Love and Marriage (without the Horse and Carriage)

And if the temperaments were reversed and his shoulders slightly rose, his breath on the intake, and his posture leaning forward, would your toe nudge to him, giving him understanding of your objection, be confused as role-playing or simply the attitude of loving relationship? Would his silent understanding of your objection and deferring to that be labeled sin in role-reversal or merely wisdom of mutual trust? Praise God for mutual submission in loving relationship! Not only should we not major on the hierarchical role-playing, we shouldn’t even bring it into the conversation where it should not exist at all.

Loved this post when I saw it your blog, Hannah.

Dan… I think you’re right that this kind of thing can go in both directions in a healthy relationship. It can’t work, though, if a wife has created a dynamic of nagging (which is ultimately disrespect) or if the husband has created a dynamic of oppression (which is also, ultimately, disrespect.)

Personally, I don’t think it’s properly termed “mutual submission,” but that’s a quibble.

[handerson] That’s precisely what’s at stake—the healthy relationship. And it’s precisely what we are sacrificing if we rely on “roles.” FWIW, both to warn and to heed a warning are acts of love. And if done in the right way, I most certainly would feel free to nudge my husband if he were stepping onto dangerous ground. Free and obligated to.

Yes, and you should encourage/admonish your husband. Just because we (men) lead, doesn’t mean that we’re immune to correction (although it would be nice if that were the case!). Dr. Ollila joked, when I was a student at NBBC, that wifely submission is ‘learning to get out of the way so God can hit your husband’, and there’s a lot of truth in that joke.

Recently there was a conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Thomas White spoke on “The Biblical Foundation for Gender Roles.” When explaining that Adam and Eve did not share equally in the responsibility for the fall and thus were not equal in their roles (meaning Adam was her head before the fall) White said,

God told Adam it was because of him that the ground was cursed … Why did God not include Eve in that curse if they shared equally in the sin? Instead, Eve is cursed on her God-given role before the fall. She’s cursed on her roles as a mother and as a helper… .

I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.

http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=confere…

[Brenda T] Recently there was a conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Thomas White spoke on “The Biblical Foundation for Gender Roles.” When explaining that Adam and Eve did not share equally in the responsibility for the fall and thus were not equal in their roles (meaning Adam was her head before the fall) White said,

God told Adam it was because of him that the ground was cursed … Why did God not include Eve in that curse if they shared equally in the sin? Instead, Eve is cursed on her God-given role before the fall. She’s cursed on her roles as a mother and as a helper… .

I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.

http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=confere…

That is a rather surprising misstep. I have found that people who do not understand administrative subordination usually think of authority and subordination in a personal manner instead of an administrative one. Hence, they have a negative view of its construct as if such a construct is inherently indicative of something wrong. And this may be the erring basis of this claim by White.

Christ clearly subordinated himself to the plan of the Father, it was not personal but administrative (for those not understanding the use of the word “personal” here and believe it means something it does not because the word itself is often misused thereby has developed a certain kind of common misunderstanding, the word’s use here means that Christ’s person was not submitting to the person of the Father because his person (Christ’s) was less than that of the Father’s as is the case of our’s with the Godhead).

There is an administrative subordination in the Trinity in which even God the Holy Spirit submits to the will of both God the Father and God the Son, yet all retain their Divinity without compromise. So if this is the motivation of White’s claim, that to be subordinate as Eve was to Adam, indicates some kind of curse, I believe he faces the problem of the Triune construct and its administrative execution.

The Son submits to the Father specifically related to the mission of redemption. That is an administrative role and not personal. But if you remove the mission and declare without qualification that one person of the Trinity is eternally subordinate to another person of the Trinity, you have tied role inextricably to person rather than mission and have thus made it personal, which of course is changing the concept of Trinity into tritheism. Authority and subordination always involve the will. If the eternal will of the Son could possibly be different from the eternal will of the Father so that the Son must constantly submit his eternally separate and different will to the Father’s, we may be left wondering what it is that makes the Godhead one. Defining the oneness of the Godhead merely as similar characteristics albeit separate and different wills again causes a drift into tritheism. But now we have also veered off from Hannah’s article, so I’m going to back off here.

I agree that the idea of ‘roles’, as we tend to think of them, create boundaries that are not necessary or Scriptural. Wives in Scripture are to be submissive, but not to the negation of answering for themselves. Sapphira didn’t get to say “I was just submitting to Ananias” before she hit the carpet. Aquilla and Priscilla are depicted as a team.

This reminds me- a pastors I know say they only talk to/counsel with husbands, not to wives. If there is any kind of problem or concern, they will not speak to the husband with the wife present, and they use Numbers 30 and 1 Cor. 14:35 as their proof text.

[Dan Salter] The Son submits to the Father specifically related to the mission of redemption. That is an administrative role and not personal. But if you remove the mission and declare without qualification that one person of the Trinity is eternally subordinate to another person of the Trinity, you have tied role inextricably to person rather than mission and have thus made it personal, which of course is changing the concept of Trinity into tritheism. Authority and subordination always involve the will. If the eternal will of the Son could possibly be different from the eternal will of the Father so that the Son must constantly submit his eternally separate and different will to the Father’s, we may be left wondering what it is that makes the Godhead one. Defining the oneness of the Godhead merely as similar characteristics albeit separate and different wills again causes a drift into tritheism. But now we have also veered off from Hannah’s article, so I’m going to back off here.

Good qualifier here. Thanks

[Brenda T] Recently there was a conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Thomas White spoke on “The Biblical Foundation for Gender Roles.” When explaining that Adam and Eve did not share equally in the responsibility for the fall and thus were not equal in their roles (meaning Adam was her head before the fall) White said,

God told Adam it was because of him that the ground was cursed … Why did God not include Eve in that curse if they shared equally in the sin? Instead, Eve is cursed on her God-given role before the fall. She’s cursed on her roles as a mother and as a helper… .

I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.

http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=confere…

Perhaps another reading is possible. He could be saying that before Adam was cursed; Eve was cursed; and each was cursed in accord with their roles. It is his wording “before the fall” that is the problem; I’m just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. The way I’m taking the words “before the fall” is not necessarily before the fall of Adam and Eve together, but I’m taking the words as before the judgment was leveled on her husband, God has already leveled her with her own judgment.

I may be wrong. I’m just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. And I have not listened to the link provided, and that would perhaps clarify. Certainly, his wording could have been better if one takes the “benefit of the doubt” view of his words. I’m just suggesting an alternative way of reading the words that is no longer a theological blunder.

[handerson] we’re quickly reaching a place where hierarchical roles are becoming THE ONLY way conservatives understand relationships between men and women.

How is this exclusion demonstrated among conservatives?

Not sure these are applicable, but..

I have heard a well loved, learned pastor say that the Proverbs 31 women asked her husband for permission before she bought the field.

Men aren’t too comfortable talking with women about ideas in groups settings even though all may hear the conversation and there is no questionable intent. Women are expected to gather together in another spot and talk nonsense. And if the women begin to gossip and cause trouble, well, “isn’t that what all women do?” is the mindset of the men in some churches.

I have seen pastors sitting near women at a church dinner whisper their conversation about current trends in fundamentalism as if women, especially those of the laity, aren’t capable of understanding or giving sound Biblical input.

Not to put the blame on men, mind you. Many women are happy acting mindlessly and letting responsibility for everything that happens fall on their husbands. They don’t understand their loving relationship to their husbands or what it means to “do him good and not evil”.

In the context of the quote I gave above, Dr. White was claiming that Eve’s eyes were not opened to her sin until Adam sinned — that Adam’s sin opened the eyes of them both at the same time. He also emphasized that God called out for Adam, not Eve, when they were hiding in the garden. And, after Adam responded, God told Adam what his judgment was - his curse. White made it sound like God never spoke his judgment or curse upon Eve after their sin, because her role had already been cursed before the fall.

You should listen to the recording; maybe I heard it wrong. I listened to it a couple of times through just to make sure I heard it right, because it really made me do a double take.

I’ve actually come to believe, over the last 8 years or so, that roles are not emphasized enough. (As a young man anticipating marriage, nobody even suggested to me how important it was for me and my bride to be to explore our understandings of our future roles as they relate to our genders. Until pretty recently, I didn’t give it much attention in pre-marital counseling either. I definitely would now.)

But I think what Hannah is onto here is the fact that the roles are a means to an end that is more important than the roles themselves. (Awkward sentence… sorry. Can’t see how to fix it just now.)

That doesn’t make role distinctions less important. It makes them more important. But without a clear vision of what they are for, they become grotesque parodies of themselves.

[Hannah] we have to remember that marriage was not made for roles but roles for the benefit of the marriage.

So my reasoning—I’m not sure if Hannah would agree—is that because the roles are for the benefit of the marriage, they are more important than they would be without that purpose. (At the same time, seeing that purpose as paramount acts as a remedy against wooden, or just stupid, execution of the roles).

I must say that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed before the fall. White’s statement is around the 31 minute mark.

http://www.swbts.edu/mediaresources/audioplayer.cfm?audioToPlay=conferen…

Whoa … need to be careful here so as not to misrepresent someone.

I think what he is actually saying is that Eve was cursed in motherhood and childbearing, which are the roles she had before the fall. He is not saying that she was cursed before the fall. “Before the fall” goes with “roles” not with “cursed.”

L Strickler/Hand

Thanks those were well articulated concerns. I was always taught the Commanding Officer/Executive Officer construct (husband CO, wife XO) which, while having the relationship of the roles administratively, in reality emphasizes the offices, their duties and their interdependence upon one another. Both husband and wife are family officers. While the CO is answerable to his responsibilities, the XO must account for hers. This places a burden on the CO to insure the XO can carry out the responsibilities/duties and privileges of her office to its fullest which includes a plethora of demands on the CO on her behalf. As well, the XO is also given severe demands which requires her constant thoughtfulness with regard to her office and the CO’s.

Of course this is not done militaristically and lest someone get the gist that the administrative construct carry with it the military form of deportment or disposition, don’t be so foolish and no such implications is being made. This is done in the context of a marriage in love, and more specifically, the love of Christ. This is simply a construct and I have found that what I was taught, the CO/XO construct, fits very excellently in carrying out the Divine intent.

So to your point. Most often in this construct the issue of subordination is somewhat anecdotal. In other words, a CO does not look at an XO like he would a Drill Instructor to a recruit which is the nightmarish scenario many bring up (and some have tried) with respect to husband/wife roles and their administrative design. The CO looks at the XO as an officer with the highest rank next to his. They are partner officers, in practical terms. Rarely does a CO pull “rank” or mention “rank” because the relationship is one of mutual respect, mutual objectives, mutual intent and so on. And the CO seeks to insure this kind of atmosphere in every way possible. A good CO treasures all of the gifts an XO has to offer.

So my experience was one that, so long as the administrative order of the offices were understood, the general execution of these offices rarely pulled “rank” since it was not necessary. It was not emphasized because it was not being contended with or abused.

Now if a man or woman is disoriented to this design then this will be a sticking point until they understand this construct. Therein may lie some of the complaints, but clearly not all. That is, sometimes the complaint about role emphasis comes from those who have yet to understand and accept them. But again, not always and yes, sometimes their emphasis is too great because there is a lack of substance on other matters unrelated to the administrative construct, by Teachers.

I do believe women get a very shot end of the stick sometimes. I was working on a blog article for my own blog titled, “Great Women of the Bible: No Thanks!”. The basis of it was the patronizing context so many of these books and conferences for women bring with them which treat women as spiritually lesser brethren (the generic use here). Their capacity for spiritual insight and/or spiritual understanding (never mind natural gifts, ability and wisdom) is given insulting treatment in some cases. And many women unwittingly adopt this premise of patronization in their methodology and/or approach toward one another, particularly in the church.

While not permitted to be ordained as Teachers within the church this is no comment whatsoever on their spiritual capacities (and since not even all men may be Teachers, only those gifted and qualified, if we were to accept the prohibition against women Teachers as one of spiritual subordination then those men who are not Teachers would suffer the same category but we know better than this and we have no such Popes). However, I am somewhat leaving the main topic here but this is to illustrate a point. Great faith is not male or female, it is spiritual. And when we permit the patronization of women in a spiritual context, at least, but in marriage as well, we rob them of much they have to offer and fail to execute our roles as those who are charged with insuring no such constructs arise and are permitted to exist which would, indeed, rob women of what God intends for them.

P.S. And when an XO is executing their office, no CO in their right mind fails to respect and yield to those contexts (i.e., mutual submission).

[Alex Guggenheim]…(i.e., mutual submission).

Grudem on http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/biblical_foundations/myth_mutual…] the myth of same .

Not sure he (and those he attempts to refute) are using it quite the same way as those here, though.

Whoa … need to be careful here so as not to misrepresent someone.

I think what he is actually saying is that Eve was cursed in motherhood and childbearing, which are the roles she had before the fall. He is not saying that she was cursed before the fall. “Before the fall” goes with “roles” not with “cursed.”

I’m not aiming to misrepresent someone, nor am I an egalitarian who took offense at what it sounded like White was saying. The entire context of his lecture was on gender roles, not marital or familial roles. The conference was about manhood and womanhood, not husbandhood/fatherhood and wifehood/motherhood. Even if someone wants to interpret his statement as meaning that Eve’s role as a wife and mother (not as a woman) were cursed before the fall, I still must say that this is the first time I’ve heard someone use the word “curse” with “before the fall” when talking about Eve and her role(s) prior to her eating the forbidden fruit.

this is the first time I’ve heard someone use the word “curse” with “before the fall” when talking about Eve and her role(s) prior to her eating the forbidden fruit.

I suppose I am only suggesting that I don’t think this was the “first time you heard it” because I don’t think you heard it here. “Curse” was not used with “before the fall.” “Before the fall” was used with roles. Listen to it again, perhaps. When you read the curse (which was clearly after the fall), the woman’s curse was with respect to childbearing and motherhood. Those were her roles before the fall, and those roles is where the curse affected her.

My only point is to urge a careful hearing on this. I don’t think he said what you attributed to him.

“Eve was cursed on her God given role before the fall”. Now that I have listened to the statement many times, it may well be (and it seems to be more in line with the context and the rest of what Dr. White is saying)that what he meant to say is:

Eve’s God given roles which she was given before the fall were cursed as a result of her fall.

I fully understand the confusion but restructuring the statement and supplying the intended understood qualifiers makes it clear. Obviously only White can answer to this but I am convinced, for now at least, this is what he meant. Thanks for the caution, Larry.

I don’t think he said what you attributed to him

I get that.

First, I think it would be helpful to the discussion if someone not presume to know what I have heard before and what I haven’t.

Second, here’s how a man writing for the http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6791/53/ Associated Baptist Press reported it

Defending a theology called complementarianism, which holds that men and women are both created in God’s image but assigned different roles, White rejected the “egalitarian” argument that the subjugation of women came as a result of the Fall and is something that Christ came to redeem.

“Eve was cursed on her God-given role before the fall,” White said. “She is cursed on her role as a mother and as a helper. She will have pain in childbirth, and her desire will be for her husband.”

Third, I listened to the entire lecture two times, not just that little snippet.

Now for my poem. Oh rats, I don’t have a poem. Isn’t that supposed to follow three points?

Aaron is right that marriage roles are very important and that both the roles, and the purpose behind the roles, must be taught. I am pretty sure that Handerson agrees. :)

Alex, your construct in post #18 is what my husband and I were taught as well.

We have tried to follow our biblical roles and God has blessed our home. But after 36 years of marriage, I realize my imperfections. I wish I was the Proverbs 31 wife every moment, but that isn’t reality. It is our loving oneness in Christ that allows us to cover the times we have failed each other. It is by His mercy that we are not consumed.

Some of my concerns are related to relationships among men and women in the church who are not married to each other. Women are to be under their husband’s authority and show proper respect for church leadership. In fact, I would say from experience that many church problems stem from a failure in this regard. But not all men are smarter or better leaders than than all women. Not all men are better at reasoning or less emotional than all women. Women should not be treated as second class Christians because of marriage roles or church leadership roles. It is a mindset, not God ordained structures, to which I object. Thank you Alex.

First, I think it would be helpful to the discussion if someone not presume to know what I have heard before and what I haven’t.

Just to clarify, so I am not misunderstood, I did not presume anything. You said you thought this was the first time you heard this. So I am taking you at your word that you haven’t heard it before, and I am suggesting that you didn’t hear it here either, because it isn’t what he said. I don’t see any way to construe his meaning, in context, as meaning that Eve’s role as a woman was cursed prior to the fall.

Second, here’s how a man writing for the Associated Baptist Press reported it

I think he gets it right. He quotes White: “She is cursed on her role as a mother and as a helper. She will have pain in childbirth, and her desire will be for her husband.” The curse on the woman was on her roles. Those roles were pre-fall. The curse came after the fall. He never says the curse was prior to the fall. I don’t understand how this is even confusing.

Now for my poem. Oh rats, I don’t have a poem. Isn’t that supposed to follow three points?

I only have two points so I am free from the obligation to produce a poem.

In light of these statements:

Maybe it’s time we remembered what it’s all about in the first place. The truth is that we were never made for roles; we were made for relationships.

My specific concern has more to do with the fact that we have reached a point in the discussion that we have forgotten that roles are not the point.

How do you view Gen. 2:18, (NASB)Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

Thanks for your time, Hannah.

Kim :)

Brenda, when I read your post I was going to suggest that you misunderstood, but Larry beat me to it. He is correct. White did not say, “Eve was cursed before the fall,” but “Eve was cursed in her God-given role before the fall.” In other words, “Eve was cursed [after the fall] in her God-given role [that she had] before the fall.”

I agree with Larry that it seems quite clear to me.

[handerson] And to Alex, I guess my assumption about anecdotal abuses is that they reveal abuses in our underlying philosophy.

This point should be explored, both collectively and individually. And as to the individual consideration I have an immediate thought.

Often one will use the claim of orthodoxy as a guise to introduce error. With their mouth they claim to accept orthodoxy yet they often practice that which orthodoxy would lead to otherwise. Orthodoxy isn’t just a set of beliefs but carries with it implications in its thorough application which many men, who claim such a view, teach and practice things that belie this claim.

And with respect to the underlying philosophy of gender roles, authority, submission and their practical functions, while many might utter agreement with a certain Biblical formula, in fact practice something else, either in some limited but damaging ways (patronization of the spirituality of women) or in some significant and even more damaging ways. And this takes us directly to the real underlying philosophy of those who may do this as a way of life yet deny their very actions by claiming to hold to a view that is contra their actual practice.

The curse on the woman was on her roles. Those roles were pre-fall. The curse came after the fall. He never says the curse was prior to the fall. I don’t understand how this is even confusing.

I am not confused about the chronology of when the curse was declared. I was trying to show how White’s words could be confusing. He did not word it the same way that you re-worded it in the quote above. Bringing up White’s lecture was just a way of hashing out the way that people talk about roles. It was a way of pointing out how careful we need to be in the discussion; a way of showing how things can be misconstrued or spoken without clarity. If you listen to the entire lecture, you notice that he was speaking very quickly, was quoting from others profusely, and was trying to condense about 800 pages of material into 40 minutes. Isn’t another possibility (besides me being daft) that White could have worded it better, that using the word “curse” in the same sentence as “before the fall” could be problematic? That’s all I was trying to point out — that stating both those things in the same thought, the same sentence even, is not how someone usually presents the case.

On another note, it is common to hear about Eve having the role of wife, but not mother, before the fall. We certainly know she had the role of woman before the fall. I refer to her being a “woman” as a role, because not every woman will have both the role of wife and mother. She was called “woman” before the fall and named “Eve - mother of all living” after the fall. And the first mention of Adam “knowing” Eve was after the fall. I’m not saying that it was a platonic relationship in the garden, just stating what the Bible says. White says Eve had the role of mother before the fall — that’s interesting seeing that she did not have children before the fall.

Getting back to the point of Hannah’s article. She is emphasizing relationship and showing how placing the sole emphasis upon roles is to the detriment of understanding relationship. She mentioned roles and that reminded me of the lecture I had heard, so I brought it up. However, I see that I caused this thread to veer off course, so will bow out.

That does not make hierarchy of no importance but if we jump to hierarchy before we understand the foundation of Gospel love, our understanding of hierarchy will be dreadfully skewed. The primary thrust of the Gospel is to restore brokenness, to bring us back into loving relationship with God and others. And so you can see the parallel: God said at creation that aloneness was not good; at the Cross He said the same thing.

Great summation. I appreciate your article and your followup comments. Too many men I know are so consumed with validating their authority that they forget that their primary relational responsibility is to love the people around them, female fellow believers included. And too many women I know are so consumed with demanding respect for themselves that they forget their primarily relational responsibility is to love the people around them, male fellow believers included.

The dynamics of our churches and homes would be far different—more grace-filled, more pleasant, less combative—if our primary focus was on loving God and loving others.

Thank you for your emphasis.

You have said coherently many things I have thought and many things I have not been able to think out completely.

FWIW, White’s statement shows what a bad sentence can do. It’s a classic misplaced modifier. We do it all the time in spoken word where differences in vocal tone clue people in to what is modifying what. But in writing it can really convey the wrong idea.

That said, I love misplaced modifiers for their humor…

• The dog was chasing the boy with the spiked collar.
• FOR SALE: Mahogany table by a lady with Chippendale legs
• One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. (How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know)
• Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address while traveling from Washington to Gettysburg on the back of an envelope.
  

On roles and emphases… I can easily believe that we need a more holistic emphasis on “roles as means to a more important end.” I have a hard time believing that roles are overemphasized, though. Generally, wherever I see the idea of roles in focus, evangelicals—and even most of the fundamentalist subgroup—seem to start getting hostile. This is especially the case to the degree relative differences in authority come up. It seems like nobody wants to believe in authority these days in western culture, whether it’s in the home, the church, society at large.

But this is a bit of a soap box for me so I better get off it before I get warmed up. Maybe one of these days I’ll do an essay on how attitudes toward authority have changed and why. Have a little more research to do yet though.

Hi Hannah, Et al.

I think there’s a lot of value, practically speaking, to this article. I have a slight concern about it, but have been toying with the idea of even saying anything because I’m not sure my concern is all that valid given the intent of the article which is really good and also given that I don’t believe Hannah is a card-bearing feminist (Hannah, please correct me if I’m wrong :) )—I believe, she is, in fact, quite the opposite: a God-fearing, God-loving woman. So, again, my hesitation.

As gently as I can through the limits of black and white text, my concern really isn’t with the article, so much as with young women’s hearts (mine own included although the “young” part could easily be debated :) ) who might find a loophole when reading the article. :) It would be that God intended the “helper” to, first, fulfill a companionship part (man shouldn’t be alone) and then a submissive part.

I believe it to be reverse. Women were always designed to be submissive to the husband as a legitimate “helper” in a specific role pre-curse, ordained by God with incredible value attached to the role by Him and part of that role is to “help” her husband’s loneliness, but also, bring her many talents and gifts to walk alongside him to build him up to be the godly leader God designed him to be. Maybe what I see in the rest of Scripture is more about submission than companionship, particularly when it comes to the passages in Scripture regarding marriage and women in general.

When I look up the word “help” or “helper” in Gen. 2:18, the definition is someone or something that “helps” and then when I look at the other uses in Scripture, 21 times it’s used in Hebrew and most (all?) are used, not to fulfill an emptiness, but someone who actually helps and many times it’s someone who helps in times of distress. What I glean is this is someone who is fulfilling an actual role of helping and not just in companionship.

We are all familiar with Eph. 5:22-23, 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. (bold mine)

But what about I Peter 3:1-2, In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. (with or without a toe nudge) :)

No where in the NT do I see the idea of the woman being there to fulfill the loneliness of her husband’s being, though if the submission part were just a part of that—then it would probably be mentioned—yes? I see it reverse—the loneliness part is just a very small piece of the wife’s crucial and intricate role. It is to be submissive in every way except if he asks her to sin. She’s even to do it without a word to him—that’s uber submissive. :)

Added to that, nowhere do I see the woman fulfilling the role only if her husband has earned her respect or the right to lead. In fact, I see other commands regarding unearned leadership, yet the Lord commands us to submit:

government: Rom. 13:1-2, Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. [No waiting for them to earn it.]

employers: I Peter 2:18, Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

church: I Tim. 2:12, But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

In a society where women (and people, in general) are taught they are something so they deserve something, the bible actually says genuine believers are to die to themselves and become nothing.

Luke 9:23, And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.

Hannah, to me, it wasn’t that you were or were not being submissive to your husband or that you were or were not loving him in a special way, so much so as you were dying to yourself in that situation—a marker of genuine saving faith.

The loophole? More women do things saying they are doing it out of “love for their husbands” vs. “joyful submission as unto the Lord” and more and more young, impressionable women being filled with societal nonsense that leaders must earn respect and submission before we give it to them—male or female. An unnecessary nuance pointed out by me? Probably. A slipper slope? IMO, most definitely. The solution? Fill young women’s minds with the Titus 2:3-5 commands of joyful submission in loving husbands and working at home and church, submissive to government and bosses—being content and actually enjoy the protective and loving aspects of submission—and looking forward to hearing “well done” by their true Master.

(cue closing hymn) :)

Until this last comment above little mention has been made here of roles in light of Eph 5. The context leading into the discussion of submission in Eph.5 is that of being filled with the Spirit. A series of participles describe the person who is filled. The last one is “submitting to one another”. In the properly functioning body of Christ, Spirit filled believers are submitting to one another. Phil 2 describes the mind of Christ (v5) intended for all believers, “count others more significant than yourselves” and “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (v.3,4) and the great verse “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus…” (v.5). (ESV)

These two passages describe properly functioning believer relationships. The believer always puts others first in his own mind. He seeks to elevate others in proper ways while subjecting his own desires. In this context Eph 5 moves to the discussion of husbands and wives. “Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord” (v22) flows naturally out of the Spirit filled believer and takes it farther. The text goes on to describe that Spirit filled relationship. What is described is both relationship and role. The Spirit filled relationship will be a one marked by love and selflessness. To the outside world it may appear that the husband is submissive to his wife because he so desires to please her and meet her needs. If the outside world continues to observe they will see that it is a mutual submission of love. The husband is still the

head and bears leading responsibility before God. This ultimately becomes part of the expression of his love –faithfulness to the role gave him.

Now regarding these roles, while some of the commenters have voiced concern that conservative Christianity has overemphasized roles, and while it may be true where some of you live, I’ve not seen it in my little corner of the world. What I see in the church is families being adversely affected by the thinking of our age with the result that many wives/ mothers have placed a career above the home. Men and women are viewed as equally responsible for the roles of getting a living, and of keeping the home. Many families have adopted such a covetous lifestyle that two incomes are mandatory. I am not arguing that a wife’s role should prevent her from ever working, but do believe her career or job may easily diminish her ability to serve her God given role.

God intends each family to operate as a single unit. Within this unit various things are needed. Income is needed, basic chores need to be done. Normally children are born and must be cared for physically, socially, and spiritually. The home must be kept. God said that he was creating Eve for Adam to be a help, fit for him. I agree that there is a social/ relational aspect to this, but I would say it is at least equally a role situation. All the things that are needed in a home can’t be provided by the man or the woman, they are both needed. God clearly intends that each person has a predominate responsibility for certain things relating to his or her role. In love they help one another with those responsibilities, but the roles should not be abolished or diminished. Abolishing the roles is exactly what the modern culture has advocated and many in our churches are accepting this faulty thinking. Perhaps, in order to combat and correct this faulty thinking adopted from the world, an overemphasis on biblical roles will be needed.

which part is the role?

Is being the husband, wife, child, slave, master what we call the “role”?

Or is it the lover, submitter, obeyer, server, ruler the “role” part?

is that an understandable question? I get confused in these discussions trying to weed out the strands of meaning. Like “my role” is being a wife and mom? (like being an actress in a play, it sounds like ;) ) Or is the way the part is played (submission, etc) the role?

I’m trying to figure out how we use that word role… . why we use it …

Yes, Anne, I think we may have some ambiguity problems with “role.”

….also with “authority.”

I can’t speak for how others use the term, but I understand “roles” to mean “unique functions in the family unit” or “unique functions in relation to eachother in the family.”

With authority and submission, there is some confusion too. Authority is really the same thing regardless of its context, but Jesus assigns the motive and goal of Christian authority, differentiating it from “the Gentiles.” The goal/purpose is the benefit of those being directed/lead and the motive is the desire for that benefit.

But “authority” and “submission” are always, as far as I can tell, words that describe a relationship in which one has the responsibility to direct and the other has the responsibility to obey.

This basic essence is what people generally choke on these days. Because we have absorbed so much pop-egalitarianism without realizing it, the whole idea of “responsibility to command” and “responsibility to obey” belonging to different people in various relationships sort of automatically rubs our fur the wrong way.

(I personally believe that Ephesians’ ref. to “submit to one another” means “we should all submit in the relationships where that is our responsibility” not “we should submit to eachother in every relationship in both directions simultaneously.” The latter is impossible to reconcile with many other passages, doesn’t fit the lexical info on the terms involved, and doesn’t make logical sense either… if everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. This is chaos.)

But there is no reason why a person who has real authority over another person cannot eagerly welcome advice and even a certain amount of correction from that person. But the word for this is not “submission.” There are better words, like humility and wisdom.

This is why I think the essay here works even with a strong traditional view of how authority is supposed to work in a marriage. (Because being sensitive to the others’ insights is just good sense. Has nothing to do with who is in charge.)

[handerson] Most teaching on marriage, jumps directly to “roles”/function without laying a proper foundation of full personhood and Christian identity.

IMO the wrong message is being received because of our handling of Biblical concepts of marriage and family. It isn’t that the information being presented is wrong, but I think the emphasis is often in the wrong place. We constantly try to regulate flesh without first allowing the Word to pierce the heart. All you have to do is listen to some young men talk about what they look for in a wife. If your chin doesn’t hit the floor, I will send you chocolate fudge.

(I personally believe that Ephesians’ ref. to “submit to one another” means “we should all submit in the relationships where that is our responsibility” not “we should submit to eachother in every relationship in both directions simultaneously.” The latter is impossible to reconcile with many other passages, doesn’t fit the lexical info on the terms involved, and doesn’t make logical sense either… if everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. This is chaos.)

Aaron, I agree with the part of your statement regarding the responsibility to “submit in relationships where that is our responsibility. My point is that the Spirit filled person who is in a position of leadership will exercise his authority so selflessly that he is always looking to elevate the other person. He does not lead or “head” with condescension.

This is a problem in some Christian homes. If a husband is arrogant and condescending, is the wife obligated to still submit? Yes, the husband’s sin does not negate the wife’s responsibility to obey God and therefore her husband. However, I propose that this marriage is not functioning as God intended it. Marriage is meant to be a living illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

What I’m about to write is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, but this is the first time I’ve written it, so I’m probably exposing myself for some criticism, but I hope it will be helpful to me and others.

I propose that one of God’s biggest purposes in His creation of marriage is to illustrate the relationship between God and his people.

Eph 5:31, 32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

In the Ephesians passage there is a constant interplay between the husband wife relationship and the Christ to church relationship. This is obvious, but go back to Genesis. God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”(Gen 2:18)

There is no way around the fact that “helper” means helper. That’s the definition, but it doesn’t have to mean anything negative. The word “fit” reveals more of God’s intention than the word helper. “Fit” means “to be in front of, or opposite” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs), and Strong’s dictionary says “specifically a counterpart”. It’s this idea of counterpart that insists the wife is more than just a helper. She is a completer. She is what he isn’t, and he is what she isn’t, hence the concept of roles.

Then Gen 2:24 says,” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This is the verse quoted in Ephesians 5:31 where God says that it is a mystery but speaks of Christ and the church. How might this be?

Here are some thoughts: (and I have no intention to enter into a debate over Covenant Theology)

1) Throughout the OT God interacted with his people on the basis of covenants. The Hebrew word for covenant is “bereeth” and means “covenant, compact, treaty, pledge”. The Hebrews spoke of cutting a covenant. Genesis 15:18 tells us “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram”. The word “made” is the Hebrew “karath” and means to cut. When covenants were made animals were killed and cut apart. It was normal for the parties of the covenant to pass between the pieces of cut up animals as a sign or symbol of their commitment to the covenant.

2) The sign of the covenant was circumcision. The Hebrew word for circumcise is “to cut” ( A different Hebrew word though.) So making a covenant involved cutting up animals and separating their flesh, and the sign of the covenant for the Hebrew people involved a cutting and separating of flesh.

Stay with me here…

3) God uses marriage as a picture of his covenant relationship with his people in the Old Testament – most vividly portrayed in Hosea.

4) God uses marriage as a picture of his relationship with his people in the New Testament – most clearly stated in Ephesians 5.

Now I’m entering into dangerous territory, and I’m trying to be discreet

5) When a man and woman become husband and wife, at the consummation of that marriage there is blood. Why did God do this? (I’m sure there are several reasons, but I’ll focus on one).

a. I am suggesting that there is a covenant relationship between a husband and wife.

b. I am also suggesting that this is how marriage most clearly pictures God and His people, Christ and His bride, the church – two people entering into covenant relationship with a sign of that covenant in flesh and blood.

6) The implication of this for the current discussion:

a. Husband and wife being “one flesh” speaks of the unity of the relationship. They must function as one.

b. There must be submission and headship in the relationship or else they will go in opposite directions.

c. As the wife submits to and reverences her husband, and as the husband selflessly cares for his wife, as he would his own body, they are both illustrating Christ’s relationship to the church. Submission is necessary to properly illustrate that relationship.

d. The Spirit filled Christian who is living with constant awareness of Christ’s love — what Christ has done for him — wants nothing more than to submit to Christ. He knows that the only true happiness on this earth is through submission to Christ (see the beatitudes).

e. Finally, as stated in the article that started all this, the wife who is thoroughly loved in a Christ like manner, and who is also Spirit filled, will submit out of love more than out of obligation. It is natural. It is what she wants to do. It is how the believer should respond to Christ.

PHughes,

I think it’s generally agreed that marriage is a covenant and that it pictures the love of Christ for the church in that covenant relationship. And since pretty much every feature of the OT covenants w/Israel pictures a future reality in Christ, that part is clear too.

When OT believers lived like the pagans around them and took more than one wife, they not only had family problems (!) but they never enjoyed the one flesh unity of which Genesis and Christ speak. Wives were possessions who had roles, but one woman wasn’t important enough to the man to be THE ONE who was worth leaving the parents for that “cleaving” relationship. The NT restores our understanding of God’s plan in marriage and more importantly, the relationship of Christ and His church.

Yes, well maybe it’s how we’re approaching the Scriptures differently. For me, I am confined to think how the Scriptures explain women to me:

1) helper—Gen. 2:18

2) cursed, I will “desire” to not submit—Gen. 3:16

3) submit to her own husband as unto the Lord—Eph. 5:22-23; Col. 3:18

4) learn quietly in full submission; don’t exercise authority over a man—I Tim. 2:11-12

5) subject to their [own] husbands—Titus 2:5

6) quiet in church, even to the point of asking their husbands at home—I Cor. 14:34-35

7) even when husbands are disobedient to the Word, submit—I Peter 3:1

I’m using “aloneness” in the broader metaphysical/existential sense of isolation and inadequacy. And in this, God said that Adam was incomplete. To understand that properly, we have to move past biology (although the biological reality that he could not reproduce mirrors the barreness of the other aspects of his personhood) to the broader sense of human identity. He had no one to lift him up, no one to support him, no one to share his burden’s, no one to work alongside him. He had no one to walk through life together. The issue is that he had no one to live in communion with. (In the fullest sense of what communion means.)

I definitely appreciate what you’re saying here and I’m not trying to be purposefully dull of hearing/reading. But since Scripture continually sheds light on the topic of women’s roles in single living, marriage, marriage with children, church, work, etc., it seems like I shouldn’t be reaching too far out to catch a “broader metaphysical” meaning. Do you think I’m being too narrow-minded when it comes to the Scripture’s instruction on this topic?

I think a good parallel is the nature of the Church—as believers, we are not meant to live isolated lives, but ones of mutual dependence, of interdependence, of relationship. Does that do away with hierarchy? No. But it informs the larger goal of the structure. In the body of Christ, we work together each in our own place, each having equal significance, for the common goal of building each other up and letting the love we have for each other preach Christ to the world.

I agree to some degree, but again am a little uncomfortable with parts of this paragraph. The very nature and structure of the church is based entirely on roles. If we don’t function AS a church, the bible would say we AREN’T a church. He defines it clearly for us and it’s an important message in the light of much of what is going on today in the “evangelical world” of trying to redefine church. Our significance and value in God’s eyes is absolutely equal (Gal. 3:28) but while here on earth our roles are defined in the church by our gender (see above verses) and our gifts (Rom. 12).

What I see in Scripture is our “mutual dependence, of interdependence, of relationships and so on” are defined by the roles and duties we carry out in the church, not casting a broad shadow (or qualifying) over those roles. IOW, I can’t just keep coming to church to have relationships, hang out, be a companion, etc. without being slotted into some sort of role. I’m not fulfilling the NT’s definition of a church member—I’m just warming a seat.

each having equal significance,

Again, this is where I start to squirm a bit:

I don’t think this to be a completely true statement. In Paul’s writings to the Corinthian church, he explicitly tells us there is “abundant honor” given to the perceived lesser, weaker members. (I Cor. 12:24) So I do see, according to how God sees and judges, there being differing value tags placed within the body of Christ, which effectively helps us fulfill our roles in a much better, more valuable sense instead of trying to reach for something different. Again, equal in value to God, but different honorable and more honorable roles while here in an earthly church.

I think this is the foundation of the article, which again, I really enjoyed. It’s just that I think it’s misplaced, maybe. We’re always, “in everything,” as women, called to be submissive to our husbands whether they’re in our presence or not, inside the home or outside. I don’t believe the Scriptures ever let us come out of that role for a breather to find “a broader meaning.” I DO think, however, you were fulfilling the wonderful Christian duty of dying to yourself to honor your friend(s).

I believe submissiveness isn’t something we take on and off like a hat or garment of clothing. I believe it’s our essence and make-up as women. I believe it defines us because the bible defines us this way—and it IS good! :)

The word ‘role’ is not found in Scripture as such. It basically means “a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process”, or “manner of conducting oneself”. I am going to assume that we aren’t using the word “role” as ‘playing a part’. Unfortunately, that is what happens far too often in marriages- the wife is playing her part of being ‘submissive’ while her heart is far from reverent or respectful, and the husband is acting as the head without any regard for the sacrificial nature of true headship.

The analogy used in Scripture is that of the body. The husband and wife are ‘one flesh’. The marriage union is compared to Christ and the church- again with the ‘body’. I simply can’t find Biblical support for compartmentalizing my relationship with my husband into a ‘role’. The dynamics of healthy relationships are very much give-and-take, and every Scriptural example we have shows some overlap of wives and husbands accommodating and acquiescing to each other, with both occasionally acting in ways that were wise and imprudent.

I think of Sarah and Abraham. He listens to her and makes some poor choices, but takes responsibility for it. Abraham has Sarah lie about being his wife, and while he takes responsibility for that, Sarah is reproved for her part in it too. (Gen 20:16) Sarah is described in the NT as being an obedient wife, but we see much give-and-take in her relationship with Abraham.

How we view ‘authority’ is another problem, IMO. We often think of authority as something we have to hold onto, to enforce. But does God have to try to protect or preserve His authority? Is He worried that if we don’t comply we have weakened His position? If the husband is the image of Christ in a marriage, he HAS authority- the wife cannot affect that by her actions, but that is how husbands usually react- as if she presents a ‘threat’ to his position as head. But her actions and attitudes are in direct correspondence to how she views and relates to Christ. When we are in submission to God’s guidance, we aren’t engaged in a power struggle trying to figure out who stepped out of line. We are piteous, merciful, longsuffering, patient, compassionate… those fruits of the Spirit that cannot be delineated by whose job it is to wash dishes or take out the trash.

So a wife deferring to her husband or vice/versa is not an exchange of power. It is a healthy body acting in its own best interests.