Dave

Mark, you said, “You sound like a hoarder with your bikes…you are spending too much time on blogs and not on your bikes!”
I only have two bikes though. I once had three…though I think I might have had four at one stage. Or was it five, I forget. But you are right, I am spending too much time on blogs!

You said, “Let me try to be a bit clearer. Submission is a choice, i.e we choose to be humble and meek. But that is far different than saying I ‘submit’ to a 12 year old boy. I do not submit to a 12 year old boy because he is not in authority over me. I will serve him or be ‘submissive’ but not submit or ‘yield to his superior force’. This is the crux of the matter, distinguishing between an adjective and a verb, especially in light of the verbal use in Ephesians 5.”

So, you are saying you can be submissive, but that you can’t submit – that they are fundamentally different. I do not follow you. How is it different…dictionary definitions please!

Mark, you said, “So if you wish to continue to draw a parellel between slavery and the marriage, you must explain how the two are connected culturally only. This is the fundamental difference- the wife is told to submit as the church is told to submit to Christ- it’s a lasting ordinance until the second coming. The whole slavery argument never works Dave, I would have thought you would know that, unless of course you wish to show me where the slave/master paradigm is linked with Church/Christ!”

But the slave/master paradigm is linked with Christ and the church. Paul says, “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him.”

Slaves are also told to serve their masters like they are slaves of Christ. Paul has linked both marriage and slavery to our relationship with Jesus AND in verse 21 he links our relationship with everyone in the body of Christ with Jesus when he asks us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Mark, you said, “No I wouldn’t describe it as ‘mutual love’ because it’s not mutual. You can say the act of love is mutual but the love itself is not mutual, it is different.”

I really must disagree! It is the love itself that is mutual. The act (how the loved is manifested in words/action/attitudes) might not be though. You have it around the wrong way IMHO. But like I say, don’t use the term mutual if you do not want. In fact Mark, I will submit to your assertion that it is the wrong word (though you are not in authority over me), and from now on I will call it “complementary submission”. I hope this is cool. I might call it “CS” for short. Or “Comp Sub”. Or “Sub Comp”. No, that doesn’t sound very good…