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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the problem is that inaccurate roles are overemphasized. Maybe what we need is more complete teaching on manhood and womanhood that includes a Kingdom understanding of authority, that ruling/exercise leadership happens through service. All of us want that—we want to be inspired, cared for, and protected. We want King Richard to return and rout Prince John. But I think that the conversation needs to shift that direction. We need to remember that while leadership is delegated, it is also earned through relationship.
I agree that there is definitely a shift in our culture to throw off leaders, and I wonder how much of that occurs as our leaders act in ways less and less worthy of our respect (thinking of politics, here..)? Just thinking out loud. It’d be a great article to read.
I agree that there is definitely a shift in our culture to throw off leaders, and I wonder how much of that occurs as our leaders act in ways less and less worthy of our respect (thinking of politics, here..)? Just thinking out loud. It’d be a great article to read.
and it makes no sense. Hopefully you all can interpret gibberish, and understand what I mean. :-)
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) :)
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.
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 …
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.)
….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.)
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.
I was on an internet fast yesterday so I missed most of the previous discussion. Here’s some more perspective on where I’m coming from
1. I use the word “role” not as a substitute for “womanhood” or “manhood.” I use it the way it is often used in teaching- as shorthand for a function, the utilitarian sense of the word, when we equate what we do with who we are.
2. Our womanhood/manhood flows out of our “personhood”: our humanity and our position in Christ. I do not believe that this is emphasized enough. I am a human first, a Christian second, a woman third.
3. Most teaching on marriage, jumps directly to “roles”/function without laying a proper foundation of full personhood and Christian identity. (In this case, good Mormons and Muslims can have FABULOUS complementarian marriages.)
4.I firmly believe in the teaching of Ephesisans 5 (and other passages that deal with authority/hierarchy in marriage), BUT that our understanding of them must first filter through the previous chapters that lay out Kingdom dynamics. We can’t understand submission/authority/hierarchy until we understand Christ’s teaching “that the greatest among you is servant to all” and that the goal of hierarchy in marriage is oneness.
5. I do believe that it is easier to teach specific roles/applications than it is to teach Kingdom relationships so we default to that. We start with hierarchy, and imho, end up over-emphasizing it.
6. Truly Gospel-informed manhood and womanhood will celebrate differences of function in marriage; and these differences will bring about oneness the same way the differing gifts in the Church unite and build up the Body of Christ. But it will not teach that “role”/application is the greatest thing that is happening in the marriage and it will not teach that all marriages must look the same.
1. I use the word “role” not as a substitute for “womanhood” or “manhood.” I use it the way it is often used in teaching- as shorthand for a function, the utilitarian sense of the word, when we equate what we do with who we are.
2. Our womanhood/manhood flows out of our “personhood”: our humanity and our position in Christ. I do not believe that this is emphasized enough. I am a human first, a Christian second, a woman third.
3. Most teaching on marriage, jumps directly to “roles”/function without laying a proper foundation of full personhood and Christian identity. (In this case, good Mormons and Muslims can have FABULOUS complementarian marriages.)
4.I firmly believe in the teaching of Ephesisans 5 (and other passages that deal with authority/hierarchy in marriage), BUT that our understanding of them must first filter through the previous chapters that lay out Kingdom dynamics. We can’t understand submission/authority/hierarchy until we understand Christ’s teaching “that the greatest among you is servant to all” and that the goal of hierarchy in marriage is oneness.
5. I do believe that it is easier to teach specific roles/applications than it is to teach Kingdom relationships so we default to that. We start with hierarchy, and imho, end up over-emphasizing it.
6. Truly Gospel-informed manhood and womanhood will celebrate differences of function in marriage; and these differences will bring about oneness the same way the differing gifts in the Church unite and build up the Body of Christ. But it will not teach that “role”/application is the greatest thing that is happening in the marriage and it will not teach that all marriages must look the same.
I am a human first, a Christian second, a woman third.I do not mean this in terms of priority but in terms of the “groups” I am classfied in. Of course all three will interplay to create a robust sense of identity.
I agree with you that the word “helper” in Gen 2 means something bigger than simply companionship. But my contention is that it is also means something bigger than the way we use it in our conservative discussions about a woman’s role. If we understand it only in terms of assistant (someone to keep his home and bear his children), we end up dehumanizing both men and women.
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 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’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 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.
[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.
Discussion