Love and Marriage (without the Horse and Carriage)
He did it with just a touch of his big toe.
My husband and I were having coffee with friends, sharing our spiritual highs and lows of the previous week when he saw the warning signs. It was subtle: a rise of my shoulders, an intake of air, leaning forward, my mouth beginning to open, and he knew. He knew what I was thinking and what I was about to say. He knew that I was prepping myself to be argumentative and to say something unnecessarily controversial.
So he nudged me under the table. Just once.
In full disclosure, we’re not the stereotypical conservative couple—we simply don’t fit the personality paradigm. He’s type B; I’m type A. He’s quiet; I’m outspoken. He actually enjoys cleaning and after ten years, I think I finally believe him. (He says he likes bringing order to chaos, which on further reflection shines significant light on why he fell for me in the first place.) But there in that moment when he expressed his disapproval with the slightest nudge of his big toe, I immediately stopped.
Most conservatives would hail this as a great victory, that this is exactly how marriages should function. Husband directs, wife obeys. But I have to admit, my response to him in that moment had little to do with an immediate understanding of headship and hierarchy. It wasn’t mapped out by a complementarian flow-chart. It wasn’t because of a role.
It was because I love him.
Over the last couple of decades, there’s been a strong push to recover a Biblical understanding of roles in marriage. But somewhere on that path, we’ve started taking short-cuts. Short-cuts around the gospel and right into legalism. And these short cuts have led us to think that obedience to the roles, that our ability to have perfect families and properly ordered homes, will show Christ to the world. So we end up talking more about paradigms and less about people, more about rules and less about Spirit.
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. And just as Christ had to remind the first-century Jews that man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man, we have to remember that marriage was not made for roles but roles for the benefit of the marriage. That the relationship, the one flesh unity, the loving communion is what is of greatest significance. That this, the love we have for one another, is what will show the world that we are His disciples.
And if you think about it, the differences in marriage are one of the greatest opportunities to do just that. Because here you have two sinful human beings—so diverse that even their molecular composition is different—who must learn to live in loving, daily communion. Not temporarily, but for a lifetime. And we learn that as we fail each other, as we selfishly demand our own way, and as we run to Christ for mercy. For only there do we experience true love and only there will we learn to extend that same love to each other. We will never learn it by simply conforming to roles.
So in that moment, when my husband nudged me, my deferring to him had less to do with performing my role as his wife than it did with loving him already. And quite frankly, why would I have done anything else? Why would I have chosen to barge ahead knowing that the man I loved didn’t want me to? Why would I have insisted on my own way when I knew it would make him uncomfortable? What wisdom, what convoluted sense of liberation would have led me to do something that he thought was unwise?
And so I didn’t.
As quickly as he had understood what I as about to do, I understood his objection. We looked each other in the eye and smiled that knowing smile that comes only from living and loving together. I settled back into my chair and comfortably nestled my head against his shoulder as if to tell him, “Yes, dear, of course I won’t.”
handerson Bio
Hannah R. Anderson lives in Roanoke, VA where she spends her days mothering three small children, loving her husband, and scratching out odd moments to write. She blogs at Sometimes a Light and has recently published Made For More.
- 8 views
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.
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.
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
L Strickler
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! :)
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.
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.
More anecdotally, because of the amount of time we are dedicating to teaching about “roles,” I see among my generation, young women who are striving very hard to meet the paradigms of biblical womanhood and getting very overwhelmed and discouraged when they can’t The solution offered them is this: be more committed because this is REALLY, REALLY important.
Hannah, I might agree with parts, although I see a different side to young (and older) women because of our blessed church situation, but the women who are struggling, wherever they may be, I believe, are not going to find more comfort, strength, enabling, etc. by diminishing their role of submission in their marriage, church, work, etc., which I believe gives a clear flow chart in Scripture. I think the most helpful thing is for young women to have a better understanding of the gospel. They are saved from the eternal effects of Gen. 3:16, specifically, “yet your desire will be for your husband.” That “desire” or lack of submitting to him is now transformed, through true, genuine gospel salvation, to thoroughly enjoy and joyfully submit—“in all things”=no more struggling, no more works, no more clawing at trying to fulfill Scripture. The gospel has the power to save from everything external to renew the internal.
The other helpful and useful resource given to us by Scripture is for a young (and old) Christian woman to be mentored from Titus 2:3-5 which absolutely says to “love husbands”—in every way, companionship, “one flesh”, etc., but the last line, “being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored” has been greatly lost in our age and will continue to be blurred if we, as young Christian women don’t defend what Scripture blatantly writes. It is a grave error on our parts, I believe.
I’m beating a dead horse here. I’ve stated (overly so?) my case—we just can agree to disagree. I took this conversation further than I really wanted it to go. Sorry about that.
Thanks Hannah for the exchange. You’re a thoughtful writer. I appreciate it.
Blessings, Kim :)
Hannah, I might agree with parts, although I see a different side to young (and older) women because of our blessed church situation, but the women who are struggling, wherever they may be, I believe, are not going to find more comfort, strength, enabling, etc. by diminishing their role of submission in their marriage, church, work, etc., which I believe gives a clear flow chart in Scripture. I think the most helpful thing is for young women to have a better understanding of the gospel. They are saved from the eternal effects of Gen. 3:16, specifically, “yet your desire will be for your husband.” That “desire” or lack of submitting to him is now transformed, through true, genuine gospel salvation, to thoroughly enjoy and joyfully submit—“in all things”=no more struggling, no more works, no more clawing at trying to fulfill Scripture. The gospel has the power to save from everything external to renew the internal.
The other helpful and useful resource given to us by Scripture is for a young (and old) Christian woman to be mentored from Titus 2:3-5 which absolutely says to “love husbands”—in every way, companionship, “one flesh”, etc., but the last line, “being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored” has been greatly lost in our age and will continue to be blurred if we, as young Christian women don’t defend what Scripture blatantly writes. It is a grave error on our parts, I believe.
I’m beating a dead horse here. I’ve stated (overly so?) my case—we just can agree to disagree. I took this conversation further than I really wanted it to go. Sorry about that.
Thanks Hannah for the exchange. You’re a thoughtful writer. I appreciate it.
Blessings, Kim :)
with your list of how a godly woman will function in a marriage relationship.
BUT… and here’s the crux… my identity as a woman is not summed up by ONLY this list. When the Scripture addresses women specifically, it does not do so to the dissolution of everything else it teaches about broader humanity and identity in Christ. So my personhood is not an extension of my womanhood; my womanhood flows out of my personhood. And every function that Scripture calls women to is FIRST rooted in their identity in Christ. As an aside, we do not take this approach with men: we do not look at them first and foremost as husbands and fathers, although those roles are spiritual callings and there are plenty of Scriptural passages that address how they should function in those positions.
Understanding this distinction is crucial to how men and women will relate to each other, both in marriage and in the church. If I (or the men around me) view me only in light of the list that you mentioned, they will overlook everything else that Scripture teaches about women as a equal believers and human beings. And if I did the same for them as fathers and husbands, I would overlook their essential humanity as well.
I think we have to start with the essential equality of all believers—in the church or home—in order to achieve a truly Christian understanding of hierarchy. I am called to submit to my husband not because I am less than him in nature or function, but precisely because I am not. By definition, submission is the free act of my will to defer to him; it cannot be based in the false sense of hierarchy or authority that Susan pointed out.
And so I do submit, but only because it is God’s calling for me to lovingly do so.
BUT… and here’s the crux… my identity as a woman is not summed up by ONLY this list. When the Scripture addresses women specifically, it does not do so to the dissolution of everything else it teaches about broader humanity and identity in Christ. So my personhood is not an extension of my womanhood; my womanhood flows out of my personhood. And every function that Scripture calls women to is FIRST rooted in their identity in Christ. As an aside, we do not take this approach with men: we do not look at them first and foremost as husbands and fathers, although those roles are spiritual callings and there are plenty of Scriptural passages that address how they should function in those positions.
Understanding this distinction is crucial to how men and women will relate to each other, both in marriage and in the church. If I (or the men around me) view me only in light of the list that you mentioned, they will overlook everything else that Scripture teaches about women as a equal believers and human beings. And if I did the same for them as fathers and husbands, I would overlook their essential humanity as well.
I think we have to start with the essential equality of all believers—in the church or home—in order to achieve a truly Christian understanding of hierarchy. I am called to submit to my husband not because I am less than him in nature or function, but precisely because I am not. By definition, submission is the free act of my will to defer to him; it cannot be based in the false sense of hierarchy or authority that Susan pointed out.
And so I do submit, but only because it is God’s calling for me to lovingly do so.
I’ve appreciated your comments and hope you are not at all worried about having posted them. This is precisely the healthy type of conversation that needs to take place—preferably in person over a cup of coffee so we can understand exactly what each is trying to say. (It is so difficult in this format.)
And just to clarify my concerns about roles, a lot of my thinking has been sparked by what I see as an emphasis on roles/functions to the exclusion of robust teaching on the nature of womanhood and relationship in marriage. Not to open Pandora’s box any wider, but here are some specific examples of what I’m seeing:
1. There are serious conversations about whether young women should achieve higher education, not because they are not smart enough or gifted enough, but because they have been taught that their exclusive role (i.e. function) as a woman is to be a wife and mother.
2. Godly young women who are actively mothering and “wifing” are struggling under the sheer physical load but feel too guilty to get help because they directly relate their spirituality with their ability to perform their function well. When they do confess their struggles, it is met not with grace that engages and supports, but with a further focus on their role—the very one that they are finding so hard to perform. (I once left a young mothers’ group where precisely this happened and I remember thinking that these young women had come in feeling like failures and instead of encouraging them, they simply left feeling like failures at something really, really important.)
3. When women are told that their role is the most important thing about them, they have a hard time justifying doing anything that does not directly relate to that role. (How do you and I justify this conversation if we should be actively performing our roles? How can a woman have any personal interests if it does not directly relate to her husband?)
4. Single women and infertile women feel less like women than their married and mothering counterparts because we have talked so much about roles and so associated them with a woman’s essential identity before God.
5. Empty-nesters and widows struggle the same way because for years their identity was wrapped up in a function that is suddenly gone.
I’m not saying that there are not other things contributing to these issues, but I do think that our emphasis on role over loving relationship is a significant part of the problem. The Scripture is a full, multi-layered text that addresses every part of our humanity, including gender roles, but we must be careful not to emphasize gender roles more than the Bible itself does.
And just to clarify my concerns about roles, a lot of my thinking has been sparked by what I see as an emphasis on roles/functions to the exclusion of robust teaching on the nature of womanhood and relationship in marriage. Not to open Pandora’s box any wider, but here are some specific examples of what I’m seeing:
1. There are serious conversations about whether young women should achieve higher education, not because they are not smart enough or gifted enough, but because they have been taught that their exclusive role (i.e. function) as a woman is to be a wife and mother.
2. Godly young women who are actively mothering and “wifing” are struggling under the sheer physical load but feel too guilty to get help because they directly relate their spirituality with their ability to perform their function well. When they do confess their struggles, it is met not with grace that engages and supports, but with a further focus on their role—the very one that they are finding so hard to perform. (I once left a young mothers’ group where precisely this happened and I remember thinking that these young women had come in feeling like failures and instead of encouraging them, they simply left feeling like failures at something really, really important.)
3. When women are told that their role is the most important thing about them, they have a hard time justifying doing anything that does not directly relate to that role. (How do you and I justify this conversation if we should be actively performing our roles? How can a woman have any personal interests if it does not directly relate to her husband?)
4. Single women and infertile women feel less like women than their married and mothering counterparts because we have talked so much about roles and so associated them with a woman’s essential identity before God.
5. Empty-nesters and widows struggle the same way because for years their identity was wrapped up in a function that is suddenly gone.
I’m not saying that there are not other things contributing to these issues, but I do think that our emphasis on role over loving relationship is a significant part of the problem. The Scripture is a full, multi-layered text that addresses every part of our humanity, including gender roles, but we must be careful not to emphasize gender roles more than the Bible itself does.
I definitely appreciate what you’re saying and you have made me think more wholistically. I’m not sure I’m ready to completely agree, but I sincerely appreciate the way you have made me (re)think through the Scriptures. I can’t tell you how much I’m thankful for your exchange. What a blessing!
Kim :)
(Do you take cream and sugar or prefer your coffee black?) :)
Kim :)
(Do you take cream and sugar or prefer your coffee black?) :)
Part of what muddies discussions like these is that we confuse equal and identical.
“Equal” implies sameness in a particular respect though not necessarily in other respects.
We could list several ways in which man and woman (or husb. & wife) are equal, and also several ways—according to Scripture—that they are not equal. One of the latter is authority (and the responsibility that goes with it). Another is function in the family (and the responsibilities that go with that).
“Equal” implies sameness in a particular respect though not necessarily in other respects.
- A pound of butter and a pound of beef are equal in weight, though quite different in substance.
- A quarterback and a wide receiver are equal in their “team memberness” but different in function.
- To borrow from 1 Cor.12, a nose and an ear are equal in their “body partness” and, Paul argues, in their importance, but they are diverse in function.
We could list several ways in which man and woman (or husb. & wife) are equal, and also several ways—according to Scripture—that they are not equal. One of the latter is authority (and the responsibility that goes with it). Another is function in the family (and the responsibilities that go with that).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion