Tiffany

Ok I know I said the previous comment was my last but I did want to highlight one last there before I really must pay attention to other things.
In Comment 495 I said: Perhaps something that should have been brought up, oh say 500 comments ago, is when is it decided that an argument is proven?

Cheryl you have mentioned before that complementarians have never answered questions you have for them about various texts. I suspect what you mean is that they have never answered to your satisfaction, they have never proven their position to you.

So when is it proven?

For the vast majority of the thread the sides haven’t even been able to agree on basic common ground. (the definition of authority, that for whatever reason it is there that the instructions are different to husbands and wives, and others). If we can’t agree on a starting point (and indeed it doesn’t seem like we even agree fully on the nature of our relationship as the Church to Christ) I don’t think we can say “you haven’t proven your argument.” At best we can say “I still disagree with you.”

Which really is fine. Arminians and Calvinists disagree on many many (very big) things. They are both however Christians and a part of the body, The aren’t both 100% right, but they are both still Christians.

Ok, I think that about covers it.

cheryl- I am not going to be address all of what you said, or even the majority of it. As I stated 3 days ago I need to be done on here. Please don’t misconstrue this to mean agreement or a lack of answers, simply lack of time

re:546you state

You misread me. I was referring to the tactic of using an invalid argument to disprove a valid point

that wasn’t what was being done when the word trinity was brought up. Even though it was clearly stated by NN and myself that there wasn’t a point which was trying to be proven but rather common ground trying to be established, everyone wanted to argue something that wasn’t being said. I’m done with this topic, there isn’t anything left to say.

re 550

First of all, I don’t think that it is clear that you don’t believe husbands have 100% authority over wives.

It should be. Not only have I stated it numerous times, but I gave the very specific explanation of the nature of universal truth which comes from God and the implications for that in the marriage relationship.

Tiffany, does this somewhat accurately convey what you are saying?

Somewhat. The problem with the example, while I think it accurately portrays in one aspect what I have been wanting to get across, it gives the impression the the unique things that make the wife *her* disappear. Which isn’t accurate. The wife as she submits to her husband isn’t going to disapeer. I suspect you would like to go further in this particular part of the discussion, but this really must be my last comment and I need to be coming to a close.

I am going to make one last statement re:authority. going back and reading some of my explanations I can understand your confussion. My intent was never to discuss authority to begin with, but only submission and I should have stuck to that. In saying a little rather than none or a lot, it has made things less clear rather than more. NN said:

“authority = self-sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my life for yours…Which is of course not the definition or meaning of authority. Rather, these are the characteristics of the Christian usage of any authority.
To use the English definition of the word – “authority: the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.”
Which can of course be be lived out rightly or wrongly, in self-sacrifice or in selfish greed. Self-sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing – these are the characteristics of Christ’s application of authority. Just as with any other natural gift of God it can be abused (consider food, sex, accomplishments, etc.). It can be used rightly as Christ did and does (Matt 81:18) or it can be used in perversity after the manner of the Enemy (Eph 2:2, Col 1:13, etc.). Either way authority exists – the question in our lives is how it is used. And this is what the Epistles repeatedly address as practical to our edification in Christ – they do not say “have authority” – this is inherent in any hierarchical relationship. Rather we are told of our responsibilities in the matter.

Let’s stick with that as what my working understand of authority is. (my back and forth with SM rather confused the matter and I don’t think was helpful) However I still maintain that in a marriage where both are seeking Christ it is basically a non issue. It has been maintained on here that authority is much more keeping in line with the likes of Hitler, stalin,etc and that it has no place with fellowship of believers or even of Christ over His people. It is our premise that authority is not an evil thing, not contrary to the character of Christ or His followers, that He has described exactly how it is to look by His people which is so foreign to the worldly idea of authority that the two bear very little resemblance to each other, primarily in name only.

From there I am sure we could spend another 500 comments on the origin of authority and the distinctions in the husband wife relationship and whether (biblically enacted or not) does authority exist there. But I am not going to. My time to spend doing this has come to an end and I have no idea when or if such time will come again. Or that I would use it for this if it did. Often such topics make much greater headway with much smaller groups.

Best Wishes.

I just was checking to make I hadn’t missed any things from cheryl.

SM- once again, I am done on here. You aren’t satisfied with my answers, which is fine, but I don’t have the time to commit to this discussion any longer.

521:

However, all of this is tangential to the question of whether God gives husbands authority over their wives in the first place

I agree entirely and for that reason thought about not saying anything, but was genuinely confused by the response. I appreciate the time you took to address it.

Charis- yes, quite right.

Cheryl- I am really only still checking by in for you. If you have anything else to add, please do. Otherwise I am out.

We all hope it is normative for all Christian husbands who love their wives no matter what their preferred theological lables might be. And no matter who it is and how often they do such it will always be praise worthy and hopefully never taken for granted.

Yes, hence my confusion. It was stated in the two quotes I included that it was thought that this was not normative and the others needed to learn to do this. I made allowance in my comment that I misunderstood the meaning in which case I asked if it is already normative then why was the reaction what it was.

Kay- thanks for wanting to continue, and if I had the time to stick around to make sure peoples questions were answered I would. But I don’t.

SM- I jumped the gun in saying you were understanding completely. I think you are starting to understand rather (not implying agreement on your part, simply understanding of my point). Yes the distinction is on the idea of taking something vs rather on being being and doing something. Authority is a noun but when nouns are used as verbs they become gerunds (not sure on the spelling and to be honest don’t care enough to look it up). You can’t use a noun as a verb in every situation. I should have foreseen the linguistical and communication problems by not being clearer in my initial response. My appologies. Yes, I believe the husband is an Authority (a noun) and then enacts authority (noun used as a verb, gerund-I think…once again, I am doing some of this grammar stuff from memory). I am saying that the authority enacts authority in a Christ like way (loving, self-sacrifing, nourishing, cherishing- the manner in which Christ has enacted and will enact his authority over us. Which is different than it will be enacted over those who are not the Church).

I really can’t devote more time to this. NN said he would take a minute and answer your question in 496. As to 501 my answer is no. I know you will want to know why not, but I just can’t devote more time to this right now. perhaps with my answer of no and the further understanding of my views on authority and submission you can attempt to work out the explanation from my previous posts. Best wishes.

SM re497- you are understanding that perfectly.

re496, going to have to come back later to answer that.

(this will be my last big post. I will gladly answer and clarifying questions about what I have written but I need to be wrapping upmy end of things here.)

Cheryl said

Pastor Dave, you are a gem of the gems. I wish that you would create a seminar teaching men how to love and sacrifice for their wives by putting them first. If you could teach these godly men how God really wants them to see their wives as Christ sees the church, I don’t think there would ever be a problem in our marriages as we submit to receiving all that our husbands have to gift us with!

Kristen said

Dave, I have to say you are an amazing example of following Ephesians 5. You could have just jostled your wife and told her the baby was crying (many husbands would have), but instead you laid down your own needs and sacrificed for her. You nurtured and cared for her like your own body (because I’m sure your own body would rather have stayed in bed!). You loved your wife more than yourself, just as Christ loves the church. I’m totally impressed!

Let me add my praise for Dave! This is indeed exactly how a husband should respond to his wife exercising his authority in a Christ like manner to love her, nourish her, and care for her. This is a perfect example of “my life for yours.”

I am a little confused by one thing though- is this not normative? (please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that by something being normative that it isn’t praise worthy. It is. Self sacrificing love even when normative certainly is a praiseworthy thing. Just want to be abundantly clear on that point. I give big large props to Dave for these actions). But rather this is something my husband does as well (in addition to getting up early to work before anyone else gets up so he can go into work later and be there to make breakfast for our children and let me sleep as long as possible, and then staying up late most nights to work as well to make up for the frequency he comes home early when I am ill.) And this is the most natural enactment of our theology of the husband/wife relationship. This is the practical example everyone has been wanting from me for how the Biblical authority of my husband is lived out in our house daily.

I guess in summary my confusion is, that if this isn’t normative for egalitarian marriages, then why should I consider your doctrine? And if it is normative, why the surprise and the suggestion that many husbands wouldn’t have done this and need to learn the lesson?

Perhaps something that should have been brought up, oh say 500 comments ago, is when is it decided that an argument is proven?

Cheryl you have mentioned before that complementarians have never answered questions you have for them about various texts. I suspect what you mean is that they have never answered to your satisfaction, they have never proven their position to you.

So when is it proven?

For the vast majority of the thread the sides haven’t even been able to agree on basic common ground. (the definition of authority, that for whatever reason it is there that the instructions are different to husbands and wives, and others). If we can’t agree on a starting point (and indeed it doesn’t seem like we even agree fully on the nature of our relationship as the Church to Christ) I don’t think we can say “you haven’t proven your argument.” At best we can say “I still disagree with you.”

Which really is fine. Arminians and Calvinists disagree on many many (very big) things. They are both however Christians and a part of the body, The aren’t both 100% right, but they are both still Christians.

My quote from #412

Cheryl- re: 100/100 vs 100/0 split.
You can not have a “100-100? split. You can have two separate entities that are both individually at 100. Or you can have a unified group of two individuals which make up “one”. If we are saying Church/Christ and Husband/Wife are to be one, they can be 50-50 if you want to convey equality but 100-100 is nonsensical. (I mean nothing mean by that word, or insulting, simply that it is a concept that doesn’t make sense – all basic percentages must add up to 100) Let’s just discuss this before I address your questions. Although let me say (for I have no idea how many times now) I have not now, nor in the past ever said the husband has a God given right to take authority over his wife. Stop asking me to defend the concept or give an example of it. It is not what I am saying, it is not what I believe. If for some reason you think I do I suggest you go back and re-read my comments.

My guess is you missed this paragraph as it was sandwiched between two about different topics. I am indeed saying that Christ has 100% of the authority and we have none in the sense that we (even as His bride) won’t be defining (going back to the judging angels) what the judgment will be. Will be giving the same judgement as Christ, it will be impossible to do other wise. A much better way to define it (or at least more descriptive) however it that we will be fully submitted, not just in action, but in every aspect of our being.

You say in #476

This is indeed confusing because you never define what a husband’s authority is. You speak a lot about submission and then skip over authority as if it doesn’t really exist if you are fully submitted. The problem for egalitarians who really want to be Biblical, is that we do not believe that a husband has been given a place of authority concerning his wife and so when we meet a complementarian who believes in the husband authority we want to get answers from them that we don’t see in the Scriptures. When you don’t define the authority or the extend of the authority that God has given the man, it just doesn’t help us understand your position.

Both NN and I have repeatedly said that Biblical authority is loving, self- sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my-life-for yours. However we have been repeatedly told that this definition isn’t authority. I am going to once again state that this is what Biblical authority is. It isn’t was wordly authority is. And it isn’t what is often enacted in the name of Biblical authority. That doesn’t change the fact though that that is what Biblical authority is.

So no, I won’t interact with the idea of husbands “taking authority”. It isn’t what I (or NN for that matter) has been saying. Rather I have pointed out repeatedly the nature of the Husband/Wife relationship- which is to reflect the truth of the Church/Christ relationship (both now and after the marriage supper). Is it going to be a direct one to one corollary? Absolutely not, nothing which we see in the mirror dimly is going to be. It is however still to contain truth. I have avoided using the word authority because of the unwillingness of those in this discussion to see Biblical authority as loving, self sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing, etc. Indeed it has been stated by some (not sure where to find the exact quotes) but that Christ isn’t really in authority over the church because they will be one. What I have tried to explain multiple times is that the idea that authority is only something used to take charge, solve disagreements, punish evil, etc isn’t a complete Biblical picture of what authority is to be when we are in Christ.

None of this is counter to eph 5:21. The relationship between husband and wife however is characterized not only by their relation as fellow Christians, but also by being husband and wife. The nature of the submission discussed for the wife to have doesn’t stop at vs 22 in eph 5. rather it goes on to tie it all in with the Church and Christ. The discussion of the uniqueness of the wife’s submission and the husbands sacrifice and the nature of his relationship to the wife is more than just cultural commentary for it is representing something eternal, not jut dealing with changing cultural attitudes of the day.

I am going to say it like this- the wife should submit fully in all things that don’t contradict truth. that is if both parties are behaving as they should then there won’t ever be a “taking of authority” by the husband. but rather it will be the husband doing his part (loving sacrificially, nourishing, cherishing, etc. I will leave it to a husband to elaborate on that part) and the wife seeking to know her husband fully (his wants, desires, preferences etc.)

I think this is rather likely to look a bit different from marriage to marriage. Perhaps an example that most could relate to is re-decorating the bedroom. I would put forth that in the 50-50 model it would be the couple putting forth their favorite ideas and instead of going with the wives favorite over the husbands or visa versa they pick something they both enjoy and will be satisfied with. If they can’t find something they both like it is likely one party will defer to the other with varying degrees of success of harmony. In the 51-49 couple (ie: the husband’s authority exists as the “trump card”) they will seek to find something they both like but if they can’t agree it will be the husband who makes the final call (for some this will produce harmony, for others not). In the 100-0 paradigm (where I think the issue of authority is essentially a non issue) it will be the wife seeking to delight her husband, to please him (and again the husband doing his part, but I prefer to talk about the wives’ role) that by the time the decorating question has come up she will (most likely) already know his desire and seek to align her own with his. (on the husbands part this might look like seeking to learn from the wife the nature of beauty, etc. again, I prefer to focus on the wife). she will desire to redecorate in the way that will most please him. not in a squashing of her preferences (willingly or not) but in truly desiring the same preference as him. where that has become her preference as well. not as a second choice, but as her first and true preference. (I am quite certain that in some marriages the husbands preference would genuinely be whatever the wife picked and he would perhaps like to not be involved at all. for others husbands will a lot wishes on the front). This isn’t about authority but about submission. where strong opinions aren’t going to clash because there is oneness. I have heard pastors say that it isn’t submission if you agree – I think that is not quite right. Submission of a wife to her husband should be like that of the church towards Christ. It should be joyfully offered long before a conflict ever arises.

yes, they were my words. which were followed by

however, I think it is much much much much much (can I emphasize this more?) more accurate to talk about in terms of submission, not authority. Just give those a glance, and then if you want we can continue from there. If you were just asking a clarifying question without wanting dialogue that is fine too.

Me from post 323 :I am going to perhaps confuse things here and say that the husbands authority isn’t a trump card. In fact I would like to ignore husbands for minute. I would put that the issue of submission between husband and wife isn’t primarily about resolving conflict. Looking at the church’s submission to Christ it doesn’t seem that solving a fight is even a consideration. Rather as His bride it is the churches desire to serve Him, please Him, become more like Him (and yes follow His commands, but that should be a delight, not a forcing of the will). So my observation is that if you have gotten to the point where a trump card is needed that both husband and wife have already screwed up. That neither are operating by the rule of Christian love, that the husband isn’t loving and sacrificing as Christ did and that the wife isn’t seeking to submit (honor, please, etc) as the church. Now in human relationships the likelihood is that they are going to screw up at some point and then you come up to this idea of a trump card and the husband taking authority, but I think this is a symptom of something already gone wrong. So of course if the husband uses said trump card it is going to hurt both him and his wife. (I expect that you are going to disagree rather strongly with this idea of submission. I am not trying to lay blame or suggest specific sin on the part of anyone here. But rather explain how I don’t see “can the husband use his trump card to take authority” to be a question that has to be answered if we correctly understand other things first.) (end quote of myself)

Basic summary of my ideas is that a wife should submit 100% to their husbands in all things that are not *truth* which is outside of them. By truth that is outside of them I mean the husband cannot declare what the wife is to believe. Universal truth is a direct consequence of God’s being and attributes and He has given us the means to learn much of it and it is an authority (the universal truth) over and above and outside that of the marriage relationship. There is obviously much however that falls outside the scope of universal truth, and that is where I think the wife offers this sort of submission. That this is where a large part of the oneness can occur. (of course if both are Christians then there is going to be oneness on that level as they seek their Lord together, but I don’t think the idea of submission is limited to relationships where both parties are Christian.)

To state one more time for the record- my focus is that the distinction of the wives submission (vs the mutual submission that will be there if both are believers) is to reflect the way the church is to submit to Christ. So we need to learn, how is the Church to submit to Christ? What characterizes that relationship? and then once we have our answer, do that. As has been pointed out, Eph 5 focuses heavily on the oneness of Christ and the Church. So the question is, in what way are the Church and Christ going to be one after the marriage supper? In what ways am I to reflect that in my marriage? Of course an earthly reflection of a heavenly thing is not going to reflect every nuance (the levitical sacrifices gave a good picture, but not a complete picture of what was to come in Christ). That is what I think the Bible shows that marriage is to do- reflect the truth of the Church’s submission to Christ and reflect the truth of the oneness one Bridegroom comes for His Bride. That is why I think Eph 5:21 is completely compatible with a distinct type of submission that will only be found in the marriage relationship.

SM- once again I don’t want to discuss this in terms of authority. Please take a minute and read the posts I referenced and address my quotes from there.

TL- please go back (I am am only guessing you didn’t, maybe you did) and re-read my original posts (323, 367, 370, 372, 2nd paragraph 412). I think it is clear I don’t believe husbands have 100% authority over wives. But rather 100% within a certain sphere…. however, I think it is much much much much much (can I emphasize this more?) more accurate to talk about in terms of submission, not authority. Just give those a glance, and then if you want we can continue from there. If you were just asking a clarifying question without wanting dialogue that is fine too.

pinklight-I’m having a hard time following where the quotes are coming from and your commentary (prime example in 444 you are commenting cheryl but you seem to be frustrated with her, so I think I might be reading it wrong??) and in 452 I miss you point entirely.

thanks.

greg- you have a good point. I skipped part of my thought process, although I’m not sure it negates your point per se. Rather I am thinking of a share holder analogy. Christ holds the full amount of the shares available. 100% of the shares, all the decision making clout, the one who determines the course of all things. thoughts?

since it seems no one wants to discuss my most recent posts (perfectly fine with me btw, and I infer no motive on anyone’s part,although I do intend to turn the topic in a post on my own blog if the fancy takes you to stop by at some point) if there is interest I would be willing to offer an annotated version of NN’s post. If everyone is sick of the topic then I won’t bother, but if you want to continue (and since NN’s last call was almost 200 comments ago and he really does need to move on) I would be happy to switch gears and do so.

just a thought. still trying to wrap things up here this weekend, but consider I’ve stuck around for 400 comments, what’s another 100?

SM- I understand that that is your question. I only jumped into the Eros topic to point out that we can (by Cheryl’s definition) use words to describe things we see in the Bible whether that word is used in the Bible or not. Not really wanting to try and jump in 100+ comments later on the original discussion (I haven’t read all of the comments). To be honest I just don’t have the time to devote to it. But I did say I would answer any clarify or otherwise questions you had for me on the ideas of submission, oneness, Christ and the church, etc. Just trying to not leave my side of things unfinished but at the same time needed to move on to other things. Best wishes.

Cheryl,
You may have missed my comment, but I am attempting to wrap up my part of this conversation today or tomorrow. As such if you do have any more response to my response now would be a good time to engage in it.

As for how you are treated on other blogs, not really the issue. On this discussion I have seen complementarian thought described as “abusive” “trauma inducing” “something that all Christians should find abhorant” “unhealthy” and others. You jumped on the attack towards me for something you thought I was going to get around to saying (blaming your husband) TL jumped on me saying that I was attacking her relationship with Christ and it would be behoove me to explain myself, and yet when I have suggested we stick to the arguments at hand and maybe tone it down a notch I was told I was taking things too personal. And going back and reading previous blog entries and discussions this doesn’t seem to be out of the norm.

But once again, not really the issue at hand. I have continued to address one specific thing- The Christ/Church relationship and the distinctive of that that should be applied to the marriage relationship. I would love to continue and finish that discussion rather than leave it unfinished. But if you don’t want to you are of course under no obligation to do. And unlike comment 411 I will not take it as a sign of your inability to answer my questions. My most recent response to you on the subject of Christ/Church is paragraph two comment 412. If you decide to respond to that question then I think it will be more productive to settled that part of the question first rather than have a rather long comment about all the nuances that follow from the understand of the oneness Christ and the Church share.

On the contrary TL, NN was showing that we have an understanding of the concept of the trinity and freely use that word to explai things in the Bible. NN was attempting to find common ground with SM by showing that a concept can be Biblical and used to understand concepts in the Bible even if the word is never used. Eros is clearly in the Bible as a concept. And Biblically eros should only exist between husband and wife, it is a distinction of that relationship. Using eros to describe a relationship in the Bible is no different than using trinity if we adhere to the parameters that cheryl set forth.

Incidentally you quoted NN, not me, but addressed your comment to me. If you go back and read my comment you will see that I have no interest what so ever to get into the discussion on eros/hierarchy/etc but rather was pointing out that using eros was valid if we applied cheryl’s requirement of what made the use of trinity valid.

I am going to address a few people and a couple of topics in this response-

SM & Gengwall: I am hoping by the lack of further questions that I was able to answer those you had. (I am not assuming you agree with me, but just that I answered your questions what I believe). I am really hoping to wrap my end of this all up either today or tomorrow and I just wanted to check. I’ll take silence as a yes. 🙂

Cheryl- re: 100/100 vs 100/0 split.
You can not have a “100/100” split. You can have two separate entities that are both individually at 100. Or you can have a unified group of two individuals which make up “one”. If we are saying Church/Christ and Husband/Wife are to be one, they can be 50/50 if you want to convey equality but 100/100 is nonsensical. (I mean nothing mean by that word, or insulting, simply that it is a concept that doesn’t make sense – all basic percentages must add up to 100) Let’s just discuss this before I address your questions. Although let me say (for I have no idea how many times now) I have not now, nor in the past ever said the husband has a God given right to take authority over his wife. Stop asking me to defend the concept or give an example of it. It is not what I am saying, it is not what I believe. If for some reason you think I do I suggest you go back and re-read my comments.

Cheryl- re “eros”. I am not getting in the eros/hierarchy/etc discussion but I would like to jump into this idea of word/definitions in the Bible you have put forth. It is your contention that we can use the word Trinity to describe the Godhead because we see it clearly defined in scripture even though the word itself is never used. I would agree with you. You then seem to be saying that eros can not be used because no definition of it exists. Ever done a study of Song of Solomon? It is a textbook picture of eros (the word used in the Hebrew is “dowd”) in all it’s aspects between a husband and wife (mental, emotional, physical). If you want to say that there is not hierarchy in marriage even though eros is there then that is perfectly fine and the discussion can proceed from there. To suggest a definition of eros used is “a cult like tactic” and “an invalid argument” when the exact same principles were applied to the word Eros as you do to Trinity does not work.

Charis- I have had the same experience on this blog. I had however forgotten. I intend to finish out (I hope) the discussion parts I have gotten myself involved in but hope not to make this mistake again. I really appreciate reading your thoughts on Genesis/curse/etc. Hoping to have time to think about it more and maybe talk to you some about it. Do you have a blog I can find you on?

SM- the truth is conveyed now to the whole world (a shadow and never able to fully to convey every nuance, but a representation none the less), and the marriage super of the lamb comes later. All will know the truth at that point.

To SM Re#374

At 372 what do you mean by “that is to come after the Church (the Bride) is joined to Christ (her bridegroom)”?

That 1. (an assumed premise that Christ has redeemed His people)
That 2. Christ is continuing to sanctify his people
so that 3. He might present Her (the Church) to Himself as blameless
That 4. The oneness which will be between the Church and Christ is not yet complete and will not be until after the marriage supper of the Lamb.

pinklight- other way around- the wife is to learn how to submit to her husband by knowing how the Church is to submit to Christ. And that in so doing will be a beautiful shadow (and convey truth to all who see it) of the relationship that is to come after the Church (the Bride) is joined to Christ (her bridegroom).

Cheryl RE #329 you state

“Believers are told to witness to their unbelieving husbands through their chaste and reverent behavior. Because Christ gives women freedom, it was thought that Christianity would cause women to be against their husbands, but thoughtful caring women who respected their husbands and loved Christ could soften their hearts toward Christianity.”

I would put forth that it is possible for a believing wife to submit in to an unbelieving husband because she isn’t to submit to him in matter of truth, but rather in every thing else. Obviously if their husbands hated Christianity and forbid them to be Christians they could not submit. If they told them in what manner to behave otherwise they could. It was ok for them to desire to please their husbands, to know their husbands preferences and act accordingly, to align themselves with their husbands in all things expect the nature of Ultimate truth that the husbands were denying.

you state:

“So what’s the difference? The only difference will be when there are differences of wills. If the wife submits each time and gives up her will and the husband is not given the opportunity to give up his will for her, then it is not a truly sacrificial marriage for him.”
(and later) “I agree that the husband using the trump card of taking authority over her will, will hurt both him and his wife. But it is not necessarily something gone wrong, just that God created us with different wants and likes and passions and at times these will clash when we care the most.”

I disagree with this. I think you will see quite clearly where and why when I clear up my thoughts for you regarding the oneness of Christ and the Church. But just let me say I think that it is the idea that the different wants, likes and passions clashing that would be occasion for the trump card that I see as one of the largest issues here.

You state:

“I don’t know what you mean by this. We are joined with our Lord, but we don’t disappear. I am confused by what you mean by 100/0 split oneness.”

You are quite right that when the Church (the bride) is joined with Christ (the bridegroom) we don’t disappear. But rather we will have been completely, utterly and wholly transformed to His image. It is a 100/0 split because it is Christ who has created the parameters for oneness. Unless we are completely made new in His image we can’t be one with Him. Lest you think I am suggesting we are going to be “stepford wives” -our will and intimate selfs completely destroyed without our consent,desire, or participation- I am saying nothing even remotely of the sort. But rather our love for Christ, our desire to submit fully to Him, will make it so we (our true and complete selves) couldn’t imagine not desiring everything that He desires. To give a practical example- you discuss how we will judge the angels as the bride of Christ beside our Lord in oneness. We will do this not as a 50/50 spilt where the Church and Christ discuss the options, not as a 51/49 split where we reach agreement when we can but Christ gets the ultimate say, but rather in a true and ultimate oneness of 100/0 because we will desire all that Christ desires and the Church will be incapable of judging the angels any differently than Christ will judge the angels.

Now it has been said many times by others on here that the distinction Paul is making in Eph 5 about the marital relationship representing the Church/Christ relationship is about oneness. What I am saying is that yes, it is about oneness. The sort of oneness I spoke of in the preceding paragraph. With that view in mind authority almost becomes a moot point within marriage. It is certainly there, but not in the way that egalitarians are concerned it is going to be.

I suspect this should clear up my thoughts on submission and marriage and how mutually submitting to each other (al a Eph5:21) is not exclusive of a distinctive submission talked about in the following verses between husbands and wives. It should also give a clear idea of my ideas on the place of authority in marriage. If you find it incomplete or confusing please first go back and re-read my original post as I did not restate much from that post in this one. See if we can cut down on some of the back and forth to save us all a little time. 🙂 I also suspect it will give you a lot to disagree with. Hope to be back on after the children are in bed to answer any follow up questions/disagreements.

Gengwell RE #154:

“Tiffany – would you also agree that the bible is very clear that all Christians are to mutually submit to one another (Eph 5:21)? Moreover, would you agree that Eph 5:22 is very clear that the submission of the wife to her husband is of the same kind and in the same manner as that of all Christians to one another? If so, then what does that say about a wife’s submission – is it obedience or something else? And what does that say about authority – is it present in the relationship?

Yes, I do believe the Bible is very clear that all Christian are to submit one to another. And that vs 22 is speaking of the same type of submission. However I think that in the verses following vs 22 were are show how the submission that everyone offers one another (including husbands and wives) is that the wives submission is characterized by the Church/Christ model of submission. That the nature of that submission that a Christian wife offers her husband is a model/type/shadow/representation of the sort of submission the Church is to offer Christ. That this representation is unique to the husband/wife relationship and is in no way in conflict with the idea of all Christians submitting to each other (including husbands to wife).

As to my thoughts on if it is obedience or something else and if there is authority present in the relationship I think you will find them in comment 323. Cheryl asked some follow up questions which is what I intend to address in the next post. You also addressed me in comment 235, and I think my 323 post should answer your questions as well, and if not I am rather certain my follow up one will. If not, please just ask.

Thank you for your patience as it has taken me until 200 comments later to get back to your very good questions.

wow, there were 10 comments just as I was trying to write mine.
Cheryl-I think I address your questions about my views on authority in my comment. If not let me know.

gengwall- not seeing it as a fight, but simply a numbers = time issue. If there are three times as many people asking questions on one *side* than the other it is simply going to be difficult to keep up. I don’t assume that everyone agrees with each other on here who is egal, which will actually make for more questions and more time. Ok, off to find your comments to me….