try and tell that to a judge.
I could tell you some real life stories that would make you sick but this teaching is alive and well and causing great harm to children.
WYN:But now I know to be more aware of Christian mothers who don’t have authority over their own children.
ELLEN:Which (in reality) happens seldom outside of the “hard patriarchy” movement
I would have to disagree with that based on my childhood. I would say that the experience described is common to dysfunctional families of any belief system. My parents knew nothing of “patriarchy”. My dad was catholic, my mother agreed to raise us catholic and she was more of a “practicing” catholic than he (though she never converted). Anyway, she didn’t protect us either. And I’m here to tell you that the mother who fails to protect will eventually be the one at whom the adult child trying to recover from childhood abuse points the finger and struggles more with betrayal and anger. Mothers need to protect their children! If I was an eligible bachelorette, I’d be very careful believing a divorced man who denies his abusiveness and says its a “false accusation” by a “bad wife”. Even the children will not see clearly, will not appreciate her protection (or realize her lack thereof) until they are well along in years…
For the record, the man I’m with – there was no abuse ever claimed. Not physical, not emotional, not mental, not verbal. Remember, he let me read her letters to him.
If I was an eligible bachelorette, I’d be very careful believing a divorced man who denies his abusiveness and says its a “false accusation” by a “bad wife”.
I’m sure you would. I’ve worked with a couple of women (and I don’t even know their ex’s) who are not ashamed of saying that they claimed äbuse. When asked what kind of abuse, “none…but I wasn’t going to let him ‘win’”
I had a daycare provider who didn’t disclose daycare income so that she could get more money from her ex for child support (he was unemployed and she made way more than he did).
It is merely that I no longer view male/female relations through “women good – men bad) sunglasses.
This is an excellent conversation. In a website dedicated to dialogue between those who hold very different points of view, I wonder, however, if labels like “patriarchalists” or “pats” should be thrown around. Conversely, one must be careful about using the term “feminist.”
Labels demean a person unless a person self-identifies as such. I don’t know anyone who self-identifies as a “pat” so I avoid the term.
I have friends who self-identify as “feminists” or “Christian feminists,” in which case the label, understood positively, fits. However, if a person rejects that label, even if I find his or her position indistinguishable from that of self-identifying feminists, I avoid the term in his or her case.
I realize it is hard to give up pejorative labels: with one little word, our position becomes implicitly good compared to the demeaned position of someone else.
But notice what happens immediately, as least to those of us who score high on empathy with Briggs-Myer (or whatever that is called). I don’t self-identify as a feminist, but when I see egalitarianism trashed by a hard-line comp who uses the label “feminist” in a negative sense, my reaction is: well, then, I am a feminist, too. Give me a yellow “feminist” star, I want to wear it.
Though I am an egal, this also happens to me when I see complementarianism trashed by a hard-line egal who describes that -ism, in its traditional or neo-traditional form, as if it involves a return to the dark ages. Once again, I reach for a yellow patriarchal star and feel compelled to begin singing the praises of what a sociologist like Ernst Troeltsch called “love-patriarchy.”
These are the terms I find useful. They are not perfect, but at least they do not prejudice the discussion from the get-go:
(1) hard-line, soft, and squishy comps. But the following are no less important:
traditionalists and neo-traditionalist.
Traditional Christian marriages are summed up verbally in the old vows, “love and cherish” vs. “love, cherish, and obey.” Around the world, it should be noted, in cultures that are patriarchal by tradition, this remains the most prevalent pattern. Best-case scenario: the traditional patriarchal molds are filled with Christian content. In the New Testament, Paul and Peter urge Christians to fill the hierarchical roles of the culture (husband-wife, master-slave, parent-child) with Christ-like content.
Neo-traditionalists are those who react against and polemicize with modern egalitarianism. The effort to create a viable alternative to the emphases and mores of feminism as they understand it sometimes pushes neo-traditionalists in the direction of unreasonable and unhealthy positions. That’s how I see it, anyway, and I hope I expressed myself in a non-offensive manner.
Another useful distinction. On both sides of the debate, there are those who think that Scripture rightly understood allows for their position to the exclusion of the other. I refer to them as true blue biblical comps and true blue biblical egals. To illustrate: I am an egal, and I want to be biblical, but I am not a biblical egal in this sense. That is, if I have a Christian couple under my care (I am a pastor) who see their marriage as a framework in which 1 Cor 13 is to be practiced by husband and wife and ultimate authority on a range of make-or-break issues, on the few occasions it comes to that in a context in which 1 Cor 13 is honored, deferred to the husband, I don’t say: that’s wrong, authority should always be split 50-50 (whatever that means: I am an egal, and I confess that the 50-50 rule is very unhelpful in practice).
I know plenty of comps, within my own extended family for example, who find positions like the one that says a wife is in non-submission if she buys the wrong vegetables for dinner to be laughably absurd. Nor do they preach to my wife who is a pastor and who doesn’t have a submissive bone in her body. Instead they listen to her tell how God is blessing the new church start she oversees, and praise God for it, all the while gladly letting her boss them around i.e. supervise them as she prepares a ten-course Italian meal for the whole clan.
I call such people non-ideological comps, for the simple reason that I wish to be referred to as an non-ideological egal. Non-ideological comps and egals are committed to their respective frameworks, but are more interested in seeing whether 1 Cor 13 is a reality or not in a specific marriage.
Notice that the most of the attention is on comps, not egals. It’s as if egals are not very interesting specimens. No one wants to visit them and gawk at them at the zoo. Run-of-the-mill pigs and cows, I guess.
Hey, I protest. We egals are interesting, too. We do weird stuff and stupid stuff, too. A non-offensive taxonomy of egals from a comp point of view: I would love to hear it.
I have a friend in church who is frequently judged by others for divorcing such a “nice man”. Course she doesn’t advertise that he was into kiddie porn and fantasizing about their children. NO ONE knows that part! (odd that people don’t stop their gossip long enough to wonder why he is only allowed supervised visitation) Oh and a christian therapist bent on marriage preservation created a legal nightmare for her: once this stuff was exposed in therapy (but not reported as mandated), unbeknownst to her she was legally considered an “accessory” and almost lost the children to social services for “failing to protect them”.
I think divorced Christian women sometimes keep the secrets secret and risk being judged as the “cause of the divorce” in order to PROTECT their children from further damage. We do not know what has occurred behind the closed doors: “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” 1 Cor 4:5
I know too many things from behind closed doors in my own home to ever sit in judgment upon someone who couldn’t bear it anymore.
I know plenty of comps, within my own extended family for example, who find positions like the one that says a wife is in non-submission if she buys the wrong vegetables for dinner to be laughably absurd.
And that is the problem. People laugh at women who suffer this kind of abuse, (and I speak for more than one woman here) instead of asking what part of complementarian doctrine contributed to this miserable state of affairs in the first place.
If women are simply objects of mockery, and empathy with abused women is some kind of joke, women may need to abandon Christianity altogether.
Suzanne,
I’m sorry if I was not clear. No one in my family was laughing at women who suffer abuse. The laughter and ridicule were reserved for those who teach that a wife is non-submission if she buys the wrong vegetables for dinner.
There is one than one way, furthermore, to express empathy towards women who are abused. One way is to make the kind of careful distinctions that Letitia did in the post that started this thread off – and remain committed to a form of complementarianism.
Another is to reject all forms of complementarianism, and urge others to do the same. If I am not mistaken, this is your position.
Still another is to insist that what really matters in marriage and in life in general is that 1 Cor 13 is put into practice.
I wish we could agree to disagree on the matter, without breaking fellowship or friendship.
No one in my family was laughing at women who suffer abuse. The laughter and ridicule were reserved for those who teach that a wife is non-submission if she buys the wrong vegetables for dinner.
No one teaches this, as I have already taken pains to explain to you.
However, anyone who preaches that women have less than 50% participation in the home hierarchy enable this. This happens. It is fact.
I am not myself arguing that 50-50 is necessarily a model for every conversation, but that the two adults must have equal authority, however that is organized, whether by domain, which could be according to stereotyped gender roles, or by capability or by natural inclination, or through negotiation and consensus over joint domains such as the children.
Anyone who laughs at the dilemma of a woman who has no authority, but does not speak against it is complicit. I firmly believe that.
Have you read this article?
I do not feel that levity is the appropriate response in this forum. My sense is that levity is what happens when there is no appropriate response. I do not feel that complementarianism has an appropriate response except for leaving the marriage.
Fine, that does seem to alter the landscape. If it were made explicit that a man had authority, but as soon as he used it selfishly his wife would leave, I think that would slow down the abuse. Is that what should be preached? Is this message preferable to teaching that a man should treat his wife like an equal?
sue said:
And that is the problem. People laugh at women who suffer this kind of abuse, (and I speak for more than one woman here) instead of asking what part of complementarian doctrine contributed to this miserable state of affairs in the first place.
I don’t think it is fair to pin the blame on C doctrine on this kind of abuse. The majority of examples of abuse that become public knowledge occur in marriages where there is little to no Christianity, where the husband could hardly be said to know anything about Complementarianism!
Letitia,
The majority of examples of abuse that become public knowledge occur in marriages where there is little to no Christianity,
Abuse statistics are notoriously difficult to collect. However, my sense is that it occurs across all demographics, but is highly correlated to belief in male entitlement, whether this is expressed within a Christian, or non-Christian framework. Male entitlement is expressed as “male leader, female follower” in the comp framework, but it is male entitlement. That is one core component of abuse, necessary but not sufficient.
I am familiar with a good dozen cases of abuse among acquaintances, all Christians, ministers, church attenders and professionals. Where I work among non-Christians I have never heard anyone mention physical abuse. Just my experience.
Sue,
If you want to make your case that C enables abuse, that’s fine. Others have done similarly.
However, recognize that no principle is above potential twisting. Egalitarianism can enable domestic abuse just the same. A marriage can be turned into a lifetime of power struggles as each spouse asserts and protects his/her rights, which I can see can get ugly fast. Under E, you potentially have two victims of abuse instead of one. Is that worse? No; it is just as bad. No matter what view of marriage you hold to, abuse can happen, which is why I reject your claim that C doctrine is the source of inequity and (forgive me) iniquity in the places you say E can rectify.
The majority of examples of abuse that become public knowledge occur in marriages where there is little to no Christianity, where the husband could hardly be said to know anything about Complementarianism!
Are you aware of the rampant porn use among Christian men, Letitia? The divorce rate is very high among Christians. I believe that a major contributing factor is the MISunderstanding and abuse of the doctrines of headship/submission. Someone should do a study….
In MY marriage, should it break, there would probably be no “public knowledge” of the abuse, but I have heard too many times to count “BECAUSE I SAY SO, AND I AM THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD” and I have heard “ADAM’s BIG MISTAKE WAS LISTENING TO EVE AND I DON’T INTEND TO DO LIKEWISE” and I have heard “I WANT SEX! THE BIBLE SAYS YOUR BODY BELONGS TO ME! YOU ARE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DON”T GIVE ME SEX!”
And MY husband has a Master’s degree in Theology and was a (science) professor at two different Christian colleges and is in the pew each and every Sunday morning. He is not ignorant of comp theology.
gem,
Yes, I am aware of the high porn use among Christian men. It’s wrong, but what does that have anything to do with C?
Perhaps you’re right–someone should do a study on how many Christian marriages dissolve because of complementarianism (???)
In your husband’s case, I’d say his degree should be revoked, and he should come under discipline for neglect and failure to love his wife as commanded by scripture. He cannot be defended with C teaching, because he is violating Christian marriage as a whole. He cannot then go into it and pick out only the things in scripture that rationalize his behavior.
I’m sorry you married such an _word I cannot say here_. I will pray for you and a solution to the problem. I also encourage you to find some help.
However, my sense is that it occurs across all demographics, but is highly correlated to belief in male entitlement, whether this is expressed within a Christian, or non-Christian framework.
Then why is the highest rate of intimate abuse among lesbian couples? You cannot blame men for that violence or Christian complementarian teaching
I have no further response to complementarians.
Gem, I share so much of your experience and I know women who still live this way. It is a great tragedy and I will always oppose the teaching that husband or wife should expect a wife to obey her husband.
I deeply regret that the church is teaching the priority of the male. It damages the testimony on the church to the world around. How sad.
I concur with Letitia that complementarianism, so long as it is qualified by the entire biblical witness, is not the problem.
Abuse in a marriage is enabled whenever 1 Cor 13 is not put into practice, or never was.
I disagree with many of Suzanne’s statements, but will let them pass.
I would say that the rule that a woman (or man) is free to leave a situation of abuse if attempts at remedy lead nowhere is a good one. This also applies to employee-employer and child-parent relationships. In my context, however, it does not make sense to preach this rule, because the default rule is that one is free to leave a marriage or a job for far less. I do however make a point of letting confirmation-age children know that they are free to come to me if they find themselves “in trouble.”
The assumption that does the most damage in my context goes like this: one is free to leave a merely unhappy marriage if a more attractive alternative presents itself.
All of the examples of spousal abuse I see first hand occur within frameworks untouched by hardline complementarianism. That’s because I serve in the United Methodist Church, in which the old guard is traditionalist and the new guard egalitarian or soft to squishy comp. Surely I am not saying something outrageous if I point out that abuse is also common among egals.
It is also hard to deal with. Permission may be given and help offered by trusted acquaintances of the victim to make an exit, but the victim sometimes chooses to stick it out for a long time or forever.
I realize that the experience of others is different. But that’s the point. It is important not to generalize from one’s own experiences.
I would agree that entitlement – on either the husband’s side, the wife’s side, or both – wrecks many marriages and leads to abuse when anger management is also a problem.
But a sense of entitlement is a perversion to which not only any authority structure is naturally at risk; it is also a risk in an egalitarian framework. Everyone gets to feel equally entitled, that’s all.
Add an anger management problem into the mix, and it may be a child that murders his parents, or an employee who goes postal.
The problems that have been raised – abuse, divorce, pornography – to this list I would immediately add substance abuse – each needs to be addressed as such, not as a function of some other variable.
I just returned from a mission trip in Duluth MN – Superior WI where I had a delightful conversation with the staff of Praxis International, one of the foremost anti-abuse training organizations in the world. I made a remark to the effect that I would appreciate having copies of the latest stuff they use in training pastors; I mentioned the food pantry we run out of church, the 100+ families we serve, and the possibility that cases of abuse are probably just waiting to be discovered among that group. The staff member was happy to oblige, but was quick to point out that abuse cuts across all socio-economic and ideological boundaries. She alluded to a recent horror story of an example of a liberal high society couple in her experience and shut me up good.
The staff member was happy to oblige, but was quick to point out that abuse cuts across all socio-economic and ideological boundaries
I have repeatedly made this very point. Therefore, preaching male authority is never a good thing.
I would like to ask a huge favour. The vegetable story was originally told by me as something that really happened, and the way that it has been reconfigured has no basis in fact.
John, thank you for not engaging with me, could I also ask you to drop the vegetable story since the way you tell it is not true to the original story and gives me the repeated impression that you enjoy retelling stories with disregard for their original form. I also feel that you are making fun of me. Thank you.
Suzanne,
I’m encouraged to see that you are willing to treat abuse as a problem in and of itself, independently of other variables – complementarianism, egalitarianism, lesbianism or what have you – that in twisted ways are used to excuse absolutely inexcusable behavior.
With respect to the vegetable story, let me quote your own words to you:
[T]he complementarianism of today makes the wife have only a submissive role in all domains and arenas and every room in the house, to the authoritative role of the husband in all domains and arenas, and every room in the house.
This means that if the wife cooks a meal and cannot find the required vegetables in the market that day, and has chosen a substitute, she is in a state of non-submission.
It is not at all clear that you are speaking in this passage about a specific event that happened. If you are, you fail to properly alert the reader to the fact. It sounds for all the world like you are speaking of a complementarian teaching today, as if someone like Bruce Ware is teaching it in one of his sermons.
In any case, I continue to take your word for it that this represents [some] complementarianism today. You are very well read in the field. Perhaps you can suggest another example I might use, no less ridiculous and levity-inducing, if you are now suggesting that the vegetable story does not reflect the actual teaching of [some] complementarians.
Clearly my second sentence is the application [by the husband] of the sermon described in the first sentence.
I have already explained this to you several weeks ago.
I do not find any of this levity inducing. I suggest that anyone who laughs at the violence that someone else has experienced is mentally ill.
Therefore, preaching male authority is never a good thing.
The violence is not committed because of “sex role beliefs” but formation into an intimate abuser begins developmentally much sooner, from a much broader array of psychosocial risk (Dutton, 2002; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004; Serbin et al., 2004; Sroufe, 2005)
Perhaps you can suggest another example I might use, no less ridiculous and levity-inducing, if you are now suggesting that the vegetable story does not reflect the actual teaching of [some] complementarians.
John,
I have just the thing. Here is a post by a complementarian that is intended to show what this kind of submission looks like. Keep in mind that this woman has a new baby. She writes about what biblical submission looks like,
- Responding to the priorities he has established in the realms of caring for the home, such as cooking, cleaning, food shopping, errands, and any other tasks he delegates to me.
- Regularly sharing my “to do” list with him and asking him if anything should be removed or added, which items are his priorities for me to do, etc. Then, I should do whatever I can to serve him on a daily basis, even if it means that items I’d rather get done don’t get done.
- Providing companionship in ways that are meaningful to him. In our marriage this includes things like getting up early to have breakfast with him, not only so I can prepare it for him but also because he appreciates spending a little time with me in the morning.
- It also includes joyfully greeting him when he comes home at the end of the day, relaxing with him when he desires to relax together (even if my ‘to do’ list beckons), giving him my attention when he wants to talk (even if I am tempted to be distracted by something else).
- I never anticipated how many times we would disagree on small things, mostly matters of preference, and how I was not at all entitled to have my own way on these things just because they were small, or just because they fell under the category of home management, or for any other reason. (Just to give you an idea, I’m talking about dumb little things like how long to store an opened jar of spaghetti sauce in the fridge before it gets thrown away.) My husband might make a decision at times based on my input, but he’s not obligated to do this.
—-
I think the clear implication is that she looks after the home in every way and she is not entitled to make a decision about how long the spaghetti jar stays open in the fridge. Maybe you would be willing to replace the “vegetable” story with the “spaghetti sauce” story out of compassion for my feelings. I would really appreciate it.
The violence is not committed because of “sex role beliefs” but formation into an intimate abuser begins developmentally much sooner, from a much broader array of psychosocial risk (Dutton, 2002; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004; Serbin et al., 2004; Sroufe, 2005)
You might want to read Lundy Bancroft and Evan Stark. Dutton is not credible.
Personal entitlement is a necessary component of abuse. The teaching of male authority supplies that necessary piece. However, it is not sufficient. Several other pieces have to be present also. But why should Christian doctrine supply one of the pieces of abuse, when it doesn’t have to.
No, the egal doctrine of mutual submission does not supply a piece. Egals abuse because they pick up a belief in personal entitlement elsewhere. And yes, male authority is more dangerous because male violence is many times more dangerous than female violence just check the crime statistics.
Sue,
I looked at the link.
She is young.
She is really disrespecting herself and eventually I fear her husband will disrespect her too
GOD created the woman to be MEET for her husband. A trained monkey could make sure the spaghetti sauce is thrown out on a schedule.
I’m cross posting this from another thread because it is relevant here too. My marriage is an example of where this practice of “slave wifery” takes a marriage after a few decades (It is still rather benign in her young marriage):
God has taught me that submission is NOT the same thing as obedience. Submission preserves MY freedom, MY right to say “no”, my personal God given authority and Call to protect my household- which includes my children and myself.
Based on personal experience, I believe the teachings which remove a wife’s authority to speak into the life of her husband, to “put her foot down” wind up enabling him to get off into unaccountable porn use. The church has proved impotent in holding him accountable on this issue. The ONLY progress has come from me standing up and saying very firmly (and meaning it!), “it STOPS or I’m outta here with the children”.
I think Stephen Tracy’s contribution should be considered in these discussions. He is a comp and reviews the comp literature on “submission” and finds just the kind of teaching which I imbibed which caused me to be a weak, powerless, controlled slave wife for 2 + decades. (see especially the footnotes- I have copied a sample from the paper and footnotes below)
FROM http://www.mendingthesoulministries.org/Perameters_of_Submission.pdf
QUOTE:
Stephen Clark, in what for many years was virtually the handbook for traditional gender role theology, makes such an assertion. He argues that modern secular society asks such questions merely to control “the scope of someone’s authority” whereas the biblical writers place virtually no limits on submission and authority. Hence, “the whole of the woman’s life (everything she does) has to be subordinate to her husband.”3 Other evangelical writers who also place great emphasis on marital submission (even asserting that it is essential to a Christian world view4) concede that there may be some occasions when submission must be qualified, but argue that this is so rare that it need not be developed or apparently considered. For instance, Mary Kassian argues:
Practically, there may be situations in which submission to authority is limited. However,
these situations are few and far between. Our focus should be on humility and obedience to authority in all circumstances. Submission may indeed have limits, but these limits are the exception rather than the rule. Obedience to God generally means obedience to those
in authority over us.5
But in actuality, universal human depravity has created a world in which power and authority is often misused and must be qualified. Scripture records hundreds of instances of ungodly authorities whose commands had to be disobeyed.6 Given the intimate nature of marriage, the abuse of authority and the dilemma of submission is particularly acute since even the more extreme forms of male abuse of power are common. For instance, one fourth to one third of North American women will be assaulted by an intimate partner in their lifetime.7 And physical abuse rates in Christian homes are similar to societal rates.8 Less severe forms of abuse (non criminal) are considerably more common. Kassian’s presupposition, that submission to authority need not be qualified since situations requiring such a need is exceedingly rare, is utterly divorced from reality.9 Many of the ugly situations that thousands of Christian women continually deal with are completely ignored in the non egalitarian literature,10 leaving Christian women to fend for themselves when seeking to discern what obedience to Scripture looks like in their real world. And the stakes are very high when we relate marital submission to ethical issues such as abuse, pornography, and the treatment of children.
For instance, it is widely recognized that we are in the midst of a moral and social revolution due to the effects of pornography….. Christian men are also viewing and being indoctrinated by pornography with tragic frequency.15 Our current epidemic level of pornography usage is having a dramatic effect on marriage and male/female relationships since pornography usage has a sudden and dramatic effect on how males view women and what they expect of them sexually.16 Sadly, virtually none of the non egalitarian marriage literature relates marital submission to the specific behaviors that pornography has influenced men to request or demand from their wives or to the way pornography programs men to demean and objectify women.17 While a Christian wife with a basic knowledge of Scripture might be able to recognize that her husband’s demand that she view pornography with him while they make love is clearly unbiblical and need not be submitted to, other sexual behaviors she finds objectionable are not plainly addressed in Scripture. So must she submit to these since Eph 5:24 tells her that she must submit “in everything”?
FOOTNOTES:
3. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of
Scripture and the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1980), 82-83. Hence, Clark refuses to place any
limits on the husband’s authority other than to say that righteousness, which he defines as obedience, “limits the
authority and protects the subordinate,” 82. Needless to say, this provides little guidance or protection for women
who are faced with the reality of obeying abusive, sinful, and harmful husbands.
4 Mary A. Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1990), 45.
5 Ibid., 38, emphasis hers. While this is an older work, it is very relevant to this discussion. Kassian has been quite
influential in conservative circles for her writings on gender roles and feminism, particularly The Feminist Mistake:
The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), originally published as
The Feminist Gospel in 1992. Cassian’s influence is also seen in the fact that she is currently a Council Member of
the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Rebecca Jones argues that a wife should bring “all things”
under her husband’s headship. After emphasizing that a husband’s authority is all encompassing, she states, “we do
not have the time to examine all the practicalities of submission. God places women in extremely difficult situations
sometimes, and we are called to exercise great discernment as we ‘prove out’ the will of God,” Does Christianity
Squash Women? A Christian Looks at Womanhood (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 168. Unfortunately,
she never gives women in these difficult situations any specific guidance to discern the will of God in terms of
parameters of submission. This glaring omission is no doubt shaped by her failure to recognize the reality of
spiritual immaturity, sin, and abuse in Christian homes. She states, “The Christian men I know treat their wives as
precious treasures. They dote on them, admire them, depend on them, rejoice in them, cherish them, praise them,
and sacrifice for them,” 187. While it is wonderful that this has been Jones experience of Christian men, it is simply
not representative of the realities of many Christian homes.ENDQUOTE
Hey…Suzanne. Do you think that she should be able to make the spaghetti sauce decision with his input?
I would think that any adult who saw an old spaghetti sauce jar would be able to make that decision without input from the other…he just happened to do it first and she’s saying that she most likely shouldn’t throw a hissy fit.
I guess I just don’t see a problem with a woman taking care of the house when a man is out earning the money. I also don’t see a problem with her not getting her way all of the time…which is what she is saying outside of “women good-men bad” tunnel vision.
Sue, my understanding is that anybody who disagrees with the feminist agenda where intimate violence is concerned is immediately labeled as “not credible”.
I have a fairly large number of sources that indicate that today’s victims are tomorrow’s criminals, as far as intimate violence goes.
Those who victimize their intimate partners have a high rate of being victimized themselves in the past.
It is sad that you write off research that turns the scope on all intimate violence, not just the “politically correct” kind.
Sue, then I’ll quote Richard Gelles
“While this is certainly not a politically correct position, and is a position that will almost certainly ignite more personal attacks against me and my colleagues, it remains clear to me that the problem is violence between intimates not violence against women. Policy and practice must address the needs of male victims if we are to reduce the extent and toll of violence in the home.”
Today’s victims are tomorrows criminals. Unless we break that cycle (regardless of who the perpetrator is) we will have intimate violence.
Do not worry, there are many resources out there that are not biased toward women victims/male abusers.
Perhaps someday the issue will be recognized.
No, the egal doctrine of mutual submission does not supply a piece
Neither does loving leadership that teaches loving one’s wife as Christ loves the church.
You have your eye on the wrong target. I believe that we should target intimate violence, no matter who the perpetrator is.
Looking at the bibliography of Lundy Bancroft and Evan Stark (at least the ones I looked at), I find it difficult to find them credible, as they appear to completely ignore even the possibility that a woman could be the ones perpetrating the violence.
Until that piece is addressed, today’s victims will be tomorrow’s criminals. And “political correctness” will help.
Hey…Suzanne. Do you think that she should be able to make the spaghetti sauce decision with his input?
I would think that any adult who saw an old spaghetti sauce jar would be able to make that decision without input from the other…he just happened to do it first and she’s saying that she most likely shouldn’t throw a hissy fit.
I guess I just don’t see a problem with a woman taking care of the house when a man is out earning the money. I also don’t see a problem with her not getting her way all of the time…which is what she is saying outside of “women good-men bad” tunnel vision.
Ellen,
That woman was me. I could have written her post, word for word, as a young wife with a new baby. I know you probably don’t mean them that way, but your words above are incredibly hurtful to me, as are John’s when he makes light of the vegetable scenario. If you knew, you wouldn’t say these things. You don’t know. And I keep having to remind myself of that. I know that you don’t mean to be so callous.
It is difficult to explain how the loss of one’s personhood is involved in the loss of power. Losing the right to make decisions except in those areas where you are given the right to make decisions…? I guess it seems so far fetched that it doesn’t seem possible. And that’s why, again, I understand that you just don’t know. You can’t know. But please, be nice. Your words are so painful sometimes.
The vegetable story evokes different responses in different people. Once again, here are Suzanne’s words:
[T]he complementarianism of today makes the wife have only a submissive role in all domains and arenas and every room in the house, to the authoritative role of the husband in all domains and arenas, and every room in the house.
This means that if the wife cooks a meal and cannot find the required vegetables in the market that day, and has chosen a substitute, she is in a state of non-submission.
It is natural that those who once followed this kind of teaching and now see how unbalanced the teaching is read the example with sadness. I am as sad as the next person that (1) there are people who teach such things; and that (2) there are people who conform their lives to such teaching.
But it is also natural to read the example and think of how laughable and ridiculous the teaching is. I can see why such laughter is unattainable for someone who has been a victim of such teaching. But for everyone else, the teaching itself will be the object of thought from the get-go. And yes, it is a laughable teaching.
I’m sure we can all agree that it is a good thing to identify examples of complementarian and egalitarian teaching which have no basis in Scripture and, when said examples are so off-the-wall that they produce levity, use that levity as a way to deflate the pretensions of a particular style of teaching.
As far as the two words “submission” and “obedience” are concerned, both are heard as hurtful to many people today. That leads some people to avoid them both. Others consider it their mission to attack those who use one or both words, especially if they are used in gender-specific fashion. I am egal who uses both terms in a gender-neutral fashion. I qualify my usage carefully. I also reassure people who find both terms “radioactive” that they are not on that account unfaithful to the teaching of the Bible. Substitute words and turns of phrase are also servicable. I don’t argue against comps using either term in gender-specific fashion, so long as that is done in a biblically balanced way.
That GEM is able to assign a positive sense to “submission” is a tribute to her ability to stand outside mainstream culture. It’s possible to play one word off against the other, as she does, but this approach is not the one the Bible took, or Christian tradition as a whole has taken. Part of the problem is that many people are unaware of the underlying Hebrew and Greek for “obey” as found in English translations. Confusion is rife. I will eventually try to clarify the question with a post on my blog. Suffice it to say for now that both words, if properly qualified, may be used in a positive way in comp and egal frameworks alike. Both words, if not properly qualified, do more harm than good.
I disagree with other statements Suzanne made in her last comments, but, in the interests of amity and peace, I will not engage them directly.
Molly, again I think we’re talking about hard patriarchy vs. complementarianism.
My sweetie and I…he grew up in a germ-o-phobic home and I did not. Every single time he picks a container out of the fridge he looks at the date. If the date on the jar is the day before expiration…he chucks it.
I came from a home where food is not wasted. If it smells good, eat it.
If he wants to throw it away before I would want to…so?
That’s seriously where I was coming from. I feel like I need a rule book because I seem to be stepping in the dog pile when all I see is reasonable human interactions, where a wife is striving to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
“Neither does loving leadership that teaches loving one’s wife as Christ loves the church.”
The problem is how it is taught and where the focus usually is. Too many times it turns out that the husband is taking charge over everything and watching to see if the wife is being submissive and she is watching to see if he is being the ’spiritual leader’.
Their eyes are on the wrong thing. They should be on Christ.
And in some cases, we end up with the vegetable and sauce story when the husband thinks it is his duty to be the ‘leader’ over everything.
One of my favorite pastors says he does not read the verses that pertain to women anymore. Only the verses that pertain to him in this scenerio.
)
The point of that woman’s story was that she did not get permission from her husband to do whatever she wanted to do with the spaghetti jar. She had to review her list with him in the morning and get his approval.
That is how it is. Not even a decision about a spaghetti jar can be made by the wife.
Ellen,
Men commit more of the violent crime than women. That is a fact. To put women under the authority of the more criminal prone sex is sinful.
Putting women under men will cause some women to suffer. That is a fact. Those women are throwaways.
The problem is how it is taught and where the focus usually is. Too many times it turns out that the husband is taking charge over everything and watching to see if the wife is being submissive and she is watching to see if he is being the ’spiritual leader’.
I understand why that would be an issue. I don’t see a lot of that here.
Ellen,
What if it were the other way around and you were germophobic and wanted to chuck the jar. You have to submit all the time as to Christ. We are trying to tell you what it would be like to live with no rights to throw out anything, to choose food, to organize the refrigerator the way you want to. To have someone shop with you and put away the food and tell you where to put things in the kitchen even though he does not cook.
You have no rights, that was the point of her story, killing the attitude of entitlement to personal rights – all personal rights. How much toilet paper to use, how much hot water and when to throw out an open jar of aauce. Read that post again.
“The problem is how it is taught and where the focus usually is. Too many times it turns out that the husband is taking charge over everything and watching to see if the wife is being submissive and she is watching to see if he is being the ’spiritual leader’.
I understand why that would be an issue. I don’t see a lot of that here.
July 31, 2008 10:51 AM
The point is that many of us have seen this. After 20 years in many conservative comp churches it is about all I saw and heard. It was the main topic: He was to be the leader. She was to be submissive. And everything was judged and dealt within that concept. It was very man (human) centered instead of Christ centered. Everyone was focused on the other person instead of themselves and their own holiness. That is what happens when this is taught to the unregenerate. (including me)
It all came down to appearances and image.
And that is why CBMW uses so many adjectives to describe these roles.
)
Sue, and I would gladly tell any man who wanted his wife to live like that that he was being unloving in a sinful way.
Period. It has little to do with leadership.
It has everything to do with bad leadership and not being taught how to be a servant-leader in love.
Lin,
and then there are those of us who get to see how egalism works in practice, and, rest assured, it is no paradise either. The unregenerate plays games with egalism all the time. The rules to bend are somewhat different, but human ingenuity, not surprisingly, overcometh.
Despite its manifest weaknesses and blind spots, I am not however about to give up living in an egal framework. I will seek to correct its excesses according to biblical teaching, but not replace it with alternative cultural framework, any more than Paul and Peter did in their day, over against roles assigned according to the Greco-Roman household code.
Now, if I were in an SBC context, I would probably accept the basic complementarian framework as a given, but do everything in my power to qualify it in accordance with the entire biblical witness. Once that is done, the risk of complementarianism becoming “law” rather than “gospel” (I’m using these terms in a traditional Reformation style: I hope I make sense to you) is reduced to a minimum.
http://ingridschlueter.wordpress.com:80/2008/07/30/inherit-the-wind-when-men-hurt-their-own-part-2/
This article goes into a bit of the mindset that happens when women are abused—-*why* they are unable to think clearly and reason their way out of it, and often what happens when they go to a complementarian pastor for help.
That would be a great gift, Molly, someone like you and Letitia might give to the complementarian community: a booklet of helpful tips to complementarian pastors struggling with what to do when someone under their care becomes a victim of abuse.
Most of the materials presently available are stridently anti-complementarian in tone, and thus are unusable, naturally, by convinced complementarians.
Sue, and I would gladly tell any man who wanted his wife to live like that that he was being unloving in a sinful way.
That article about needing to pass every part of the list past the husband and not being able to set priorties about cleaning the fridge and shopping is an example of what complementarianism is supposed to be about.
That woman was written about as an example of how a husband OUGHT to treat his wife. If any complementarian or pastor here would like to email that woman and help her out of her abuse, feel free. I did email the website, Carolyn, but she did not want to consider that this might be an example of abuse.
If you don’t want to help that woman then please take your rhetoric elsewhere. The damage is being done and women’s souls are being violated in the name of God. Not only me, but other women here, have had this experience and I am shocked at the callous response, that it is okay to live like that. If you have not lived like that, let me tell you that it is a very terrible thing.
If you think that it is okay for women to live like that, I have no more to say. You do not know what you are talking about unless you have lived it. You don’t want to listen to those of us who have lived like this. I am sorry you do not want to hear from those who have had the experience.
FWIIW, the Torah does mention a situation where the wife is a slave, this is allowed if the husband is either free or a slave and regulations are given in both cases. Some may see this as a tangent, but I think it is important to see what the Bible actually DOES describe.
Ex 21 deals with a slave wife and these verses are dear to me as they discuss divorce for abuse and neglect yet are often omitted from divorce teaching.
sue said:
That article about needing to pass every part of the list past the husband and not being able to set priorties about cleaning the fridge and shopping is an example of what complementarianism is supposed to be about.
Then perhaps some of us should try to change “what complementarianism is supposed to be about.” I think that’s what I’ve been doing. Are you listening?
sue said:
If you don’t want to help that woman then please take your rhetoric elsewhere. The damage is being done and women’s souls are being violated in the name of God. Not only me, but other women here, have had this experience and I am shocked at the callous response, that it is okay to live like that.
I don’t think anyone at this blog, E or C (Ellen included), believes that it is okay for a woman to live with abuse of any kind.
That article about needing to pass every part of the list past the husband and not being able to set priorties about cleaning the fridge and shopping is an example of what complementarianism is supposed to be about.
Perhaps that is her way of submitting to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
I didn’t see where he required that to be done. Perhaps we are reading that into it, but she has him read over the list to see if there’s anything he’d like to add (like “oh, can you please cash this check if you’re out and about?”)
Perhaps she’s a little on the ADD side and thrives on that sort of structure. I pass my eating log on to my sweetie on a regular basis. He not only does NOT ask me to do so, he looks at it as a service to me. I (whenever I can) let him see my to-do list for the next day. If he sees I’m going to WallyWorld and he knows there’s a Home Depot on the way, he may ask me to pick up propane. Why would I not be happy to do that?
I wonder how much “requirement” we’re reading in because of “abuse and control” lenses, when all she may be doing is taking into consideration (from her side) what she can do to help him out.
Shoot…I do the same for my kids! I often give them the run down of my day…and give them the chance to let me know if there’s anything they need from any of the places I’m going. To me, that’s just consideration.
She wants to love him in ways that are meaningful to him (see Gary Chapman’s “Five Love Languages”). Since she is only writing from her perspective, it is very possible that he does the same thing.
She sets aside her “to do” list to relax and spend time with the man she loves. Is that a bad thing?
I’m reading this as somebody who has read the “Love Languages” and her attitude has “Acts of Service” and “Quality Time” written all over it.
Again, 1) she writes from her perspective 2) the whole “list” thing may not be a requirement at all 3) that piece may very well work for some people and if it works well for both of them, who are we to say it’s a bad thing.
As for her feeling that she’s not entitled to get her own way…
Where does “entitled to get my own way” stand in an egalitarian marriage?
If you don’t want to help that woman then please take your rhetoric elsewhere.
Help her?
What if what she is doing is the “Love Languages” that end up working best in that marriage?
Help her? What if there are some of us who want to be her. Some of us are more service-oriented than others (again, acts of service might be one of our “Love Languages”)
If she’s not unhappy, she might not appreciate “help”.
If she asks for help, I’ll be glad to do what I can.
Then perhaps some of us should try to change “what complementarianism is supposed to be about.”
I LOVE it, Letitia. I absolutely love it. But as is evidenced here, your version of complementarianism isn’t everyone elses…
SUE: That article about needing to pass every part of the list past the husband and not being able to set priorties about cleaning the fridge and shopping is an example of what complementarianism is supposed to be about.
ELLEN: Perhaps that is her way of submitting to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
Personally, as an “older woman” who is instructed by Scripture to train the “younger women HOW to love… husband and children” I think she needs to be corrected. I believe she has some fundamental MISunderstandings of what it means to be KEEPER of the home and HELP MEET. I see her as abdicating those CALLINGS from GOD. Her husband’s will is rather irrelevent. GOD’S will is what is important for their marriage. I would WARN her- as a woman who practiced what she is preaching for 20 + years- that her husband’s WILL is not necessarily one and the same as GOD’S will. She needs to REPENT from husband idolatry!!! She was given to him to help him to mature in CHRISTlikeness, not to spoil him rotten.
Slave wifery will take its toll eventually. A long term spoiled rotten toddler/man whose wife and doctrine have been complicit in making him believe the LIE that he’s entitled to have every little thing his own way is capable of throwing monstrous and potentially DANGEROUS temper tantrums when the slave wifery STOPS.
She needs to REPENT from husband idolatry!!! She was given to him to help him to mature in CHRISTlikeness, not to spoil him rotten.
Showing him her “to do” list is idolatry?
Not expecting to get your own way in a Christian marriage is ???
Does “submit to one another” become “submit to everybody but your husband and expect to get your own way with him?”
Personally, as an “older woman” who is instructed by Scripture to train the “younger women HOW to love… husband and children” I think she needs to be corrected.
Personally (as another older woman), I would withhold judgment on correction until I know the details. If she is doing nothing wrong, and we are judging through the lenses of our own abused past, we do her a disservice in her service to her Lord and to her husband.
Serving your spouse is not a bad thing. Doing it wrongly is.
Let us withhold judgment unless we know the whole story of the marriage.
Revolving her life around her husband’s priorities is IDOLATRY!
BTDT.
GOD’s priorities are what matter!
I don’t see it as good for either of them nor for their children if they keep on going this way….
I certainly hope her husband is secure and mature enough to put a stop to it! My daughter (who was raised with a bad role model of a hyper-controlling father/husband and weak invisible doormat wife) has a wonderful Christian boyfriend who will not allow her to fall into that “being controlled”/doormat mode. I am ever so thankful that she found such a mature and wise yung man! One of my fears and regrets is that they could repeat what they have seen
BTDT.
I understand that you may have, but if you don’t know the circumstances, you do a disservice to women who desire to be a help to their husbands by projecting your past onto them.
You’ve done it to me when I’ve written about women who use children in the divorce system (the man I’m with has not children) and when I mention other women falsely accusing of abuse in order to gain favor with the court (again, your “concern” was not only unwarranted, it was merely a projecting of your own past onto my current life)
You’ve done it to me when I’ve written about women who use children in the divorce system (the man I’m with has not children) and when I mention other women falsely accusing of abuse in order to gain favor with the court (again, your “concern” was not only unwarranted, it was merely a projecting of your own past onto my current life)
August 1, 2008 9:49 AM
Spend some time with counselors who deal with abuse everyday. They can give you the warning signs.
Experience is a good but hard teacher.
I believe that the struggle with husband idolatry is common to women, Ellen.
“your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you“
And, I remain concerned for you even though your stories are not “personal”. To me, your stories seem to lean towards putting men on a pedestal. Your beloved sounds sweet and all… but I’m sure he has stinky poop. You aren’t married yet, the honeymoon isn’t over, and he’s got a track record which includes divorce and if he considers himself the “victim” of a “bad wife” that’s a red flag. If he’s humble about his own failings in the prior marriage and speaks with compassion for his ex, that’s a good sign. I’m sure your first husband was sweet in the courtship. My first 5 years or so of marriage were pretty good.
Paul says “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor 7:39-40
I think Paul was wise.
Letitia (the Damsel) said: “I often think of an analogy of marriage as being on a corporate team of workers trying to please the boss. I don’t know of any team that doesn’t have a team leader that has a unique position in the group but it doesn’t also make that person better than everyone else. It’s a hierarchy that doesn’t spell inequality, so neither do I think hierarchy in marriage spells inequality for women.”
I wonder if the following explanation of the “team” analogy better reflects the true overall spirit of the biblical text?
The ideal marriage is a husband and wife who are both members of Team Christ living under His lordship, trying to please Him, using their innate gifts, talents, and abilities for the physical, emotional, spiritual, economical welfare of the other as well as for the other members of the team (children), teaching and modeling to and for them how to be a good team members of Team Christ. Both should play the “game of life” fairly, with integrity and passing the ball, working together giving deference to the other.
and if he considers himself the “victim” of a “bad wife” that’s a red flag. If he’s humble about his own failings in the prior marriage and speaks with compassion for his ex, that’s a good sign.
Well then, we have a really good sign. Both of them take responsibility for their part.
Do I put men on a pedestal? Let’s just say I don’t look at every man as an automatic abuser.
“and then there are those of us who get to see how egalism works in practice, and, rest assured, it is no paradise either. The unregenerate plays games with egalism all the time. The rules to bend are somewhat different, but human ingenuity, not surprisingly, overcometh.”
John, Forgive me as I am not the sharpest crayola in the box but with this blog I have to assume we are talking about regenerate egals and comps.
With egals, both are free to pursue the will of Christ and serve each other in mutual submission. The focus is Christ with regenerate egals.
With comps, the wife must serve the husband and seek his will. Her focus is to be her husband…not Christ. That is the part that makes me very sad.
Hi Lin,
the regenerate comp women I know and have known tend to be quite successful at deferring to the husband in some domains but not others according to a mix of cultural givens and choices husband and wife have made together.
Problems arise if a husband does not take into consideration the wishes, needs, gifts, and calling of his wife in the parameterization of said domains, but how can a husband be said to love his wife as Christ loves the church if he does not do so?
Is your experience otherwise?
SUE: That article about needing to pass every part of the list past the husband and not being able to set priorities about cleaning the fridge and shopping is an example of what complementarianism is supposed to be about.
GEM: Personally, as an “older woman” who is instructed by Scripture to train the “younger women HOW to love… husband and children” I think she needs to be corrected. I believe she has some fundamental MISunderstandings of what it means to be KEEPER of the home and HELP MEET. I see her as abdicating those CALLINGS from GOD. Her husband’s will is rather irrelevent. GOD’S will is what is important for their marriage. I would WARN her- as a woman who practiced what she is preaching for 20 + years- that her husband’s WILL is not necessarily one and the same as GOD’S will. She needs to REPENT from husband idolatry!!! She was given to him to help him to mature in CHRISTlikeness, not to spoil him rotten.
Suzanne identifies a danger to which literalistic minded people might especially be prone. GEM offers a remedy.
My point is that the remedy, which is biblically unimpeachable, could be applied without difficulty in either framework, comp or egal.
More generally, an intense desire to do God’s will can backfire on people. I continue to run across people who pray about whether, on a given day, to shop at WalMart or KMart. This is unhealthy. Jesus taught in parables that God is like someone who gives us an enormous patrimony to work with – including a brain and a heart – and then goes away on a long journey. He isn’t around, in other words, to respond to questions about how to use the givens he endowed on a daily basis.
On a daily basis, that’s up to us.
In the same way, in healthy husband / wife, parent / child, and employer / employee relationships, a strong degree of delegation is normal.
john hobbins,
Are you searching for reasonable ground?! “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”
Sue,
Ellen is pushing back on your characterization of the “list” story by questioning whether the circumstances between husband and wife are really as they’ve been made to seem. In all fairness, we should give Ellen the benefit.