Tiffany

RE Cheryl #186 you state

“Submitting to the Lord is clear – we are to submit “in the sincerity of heart”. In the same way we are to submit to our husbands in sincerity of heart. But the Bible doesn’t say that we are to submit as to Deity because that would be idolatry. In fact many women are guilty of idolatry by putting their husbands before the Lord.”

you also say that is how the church submits to Christ. Could you elaborate some on what you mean by sincerity of heart? I think I understand you but would rather make sure before addressing that specifically.

And you are quite right that we are not to submit as to deity. Truth is determined by Christ, not husbands. A husband can’t declare to a wife “I believe the sky appears green and you do too.” It is a truth that is outside of them, one which they need to find together ideally. Although the Bible makes provision if they don’t, telling believing wives to submit to unbelieving husbands. (I can’t copy and paste references now, I am one handed with a baby at the breast, I trust you know whereof I speak). So if the unbelieving wife is submitting it obviously isn’t to ideas of false truth. So how is she submitting? I think I know what your response will be but rather than assume I will wait for it.

You state

“But the question I would have for you, if a husband doesn’t take authority, then what good is his having authority? Most staunch complementarians will agree that the authority that belongs to the husband is a trump card that is to be pulled out whenever the wife’s will is different than the husband’s will. It (the authority) decides whose will, will be followed. If it (the authority) isn’t brought out then the marriage is following the egalitarian model for unused authority is no different in reality than no ultimate authority.”

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.)

You are right that we are not under Christ’s authority as conquered subjects, but rather as joyful worshippers. And this is a oneness. But it is still oneness on Christ’s terms. He is still Lord. And there are still things required of us. It isn’t a 50/50 split oneness, or even a 51/49 split oneness, but a 100/0 split oneness. It is a good and joyful not forced freely given 100/0 split onesness. I think this is directly applicable to the marriage relationship. Much has been made of the idea that the mirror of the marriage of Christ and the church is about representing onessness. I am with you all on this, but I am putting forth that it is this sort of onessness and that is what the marriage relationship should reflect. Once again I suspect you are going to strongly disagree (and that there will be some on here who will be mad at the suggestion. I suspect that we agree on the type of oneness of Christ and the church but not on it’s applicability. If we don’t agree on the Christ/Church part I will elaborate with references. Once again I am one handed and trying to only type what I must.) I will wait however to answer specific objections as they come up rather than a pre-emptive strike.

I think that is all the main question you had for me in 186. If I missed something please feel free to point it out.

Gengwall (if you are reading this) I am going to try and answer your questions next.

To all- I had opportunity to respond today as much as I did due to my ankle. If I wake up tomorrow and can comfortably function as normal there is a good chance I won’t respond again until tomorrow evening. Just giving fair warning.

Cheryl,
The only issue I have ever brought up in my comments in this thread is “wives submit to your husbands as the church does to Christ”. That the earthly marriage relationship is a model for the heavenly one and we as wives need to figure out what the relationship of Christ and the church is to look like and build our doctrine from there. That is the issue I have tried to address multiple times now. So no I haven’t attempted to prove anything from Genesis because I am speaking of Christ and the Church and the probative passages are in the NT. The only nod I have given to the discussion of authority is to acknowledge it can be used wrongly and damage people which was an awful thing.

If I remember correctly a few hours ago (and about 100 comments ago) you addressed my comments on that. I am going to look for that response and respond to you. (and to genwall as well as he (?) has asked some very good questions.) But I don’t intend to jump into a separate conversation on genesis as I do not have the time for two topics. If this one gets finished out I might reconsider.

As to your insistence of NN to do so, about 100 comments (208)ago he requested a “last call” if you will to him for any questions anyone felt to be of critical importance as he has other more pressing matters to address. SM (209) was the one that responded and he is the one that NN has been attempting to answer. He is not trying to hold the rest of the conversation in one spot, he is simply trying to address the question (albeit yet to SM’s satisfaction) that was put to him. You didn’t ask that question then and to be honest I don’t think he has read in entirety any comments that have dealt with other topics since his “last call.”

You suggest in a comment above that “running out of time” is some sort of excuse given when comps. don’t have answers for you. Given that there have been 300 comments on this topic, over 100 of them just today, can you not realize that is a very legitimate concern whether the person feels they can answer you or not? Surely you have at times had to post pone or abandon web activity for things more pressing? And especially in a debate like this where there are 3 comps (who have all stated from the beginning that they aren’t trying to prove every objection you have to the theology) and by my count at least 10+ egals, that expecting everyone to stick around until you are convinced or they are isn’t reasonable? If someone says- “hey I’m out of time” why not just take them at their word instead of insinuating it is an excuse because they don’t have the answers.

Now I am going to see if I can find your comment addressing my comments on Christ and the Church.

To Cheryl re comment #260. Might I recommend you read your own advice back in comment 12 or TL’s in #143? No one (NN, Mark or myself) have said anything of the sort. You have stated that you are frustrated with the conversation so maybe that’s why you are reading into things, but either way, nothing like what you stated has been said.

still intending to re join the discussion, just can’t believe how many comments there have been in a few hours time.

TL if I have mistaken your comments for others, my apologies. I do not have the time to sift through 200+ comments on the matter. My reference was not at all to your relationship to Christ but rather the many comments that have made on this thread about the nature of Christ’s authority. The prevailing thought seems to be that the Lordship isn’t an authority but a oneness where authority isn’t necessary. Rather that Christ and the church are going to be one in a way where authority is not applicable. I disagree with this. Thus I view the interaction of Christ and the Church differently and think it applies to the marriage relationship in a different manner. I think Christ requires obedience from me. In fact that that is how we know we are His. I enjoy offering that sort of obedience to Christ. It was not an attempt to discredit you but rather to show that we are just coming at this from different places and as such probably aren’t going to agree on the applications. Which is fine.

Ok I typed a very long response I have no idea what happened to it…. hope to recreate it, we’ll see. If it appears I left out a step in my thinking please ask. I probably just forgot thinking I had already stated it elsewhere. Thanks.

TL#211″Personal testimony is important. From personal testimony we hear that the majority of women who live within a male dominated marriage suffer from it . Why is that, do you suppose?” This is an unsupportable claim. You can say that the majority women that you have met, the majority of blogs you have read, the majority of comments you have received, but your claims have to stop there. Because I can say with equal accuracy that the majority of women that I know who used to be egalitarians but are now complementarians have found great joy, their marriages strengthened, and their relationship with God deepened.

And here we come to the crux of the matter. Personal testimonies can be useful, but they differ from person to person. Personal experience does not dictate truth. As such I feel no need to answer you question in that paragraph.

As to your last paragraph, I have read your responses (I feel the need to point out here that by entering into this discussion I am not under any obligation to answer all questions directed to me. I hope that I am able to as I have time, but I may not answer all of them or answer them to everyone’s satisfaction. Likewise I don’t considering anyone else to be under any obligation to answer all of my questions. And if they don’t I don’t assume any motive, take offense, or think that they don’t have an suitable answer and so are ignoring me. I am sure everyone can agree that internet time/blog conversations are very far down the list of everyone’s priorities. I am sure that I am not going to have ample time to satisfy everyone.) In this case however I have both the time and inclination to answer your question:

Eph5:23For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body. 3I “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

I think you and I have very different views about the lordship of Christ over the Church. As such I am not sure how far we can get along this line. I am more than happy to continue to try (as I have time) if you would like.

TL#181 “The two shall become one flesh is a reference to marriage — of which Christ emulates. IOW Christ’s relationship with the church is likened to the oneness of a marriage. It is not the marriage relationship that reflects the Lord and the church. It is the relationship of Christ sacrificing Himself for the benefit of the church that is likened to a marriage. You have it backwards.”

I disagree. I don’t think God created institutions on accident or without purpose. Just like the animal sacrifices are a model of the sacrifice that is to come (designed that way from the beginning by God, not referenced in retrospect) so marriage was designed from the beginning as a model of Christ and the Church. I think the Bible suppose the whole of the marriage relationship is a model for the whole of the relationship of Christ and the Church. Not a perfect representation or a one to one corollary any more than the animal sacrifices were to Christ’s sacrifice, but representative non the less. If you think that it is only one aspect of the relationship that is reflected then we are never going to come to any sort of agreement. Which is fine.

TL#215 you are right that the wife is told to submit herself. This is what I have been saying all along and no different. The Bible (as Pastor Jim Wilson put it) “focuses on the chain of submission not the chain of command”. So I think the question that each wife but seek God on is, how is the Church to submit to Christ? And then do likewise.

cheryl- I hope to answer your comments towards me next, but since I had to re-do this comment I don’t know when that will be. 🙂 This does turn out to be a good few days for this as I sprained my ankle and am ignoring all housework. 🙂

Cheryl- I have just a brief moment right now (but I suspect to have more time later today and hope to be back).

I would like to make one thing clear if nothing else is- I have not, am not now, nor in the future will be responding to any personal testimonies. They are valuable to hear and discuss but not in this manner. This has really been a debate (a friendly one of course, but none the less debate) from the beginning and bringing in personal stories clouds things among people who don’t really know each other. If we were long time friends visiting over coffee it would be different. None of my comments were directed towards your relationship specifically nor anyone else’s. As such I am not going to answer your questions regarding those.

I have avoided interacting specifically with those comments on here that have brought their personal stories up or have tried to make it about my husbands personal life because feelings get hurt really easy and people read offense where no offense was met.

One last thing- I made a rather big typo in my last large comment. I put the distinction of the husband/wife relationship was that wives are to submit as unto the Lord. What I meant to put is that the distinction is that they are to submit as the church submits to Christ. Rather different I know, not entirely sure how I missed that. I shall blame the late hour. My entire point of that post is the the husband/wife relationship is a model/shadow/representation of Christ and His church. This is different than all other human relationships. I will also point out that I haven’t been trying to give an explanation of the husbands authority, but rather of the nature of the wife’s submission and how that differs and works with “submit one to the other”.

On last last thing (apparently I have more time than I thought) I would be very hesitant to suggest this is a sin issue. I’m not sure I could categorically say that is never is a sin issue, because of course in individual relationships circumstances differ. I think it is important to try and understand to the best of our ability, but don’t equate someone who disagree with my theology as being in sin. I appreciate Cheryl you taking the time to point out you don’t think complementarians are in sin. I will point out that not all of the other egalitarians on this thread agree with you however.

Ok, now I really must go. I enjoy this discussion but given the volume of comments not sure how much longer I can reasonably devote time to it.

The Bible says “wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.” How is it that we are to submit to God? The Bible says that the relationship is a type of Christ and the Church. How is the church to respond to Christ? Those are the questions that have to be answered first. Then we can move on to everything else. But those statements are there and it is incumbent on us to know what they mean and then live that out.

No, the verses do not tell the husband to take authority. But that isn’t what I (and others) have been saying. I understand there are those that do say that. I am not in the business however of explaining why people believe things that I don’t.

I believe I am to submit to my husband *as unto the Lord*, which is a distinction made to the husband/wife relationship that isn’t made for the others. I don’t fully understand how marriage is an image of Christ and His bride, but it is, and it is my desire to convey truth of that relationship through my own and to see others do the same.

Are there times when husbands do a horrible job conveying the truth of a Christ in their marriages? Absolutely. I rather think it is caused by the sin of pride and self reliance. Usually by well meaning men who want to be good husbands so they try and find out “How can *I* be a good husband? What must *I* do?” But the thing is it isn’t about *I* doing anything. There isn’t some magical formula. We can’t pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to be better husbands/wives/Christians/friends/parents/children/etc. We can surrender to Christ as our Lord, be filled with the Spirit of the Triune God and live our lives enabled by His power, His grace, His truth. But it isn’t something we do.

It all comes back to Christ as Lord and what that means practically? How does that play out?

This has already gotten quite long, and I must go to bed. Sorry I haven’t addressed the questions directed towards me. I might be able to tomorrow.

I have a bit more time at the moment- let me elaborate a little.

I think the Bible is very clear that men are not more important than women. That it isn’t for all women to submit to all men. That we are all co-heirs and that God uses the whole of His body for his glory.

I also think that the Bible is very clear that the marriage relationship is a type of the Christ-Church relationship. That is was created for our good and our joy and to tell truth about our God.

I think it is unfortunate when people take something good (being a type for the Christ/church relationship) and extend past where it is meant to go. Just as many people can take a good thing (modesty) and extend it to the point of creating a law that God did not create (fill in blank with clothing rule here) then we have lost the good of the original good thing.

Now I understand that egalitarians think this is what complementarians do, and that in essence I open up a whole can of worms by disagreeing with the ardent patriarchists, but I am ok with that. 🙂

I am aware of such teachings. I find them sad. I think the Bible is very clear that wives are to submit to their own husbands. And the list stops there. And further more there is much much goodness in the gift of singleness as husbands and wives are not just concerned with heavenly things but how to please each other.

There are many issues that are truth vs non-truth. A husband cannot tell his wife that the sky is appears green when in fact it appears blue. A husband cannot tell a wife that X is true and not Y without offering proof.
This is because truth is not determined by us an individuals. God has determined truth and it is that that both husbands and wives submit first and foremost too. Any complementarian needs to understand (and all I have met do, but I understand that not all out there do) that he can’t arbitrarily decide truth and expect his wife to simply agree because she is told to submit as unto the Lord. For first, husbands don’t determine truth, and second husbands are to love their wives in a sacrificial manner and being the thought police does not fall under that description.

TL said”Tiffany, I am EXCEEDINGLY uncomfortable that any human being can take the place of God in a woman’s life. No human should EVER think it is acceptable for a man to think he can mold his wife into the person that he wants her to be. God is perfect in all aspects, Holy and without blemish. God only is capable to determining what is best for every human being. Husbands do not share that ability with God. No one does.”

I never said any different. In fact that was largely my point in my comment. To reitterate- yes there have been complementarian husbands who set themselves up as equal with God. That doesn’t mean that is what complementarianism is. It means that those men were in sin. These are two separate (albeit connected) issues. Does the church need to better address sin and abuse within marriage? yes. That doesn’t mean though that “wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord” gets redefined in the process.

My point in addressing that we need to discuss the applicable Bible passages was to remind everyone personal anecdotes do not equal truth. While they can be beneficial to let those you are talking to know where you are coming from they do not dictate exegesis. Using your life experience as evidence that a system is wrong is not a valid proof. And it makes the discussion deeply personal and difficult to continue. I don’t want to insinuate for one second that people’s hurt is not important, or not worth discussing, or a waste of time or anything else. What I want to make clear is that while my heart breaks for them the word of God stands separate from our emotions. I don’t assume that anyone has blindly chosen their interpretation of these passages at random, but length of study and experience once again do not equate truth.

Kristen- God through out the Bible did much based simply on birth. He chose a nation for himself. He picked a specific piece of land for that nation. He picked a specific tribe for His priests and another for His kings. To diminish what someone is because they were born into without choice takes God out of the equation of where we are born into. Do I understand entirely why it works this way? No. Of course I don’t really understand why God commanded Joshua to kill everyone in many of the cities they conquered. There are many things I don’t understand about the way God has chosen to order this world, and yet it is. I find it very easy to get caught up in my emotional response to what I see and try to determine truth from that, rather than trying to determine truth from what God has said it is. Just because it offends me doesn’t mean it is wrong.

I am rather confused on one point- why is everyone assuming submission= complete dehumanizing/infantilizing/trivializing of the individual who is submitting? That isn’t what Christ does to us as we submit to Him, rather He grows us more fully into who we are (which is who He created us to be. I am rather uncomfortable with the idea that Christ didn’t make us who HE wanted us to be. But that we are just randomly who we are and Christ just goes along with us. Simply because He gave us a very specific nature/personality/set of life circumstances and then has us operate and grow within that sphere doesn’t mean He has not imposed His authority on us. We are not deists, we are Christians.)

Likewise complementarianism does not equal the wife forsaking who she is, what she loves, her desires and hopes and calling from God to submit to someone who has decided he is God’s oracle for the family and that only he hears from God. I know comp. and patriarchy is sometimes (I suspect you all would claim often?) enacted this way but that does not mean that it is actually that way. I think we can all be honest and admit egalitarian marriages sometimes have very serious problems as well. I am happy to provide anecdotes of suffering and pain I have seen and read about (as everyone has done for comp) but I don’t think it is necessary. For although I hate the pain that people have gone through on both sides of the camps (and believe God does as well) personal experience does not dictate truth. I think that any egalitarian that has seen the ideals lived out incorrectly and thus resulting in pain would say that the problem is with individual sin, not with the ideals themselves. Lets please do that for complementarianism as well. I think it would be wonderful to see more Pastors and teachers talking about the pitfalls that are within human relationships, even when you have right doctrine, and to see more churches stepping in when things are going awry, but that is a different discussion entirely.

As the discussion has gone on it has become clear that many equate complementarians with abuse, at it’s worse, and deeply mired in sin at its best. No one has been that uncharitable towards Egalitarianism in this discussion (I will readily admit I have seen people behave that way elsewhere, but no one here). If this ministry is really about addressing a perceived wrong in a SECONDARY doctrinal issue (once again, no one in this discussion has claimed otherwise) then lets treat it like that. Let’s continue to discuss the applicable Bible passages with grace and truth and learn from each other.

Cheryl,
It does make sense. (I don’t agree with you, but your explain is quite clear). Given your perspective on it, I withdraw my original objections with my apologies.
Tiffany

Cheryl,
I think I can better answer your questions if you answer one of mine first and then I’ll stop side tracking the conversation. Why did you choose o highlight the future use of the master-slave commands rather than the government-subject commands? both were given the same time/treatment in the post.

Just a quick reply (I hope).
TL-yes, I am NN wife.
Cheryl- it is uncharitable and inflamatory to take a quote (even a direct, word for word quote) of someone else that is most likely to turn the audience against them. You could have just as easily said that “NN believe the submission to be the same as that of the master-slave, government-subject relatioship” or even just the government-subject relationship (if you were going to pick one over the other that was used) or more accurately said that “NN points to the word used to give instructions to the husband-wife/master-slave/government-subject as the same word and draws his conclusions from that”. Perhaps a bit more verbose, but at least far more accurate. Making the master-slave correlation seems to be the go to in egalitarian circles. (Very similar to complementarians makes the egalitarian=feminism correlation which is equally uncharitable.)

Regardless if one is directly quoting an opposing side, quotes can be used in an accurate way(that most correctly conveys what the original author intended) or an inaccurate way (one the conveys something very different than what the original author intended, and thus biasis the audience against said author even though the full quote is right there.)

I am more than willing to give you the bennefit of the doubt that you didn’t intend to be inflammatory. Never the less the introduction to the quote you gave conveys something very different than what is actually being said. My concern was not with hurt feelings (because like I said I know the author) but rather accurate representation of the discussion. (It occurs to me you might appreciate knowing that if it had been a complentarian doing something similar I would have said something to them as well)

I think though you conveyed my tone to be upset, when really I was trying to be quick. Sorry about that. Not upset, just short on time.

I don’t have time at the moment to comment on the arguments in this post, but I do want to point out one thing. It seems rather common in egalitarian/complementarian discussions/debates/books/etc to present the opposing argument in the most inflammatory way possible. (also rather common is presenting their argument as *you* have decided how their belief is defined, not how they define it, but I’ll save that for another day). You introduce NN’s argument in the most inflammatory way possible. Yes, in his post he points out that all of the relationships that are listed in Eph 5 and that Paul (not NN, but paul) uses the same word for all of them. That is far different than saying that the marriage relationship is like that of master-slave. You certainly got people immediately against NN and his ideas before actually presenting them, making sure that they read your connotations into his writing, but it is a very uncharitable way to present an opposing argument. I have seen many egalitarians and complementarians do this. It needs to stop on all sides.

Agreed 100%.

I would add though that Christ has a will (desire, purpose) for his Church. That the church is to obey His word, to seek to carry out His desire (as expressed in Scripture) and to keep Him preemminent in all things. The church is to be in active relationship and communication with Christ in order to know Him more fully and to follow Him more completely.

Yes?

You are the only person that I have ever heard say that a command requires two or three witnesses. It isn’t something I think is supportable, and fundamentally disagree with that as an underlying premise to these discussions. On that note, I don’t know how profitable continuing the topic is actually going to be.

How is Christ the head of the church?
How is the Church to submit to Christ?

After we answer those questions then we have answered how wives are to act toward their husbands.

(sorry for the time lapse)

Here is the first problem I see: All are called to given an answer. Not all are giving the gift of teaching. Whether you believe in women teaching men or not, not all believers have the same gifting and yet vs. 15 is an instruction to all believers and can’t be pertaining to the gift of teaching as such.

Furthermore, tying in verse 14 (suffering for doing what is right) to women suffering for teaching men assumes that teaching men is right. Suffering for something does not automatically mean that the person is in the right.

Ok, agree with you 100% that a husband is not told to make sure that his wife submits, or to make her to do so when she doesn’t. And I also agree with you that the picture of Christ to His church that we are given (and that husbands are to model) is one of servant leadership, not a domineering Lordship, but a Lordship marked by sacrifice.

But this idea of servant leadership, and the fact that husbands aren’t commanded to make their wives submit doesn’t cancel out the fact that wives are told to submit. Not because their husbands are making them, not because it is the cultural system, but because it is how the Church responds to Christ and it is honoring to God. Ultimately it is a submission as to Him and unto to Him.

So this post I think is a fantastic answer to those who would like to twist something beautiful and commanded by God into something completely different (making servant lorship into domineering lordship) but it certain doesn’t make the complementarian position null and void.

I’m going to venture in here and be the dissenting voice….

I think you are right, that looking at what the Bible does say to do vs. just focusing on what not to do is extrememly important. Afterall, we haven’t simply been redeemed to sit in place with our hands folded- we are all called (men and women) to do something with what we have been given.

What you ended up doing here though is equating the call to give an answer for the hope that is in us (ie: knowing our faith, knowing the word, knowing our Lord, being able to explain to someone who doesn’t know Him how it is we are the way we are) to being called to teach anyone anywhere anything. I do not see the two as the same calling. The calling to be a pastor (elder/bishop) of a church and the instruction to know our faith and be prepared to answer those who challenge us are two completely different things. Yes, some of the knowledge (intamicy with the Word for example) is going to overlap. But being responsible for a group of believers (a local church) simple can not be made out to be the same thing as the sort of evangelism that is being talked about in this passage.

Cheryl- not on topic, but I just wanted to drop by your blog to tell you that I haven’t forgotten about our conversation!!! I am starting to have opprotunity to be on the computer more these days and hope to get an email to you soon.

Thanks!