Genesis, Submission & Modern Wives

Actually the phrase is "the woman is the glory of the man" not "the woman is the image of the man." Genesis 1:27 clearly identifies both the male and female as "man" and as image bearers.

Ge 1:27  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So the imagio dei in woman is not in any sense derivative. The point of 1Cor.11 is authority.

There's no avoiding it, I'm afraid. Everything evangelical becomes an issue in the fundamentalist subset sooner or later... more sooner than later I think, given current trends. There's just so much more cross pollination, so to speak. In my experience, egalitarian ideas (including the feminist variety) have deeply penetrated the American psyche, and fundamentalism hasn't really shown immunity to it.

The fact that we've got the ugliest sort of male bigotry at one end hasn't protected us from having really goofy egalitarian thinking at the same time... to be logically inconsistent is human?

But it sounds to me like what you're reacting to is an emphasis, not really a set of arguments. What happens when we encounter a widespread and/or fast-growing error is that we have to emphasize certain things in reaction to it. Of course, there's always a temptation of overemphasis, and us traditional complementarians have to watch out for that. (It sets us up for a future generation that flushes the baby with the bathwater).

But if we look at the arguments themselves and isolate them from discomfort with emphasis, etc., how do they hold up?

The naming idea is not one I've heard before, and I'll admit to being skeptical of eternal submission in the Trinity (but at the same time, eternal sonship has to mean something as does eternal spiritship, if you will). But I don't think the thesis depends on these arguments.

Either way, they're worth exploring. It's entirely possible that naming was a vehicle for expressing authoritative-submission relationships except when a deity was involved. It wouldn't be the first time different rules applied to deities (whether false or True).

To me, what the Trinitarian argument speaks best to is our assumption that subordination is inherently demeaning. That idea is Purdom's main target I think... and it is an idea very much at the heart of what's wrong w/egalitarianism in general and feminism in particular.

two interesting articles on a related topic, and posting is not my stamp of approval, but it is something to think about:

http://www.whitbyforum.com/2012/09/identity-mapping.html

http://www.whitbyforum.com/2012/09/not-american-book.html

Aaron,

Thanks for breaking my concerns into the relevant issues. You're right that there are several different issues in play, but like ingredients in a soup, they still interact and "flavor" each other.

Let me pursue this a bit more.

1) Overemphasis on reacting to feminism in conservative circles has lead conservatives to have a unbalanced view of gender and it's significance. Complementarianism has become primarily about a women's role in the home, the church, and society, not a truly complete teaching on gender. So you have churches where the women, who are good, loving, gentle, submissive, godly women, are being presented over and over again with the need to submit to men and it becomes almost impossible for them to think of themselves as whole human beings. They automatically default to gender identity. And yet, they really were doing pretty well--but now, in an attempt to avoid feminism (which never really was a significant issue in their context), they are overthinking, overanalyzing everything to determine if it would in ANY way usurp male headship. (I know of at least two situations close to me where men are leading the women's Bible study.)

I liken it to American's preoccupation with bottled water--we are a nation with a clean, reliable water source. You can safely drink out of tap faucets almost everywhere and yet we insist on individually bottled water consuming time and resources that should be invested where there is a legitimate lack of water availability.

2) Issue of clarity: I feel like we're missing the whole point of submission and headship. We are actually beginning to think and behave as if proper gender roles themselves will proclaim the Gospel, when the truth is that the Gospel informs gender--not the other way around. There are plenty of traditions and cultures that have male headship and female submission which are completely devoid of Christ.

What we MUST do then is clarify exactly what we mean, build the whole paradigm, before we jump to specific applications like submission and authority. So much of comp teaching completely skips love and grace and service and all the other elements that truly undergird Gospel relationships in favor of authority/submission paradigms. I completely believe in headship and submission but not as ends in and of themselves. 

3) Accuracy of teaching: Complementarianism is being reduced to proof-texting. Certain passages are highlighted and then the rest of Scripture is convoluted to fit the pre-conceived idea. For example, Gen 1-3 is commonly being handled (in this article, the issue of Adam naming) in a way that does not flow from a face value reading of the text (which leads you to an awe at the creative nature of God and the image of God is us) but in trying to tease out a gender paradigm and prove that this is someway the most essential thing about our humanity. And when was the last time that a comp handled Deborah without bashing her or Miriam or Phoebe or Abigail for that matter. The Scripture offers such robust teaching about gender, and I want it all.

I'm not saying that egals don't do the same thing. I'm just loosing confidence in the rhetoric that comps are employing and finding myself in no man's land as a result. 

I guess maybe defining complementariamism is a sticky thing--like defining fundamentalism. A lot of the time it does come down to your individual experience--are you an IFB fundy, a BJU fundy, a Pensacola fundy, etc. So maybe I'm just getting distracted by people who use the word complementarian and then function in a way that is more patriarchal.

This blog post points out the practical difficulty of defining complementarianism: 

http://www.thatmom.com/2012/07/13/will-the-real-complementarian-please-stand-up-2/

I echo her concern in the last paragraph:

And here is my biggest concern about this label that no one really knows how to explain or apply in practical terms…..it is now being interlaced with the Gospel message. It is no longer just Doug Phillips who has declared that one must believe, teach, and live “biblical patriarchy” to be faithful to Christ. Now mainline pastors and conference speakers are telling us that the very Gospel itself is at risk if we don’t adhere to their particular brand of complementarianism, a term that even they cannot define. This sort of nebulous instruction and confusing rhetoric only sets people up for failure.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with a Mary Kassian complementarianism. My understanding of self must start with shared human experience and then progresses to gender and then to specific applications for differing roles within that. I understand myself first and foremost as a human being made in the image of God who submits to Him first, then as a woman, then a wife and mother. Not a wife and mother first. Or even a woman first. 

Given this paradigm, I am primarily under the authority of Christ not my husband. (Meaning, my submission flows first and foremost from my relationship to Christ, not simply because my husband is a man and I am a woman but because I am a follower of Christ.) And my husband's leadership must flow from his humanity being under the authority of Christ not primarily  in authority over me because of his maleness.  Only once this foundation is established can you move onto meaningful and helpful discussion of submission within marriage. But if you don't clearly establish this first, you reduce submission and authority to gender, and people begin to see hierarchy, not as issuing from Christ, but from our own maleness and femaleness.  And by default, our gender comes to define our sense of identity instead of Christ. This is what I mean by innaccurate/incomplete teaching of gender and wholeness and submission. 

Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. These things can get lengthy and I don't want to drag out the conversation any more than you have time for.

Yes, patriarchy is another thing entirely... though I think they have a couple of things right.

Have to agree that sometimes "complementarian" is claimed by teaching that doesn't fit it... or that is unlike mainstream complementarianism. I've seen patriarchists claim it and also seen evangelical feminists claim it (or at least folks who were much closer to EF than true complementarianism).

About how the authority and submission part works... to me, it's like anything else in a Christian's life when you compare it to the form it takes in an unbeliever's life.

Unbelievers ought to be good stewards of their property, practice the golden rule, embrace clean living, etc. because life is better that way (both in terms of typical results and in the logic of "what sort of world we want to live in").

For a believer, these choices are that and yet profoundly different, because it's now all about Christ. The self-interest angle is not evil. It's just spiritually useless for a person who is not rightly related to God. For a new creation in Christ, self-interest is slowly merged with service of Christ. Merged because we love Him, and one thing love does (maybe the thing) is make self and non-self indistinguishable in our catalog of concerns. I'm not saying it very well this AM, I think, but the gist is that to the degree I love Christ, what I want "for myself" is to please Him.

Anyway, replace stewardship, golden rule and clean living with submission to legitimate authority and all the same things apply. It's not special, really. 

The question of what relationships are inherently authoritative-submissive relationships is another one... and a complex one, seems to me.

We have clear revelation that these are authoritative-submissive relationships:

1. Citizen to government (Rom. 13)
2. Children to parents (Eph 6)
3. Slaves to masters (Col 3:22)
4. Learners to official teachers in the church (1 Tim. 2:12)
5. Wives to husbands (Eph 5.22)

It's pretty clear even from #1, that once we've identified a legitimate authoritative-submissive relationship, we're only half way there because every one of these A-S relationships has boundaries, beyond which it is not legitimate/doesn't operate. For #1, we have Acts 5:29, and the boundary there is so broadly worded it applies in one or another to all the rest. When we get to #3 we instinctively recoil because we hate slavery but for now note that we have Eph. 6:9 directly addressing limits on that A-S relationship (and changing it a good bit relative to how slavery was generally understood in that day). 

#4 is worded oddly compared to the rest. Did that on purpose because the passage does not teach a "women submissive to men in the church" relationship. It teaches a submission to teachers then identifies that role as belonging to men in the church whenever men are included among the learners. Paul argues from the order of creation that the comprehensively authoritative teaching of the church is a role for men. The passage is controversial, but my understanding is that 1Tim2.11 is meant to clarify 2:12 not describe a different A-S relationship (all women in the church to all men in the church). It defines a "male teacher to both male and female learner" relationship.

Anyway, I think it helps a great deal to look at the A-S relationship of husband and wife in the context of other A-S relationships. They are all variations of the same thing.

Hi, thanks for the reply.

I think your illustration with the kids doesn't work because it isn't created order but birth order and consequent maturity that motivates you to delegate some authority to the older child. I get your point about limited authority, but I think that all complementarians I have read would tend to support limitations on authority. (That is, the main teachers of the point of view... followers on blogs, etc, might be a different matter.)

Now, as to your last paragraph, quoted above, I think we are confusing some passages. The two main passage on wifely submission are Eph 5.22ff. and 1 Pt 3.1ff. In Ephesians, Paul uses a metaphor for wifely submission: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church" and the metaphor is stated as the reason for wifely submission. It is because the husband is the head of the wife. The wife is then called to submit "as the church is subject to Christ".

In Peter, the wife is called to be submissive to her husband  "In the same way" as saints have returned to submit to Christ: 1 Pt 2.25 (For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.) Peter goes on in the following verses (1 Pt 3.2-6) to describe how that submission is to take place, what it is to look like.

A couple of things to note: nowhere in these passages do the apostles appeal to creation order. Instead they appeal to metaphors as to the kind of attitude that needs to be adopted, "as the church to Christ", "in the same way the believer to Christ". If we are talking about wifely submission, then, we aren't so much taught why as how.

So at this point, I think I have less problem with your original statement (a few posts back) than I thought.

However, when it comes to order in the church (and perhaps by extension in society), the apostle does appeal to creation order as to the why (1 Cor 11.8-9, 1 Tim 2.11-13). Since this doctrine is based on pre-fall conditions, I don't see how you can say it will one day be obsolete. It is part of God's design of the universe. The idea of wifely submission will be obsolete because there is no giving of marriage in heaven, Jesus said. But it does not follow that God's created order is meaningless or non-enduring. A brief reflection about scenes in heaven in the book of Revelation makes me think that the people of God are still male-led (elders). I don't want to take the time to read through the whole book at the moment, so I'll leave it at that.

Finally, as to husbands demanding submission, I have always taught our men that their wive's submission is demanded of them by God, the verses weren't given to men for men to demand anything. They have their own problems as soon as we hit Eph 5.25ff. and 1 Pt 3.7. They need to get the beam out of their own eyes before they can demand anything.

Hope that helps some.

BTW, I am unsure of your first name and feel uncomfortable addressing you by your last name, hence my generic opening.

I don't think there's much to reasonably disagree with in what Hannah's talking about in post 14.  I don't see the distinction between "created order" and delegated authority as amounting to much in itself (the vested/delegated authority is expressed in the created order), but she's right that the difference matters from the man's pt. of view.

Where it matters is that "I call the shots because I'm a man" is a different attitude from "I call the shots because the One in authority over me has given me that responsibility." Worlds apart. The latter recognizes (a) that authority is always a means to an end and it goes with responsibility and (b) that there is truly accountability for the use of authority.

I think it would be impossible to make the case from Scripture that the husband-wife authoritative-submissive relationship would continue in the eternal state. Jesus gives us reason to believe marriage itself is a non-eternal phenomenon.

At the same time, though, if we understand that there is no devaluing or demeaning or oppressing inherent in being under authority, there is no reason to object to there being authoritative-submissive relationships in eternity.

There will have to be some, if the passages referring to reigning with him mean anything (unless those passages are limited to Millennium or some other non-eternal aspect of the kingdom).

But this is too much to conclude...

Since this doctrine is based on pre-fall conditions, I don't see how you can say it will one day be obsolete. It is part of God's design of the universe.

We aren't told that even pre-Fall conditions in the creation are necessarily eternal. And it's also not obvious that Paul's creation-order argument means "created submissive-authoritative." He may well mean that the created order foreshadows the leadership of men in the church (and that Eve's being deceived foreshadows the teaching role of men in the church). It would be hard to prove that this is what Paul means but is equally hard to prove it is not what he means.

In any case, we're just speculating when we get into how relationships will work after the eschaton.

and I'll add one additional thought and then be done unless either of you disagree with it.

I encountered the idea recently that the significance of headship (as a general concept) needs to be tied more directly to Christ's headship--specifically His ability to represent and atone for the sins of mankind on the cross. The concern was that as much as headship does teach us about the Trinity, it's more essential that we understand it in terms of  our salvation. Here's the crux:  if headship began with Adam (humanly speaking), it is fulfilled in Christ. And that is why we mirror and model it through marriage.

FWIW

This particular argument didn't come from a "gospel-centered" or egalitarian source. I too am suspicious of the (often) convoluted attempts to make everything "gospel-centered"--I have a running joke with my husband that if you put "gospel" in front of anything, conservatives will accept it blindly. (Gospel-centered potlucks, gospel-centered building programs, gospel-centered ipads, and the list goes on...)

No, what was at stake for me was giving a little more footing to something (gender dynamics) that can seem somewhat arbitrary. You yourself admitted that there's no specific reason why God would place men in position of headship over women, except that this was His design. And while I'm quite willing to accept that the hidden things belong to God, I also know that many of our core doctrines came from pressing into things that once were considered "unclear."

For me, it's not a matter of rushing to egalitarianism--I think we must be careful not to categorize new ways of looking at gender as automatically inconsistent with the old, and thus liberal. The reason this approach stuck in my mind was because it took all the pieces of the puzzle (both federal headship and headship in authority structure) and gave them a way to relate. I recognize that they are not necessarily the same thing, but I wanted to tease out the elements that both shared in order to gain a fuller understanding of headship as a general concept. Because if we don't understand what headship is in the first place, we can't understand how to apply in marriage, the church, or society.

Post title sounds like some kind of barber shop thing...

Oh well. I've read of several views of what headship means. Some of them are obviously trying way, way too hard to avoid simpler solutions. One argues that "head" is also the word for the source of a stream and therefore headship is about provision and nurturing, not authority. Several others that I don't remember now were similarly unconvincing because they all relied--one form or another--on a false disjunction. That is, they took aspects of headship and tried to say we have to choose between the aspect and the main idea: either-or.

My own view is that the headship concept is complex (in the nuances) but that authority is never absent from it and is probably the "main" idea. Still, Christ, the head of the church gives Himself to redeem her. And a reference to the husband's headship is in the same text (the Eph. 5 one). So there's a protection/provision idea there, clearly. It's just that this aspect doesn't in any way conflict with the simplest explanation: that a head makes decisions for its body. It's not either-or, but both-and.

(I think a similar weakness applies to the federal headship idea: they're over thinking it. It's simpler than that.)

Or Aaron, to avoid the barbershop thing, you could go with a medical aphorism, such as "When you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras".

... I don't think I can disagree with anything there.

Since the biblical view of authority is that it's something that arises from responsibility, and the responsibility is truly a service... the serving involved and headship and the authority involved in headship sort of disappear into eachother.

i am generally complementarian, though, like many calvinists, i would have to explain personally what i mean by that. 

a few things i don't like about how complementarianism is sometimes presented or lived out: 

1. that marital status marks your usefulness or status in the church. I don't think it's everywhere, but there are churches where this is really a big issue--that a woman, for example, is more accepted when she is married. I remember reading someone's blog and she was thinking how she was longing to be married so she could feel more a part of the church. That's way sad. 

2. I think that the reality of what Paul was addressing in his letters is that being a wife and mother is the normal calling/role for women, just as being a husband/father is for men. It's not special or "high" in that sense. it's just the normal condition women will find themselves in. Our reaction to the feminist movement has blown that way, way out of proportion scripturally. 

3. i think that in different cultures, the level of felt hierarchy/submission in marriage can be vastly different. In a culture where women have few personal freedoms and are married off very young, maybe not even that educated, the hierarchy would probably be much more felt. in western cultures, in a normal marriage, i don't think the submission/hierarchy thing is very felt. In fact, the patriarchy camp is trying really hard to change their culture so women are more dependent, less educated and mobile so the hierarchy thing is more "real."

this also depends on the individuals. I know several men "called" to be missionaries, but their wives couldn't deal with it. So they're not missionaries. Where's the hierarchy there? Vitaliy, my husband, deals with this, too. We're planning on moving out to a village, but he's not going to do it if I drag my feet or can't handle it. Some of it is a choice to submit, maybe more to God's will than Vitaliys, but other parts of it is just who I am and my background. Can I hack living in a Ukrainian village? We'll see I hope so.

I porbly have more thoughts, no surprize, but that's it 4 now.  

I completely agree with your about addressing men as fathers as strongly as we are addressing women as mothers. These are both holy occupations and it seems that we have emphasized one as an exclusive occupation while not the other.

And yes to your third point as well. In my marriage, I don't chafe or wrestle under hierarchy or submission--it's simply not a question most of the time. As I don't think it would be when two people are honestly seeking to love and sacrifice for one another as we are called to in Scripture. We've been in similar situations about having to make difficult decisions and at times, ones that I haven't agreed with. But I have always loved my husband and when something is significant to him, of course I submit to his leadership. (Although I do follow it with the caveat, that we both know that he is responsible for the decision however it turns out.

I get frustrated when I see godly women--who by and large are doing a fantastic job--being pressured and burdened by strict patriarchal positions. These women are already sensitive to the Holy Spirit so when someone speaks in "God's name" and questions the details of how their home operates, they feel inordinate and unnecessary pressure. This is when husbands really need to stand up and protect their wives from this kind of manipulative influence. An ideal opportunity to exercise headship in my mind and a wonderful chance for a women to submit herself to her husband's leading, despite her emotions that may tell she is somehow not spiritual enough because of xyz behavior.

We, generally speaking, understand that segments of the patriarchal movement, (if not all of it), are problematic. But maybe you haven't seen some of the teaching and conditioning that is taught by many who DON'T consider themselves patriarchal, so you don't recognize the point of this paragraph. Maybe you are scratching your head and wondering if some of us are tilting at windmills. 

But when you've witnessed women being called rebels and heifers because they gave their husband driving directions or reminded him of something important that he has forgotten, then you understand why men and women need to know the proper balance of authority and humility. I've witnessed women being berated over very minor things that, quite frankly, were none of the pastor's business. How a woman helps her husband should largely be a private matter, and the only time anyone else needs to intervene is if there are serious spiritual or moral implications in the way they interact. Telling your husband that he forgot to button down his collar does not make a woman a Jezebel. I. Am. Not. Exaggerating. And I thank God every day that my husband never bought into that mess.

That said, even if a woman is being unsubmissive, is the appropriate response of authority to start calling her names and go all Scarlet Letter on her? 

Many, MANY women I've known over the years strive to be submissive under almost impossible circumstances, and they get beaten down, emotionally and spiritually, to a pulp. It's subtle but pervasive. Authority for us as human beings should be a very humbling and awe-inspiring responsibility, not an opportunity to manipulate, dominate, and control. Grasping that authority has a deep spiritual meaning and an eternal purpose should act as a balance and even edge us toward the exercise of authority as loving guidance, nurturing, and protection. Only God is given the authority to judge men's souls, and just because the husband is compared to Christ doesn't mean he gets to try to apply that analogy to its fullest extent. 

See, I think that's another huge mistake comps can make--making submission the main aspect of the wife's way of relating to her husband. it makes for a seriously cock-eyed relationship (in our culture, esp.) and why women get so confused. like if you husband is sinning, its more helpful to search out how to love him rather than how am i submitting to or whether or not I should submit to such-and-such. the love question has a much more encompassing presentation of answers and choices and obligations. 

Without proper limitations, even inside the home-headship dynamic, people become little more than marionettes with 12 different people pulling their strings, and no voice of the Lord or moving of the Spirit for all the ruckus. 

I'm lucky to have a husband who (for good or bad ) isn't that easily influenced by peer pressure.  But you're right --in the end, it does come down to an issue of soul liberty and teaching men that headship involves courage and the fortitude to seek God's will for your home and then to stick by it.

During our Bible lesson today, the kids and I were talking about peer pressure. The idea that peer pressure is unique to youth is patently silly and potentially harmful. We experience pressure to conform to societal standards throughout our lives- and I use the word 'societal' in the sense of our church culture as well as 'American culture' or 'Western culture'. We need to instill a Godly sense of confidence (established in faith and character) in our kids so that they won't be blown around by various theological winds now and when they become adults.