My caveat: This blog post presupposes complementarianism (not that I’ve settled on that conclusion, but that’s what the post is about).
The other day, my husband and I pulled into a gas station to fill up. I told him that I wanted to go inside and pick up a snack. He told me that he didn’t want me to. I asked him why not. He gave me this answer: “Because I said so.”
Now, before anyone freaks out, please know that my husband was joking. However, it started a great conversation between us about headship and what his beliefs are about it. I’m not going to go into those, but I did come to some conclusions after our discussion.
“Because I said so” is the kind of answer a parent gives to a child when they simply want to assert their authority and make the child obey without giving an actual reason. This is not an answer given between adults. I can hear the objections now: A boss can give his employee this answer and it must suffice. Okay, that may be so. However, we are talking about a much more intimate relationship here. I have to believe that it goes deeper than this.
I think this kind of answer is often given by men who simply want their wives to know that they are in charge and that even this kind of answer should suffice. It seems to me that, in this case, what matters to the husband is the assertion of his authority and not the actual issue being discussed. After all, if we, as women, start accepting these answers full stop, what separates us from our children? Are we just another child to our husbands?
I came to the conclusion that it behooves husbands to find a way to “assert his authority” in a way in which his wife will gladly receive it. In other words, he’ll treat her like an adult and come to her with loving admonition if he feels that she is being disrespectful. He won’t treat her like a child and he won’t discipline her as he would one of his children. In a sense, I think, he is submitting to her in this way. It is simply being courteous and, dare I say, Christian. It is the kind of “one-anothering” so often found throughout Scripture.
So, what about wives? How do we graciously respond to our husband’s leadership? I would like to submit that we treat our husbands as we would like to be treated: with the respect and dignity owed to them as full image-bearers of God. That is certainly the way WE want to be treated, isn’t it?
The Christian life is the life of a servant. Can we find a greater servant than Jesus? The King of the Universe stooped to wash his disciples dirty, sweaty, disgusting feet. I can certainlly do some laundry without complaining, right? The Christian life is a life poured out in the service of others, whether it be our husbands, our children, people in our church, the bum on the street… it is a life of constant giving. That call is given to women AND men.
When I think about it, what “troubles” me most about submission is probably what troubles any woman who has difficulty in doing it: pride. I don’t want to think that someone is “over” me. I don’t want anyone else telling me what to do. Why should he get two votes and I only get one? I could go on and on and on… but, at the end of the day, its my pride that gets hurt when my husband pulls the headship card (which rarely ever happens, by the way).
Isn’t pride a vice that must be crucified?
In the end, I’m not quite sure it matters who is in charge. Strike that. It does matter. What matters is that Christ is in charge! When a husband and wife make it their primary goal to serve Christ by serving the other, when they place their pride aside (the husband’s sometimes bossy assertion of authority, the wife’s prideful rejection of it) and just pour out their lives to minister to and build up the other, does it really matter whose vote carries more weight?
Yes!
“Because I said so” I actually said that to my wife once. And she was very happy when I did. I’ll explain in a bit.
Ephesians 5:22 – 24 says: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. ”
And loads of women fight against that very clear teaching. It does not say that husbands and wives are to submit to each other (although that is covered elsewhere in scripture where all Christians are told to submit to each other).
But I think women rebel against that concept mainly because the husbands forget to pay attention to the very next verse in that passage (and then repeated in Colossians 3).
Ephesians 5:25 says: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.”
That passage goes on to say that the husband should love the wife as he loves his own body.
I am a complementarian. By Molleth’s definition given elsewhere on this site, I would probably be considered a “hard complementarian.” But in my paradigm, there is a balance – a yin and a yang, so to speak – that the whole system breaks down if one of the two sides is not upheld.
If I do not truly love my wife as much as I love myself, she cannot submit in a way that would be appropriate. My love for her sets up the atmosphere needed for her to be able to submit because she trusts that every single thing I do and ever single decision I make will be in her best interest. And scripture requires that this be the case.
So – since this is not a natural thing and my wife and I discussed this whole concept in the years we were dating and engaged, I decided that I had to find ways to force myself to exert my authority in ways that showed obvious love to her above my love for myself.
In the early years of our marriage, when we had very little money, I saved up for special things that my wife wanted but that we could not afford. She always thought of the family (at that time, just the two of us) above herself, so she would never have considered making some of these purchases. So once a year I took her out and gave her the only demand I have ever made of her based solely on my authority. I told her that I wanted her to buy these things that she wanted but that she would not spend the money on “because I said so.”
Maybe I was being overdramatic or silly in some way. But I really needed to do that for myself as well as for her. It forced me into a position of loving her in a demonstrative way. The other obvious way to do this is actually covered in the verses I mentioned. Husbands are to love our wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her. So although I hope it never becomes necessary, for my wife’s sake I must be willing to die voluntarily. I hope that God will give me the grace to do that should it ever become necessary.
(Sorry for the long comment)
Great post Cally! One thing that I have tossed around in my head for years is the ACTUAL, daily, logistical difference between a wife “submitting” and a husband “loving” (as Richard pointed out). I “submit” to my husband by taking care of his daily needs, listening to him with respect, finding out what is important to him and making that a part of my life, etc. And he “loves” me by taking care of my daily needs, listening to me with respect … etc., you get the idea. Now, there may be a few times that there is a difference, but those are the exception. To us, “submitting” and “loving” look an awful lot alike, and when we are doing it right and truly denying ourselves for each other, hopefully looking something like the heart of Christ.
I think the biggest difference in my attitude toward submission came when I saw my husband at work. He is a military officer, and I will never forget the first time I saw him being “talked to” by his superior (in front of me!) and he, very dignified, responded, “yes, sir; yes, sir,” and then went about his day. His pride was not offended – he understood that his “person” wasn’t being slighted. He took it so graciously that I was ashamed of myself! He certainly never “talked to” me that way, but I got all huffy over the slightest hint of direction. It totally changed me. Yet again, the best way to teach someone is BY EXAMPLE! I would challenge men to find ways to MODEL submission in front of their wives, be it at work, church, government, etc.
What bothers me is that there are women out there that bask in being told “because I said so!” by their husbands. It is some sort of badge of honor or righteousness to obey your husband whatever the cost may be.
Oftentimes, men who “rule” by the I-told-you-so principle are just weak, feeble wanna-be leaders who employ whatever necessary to make their women “obey.”
And then these men and women stand up in the churches and preach and teach that wives are to ALWAYS obey, no matter what the reason is, even if it is a paltry “because I said so, woman!”
Richard, I loved that story. And I think it illustrates the point of the post, that where love is, there will be service, and does it really matter then who is in charge.
Love is the greatest thing, said Paul. Therefore, hierarchy is not the greatest thing to pursue. And the danger of emphasizing hierarchy is that it too easily goes toward the kind of heavy handed lording it over people that Jesus warned against.
“Love is the greatest thing, said Paul. Therefore, hierarchy is not the greatest thing to pursue.”
You’re so correct! That’s why my recent discovery that the church was never meant to have a human hierarchy is so compelling. Christ is our only spiritual covering and authoritative head; hierarchy in church was never meant to exist (other than Christ above His people) and if it was never meant for church, it was certainly never meant for marriage. This knowledge is what frees me to rejoice and to show open amusement at the CBMW and other such fools.
And to answer (or confirm) the title question of this blog: of course it really doesn’t matter, inspite of the anal and frantic fanaticism that the patriocentrists practice in their desperate quest to ensure that all leaders are equipped with gonads.
I like reading here (most of the time). When the people here are being civil, loving, and kind to one another. When they are actually searching out their views and beliefs, looking for answers and possible reasons behind their actions.
Yet when I come here and see people just flinging words around such as: amusement…such fools, anal, frantic fanaticism, desperate, gonads (for goodness sake)…..
It honestly only makes me think of women making fun of one another. An attitude of superiority. “Oh, those poor, ignorant patriarchy-led fools…..”. I believe there are very few of those type of women. Most are a bit more moderate. And certainly MOST are *much* more intelligent then you seem to give them credit for.
Many of you ladies claim to have “been there, done that” – and now, PTL, you have wised up, come to your senses, and basically risen WAY ABOVE where these “foolish, desperate, not-all-that-smart, baby-makers” are. Sure doesn’t make anyone want to listen to your point of view.
Now, of course, there is mud being thrown on BOTH sides. And I know, many of you ladies seem to think you are trying to “save” these lost souls who are bound in patriachy-land. Got it. But when you are crass and so harsh, it only looks as though you are typing for each other – so you all can pat each other on the back and say, YES, we agree! Those poor, mis-led little girls….if only there were advanced and smart enough in their Bible interpretation and theology ~ like us!!
This is *not* directed at this particular post, nor the author in particular. Like I said, I do enjoy reading here often. I just wanted to share my views on what I sometimes feel when coming here. Superiority will never help you in your cause of helping others. I may even agree with much of what you say (although not all) ~ but I can certainly see why some women would immediately tune you out….due to such derogatory remarks.
There has to be a better way, right?!?
Maybe I’m way off. Maybe I’m over-sensitive. Feel free to dismiss what I’ve said. Perhaps you feel the corse words and attitude are necessary – and maybe you *are* getting through to some ladies this way.
Yet to me, it can sometimes come across as a bunch of women who are patting each other on the back for being so smart…
~Lori
who prays this isn’t taken as just a mean attack of your site. I don’t feel that way at all. I guess I’m just wondering if all the harshness is necessary (and maybe it is).
It is all about authority.
One thing I was thinking about in the comments about servanthood is that if a woman does this “serving” of her husband, a lot of other women think she has been demeaned.
In my marriage – I personally struggle because the service is not reciprocated – and yet, what service is it that wants to be repaid.
You’ve given me food for thought today.
Lori,
How would you have us to act or behave? I always like to ask for constructive criticism and feedback on issues like these.
Specifically what would you like to see differently? Is it just the language (fools, etc?) that bother you? Is it the questions we ask?
Tell us, what would you like to see us do or say?
Lori, I just looked at your blog and see that LAF, Life in a Shoe, Voddie Baucham and others are your favorite sites to visit.
So now I understand why we rub you the way we do. It makes it a little clearer.
I doubt it is our tone that bothers you…it seems to be a difference in ideals and doctrine, most likely.
I don’t think I’m smarter than anyone, besides the dog. I *am* a smart lady, but it really isn’t my place to judge other people’s IQ’s. I do however, get a little bit passionate about women being dumbed down.
There is a difference.
I get your point, Lori, but frankly I’m not going to apologize for letting off steam at the foolish (yes, foolish) and spiritually abusive patriocentricity I’ve seen hurled at women. The only apology I would make here would be to ThatMom and the other ladies for possibly disrespecting their integrity. However, I’ve been going through this for years and it gets worse; you really have no apparent idea of the depth patriocentricity goes to.
“And certainly MOST are *much* more intelligent then you seem to give them credit for.”
Oh really? Have you visited the Vision Forum? Have you read about how women in combat are called un-Godly, how women who get abortions to save their lives are compared to murderers who throw their babies to sharks? And there’s more: boy-children are allowed to speak in church for their mothers, women cannot take Communion for themselves (a male must hand the bread to them), women should not vote, adult daughters should stay at home no matter how they feel, women should never have authority over men, Christ died to make men kings, Daddy should choose who his daughter marries, and a hierarchy of male flesh and blood should always be prevalent, from government to marriage, to keep things “Godly”.
And, oh yes, last I checked the CBMW was b*tching about how the newest Narnia movie has a female using a bow and arrows in a war. This is what these “Christians” thrive upon; they have nothing better to do. Women who buy into this and swear by it are either brainwashed, lazy, or foolish. Anyone who twists Scripture in such a blatantly power-hungry and idiotic way for the sole purpose of suppressing others is beyond a fool, and I will not refrain from saying so. At their very worst, these kinds of men are beating their wives’ behinds with belts to keep them in line, and the wives in turn write books about this, uplifting their husbands as heroes who want the best for them!! These are the “more intelligent” women you defend, Lori, and it ain’t a pretty sight.
So yes, I do delight in coming here and seeing intelligent women. I thrive on seeing women who not only know and flourish in God’s design, but who can lightly make fun of the attempts of others to restrain them from doing so. And yes, I enjoy mocking evil and foolishness; the VF’s views of women are evil and it’s far better to mock evil than to fear it. Sometimes mocking it is the only way I refrain from giving in to rage over it. Knowing God’s design more than ever does free me, Lori, but it also makes me all the more enraged to see people daily trying to twist it.
So forgive me if my term “gonads” offended you. I just tend to get upset when I see the far more crass mud-slinging at womanhood and Godliness from the Scripture-twisters. But then, maybe I’m over-sensitive.
“Lori, I just looked at your blog and see that LAF, Life in a Shoe, Voddie Baucham and others are your favorite sites to visit.”
Ah. Thank you Normal, that does make things clearer.
I think some of the preceived harshness might be because some of us see the destructive side of these beliefs (I know I do and I wasn’t nearly into them as others on this site were) and we are passionate and emotional about wanting people to see what the Scripture really says–and what it doesn’t say. It hurts my heart to see people live by some checklist (wearing skirt: check; homeschooling kids: check; not using birth control: check, etc.) and thinking that’s what the Christian life is all about. Grace…and a set of rules. Jesus’ blood shed on the cross…and following a certain lifestyle.
If I have called names and it came across harshly, I apologize. For me, it’s more frustration than vindictiveness. It frustrates me that people are taking their own convictions and trying to make doctrine. And, in some cases, making lots of moola from it.
I think Lori does make a good point though. I think its important to stick to the issues at hand and not make comments about individuals personally. One of the greatest pieces of advice I’ve ever heard is this:
Focus on the situation, issue, or behavior and not on the person.
I’m not saying that we should stay away from discussing the beliefs or words or blog posts of individuals, but when we start getting personal, I think its easier for us to get off track.
Does that make sense?
I agree Cally, I do. You referenced this great quote:
“Focus on the situation, issue, or behavior and not on the person.”
and I agree!
But where it gets murky for me is when it is the same person or persons over and over and over distorting the issues. And that is what we get in the camp of patriocentricity. The same folks, offending over and over and over again. So it gets a little difficult, at least for me, not to talk names.
I hope that makes sense. I’ve mentioned this at TW this week—I am a brash, loud, sassy type of personality. I’m the girl at the party who is talking to everyone and I’m probably spilling my drink (sweet tea) all over you too. I’m just built that way.
So sometimes I come off as much harsher than I really am!
I do not attempt to malign or offend anyone. I think many times people get “offended” sheerly because we’ve caused them to THINK and they feel a little shaky, does that make sense?
I will make a better effort to stick to the issues. FYI–I have two blog posts for here pending review. I am looking forward to contributing here!
That’s exactly it, Johanna. When I see spiritual abuse, it causes me to hurt and, sometimes, to fear. Great agitation comes as a result and my reaction is often like a wary, hurting animal.
I doubt there’s any reason for you and Johanna to apologize, Normal, as I think I was pretty clearly the main target of Lori’s indignation. Ironically, I didn’t name names (other than websites), but the reasons and persons behind my anger are generally clear and if I offended anyone other than Lori, I apologize. It was my main intention on this post to offer feedback and my reasons for giving it and being convicted on this matter.
Lori, if you’re at all really interested in the just cause for our upset, please go to lulu.com and type in “Leah Kelley” at the search engine. Everything that follows won’t need further explanation. Feel free to check that out if you’d like to see what my deepest and darkest heartbreak and anger on this issue stems from.
Lindsay, we don’t need to review them. Just post em!! Yay!!
Cally, it won’t let me for some reason? My only options are to save or submit for review?
Maybe I am missing something. I am new to wordpress. email me if you need to!
Oooh, okay, I’ll post them.
No.
Light had a great comment maaany months and months back at the Bayly brothers blog, giving examples where you had to try and figure out who the servant-leader was and who the respectful-submitter was…and the point of her comment was (and boy was it funny to read their responses to it) that you CANNOT.
If someone is “leading” the way Christ defines leadership, which is taking the lowest seat, washing the feet when you are the one who should be recieving the highest honor, etc, you really CAN’T tell the difference between who is reverencing and who is serving.
Both Christians, male and female, should be walking in the Spirit, which means they will be full of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, etc… Where in that is there a place for one spouse dominating over the other? Where in that is there a place for one spouse making the other one do something that they don’t feel right about?
I am an egalitarian, so I don’t believe that one spouse is the leader over the other one. However, I do believe that we are to serve eachother in love. We are to take turns leading and submitting, in the sense that we decide together who will be “in charge” of a certain thing, and the other spouse will submit to that leadership. Submission is a great thing!
Reading the words of Bruce Ware, Doug Phillips, and their ilk on men and women makes stuff like the Sermon on the Mount look like it doesn’t belong in the Bible. And that tells you that something’s rotton somewhere, and I have a feeling it’s not with the words of Christ…
One other iiiiitty bitty point from one of the minority egalitarians here: no where in Scripture is a husband called a leader. So saying that the husband is the leader is fine, but just know that the word not actually in the Scripture. It’s a word that is the result of the way some interpret Scripture (interpreting “head” to mean “leader.”).
Thank you all for taking the time to read my comment without getting too upset. I was honestly hoping it wouldn’t come across as an attack, as that certainly wasn’t my intention.
Yes, I enjoy reading Voddie’s blog. Yes, I’m thankful for Ladies Against Feminism. If you could have been in my shoes while growing up…..man-hating, women don’t need anyone else, children are a burden, etc. And I don’t believe my mother was a RADICAL feminist – it was just the world she had grown up in. And she *did* have men in her family who were abusive, in many ways.
Yet even with her past, even with the sin of those men, what I was being taught was no better. I was never honestly taught about God’s plan for marriage & family. When I realized there was something more than “everyone for themselves”, I was excited!! Hopeful.
And no, I don’t agree with many of the more “extreme” views. I would probably consider myself more moderate than it appears I am coming across here, but that’s okay. It seems that one look at my blog roll has me all figured out…
Yes, doctrine and ideals are part of it ~ but not all. I can respect the fact that we differ in our interpretation of certain areas. I have wonderful, complementarian, godly women on my blogroll who are smart, sweet, creative, submissive and even spunky! They are nothing like this picture many of you seem to paint: lazy, stupid, brainwashed, etc. So yes, it’s the tone that sometimes seems harsh and offensive.
Anyways, I don’t want to be found “right”. I just wanted to make a point. I’m not sure how you could say things differently, less harsh…..I’m not sure. You are not here to make ME happy (ha!). You are here for your own purposes. Yet if one of those is to actually *reach* some of the women you are describing, your tone is much more likely to turn them away than make them pause and consider.
I hope I can still come here, read and even disagree with you ladies. I’m hoping there’s not a “blogroll check” I have to pass before being allowed to comment???? I really do enjoy some of the discussion (at least on days when I have time to sit at the computer a bit more).
~Lori
Jennifer said: “That’s why my recent discovery that the church was never meant to have a human hierarchy is so compelling. ”
Jennifer – I was raised the son of a Baptist pastor and this concept (of no heirarchy within the church) was drilled into my head since infancy. Unfortunately, most Baptist churches do not follow this entirely Baptistic principle, but it was a foundational distinctive of Baptists until recently.
Actually, there was a heirarchy seen, but that heirarchy flowed in an opposite direction of what is normally seen in churches. As it was taught to us – the head of the local church is Christ, under Christ is the entire congregation of beptized believers with the pastor serving at the pleasure of that congregation and the deacons performing servitude only. Everyone was seen as equal in the church (including the deacons when they were not acting as deacons), except for children who in our church were not given a vote until age 16. But each person, including the pastor, had exactly one vote and everyone voted on everything. That is the essence of no heirarchy outside of Christ, who is the Head of the Church.
Lori,
The “every man for himself” life was part of what drew me to patriarchy as well. It was safe, structured, orderly, and people had a place and a job. However, learning that Christian egalitarianism teaches that we are NOT “every man for himself” was wonderful, as I’d been under the impression that outside of patriarchy, there was only chaos.
Instead, I’ve been pleasantly surprised. If the fruit of the Spirit is in operation, then chaos will not reign, and no one will be in “every man for himself” mode (nor does it make the genders non-complementary).
That mode of self-first-ness is called, “walking in the flesh.” Christians, however, are called to walk in the Spirit (Gal 5), and it’s my belief that a gender hierarchy is not required in order for Spiritual fruit to be born in our lives.
I no longer respect my husband because he’s male. I respect him because he’s made in God’s image (as am I, as are you, as are we all).
On your comments about the tone, I personally am thankful you’ve spoken up. It’s good to be reminded. I don’t feel that anger is a sin, persay, but I do feel that bitterness or spitefulness is, and I know that sometimes I cross that line. It’s good to be held in check. Thanks.
I’d like some of you to explain the “no hierarchy” thing to me. I’m a baptised/confirmed Episcopalian from childhood, and a Catholic as an adult. I’ve never belonged to a church who didn’t have hierarchy, and I’m interested in the biblical basis for this as well as how it works practically.
Hi, Anne. It’s a bit difficult to explain, but I’ll try to tell you the root beliefs. These are the main points: no one can have a human covering or shield from sin; only Christ is sufficient for this. The hierarchy in God’s church goes like this: God, and His people (not God, the pastors, the ministers, and then the flock). Pastoring does have authority, but not a hierarchal sort. Essentially, pastoring should be viewed as a FUNCTION rather than a office or a slot to fill; a verb rather than a noun. So, please don’t think I’m telling you to go to a new church! My own has pastors and senior pastors too.
Everything I know about this topic comes from a book called “Who is your covering?” by Frank Voila. He reveals that the title question is one asked to many Christians in a challenging manner whenever they try to do anything that others question. Jesus was asked the same question, “By what authority are you here?” And, perhaps the crux of the matter, groups like the VF CONSTANTLY speak about people, namely women, needing spiritual coverings and families needing hierarchies. Viola reveals that when/if asked such a question, we are free to say, “Christ is my covering and authority” and no longer believe that we need a person of flesh to be our covering, or the permission or protection of such a person to operate as a soldier in God’s army.
The basic belief of Viola’s book and position is that elders, pastors, apostles, and bishops all exist in the Body of Christ, but that their functions have been given far more authority than God ever meant them to have. Viola essentially asserts that pastors are here more for teaching and leadership than authority. By appealing to the Greek text, Viola reveals that the following oft proclaimed titles of power have quite different meanings:
bishops are simply guardians (episkopoi), not high church officials; pastors are care-takers (poimen), not professional pulpiteers; ministers are busboys (diakonos), not clergymen; elders are wise, old men (presbuteras), not ecclesiastical officers.
Pretty cool, huh?
Richard and Anne, I hope you both know that I am not in anyway disparaging your beliefs or denominations! I know you both have healthy and wise convictions in such matters, so I don’t fear for you anyway; I mentioned this matter to explain my own convictions as a huge benefit in my life, not as a challenge to you. I personally feared that my own church was operating in an unGodly manner after reading this book, but I know my pastors have such humble hearts that they do not see their positions as ones of a hierarchy over the rest of the church. Do they do the sermons? Yes. Does the main pastor make the most pivetal decisions regarding the church? Yes. Do they ask that we have their authority in spiritual matters? NO.
“They are nothing like this picture many of you seem to paint: lazy, stupid, brainwashed, etc.”
I’m sure you don’t know women like that, Lori. This is why I described them to you, so you’d know what the more severe types are like.
I enjoy some of the LAF stuff too (though my opinions of Jenny Chancey and Lady Lydia have plummeted) and I certainly understand your stance. However, I’ve always found it essential to find a balance. I’ve been alarmed by both patriocentrists and radical feminists, but I’ve never become either one just to avoid the other.
Please check out the excellent post “The Different Branches of Feminism” to see why I and some others do not oppose all feminists.
Oh and PS Lori: you wouldn’t know it to look at me, but I’m usually more moderate too. There’s nothing like Scriptural lies and foolish spiritual danger to set me off like a rabid wolf.
“Actually, there was a heirarchy seen, but that heirarchy flowed in an opposite direction of what is normally seen in churches. As it was taught to us – the head of the local church is Christ, under Christ is the entire congregation of beptized believers with the pastor serving at the pleasure of that congregation and the deacons performing servitude only.”
Exactly, Richard! Thank you for the explanation; I just now read your whole post.
Lori, I, for one, LOVE having you here! Please do continue to read if you have the time and the inclination!!
I believe it absolutely DOES matter “who’s in charge,” and if it’s anybody except Jesus Christ, then something is dangerously amiss.
There is no scriptural commandment for men that says “Lead your wives.” There is one that says “Husbands, love your wives,” which underscores the many instances husbands already have in which all believers are told to love one another. Parallel to this is that the command for wives to submit themselves to their husbands, underscores for wives the several-times given general command for all believers to submit to one another. All are to submit, all are to love, because Christ is our Lord. Nobody gets a “get out of submission free” card on the basis of gender or calling. We wouldn’t accept the notion that wives don’t have to love their husbands because there’s no specific commandment for wives to do that, would we? So how can we twist the lack of a husband-specific “submit” command into “the husband is the leader in the marriage”?
Now sometimes, people will assert that since the husband is called the “head of the wife” (note, NOT “head of the family” or “head of the house”), this makes him the leader of the wife. Not in Greek, it doesn’t. The husband is called, metaphorically, the “head,” just as the wife is called the “body.” KEPHALE and SOMA mean just that, the body parts of “head” and “body.” It’s a metaphor for unity; the word used for “head” is never used in Greek to mean “leader.”
In marriage, in Christian community (church), in family, we are all one in Christ Jesus. Among adult believers, there is one who is “in charge,” who is the Bridegroom to the Bride that we all, together, are called to be. IMO, if someone else presumes to be the “leader of the marriage” or the “head of the church,” they’re flirting dangerously with the kind of “lording over” that Christ himself said has no place among his disciples.
Just as a friendship has no need of a designated “leader,” shouldn’t the one-flesh union of Christian marriage find more than sufficient leadership in Christ alone? Aren’t we all, as Christians, called to be servants (well, technically, “slaves,”) to one another? Honestly, I see the striving for men to be considered leaders in marriage to be modeled purely on the historical tradition of this world, and diametrically opposed to the teachings of Scripture.
Beautifully said, Psalmist.
Psalmist- this comment was great. Can I put it as a post?
First off, I must say that my husband would never insult or demean me to make the statement, “Because I said so”.
I can NEVER imagine him using that phrase under any circumstances at all … ever.
You ask a very interesting question about how we treat our spouses. Frankly, we spoil one another. When we are cranky, we put ourselves in timeout until we are fit for human companionship again.
Oh … ans just for the record … I hold there is a difference between unrighteous anger (one of the Seven Deadly Sins) and anger. Let’s not forget that our Lord created us with our feelings for a REASON. It is important to understand them, what triggers them, and how to cope with them … this is NEVER easy … but most definitely important
yikes … I forgot to say thank you for another well written article … please forgive!
thank you for your post!
If you’re really sure you want such heresy as a post, Cally…sure! Thanks. (I think!) (grin)
Anne – Churches without an external heirarchy are many and exist outside just the Baptist “denomination.” Other denominations and pseudo-denominations without an external heirarchy include Independent Bible churches, Congregationalists, Many Holiness churches, AME churches, Calvary Chapel, and others. But most of those do have internal heirarchies with the pastor sitting atop the totem pole.
Baptists derive their view of internal church polity and the independent nature of the local church from viewing the setup of local bodies of believers in the early church (in Acts, the the epistles, and then in the following early church leaders such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr).
I was taught slightly different definitions of the New Testament terms than what Jennifer mentioned, but her definitions were close to what I was taught. Bishop/pastor/elder are all the same (or are referring to the same people but are describing different characteristics or roles of those people. I see “bishhop” and “pastor” as exactly the same thing with the term “pastor” being used to indicate the gentle and nurturing nature of the bishop because of the shepherding overtones.
The Baptist doctrine of the “priesthood of believers” is the foundatinal doctrine giving rise to the local church with no external or internal heirarchy outside of Christ. Peter called Christians a “holy priesthood.” (1 Pet 2:5 – you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ) Paul used this term as well. We believe that each individual Christian is a priest with Jesus Christ serving as our High Priest as seen in Hebrews 4:14, 16 – Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession…. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.)
So each of us is able to “come boldly before the throne of grace,” something that only the priests could do in the Old Testament. That makes us all equals under the headship of Jesus Christ. That belief results in no true internal church heirarchy and no external church heirarchy. It relies on the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Spirit-filled believers who make up the congregation.
If this makes no sense or if you have any questions, please ask. I don’t know if I’m explaining this very well. This system works very well, but only if the pastor is a humble man of God and truly believes in the priesthood of the believers and sees himself as a shepherd who is placed with the congregation to love and care for them as a hired servant – the flock actually belonging to Christ, not to him.
Anne-
If you are interested you my wish to read a post on my blog: http://www.ncthouston.blogspot.com that deals with this issue of church structure.
My wife and I revisited and studied the issue of church structure/leadership in-depth after leaving a church that was heading down the “patriarchy People” path.
Here is what it covers, and it contains extensive scriptural cross-references:
I have come to the conclusion that the following is contributing to the spread of authoritarian churches and abusive leadership within the professing church: 1) Unbiblical clergy/laity distinctions 2) An epidemic misunderstanding of the nature of true biblical authority 3) Ignorance of the structure of the church as presented in the NT scriptures 4) Error regarding who is to actually do the work of ministry and 5) The widespread misunderstanding of a believers relationship to the Mosaic Law, The Law of Christ, and freedom in Christ that leads to true sanctification.
Ok. so I’m the lone duck who said no. In a solid functional normal healthy relationship, I think it does not matter. Whoever is in charge will be fluid. The person most knowledgeable and capable in any given thing will naturally BE GIVEN the lead. Others will recognize the ability and be entirely satisfied with that person being in the lead. I think this kind of ties in with us all having different gifts and talents.
In an unhealthy relationship the answer is, yes. Unhealthy people in charge of anything is bad.
I suppose what you might ask is, should there be always a kingpin? I would like to think that that one is Christ. In my church experience unfortunately, it has usually been a runaway elder or pastor.
Well, Anne2, I’m with you, so you’re not that alone.
I don’t believe that hierarchy is a positive thing in a husband/wife relationship.
Fluid hierarchy, yes (meaning different spouses being in charge of different things, sure). Cemented hierarchy, no.
Respecting eachother? Yes. Running over eachother (or being run over), no.
In fairness, I believe that the Bible can be interpreted to totally support patriarchy and complementarianism. It’s just that I also believe it can be fairly interpreted to support egalitarianism. I studied these things out right, left, backwards, forwards, and concluded that depending on how I *interpreted,* I could support either side! Yipes. That left the decision to me: how to interpret the Scriptures on my place as a woman?
In the end, I used Genesis 1-3 and the Gospels as my “base” guide for interpreting the other passages. In Gen. 1-3 we see no mention of hierarchy until the Fall. In the Gospels, we see Jesus treating women in a manner VERY different from the patrios. This gave me insight on how to interpret the “tough” passages, with the goal being to do so carefully, always in a manner that didn’t require twisting or erasing them. In the end, I feel I have a very satisfactory positional base from Scripture.
I am not infallible. Meaning, I may be totally wrong. But I’m making a judgement based on a lot of thought, prayer, and study. In the end, that’s really all we can do.
I know all the arguments for male leadership, including the famous, “But if there’s no one leading, how will you make difficult decisions?”
My very blunt response to that is if two Christians can’t figure out how to work together under the leadership of Christ, walking in the Spirit, then there’s certainly no hope for the church at large.
“I think the biggest difference in my attitude toward submission came when I saw my husband at work. He is a military officer, and I will never forget the first time I saw him being “talked to” by his superior (in front of me!) and he, very dignified, responded, “yes, sir; yes, sir,” and then went about his day. His pride was not offended – he understood that his “person” wasn’t being slighted. He took it so graciously that I was ashamed of myself! He certainly never “talked to” me that way, but I got all huffy over the slightest hint of direction. It totally changed me. Yet again, the best way to teach someone is BY EXAMPLE! I would challenge men to find ways to MODEL submission in front of their wives, be it at work, church, government, etc.”
What a great point this is!
I totally agree with Molleth on this point: “My very blunt response to that is if two Christians can’t figure out how to work together under the leadership of Christ, walking in the Spirit, then there’s certainly no hope for the church at large.”
Hutch – thanks for the link. That was an outstanding post. I appreciate all the work that went into it.
Richard-
Thanks for dropping by-it was a helpful and valuable exercise for my wife and I to go through.
Anne2, as you phrased it, I agree with you, too. I don’t think ANY human being ought to be designated as THE “in charge” person in a Christian relationship (between adults, at any rate). Any of us might have charge of certain areas of service, as in, the “expert” or the one with the most experience. But the whole “in charge” question, I think, reflects a worldly understanding of authority. The Christian ought to understand and experience authority radically differently than the worldly positional power that demands hierarchies and titles and “in charge-ness.”
God-given authority is always the authority to serve, and every Christian has it. It is the empowerment to serve effectively. No, nobody does it perfectly, and yes, the world encroaches and sometimes overwhelms us with its love of power and control and hierarchy. Our churches especially tend to reflect this, and in many — even those that claim NOT to be hierarchal in their structure, they are preferring some over others, giving undue honor due to positional prestige, and then they teach that such things ought also to be practiced in marriage, so that submission and “leadership” are unilateral and mutually exclusive.
The fruits tend to show the heart’s treasure for what it really is. If the result is power-hungry pastors and elders who run “their” churches like corporate businesses, who teach their flocks that men and men alone must be “in charge” because they’re men, if parents are being taught to assert their “authority” by means of the rod (PVC pipe? Switches?) or else they’re bad, unchristian parents, well…it says a lot about what’s valued in such churches, IMO.
“I would challenge men to find ways to MODEL submission in front of their wives, be it at work, church, government, etc.”
This was a great statement, IMO. To put it a lot more snarkily, if submission is such a positive thing for women to practice, one wonders why so few men set the example.”
Why should husbands model submission in front of their wives? To show them how it’s done?
“Why should husbands model submission in front of their wives? To show them how it’s done?”
Because we are called by God to submit to each other. In a sense, it is to show them how it’s done… but the same could easily be said for us women.
Jennifer said, “Why should husbands model submission in front of their wives? To show them how it’s done?”
LOL! I certainly didn’t mean that! More as how one Christian models something for another. Men love to talk about women submitting, and maybe some even talk about “submitting to one another,” but few rarely talk about how they as men are called as well to be submissive. Maybe the man-woman thing is a gray area for some, but there are plenty of other opportunities. How about submitting to the law of the land by driving the speed limit? (or at least near it). Or submitting to the government by cheerfully paying taxes to support it? It’s all about the heart, right? Just seems that men get a lot more of a free pass in American-Christian culture to be stubborn and independent. For me, when I see my husband being gracious and submitting, it shows me that he understands how it feels, and he would never take advantage of it. It creates trust.
Thanks, Rob. Darn right, do some men love harping about submission! Yech. I don’t believe hierarchy has any place in a marriage anyway.
You know, I forgot to add, on the men-submitting thing (comment 48) this is a huge red flag for me with VF. The entrepreneur thing. Not that some people don’t have unique opportunities to be entrepreneurs, but to make it a tenet of their lifestyle? I remember reading about one VF husband who was fresh out of law school (maybe a year?) and decided it was time to make good God’s call on his life to start his own practice. ??? Maybe it was a genuine opportunity, but when I hear such emphasis on “my own business” what I really hear is “I have a problem with authority.” What about paying your dues and working hard to learn the ropes? What about learning from those over you in the business? These men can’t stand for ANYONE to tell them what to do. Maybe it’s the military life I’ve absorbed, but I really appreciate how in the military, you work and work and serve those over you, and maybe, maybe, if you’re lucky, one day you get to be the one in charge. And hopefully when you get there you realize that your main purpose is to take care of the ones below. Anyway, just a thought.
That’s supposed to comment 48 , there in comment 50. Darn computer being smarter than me!
Jennifer,
Instead of using the “g” word you could always use the patriocentric-approved term- “unsheathed sword”.
To everyone else, some of the most rebellious people I have met are patriocentrists. They make problems for the elders/leaders in the church and refuse to submit to them. Then they split churches with their insubordination and refusal to submit and play nice with others. They start their own churches. They have problems amongst themselves and then split again. They are the ones making problems in homeschool organizations and causing major splits in them. They can never just SUBMIT. They always have to be in charge.
For all the talk about authority and submission, they sure don’t actually practice what they preach.
We have rogue patriarchalist pastors running around thumbing their noses at the authorities who had the audacity to expect them to follow! Then, when they get kicked out for good reason, they go and start up their own little rebellious sects, further dividing the Body of Christ.
And then we could get into the business practices of some patriocentrists. Again, more examples of lack of submission.
I am not too impressed with the example of submission that comes from the patriocentrists.
Psalmist is right, if submission is such a great thing, why aren’t they jumping on the band wagon?
They must really think we are stupid. It is like trying to get my little children to take their medicine and I pretend to take a sip of it and they can see the disgust on my face. They aren’t buying it and neither do I.
“My very blunt response to that is if two Christians can’t figure out how to work together under the leadership of Christ, walking in the Spirit, then there’s certainly no hope for the church at large.”
Amen, Molleth! I am still convinced that the Bible teaches that we are to be self-governed, controlled from within. Because of the Holy Spirit, we have the freedom needed in order to be self-governed. There is no need for a “tie-breaker” or one person always exerting their will over another when two people are walking in the Spirit.
“unsheathed sword”, Corrie? Are you telling me that the patriocentrists actually call their penises unsheathed swords?? Oh God-do I laugh or gag?
Heck, I’ll probably do both.
And I would have thought that term pretty sexy if it weren’t coined by the patrio-cults. Too bad; now if my future man ever calls his equipment that, I’ll have to bury my head in the pillow to keep from laughing.
Corrie wrote: “I am still convinced that the Bible teaches that we are to be self-governed, controlled from within. Because of the Holy Spirit, we have the freedom needed in order to be self-governed. There is no need for a “tie-breaker” or one person always exerting their will over another when two people are walking in the Spirit.’
WOW … your whole comment post is excellent! I especially liked the above bit.
The “men don’t submit” principle inherent in patriarchy is based, once again, on an immature obsession with sex differences and, perhaps, an insecurity with one’s own sexual adequacy. (MY hypothesis.)
Men and women are different. (What a “duh” level concept!) So far, so good.
But in patriarchy, men being different from women must be absolute. That’s why they invent long, complicated, legalistic lists of what men are like and what women are like, and why they’re polar opposite lists.
So if it’s a virtue for women to be submissive, then it’s anathema for men to be submissive.
That’s why virtually all the fruit of the Spirit wind up on the “pink” lists and why you have boorish, arrogant traits being commended for the boys. I suspect it’s also why they’re making such a business of accusations of “feminizing men/boys” in church, schools, society in general, etc. When reasonable people expect both boys and girls, men and women, to be courteous, humble, respectful, loving, kind, and other “feminine” things that are actually signs of civilized human beings, these wingnuts think that it’s an outrageous demand, that we’re “stifling” our boys and “emasculating” our men.
Uh, no. We just expect Christians — male AND female — to behave like mature, well-adjusted human beings. Which is why I believe that patriarchy is essentially incompatible with the Christian faith.
I would suggest that they keep it “sheathed” in public. As Bruce Willis once wisely stated, “a gentlemen never unsheaths his dagger in the presence of a lady.” Hmmm.
Dang Psalmist, I love you! So perfectly and wonderfully said!
Psalmist, I meant to ask you: may I quote your excellent words in one of my reviews for a patriarchal book?? Please? I’ve never seen patriarchal obsession summed up so perfectly.
If you wish, Jennifer, you’re certainly welcome to use whatever I’ve posted here.
About the “unsheathed sword” thing, it’s a reference to one of the Bayly brothers (they both contribute to the same blog and I forget which one worded it that way) imagining men being questioned by God in eternity about why they kept their swords sheathed from their lovers’ (wives’ ) wombs. I guess in a male-idolatrous worldview (and heaven view?), even God is obsessed with human sexuality.
And I don’t think I’ve mentioned here or at TW about the subject of one of Bill Mouser’s later books, “The Story of Sex in Scripture.” (Mouser is the imaginer/author of the “Five Aspects” stuff, if you’ve ever heard of them. Very strictly segregated hierarchalist stuff; men are the image of God, but women are the image of man kinds of nonsense.) Anyway, according to Mouser, God is engaged in “cosmic sex” with creation. This guy, a priest in a small anglican sect here in the US (Mouser himself is in Texas), actually believes this paganistic stuff and calls egalitarian Christians “heretics” who commit the unpardonable sin by calling patriarchy evil.
I am totally serious in my belief that such people are engaging in idolatry. I’m also serious in my theory that they’re stuck in some early adolescent stage of development, obsessed as their writings reveal them to be with sexual activity and sex differences. God willing, they’ll grow out of their obsession SOOOOON (please, God) and publicly repent of the harm they do, as leaders of Christian churches, to the true body of Christ.
Psalmist, I totally agree, and thank you!!!
I love our sweet Psalmist.
^ (blushes furiously)
Thanks, my friends. Y’all are very good for my ego, you know. And as a woman, an ego is a very bad thing to have; the patriarchalist tell us so!