A while ago, the BBB had a poll running on headship and submission. Right now they are unpacking the poll and the issues surrounding the headship/submission issues. See part 1 and part 2. I really liked what Wyane had to say in the following quote. I think it is good to reflect how we view our Christianity especially in what parts were emphasize over other parts.
Better Bibles Blog :: head and submission poll results - post #3
From my own point of view, not enough biblical teaching has occurred on what it means for Christians to mutually submit to each other in comparison with how much teaching there has been on wives submitting to their husbands. The larger amount of teaching devoted to wives submitting to their husbands does not align with the fact that the first relationship Paul addresses in this section on submission is that of Christians to each other. That relationship is explicitly stated in Greek. It seems to me that other relationships of submission flow out of the teaching that mutual submission is God’s design for his children. I think that much of scripture tells us, in one way or another, how to submit to each other, and such submission would define what a wife’s submission to her husband should look like. Mutual submission surely involves love (John 13:35), honor, respect, deference, being like-minded, and being one in spirit (Phil. 2:2).
After I read that, I read his conclusions on chapter 5 of Ephesians:
So what does it mean for a man to be the head of his wife? Here is what the Bible explicitly says about this matter. In the Ephesians (chapter 5) context of teaching about the husband as head of his wife, the husband head is to love his wife. The husband head is to love his wife sacrificially, “giving himself for her” as Christ gave himself (died) for the church. As far as I know, this is all that the Bible explicitly teaches about what the husband head does for his wife. Everything else which is said on the matter is, I suggest, application or theological extrapolation. Is the husband to lead his wife? Perhaps, but the Bible does not explicitly say so. Does he have authority over her? Perhaps, but the Bible does not explicitly say so, other than when it refers to authority of one kind, mentioned in one passage which we will discuss below, concerning the statement “A husband has authority over his wife”. Is the husband a priest for his wife? The Bible does not teach this. Does a husband mediate between his wife and God. The Bible does not teach this either.
Update The Better Bibles Blog has now posted their fourth post in the series: head and submission poll results - post #4. The post sums up my thoughts on the subject quite well. Wayne looks at the difference between ὑποτασσω (a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden) in Eph 5:21-22 and Rom. 13:1 and contrasts it with ἐξουσιάζω (to have power or authority, use power) in such places as 1 Cor. 7:4.
Wayne then goes on to look at the Genesis account and comes to much the same conclusions that Dave and I did a while back.
17 Comments
I’m often frustrated at how overemphasized male-headship is in our churches…especially as, you quoted, the biblical emphasis lies in mutual submission.
I’ve been passionate about this subject for quite some time, but it seems the issue hinges more on peoples presuppositions and patriarchy than on good biblical exegesis.
I’m frustrated with anything that is overemphasized in church.
As you, I prefer a balanced approach to what is taught in a church - although we can’t give everything equal weight. There have to be decisions made as to what to emphasize over others. And further, two different churches may emphasize - or overemphasize for that matter - an issue like this in different ways, depending on their theological leaning.
But since you didn’t - imho - truly qualify your thoughts, I am concerned about what you may be projecting…
What may be perceived as an overemphasis on any issue is just that, a perception.
More specifically, to say that you are frustrated with the overemphasis on male-headship is like saying that because - at some churches - it is overemphasized, it is wrong.
Just because something, anything, is overemphasized - again at some churches - does not necessarily mean it is wrong. It absolutely could be, but to say that it is is an overstatement.
In other words, something can be true regardless of whether it is overemphasized or not.
More specific to our discussion, to say that the issue hinges on presuppositions and thus that complementarian does not use good exegesis, is a presupposition.
Further, it sounds as if you are more well-informed by solid Biblical exegesis than complementarians.
No matter the issue, we are all products of our presuppositions - or starting points which we’ve talked about here - which in turn influences our interpretations.
But in saying that the complementarian view is not good exegesis is to say that those that hold to a complementarian view are bad expositors. That borders on elitism.
In other words:
Egilitarian = sound Biblical expositor
Complementarian = bad Biblical expositor
We are both attempting to divorce ourselves from our opinions and approach the subject honestly. But as this site has shown, there is a spectrum of belief.
And believe me, this is a huge one with hugely divergent views held by brothers and sisters in Chris
So as we continue, we need to make sure we are listening to one another and defining the words we are using.
And instead of painting with a broad brush, let’s talk about our interpretations and where we think they may differ from another interpretation instead of sharing our presuppositions.
While overemphasis does not necessarily negate a doctrine, I do think it leads to an unbalanced and therefore unhealthy strain of Christian practice. The result here is women submitting to men and a)men not submitting to the women and b) men not submitting to other men, and c) women not submitting to other women. Also the notion of submission is lost here. It is morphing from a mutual submission based on self-sacrifice on the mold of Jesus to an authority-based submission coming from a priority given to one sex and denied to another.
I am unqualified to speak on this issue as a whole. I have worked through several passages and have come to conclusions, but I have not worked through all of them. So, I feel as though I cannot bring it all out because I have not done the prerequisite homework. All the passages I have examined in detail all seem to each the same thing - equality in essence and function. The fall seems to explain why we humans have screwed it all up. As Wayne notes:
This idea of mutual submission is one that I am trying to incorporate into my actions in real life. It is pretty freaking hard to think, let alone act in of the good of the Other rather than mySelf always.
Not to overemphasize…
It seems like the original idea is that some feel there has been an overemphasis on a particular aspect of a passage at the detriment or even, exclusion, of others.
Can this happen? Yes. Is it happening in this passage? That is up for interpretation. Ah yes, the big I word…
Irregardless of this particular passage and my interpretation of it, even if something is truly overemphasised, it doesn’t make it any less true, it just makes it overstated.
I know we haven’t delved into this too deep yet, I’m just concerned that because of the contentiousness of this matter, folks are setting up a straw man:
perception of overemphasis = wrong
More specifically to the issue at hand, I feel like it is a leading comment to say what has been said. I hear “since we have seen abuses/overemphases of male-headship it in turn must be wrong.” IMO it is an unfair connection no matter if you are for or against the idea.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we have to resist the temptation to impose our perceptions of overemphasis on a text. We need to Bible read us…
Brad, I feel as through I have controlled for this (the straw man of overemphasis=wrong) when I said the following:
Do you feel as though I have not?
There are two separate issues here. One is the overemphasis of a minor doctrine over and above a major one. The other is what exactly the relationship between man and woman is according to God. I feel as though what I am saying talks about these two as separate issues. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
Regarding the issue of submission:
Can we separate the way men and women interact from the gender specific effects of the fall, and what are those effects and how have they manifest themselves?
I have been thinking about these questions a great deal as I learn to interact with and love the opposite sex - in friendships, as a minister to parishioners, and romantically.
The problem with speaking about gender specific effects of the fall (observable throughout history and seen in the stories throughout the Bible, not just the “curse of the fall” in Genesis), is that it begins to touch very closely to the depth of darkness in our hearts.
Here are some of my observations on gender specific effects:
I’ll begin with women (it was Eve’s fault after all - I say very tongue-in-cheek) - Many women have an inability to see their beauty and their value. Their insecurity drives them to dehumanize other women (female bullying is really nasty), they can become vindictive in truly cunning ways. Women see differently than men and because of this, some women can see how to dehumanize men by emasculating them, picking at them, and focusing on their “failures” or “inadequacies”. Women try to destroy others in a uniquely female way.
Now for men. They try to destroy others in a uniquely male way. Men, also living from their insecurities, dehumanize women. There is a lot caught up in sexuality and making women into sexual objects. Both men and women play on the other’s greatest fear, using it to control. Men sometimes use women’s desire to be valued for selfish gain and withhold what a woman needs. There are also issues of competition. Do men want women out of certain arenas because they are afraid to compete with women or because it is not good for the woman to be in that position?
What if this issue of “male headship” became a question of “what is better for the other?” Honestly, I think that when a man treats a woman unlovingly, forcing submission, he feels more pain than the woman. I think that women who emasculate men cause themselves isolation and hurt. We destroy ourselves by subjecting the other.
To figure out what the effects of the fall were, and therefore what a redemptive model of women and men looks like, we need to wrestle with the fallen patterns that each gender employs, and then we need to be about the business of reversing those things.
Brad -
Male headship isn't wrong because it's overemphasized in the church; it's wrong because patriarchy is a consequence of the Fall (Genesis 3). It's wrong because it constructs un-Christian power relationships between two persons. Ephesians 5 (not to mention Gal 3:28, Romans 16 or 1 Cor 1) is pretty clear about this - the Church is the reversal of the Fall, and as such, patriarchy/male headship should not be found in the Church.
It's wrong because it's contrary to the Gospel; overemphasis is just adding insult to injury.
JR,
Could you expound the texts you put in parenthesis, namely Romans 16 and 1 Corinthians 1, and demonstrate how they refute the complementarian view of marriage. I'm not seeing how they do that. I mean I can see where you are going with Galatians 3:28, even though Paul is not speaking about marriage in that text explicitly. I have been following the BBB on Ephesians 5:22. I think that would help me understand how to understand and respond to your position as you are presenting it.
Romans 16 and 1 Cor 1 both evince Paul authorizing and praising female church leadership (Phoebe, Prisca, Junia). The NT teaches marriage to be a partnership in which both partners willingly submit to one another. In Eph 5, the husband has the greater submission (he is called to die while the wife is called only to submit) because he gained the most power in the Fall (with the introduction of patriarchy/headship in Gen 3).
This concept of submission in marriage is consistent with Paul's understanding of Christian gender relationships in general, as evinced in the texts i cited above. Paul clearly does not see any difference between men and women, or between the roles to which they are called. In fact, Paul wants the Christian marriage to be every bit as controversial and counter-cultural as he expects the Church to be. (As my pastor observed yesterday when preaching on the parallel in Colossians 3, "The surprising statement in the first century wouldn't have been "Wives submit to your husbands", it would have been "Husbands love your wives".)
You are correct JR, knowledge of the culture that Paul was trying to change is vital to interpreting and making sense of what Paul is writing in Eph and Corinthians.
First of all, I am glad you made the point "The surprising statement in the first century wouldn't have been 'wives submit to your husbands', [Ephesians 5:24] it would have been 'husbands love your wives.'" That is something that we in the 21st century take for granted and never pick up on. Men in the first century were not people who married for love as much as other reasons (i.e. sons for passing on inheritance, honor, gaining more estate/money etc.). The command to love in the way that Christ loved his bride the church would have blown them away. Paul was a radical to have said that.
I'm not seeing what you are saying in 1 Corinthians 1, could you elaborate further. In Romans 16 Paul respects these three women greatly and does commend Phoebe to them to help her in any way they can. Junia is well known to the apostles and Prisca was very instrumental in helping Paul, she and her husband Aquila. But Paul does not define their positions as leadership positions. Can you demonstrate for me, please, that these women were in positions of leadership? I'm sure you can from the text.
In the case of Junia, I don't think that Paul is labeling her as an apostle in the same sense that he and Peter and James and John are. Because the ESV can be very biased in matters of gender (it is pretty clear in their preface), I refer to the NET where Paul is translated as saying in Romans 16:7, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me." The Greek of "they are well known to the apostles" is worded in an elative sense as it is coupled with the dative preposition en and a personal plural dative. They knew of her and knew her well, but she is not being put on their level of authority.
May be you can point out something I'm not seeing the Greek text. I'm looking forward to your response if and when you get the time.
The title of deacon (διάκονον), not deaconess, is used by Paul to describe Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Am I wrong here? It is the same word used by Paul, or a follower of Paul in 1 Timothy 3. Factor that with the parallel structure of 1 Tim 3:8 and 1 Tim 3:11 are the same. Since we know from Romans 16:1 that female deacons were referred to by the masculine form of the word for deacon, it is reasonable to assume that Paul or Paul’s follower, is still talking about female deacons in verse 11. There is no way to tell wife from woman and man from husband in the Greek besides context. The context here (because of the parallel structure and the textual warrant for the masc. form of deacon to refer to a woman) seems to dictate that we are still talking about female deacons in 1 Tim 3:11. Also, there are more than a couple of early church fathers that attest to this, such as John Chrysostom in “Homily 11 on 1 Tim 3:11,” Theodore of Mopsuestia in his Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:11, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus on his “Commentary of 1 Tim 3:11″
John Chrysostom:
Theodore of Mopsuestia:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus:
Lastly, I think that it is worthy to note parallel structures found in the New Testament, esp as they are describing gender roles in the Pauline letters. (see the submit/love parallel in Corinthians.
Well, the declension of diakonon is second declension so the endings will look more masculine that feminine. She is still being referred to as a deaconess. But thanks for the information and I will process it and come back to later.
Oh yeah, how do you understand 1 Timothy 2:9-15? I read it this morning during my quiet time and I was curious as to how someone who does not come from a complementarian background would interpret it. Most notably, I am eager to see how you understand Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where he says "A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet", and also how Paul uses the picture of Adam and Eve and the Fall in Genesis 3.
Hank,
First, freaking sweet icon. Props.
I'll let Tom handle 1 Tim… he and I are working on that text right now and he's done some fantastic analysis of it. I'll put a bug in his ear.
Prisca is listed before her husband… this clearly marks her as an apostle of distinction ABOVE her husband. And I would disagree with you about Junia… Paul rarely calls anyone a coworker. To give such a title to a woman reflects his egalitarian outlook.
1 Cor. - that Paul is hearing from "Chloe's people" indicates that she is at least the homeowner if not a key leader in one of the Corinthian house churches.
And speaking of 1 Tim… what do you do with "and a woman shall be saved through childbirth"?
Hank,
Just got word you’re asking ’bout I Timothy 2. In a few days, I will post on it on my blog page. I have a series of posts I posted on my previous blog that will deal with the complementarian position in I Timothy 2. I think you should find it, at the very least, an intriguing argument. I, personally, think its darn near air tight - in the egalitarian side.
I’ll re-post the series again…as I have a new page, and as I have new readership. So, give me a few days…my Trinity post is still drawing some interest.
Questions for the complimentarians:
What does the kingdom of God gain by putting women under the authority of men? (Are all women under the authority of all men?) What about women who are gifted in leadership, teaching, etc? What about the women throughout the Bible who were called to positions of leadership over men? Does the kingdom of God gain from disallowing women to freely use their gifts? Does the kingdom of God gain by forcing men into leadership when they are not gifted or equipped in it?
What about single women? What about widows? If men are the head of women (first a father and then a husband), are we adding to the plight of “widows”? Throughout the Bible, God gets very angry when people do not care for the widows and orphans.
I honestly want to know how complimentarians answer these questions, because I think they are important.