Kay

gengwall@110,
Yes, probably. Funny thing though- seems to be fine for them when they throw in “the husband is the head of the family” or “head of the home.”

So my question is if the husband always has final say does the wife actually have any say – ever? (In Mark’s case)

pinklight,
Clearly, logic will say “no.”

P.P.S Is mutual submission in view in 1 Peter 3, when the is a non-believer?

Mark,

What does that matter? As believers we are supposed to do what is right no matter what others are doing. So, what’s your point?

“It is not surprising that such an issue as authority would take top priority in some people’s lives. The world runs on authority and power; who has it and who doesn’t. Christ’s emphasis on service, humility, and mutuality are difficult systems of living to reorient oneself into.”

TL,
You’ve said mouthful here. It’s so entrenched in everything we deal with and “power” is practically worshiped by the world.

TL,
Sometimes my curiousity pays off. Sometimes, well, not so much.

Mark,
I’m not trying to be rude about this, but it really would make all the difference if you would just give one example of application. Jesus taught using parables for a good reason – it really helps get your message across to others. One example doesn’t seem like a great deal to ask.

For example suppose that my husband and I were new converts to the comp. view and my husband came to you for advice on how to live that out, what would you tell him?

TL,
I didn’t think were…just wanted you to know what you might encounter. 🙂

TL,
I’m glad you are inspired! Like I said, I’ve commented there before and mcp shuts off when it starts to hit “home.” He removed some of my comments which made it appear that I had no answer for others who directed questions to me – and this while he allows TUTD to spout his filth. It was really not a good use of my time. I hope it works out for you. Godspeed.

gengwall@110,
Well, I’d luv to, but you brought it up again…excuse me for a moment while I take some Pepto…

gengwall,
Absolutely, you do! 😉 And that’s the wonderful thing about the marital ‘dance.’ My husband often expresses wonder at the men who wish keep women under themselves, stifling their wive’s God-given faculties from being used to the fullest potential.

TL@36,
And any time discussions get to “the” uncomfortable point for the host there, he shuts down comments completely – par for the course on comp. blogs.

It’s really horrific when you think about it – no matter how devoted to Christ a woman is, she cannot escape being suspect of misusing her gender.

I mean, perish the thought, that a wife might be used to influence for godly purposes. gengwall, your wife is a persuasive woman, but I doubt that you find it necessary to question her every motive, right?

gengwall,
Yes, you certainly did – directed at Mark, wasn’t it? Wow, what a bunch of rabbit trails the redefining of ‘authority’ and showcasing of Ph.D.s made!

LOL, gengwall.

gengwall@28,
Another mysterious thing about those teaching that is they seem to hold “motherhood” in high esteem. (usually taught as the highest calling of women – never mind some are barren – don’t confuse them with facts LOL)
But does this make sense since we women are such a dangerous deceptive deceived lot?

How much ‘male logic’ is being used when they put women in charge of teaching and nurturing the least discerning group of all – children?

I’m terribly disappointed that Mark, NN or any comp/hier. hasn’t posted an answer yet.

gengwall@100,
I hadn’t thought about that one in a while – made me feel like ‘barfing’ all over again!!

Susanna,
That’s one of the mysteries of hierarchists.
“Soft comps”, like Mark & NN, are ‘picking and choosing’ what they want included after what’s clearly given in verse 25 (Eph.5).

The full blown neo-Patriarchists are actually being more consistant in their theology. <–that is not an endorsement of any kind!

“So if the original marriage was a foreshadow of Christ/Church, adn authority exists in the church/Christ relatioship, why ought we deny the human relationship is different.”

Mark,
If you think Paul’s analogy extends that far, why stop at assuming Christ’s authority over your wife? Why not include everything else Christ does/is in relation to the Church?

Why not include saving, sanctifying and cleansing?

Why not presenting “the wife/church to husband/Himself in all its glory, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind, but holy and without fault?”

Lydia@24,
I do know some couples who are living/lived a scenario much like you describe. Comp teaching seems to completely ignore these instances – at least I’ve never encountered any that addresses how couples in this situation live without doing it “unbiblically” and staying “in role.”

SM@23,
They have also have books and magazines teaching this. Sadly, it’s running amuck through the homeschool community.

“I hope that Mark and NN will enlighten us to the necessity of an authority over the woman especially seeing that the Scripture encourages us all to grow up in order to make wise and mature decisions.”

Cheryl,
I wish they’d enlighten us on why unmarried women don’t seem to have this same need. Or better yet, what necessity is being withheld from unmarried women.

SM & gengwall,
That women are more easily deceived (like Eve – 1 Tim.2:14) is not just a traditional thing of the past. I’ve been in services with pastors using that tack within the past 5 years. They love using the claim of the “plain reading” of Scripture.

As you pointed out earlier, Kristin, the Christ/Church analogy can only be take so far or it becomes idolatry.
Ephesians doesn’t say that “just like Christ, husbands are capable of saving, sanctifying and cleansing their wives.” So, Paul is most certainly not saying the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church in *every* way.
Only verse 25 applies to husbands:
“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it”,

…obviously, verses 26-27, “so that He might make it holy by cleansing it, washing it with water and the word, and might present the church to Himself in all its glory, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind, but holy and without fault,” -DO NOT*.

The passage never even mentions Christ’s authority or His leading of the Church – that is found nowhere in this analogy.

Mark,
You see ‘egals’ don’t deny that Eph.5:22 says, “wives to your own husbands,” we just don’t believe it negates verse 21 “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” We allow both verses to stand.

However, we don’t read the words “wives to your own husbands” as *”husbands not to your wives”* …because that’s not what it says.

TL,
Sadly, they are often “read” more like this:

Romans 12:10 Be devoted to ‘some others’ in brotherly love. Honor ‘some others’ above yourselves.

1 Thessalonians 5:11 Therefore encourage ‘some others’ and build ‘some’ up, just as in fact you are doing.

Ephesians 4:32 Be kind and compassionate to ‘some others’, forgiving ‘some others’, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Ephesians 5:19 Speak to ‘some others’ with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider how ‘some’ may spur ‘some others’ on toward love and good deeds.

1 Peter 5:5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. ‘Some’ of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward ‘some others’, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Mark,

You say: “I agree submission is something we do. A wife is told to submit to her husband. She has to choose to do it, it cannot be demanded by the husband. God demands it, not the husband. But it is not mutual since the husband is not commanded to submit to his wife, as to the Lord. This is why ‘mutual’ is not effective to communicate what you believe.”
And…
you also said: “Yes my wife and i are included in Eph 5:21 since we are both members of the Christian community. We are included in the ‘one another’ as are all Christians in the Church. We will submit to those in the Christian community that God places over us.”

But here your own call for consistency in Bible exegesis goes out the window. Because by your exegesis, YOU are not submitting to “one another” but only to *“some others”*.

So please explain why for YOU, “one another” does not mean “one another” but only “some to others?”

“Note the difference between the two. One has to do with placing things in a natural order – something we might or might not have control over. The other has to do with where we choose to place ourselves – it is about the choice of being the last, not the first.”

Dave,
This is such a key point. No one is ever told to “ordinate” themselves ‘over’ anyone else! We are told to hypotasso ourselves – it is voluntary, not involuntary.

Hey Dave,
Glad you’ve had time to check in on your “peeps”!

“We are all products of our culture, egalitarianism included and probably more so than any other.”

Mark,
What do you mean by “probably more so than any other”?

pinklight,

Notice the redefining continues in this exchange:

Mark : “As in relation to culture wars, the egalitarian ‘gift’ based interpretations of scripture and practice may not be so innocent as you seemingly hint at. We are all products of our culture, egalitarianism included and probably more so than any other.”
…and have to be corrected –
by Lydia: “Gifts have nothing to do with egal or comp. They are given by the Holy Spirit to edify the Body.”

Significant, I think, that “gifts” is actually IN the Bible, while “roles” is not – Yet gifts are being called into question and roles are not.