Love and Marriage (without the Horse and Carriage)

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.