Kristen

Marg, it’s pages 202-205.

I appreciate the distinction being made between authority and leadership. It makes sense to think of it this way, when we are talking about those called to church leadership– that they are being called to a role of leadership and not to a positional place of authority.
I want to reiterate that Paul and Peter both use certain ideas when speaking of the conduct and qualifications of those called to leadership in the church. I still believe the complete absence of anything similar regarding the conduct of husbands as those “called” to leadership by the mere fact of being male and married, is extremely telling. Husbands are culturally in authority, but are not “called” by God to leadership over their wives.

I just read something fascinating from Kenneth Bailey in his book, “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes.” He said that service from a position of power isn’t service, but is benevolence. Jesus didn’t serve from positions of power– He humbled Himself to serve in weakness. He did this with the woman at the well in Samaria when He asked her for a drink, placing himself in a place of need. He did this when He washed the disciples’ feet dressed as a slave.
“Servant leadership” is “serving” from a position of power and thus is benevolence and not true service. Intimacy in relationships requires more than benevolence– it requires true service.

Welcome, Amaranth, and thanks so much for giving your perspective. I find it illustrative of a point that I and other egalitarians have made about the New Testament (the writings of Paul in particular). Paul advised women to be “submissive to their husbands, that the word of may not be hindered,” in Titus 2. Paul said in several places in his letters that his mission was spreading the news about Christ, and he subordinated everything to that end. “I become all things to all people, that I might by any means save some.” His words about wifely submission must be viewed under that light. Paul’s position was that the surrounding culture would be upset if wives did not show submissiveness to the cultural authority granted to husbands. Wives should submit so that the message of the gospel would not be hindered. Slaves were to submit to their masters for the same reason. Paul’s position was not a ratification of the cultural authority of husbands or of the institution of slavery. It was a practical admonition for the furtherance of the gospel.
But TODAY, what hinders the gospel? The doctrine of male authority over women hinders the gospel– because I know you are not the only person who has rejected Christianity in recent years because of this very thing! What Christians are doing is ignoring the purpose of Paul’s words in order to focus on his literal meaning– thus negating his actual message of cultural accommodation for the sake of the gospel!
Complementarians who insist that egalitarians are simply “capitulating to the culture” in standing for equal treatment of women, are thus missing the point by miles. Egalitarians are not simply capitulating to the culture, but are using a hermeneutic that seeks to hold cultural assumptions separate from the actual message. However complementarians are ignoring the message of Paul that cultural sensitivities DO need to be taken into account.

The problem I have with the comp position is not that the husband gets to be leader; it’s that he always is supposed to be leader and the wife is supposed to never take the lead. I simply see no support for this in the Scriptures. As for authority, I don’t care how kind or benevolent it is– I don’t care how few of those things Craig listed, the husband actually uses. It’s the fact that he is supposed to have the right to use them (even if in Christian charity he never does), that’s the problem– a “right” to rule that is according to the flesh and not the Spirit. This is of the world and not of Christ.

Cheryl said:
“In this way, true Biblical leadership is an example set, not an authority taken. When Christian husbands live this kind of lifestyle of “leadership” how could any woman object? The self-sacrifice and Christ-like selfless example of a husband should never cause a Christian wife to reject him or his “leadership”. She too is to initiate a Christ-like example of self-sacrifice so that even if her husband were not a believer, by her godly example of living a gentle and respectful life, he will be influenced to follow her into Christianity.”
I agree, but would emphasize that this kind of leadership-by-example, in a mutualist marriage, moves dynamically between husband and wife. He is not the only one who gets to lead by example. In a mutualist marriage, first one partner and then the other may take the lead in a given situation, depending on personal strengths and many other factors. If the husband is feeling sick or tired, he can relax and let his wife decide the best course to take with a dispute between the children. If she’s better than him at something, she can take the lead in seeing it gets done– and vice versa. Neither one feels their masculinity or femininity threatened if the other steps outside a role. Each defers to the other’s areas of expertise.
My husband lets me lead in the area of finances; I’m better at it. When we’re travelling somewhere, he’s definitely the one in charge, because I get lost easily and tire quickly when driving. When it comes to parental discipline, we take turns. There’s no one right way to do a marriage. While complementarianism can still let individual marriages have their own dynamics, I would say this is easier in a mutualist/egalitarian marriage, where there is no set pattern for what it has to look like.
As an egalitarian, I have no problem with a marriage which looks more traditional than mine, because the husband is a natural leader and the wife likes him to be. But complementarians say all marriages are supposed to look like that. Neither I nor my husband was happy that way.

Mark, when you said (I will refer to this as “quote 1”):
“Kristen, i stand by what i said. As i see it, i cannot see what you define kephale as. It’s obviously not what i believe it to mean. Suzanne has shown her dislike for source and she is egalitarian, and a very good scholar. So thus, i don’t see how you are giving the proper meaning to kephale.”
— You just said something entirely different than when you said (I will refer to this as “quote 2”):
“you are rejecting the meaning of biblical words.”
In quote 1, you have stated that we don’t see eye to eye. You don’t see my definition of kephale. It is not what you believe it to mean. In other words, you disagree with me.
In quote 2, this is not what you said. What you said was that there was a “meaning” of “biblical words” that I had “rejected.” In effect, you were saying what YOU had decided the meaning of the words was, WAS the meaning of those words– authoritatively and without dispute– and that I was “rejecting” that meaning, and thus, the authority of those biblical words.
Do you see the difference? “We disagree,” or even “I think you’re wrong” is one thing. Or (which is less polite but still not going as far as you actually went) you could have just said, “You’re wrong.” I would have bristled a little at that being worded in such an in-your-face manner, but at least it would not have been a judgment of my character and motivations.
But what you said was “You are REJECTING the meaning of BIBLICAL words.” Whether or not you meant to say that you believed I was in rebellion against the true meaning of the Bible– that is what I heard you say.
If I were to tread very hard on someone’s toes– even if it were an accident and unintentional– I would apologize. You just treaded very hard on my spiritual toes. It hurts to have someone tell you, whether they mean it or not, that you are rejecting the meaning of the Bible.
I will grant that this may not have been what you intended to say– but communication is a two-way street. It is just as much your responsibility to word things the way you mean them, as it is my responsibility to do my best to deciper your meaning.
The plain sense of your words was “you are rejecting the true meaning of the Bible.” I took those words to mean what they actually said.
So– now when you say, “I still stand by what I said,” you are NOT standing by “you are rejecting the true meaning of the Bible.” You are standing by, “I think you’re wrong.” I don’t mind a bit that you think I’m wrong. 🙂 What I minded was being told I rejected the Bible.
Does that make things clearer?

Mark, you definitely accused me of “rejecting the meaning of biblical words.” Those were your exact words. Disagreeing with you on the meaning of a word in the Bible is a very different thing from “rejecting the meaning of biblical words.” To “reject” is a moral stance that I did not at all appreciate being accused of taking towards the Bible.
Yes, an apology would have been nice. However, since you say you meant no attack, I will choose not to take it as one. Be well.

When I said this:
“But don’t just bow down to the lexicon and say, “BDAG says this is what the phrase means, so this is what it means” —
I had lost my temper, sorry. I didn’t mean that you were actually doing this, Mark– but I think it is a danger of elevating the lexicon meaning too high.

Mark, I think you are also misreading Sue’s position on “kephale” as “source.” Here is one of her essays on the subject:
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/11/orphism-and.html
Her position is much more nuanced and not nearly as simplistic as you are making it. I am not the only one whose words are getting oversimplified to say things we never meant at all. I would ask you to please read more carefully.

Mark said,
“. . . your position. . . rejecting the meaning of biblical words. . .”
I find that remark highly offensive. How on earth you got from “I don’t focus my main arguments on the meanings of Greek words” to “I reject the meaning of biblical words” is completely beyond me.
I am not giving my own meanings to biblical words. That’s insulting. What I’m saying is that the Bible adds light to the lexicons just as much as the other way around. Let Paul’s use of the words “head of the body,” inform us as to what he means other times when he says “head of the body.” Let the context of the passage inform us as to the meaning of a phrase. Let the themes of the letter overall, inform us as to the meaning of a phrase. But don’t just bow down to the lexicon and say, “BDAG says this is what the phrase means, so this is what it means.”

Allison said:
“We have to consider how loving it is for a husband to try to take authority over his wife, as if she were somehow incapable of making decisions for herself (or of dealing with the consequences if they turn out to be the wrong decisions). We have to consider if it is at all loving for a husband to assert that his is the final decision in all matters, and the wife consistently has to sacrifice the things she wants and needs in the name of “submission”, just so the husband can have his way (sounds like kids in the sandbox, where one gets his own way all the time, to the detriment of the others).”

I have to say also, that even in complementarian marriages where neither of these things take place, where the husband is self-sacrificially serving his wife as Ephesians 5 directs him to, there are still negative consequences to the assertion that the husband somehow has a birthright to the role of “leader” and the wife is born to the role of “follower.” God said it was not good for the man to be alone, so He gave him an “ezer kenego” (“facing-him strong help”). “Facing him” implies equality, as does the fact that she was taken from his side and is of exactly the same substance as he. “Ezer” means “strong help” and is the word used of God when He helps Israel. When the husband turns his “facing-him strong help” into a “subordinate to him sidekick/assistant,” the man has rendered himself effectively alone again– for God showed him that none of the things the man was to rule were capable of being what he needed not to be alone.

The woman was meant to rule the creation beside the man, not be one of the things that is ruled. When he rules her, however sacrificially or benevolently, I believe that a man places himself under a strain that he was never meant to bear. It’s lonely at the top, and it’s lonely for the man to take the top place and not raise the woman up from the place the curse gave her, to be strong and at his side once again.

Mark,
This is why I don’t focus my main arguments on the meaning of Greek words. My main arguments have to do with the whole-picture view of the Bible (creation in unity; fall and separation; restoration of unity in Christ); with how Paul himself used the word “head,” with what Paul and Peter DIDN’T say about husbandly authority (compared to what they had no problem saying about other forms of authority); with not reading things into the text that come from Church tradition; and with letting the Law of Love be our main guide (if you wouldn’t want someone insisting they have a birthright to rule you, don’t insist you have a birthright to rule someone else).

As far as I’m concerned, insisting on husbandly authority based on two words: “head” and “submit,” interpreted through Church tradition that bears every evidence of being rooted in the male desire to rule– is the wrong foundation on which to decide that men have a God-given right to be in authority over their wives.

There is no place where a husband is told not to lord it over his wife in the exercise of leadership. This is because he is never told to exercise leadership over her at all.

Mark said:
“Your whole argument is an argument from silence.”
Yes, I argue that the New Testament is silent about men having authority over women based on their gender alone. It seems to me that silence is a very good argument here. If you want to add male authority to the mix, you are doing so in spite of the silence of the Bible on this issue.

The difference between Kay and I on church authority is, I suspect, very minor– but it has no bearing on what you and I were discussing. I maintain that there are specific instructions from Paul and Peter to church leaders indicating that Paul and Peter considered these leaders to in fact be leaders, by God’s calling, to their flocks. There are absolutely no such instructions from Paul or Peter to husbands. The silence is somewhat deafening. ALl you’ve got are two words, “head” and “submit,” with no instructions tied to them about husbands leading wives– only instructions on husbands and wives mutually yielding to one another, and husbands loving, giving themselves, cherishing and nurturing their wives.

As for Chrysostom and “kephale,” I agree that by the time he wrote, the meaning of the word may have evolved from NT times. However, I still find it interesting that he finds it necessary to say “head and ruler,” as if the word “head” by itself were still not quite enough to convey rulership.

Mark, you cited this with regards to church authority:
“Tit 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”
If male authority is so clear and obvious, why is there nothing equivalent or even similar in the New Testament with regards to husbands? Why are husbands never told “lead your wives with all authority” or anything like this?
In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter says to the elders of the church, “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, not as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. . .”
If husbandly authority is so obvious and clear, why are there no clear words like this to husbands? How easy would it be for Peter to say, “You husbands, lead your wives as their authority, not by constraint but willingly, not to your own advantage but for their benefit, not lording it over them, but being examples.” In a world where male privilege was a given, such words were certainly expected. And yet he never says them. Neither does Paul. Neither does any writer of Scripture. Instead it’s all “nourish and cherish as your own body,” “love as Christ did when He gave Himself,’ “treat her with respect as a fellow-heir of the grace of life,” etc.
Notice in 1 Tim 3:4, when qualifications for church leadership are given, an overseer is to have his children in submission. Not a word there about having his spouse in submission. Why? Again, wifely subjection by the husband was the expected norm. And yet it is omitted from the passage. To us, this is hardly noticeable. To the original readers, it would have screamed.
This isn’t the only indication that Paul and Peter were saying Christian marriages weren’t supposed to look like the patriarchal marriages of the world at that time– but it’s a big indication. Paul and Peter were teaching a new dynamic existing within Christian marriage, in which male and female as joint heirs with Christ, adopted sons, a royal priesthood, would stop relating to each other under the old “he’s in charge, I’m subordinate” paradigm. Misunderstanding the historical background and the shared cultural assumptions of the time, leads people to mistake the assumptions, for the commands of God.

Cheryl said:
“Now most here know that I have resisted dealing with the Scriptures on marriage because it is not a direct connection to women in ministry.”
I’m glad the Lord led you in this direction, because although there is not a direct connection between the two topics, they are philosophically linked. The issue in both is whether women are meant to be subordinate to men. How can we assert that women can have full equality with men in ministry, if we believe they are created to be under their husbands’ authority? The belief that men are meant to lead and women meant to follow, says something (whether comps want to admit it or not) about the fundamental nature of men and women. “Meant” to lead means “born” to lead. “Meant” to follow means “born” to follow.
It would be like saying a person who is still under the authority of his parents can be senior pastor of a church. If he must still be under their authority, how can he be qualified to lead a church?

I have answered Mark’s challenge when it comes to the three “head” references in Ephesians. To complete his challenge, then:

will heap burning coals on his head.” Ro 12:20 2776 – this refers to a physical head. I will use the word “noggin” whenever this is the meaning.
that Christ is the head of every man, 1Co 11:3 2776 – the context of this passage is all about who came first and who follows. “Head” in its context here means “that which came first; source.”
and the man is the head of a woman, 1Co 11:3 2776 – Again, “source.”
woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1Co 11:3 2776 Again, “source.” Since Christ (the Messiah) was sent by God the Father, God is the Source of Christ.
something on his head while praying or 1Co 11:4 2776 – the meaning is “noggin.”
or prophesying disgraces his head. 1Co 11:4 2776 – “source.” Jewish men covered their heads when they prayed to show their state of sinfulness before God. A Christian man who covered his head would be declaring that his sins were not forgiven, thus disgracing Christ, his “source.”
her head uncovered while praying or 1Co 11:5 2776 – “noggin.”
or prophesying disgraces her head 1Co 11:5 2776 – “source.” Here the man is the “source” of the woman, and by praying with her head uncovered, she dishonors her “source” because women who went uncovered were prostitutes.
as the woman whose head is shaved. 1Co 11:5 – “noggin.”
if a woman does not cover her head, 1Co 11:6 – “noggin.”
her hair cut off or her head shaved, 1Co 11:6 – “noggin.”
head shaved, let her cover her head. 1Co 11:6 – “noggin.”
ought not to have his head covered, 1Co 11:7 2776 – “noggin.”
a symbol of authority on her head, 1Co 11:10 2776 – “noggin.” (although the word “symbol” does not appear in the original Greek. The correct translation is “she should have authority on (over) her own head.”)
a woman to pray to God with her head 1Co 11:13 – “noggin.”
or again the head to the feet, 1Co 12:21 2776 – “noggin.”
He is also head of the body, the Col 1:18 2776 – “source of life/growth.”
the head over all rule and authority; Col 2:10 2776- “preeminent one.”
and not holding fast to the head, Col 2:19 – “source of life/growth.”

Here’s a link to Sue’s research on “kephale.” We’re indebted to you, Sue, for your intensive work on this.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/search?q=kephale

With regards to what the word means in Ephesians– Paul uses it 3 times in the book. The first time, Eph. 1:22, he uses it with the preposition “over” (Greek “hyper”), in reference to “all things” (with the context being that He is “above” all principalities, dominions and powers). The word “over” is not used in the head-body metaphors which are the other two uses of “kephale” in Ephesians. Since Sue’s research indicates that the word “kephale” also meant “preeminent one,” its use with the word “over” in Eph. 1:22 would seem to indicate this meaning. (Authority is IMPLIED in His being “over” all other powers, but it is not part of the actual meaning of the word “kephale.”) But the word “over” is NOT used in any of the three references, when Christ is spoken of as head “of” the body. In Eph. 4:15 we read that the members of the body “grow” in all things into Christ as the “head.” “Head” when used with “of the body” appears to carry the meaning “source of growth.”
In Eph. 5:22, then, since the word “head” is used with “of” and not “over” the body, it quite likely means the same thing it meant just a few paragraphs earlier, in 4:15– source of growth. The word is then followed with a picture of Christ, not taking the preeminent place as He does in 1:22, but giving Himself to make the church glorious. It is Christ’s sacrifice, not His preeminence, that is associated with “head of the body.” And it is not ruling the church, but making her glorious, that is in view.
If there is any meaning of “preeminence” when it comes to husbands and wives, the only logical way to read it is that husbands are being asked to emulate Christ and give themselves; and Christ gave Himself by laying down His preeminence and taking the lowest place– the place of a criminal on a cross.
I think it’s most likely that husbands are being asked to be the source of growth for their wives (nourish and cherish). But the only other possible meaning is that husbands are to lay down the preeminence given them by the social structure, and go lower in service to their wives, to raise the wives up.
There are other places in the Scriptures where Christ is spoken of as being in authority over the church. But authority over the church is not part of the meaning of the head-body metaphor, which refers to the nurturing-providing-raising up aspects of Christ’s ministry to the church. And it is THAT non-authoritative metaphor, and NOT any of the authority passages, that are used in reference to husbands and wives.

I would personally like to say that I don’t think we should make moral judgments about WHY people are comps. Many are simply following the Bible as best they read it. I would argue with their hermeneutic, but not with them.
For others, the “Stepford” kind we have been discussing (involved in movements like Quiverfull or True Womanhood), the problem usually formulaic thinking. They want certainty and controllable outcomes, and believe that by following a certain set formula, in marriage as well as other areas of life, they can successfully predict a happy outcome. But certainty is not granted to us in this life, and the desire for it, I think, comes from fear. Perfect love casts out fear, and I hope they let God draw them into more perfect love and trust of Him, whatever happens.
Then there are narcissistic personalities that, due to real mental illness, require control and domination. For these, patriarchalist doctrines are convenient ways to use God’s authority to create and uphold their own power. They need prayer and intervention.
Of course, comp or patriarchalist doctrines can and do feed selfishness and pride that is already resident in the human heart, as well. But many who sincerely believe comp doctrine, strive against selfishness and pride and are gentle and humble, serving those they consider subordinate to them.
Many times I have seen men who sincerely believe these doctrines and are Christlike in character, put themselves under considerable strain trying to serve their families while leading the household all on their own. By not letting their ezer kenego (“facing-them strong help”) come alongside as an equal partner, they are doing what God created Eve to keep them from having to do, for it is not fit that they should rule the creation alone. I feel sympathy for them and hope they will explore another hermeneutic that will ease the pressure on the husband and set the wife free.

Cheryl said,
“The more I think about what Mark is saying, the more I believe that his wife is the key to his authority. He has not authority to force himself on her or to take authority over her so if she doesn’t give him his “rights” there is nothing that he can do. In other words the power is in the woman’s hands not in his. She gives him the right to make the final decision and she gives him the right to make an “authoritative” decision.”
Yeah, but I wonder if Mark thinks about it more like this: He has authority, but it is not Christlike to insist upon or take authority. After all, Christ has authority, certainly, but He lets us choose whether or not to follow Him. Even so, it must be up to Mark’s wife to choose to follow Mark. Logically, choosing not to force authority upon someone is not the same as not having authority.
Just trying to be fair. (grin)
I had a question, though. My husband has been working really hard on his final projects to graduate with his graphic design degree. (He’ll be done tomorrow! Yay!) After a presentation of his portfolio that he made to the faculty, his fellow students and their families, we both wanted to go have lunch. He was so tired that he had absolutely no desire to make a decision about where we should go for lunch– nor was he really capable of making a decision at that point because his brain was in a fog of fatigue. He did not come right out and say, “I want you to make the decision,” but I’ve been his wife for 22 years, and I know him. So I made the decision. I said, “We’re going to such and such a restaurant.” He nodded and (I know Mark will hate the way I say this) gladly submitted. (another grin)
If we were complementarians, would this be considered to be usurping his authority?
Or how about this: Supposing he comes home from school with a high fever and a cough. Suppose I take one look at him, lead him to the couch, press him down upon it, cover him with a blanket, and then go get medicine and a glass of water, hold them out and say, “Take this!” Am I usurping his authority? When he takes those pills, I’d call that “submission.” What would a complementarian call it?

Thanks, Pinklight!

Gengwall said:
“the stock answer I have heard to your question is ‘God set it up that way and who are we to question why God did that'”

The problem with this sort of answer is that in other cases– even the passages that are most difficult for us to relate to, such as the destruction of whole cities in the Promised Land– the Scripture gives reasons for God’s actions. The Bible also says that He is “not a respecter of persons” and that He shows complete impartiality in His justice. The idea that God would arbitrarily choose to designate half the human race to be subordinate to the other half in the church and in the family without just cause, understandable reason, or clear Scriptural support, simply cannot hold any water.

Mark said,
“The way i see it in our western egalitarian, non-authority culture, children no longer have respect. Our children run wildly around since they are taught that there is no such thing as authority- this is a direct result of our culture and you want me to push my children head-long into it.”
In our household, both my husband and I encourage the children’s respect for the authority of the other. Our children respect both their father and their mother.
I wanted to ask for clarification in the example you gave, Mark. You said the children were at the table with your wife and you both present. The children asked their mother for permission to leave the table– with you present– and she told them to ask you. Is that right? It seems to me that your children must also respect their mother’s authority in the home, or they would have simply bypassed her and asked you directly. This is why I don’t think the situation TL describes (poignantly, from her own experience) applies in your home– for if your wife were “humbled” in that way, the children would know that it’s no use asking the mother anything, because only the father has any say. Since your children plainly do NOT know this, I agree with Cheryl that you are a good man who teaches the children to “honor your father AND your mother.” Sadly, many marriages use the doctrines of complementarianism to divest the wife of honor. There are homes in which “honor your father and mother” is lived out as if it said “children and mothers, honor the father.” I’m glad for TL’s input, because she shows how easily this can happen, if these doctrines are taken too far. I am glad you do not take them too far. Kudos to you.
But a Christian egalitarian marriage does NOT mean a no-authority family where the children run wild. It means that both the husband and the wife have equal authority over the children.

Mark said,
“So my wife comes from my body? Are you serious on this one? Or is this some hypothetical idea? How can people think this is a serious alternative to comp theology. Surely you can do better than this?”
Personally, I prefer to look to Colossians 2:19 and Ephesians 4:15-16, which describe what Christ’s function as “Head” to the church His body, is. The “head” is the source of life and growth for the body, according to Paul’s thinking. It is a provisionary function. Authority is not mentioned in either passage, but life, growth, and building up in love is. Now, obviously only Christ can be the Source of Life, since He is the Vine and we are the branches– but the husband’s “head” function towards his wife as his “body” would be as the source of provision– of material sustenance, certainly for in that culture women were completely dependent on men for that– but also of helping her grow in Christ and building her up in love. This was especially appropos in that culture, where she had been very much under his feet, and Christianity now gave her rights to study and learn, and to stand by her husband’s side.

I never said a wife was only to submit to her husband in that culture. I said he only had authority over her in that culture. I agree that wives are to submit to their husbands, and also that husbands and wives are to submit “to one another in reverence for Christ.” The husband’s submission is described in the love he is encouraged to have, which is like Christ’s love when He “gave Himself,” which was an act of submission.

The relationship between Christ and the church is compared to the relationship between a wife and a husband. This does not mean the wife-husband relationship mirrors the church-Christ relationship in all aspects– since “submission” need not imply authority, and authority is not mentioned in the passage, therefore authority is not one of those aspects it mirrors– but no, the church-Christ relationship is not cultural.
At this point we are going in circles around the meaning of two words: “submit” and “one another.” You asked me about “submit.” I must ask you about “one another.”
Why does “one another” not mean “one another” to you? For you must admit that if it does (and all the lexicons say it means mutuality) then submission cannot always mean “to authority” or we would all be in authority over each other.

Mark said,
“What everyone failed to mention (especially Kristen in her thread) was that wives are told to submit as the Church does to Christ. So does submit give any indication that auhtority exists. As far as i know, all lexicons say yes.”
In posts 35 and 36 of this thread, Sue referred you back to BDAG and said that in the case of Clement, “submit” meant “mutual” and therefore did not mean “to authority.”
The mere presence of the word “submit” does not imply authority– I have not seen an adequate refutation of Sue’s points, or evidence that BDAG does not say what she says it does in reference to Clement, or that Clement did not mean “submit to your [equal] neighbor” when that is what he said.
Also, Ephesians 5:21 still says “submit to one another,” and in the next thread Cheryl shows that “one another” always means mutuality.
If I leave out “wives submit to your husbands,” therefore, it’s because I don’t believe it means husbands hold God-ordained authority over wives. That Paul and his readers assumed cultural authority, I do not dispute. That mutual submission was intended by Paul as the way beyond mere cultural authority, to equality in Christ, seems quite clear to me.

I think I found it.
I said, “No– I don’t agree with the ‘only cultural’ idea– that we can ignore some portions of scripture because they’re only cultural. Instead, I believe that in every passage, we are to take into account the shared cultural assumptions of writer and audience, so that we can understand and obey the principle being conveyed, that the original audience would have understood.
So– the idea that the church is to Christ more like a wife is to a husband than a slave is to a master, is a beautiful, timeless teaching that I would never seek to circumvent.”
—
So what I said was that I didn’t agree with dismissing portions of the Bible as “only cultural.” I also said, though, that we needed to take the shared cultural assumptions into account– so we didnt mistake them for commands of God. That’s different from dismissing the entire passage as not applying to us anymore. What I advocate is finding the principle being conveyed by the passage, after we understand the cultural assumptions for what they were– and following that principle.

Mark,

I do think the husband had authority in that culture and it was not God-ordained. I’m not sure why you think I said otherwise. Perhaps if you remind me what I said that you interpreted that way?

As for who is in authority over a single woman– Paul and his readers would have known quite well that in that world, it was her father or closest male relative. The fact that Paul says nothing about this, in talking about how a single woman can devote herself to the Lord, is telling. It implies that he thought a single woman could have authority over herself, just as a single man did.