gengwall

Since I do a lot of community theater work, I have a particular concept of what a “role” is. I find it very difficult to translate that concept into marriage, especially in light of scriptural teaching on the marriage relationship. That isn’t to say that scripture never defines roles. “Priest” is a role in the Jewish religious system, “Judge” is a role in the ancient Israelite governmental structure, even “Parent” is a role in the family structure. The bible has plenty to say about those roles and the behaviors, activities, and responsibilities that define them. I don’t see the same type of division of labor and responsibility when it comes to marriage. The only “role” in Genesis 1 and 2 is for all humans – to subdue the earth. When that role is exercised by married people – they do it as a couple. In other words, it is not the husband’s or wife’s unilateral or universal role to subdue the earth, they do it as a pair of humans that are have now become “one flesh”. Indeed, the one flesh relationship unique to marriage entirely eliminates, in my mind, the possibility of unique “roles”.

The other directive (some would say, blessing) outlined in the creation account is “to be fruitful and multiply”. Again, this is directed at the married couple – as we all know, it takes two to….well, you get the point. Inherent in that directive, I believe, is the “role” of parent. But neither that “role” nor the activities related to it are gender specific (other than breast feeding, I suppose). “Parenting” and everything encompassed in it is gender neutral.

Now, to be sure, different people go about fulfilling these couple based roles in different ways. I would argue that there are even some gender specific, physiologically based, differences in how males and females fulfill these joint “roles”. I may even argue that one gender or the other is better suited for specific tasks related to a “role”. But neither gender is unilaterally charged with any tasks or, maybe more importantly, relieved from any tasks. None of that changes the fact that the “role” itself is couple based and therefore gender neutral.

Now, the argument related to marriage that is usually presented is that “head” is a role. (Incidentally, that would naturally make “body” a role as well???) But my response to such a claim is “well, what does that mean for me as a husband?” In other words, what does the “head” do? Where is the job description? How do I know I am being a good head? How do I know I am being a head at all?

The typical reply brings us to Ephesians 5. “Just do what Christ did”. That is all well and good, and I would not disagree that agapeo type love is certainly Christlike, but is that type of love and service unilaterally the husband’s responsibility? Is the wife not also to love? Is the wife not also to serve? Is the wife released from (or restricted from) any responsibility to mirror Christ in her relationship to her husband? I should certainly hope not! But if Christlike love and service define the “role”, then the wife, in engaging in those activities, is also fulfilling the “role”, and it ceases to be a gender based role at all. So, “head” simply can not logically be a gender specific “role” because it does not unlilaterally pertain to the behaviors, activities, or responsibilities of a single gender. (Incidentally, the same is true for submission. Paul is clear that submission is not a female specific responsibility. That is ignored by complimentarians, but it doesn’t change the reality. The submission issue is well discussed here so I will say no more).

So what in the world is Paul doing by bringing up Christ/Head/Husband and Church/Body/Wife? That, I’m sure, will be a major sub topic in any future discussion of Ephesians 5. What I am absolutely convinced of is that he is not defining gender specific “roles” within the marriage. I suggest he is using Christ and His body as models for instructive purposes because of gender specific problems. That does not relieve either gender of their mutual responsibility to love, serve, and submit to one another.