Do Husbands Submit to their Wives Too?
Concerning my gender issues posts, the issue of submission has shown up and asked for time. The discussion has moved to Eph. 5:21ff.
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Speaking to this, one commenter gives a good summary of the egalitarian side (mutual submission):
“. . . Verse 22 is INSEPARABLY connected to verse 21. So, in my own personal paraphrase it would come out to something like this:
Submit to one another in brotherly love; wives to your husbands as to the Lord, etc. etc. etc.
So my argument here is that you can’t simply leave that out of the statement as “in general.” It’s a commandment we need to follow, and we need to deal with Scripture in its context! It’s not good practice to slice and dice it.
So our choices are:
1. The husband needs to submit to every Christian other than his wife. Wife needs to submit to every Christian including her husband.
2. Husband and wife both need to submit, but wife should somehow submit more. (This provides a challenge in ambiguity) OR
3. Husband and wife submitting to each other is the timeless principle and the specific contexts relate to their position in that day’s culture (just like slaves serving their masters as though they were working “for the Lord” and masters being kind to their slaves — not establishing a hierarchy, just reflecting it).
I feel that option 3 is the most consistent interpretation because it doesn’t gloss over either verse 21 OR verse 22.”
To this a more complementarian answer comes by another:
“I agree that 5:21 ties in with what follows. But it also ties in with what precedes it. The question I ask is this: what does Paul mean when he says “one another”? Is he saying this specifically of every Christian? Submission implies obedience. It means that I will obey your will, even if it disagrees with what I want or think is best.
In this sense, we all submit to Christ because we all agree that his will is best (even if we disagree with it at times in our sin). But mutual submission of every believer in EVERY instance is impossible. What should my wife do if I say one thing and another Christian man says something else? Who should she submit to? It makes most sense of this passage to believe that Paul is saying “submit to one another” in a GENERAL sense. In other words, based on your relationships in the body of Christ, be willing to submit to each other when the relationship requires it. In this sense, it is not saying that husbands should submit to their wives, parents should obey their children, and masters should obey their slaves. Paul chooses these three relationships as typical illustrations of how Christians should continue to submit to one another, based on their relationship with another believer. Christianity does not do away with these relationships, it changes the motivation for submission (and also note that Paul has alot to say to those in the more “powerful” side of the relationship as well).
What is Paul saying in Ephesians 5:21? He is concluding a series of commands that positively show what Spirit-filled community looks like (as opposed to worldly living). In 5:21, he concludes and transitions into specific examples of what this looks like in different relationships. He selects three typical, hierarchical relationships in the ancient world: marriage, children, and slave-master. In each relationship he first addresses the side that is asked to submit or obey (wives, children, slaves), affirming that they obey as to the Lord, or in the Lord, or just as you would obey Christ. Paul affirms that a person can fully live for Christ in these relationships (which are typically seen as less worthy or less important because they have no power or authority). Submission (which is usually done out of fear or threats) is now done willingly–out of reverence for Christ.
After addressing how a person submits in these typical relationships, he turns to the other side. In each of these relationships, the side with “power” typically resorted to physical punishment or the threat of punishment to exert authority. But Paul replaces that with a loving authority, done out of reverence for Christ (who will judge us all). Husbands are to love their wives as they love themselves (with reminders of truth, continual provision and care). Fathers are to avoid pushing their children too far (exasperating them), and have the responsibility to teach them and train them to know Christ. Masters are to avoid threats, recognizing that they both serve the same master–who does not show favoritism.
Anyway, all of this is to say that you cannot take 5:21 as a universal call to every Christian to practice mutual submission. Paul illustrates what he means in 5:21 with three concrete examples. The examples define his meaning. If you disagree, tell me how we can all submit to each other (in a real sense of obeying the will of another) without unavoidable conflicts? If a parent is disciplining their child and the child doesn’t want to be disciplined, who submits to who?
As an added note, Peter does the same thing as Paul in 1 Peter 2 and 3. Peter reverses the order a bit there. Again, he is talking about living a Spirit-filled life that shows the glory of God to the world (as opposed to a worldly life).
Peter is even harder than Paul for our modern sensibilities of what is right. He has the nerve to call for submission, even in cases when the person in power is NOT kind and loving and nice. Peter first addresses submission to government authorities (again, we all submit to government for the Lords sake–not out of fear). Keep in mind that the government he is referring to killed thousands of Christians a few years after he wrote this letter (Nero). He moves on to address slaves, and specifically asks for submission even when the master is harsh and the suffering is unjust. Finally, he addresses wives, and is clear that they should submit (he uses submit and obey as synonyms in verses 5 and 6), even when their husbands isn’t a Christian.
Note that while Peter doesn’t specifically address the need for government to be merciful and kind, or for masters to be fair and just, he does address husbands–not calling them to submit (which would make no sense), but to be considerate and respectful, recognizing that even though they are in the position of authority and power, they are seen as equal to their wives in the sight of God and there are consequences to abusing power (hindrance of prayer, v.7).
Neither Paul nor Peter teach that husbands should submit to their wives. “Submitting to one another means out of reverence for Christ” is not emphasizing “one another” in the sense of every single Christian regardless of position or relationship. It is emphasizing “out of reverence for Christ”. The point in both Paul and Peter is that our submission is done not out of fear, but out of a desire to honor God.”
What do you all think?
Are husbands commanded to submit to their wives in the same way as wives are commanded to submit to their husbands?
Are parents to submit to their children in the same way that children are commanded to submit to their parents? (Eph. 6:1)
Or do you think this is all cultural with no eternal principles for either husbands and wives or children and parents?
Or do you think that the “husbands and wives” part is cultural and the “children and parents” part is eternal?
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Do Husbands Submit to their Wives Too?
- The Bent of a Woman
- A Primer on the Theology of Men and Women
- Post Your Own Blog on Parchment and Pen!
- Do I Allow a Woman to Teach Men?

Sue on 01 May 2008 at 12:37 pm #
You seem to downplay the theme of “one another” which is a powerful theme in the New Testament. It is repeated over and over. We also see that Clement used the notion of mutual submission.
Clement who wrote, 1 Clement 38,
“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with his special grace. Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor;”
I believe this continues ” and the poor show gratefulenss.” So submission was a mutually considerate action, each from his or her own position in life. The rich do not have “authority over” the poor but they minister to the poor.
The notion of authority is not subsumed in “submission.” We see this also when Anitochus made a sacrifice. He submitted to the people who were subject to him.
If we want to find authority in the husband’s role, it must be found elsewhere. Husbands did have legal power over their wives at that time. However, I do not see the scriptures saying at any point ” Husbands are to exercise authority over their wives,” except in 1 Cor. 7 where it is mutual. We must be careful not to add words to scripture. There is no command of “loving authority over”
Strangely, the expression to have authority over for one person to another only occurs once in the NT and that is in 1 Cor. 7.
Luther was clear on this that authority is something which we bear “on behalf of” and not “over.”
If we want to say that there is a permanent command for husbands to have authority over, and in a sense “rule” albeit lovingly, we must find this command in scripture. I have never had anyone point it out.
Daniel Eaton on 01 May 2008 at 12:38 pm #
I think a happy, healthy marriage has to include a healthy portion of “Yes dear, you are right!”, which is very closely related to “You’re right, I’m sorry.” The BIG question is this, is that submission?
Jugulum on 01 May 2008 at 12:53 pm #
Good post.
I think this much of an answer should be easy to give–regardless of whether someone is egalitarian or complementarian:
Yes, there are senses in which we should submit to every other Christian, without exception. (As in Phil. 2:3-4.)
No, Eph. 5:21 does not establish that husbands submit to wives in the same parallel way that wives submit to husbands.
The discussion doesn’t end there–this doesn’t answer Sue’s questions, for instance–but it should start with that in mind.
P.S. Michael, could you put the two comment quotations behind <blockquote> tags, or something? It would help set them apart.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 1:38 pm #
CMP,
It should be noted that I am not a great example of the egalitarian position because I have no idea what I’m talking about! I could be totally wrong. Ask Ruth to write a blog on it!
Okay, that’s done.
Two points:
1. I’m not saying that 5:21 is a “universal call to every Christian to practice mutual submission. I’m saying that it is a general call to SUBMISSION. In my viewpoint, submission is a basic aspect of day-to-day living as a Christian. Insisting on having “the final say” over an equal is, in my opinion, inconsistent with a Christian attitude.
2. I fear that your use of “in the same way” is going to be a precursor to another case of shifting definitions. On that note I humbly request that this discussion stay practical in terms of what it means to “submit.” Let’s not say something that means, “Husband and wife submit, but when a husband does it it looks like getting his way.”
Again, I have no idea what I’m talking about. That should be noted. Thank you.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 1:43 pm #
Check out an article on Christian Submission with great attention to Greek here.
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 1:45 pm #
Alyssa, you summed up the position well. I do know this area pretty well. These are the type of discussions that need to happen with everyone regarding this issue. In the end, it is not easy on either side.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 1:47 pm #
I just got scared that I would screw up my position, but thank you Michael. I would just hate to do it injustice, y’know?
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 1:48 pm #
Well, I really liked your three options. In fact, I suspect that people like me would choose #2 or a variation of it.
Mitch on 01 May 2008 at 1:50 pm #
What does it look like?
Submission is an attitude; the act that stems from submission is not itself submission. This request is what ultimately led to the downfall of the Pharisees.
I think such a request reflects our society. The sole objective of preaching now is “make it practical.” How can your people in the pews go put X, Y, or Z into practice. Oh sure, we talk about the need for a transformed heart, but I’m sure the Pharisees did to. Ever since a signed up for this thing called Christianity, I’ve never felt like I fit in.
I’m tired.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 1:50 pm #
Michael said — “In the end, it is not easy on either side”
I agree. As I told someone asking in my Bible study — I very much respect people who say “this is a difficult issue and I think we have a hierarchy” and I obviously believe this is a difficult issue and we don’t have a hierarchy. But when people start with “It’s very simple. The Bible says….” I worry that they haven’t studied enough.
Abigail on 01 May 2008 at 1:56 pm #
I agree with Sue and with Clement — the sort of submission that is usually urged on believers is the willingness to give in to others rather than insisting on having your own way, and there’s no reason to think Eph. 5:21 doesn’t refer to exactly that sort of mutual submission. Specific wife/husband commands need to be understood within that context.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 1:58 pm #
Mitch,
GREAT POST! That’s what I’m thinking. I worry that questioning who exactly has to submit and when misses the forest for the trees in this passage. I think it’s important to look at, but that’s my take.
Sue on 01 May 2008 at 2:05 pm #
I am very concerned with the notion that certain interpreters of the scriptures say that other people have to submit MORE than they have to. This seems to me to be contrary to the teaching of Christ, that we should treat others as we would like to be treated.
I believe that husbands did have authority at that time and that in some sense husbands were the “rich” or the more powerful and they had to submit out of their position of power, to the wife, who was less powerful, who was “poor.” The poor, in return, that is those without power, are to show gratitude and respect.
While earthly power relationships are not denied by Paul, they are just that, earthly paradigms . I do not see any commands in scriptures for the ones who, in a legal sense, have more power, to consolidate that power, but rather to sacrifice.
This kind of thinking, that we all have the right to fair treatment, has been a vehicle for Christians to seek more appropriate social structures, both in the church and in society, as we move towards democracy and participatory government, that is “government by the people and for the people.”
I am uncomfortable with the notion that wives should “submit more,” because it does not sound scriptural nor is it in any way limited by restrictions. Therefore, it can be abused. How much more? And who decides? What recourse does the wife have who is deprived of choosing her own reading material or her own food choices? The wife must submit more is subject to the discretion of the husband.
If we had contracts in which the marriage was dissolved if the husband did not provide certain things for the wife, then submission would be restricted and defined. However, unlimited submission can be and is abused.
I wonder if we can justify from scripture the teaching that the wife should submit more.
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 2:06 pm #
I certianly agree with you guys about the attitude, but I think that this can quickly try to solve a problem by saying its not really a problem.
The issue of the debate is not so much answering the question Are we to have a Christ-like attitude, serving and not being served? Of course we are. The issue comes down to ultimate responsibility before God for a particular institution, either the church or the family. In the family, does God see someone as the head (male, female, or both)? If so, then while this person does not have sole responsibility, they do have ultimate responsibility. Therefore, it is in this context that the word “submit” is used. Because of this, it can be said to be only that of attitude. The same goes for the church.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 2:10 pm #
Michael,
Thank you for such a specific post. Since we’re interpreting this verse in light of “kephale” maybe we should start with the “headship” verses. Should we go backwards on that?
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 2:27 pm #
Sue,
I think it’s worth clarifying that the word submit is really more like “submit yourselves.” It’s the wife’s choice, so this isn’t about when the husband can/should demand submission. I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that complementarians and egalitarians agree that submission cannot be demanded.
I get where you’re coming from, though, having been in an abusive relationship. As recently as the early 90’s, something like 80% of pastors adviced abused wives to “submit more.” I’ll try to dig up the exact stat, but it was scary.
Since 1/3 of marriages are abusive it’s worth it to say here in print that NO CHRISTIAN LEGITIMATELY BELIEVES THAT WIVES MUST ENDURE ABUSE. If you are reading this and being abused, take your children and get out of the situation immediately.
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 2:28 pm #
Alyssa, I intentionally did not bring up the headship verses or even reference them at this point. Sometimes, believe it or not, mentioning Bible verses to support an argument can actually go against the general principles of a position since these verses have so much of their own emotional baggage that created mandates for the issue. I don’t want to get lost here yet.
For this reason, I brought up the issue of ultimate responsibility (headship) in a more general sense. It is a given that each person is responsible for themselves and, in some sense, is their brother’s keeper, but in the family unit or in the church, is there a position of ultimate responsibility before God? Does it seem odd that he would implement such a structure? Is it necessarily oppressive to the one whom is not given ultimate responsibility? If he does implement it, would the only fair way to go about it is to give the “headship” to the one who “steps up the the plate.” Or could he say that I am placing males before me as those who are ultimately responsible for certain institutions?
If God has structured things in such a way, would this be a perfectly reasonable way to order his creation? Or would we have reason to cry foul?
I don’t mean to load things here, but I want to get to the real issue that fuels the way we interpret these text rather than trying to say here are the two, three, or four viable options, choose the one that you like best.
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 2:29 pm #
“I think it’s worth clarifying that the word submit is really more like “submit yourselves.” It’s the wife’s choice, so this isn’t about when the husband can/should demand submission. I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that complementarians and egalitarians agree that submission cannot be demanded.”
Amen.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 3:02 pm #
Michael,
The way I’m reading your post it seems like you want to assume the concept of headship-as-authority without addressing the verses that establish it. From what I know of you (I’m in bibliology and Hermeneutics now in independent study! :)) I’m 95% sure I’m wrong about that. Can you explain the connection that I’m missing? I’m not the brightest crayon in the box, but I try hard….
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 3:13 pm #
Alyssa,
I can certianly see how you are getting this, but I am trying to avoid this for now to deal with a more fundemental issue, “What if . . .” Ultimate responsibility is the issue. Could God have assigned ultimate responsibility to male in situations where institutions such as the family and church are involved? Would this be unfair? Would this necessarily amount to ontological inequality?
Ryan Pazdur on 01 May 2008 at 3:19 pm #
Alyssa,
I wish I had more time to comment, but I did manage to read that article you linked to on submission. It had some good points, but I found it interesting that when the discussion of “one another” came up, the article (written from an egalitarian perspective) said this:
“Finally, is there any reason to restrict the meaning of
the word “one another” (as meaning, “everyone to everyone”) to mean “some to others” as Grudem and Piper advocate? Dawes argues that the context shows that the exhortations, beginning with Eph. 5:19, where we find a series of five participles (speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and submitting to one another), are all dependent upon the command to “be filled with the Spirit” (v. 18) and give no reason to believe that any of the five participles are directed to only some Christians and not to others. Furthermore, verse 21, with its call to mutual submission (and from which verse 22 gets its verb), cannot be limited to the relationship between husband and wife, but it must be taken as a general Christian ethic addressed to every believer. Mutual submission applies to all Christians, and it can be applied to Christian married couples also because they too are members of Christ’s body. Dawes then turns to a careful exegesis of Eph. 5:22-33. Why, he asks, does the biblical writer turn from the general Christian exhortation to mutual submission to a section where only one member of the marriage relationship is asked to submit? He basically finds no ready explanation based on the text itself.”
My point would be the same as before. I agree that the submission command can be taken generally to refer to all Christians, but it does not imply “mutual” submission. It simply means that when we find ourself in a place under authority (whether government or a parent or a master or a husband or any other relationship that requires submission), we submit out of reverence for Christ.
Why does Paul go from Eph. 5:21 to a section with a series of relationships where only one member is asked to submit? I would suggest that the most natural understanding would be that he is giving concrete, real-life examples of what he means by his statement in 5:21.
Great discussion, by the way! I wish I could engage in it a bit more, but I only have a few minutes at a time throughout the day!
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 3:33 pm #
Ryan,
I think “Submit to anyone who is in authority over you in your culture and situation” is actually a really reasonable interpretation. Boy, though, that will really fast-track us to the authority discussion!
Abigail on 01 May 2008 at 3:40 pm #
Or do you think that the “husbands and wives” part is cultural and the “children and parents” part is eternal?
Why don’t you ask if the “masters and slaves” part is eternal too, while we’re at it?
Rather than try to argue for a definite conclusion here I’ll list some observations/opinions.
- Eph. 5:1-2
Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Here the command appears to be given to all believers to love each other as Christ loved the Church. Does this perhaps mean that while certain aspects of the ways believers ought to treat each other (love each other like Christ, submit to each other) are being emphasized for each gender, neither is exclusive to that role or relationship?
- reading “head” as source, and looking at the specifics of v. 25-29, it seems that the husband’s responsibility is being described not so much in terms of leadership or decision-making, but caretaking and provision. This makes sense in a culture where wives were completely dependent on their husbands, generally unable to own anything or provide for themselves in any significant way. Being in such a position then gives the men the opportunity to show love for their wives primarily through benevolent provision, the way Christ cares for the Church.
- we accept the wisdom of the instructions governing the relationship between slaves and masters without thinking that the existence of the master-slave relationship was itself a good thing. Why not the same for the power relationship that that society gave husbands and wives? The man’s authority over the women in his family was just as real and as political in nature as that he had over his slaves.
- on the other hand, the 1 Corinthians 11 passage uses a very similar headship formula but in, to all appearances, a timeless way, argued from the order of creation. But what does Paul mean by this? That every aspect of first century gender relations should be considered timeless? (I hope not, as women were generally considered inferior to men in every way and their roles in society reflected that.) That in a godly society the men will always be the breadwinners, providing for the rest of the family? And that this position of provider makes the man the one in charge, whom the rest of the family should respect the wishes of? But if the man’s supposed to be the provider, what’s the woman to do, sit around twiddling her thumbs until she has a tribe of kids to raise? I’m having trouble even coming up with a legitimate complementarian option for modern society . . .
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 3:47 pm #
“Why don’t you ask if the “masters and slaves” part is eternal too, while we’re at it? ;-)”
This is a good question, but to bring this up breaks the conversation down into issues that don’t have proper analogy in our culture. It would be comparing apples and oranges since slavery, as an institution, is not biblical, while marriage, as an institution, is.
Abigail on 01 May 2008 at 3:49 pm #
Alyssa,
[[Since 1/3 of marriages are abusive it’s worth it to say here in print that NO CHRISTIAN LEGITIMATELY BELIEVES THAT WIVES MUST ENDURE ABUSE.]]
Actually some Christians do tell women (and men) to endure abuse, either in the name of preserving the marriage or of wifely submission. That is one of the reasons people like Suzanne are so passionate about this issue. Both complimentarians and egalitarians tell husbands not to abuse their wives, but sadly not all of them encourage the wife to refuse to submit to abuse or leave the relationship.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 4:16 pm #
CMP,
I DO think it is valuable, however, to note that one of the institutions referenced has been abolished for moral reasons, based on what we believe from the Bible. Not to say that the institutions should or shouldn’t exist, but that mentioning them in this context does not particularly endorse them as they are.
Abigail on 01 May 2008 at 4:18 pm #
CMP: As for proper analogies, I’m not sure that employer-employee relationships are that much worse of an analogy to the master-slave one than modern marriages are to the Greco-Roman version.
And whaddya mean, slavery isn’t Biblical? It’s in the Bible, ain’t it?
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 4:20 pm #
Abigail,
I know there are people who do that and you’re right, I made it look like no one does! I’m sorry. I thought through it and (rather non-irenically) used the word “legitimately” but I should have been more clear.
Bottom line — If you are being abused, get help. If someone tells you to submit more to avoid abuse, get different help.
If you are an abuser, duck. You have put yourself against someone in a weaker position and God has a thing for underdogs. Be very afraid.
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 4:23 pm #
All I am trying to say is, at least, slavery is not a biblically mandated institution. Marraige (husband and wife) is. Therefore the analogy would not fit for the current issue.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 4:26 pm #
All right, all right.
To clarify, Michael, would you counsel a woman in an abusive relationship to submit more?
Abigail on 01 May 2008 at 4:29 pm #
Ryan,
Good argument. As for why this particular set of authority relationships, scholars (for instance Gordon Fee, here) say that the instructions are not a list of separate relationships but are actually a household code meant for upper-class Roman households in which the same person had the role of father, husband, and master. I think this would be supported by the fact that the other sort of authority that comes to mind, that of leaders of the church, isn’t mentioned at all in this passage.
On the other hand, on your side is the fact that the verb (from the word study I just did, anyway) doesn’t seem to be used anywhere else in the NT for mutual submission, but always in relationships of authority; to God, to church leaders, to parents, to the Law, to elders, to governing authorities, to masters, and many times to husbands. Statements that teach what we would call mutual submission can certainly be found, but not using that word.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 4:43 pm #
CMP I just now saw #20!
“Alyssa,
I can certianly see how you are getting this, but I am trying to avoid this for now to deal with a more fundemental issue, “What if . . .” Ultimate responsibility is the issue. Could God have assigned ultimate responsibility to male in situations where institutions such as the family and church are involved? Would this be unfair? Would this necessarily amount to ontological inequality?”
Could God assign responsibility to the male? Yes. God can do whatever he wants. I struggled and struggled and struggled with this when I was a complementarian because I felt, basically “If God is against me who can be FOR me?” But the truth is that God does not have to conform to my ideas of right and wrong. I was an extremely sad, uncomfortable complementarian because I believed that I was a part of a subservient race. But I was NOT a non-christian, because I can’t just not believe in God because I don’t like the way He runs things. As J. Vernon McGee so memorably put it, “It’s God’s Universe and He runs it His way. You may have a better way, but you don’t have a universe.”
(Waiting for lightning on this one) Yes, I think it would necessarily amount to inequality. It’s very hard for me to wrap my head around “ontological equality,” “functional equality” and the like (other than when it’s used to defend complementarianism as fair — that’s literally the only context I’ve ever heard it in). All I know is the life I know — when I see that people are not allowed a vote, or counted in the population as 3/5ths or not allowed to go to school with me or not allowed in seminary or not allowed to make final decisions in their family I just look at it and think they’re not equal. Even when I was a complementarian, I simply thought of myself as less than equal. I really value being brutally honest with myself and others.
C Michael Patton on 01 May 2008 at 4:49 pm #
Alyssa,
No. See my posts on this subject here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/marraige-and-family/
Sue on 01 May 2008 at 4:52 pm #
If you are reading this and being abused, take your children and get out of the situation immediately.
Thank you for your consideration but no I am not. However, I would concur and say that one quarter of women I know either have been or are currently in abusive relationships. They are often silent or share very carefully. For most they have two options, stay or leave.
My main concern is that I do not understand how the complementarian position is derived from scripture. Submission is clearly possible in a fully mutual relationship.
I also do not see that ultimate responsibility is tied in any way at all to gender. Lydia had her household baptized. Joanna supported the disciples. Nympha had a church meet in her home. Eunice and Lois brought Timothy up to be Jewish.
I do not understand how the position that the husband has more authority and more responsibility than the wife is derived from the Bible.
Yes, submission is a choice. But cannot any Christian make the choice to submit. And if one person tells the other person that it is their duty to submit MORE isn’t that a use of power? Is that the teaching of Christ. If you tell someone else to submit more, isn’t it the same as saying “I have the right to have my own way?”
Wouldn’t it be better to say that the single mother is the provider of her household and the couple are providers together?
Clearly I am not proposing that marriage should be outlawed as slavery has been. As we still have labour and a labour market, so we still have marriage. However, this should not be a power relationship.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 4:57 pm #
In addition to “Is it possible” I think it’s fair to ask “Does it work best?” To me, if God ordained it we would see the research going a different way on marriage.
I’m coming at this from a different angle because my intention is to become a marriage and family therapist. I’m very interested in what makes some marriages healthier than others. One of those things is equality. We now have 50 years of research through multiple organizations and measures of equality and happiness (Including Prepare/Enrich — see article here: http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/PPWIN05_preato.pdf) and they all say the same thing — equality in decision making makes for happier couples.
Now I’ve done my OWN informal survey. For the last 10 years I’ve asked every complementarian couple that I know what the job description of the man is. I’ve received every answer from “reading the Christmas story at Christmas” to “Initiating all the new topics of conversation.” But the vast majority answer that the man has the final say. But of all the couples I ask (and I try to only ask happy couples!), not one has ever been able to give an example of that actually happening in their marriage. My opinion is that it’s just a figurehead — they’re functioning as egalitarians.
Food for thought….
Sue on 01 May 2008 at 5:18 pm #
On the other hand, on your side is the fact that the verb (from the word study I just did, anyway) doesn’t seem to be used anywhere else in the NT for mutual submission, but always in relationships of authority; to God, to church leaders, to parents, to the Law, to elders, to governing authorities, to masters, and many times to husbands. Statements that teach what we would call mutual submission can certainly be found, but not using that word.
However, the word hupotassw most certainly is used in other Greek literature without any reference to authority. The word itself does not imply authority. This is why Christ could submit to death. He did not give death authority over him.
I think there is a fundamental misundertanding about the word itself. It can mean simply to give in, as in, “The children begged for ice cream and so the parents gave in.” Therefore, the word huotassw is not exactly the same as “to submit” in English, but really means “yield” and is often translated this way.
We need to revisit Greek literature in general and develop a habit of reading Koine Greek to deepen our understanding of the vocabulary.
I am learning from your appproach Alyssa, and would like to simply concur. I do not see the scriptures telling husbands to wield authority over wives. I see the authors of the epistles responding to specific circumstances that people found themselves in. In Cor. 7 people found themselves in slaverly and were not to seek release. And yet, we do not support slavery.
We may be in a marriage of unequal power and feel called to remain as a Christian in that situation. That does not mean that the church should support functional inequality in marriage.
Abigail on 01 May 2008 at 7:10 pm #
However, the word hupotassw most certainly is used in other Greek literature without any reference to authority.
Yes, as in the 1 Clement passage you cited. I agree that “yield” or “give in” would be a better translation than “be subject to” or the like.
Sue on 01 May 2008 at 7:39 pm #
I think we need to accept that egalitarian relations, mutuality and reciprocity, can be derived from scripture as legitimately as hierarchical relations. The question is in an intimate sexual relationship, which is more appropriate, mutuality or hierarchy?
Susan on 01 May 2008 at 8:25 pm #
Michael, and All!
The subject of submission in marriage was/ is Chuck Swindoll’s radio message today!! I heard it this morning, and it comes on again this evening here in California. It’s definitely worth a listen.
Yes, he does state clearly from scripture that wives are to submit to their husbands, but concludes that this places a huge responsibility on husbands before God. As Chuck points out, this principle of submission is hard, but we are to submit to our husbands as an act of obedience to God.
Maybe Michael can provide a link??
Cadis on 01 May 2008 at 8:31 pm #
I had a rather long personal experience to write of how I learned the difference between submitting and sacrifice, and it would win my case for why “I” am a complementarian. But it would not prove it from scripture
Does a husband submit to a wife?
Not mine,he doesn’t ask me..he just does it. Whether I want it or ask for it,he has sacrificed for me what he thinks I should have, and it is more than I would have asked of him.(that is Christ like)
We’ve talked alot about the word submission. I”d like to ask about the word reverence? in Ephesians 5:33
Also I do not like that abusive marriages are being used to make a case against complementarian marriages, It’s a foul, Child abuse exists too..does that mean that loving parents should not be in a place of authority over thier children , because it may lead to abuse?
Do you remember the love slaves?(not adressed to Sue and her dirty question:) j/k) An awl through the ear to the door post, a pierced ear. Quite a picture and testimony to the one who had power(authority) over that slave. Love is strange.
JoanieD on 01 May 2008 at 8:41 pm #
Abigail wrote in #23, “- reading “head” as source, and looking at the specifics of v. 25-29, it seems that the husband’s responsibility is being described not so much in terms of leadership or decision-making, but caretaking and provision. This makes sense in a culture where wives were completely dependent on their husbands, generally unable to own anything or provide for themselves in any significant way. Being in such a position then gives the men the opportunity to show love for their wives primarily through benevolent provision, the way Christ cares for the Church.”
Well said, Abigail. I agree. (I often find myself valuing the hard work some of you do putting what I think into words! Thanks.)
Joanie D.
Alyssa B-D on 01 May 2008 at 9:01 pm #
Cadis,
First, shoot. I was actually trying to clarify that NONE of us support abuse in marriage — Did it come out differently than that? I’m sorry.
You wrote: “Does a husband submit to a wife?
Not mine,he doesn’t ask me..he just does it. Whether I want it or ask for it,he has sacrificed for me what he thinks I should have, and it is more than I would have asked of him.(that is Christ like)”
I’m confused. Do you mean that submission is doing what’s asked of you and your husband does things for you that you haven’t asked, so that’s sacrifice? I want to clarify before I respond.
Thanks.
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 12:02 am #
Did I ask a dirty question?? Was I supposed to say what role does hierarchy play in an intimate “gender” relationship?
minnowspeaks on 02 May 2008 at 2:58 am #
#20 CMP: “Could He?”
Obviously He could. He is God. I think the real question is Did He? or Why would He?
That both complementarians and egalitarians would say that submitting is the submitter’s choice sounds quite nice. However, I believe the fact is that it is rarely practiced in such a way and thus the passion behind each position.
Until the Church is willing to defend wives who are abused by the “I have authority over you” position, until the Church is willing to hold abusers accountable for their sin then in my not so humble position (one that some would say I do not even have a “right” to express on this blog), the Church should remain silent on the “wives submit” passages of scripture.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 3:08 am #
Minnow, I agree to a large extent in principle. But I don’t think that we should wait until the situation is perfect to obey (not that you said this).
There needs to be balance, but this quickly turns into a fine line that results in neglect.
We could do the same thing with the “turn the other cheek” passage. We could say that we will not follow this command until we quit getting smacked.
It is a difficult issue, I know. But when is the world safe enough for people to start following this passage? How safe does it have to be? I don’t have the answer for this, but it is an important question that with which we must wrestle.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 3:15 am #
Alyssa,
I think that the issue is providing a map and destination. It is not that the wife does not contribute to this, but again it is an issue of ultimate responsibility. My wife trusts my leadership. For years, in Dallas, Kristie wanted to move back home to OKC. I not only respected this, but I took it as a voice of God. But there were other voices that I had to consider. Finances, ministry, schooling, and future plans. After 8 years I told Kristie that I thought that all the factors were pointing in this direction now. Therefore we made the move. Kristie would have made the move 8 years ago, but we did not because I had to make these decisions.
In the end, the biggest part of my decision to move was Kristie’s desire, but, as the leader, someone had to have the authority to lead. I take this responsibility very seriously, but being the one ultimately responsible for the family does not mean that we cannot have a co-leader.
minnowspeaks on 02 May 2008 at 5:49 am #
Co-leader. That’s a joke, right? Your consideration of your wife has worked for you but to call it co-leadership–I don’t get that. At best she is an advisor.
Marcus on 02 May 2008 at 6:39 am #
I’m a little late to this discussion but I’ll throw in my 2 cents.
While this issue is difficult, I personally found the comments by Peter T. O’Brien in his commentary the most persuasive on this verse on balancing submission/one another. One another does not always mean everyone to everyone (c.f. Rev 6:4). It takes on it’s meaning from it’s context. Submission though always means from one lower in an ordered array to one higher in an ordered array (I’m not saying higher in worth just to make that clear). Thus it would be weird for one another to take on a meaning of everyone to everyone.
That said, complementarian arguments about these verses being cultural are pretty strong and while I’m not persuaded that they make the text “not applicable” anymore, I can see why some believe so.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 8:25 am #
Michael,
I really, really strongly feel that “providing a map and a destination:”
1. Implies a great deal of power and control. I would say that the task of the average person for most of our lives is to find our map and our destination — or to listen to God for it if we are Christians. Taking “responsibility” for that for someone else gets very close (nearly indistinguishable) from a parent-child relationship. The metaphor is extremely strong and almost implies (dare I say it?) priesthood. Listening to God for someone.
2. Is a bit of a stretch from the text. So if someone is the head (possibly source — debated word) and someone else is asked to submit, that means that the “head” is the person who listens to God about the path and direction of both people and the “submitter” is the one who listens to the “head.”
Although you put it in a kind way, this is really a lot of power to be exercising. I would put it in a gentler way, but I would agree with the idea that Minnowspeaks is putting forward: The way you have described it, your wife is definitely an advisor, not a co-leader. Co, again, implies a functional equality that your wife does not have, and is a misleading title.
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 9:53 am #
I too support Minnow. The core of the scriptures is to protect the deprived and care for the oppressed, not to establish control for the strong. I am conflicted by the introduction of personal anecdotes, since abused women have many and are asked by other commenters to withhold them so as not to “foul” the debate.
Here are the “one another” passages from the Bible. In Clement we see that submission was also seen as an act of mutuality.
discuss with one another
say to one another
ask one another
trample one another
accept glory from one another
stare at one another
love one another
degrading their bodies with one another
inflamed with lust for one another
devoted to one another
honor one another
livein harmony with one another
pass judgement on one another
accept one another
instruct one another
greet one another
agree with one another
encourage one another
serve one another
bear with one another
be kind and compassionate with one another
speak to another with psalms, etc.
submit to one another
in your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had
forgive one another
admonish one another
hate one another
spur one another on to love
do not slander one another
don’t grumble against one another
offer hospitality to one another
clothe yourselves with humility toward one another
have fellowship with one another
lay down our lives for one another
Respectfully, I disagree with the many complementarians who gloss over the mutuality which is central to the scriptures.
Cadis on 02 May 2008 at 9:57 am #
Alyssa,
“I was actually trying to clarify that NONE of us support abuse in marriage — Did it come out differently than that? I’m sorry.”
First, no need to apologize, and no I did not mean you in particular. I meant the subject of abuse keeps getting raised as if it is the outcome of a complementarian system. Just the very fact that it is raised in connection with the complemtarian view, even though a disclaimer is added, subtly says something. Spousal abuse is not due to a complementarian view but sin. Sin exists in egalitarians too…If everyone threw out the complementarian approach tommorrow and adopted an egalitarian view, spousal abuse would remain the same. And not to be flippant but in reality , you might say that it would effect the societies view and the courts views, that things would be better or fair etc. Don’t be suprised if in the long run that the essence of the judgment might be…He punched you? Well what kept you from punching back? take care of yourself. (in essence)An egalitarian view has the propensity to keep women from protection and escape from abuse.
Real life example..A co-worker of my husband,and couple who we knew for 10 yrs. The wife after 15 yrs of marriage , picked up one morning and left. She left behind her 4 children, the youngest 6 the oldest 15. The temporary , standard support that was given to her by way of attachment to his pay check, left him 0.00 $ . He spent 2 weeks with us and 2 weeks with anyone else who would help, for months he became a beggar for his childrens sake.
The point being that women and men have voiced against what is wrong and still sin and abuse are present.
Sin invades both views, so lets keep it to what does scripture say and how do we interpret it.
“I’m confused. Do you mean that submission is doing what’s asked of you and your husband does things for you that you haven’t asked, so that’s sacrifice? I want to clarify before I respond.”
I meant neither of the things above, Michaels newest topic is more what I meant.
Sue,
“Did I ask a dirty question?? Was I supposed to say what role does hierarchy play in an intimate “gender” relationship?”
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 10:05 am #
Cadis,
I understand where you’re coming from and I know that most complementarians are not abusers. I disagree with your statement, however, that “If everyone threw out the complementarian view tomorrow and adopted the complementarian view, spousal abuse would remain the same.”
This is a quote from the article I linked to above:
“Dr. Diana R. Garland, Professor and Chair of the School
of Social Work and Director of the Center for Family and
Community Ministries at Baylor University, discusses marriage
relationships in her book, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive
Guide. She points out that research conducted in the mid-twentieth
century revealed the following: Wives, in traditional marriages,
suffered significantly more depression and other mental
disorders than men, working married women, and unmarried
women. In traditional marriages, wives had been beaten at “a
rate of more than 300 percent higher than for egalitarian marriages
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz ?980).”
dac on 02 May 2008 at 10:40 am #
To me, discussion of eph 5:21/22 is incomplete unless you take it through at least 5:33
5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord,
5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body.
5:24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her
5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word,
5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.
5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
5:29 For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church,
5:30 for we are members of his body.
5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
5:32 This mystery is great – but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
5:33 Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Paul is making a direct connection between a man and women in marriage as to the church and Christ.
I do not see how there is any scriptural support for making the relationship between the church and Christ some type of mutually submissive relationship -
We cheat our understanding of this passage if we don’t include this in our attempt to understand and apply this to ourselves
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 10:42 am #
You have to recognize that people may attempt to use a distorted view of complementarianism to justify their sinful dominance. But this is not an argument against the system—not even a pragmatic one since it is not representative of true complementarianism. Remember, complementarianism is not patriarchialism.
Whether or not you agree with this position, you would admit that you never judge a position based on “the worst of.” The Charismatic movement (of which I am not a part) has suffered from the same perception. Calvinism the same. People automatically suppose that there will be inevitable outcomes that are abusive and argue from them. But these are not really arguments. Having said that, I do think there is a place for pragmatic arguments, but they don’t establish the truthfulness of an issue. Remember, the palatability of a doctrine does not establish its veracity.
This is why I have labored in such a way to present this from a different angle. But sadly many people cannot get out of the perceptual groove that they have created for this position.
George C on 02 May 2008 at 11:54 am #
The way I read the Ephesians passage is something along the lines of:
submit to one another like this: wives…children…slaves….
I think it is reasonable to read the first submit as a general command and what follows as the specific way for individuals to submit depending upon which category they fall into.
Another possibility to consider is that I have found at least one translation (I think it was NAS) that used a different greek word for the two submissions. The first one (given to everyone) is a word that is more along the lines of opening yourself up to correction and the second (given to the wives, children, and slaves) is the fall into rank one.
Either way I come to pretty much the same conclusion.
1- That my wife is my sister in Christ before she is my wife so there is an unavoidable amount of respect she is to be given as a peer.
2- 1 Cor. 11 does show the husband wife relationship as a hierarchy in the same way as Christ and God the Father. They are equal, but one is definitely over the other.
The way all of this works out in my day to day is that I believe my wife is obligated to submit to my decisions (that do not require her to sin in doing so), but also is required to love me enough to tell me I am making a stupid choice.
If she decides to tell me where I can stick my final decision, then I have to love her enough to tell her she is wrong in doing so and continue to love her even if she never sees it my way and never complies.
Ryan Pazdur on 02 May 2008 at 11:59 am #
Sue,
I don’t think it is fair to say that complementarians “gloss over” the issue of mutuality. I’m not arguing that we throw out the idea of “one another” and ignore it, simply that we understand it in context. And my argument is that it does not mean “every individual believer to every other individual believer” in this context. It means “as a general principle of Christlike behavior, to be applied in different ways in different relationships.”
I think it is stretching the context of the verse to make it suggest that husbands submit to their wives. Paul gives us three examples of what he means, and they all are unidirectional in the application of 5:21. He is using submission in the normal, common sense of a person obeying one who is in authority over them. It is the sense in which we talk about children obeying their parents or slaves obeying their masters. I don’t often talk about wives obeying their husbands when I talk about this (even though Peter talks about Sarah in this manner) because of the cultural baggage that has in our current context. While the biblical texts emphasize equality of worth (because of our common salvation in Christ and creation in the image of God) and distinction in role, our current culture has a difficult time conceiving of a person willingly submitting to another in faith (much less a person in authority leading out of love and not for personal ambition). I would suggest that this type of radical trust and love is a further testimony to Christ. It’s why God designed marriage to work this way! You can’t do it without Him!
Cadis on 02 May 2008 at 12:57 pm #
George C,
“If she decides to tell me where I can stick my final decision, then I have to love her enough to tell her she is wrong in doing so and continue to love her even if she never sees it my way and never complies.”
Your not as much of a complementarian as my husband
If My husband decided that I needed cooking classes…I would tell him to stick it,
and no doubt he’d smirk.
If he decided to attend a certain church and I decided I wanted to attend a different one up the road and he said I don’t think so, and I told him to stick it.
and it makes me proud of him, the only person in the world who could manipulate or bully my husband in to doing something he felt was wrong or against something he felt strongly about is…ME. When it comes to what color to paint the house, we can go back and forth for sometime. When it comes to spiritual matters and issue akin to it…His desire is not toward me, I’m proud of him for that.
He’d stick my butt and suitcases in the car and drop me off at the church up the road
I want a man who will stand up, and not be detered by me. For that to be true, I can not vie, compete with him over those decissions. Advise, no problem. Vie problem. ( Alyssa is going to be aghast at that I’m afraid)
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 1:20 pm #
Michael.
You say complementarianism is not patriarchy. It seems only a matter of degree and that degree is up to the husband. So one husband requires little difference in the amount of submission and another much more.
But the main thing is that you are preaching that women are to submit MORE. How much more? This is at the discretion of the husband. This is a form a patriarchy. I do not know why you resist calling this patriarchy.
It is not complementarity. If you said “the husband shall never submit, but only the wife, because the function of the wife is to respond to command,” then that would be a form of hierarchical complementarity. If you said “the wife shall submit in this arena and the husband in that arena,” then that would be a form of complementarity,
But if you say, “both have to submit, both have the function of submitting, but wives submit more” that is simply hierarchy without complementarity.
The fact is that hupotasso does not require an authority relationship and was used to simply mean “giving in” to someone else. It is broader than the English word.
So I believe that this,
He is using submission in the normal, common sense of a person obeying one who is in authority over them.
does not reflect the use of the word in Greek. This does not concur with the evidence.
Just as the Reformation brought about a new view of authority in the church, Luther’s passage on authority as something we have “on behalf of” and not “over,” so now we need a new Reformation, that women are complementary but not lower in the hierarchy.
We need to explore all the uses of the word exousiazo” in the scriptures and see whether any Christian was to bear authority over another. I don’t think so. We need to realize that authentein is a hapax legomenon and we need to remember that Chrysostom asked men to never authentein a wife. It is fully mutual, a woman may not authentein her husband and a husband may never authentein a wife. These are the uses of the Greek word.
Ryan Pazdur on 02 May 2008 at 1:43 pm #
Sue,
I wonder if your comment got cut off. If by patriarchy you mean “male headship” or the notion that men have a created responsibility to lead, then I would say that complementarian views on gender do affirm a “form” of patriarchy. I recognize, however, that patriarchy is a loaded word used in many different ways.
The view that I believe is taught in Scripture would differ from traditional, culturally defined patriarchies (which are corrupted by sin and the curse and are ultimately motivated by selfishness–as in any human relationship that ignores the 1st commandment) in that they return us to God’s original intention in creation. For men, this entails provision for family, sacrificial care for their needs, and love-motivated leadership. For women, this entails faithful trust of a husbands direction, flowing out of her faith in God. Both roles in the marriage serves as illustrations that model our redemption in Christ.
The difference between a complementarian “patriarchy” (I hesitate to use the word because of possible misunderstandings) and cultural, historical patriarchy is not just a matter of degree, but an issue of the heart. Biblical marriages are motivated by reverence for Christ and flow out of a transformed heart. Even then, they still must engage in the fight against sin every day and live in light of the gospel of grace. Traditional patriarchies exalt men to a position of authority for purposes of retaining power and abusing authority to exalt men at the expense of women. The gospel is firmly opposed to this type of marriage.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 1:52 pm #
“I do not see how there is any scriptural support for making the relationship between the church and Christ some type of mutually submissive relationship -”
This is part of what seems contradictory in hierarchical complementarianism. Most hierarchical complementarians believe that the relevant part of the metaphor here is Christ’s authority over the church. But their marriages are MUCH more functionally equal than that. Many tell me that they only play the “final say” card if it “comes down to it” and the husband really has to put his foot down. But that doesn’t seem anything like Christ’s relationship with the church.
It does seem a lot more like what Michael Patton described — making the map and determining the destination for his wife and children, so he’s more consistent, in my opinion, than most that I’ve talked to. To me it does seem more consistent that the man should make EVERY decision, as with Christ and the church, than to only make the difficult decisions or only when they can’t talk it out.
Ryan Pazdur on 02 May 2008 at 1:53 pm #
Sue,
When you say that the use of this word in reference to one who obeys someone in authority over them is not the normal Greek use of the word, I’m not sure how you make that claim.
As far as I can tell, the word basically means the same as being subject to someone. It is often used in ways that are synonymous with obey. I checked my Bibleworks lexicons (Friberg, UBS, Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, and Thayer) and they all say the same thing–it means being subject to someone, or obeying them.
Even if we use the sense of “give in” that you are suggesting, it implies a relinquishment of my will for the will or desire of another person. I don’t see the difference between “giving in” and obedience, unless you are referring to the deeper heart issues involved. Certainly, as a parent, I desire obedience from my son, not just “giving in”. Biblically, obedience conveys a willing heart as well as outward action. But this is a bit off topic…
Ryan Pazdur on 02 May 2008 at 2:10 pm #
Alyssa,
The problem I have with your last response is that you seem to assume that the exercise of authority requires micromanagement. Jesus himself, while he remains head of the church, delegates authority to his followers (see Matthew 28).
The fact that Jesus is an authority in my life does not mean that he makes every decision FOR me. The Scriptures certainly make many decisions for me. They give me clear indications of what God’s will is (in a general sense) for my life. But the leadership of Jesus invites faithful trust on my part. He leads me, not by treating me as a robot. He no longer calls me his servant, but his friend (see John 15:15).
My wife is my best friend. I don’t lead her because I think I’m smarter or better or more capable as a leader than she could be. I lead because I believe God has given me that responsibility in our relationship. But my leadership, modelled after the leadership of Jesus, tries to invite her faith-filled (not fear based) participation in our life together. There are times where I do have to set the general direction of our lives and make decisions she disagrees with, but I invite her correction, she confronts my sins, and often I am blessed by her wisdom. I am not Jesus! I am still a sinful man who must rely on Jesus for help in my leadership. But I’m still called to lead and she is still called to trust me. Both of us submit ourselves to the leadership of Jesus in our lives. When she confronts me with sin in my life, she does it with the authority of the Word, and invites me to submit my life to Jesus. In this sense, all believers “submit” to one another by submitting to Jesus Christ and the teaching of God’s word. No person, male or female (regardless of their position in the church or in society), is above the authority of the Word.
There are many areas of life where we might disagree (how to discipline our kids, where to send them to school, how to spend our money, whether or not she should work, how often we should have sex, how many kids to have, etc.) and there isn’t always a clear Word in Scripture. In these cases, we both pray, seek Jesus, hope for agreement, challenge areas where we might be acting selfishly in each other, and then, after inviting her input, I decide what we will do as a family. Some might say we make the decision together (which we do), but as her husband, I bear the primary responsibility for initiating, following through, and sacrificing if we make a bad choice. I carry the burden of responsibility. But she carries the risk of having to suffer through my bad choices. Her faith in me and my love for her are an attempt to reflect the love-faith dynamic between Christ and the church.
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 2:36 pm #
Ryan,
Clement uses the word in the sense of each Christian submitting to his neighbour, each according to the gift that he has. The rich are to minister to the poor, and the poor show respect and gratitude. There is no authority. If you give money to a poor person that does not automatically mean that you have authority over him.
Also the king Antiochus gave in to the Jews and sacrificed in the temple. He hupetage. The Jews had no power or authority over him. This is the evidence. The scriptures do not say that Christians are to obey one another, but rather submit to one another. This is a voluntary and mutual thing.
Michael admits that husbands must submit (that is, give in) at least some of the time. But do the scriptures really say that a husband must have his own way MORE of the time than the wife? Is that the core teaching on marriage?
Others talk about responsibility. But you read here about women who provide and protect. It is hard to be a single parent, but typically a single mother will provide and protect. This is in her nature, her bent if you like. So if women can and must provide and protect, then the core issue is not that a woman cannot provide, but that men want women to submit more.
Anyway, Michael has really hightlighted the bare bones of the teaching.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 2:56 pm #
Ryan,
“The problem I have with your last response is that you seem to assume that the exercise of authority requires micromanagement.”
Good point. I really do think that people are assuming this for some reason.
Ryan Pazdur on 02 May 2008 at 3:01 pm #
Sue,
My apologies. I realized in re-reading your comment that I might have missed the point in my response. It sounds like you don’t have a problem with the idea that submission entails a form of obedience to another person. The issue is whether or not that person is in a position of authority.
In my mind, though, the notion of obeying someone implies that you are accepting their desire or will as an “authority” for you in this circumstance or relationship. Can you think of an example of obedience that doesn’t involve some notion of authority?
I think the problem is not with Scripture, but with our sin-infused notions of authority. Authority is not inherently (by definition) a bad thing. God exercises authority, but it is free from sin and is exercised for the glory of His name. Christ, as a human being, exercises the lost authority of Adam, representing humanity before God and accomplishing the will of God. Again, his exercise of authority is free from the taint of sin.
God delegates authority to human beings and holds them accountable for how they lead with that authority. To move away from marriage for a bit, we can look at the authority of parents. God gives parents authority to discipline their children, to train them in righteousness–and requires that they be honored and obeyed. Parents exercise that authority as a responsibility before God (after all, it is a delegated authority). Children have a responsibility to God to submit to that authority. This is fitting (or proper) because it is the way God designed families to work (and done well, shows children the love of God, their heavenly Father).
Authority is not always a bad thing. Nor does it necessarily imply a lack of worth on the one obeying. Children submit to their parents, but parents are no more valuable or worthy before God than their children. Value in God’s sight is not dependent on our age, our gender, our abilities, our size (think of David and Saul). Our value is inherent, based on God and his created purpose for us as image bearers. So when parents exercise authority over children does that necessarily make them move valuable?
I see the same dynamic at work in the biblical teaching on marriage. Husbands have a God-given authority as head of the marriage, an authority that is delegated to them and for which they are responsible to God for. This authority does not imply that wives (or any woman for that matter) are less valuable than their husbands or unequal. It simply means that they are accountable to God for different things.
Ryan Pazdur on 02 May 2008 at 3:19 pm #
Sue,
Can you clarify what the verse in Clement is specifically saying about submission? Who submits to whom there? Does it say that the poor person submits to the rich person by receiving money from them? It wasn’t clear when I read your example. And that seems different than the idea of “giving in” that you suggested earlier. Again, I think context must also factor into our understanding of the word. I stand by the context of Ephesians 5 and the three concrete examples of submission that Paul gives us as determining the meaning of the word.
As for the example you cited with Antiochus, are you referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes who set himself up as a god and sacrificed in the temple, enraging the Jews? Not knowing the verse or context you are referring to, I can’t say for sure, but you might want to check if the word is being used in the passive. If not, it might mean that Antiochus subjected the Jews or made them subject to them. The Greek term in Ephesians is passive, implying submission, not active, indicating the act of subjecting someone to your will. Again, I can’t say, not having the Greek in front of me.
Finally, when you refer to authority as “having your own way” it misses the point of what I’ve been saying. The goal of godly leadership is not one person or the other getting their own way (selfish, self-seeking leadership and exercise of authority), but a husband seeking God’s good will for his wife. It’s not his will that matters, but God’s will–the highest expression of love a husband can show to his wife.
I’ve loved this discussion and hope it continues, but I’ve got to take a break for the rest of the weekend (for family reasons…I get sucked into the web and can easily neglect my family…that’s NOT good leadership.) Thanks for your gracious comments…
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 4:08 pm #
Ryan and Michael,
After rethinking I think your position is completely consistent. I didn’t understand that you consider yourself responsible for every decision in your house, it’s just that you choose to delegate some to your wife. That is a good management strategy, if your belief is that you need to manage your wife at all.
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 6:45 pm #
1Clem 38:1
So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with his special grace.
1Clem 38:2
Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He hath given him one through whom his wants may be supplied. Let the wise display his wisdom, not in words, but in good works. He that is lowly in mind, let him not bear testimony to himself, but leave testimony to be borne to him by his neighbor. He that is pure in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestoweth his continence upon him.
1Clem 38:3
Let us consider, brethren, of what matter we were made; who and what manner of beings we were, when we came into the world; from what a sepulchre and what darkness He that molded and created us brought us into His world, having prepared His benefits aforehand ere ever we were born.
1Clem 38:4
Seeing therefore that we have all these things from Him, we ought in all things to give thanks to Him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
———————–
2 Macc 13.23
”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (hupetage) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”
———————-
The king swore to observe all their rights. There is no sense that the king obeyed an authority.
Ryan,
I hope you see this. There is no sense at all that submission is being used to define a child parent relationship in this case. The king gives in to his subjects. I did give this quote in an earlier thread. I regret that I did not give the full name, Antiochus Eupator.
I don’t think that marriage should ever be compared to a parent child relationship either. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 7:07 pm #
Wait, Ryan, you said, “here are many areas of life where we might disagree (how to discipline our kids, where to send them to school, how to spend our money, whether or not she should work, how often we should have sex, how many kids to have, etc.) and there isn’t always a clear Word in Scripture. In these cases…I decide what we will do as a family.”
Did you make the final decision as to how many children you have/will have and whether your wife should work?
I love you guys, and I know you’re trying to dispel preconcieved notions about how I view hierarchical complementarianism, but it’s actually much more one-sided than I thought before. After my “conversation” with Cadis I thought it’s not really that big of a difference in power. But it’s basically like a parent and child, assuming the parent listens to the child’s input.
I guess we have these conversations to learn….
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 7:25 pm #
Cadis,
I just read this: (Alyssa is going to be aghast at that I’m afraid)
As I read your post, it looked a lot like my marriage — each one is responsible for ourselves and the relationship. Nobody “decided in the best interest of” anybody where to go to church (or how many kids to have, or how often to make love, or whether to work or not). We decide everything together.
I’m not at all aghast!
I thought you and I did quite well getting to the bottom of our definitions and we are much closer in opinion than many others on here.
Greg on 02 May 2008 at 11:09 pm #
Dac had a good post at number 53 that really jumped to the head of this issue that no one has yet brought up.
I would like to see people interact with what he had to say.
Is there mutual submission in the relationship between the church and Christ? Are we, the church, at times in authority over Christ? Can the body ever overtake the head?
We all know the answers to these questions, but I am afraid many simply do not like them. Alternatives are sought after until we conform scripture to what we think it should be.
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 12:29 am #
And yet 1 Cor. 7 commands mutual authority.
Greg on 03 May 2008 at 12:53 am #
Sue,
Where is that, specifically?
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 1:29 am #
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
This is the only time when one Christian is told to have authority over another.
In fact, when Christ and the church are compared to husband and wife, the relationship is one of sacrifice and submission, not authority and submission.
minnowspeaks on 03 May 2008 at 6:35 am #
Amen Sue!!
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 9:09 am #
Sue, is the context of the “mutual authority” passage describing marriage in general, or the specific need to submit to the other person’s desires in the marriage bed in order to avoid sexual temptation outside of marriage?
Charley on 03 May 2008 at 9:34 am #
There’s no way I have time read all the comments that have ensued from this post, but here are some suggestions:
Noel Piper wrote a wonderful article on what a complementarian marriage looks like and used a tandem bicycle as the illustration. It can be found HERE.
In the midst of a long series on marriage, Dr. John Piper addressed this issue in a sermon HERE. In particular pay attention to what he says submission IS versus what iit IS NOT (toward the end of the manuscript).
Charley
HomeDiscipling Dad Blog
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 9:59 am #
Ellen,
My understanding is that Christian men and women relate to each other as brother and sister and therefore “submit to one another.” If they are married, they enter into a sexual relationship in which they have authority over one another. They now, in a sense, belong to one another.
Sexuality is the fundamental and concrete way in which men and women are complementary. This complementarity is explicitly not to be hierarchical but mutual. I don’t know how else to understand it.
My sense is that sexual relations are not appropriate in a relationship in which one partner wields power/authority over the other. My sense is that God intends the sexual relationship to be mutual. I don’t think we can hold this in our minds and honour it and at the same time claim that complementarity between sexes is a matter of one person submitting sometimes and the other person submitting more. I have difficulty with these definitions.
George C on 03 May 2008 at 10:10 am #
Cadis,
The reason I would not “stick her butt and suitcases in the car and drop me off at the church up the road” in the situation you mention or push my will upon her in any way other than the possibility of her immediate physical safety (in which case I would do it to anyone, regardless who was “over” the other) is because husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ DID (pat tense) love the church by GIVING Himself up for us, NOT as Christ the LORD of the Church. There is a very important distinction there.
When wives are told to submit, they are to look at their husbands like the church is to look at Christ: as her Lord.
When husbands love their wives they are to do it as if they were Christ her Savior: bearing the weight of her sin and failures.
On person not doing their part does not make the other one exempt from their duty.
There is no mention of husbands being commanded or even permitted to discipline their wives for non compliance to their wishes. My way or the highway is also not how Jesus treats His often wayward church, so I find no justification for that kind of action.
Like you say of your husband I can honestly say that no one bullies me into doing anything. That would actually be the best way to ensure that you did not get your way, but that is not the same as choosing to bear the weight of my wife’s sins. Jesus was not bullied to the cross.
On a side note. My wife may not agree with my ideas or motivations for a particular decision I may make, but she has as of yet (we’ve only been married a little over 2 years), never not complied to the few decisions where I felt the need to trump her wishes. I think that has as much to do with my “process” of choosing her to be my wife in the first place as it does to how I lead.
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 10:32 am #
Sue, I asked about the context of the passage. There are many other places in Scripture where an instruction is limited and we do not extend it across the entirety of life.
If the context of this passage is the marriage bed and sexuality, that is the context: keep your partner sexually satisfied.
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 11:54 am #
I agree that in this context mutual authority applies to sexual activity within marriage and sexuality.
I believe that the household codes exist within the context of cultural norms of that day. We have to choose whether the fundamental relationship is one of mutuality or hierarchy.
I have difficulty with the logic being pursued by some, that men and women as sexes are complementary and therefore their relationship must be hierarchical.
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 11:56 am #
I have difficulty with the logic being pursued by some, that men and women as sexes are complementary and therefore their relationship must be hierarchical.
Yes, you do. But you cannot use the context of 1 Corinthians 7 to prove non-hierarchy across life, when the context is the marriage bed and sexuality.
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 12:18 pm #
If others base hierarchy on sexuality than I think we have a disjunct.
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 12:26 pm #
I don’t believe that my womanhood resides on what happens in my bed - which is the context of 1 Corinthians 7.
Cadis on 03 May 2008 at 4:41 pm #
Alyssa,
“I thought you and I did quite well getting to the bottom of our definitions and we are much closer in opinion than many others on here.”
I think we were doing well because there weren’t as many interacting, it is starting to get confusing:)
It does seem like we are only inches away in what we believe, but I look a little ahead in the conversation and I see the gap widening, I think you probably do too.
Just to go on record, somewhere you said that you were being accused of wanting to be a man. I do not pick that up from you.
I understand your argument of equality. I do disagree with it but I do understand that you want to be a woman equal with a man in position but not like a man. I should add, I don’t know why I would have thought you would be aghast, because an egalitarian view does not imply a spouse can thumb there nose and deliberatly defy the others wishes and just do what they please. It was a dumb statement on my part.
I have been in agreeance with most of what Michael J has said, I think Ryan Pazdur has done an excellent job too.
George C,
I agree in the concept of your overall post.
I do not really ever see the senario I used occuring between me and my husband, and usually the basis for the marriage is agreed upon by both so I concur you and your wife will probably never approach a decission in that manner but “IF” I would in either word or deed over a important issue thumb my nose at my husband and it was an on going problem. He would put the ultimatum to me. He would say , If your decission is to do thus, then do it ,but not by my side.
“On person not doing their part does not make the other one exempt from their duty.”
I agree again with this on lighter matters and in a marriage that is not having extreme problems,
but this runs both directions . If a wife is not to submit to ungodly request from her husband or submit to abuse. I do think a husband has the right to lay down a choice to the wife to comply or be liberated to have her freedom to do what she wants.
But Yes usually this does not happen with a couple who has built up trust between each other and little decissions have been competantly met , a strong consistant
harmony is established so that when the big decissions come the same agreed upon tactics are applied
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 4:48 pm #
Cadis,
“I understand your argument of equality.”
Means more to me than you will ever know.
My husband just said, “The problem is no one is reading your comments. You’re trying so hard to understand them and find common ground and they are not.”
He was wrong about you. Thank you.
Cadis on 03 May 2008 at 5:14 pm #
Alyssa,
Your welcome
If I’m going to compare and look at the other side, it would be best if I knew what the other side was saying, I,ve made that mistake to often in the past and had to say oops ooooh that’s not what you meant.
It’s hard to communicate in writting because you always do wonder if your point or what you are saying is being understood, because you can’t see facial responses, or a nod of the head. You can tell when someone is listening.
And in long posts like this it is hard to keep seperated one persons thoughts from another, especially when five or six are replying from the same view but not in agreeance on every minute detail, or are not working through it from the same starting point and method of reaching thier conclusions. Like the abuse issue that was being raised so often it was not to you directly that I made an objection but to the over-all posting of everyone. I think sometimes , me too, people post to the general combined thoughts of the opposing view, even though it is addressed to one person. Which is not good, but it does happen
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 5:30 pm #
Yeah, I’m thinking we should use the MESSAGE BOARDS!
I posted on there like 6 months ago about something else and I still don’t think there’s been a single response.
Overall, I’m thinking this may just not be the blog/ministry/forum for me. I’m into trying to work things out, not just restate my position over and over and over (something both sides have had to do here).
Thanks for actually “listening” (or reading, I guess), though.
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 6:11 pm #
Alyssa, part of the problem with not getting responses (or rather a potential reason) is that (1) if there are a lot of responses things get lost (there is - what I think - a vital question that needs to be answered in order to sway me in the slightest…but I have yet to see a response. and (2) once a post scrolls off the bottom of the page it’s a lot harder to find unless one links back to it.
Greg on 03 May 2008 at 8:39 pm #
Ellen,
Thank you for your responses to Sue. They were spot on and just what I was going to point out.
Sue, the context of the passage deals with sexual desire only. To make it mean more is going too far with the text.
Minnowspeaks,
Once again, not so fast.
Now, to both Sue and Minnowspeaks, I would like you to give me answers to the questions I asked in post #71:
“Is there mutual submission in the relationship between the church and Christ? Are we, the church, at times in authority over Christ? Can the body ever overtake the head?”
I really don’t think either of you will give me a straight answer to this, as we both know what the answer is, and know that it is not good for the egalitarian position.
Your zeal to defend egalitarianism must originate first in scripture. Unfortunately, throughout these series of discussions Michael has been having here, that position seems to have a high reliance on experience after the fact, and not much on scripture justifying it’s use to begin with.
That is a horrible weakness for your position.
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 8:58 pm #
Greg,
“Is there mutual submission in the relationship between the church and Christ? Are we, the church, at times in authority over Christ? Can the body ever overtake the head?”
Alright, you win. I wasn’t going to be baited back in, but here I am.
No, there is no mutual submission between Christ and the church, or in any instance between God and people. That’s the part you want to hear.
Here’s the part you DON’T want to hear:
The illustration of marriage being a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church is not limitless in scope. If it were, you (men) would have God’s position of authority in marriage and church. So we know it doesn’t mean that our relationship in marriage is EXACTLY like Christ and the church, because that would be, well, idolatry. (BTW, I think that’s exactly what Michael is arguing when he says he sets the map and destination for his wife — a godlike position. But that’s Michael and you’re you and I’ll address you.) So we’re left to ask, what are the limits in scope of the illustration Paul is giving here? Are there clues in the context that will let us in on what Paul is illustrating, exactly, if not divine authority? It also says that Christ is the church’s salvation, but I think we’re on pretty dangerous ground if we start saying that the husband’s job is his wife’s salvation (Hello FLDS!
I don’t think any of us is going there….).
I think our context clue comes in verse 30, where Paul says “We are all members of his body.” The metaphor uses the word kephale (translated head), avoiding the use of the word for authority. Why would Paul avoid the word for authority if authority is the central topic of the passage? Why wouldn’t he use the word authority about the marriage relationship anywhere (other than the previously discussed sex verses)? I think the reason is that the illustration is intended to show a relationship of closeness, a “mystery” of oneness, as he calls it, like that between a head and a body. We are DIFFERENT, we need each other, and we need to take care of each other.
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 9:31 pm #
If it were, you (men) would have God’s position of authority in marriage and church. So we know it doesn’t mean that our relationship in marriage is EXACTLY like Christ and the church, because that would be, well, idolatry.
Does that mean that you believe that following th