Kristen

Mark said,
“Are you willing to say that the Christ/Church command is only cultural?”
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. Nevertheless, the analogy cannot be taken too far. Look what happens if we apply the analogy strictly across the board in Ephesians 5:25-27:
Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it. Even so the husband ought to give himself for his wife. Ok so far, right? But going on: Christ gave Himself that He might sanctify and cleanse the church. Therefore husbands also ought to consider themselves like Christ, capable of sanctifying and cleansing their wives. (Yes, I have seen kind of thinking in some forms of complementarianism!) As Christ presented to Himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless, so it is the husband’s job to present to himself a glorious wife, without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless. The wife, then, isn’t really Christ’s, she’s her husband’s– and only Christ’s as she relates to him. Frankly– yuck– and I don’t believe for a moment that you would take the analogy this far.
Clearly the church/Christ comparison only goes so far, and to take it further is idolatry. The wife is to submit to the husband as the church does to Christ. Does this mean that the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church in every way? Clearly not! The husband is not the savior, sanctifier, or redeemer of the wife. The husband is not her god. I’m sure we can agree on these things.
So– how far should we actually take the analogy? I suggest that we take it only as far as Paul took it: the husband is to love the wife and give himself up for her, nourish and cherish her, treat her as he treats his own body. The wife is to submit herself to her husband in everything, that she might be loved, lifted up, nourished and cherished. Not a hint is spoken of her being led or commanded, or of the husband getting the final say, here.
So– what part of Christ’s actions towards the church are shown in THIS passage for husbands to emulate? Does this passage talk about Christ leading the church? No. Does it talk about Him giving commands to the church? No. Does it talk about His authority over the church? No. It talks about His giving Himself up for the church. The readers would remember the abhorrent criminal’s death of the cross, in ways that we often miss through familiary. They would understand that Christ’s giving Himself up for the church was in every way an act of submission. He submitted like a lamb who opens not His mouth, to people who wanted to kill Him. He said He had the power to ask the Father for a legion of angels, but He refused to exercise that power. Instead He was like a lamb to the slaughter. He did this to bring the church up towards Himself, so that she could have pure fellowship with Him. For husbands in a culture where women were considered very little above animals, the idea was radical– go down to where your wife is stuck, and give yourself to raising her towards yourself.