Leap-frogging off of something Eric mentioned a while back, or perhaps just blatantly stealing it (since he’s off to the land of Israel for a few weeks and can’t protest-ha) after researching it for myself and finding it legit, it is my understanding that complementarity, among other things, means that the complementary persons or groups need each other in such a way that they are incomplete in some way if the other is not there.
The complementarian model of marriage fits this bill. The husband fulfils the Christ role, the wife the Church role, and as the relationship itself is a representation of how Christ and the Church relate, both husband and wife are needed for that. The relationship is incomplete if one spouse is not there. So whether the Christian egalitarian agrees with the complementarian explanation on what this is supposed to look like or not (and vice versa), it is still true that this picture is, indeed, a truly complementarian one.
This does not seem to be the case, however, in the complementarian model of the Church. In the complementarian model of the Church, men are expected to be the leaders as well as those who sit in the pews being led. Therefore it would not matter, theoretically, if women were there or not. The men could do everything that the women do and more. There is no true complementary relationship between men and women in a complementary church setting, because the one group (men) does not need the other group (women) in order to “do” or “be” the Church.
Thoughts? Corrections? Musings?
I don’t understand. Because complementarians teach male elders/overseers only, and because marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, and because men can lead other men in the church, therefore, women aren’t required for the church to be complementarian?
My guess here, off the cuff, is you are superimposing what is said about marriage onto the church, and the two are different entities and need to be considered as such.
All complementarianism means as far as mainstream comp-ism goes, as it pertains to the church, is that the office of elder/overseer is for the men, not that the men in the pew are a picture of the bride and the elder/overseers in the pulpit are a picture of Christ. Besides, all are given spiritual gifts for the building up of the body, and so, according to Scripture, all are needed.
The elders/overseers do not stop being part of the bride of Christ because they are elders/overseers. The two pictures of bride/bridegroom in marriage and the church are just too separate, for me to mesh them like this.
Make sense? I like your musings, though, because you make me think a lot.
Lynn,
I think I hear you. I’ll try to explain better, because I’m not trying to say that the Church is a picture of Christ and His Bride at all. I agree with you, it’s a different kind of relationship altogether.
I’m just saying (or, heh, attempting to) that the relationship between men and women in the church is *not* a complementary one, yet the CMBW camp says it is. However, they *do* teach a truly complementary relationship in marriage (because both spouses are needed in order to have the relationship). Within the church, however, women aren’t really needed.
Men can sit in the pews and perform various service-oriented and behind-the-scenes ministries just as well as women can, while other men operate as elders and leaders.
Meaning, if a plague came and wiped out all the women in a comp church, the church could still function just fine (maybe with a little adjusting here and there), because in a comp church, *some* men are leaders while other men (and all women) are followers. Ie, You can get rid of some of the followers and still have plenty of followers left over. Which is not true of a comp marriage, because there you literally *have* to have both spouses in order to portray the Christ-and-Bride picture.
It’s a semantics-based observation, yet with so much emphasis being placed on the word “complementarian,” it’s not “just semantics.”
Clear as mud?
One important caveat that I probably should have added to the original post: I’m not saying that the comp view of church (male leadership only) is wrong, persay (though obviously I’m not comp), only that I’m not sure it’s truly “complementarian” as per the definition of the term.
One dictionary definition:
1. Forming or serving as a complement; completing.
2. Supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks
By this definition, CBMW is accurately using the word, “complementary” in the kind of marriage relationship that they teach is God’s way. However, I question whether “complementary” is an appropriate word to use for the kind of church relationship/government-structure that they teach is God’s way. What do women do in a comp church that men absolutely cannot do and that, in so doing, offsets a lack of ability on the part of the male leaders and the male followers?
Probably the only thing I can think of is women’s ministry…but women’s ministry is a side arm of (only some) churches, not a part of the weekly Sunday service, etc. Think of the typical Sunday morning. How are women needed in ways that men simply cannot fill? Men can greet people at the door, hand out bulletins, lead the music, give the announcements, read Scripture, lead liturgy, preach the sermon, give an altar call, pass the offering baskets, offer the Lord’s Supper, do baptisms, pray the closing prayer (and fill in the blank for any other Sunday morning activities that may take place in a typical evangelical CBMW-adhering church)…
If women disappeared, there would still be men to lead and men to fill the pews and sing the songs and be the responsive part of responsive readings, etc. The point being that without men, the whole thing would absolutely fall apart. But without women? What? We’d miss the female voices in song, but other than that, what would be missing in a CMBW-style church?
In other words, I’m thinking it is not a truly gender-complementary relationship. Women *need* the men but the men don’t need the women (unlike the CBMW-style comp marriage). The term is not accurate when used of church life.
“Besides, all are given spiritual gifts for the building up of the body, and so, according to Scripture, all are needed.
The elders/overseers do not stop being part of the bride of Christ because they are elders/overseers. The two pictures of bride/bridegroom in marriage and the church are just too separate, for me to mesh them like this.”
I don’t know Lynn. While it is true that elders/overseers do not stop being the bride of Christ while they are serving as overseers, Molleth’s point is well taken in that in the comp view women are simply not needed for church to happen. They have nothing to offer the church.
Now Scripture does indeed say that all are needed and that all the gifts are needed. But in the comp view all the important gifts for the functioning of meetings are reserved for men. So again, any gifts they deem that women might be ‘allowed’ to exercise are not needed in the gathering of the church as far as men are concerned. Women’s giftings are not applicable to serve the needs of men.
I wonder about an all-female congregation?
Is such simply not allowed under the comp. schema?
It is clear that an all-male congregation would be allowed.
Meaning, if a plague came and wiped out all the women in a comp church, the church could still function just fine (maybe with a little adjusting here and there), because in a comp church, *some* men are leaders while other men (and all women) are followers. Ie, You can get rid of some of the followers and still have plenty of followers left over.
OK, gotcha.
While it is true that elders/overseers do not stop being the bride of Christ while they are serving as overseers, Molleth’s point is well taken in that in the comp view women are simply not needed for church to happen. They have nothing to offer the church.
While you may still have church if all the women were gone, I’ve never heard of any comp, all the way from soft to extreme patriarchalists, who say that women have nothing to offer the church. I’ve also not ever heard any comp say that women do not possess spiritual gifts. And if they have gifts, they are needed.
I do know of a situation where a comp pastor got really abusive toward the end of his ministry at a church, and he began to do hurtful things to the church staff, both men and women. He changed the church service to emphasize that the men were to be the leaders. To demonstrate this, for several horrible months we had to go through this weekly ritual where during the opening prayer on Sunday, all the men were invited to come to the front to “affirm” that they were the spiritual leaders. So the men would go forward and get on their knees while the pastor prayed. I don’t recall that my husband ever did this, and a lot of men did not walk forward like this, but most did. My husband just said “symbolism over substance” when I asked him about it.
I am thinking he may got this idea from the Brooklyn Tabernacle or someplace like that. I can’t recall.
That pastor has been gone for several years now from that situation, and one of the changes that occurred after he left was dropping that little ritual, and for that I am glad, for it just smacked of an in your face power show, instead of a demonstration of humble servant heartedness.
He was the closest to come to ever saying women aren’t needed, and even he didn’t go that far. But I do remember him saying something to the effect of, “Ladies, it’s nice to have you around, but if the church is to go forward it is to go forward on the knees of its men.” I was extremely offended by this remark, but there was so much else going on that people realized he was failing and was kicking people around, and eventually he resigned.
All the people who dealt with that situation realized that he was not behaving the way the pastoral epistles characterize a leader, and he was confronted for his unbiblical behavior. This is a comp church I’m talking about.
Also – if an egalitarian church has a male pastor (I assume egalitarian churches can have male pastors), and all the women suddenly vanish, then you would still have an egalitarian church. According to your scenario.
The question becomes, as Don put it. If, in a comp perspective, all the men vanish, can women have church? Can they baptize each other and have the Lord’s table and preach the Word? I think so. But this is really, for the most part, not the way life is. Fun to think about, though!
I think the difference in this admittedly hypothetical exercise is that in egalitarian churches, the sudden dissapearance of all the men OR all the women would not preclude there being church. I think complementarians would vary in their opinions if there could be church in the absence of all men, because they vary in what they prohibit women from doing. However, from what I’ve read, just about everyone who claims the title of complementarian would say that at the very least there could not be preaching or baptism or communion if there was even one man remaining, because only men are supposed to teach/preach to men and administer the sacraments/ordinances.
I could be wrong about this, but that’s my impression.
Practically speaking, egalitarians would find the sudden disappearance of any group of people from the church a major problem, because they tend to believe that each person has unique gifts to offer, without which the church is diminished. I know that complementarians also probably believe this, but also believe that there’s no possibility that prohibiting women from preaching, teaching, and administering communion and baptism diminishes the church, because they don’t believe that women are ever called to such service. Since egalitarians tend to believe that God distributes all the spiritual gifts freely throughout the entire Body, to male and female as God alone chooses, they also tend to believe that denying that God ever calls women to the afore-mentioned areas of service potentially diminishes the church and attempts to limit God’s sovereignty. Thus, a church suddenly without all women, or without all men, is bound to be missing a significant number of teachers, one or more preachers, and various numbers of its potential pastors, healers, miracle workers, administrators, ministers of hospitality, prophets, etc. It comes down to recognizing evidence of gifting and calling without automatically denying either/both for women OR men concerning certain types of service.
Brief question and then I have to run, but do egal churches claim to be gender complementarian? Because it’s true, egal churches could be the church with either male or female, but they are not, I believe, regularly claiming the term complementarian when it comes to gender within the church, but rather complementarian when it comes to giftings (regardless of gender).
So, yes, when one gifting is missing, the others would not be able to fully function–but not in a gender-dependant way but in a gifting-dependant way.
PS. I was going to sign off this comment with another, “Clear as mud,” line, but I think this is even murkier than mud so I won’t.
Running back to my zany real life…
Lynn,
WOW, interesting experience! Holy smokes…
I guess the idea that a group of human beings ought naturally to complement each other (not simply as male-female, but as unique human beings in an interdependent relationship) is so much a given in egalitarian churches, that there isn’t much need to talk about or even think about it. At least that’s been my experience in egalitarian churches over the past 30+ years. And remember, “complementarian” didn’t get attached to traditional/patriarchal/hierarchical beliefs until CBMW adopted it in their attempt to discredit those who promote biblical equality. Since egalitarian churches don’t exactly accept CBMW’s take on things (smile), they also wouldn’t especially want to be associated with a word that CBMW was working hard to make into an antonym of “egalitarian.”
Interesting thought experiment here. As an egal whose primary fellowship has been in comp churches, I can affirm that every comp I know would view a church that excludes women as a travesty, and would insist that a church without women’s gifts would be incomplete. They believe that male leadership is God’s plan for ensuring that all Christians are properly led and prepared in using their gifts. (Of course, women can never be truly called and gifted to lead and teach men with authority.) However, on a purely theoretical level, I think Molly’s point bears considering. If only men are to be senior pastors and teachers, then a church without men would lack necessary components in a way that a church without women wouldn’t. Of course, most mainstream comps would heartily endorse women teaching and leading other women, so maybe another question would be if a church comprised of women would be presumed to lack the spiritual authority, stability, or power of a male-only church.
Another perspective: if either the men or the women in a comp church ceased “spiritual” service (I know, all service is spiritual, but we’re often inclined to put Bible teaching and prayer on a different level than cleaning the restrooms or even nursery supervision), whose inactivity would have the most obvious impact? Sadly, I think quite a few women in a church could be “lost” from service before any visible change were noticed (as long as the babies were watched and the bulletin typed). Not the same if male pastors, elders, and deacons stayed in the pews.
“As an egal whose primary fellowship has been in comp churches, I can affirm that every comp I know would view a church that excludes women as a travesty, and would insist that a church without women’s gifts would be incomplete.”
Sarah, I’m so glad you bring this up because I totally agree with this. I have attended comp churches (most fairly hard comp, one or two somewhat “lite”) for 99% of my Christian life (since I was four years old, ha) and this has been my experience too. This post is *not* at all saying that comp churches don’t WANT women. It’s just questioning the use of the term “complementarian” to describe male-leadership-only churches, because what happens is not actually complementary.
Sarah said: “. . . maybe another question would be if a church comprised of women would be presumed to lack the spiritual authority, stability, or power of a male-only church.”
If women-only churches ever became common and comprised large numbers, THEN (and only then) would the whole “feminization of the church” accusation be valid, IMO.
Molly, you said: “. . . It’s just questioning the use of the term “complementarian” to describe male-leadership-only churches, because what happens is not actually complementary.”
I wonder if to a certain extent such churches are complementary, but limited in just how complementary they’re willing to be, when it comes to how fully they’re willing to allow women to exercise the spiritual gifts given to them. In other words, it appears to me that they accept the limited, gender-only, opposites-style of “complementary” promoted by CBMW. I have always found CBMW’s definition of the term very inaccurate and based on stereotypes, rather than on the full, rich spectrum of how God has created human beings. Since they tend to divide womanhood and manhood into mutually exclusive requirements, and minimize the many aspects of men’s and women’s shared humanity, it’s little wonder that they don’t often focus on ways other than man-woman that human beings complement one another.
Personally, I find that a little creepy, in that in such a system, both women and men are judged first and foremost on their being male or female and lots of things get projected onto people that aren’t necessarily true. (Note: I’m talking about CBMW’s stated beliefs and teachings, not necessarily about those of anyone here. If I remember correctly, I’ve heard most complementarians here express significant disagreement with many of CBMW’s statements.) I don’t like it when someone looks at me as female and in doing so, decides he or she knows all kinds of things about me based on his or her ideas of what women should and shouldn’t do and be (hence the “creep” factor for me). I find such assumptions to be serious barriers to genuine communication; I think they are a form of laziness in relationship building. It’s easy to skip over the harder work of getting to know a person if you believe your gender role (and other) assumptions about that person reliably inform you about him or her already.
Personally, I find that a little creepy, in that in such a system, both women and men are judged first and foremost on their being male or female and lots of things get projected onto people that aren’t necessarily true…
I’m with ya, Mary, in that whole paragraph. Although I haven’t thought of it as creepy, but as…dismissive? As a form of blinder, an unnecessary limitation put not only on others, but also the one who holds such views. Maybe even a straitjacket! It makes the world neat & tidy, perhaps, not that neatness & tidiness are bad, but…makes it too tidy. Artificially so.
I don’t want my sex discounted in relationships, certainly, nor do I ignore the sex of others. But we are all humans before we are male and female. Some say that this is not true, that our sexuality cannot be separated from our humanity. In a way they are right, but it depends upon what we are talking about as to where the focus should be. For example, my favorite color is blue. Always has been. The crayon drawings I made as a little kid contain bright colors but especially blues, greens, and other darker colors. Does this need to have any special significance because I’m a woman? I don’t think so.
Very good point, Bonnie. Things that have little or nothing to do with whether one is male or female, get made out to be all about that. And I notice that the aspects of the fruit of the Spirit seem to get labeled as “feminine” qualities in most of the lists, as do the aspects of love per 1 Cor. 13. In the Mars vs. Venus and Wild at Heart/Captivating mutually exclusive lists, which CBMW’s teachings mirror too closely IMO, men according to their paradigm come off sounding downright crude and self-centered, while women seem to be passively “good,” but without much initiative. I’m aware that individual complementarians don’t generally see men and women through such lenses, however; that’s why it seems so remarkable to me that the books I mentioned and CBMW’s prescribed “gender roles” are so popular among Christians.
I’m with you on the bright colors. I had a teacher (albeit in the early sixties) tell me, when I said red was my favorite colors, that “little ladies like pink, not red.” I was no tomboy, but I looked fab in my favorite red dress, and I knew it. Fortunately, my grandmother assured me that plenty of ladies like red, too, and until the teacher started paying for my clothes, she didn’t get to decide what colors were good or bad for me. I wish every girl had a champion like my grandmother.
“Another perspective: if either the men or the women in a comp church ceased “spiritual” service (I know, all service is spiritual, but we’re often inclined to put Bible teaching and prayer on a different level than cleaning the restrooms or even nursery supervision), whose inactivity would have the most obvious impact?”
Yes and no. Serving is a spiritual attitude that we all should have and includes watching the babies, cooking, mowing the lawn, repairs, and all the physical things that are not in and of themselves spiritual. Both men and women should be involved in that ’stuff’.
But spiritual service are those things that we cannot do without the Holy Spirit’s empowerment. There is the fruit of the Spirit which no one tries to segregate, thankfully. And then there are the ministry gifts which so often are hoarded by hierarchical men. Yet, Scripturally we should all seek the best gifts according to Paul.
Excellent post, molleth. That’s pretty much how I feel about it. Telling me that I can be useful to the church as a mommy or as the token pretty girl singing back-up for the church’s mostly-male worship team really doesn’t make me feel that valuable, and I don’t see where the complementarity is in the complementarian position as far as church leadership goes. I’m willing to grant them the term “complementarian” as a courtesy for debate and dialogue, but that’s really not how I see their position.
I’ve made this point to my LDS friends too, since in the Mormon church men can technically be ordained to all of the offices held by women (Relief Societ, Young Women, Primary). Women are completely supplementary to their church organization as well.
I’m not sure what the best solution is for those who honestly believe male leadership in the church is God-ordained, but I do admire complementarian churches like Imago Dei in Portland (which we discussed a few weeks ago) who sincerely seem to be trying to grant women a variety of expression for their gifts. Churches like NewFrontiers who are trying to be sneaky and quiet about marginalizing women and hoping that nobody will notice don’t get much respect from me on that front.
Whatever Gal. 3:28 teaches us, it certainly teaches us not to think in terms of a male-only church, or a female-only church (http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1399).
I greatly respect David Atkinson, the Anglican ethics and psychology of religion scholar who wrote the Bible Speaks Today (BST) exposition on Genesis 1-11 (and on some other Old Testament books), even though I don’t always agree with his conclusions.
For example, he used Gal. 3:28 to support his full egalitarian position (as well as Genesis 1-2, of course).
However, I find it concerning that in 1990, when he wrote his BST exposition on Genesis 1-11, he said homosexual [acts] ‘could not be affirmed’. Last year, however, he wrote a briefing paper for the (Anglican) Lambeth conference in support of homosexual unions.
Is egalitarianism in church leadership this thin end of the wedge, as http://www.carm.org also suggests? We might say it shouldn’t necessarily follow, but such evidence as David Atkinson’s reversal gives me mounting concern.
In Europe, church attendance has decreased alarmingly since the so-called sexual revolution of the 60s.
In, say, thirty years’ time, will we look back and say “Oh dear, that’s what Paul meant. If only we’d listened to him.”?
cndo, it appears you’re promoting the slippery slope argument that because the occasional egalitarian scholar also comes to take a softer position on same-sex orientation or activity over time, it somehow necessarily invalidates Christian equality. I don’t see the logic in that. It makes no more sense to me than if I were to attempt to prove that the forms of anti-egalitarianism called complementarianism are invalid because some prominent proponents of it have increased the ways in which they seek to restrict women’s Christian liberty. I wouldn’t consider it logical to try to invalidate complementarianism because of Wayne Grudem’s statements about the need to enforce increasingly restrictive roles for women and further entrench male rulership in home, society, and church, for example.
The “what if Paul was right” question cuts both ways. What will complementarians say if they come to realize that Ephesians 5:21 includes husbands; after all, Paul never says that it does not, and “submit to one another” is addressed to the entire church, not just those who by law or social custom were expected to involuntarily be subject (as opposed to submitting themselves, a voluntary action) to others. I think a little exercise in thought could be profitable to us all:
Christians ought to seriously consider what the consequences of biblical equality are, if it’s supposedly wrong but we practice it anyway. We should also ask what the consequences of Christian forms of patriarchy are (all along the spectrum of very mild to very restrictive), if it’s wrong but we practice it anyway. And I don’t mean following a slippery slope argument down to things that aren’t inherently a part of the philosophies, but what actually happens consistently as a part of them. I thought Eric’s call for a list concerning violence was a good start, but a broader focus would give us a more accurate picture and might be less likely to result in sidetracking from the topic.
So: What harm to church, family, and/or society does the practice of Christian equality result in? What harm to church, family, and/or society does the practice of Christian complementarianism result in?
cndo and any other comps listening in,
I do not mean this post to say anything about the comp church structure being right or wrong. All I’m trying to investigate is if “complementarian” is an accurate term to use for a male-led church structure, and based on the definition, it doesn’t seem to be (though I could be wrong)…
You know, I remember…where…rats, I can’t remember where, but somebody, maybe it wasn’t even here, talking about how the term “egalitarian” wasn’t an accurate one, and that may be the case as well.
Btw, I know this post may come off as “semantics,” but I do believe it is important to accurately present what is being taught, as best as we can with the knowledge that we have. CBMW is using the term “complementarian” with accuracy when it talks about marriage. But in church structure, no, unless it is using the label, “Comp churches,” to define churches who practice complementarian roles within individual marriages. Which, now that I think about it, perhaps it is. Thoughts?
I’ve only had one cup of coffee…trying to cut back from two to one…and so am realizing that this may be slightly incoherent.
Cdno – believe it or not, I respect those who sincerely have this concern. Any Christian who doesn’t hold our responsibility to the Word and the consequences for disobedience with a degree of fear and trembling doesn’t understand the magnitude of the God they’re dealing with. However, we have to examine the evidence when making our assessments. Are charges that Protestant rejection of monolithic church authority leads to schism and even chaos sufficient grounds to not hold traditional Catholic theology Biblically accountable, even when we ourselves mourn the divisions of denominationalism? Paul fought those who accused Christians of preaching a gospel of license and undermining morality by relying on grace rather than rules (Romans 3:8, 6:1-18). While in modern times some have linked women’s rights and endorsement of homosexual behavior, historically that connection falls apart. Ancient Greece was hardly a hotbed of feminism. There, and in other cultures down to modern times,. . .
Ugh. CARM.
While I can certainly see some Christians following the tenets of egalitarianism to conclude that homosexuality is okay—that is why Christians for Biblical Equality broke off from the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women’s Caucus, after all—I’m content to let egalitarianism make some mistakes while it finds its footing. After all, the complementarian side of the “slippery slope,” men using teachings on male headship to abuse their wives and make women in the church feel marginalized and insignificant, has already happened. It’s been happening for thousands of years. The only reason there are generous complementarian evangelicals out there today who try to stress how important and valuable women are while teaching male headship is because of the feminist movement, yet they don’t want to follow feminism to its logical application in the church. “Thanks ladies, you woke us up and showed us the error of our ways, we’ll treat you better this time if you let us take it from here.”
We already know what happens when only men are in charge and women have no voice. Male headship doesn’t get a do-over.
. . .the practice has been justified, even ritualized (Papua New Guinea, for example) on the grounds of female inferiority and pollution, or it flourishes when strict gender stratification and demarcation reduce the sexes’ ability and opportunities to identify with and relate to each other. Do all professing modern Christians who would grant legitimacy to same-sex relationships also endorse gender equity? Not necessarily; there are many who struggle with a perceived tension between righteousness and mercy, and sometimes draw problematic conclusions. I also think that those who openly discuss the need for mercy and understanding are sometimes falsely accused of endorsing immoral behavior as well, which complicates things. On a side note, the same problems come to the fore in accusations that egalitarianism leads to goddess worship. Despite the fondest wishes of today’s neo-pagans and perhaps even some conservative Christians, goddess worship has generally not sprung from women’s lib or gender confusion. . .
What do I do with this? How do I respond? What is an alternative interpretation of these claims?
Susan Foh: What is the woman’s desire in Genesis 3:16?
Genesis 3:16 needs to be read in the light of Genesis 4:7. In Hebrew, the two are closely parallel
Contrary to the usual interpretations of commentators, the desire of the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife (more) submissive to her husband so that he may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin, but it is not God’s decretive will for the woman. Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife.
The reasons for preferring this interpretation are:
1.
It is consistent with the context, i.e., it is judgment for sin that the relation between man and woman is made difficult. God’s words in Genesis 3:16b destroy the harmony of marriage, for the rule of the husband, part of God’s original intent for marriage, is not made more tolerable by the wife’s desire for her husband, but less tolerable, because she rebels against his leadership and tries to usurp it.
2.
It permits a consistent understanding of hqvwt in the Old Testament also consistent with its etymology.
3.
It recognizes the parallel between Genesis 3:16b and 4:7b. The interpretation of 4:7b is clearer; we know from the context that sin’s desire to Cain involves mastery or enslavement and that Cain did not win the battle to rule sin.
4.
It explains the fact that husbands do not rule their wives as a result of God’s proclamation in Genesis 3:16b. (Further support is implied by the New Testament commands for wives to be submissive to their husbands and the requirements for elders to rule their families.) jb-lwmy xvhv is not an indicative statement, for if God states that something will come to pass, it will.
Yours hopefully
Rachel Re vis.e re form
I agree with you about accuracy of the labels, Molly, and I’m sorry I followed the off-topic tangent there.
On-topic (or at least I think it is): I listened to/watched the introductory section of one of Mark Driscoll’s sermons about marriage, in which he defined the following: Non-Christian feminist marriage model, Christian egalitarian marriage model, and Christian complementarian marriage model. I can’t speak to his accuracy about the first or third of these, but I can say that he was wrong about just about everything he had to say (most of it quite pejorative) about the Christian egalitarian model. Much of this wrong information he’d just given his church members and others who tuned in, got used to contrast the model he was touting, which of course was the Christian complementarian model.
I have sometimes wondered how accurate some proponents’ complementarian models for marriage are (and there are quite a number of them, all of which are claimed to be THE biblical model), when they’re presented as the answer to something that doesn’t even exist: their invention of all the wrongs of “Christian egalitarian” marriage, since they bear so little resemblance to actual Christian egalitarian principles for marriage. In other words, can these complementarian representatives’ gross misunderstandings (I would hope not deliberate distortions) of egalitarian marriage, perhaps be distorting their definitions of complementarian marriage?
Were I undecided about these two philosophies and to discover this kind of error, I would not be willing to trust the “good” taught by that person, either.
Molleth
‘CBMW is using the term “complementarian” with accuracy when it talks about marriage. But in church structure, no, unless it is using the label, “Comp churches,” to define churches who practice complementarian roles within individual marriages. Which, now that I think about it, perhaps it is. Thoughts?’
I found to strange to come across such a polarisation between the CBMW and the CBE. It seems either you have to support two or three point ‘comp’ism or else you have to support two or three point ‘egal’ism.
Did God plan for church leadership to be male to discipline women from becoming bossy, as can happen in marriages (as a result of sin)? But then how would he provide for men to be disciplined not to rule harshly?
What we could do with is a site dedicated to presenting the exegeses of our most trusted theologians on the relevant passages, and then compile the various possible hermeneutic approaches (how we apply the exegeses). That would be systematic and objective. But we’d still have to weigh the evidence as individuals, churches and denominations.
BTW, any ‘Christus Victor’ advocates here?!
Hi Mary,
You put: “submit to one another” is addressed to the entire church, not just those who by law or social custom were expected to involuntarily be subject (as opposed to submitting themselves, a voluntary action) to others.
I don’t see a contradiction between the general encouragement to submit to one another and the specific submission of a godly wife to her husband (Tit. 2:5, 1 Pt. 3:6), because the husband and wife are ‘one flesh’; hopefully presenting a united front (and reality) to the fellowship.
. . . Goddesses are usually the consorts (or at least offspring) of more powerful male false gods, and both come from over-emphasizing human sexuality and fertility to the point of deification. Does the danger of inappropriately ascribing divine significance to gender differences raise red flags in complementarian minds, particularly given the harm it has done throughout human history? My last question – in areas of Christian conduct not specifically declared to be sin, is the more restrictive/traditional option presumed to be the safest? Jesus and the Biblical authors weren’t soft on sin to be sure, but how did they address those who would place additional restrictions on others? Regardless of one’s stance on the gender issue, it should be clear that much of comp theology is not derived directly from the Bible, but is extrapolated from specific interpretations of a few verses. After all, while God says a lot about distorting or abusing sexuality, where does he say that we must promote patriarchy as such?
Sorry for the long ramble
. As I said I really do respect anyone who asks the tough questions and seeks truth even when it’s not popular. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe some comp teachers have addressed the concerns that come to my mind (as listed above) when I hear their concerns (and unfortunately sometimes outright accusations . . . I hear cdno expressing an honest concern here, and hope I have adequately expressed my appreciation and respect for that) and seek to find what the truth is. If there are substantive responses to questions like mine, I’d be very interested in them.
I’m enjoying all these thoughts…
Hey, one P.S. I wanted to add was that I am the Queen of Tangents, so I didn’t mean to say that getting off topic was bad or anything…
”It explains the fact that husbands do not rule their wives as a result of God’s proclamation in Genesis 3:16b. (Further support is implied by the New Testament commands for wives to be submissive to their husbands and the requirements for elders to rule their families.) jb-lwmy xvhv is not an indicative statement, for if God states that something will come to pass, it will.”
I am familiar with Susan Fo’s premise on this. But she is absolutely wrong.
1. In Gen. 3 God is speaking to the woman, not the man. He is warning her of what is to come, not commanding her to desire her husband. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
2. Gen. 4 is talking to Cain, not ‘evil’. Evil always needs to be resisted.
3. Woman is not equivalent to ‘evil’, and does not have the same desires as ‘evil’.
4. The meaning of teshuqua is desire, turning, craving, urge….
5. With Fo’s interpretation, it would make the lover’s desire in SOS 7:10 become something to be resisted and controlled, rather than a positive romantic nuance..
I suggest reading Discovering Biblical Equality for more information. There is a section on Gen. 1-3 by Hess.
”It explains the fact that husbands do not rule their wives as a result of God’s proclamation in Genesis 3:16b. (Further support is implied by the New Testament commands for wives to be submissive to their husbands and the requirements for elders to rule their families.) jb-lwmy xvhv is not an indicative statement, for if God states that something will come to pass, it will.”
I am familiar with Susan Fo’s premise on this. But she is absolutely wrong.
1. In Gen. 3 God is speaking to the woman, not the man. He is warning her of what is to come, not commanding her to desire her husband. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
2. Gen. 4 is talking to Cain, not ‘evil’.
3. Woman is not equivalent to ‘evil’, and does not have the same desires as ‘evil’.
4. The meaning of teshuqua is desire, turning, craving, urge….
5. With Fo’s interpretation, it would make the lover’s desire in SOS 7:10 become something to be resisted and controlled, rather than a positive romantic nuance..
I suggest reading Discovering Biblical Equality for more information. There is a section on Gen. 1-3 by Hess.
”Did God plan for church leadership to be male to discipline women from becoming bossy, as can happen in marriages (as a result of sin)? But then how would he provide for men to be disciplined not to rule harshly?”
LOL Good questions. I suppose that could be a good hierarchical interpretation. But what about all those trillions of women who are not inclined to be bossy in or out of marriage?
I do not believe that Scriptures say that only men can be leaders. IMO that is reading a previous viewpoint into Scripture. We are all to mature into the perfect humanhood of Christ. And we all need to minister to each other, carry each other’s burdens, and admonish others spurring them on to good works in the Lord. And we don’t do that out of our flesh (maleness or femaleness) but with the help of the HS.
cndo, I’m glad you do recognize that submission is for husbands as well as for wives. The specific requirement of Eph. 5:22 even borrows the verb from vs. 21, they’re that closely connected (making the section division at vs. 22 that is so popular among Bible publishers, a serious flaw). The specific in no way mitigates the general requirment. I’m afraid that according to well-documented self-described complementarian spokesmen, however, submission in the marriage is supposed to be unilateral and the unique requirement for the wife. It’s a very common and widely-held belief of complementarians, according to those spokesmen. They sometimes even say that it is “gender confusion” if a man submits to his wife and a case of sinful domineering on her part if she permits it. If both husband and wife submit to one another (mutual submission, a cornerstone of egalitarian principles), the leader/follower model isn’t going to work. As egalitarian couples can attest, it just isn’t necessary and would be an impediment to what they understand true biblical submission entails for both husband and wife.
I used taking Eph. 5:21 as it reads, as one example of the “what if Paul was right about ____” question. Other examples, framed for complementarians, might be:
“What if Paul was right about ‘likewise, the women’ meaning that the female leaders of the first century church named in various places in the New Testament, actually were leaders of both men and women?”
“What if Paul was right about establishing the place of women to learn in the same way that the men were to learn, so that both men and women could be qualified to teach sound doctrine?”
“What if Paul was right about the husband being called the head of the wife meaning that she is also the husband’s body, showing us an indivisible, living unity illustration of marriage, rather than illustrating an out-of-context concept of a husband’s supposed authority over his wife?”
etc.
Man, did my last posts look garbled (in addition to being long……
). The format in which I post limits how much I can include in each comment. Maybe I should take the hint! Any hoo, the last series of posts were intended to be read as one. Suffice to say, I have thought about the ? Cdno brought up quite a bit. I know it was a rabbit trail, but hope there was something helpful in it. Btw, re: believer’s comment concerning service as spiritual. Amen! I was struggling with how to get my point across. All service is spiritual, but our fallen natures can see some as more spiritual than others. Maybe it would be more accurate to say “service most closely identified with church in particular.” Child care and other traditional female ministries can be less specific to church and less central to church function than preaching or teaching Sunday school. Thus, women’s contributions might be missed, but men would be permitted to fill in. A comp church would be immobilized if no men would preach or lead.
I’d say that tending to be bossy in marriage is a human flaw, to which both husbands and wives easily fall prey. That’s one reason that any belief system in which a man is essentially told that he is his wife’s boss (whether called that, or her “servant leader,” “ruler,” “lord,” “authority,” or some of the other terms used when “head of the wife” is taken to mean “authority over the wife”) is bound to be problematic for a significant number of couples, giving systemic approval for the husband to BE bossy and think it’s a good thing. The myth that only women are bossy is just so much bunk. (Not saying that anyone here believes that myth, only that the myth gets repeated in a lot of the manhood-womanhood literature.
Rachel wrote
I’ve come across this interpretation as well and have a couple of problems with it.
Firstly the whole of 3:16 should be considered in the context of Gen 1.
The first command Adam and Eve are given is to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. (1:28)
In Gen 3:16a Eve has just been told that childbirth is going to be really, really unpleasant. If you asked a woman who had just given birth – and that with the aid of modern pain relief – when they were going to do it again, the likey reply is ‘Never!’ Gen 3:16a raises the obvious question – Is the command in 1:28 going to be fulfilled? 3:16b shows that it will for 2 reasons. The wife’s desire for her husband will overcome her fear (a very real fear in ancient – and not so ancient – times) and she will have children. Also her husband will rule over her and can demand (and ensure) she has children.
I hadn’t come across the sort of interpretation Foh gives when I first took a close look at this verse. Looking at the verse the above interpretation seemed obvious. When subsequently I saw Foh’s type of interpretation it seemed very strained. Interestingly some years later I came across a rabbinical interpretation (in the Genesis Rabbah) of 3:16b which also saw the wife’s desire as ensuring she would have more than 1 child.
Not sure I’m convinced by Hess, in part because of the emphasis on the woman’s role in childbearing (3:20) and in part because ‘toil’ is a very good description of giving birth. It’s not called ‘labour’ for nothing.
Secondly I think it is just as likely (if not more so) that you can interpret 4:7 in the light of 3:16. After all it is the direction in which you read the narrative. In that case sin is being likened to a wife desiring her husband and Cain is being told that just as a husband can rule over his wife so he is capable of ruling over – ie rejecting – this temptation. He is not a helpless victim.
Amanda wrote: “Secondly I think it is just as likely (if not more so) that you can interpret 4:7 in the light of 3:16. After all it is the direction in which you read the narrative.”
I think this confuses interpreting the words with interpreting the respective overall meanings.
It seems the overall contexts of 3:16 and 4:7 have been completely disregarded here.
Mary :”cndo, I’m glad you do recognize that submission is for husbands as well as for wives.”
The husband has an overall stance of leadership in the biblical marriage, as I understand it. This doesn’t mean his wife cannot initiate or suggest anything. It takes a man and a woman in a marriage covenant fully to represent God (Genesis 1). Yet overall leadership and responsibility for the marriage is with the husband (Genesis 2).
Eph 3:14-15 “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.” Verses such as this, along with those in Genesis and 1 Timothy that indicate Adam was created first, surely indicate that overall leadership in the local church is male.
Also, consider that nowhere does the Bible say that the Father submits to the Son or the Holy Spirit, or that the Son submits to the Holy Spirit. There is a hierarchy in the Trinity, and Adam and Eve were made to reflect the Trinitarian structure together on earth.
Also, consider that nowhere does the Bible say that the Father submits to the Son
Would it therefore be sinful for a husband to give in to his wife?
According to Ware, the Father’s supremacy is uncontested, and the Son’s submission is complete, comprehensive and all inclusive.
If this pattern were established in marriage a wife could never express an independent opinion, never challenge a husband, never dissent from anything he decided. This is Bruce Ware’s directive that total uncontested power is given to the one in authority.
This is a health risk to women, promotes depression and anxiety, distance and lack of physical intimacy. The health costs are huge. Can we afford this?
Cndo,
I appreciate that you appreciate that a wife’s contribution is necessary to a marriage.
However, I don’t believe that a man and woman in a marriage covenant are necessary to fully represent God, and I don’t see this in Genesis 1. Anyone can represent God. Paul certainly did, and he wasn’t married. Perhaps what you mean is that in order for God to be fully represented in a marriage, both the husband and wife’s contribution must be considered. I would agree, although not everyone’s contribution is always godly. Non-godly input must be considered, but not in egalitarian terms – godly is not equal to ungodly. Ungodly input, or behavior, must be dealt with appropriately.
What in Gen. 2 do you see that indicates that overall leadership and responsibility for the marriage is with the husband? Why does being created first indicate leadership? I don’t understand the relation you see between Eph. 3 and church leadership being male – Paul is saying that he (and we) kneels before the Father because our name – who we are, our identity, what we are known as – derives from Him. It’s about derivation.
Likewise, the Father does not submit to the Son or the H. S., or the Son to the H. S., because both the Son and the H. S. proceed from the Father. They derive from the Father, since He is the maker, the Source, the author of all things.
I don’t see these things as being about hierarchy, or authority, here, deriving from hierarchy, but about derivation.
Where do you read, in the Bible, that Adam and Eve were made to reflect the Trinitarian structure?
“Also, consider that nowhere does the Bible say that the Father submits to the Son”
But Jesus says that He would if asked:
But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
Matt 26
Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
“Eph 3:14-15 “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.” Verses such as this, along with those in Genesis and 1 Timothy that indicate Adam was created first, surely indicate that overall leadership in the local church is male”
The problem with the Genesis verses is that all they show us is that the male was created 1st. They do not tell us that this means he is ‘in charge’ of who was created 2nd. Also, God did both state and show us that the woman was created 2nd in order to show the man his need of a companion. We need not look for another reason, when God already stated and demonstrated it.
The fact that God as Creator was before all that He created, does not mean that the first human is thus equally endowed. The first human was just the first human. And he gets no other status unless God actually said he did, and God didn’t say that he did.
“It seems the overall contexts of 3:16 and 4:7 have been completely disregarded here.”
I agree. They actually have nothing to do with each other, are not related, and the contexts are quite different.
Cndo, I too would be interested in the path you take through Genesis 2 in order to conclude that “overall leadership and responsibility for the marriage is with the husband.” For that matter, I’d be just as interested in seeing your exegetical path in Eph 3:14-15, Genesis (all of it?), and/or 1 Timothy that leads to your conclusion “that overall leadership in the local church is male,” particularly anything that states or implies that the reason for this assumed mandate is creation order. Honestly, I think these conclusions would require one to read into these passages and their context the expectation of finding a mandate for male-only leadership. We have example after example throughout Scripture that leadership was NOT exclusively by men, even in Scripture’s highly patriarchal social context. If male-only leadership were an important principle to be observed for all time by Christians, surely it would both be stated somewhere as a commandment and such “exceptions” (many as there are) in Scripture of women leading would be either absent or denounced.
I’m the first to concede that throughout most of human history, male-only leadership has been the way that humans have ordered their societies. That, however, should never be mistaken for a mandate from God, nor for proof that we should assume such a mandate was intended though never stated.
I can’t agree with any of your statements concerning hierarchy in the Trinity and the concept that the first man and woman (2 separate beings in one flesh, with two separate wills) were created to reflect the Trinity (3 inseparable Persons in one God, possessed of one perfect will). Here again, I recognize that many Christians make this conclusion, but I do not find it supported scripturally. In fact, I think such a conclusion runs counter to orthodox doctrine. As far as I can tell, it is a new teaching that came along to support the imposition of patriarchal principles in the church.
Sue: “Would it therefore be sinful for a husband to give in to his wife?
According to Ware, the Father’s supremacy is uncontested, and the Son’s submission is complete, comprehensive and all inclusive.
If this pattern were established in marriage a wife could never express an independent opinion, never challenge a husband, never dissent from anything he decided. This is Bruce Ware’s directive that total uncontested power is given to the one in authority.”
IMO, It depends. Yes if the husband doesn’t evaluate what his wife is saying (along the lines of, say, Ja. 3:17 ‘willing to yield’ [NKJV, I think], c.f. Ja. 4:17); if you literally mean ‘give in to his wife’. No if he evaluates what his wife is saying and decides to go with what she says.
Hi Bonnie,
Bonnie: “Where do you read, in the Bible, that Adam and Eve were made to reflect the Trinitarian structure?”
They were made in God’s image. David Atkinson has argued (BST, The Message of Genesis 1-11) that this means having a relationship, representing God, much more than it does functional attributes (though I think it also includes these).
My reading of Ephesians indicates that Christ leads the Church; it is from this inference that husbands are to lead in their marriages (Tit. 2:5, 1 Pt. 3:1-7, 6, 7).
Hi Lin,
Pray means ‘ask’. Maybe our Father had told Jesus He would make that specific provision; more likely, IMO, Jesus is indicating His security in His relationship with our Father, as if to say ‘this is the kind of thing I know my Father would do for me, if I wanted Him to do so’. So I don’t see this as God the Son having authority over God the Father. Remember Jesus is going to hand everything over to His Father at the end of this age.
Hi Don,
“Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”
I see this as a leading of service, as when a hotel porter leads a customer to their room.
Mary,
Some will say that we do have such commandments in the Pastorals. Jesus often taught inductively; sometimes the answers depend on what we infer from other Scriptures, which makes debating centred on a specific passage as frustrating as it can be.
What do you think of leadership among birds, reptiles, mammals, fish and insects? Do they function as they were created to do now, hunting one another, stinging us humans and so on? There are some examples of matriarchy, but doesn’t patriarchy predominate?
“Pray means ‘ask’. Maybe our Father had told Jesus He would make that specific provision; more likely, IMO, Jesus is indicating His security in His relationship with our Father, as if to say ‘this is the kind of thing I know my Father would do for me, if I wanted Him to do so’. So I don’t see this as God the Son having authority over God the Father. Remember Jesus is going to hand everything over to His Father at the end of this age.”
It may be a matter of semantics to you but Jesus is saying that the Father would do what He ordered.
How do you deal with John 5:18 in terms of hierarchy in the Trinity? We know that Jewish scholars are well aware that Messiah would be equal to God. The Pharisees understood this, too.
What we have to be careful of is teleporting Incarnation verses where the Lord of Hosts gave up His Glory and humbled Himself to come to earth as fully human and fully God as Messiah.
Mapping the Trinity to earthly relationships brings us to this outcome:
Man as god
Woman as Jesus
It is just another clever but heretical way for man to elevate himself above Jesus Christ.
If Jesus Christ is not equal to the Father then it lessens His sacrifice on the cross.
The predominance of patriarchy among the lower animals and even through most of human history, in no way means that Christians, faithfully interpreting the Scriptures, should infer that God demands patriarchy among the body of Christ, in society, church, or marriage. Your example, Cndo, makes the point quite clearly, ISTM. The patriarchally-ordered animals tend to be organized into harems. They fight, often to the death, for a mate. Mating exclusively for life is relatively rare in the animal kingdom; the norm is seasonal mating, often with multiple mates. The males sometimes kill their own young. All this is how they were created; it is a part of their nature, disturbing as this can be for us humans to comprehend. We would hardly advocate any of these practices for ourselves as the human species. Since we have no scriptural mandate for patriarchy, is there really any sound reason to think that God demands it of us anyway? The many Christians who eschew the practice are living proof that it is not necessary to organize ourselves according to a patriarchal hierarchy. We find ample evidence by means of expressed scriptural commands that mutuality in our human relationships is God-honoring.
Again, I would really like to know what constitutes any clear command, in Scripture, for husbands and/or men to be the leaders of their wives and/or women. I continue to maintain there is none, which is why I have several times asked to see what exegetical exercises those who think otherwise use in order to find one.
The first video on this link was amazing (Wives Submit). If only more preachers could preach this message.
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/04/wives-submit-to-your-husbands.html
And then the video excerpts by a Baptist preacher are amazingly misogynistic. Cannot imagine a preacher saying that.
Definitely an extreme view.
I am confused. Christ’s submission is comprehensive and all-inclusive. This is the model. The more one is like Christ the better.
However, if a wife’s submission is comprehensive and all-inclusive, if she totally sublimates her will to the husband, and only does his will, this does not make a better marriage.
The principle does not hold. Why maintain that this is the correct principle.
In fact, mothers assess toddlers as needing to experience the “no” answer in order to mature. Don’t men also need to hear the word “no” in order to mature. It seems that the notion that men are like God maintains men in a toddler mentality which causes women to disrespect them and the cycle perpetuates itself. That’s just what it looks like.
For example, if a woman submits the man realizes that his teaching her that she must submit works – he got his way, he is reinforced in this practice and goes for more next time. His request is more demanding, his expectation more sure, his sense of entitlement higher. If the wife ultimately refuses to gratify this urge, a negative result occcurs.
“In fact, mothers assess toddlers as needing to experience the “no” answer in order to mature. Don’t men also need to hear the word “no” in order to mature.”
Brilliant! Yes, men absolutely DO need to hear a no when their behavior warrants it, in order to mature. We all do.
Sue, you said: “I am confused. Christ’s submission is comprehensive and all-inclusive. This is the model. The more one is like Christ the better.”
This got me to thinking. Certain complementarian principles say that husbands’ authority corresponds to God the Father’s authority in marriage, and the wife’s submission is supposed to mirror Christ’s total submission.
So how then can this understanding coexist with the complementarian understanding that a husband and wife are to represent Christ and the church, respectively?
I still say that trying to fit the marriage of two separate but married mortal human beings into a supposed representation of three inseparable divine Persons, simply doesn’t work. That, I suppose, is why we don’t find any such analogy in Scripture or in orthodox church doctrine. And it still seems obvious to me that head + body is a metaphor for unity, not for an authority figure and a submitter. I find “God the Father never submitted to God the Son” to be no support for a husband expecting his wife to submit to him, but him never submitting to her. The primary reason (among many) that I see for this is that husbands are not divine; they’re of the same stuff as their wives: human.
I really would like to understand how a justification for hierarchy in marriage can be derived from the Scriptures. Contextually, I simply can’t find any such justification.
Cndo, thanks for your responses. Certainly man (men and women) are made in God’s image, and I can agree that this includes relationship and representative attributes. However, from this to “husband and wife together reflect the Trinity” is a very great leap.
On the passages you mentioned where you see husband-leadership, what I see actual reference to is a wife’s submission to her own husband, which I absolutely support! In I Peter 1:7, husbands are instructed to grant their wives honor. That passage follows Peter’s exhortation to bear up under unjust treatment (ch. 2), after which wives are told to likewise bear with a disobedient (to the Word) husband. She is to give him honor as her husband but not necessarily go along with his “leadership” if it is ungodly.* She is not told to be submissive to his leadership, but to him.
As for Ephesians, there’s too much to discuss in a brief comment, but Christ’s work is so much more than mere leadership. And it’s not the leadership (if we are going to call it that) itself that’s the point, but what that leadership entails. There is so much more that Christ does that a husband, as part of Christ’s bride himself, cannot do, even for a wife. We must determine just where the husband-wife relationship is analogous to the Christ-church relationship if we are to understand Paul’s words in Eph. 5.
*Along these lines, you answered Sue, Yes if the husband doesn’t evaluate what his wife is saying…No if he evaluates what his wife is saying and decides to go with what she says. Certainly a wife must also evaluate what her husband says in deciding whether or not she will go along with it. To do otherwise would be dishonorable and foolish.
Lin,
“How do you deal with John 5:18 in terms of hierarchy in the Trinity?”
Equal in nature, equal in status, different in roles.
“Mapping the Trinity to earthly relationships brings us to this outcome:
Man as god
Woman as Jesus”
Where did you get this from, Lin? Paul gave us husbands representing Christ and women representing the Church (and that in a ‘profound mystery’!).
Hi Mary,
“All this is how they were created; it is a part of their nature, disturbing as this can be for us humans to comprehend. We would hardly advocate any of these practices for ourselves as the human species.”
It doesn’t seem to me that animals were created to act as we see them doing now; we were all plant eaters until the Noahic flood, Isaiah pictures the lion lying down with the lamb (again?!) and Paul tells us all creation groans waiting for ‘the sons of God to be revealed’.
Again, I would really like to know what constitutes any clear command, in Scripture, for husbands and/or men to be the leaders of their wives and/or women. I continue to maintain there is none, which is why I have several times asked to see what exegetical exercises those who think otherwise use in order to find one.
What do you make of Tit. 2:5? 1 Pt. 3:1-7, 6 then, Mary? Are these ‘clear’ enough ‘command[s]‘ for you?
Sue and Mary,
Sue: “I am confused. Christ’s submission is comprehensive and all-inclusive. This is the model. The more one is like Christ the better.
However, if a wife’s submission is comprehensive and all-inclusive, if she totally sublimates her will to the husband, and only does his will, this does not make a better marriage.
The principle does not hold. Why maintain that this is the correct principle.”
This reminds me of the book ‘Intended for Pleasure’; written by an American, it says the wife must submit totally to her husband during sexual intercouse, and that therein lies true fulfillment. In the preface to the UK edition, however, the distributors put that they don’t agree with a few things in the book, and this is one example.
Surely by complete we mean Christ’s submission is unbroken. But what is its nature? His Passion indicates that it is not unquestioning. Marriage is not a military operation!
Sue: “In fact, mothers assess toddlers as needing to experience the “no” answer in order to mature. Don’t men also need to hear the word “no” in order to mature. It seems that the notion that men are like God maintains men in a toddler mentality which causes women to disrespect them and the cycle perpetuates itself. That’s just what it looks like.
For example, if a woman submits the man realizes that his teaching her that she must submit works – he got his way, he is reinforced in this practice and goes for more next time. His request is more demanding, his expectation more sure, his sense of entitlement higher. If the wife ultimately refuses to gratify this urge, a negative result occcurs.”
Don’t men hear ‘no’ from many people in the local church? In their occupations? From the local government?! A godly man will be reading the Bible, and trying to base his life around it; thus, he will read Paul saying that husbands try to please their wives. When a wife says ‘I don’t think this is right (or the best) course of action, but I’ll go with it out of respect for you’, a conscientious husband who is trying to please her would reconsider, and hear her out. I’m sure many men would rather not have to have this responsibility of casting the deciding vote! But that, of course, was the problem that got us into this mess in the first place.
Mary: “Certain complementarian principles say that husbands’ authority corresponds to God the Father’s authority in marriage, and the wife’s submission is supposed to mirror Christ’s total submission.”
I don’t like to characterise the husband’s authority as corresponding to God the Father (He is over all, after all). Rather, that we see masculinity in Christ’s leadership of the Church, and femininity in His submission to the Father.
Hi Bonnie,
“Certainly a wife must also evaluate what her husband says in deciding whether or not she will go along with it. To do otherwise would be dishonorable and foolish.”
I agree with this. Hopefully she will share her evaluation and he will have the wherewithal, the humility and godliness, to listen. Jesus always listens. I don’t believe she should do something that the Bible clearly identifies as sinful. Maybe even if she regards something as sinful but her husband does not. But there should be dialogue, centred on the Bible about such matters. I think Peter’s talking about unbelieving husbands, in which case although she might have tried to explain, if her unbelieving husband is unwilling to listen or to look at the Bible, IMO that’s fine.
“There is so much more that Christ does that a husband, as part of Christ’s bride himself, cannot do, even for a wife. We must determine just where the husband-wife relationship is analogous to the Christ-church relationship if we are to understand Paul’s words in Eph. 5.”
Inasmuch as I have the impression you’re intimating that one’s spouse is not sufficient for life, I agree with you. What I mean is, we should be looking first to God for our life and strength, and seeking to minister to our spouse (if we’re married). In a dysfunctional marriage, spouses try to draw life from each other rather than from God. This is not the way of love. But isn’t Paul making a general, conceptual command outlining the authority structure of a marriage? If so, and I believe he is, then we don’t need a catalogue of specific acts.
Hi believer3,
1 Pt. 1:1 seems to be addressed to everyone (Ga. 3:28) and in this context he says ‘you are … a royal priesthood’ (1 Pt. 2:9).
Later on in the letter, he addresses elders and then younger men, as if to imply that at least a predominance of men were leaders. However, before this, he says ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men’ (1 Pt. 2:13) and proceeds to refer to kings and governors.
Perhaps this indicates that women could in principle lead in the church, but in that context Peter didn’t want to disrupt the status quo too severly, too soon. What do you think?
Perhaps the question still hangs on one’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, though. Perhaps Paul would say ‘Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind’ (Ro. 14:5).
I’m going to have a break from the web site from now until next week. Happy Easter to everyone reading this!
Cndo:
In response to this statement of mine:
“Again, I would really like to know what constitutes any clear command, in Scripture, for husbands and/or men to be the leaders of their wives and/or women. I continue to maintain there is none, which is why I have several times asked to see what exegetical exercises those who think otherwise use in order to find one.”
You replied:
“What do you make of Tit. 2:5? 1 Pt. 3:1-7, 6 then, Mary? Are these ‘clear’ enough ‘command[s]‘ for you?”
Contextually, these isolated verses certainly do not constitute a command, clear or otherwise, for husbands/men to be their wives’/women’s leaders. So I will take it that you read them as though they are. Fair enough, but I continue to maintain that doing so ignores the context in which they were written and reforms them into something they simply do not say. So yes, they’re perfectly clear enough to me: clear enough to support my contention that they don’t constitute commands for men to be the leaders of women.
By the way, I think I know what you were referring to, but the “6″ in your reference “1 Pt. 3:1-7, 6″ appears to be either redundrant or simply an error. Would you please clarify which verses you meant to reference? Thanks.
I’m not sure what you were trying to say in your observation that God did not intend for the animals to act as they do today. I would agree, though now they certainly are created to act as they do, with every new animal that is born (just as every human being is born with sin nature, though that is not God’s desire). Unlike the animals, of course, we human beings are given the power to choose good over evil, to not settle for the curse of sin. Our first father’s domination of our first mother, and by implication every generation’s sinful behavior in this regard, does not have to be so. Only with the introduction of sin in the world did men rule over women, as God told our first mother that our first father would do. We need not settle for that pattern. Men can choose to serve women, just as Paul indicated that the submission of self to the other is God’s desire for all believers, not only for wives to their husbands.
Cndo, you said (to Believer3):
“Perhaps this indicates that women could in principle lead in the church, but in that context Peter didn’t want to disrupt the status quo too severly, too soon. What do you think?”
I’m not Believer (though I am a believer – smile), but I think this comment based on 1 Peter 2:13 is insightful and mostly correct. Paul’s writings indicate that Christians were under a great deal of scrutiny, which could cost them their lives, so a blatant flaunting of believers’ freedom in Christ was a dangerous thing. He several times advocated conforming to civil law and custom insofar as the believer could, without violating God’s law of love.
I think it’s critically important for us Christians to make the distinction between the positional power structures and authority figures of this world (the civil authorities, for example) and the very different way that God reveals for our families and churches to be organized. Paul understood and taught this distinction. I think we make a serious error to decide that elders, pastors, deacons, and various other titles pertaining to church leadership, are positions of rulership (worldly authority). The authority God gives is always to serve, and it is for a specific purpose, not a blanket positional authority so that one individual is permanently an “authority over” another. Even if a Christian occupies a position of power in the world, such as a police officer or a corporate CEO, or a leadership position in a congregation of believers, such as an administrator or teacher, that position is limited in duration and circumstances. If it is secular, it is in effect only so long as the individual remains employed in the job, or in church situations, only so long as the individual remains qualified, and only in the scope of the relationship. In other words, a police officer is not a law enforcement official to his or her spouse or children, and a teacher carries the teacher’s authority to teach, only to those who consent to be his or her students. The trouble is, complementarian theory makes the husband his wife’s permanent, unlimited authority figure, and sets forth a rather confusing variety of limits as to what the wife is permitted to say “no” to. (There’s no consensus as to what limits the supposed authority carries.) Complementarian theory usually equates a wife’s submission with obedience, which is not what biblical submission entails. And such theory also makes her submission to his supposed authority, not to him personally, which is what the Scriptures say submission is (Submit [yourselves] to one another . . . wives to your husbands . . .). Submission to a position of authority is a very different thing than submission to a person.
So as things stand, these are my serious objections to complementarian teachings:
*Submission is considered unilateral (wife-only) in marriage, contra Eph. 5:21 in its full context;
*Submission is taught to be obedience to an authority figure, rather than actual voluntary submission to a person;
*True authority is the God-given Spirit empowerment to serve, rather than a permanent blanket positional power of one person “over” another (as complementarianism’s concept of a husband’s supposed authority over his wife);
*Husbands are automatically considered their wives’ leaders by virtue of their being men, rather than recognizing that competent adults do not need to be led by another adult, but both need to be led by God, and God does not delegate this leadership to the husband in the marriage relationship.
“Where did you get this from, Lin?”
It is all over but mainly it is being taught by Grudem, Ware and others.
“Paul gave us husbands representing Christ and women representing the Church (and that in a ‘profound mystery’!).”
I guess that explains why women cannot be Christlike since He came as a male and we have to focus on feminine and masculine roles. (smile)
Actually, I cannot find the mapping you give for each gender in that passage. It has to be read into it.
Shalom, y’all! Happy Passover & Easter! (we’re near Tiberias in Galilee at the moment)
WOW!!!!!
I miss you. Will you share the photo link here so everyone can see your pictures..???
Have a great time!
I would love to share the photo link but no one here in Israel has an email connection fast enough to upload photos to Flickr. They’ll be on my Flickr page when I return and upload them, but you’ll have to wait until then to see them. We’re scheduled to return April 14, so you should see them shortly after then. The page just go to Flickr and search for eweiss1 under people to find my photostream where the pictures will appear. I’m already on my 3rd 16GB memory card (each card takes 1,000+ 10 megapixel RAW + JPG images (or 3,000+ JPG-only images, but I’m doing RAW + JPG) and/or 2+ hours of HD 720p video or a combination thereof. There is no way that the pictures or movies you’ve seen do justice to things like the Judean wilderness/desert. It’s like being on the surface of Mars as the Mars landrover pictures showed. Ein (En) Gedi is jaw-dropping. I prayed at the Western (Wailing) wall in my bar-mitzvah kippah (skullcap) and tallis (prayer shawl) that I haven’t worn for 44 years. And we’ve been eating falafel sandwiches almost everyday – they’re as ubiquitous as hamburgers or hot dogs in the U.S.
Eric, I’m happy for you that you are taking this trip.
I’m also jealous.
Please do link pictures.
I’d love to see.
Eric, I also would love to see photo’s of your adventures.
Shalom, and Mahalo Nui
Eric, your trip sounds absolutely amazing. I’d love to see photos too.
Hi cndo, I appreciate the discussion. It helps me understand comp. thought. I’m not sure what you mean by this, though: if her unbelieving husband is unwilling to listen or to look at the Bible, IMO that’s fine. I would say that “disobedient husband” can also mean disobedient believer, who is evidencing a portion of unbelief, or else he wouldn’t be disobedient!
I agree about dysfunctional marriage. I also agree that we don’t need a catalogue of specific acts, although I think that the concept Paul outlines is the one-flesh structure and function of marriage as one body, where the husband is the head and the wife is the body proper, as with Christ and the church. I do not believe that “head” is equivalent to “leader” and “body” equivalent to “submitter” in terms of “leader” meaning “one in charge,” or “decision-maker.” I think “head” means something like origin, or supplier, and the body acts upon what is received from the head.
I also think that Paul is talking about how husband and wife serve, or submit to, one another, because his instructions in Eph. 5 follow directly upon verse 21 which tells all believers to submit to one another in the same spirit, as explained in I Cor. 13 and Romans 12 (and earlier in Eph. 4 and the first part of ch. 5). I do believe that “head” connotes a special capability and honor that is different from the capacity and honor of a wife, which is something along the lines of acting out the provision of the head. Just as, without the Body of believers, there would be no means for Christ’s redemption to manifest in the world. Unless she submits to her husband, a wife cannot manifest a husband’s “provision,” just as without submission to Christ, His body can not manifest His attributes.
Cndo, you said to Mary in previous comment: I don’t like to characterise the husband’s authority as corresponding to God the Father (He is over all, after all). Rather, that we see masculinity in Christ’s leadership of the Church, and femininity in His submission to the Father.
I appreciate this clarification, although I believe it’s a mistake to “genderize” actions such as leadership and submission. There is no Scriptural support for doing so. A woman is not being masculine when she leads, whether a Sunday School class or a tour or an organizational meeting, or serving in a government position; nor is a man being feminine when he submits, whether it be to a law, a boss, a pastor, or to Christ.
The fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control — is not gendered either.
Hi Mary,
1 Pt. 3:1-7, 6 was intentional, meaning vv 1-7 with particular reference to v. 6.
“Complementarian theory usually equates a wife’s submission with obedience, which is not what biblical submission entails. And such theory also makes her submission to his supposed authority, not to him personally, which is what the Scriptures say submission is (Submit [yourselves] to one another . . . wives to your husbands . . .). Submission to a position of authority is a very different thing than submission to a person.” I agree with this, albeit I’m not an expert on Complementarian theory.
Hi Lin,
Thank you for explaining where you got the strict ‘mapping’ of the Trinity to the husband and wife.
‘ “Paul gave us husbands representing Christ and women representing the Church (and that in a ‘profound mystery’!).”
I guess that explains why women cannot be Christlike since He came as a male and we have to focus on feminine and masculine roles. (smile)
Actually, I cannot find the mapping you give for each gender in that passage. It has to be read into it. ‘
If you can’t, you can’t. I don’t think I’m reading the mapping into it. Paul’s not talking about individuals being Christlike, as I see it; he’s using Christ and the Church as an analogy of God’s design for the relationship between a husband and a wife.
Hi Bonnie,
“I’m not sure what you mean by this, though: if her unbelieving husband is unwilling to listen or to look at the Bible, IMO that’s fine.”
If an unbelieving husband asks his Christian wife to do something, and she thinks it is in conflict with what the Bible clearly teaches, I think she shouldn’t go along with it. I think she should explain why, referring to the Bible, if at all possible.
In marriage where both the husband and the wife are believers, the husband carefully considers his wife’s concerns.
Hi Bonnie,
“I appreciate this clarification, although I believe it’s a mistake to “genderize” actions such as leadership and submission.”
I agree with you about actions not being genderised but as I understand it some roles are.
Having said that, I wonder whether Paul was addressing women in church leadership at all in 2 Timothy. Isn’t it more logical for Paul’s flow of thought to have gone like this:
from the behaviour of men in public worship
to the behaviour of women in public worship
to the behaviour of women in relation to men (specifically wives in relation to their husbands) in public worship,
and then to leadership in chapter 3 (introduced with ‘Here is a trustworthy saying …’)?
“Paul’s not talking about individuals being Christlike, as I see it; he’s using Christ and the Church as an analogy of God’s design for the relationship between a husband and a wife.”
Can you please show me the exact Scripture where you get that idea from?
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
According to the above it is the other way around. Christ’s love for the church is the profound mystery – that He was willing to die for her so that she may become one with Him. And that is what the husband is to emulate. It is not our earthly marriage that is to emulate Christ and the church, which is not possible to do. Christ is likening His Love as unto a marriage. Christ did the mapping so to speak. Now HUSBANDS are to emulate Christ’s sacrificial love, and wives are to respect those efforts by their husbands.
“In marriage where both the husband and the wife are believers, the husband carefully considers his wife’s concerns”
It would be nice if that were guaranteed. But as long as we all are humans, there can be no such guarantee.
“Paul’s not talking about individuals being Christlike, as I see it; he’s using Christ and the Church as an analogy of God’s design for the relationship between a husband and a wife.”
I am confused. Are you suggesting that wives cannot be Christlike?
I do not see a ‘design’ as in structure in that verse. I see an example of great love. I agree with TL, that it is impossible for a ‘marriage’ to emulate Christ and the church. How is that done? The man is Christ and the woman the church?
But I do believe that adult Christians of both genders can be Christlike even though Christ came as a male. Being Christlike transcends gender.
“Having said that, I wonder whether Paul was addressing women in church leadership at all in 2 Timothy. Isn’t it more logical for Paul’s flow of thought to have gone like this:
from the behaviour of men in public worship
to the behaviour of women in public worship
to the behaviour of women in relation to men (specifically wives in relation to their husbands) in public worship,
and then to leadership in chapter 3 (introduced with ‘Here is a trustworthy saying …’)?”
I also don’t think it has to do with church leadership. Neither do I see it to be about public worship. It says “in all places”. I take that to be about behavior in general life as a Christian.
Although in this behavior in general life, there seemed to have been men and women teaching things they shouldn’t. We don’t just teach in a meeting setting you know. These men and women were teaching things they didn’t know about …. some of them. And some of them were deliberately misleading and they were turned over to Satan. The woman or women, Paul recommended that for the time being they should learn in a normal setting of quietness and submission as all students do, and not try to take over, dominate (their teachers?). That is my take in general.
And then Paul goes on to say that it is a good work to desire to be an overseer and gives necessary qualifications. Note also, that an overseer is not a ‘church office’, like we tend to think of it, but was a desire to oversee, watch over, be a teacher, spiritually protect the people of God by reason of the wisdom they have gained from God.
FWIIW, I read “in every place” as an idiomatic reference to every congregation. “Place” was a short form of “holy place”.
That would make sense Don, since in the temples was likely where all the arguing was happening.
However, in chapt. 3 talking about how to behave ourselves in the house of God, it is not speaking of a meeting place but of the very dwelling place of God, which is us, the people and body of Christ. I’ve felt that broadened the relevance and application.
TL: “Can you please show me the exact Scripture where you get that idea from?”
Eph 5:32 ‘This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.’ I think Paul would have said ‘… I am talking about Christ’s love for the church’ if he meant what you had interpreted him to mean. 1 Cor and 1 Tim 2, as well.
Lin: “I am confused. Are you suggesting that wives cannot be Christlike?”
No; we have to be careful not to stretch analogies too far IMO.
Assuming that Paul was affirming husbandly headship in 1 Tim 2, and further assuming that the Apostles were teaching that the nature of Eve’s transgression applies to her progeny, I contend that the best way in which women can overcome that tendency to usurp her husband’s authority (or at least to keep it in check) – again, assuming it must be dealt with at all – IS IN THE CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE NOT THAT OF MINISTRY. What I mean is that ministry is public, and anybody’s teaching can be checked against the Bible by the whole assembly. Surely the marriage context is more personal, kinder and detailed and actually parallels the original problem better than church leadership does. Obviously this isn’t saying that all single women should marry for the sake of this passage.
Cndo, I’m still not following how you come to assume that it’s women’s “tendency to usurp [their] husband’s authority . . .” . The only time a spouse’s “authority over” is explicitly stated in Scripture is God’s observation that our first father would sinfully presume to domineer our first mother(Genesis 3:16b). I find it curious that so many people somehow turn the accompanying observation of the woman’s inordinate desire for this domineering man into a desire on her part to domineer him. God says no such thing.
Hi Mary
I don’t know how much OT Hebrew and culture you’ve studied but I think Romans 14 applies here, as you evidently interpret Genesis 3 differently to me.
A fair bit, actually, cndo, which is why I’m curious how youy how you came to the assumptions you made about the text.
If you prefer not to explain how you find a desire to usurp authority on the part of the woman in that text, that’s fine. I simply remain curious, since the text is not about godly authority for either the woman or the man, but about inordinate desire on her part and sinful domination on his. I continue to ask when the assertion is made that the woman’s sin is to attempt to usurp her man’s authority, but to this point, I’ve received nothing more substantial than “that’s just how I interpret this passage” as explanation. I’m afraid that doesn’t go very far to convincing me that the passage has anything to do with a man’s supposed authority over his wife, rather than it being God’s description of what happens when a man presumes to a position of authority over his wife in the first place.
Whereas in the Hebrew of Genesis 3:16 the woman’s “desire” (related to the word shuq) will be for her husband, in the Septuagint (LXX) the translators chose to use a word meaning “turning toward”/”return”, which is repeated again in Genesis 3:19* about man returning to the dust from which he was taken. A New Testament author who was well-versed in the LXX (and the huge majority of OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX) would probabably not see or read an attempt by a woman to usurp her husband’s authority in Genesis 3. (IMnot-very-scholarlyO)
* The Hebrew of 3:19 uses words related to shub.
Interesting discussion. The idea of an assembly without any men present is not just hypothetical; I’m sure it’s happened sometime in church history. But I think I’ll let the women figure it out when it happens–I don’t realistically expect them to follow whatever guidelines I lay out in advance.
But I should point out that in early church literature there was one office only a woman could fulfill: that of assistant at baptisms. Since only elders could baptize, and women were always baptized without any clothing on, it was essential that a deaconess be present to avoid the appearance of evil.
Thus, a growing church could theoretically consist of all men, but never all women. Enter one female convert, and you need at least one deaconess to get her into membership.
Since today we don’t baptize in the nude, it would not be improper for men to baptize women or for women to baptize men. Baptism really has nothing to do with one’s sexuality. In fact neither does preaching or teaching. So a church of only men would be fine as well as a church with only women. Although the church with only men would fare better financially. But the church with only women would possibly have more activities and get more done.
Dear Molleth,
I’d like to say that I enjoyed your initial post about whether or not complementarians are really living up to being “complementarian”. To be honest, the blog post made me sit back and laugh for several minutes…not because it’s funny, but because it’s true. I don’t think complementarians realize what they’re saying. Sometimes I think that if complementarians actually realized what they were saying, they wouldn’t declare themselves complementarians anymore…
I found my way via google search to your blog site. I just wanna say that I LOVED the post.
I wanna quote you on my blog site and present the idea you give here as a good example of what it means to sit down and consider the serious implications of this debate. If CBMW churches don’t need women for leadership roles, they won’t have a church should the men die off…however, this is totally against what Christ said concerning the church: “Upon this rock, I will build my church, and THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT…”
I’ve got a blog I’ve had for the last five months devoted to the women in ministry debate. Please feel free to visit the blog anytime, and recommend it to friends or commenters at your blog. The website address is:
Once again, a phenomenal post…and keep speaking the truth.
– Best wishes, Deidre
Wow, Deidre, you have quite the blog! I added your blog to my RSS subscriptions and will be visiting to read your stuff.
I love word studies, and I am intrigued about hearing the perspective of a woman seminarian studying at SBTS.
Deirdre,
Hey, thanks. I’ll be sure to stop by and check out your blog. It sounds very interesting.
Mary,
The view I take is well documented and I’m not going to repeat it.
I have nothing further to contribute about this, especially in view of the fact that I find your tone to be somewhat hostile.