Kay

Mark,

I believe the surrender required by mutual submission is so radical in its demands that it causes “wife/obedience to husband/authority” to pale by comparison. The beauty can be seen in Jesus example of washing the disciples feet. Mutual submission pertains to the very nature of Christ and His ministry. It’s the disposition of one’s whole being for another, the exercise of total servanthood in every aspect of shared lives. This is worlds away from mere “obedience to authority.” Among spouses it is possible to submit without love, but it is impossible to love without submitting. (Just ask a radical Muslim’s wife) I believe this is why Paul began Eph. chapter 5 telling them to “walk in love” and “be filled with the Spirit.” Every day soldiers obey their commanders without love or the Holy Spirit, but Christians cannot submit to one another without them.

“One flesh” is not an organization. “One flesh” does not need one of them to be the leader- that would be dividing – that would still be “Two flesh.” Oneness is never about who’s in charge. Marriage is about godly love. It’s about selfless giving, about mutual understanding and concern. It’s about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

In real life marriage just isn’t always a perfect scenario. Even the most Christian of marriages between God loving spouses can and do encounter circumstances and tragedies beyond their control that render the husband unable to lead anyone. How could this possibly apply to the life of my friend whose Christian husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in near vegetative state? She has no loving choice, but the one God has given her – to lead, protect and provide for her husband. My grandmother also walked a very similar road for the last 15 years of my grandfather’s life as his mind and then body were overtaken by Alzheimer’s. My brother-in-law developed bipolar disorder many years ago and so his wife has never had the luxury of depending upon her husband. On the contrary though, she has developed a wonderful dependence upon her Lord and Savior. If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then it cannot possibly be a command for every marriage. This is obvious in the lives of Christian friends and family members with disabilities, illness and aging who cannot fulfill that even if they wanted to.

We all presently live in a world where tragedy and sin are the reality. A husband who has lost his cognitive function cannot exercise “authority” over anyone. They don’t even know what they are doing themselves. A man who cannot recognize his wife (or anyone else), feed himself and rarely opens his eyes is incapable of exercising authority. Logic and facts in reality are not un-Godly.

If Paul had intended to mean authority, he could have used the word exousiazo as he used in I Cor. 7:4 “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” Instead he used kephale.

Kephale was used in Greek writings to mean “source, origin, or sustainer” – Paul had just used it that way in the preceding chapter Eph. 4:15-16 saying “grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself.” Paul even explains how this works treating your wife as your own flesh in Eph. 5:29-30 he “nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body.”

I believe making “head” to mean authority also raises difficulties with the doctrine of the lordship of Christ. In what sense can Christ have authority over man and not over woman at the same time? I believe Christ’s lordship extends to all believers, whether married or single – we are all to be lead by the Holy Spirit. Can a woman trade the Holy Spirit for the “Husband Spirit” when she marries? “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
2 Cor. 11:3

If a woman needs man’s authority over her, then why in I Cor. 7 did Paul write so much explaining “to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” and “the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord…this I say for your benefit..to promote what is appropriate and secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.”?

Since Jesus redefined leadership as a form of servanthood, (“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – Mt.20:25-27) then I’m at a total loss in understanding how that servanthood then suddenly reverts back to “having authority over” when applied to the marriage relationship.(?)
“For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another.” Gal. 5:13 NRSV How does “nourishes and cherishes it” become lead and have authority over?

I do not understand – why do complementarians want to place authority and obedience in these passages? It goes against Jesus’ teaching about being servants to one another rather than seeking authority over one another. “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Luke 22:26)
“He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

The two conditions of true greatness are humility and service. Not authority and service.

“3. Whenever we have to change the meanings of words to fit our theology, that rings alarm bells for me.” ME, too!!