Lead and follow. It’s beautiful. It’s got all that history behind it, it’s THE way the sexes move, on the dance floor, in marriage, in life.
Right?
Why would I want to be an egalitarian where the woman leads as much as a man? Have you ever seen a woman lead a man in the waltz? Not a pretty sight.
Has complementarianism (a euphemism for patriarchy) got the corner on beauty? Would the marriages in our world be more beautiful if more men lead and more women follow?
It works in dancing, so why wouldn’t it work in marriage and the church?
Reason #1- Dancing and Life
I’m a lover of romance, dancing and fairy tales, so the dancing metaphor has always captivated me. But it fails in one key way. Dancing the waltz is not a picture of life.
A male dancer (that sounds way more scandalous than I mean it) knows the steps his partner will be taking, he gently guides her to back-up into the next move by gentle pressure on her hand or waist. The faithful female follows his lead effortlessly and you get a lovely show. Three cheers!
In marriage and in life, no male knows enough to lead a female through all the steps.
Period.
If a man thought he could lead a woman in life like he leads a woman on the dance floor no matter how humble and loving he is, I’m afeard he’s bound toward . . .
- Narcissism or delusion, like Drew (Jon Hamm) who thinks he can master any situation despite Liz Lemon’s arguments that he’s a novice. What man could know about all life situations enough to make the final call on his wife’s spiritual growth? (I know what Complementarians will say: “THAT’S why men rely on God.” To which I respond, “Why isn’t the woman permitted to rely on God and make final decisions as well? Isn’t this what it means to be a fellow heir of grace?” 1 Peter 3:7).
- Blind faith (which I cannot find in Scripture) that God has promised to give males more knowledge than females. Proof text THAT.
- Anxiety about when the charade would be up. When will they figure out I really don’t know what I’m doing?
- Isolation because a man can’t let his guard down about not knowing the lead steps without looking foolish. And thereby not a good leader.
If a husband, as complimentarians explain, listens, considers and lovingly consults his wife and then chooses the best Plan B for his family I still say this is less beautiful
than
A husband, as egalitarians explain, listens, considers and lovingly consults his wife and then together they choose the best Plan B for their family.
Photo credit: birdnest.org
Reason #2 – Rubber Stamp or Rowing
In every marriage, complementarians argue, someone will have to have the tie-breaking vote. Complementarian marriages finesse this dictatorial sounding relationship, maintaining the benevolence of the dictator by reducing his tie-breaking vote to 51% (see Emerson and Sharon Eggerich’s book Love and Respect).
But in terms of beauty, what is more attractive, a man taking responsibility for every final decision (lovingly, considerately, sacrificially)
or
A man and woman feeling free to raise any area of tension with knowledge that no one possesses the rubber stamp to veto funds or emotional support for any outcome?
What is more attractive, a husband who bears the responsibility before God for the growth of his wife’s spirituality
or
A husband and wife who bear responsibility before God for their own soul’s growth?
What is more attractive, a husband who bears both oars to row his lovely maiden across the lake
Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabi/231379529/
or
A husband who can re-direct his energy toward his own gifts, and row with all he has knowing his wife has picked up the oar beside him and can keep pace with his energy, his will and his direction?
Whether you call submission loving respect or adaptation, Ephesians 5:22 means nothing without the verb borrowed from Ephesians 5:21, the all important verb “submit of oneself.”
“Submit yourself one to another.” Ephesians 5:21
“Wives to your husbands.” Ephesians 5:22 (see NASB for italicized added words in English).
Whatever wives need to do to husbands in verse 22, the husbands and wives are already practicing in verse 21.
Submission is not a Biblical command only made to women or wives.
Photo credit: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/ss/slideshow-secrets-guys-wish-you-knew
What is more beautiful, a wife who knows the final vote always goes to the largest shareholder?
or
A wife who can initiate and persuade, advocate and protect without fearing she is leaving her God-ordained role?
What is more beautiful, a husband who wonders about the mysterious ways of his wife, while his wife knows she is the neck turning the head
or
A husband who trust his wife to never deal with passive aggression or emotional manipulation (both everlasting tools of the disempowered) because she never need hide her desire to control and guide.
I leave you with one final fantasy.
Have you ever seen a woman of power and intelligence lead a man to bed? (watch Cate Blanchet in Elizabeth for an example)
Have you ever seen a man of power and intelligence lead a woman to bed? (watch Julian Sands in Room with a View for an example)
I’m an advocate for both.
p.s. Of course I also believe egalitarianism is supported by sound reason, scripture and the God of Israel, the creation mandate, Jesus, Paul, et al. But isn’t it nice to know egalitarinaism is beautiful, too?
I have been wrestling with whether our current cultural traditions of proposals and engagements are egalitarian or complementarian. Since my own engagement, and very egalitarian marriage, I have just landed on the middle ground of saying that the current traditions are neither egalitarian or complementarian – they are just traditions! (Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, anyone?) But, are they just traditions? Or are they traditions grounded in a patriarchal society? The reason I struggle with this is because, almost ashamedly, I admit that I loved my (now husband) proposing to me. I would not have wanted it any other way. And while I know that this experience does not discredit any rational egalitarian reading of scripture, it makes me nervous just the same. Am I complementarian if I liked that I was proposed to by a man?
As far as men wearing engagement rings, my husband did not, just did not seem necessary. However, I have friends who have decided to both wear engagement rings, and I think it is fantastic.
Marie,
I have to agree with you about our current traditions. They probably lean more patriarchal when you get into the guy asking the girls’ daughter for her hand in marriage. You don’t get to see the girl asking the guy’s mother or father for his hand in marriage
I love the example you shared about both wearing engagement rings. A great idea, because men certainly get hit on in this day and age!
One point I wanted to make, and it also relates to how I answered Krysta below, is how we feel about men leading. We can like being led without being a complementation. In other words, it makes sense that we would like being led in areas we’re not as strong. I would hope that men also like being led in areas they’re not as strong.
An interesting question to ask ourselves is “Is this an area I can grow in strength to better give of myself to this world? Or is this an area I can relax knowing my husband is better equipped in and focus my strengths elsewhere?” The spirit is a great guide in these questions.
Jonalyn,
Sorry I did not see your reply until now. Thanks for clarifying a more appropriate view on being led. I really appreciated the questions you posed. And I completely agree! I love being led by my husband in areas where he certainly is more equipped than I. I feel that I can fully “give in” (so-to-speak) to this vulnerability of being led because I know that he will do the same – honoring the ways in which I am stronger than him.
Now, how beautiful is that!?
Beautiful!
great, Jonalyn…like it…
Jonalyn, although I believe we will never fully agree on roles in marriage I defintely appreciate and respect your views. I don’t believe our deepest desires are that far off, for both genders to be loved and respected equally, not one more than the other, but I truly believe that comparing men to women is like comparing apples to oranges. One is not better than the other, they are different and have different purposes. Look at the most primal aspects of gender, physical qualities. Women clearly are emant to be mothers, to nurture and care for their child. Their breats alone prove the point that this isn’t just limited to time in the womb. What then is left for the man? Clearly they are not supposed to mother equally, the woman doesn’t care for a child better, just differently than a man does. In the same way we need to look at women and men’s role in the family as not better or worse, greater or less but different.
I appreciate you pointing out that Ephesian 5:21 speaks to ALL believers in saying that we all must be “subject to one another in the fear of Christ”, but to say that 5:21 and 5:22 are part of the same thought is to be mistaken. The audiences are different (although it is fair to say that one is a subset of the other) Eph.5:1-21 is speaking to the Church of Ephesus as a whole, but in 5:22 a new thought begins directed specifically at marrieds. 5:22 tells the women to be subject to her husband, but you stopped there. You did not continue on to verse 5:23 which clearly explains WHY she must be subject to her husband. “FOR (this shows us this next statement is a reason for the preceding commandment)the husband is the HEAD of the wife…” this verse cannot be ignored when speaking about verses 21 and 22. Im sure you’ve heard this multiple times before, Im sure you have read this verse a million times so Id love if you would explain how this verse conincides and maybe even supports the idea of an equal (no one is the head) type of marriage.
Hi Tyler,
I know we agree that men and women are different. Ruby Slippers, my book, was a case for this, in more detail than physical differences. But I take the same evidence (men and women are different: body and soul) and come to a different conclusion with the date.
Every major work that God asks us on this worth succeeds and flourishes best when men and women are involved in final decision making.
Love that you asked this question about Eph 5. My short answer would be that I believe the word “head” is a metaphor, meaning it only has meaning when we connect it to the word picture Paul is creating.
We can’t easily assign another word for “head” like “leader.” But we do that because we think “head of state” or something like that.
That’s not what a metaphor is supposed to do. It could mean leader, but head could also mean source as in headwaters of a river. Context is key, as is living in the metaphor.
The husband is the head, the wife is the body. Imagine that as a biological connection. Imagine that the head needs the body to get any thing done. Try getting a meal made with only your head. Try chopping wood with only your head.
The metaphor breathes interdependence. It also means that a head operating on it’s own is dead. Same with the body. If you see a head or a body out in the world without the other part connected, it’s dead.
So when a divorce takes place we have a picture of decapitation much more than a boss firing his secretary.
The body is also dependent on the head. The work to be done in this world needs eyes to see, ears to hear, mouth to speak. Now, you have to be careful, we cannot push this metaphor too far. We cannot say women must do all the heavy lifting and men should only listen, speak and smell.
I think to must not make head mean anything more than Paul explicitly says in Eph 5 21-33. To me this is the explicit stuff:
husbands: submit, love sacrificially like you would if you were loving your own body, your own self.
wives: submit, respect as if you were one flesh
The summary: you belong to each other.
So I actually do think the husband is the head of the wife, but I think this is a connection metaphor, a source metaphor. We belong to each other, woman even CAME out of Man, originally… and all men now come out of women.. this is the teaching of 1 Cor 11:11 and previous verses, as well.
I have no problem calling my husband my Head, and he has no problem calling me his Body. This means, we need and depend one on the other.
“In marriage and in life, no male knows enough to lead a female through all the steps. Period.”
Exactly right, Jonalyn. Those beautiful and awesome dances we see on screen are all carefully choreographed down to the slightest movement of a toe or heel, and take hours and hours and then still more hours of practice. If only my wife and I had that kind of time to practice in marriage!
I also really like how you point out that following the Bible’s teaching leads to beauty in the lives God has given us. It’s a truth I’ve learned more each day: God’s ways really do lead us into his perfection. (Deut. 32:4.)
Tim
P.S. New guest post up at Leslie Keeney’s theology blog, linked through my name above. Hope you get a chance to check out her site!
Tim,
Thank you.. I appreciate how well you know the Jewish Scriptures, too.
Good to read some apologetic material over at Keeney’s blog. Thanks for linking. Considering your interest for the resurrection of Jesus, I think you’d enjoy this talk on some more recent data on how to know the Christian Scriptures are reliable. Have you heard of the Embarrassment Test? http://www.soulation.org/media/Q-HowDoITrustTheBibleIsTrue.html
Great talk Dale gave there, Jonalyn. Best line: “God trusts women”. What a culture buster!
Re the Embarrassment Test, I’ve not heard it called that but I’ve thought the same thing about the Bible narrative. If it weren’t true, it would have been constructed in a much more flattering light for God and the people identified with him.
Thanks for the link,
Tim
P.S. New post over at Keri Wyatt Kent’s today about my wife and The Avengers: http://keriwyattkent.com/soul/?p=1161 Woo hoo!
WORD, Jonalyn!
LOVE your passion and biblical groundedness. I’d like to borrow your Eph 5:21ff explanation…head/body as interdependent not leader/follower. I needed that! I get so emotional when complimentarians dredge that up that I’m unable to think, argue and empathize clearly. Darn reptilian brian!
Peace and blessings to you!
Angie
The original source for this body/head interdependent metaphor is in Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church… a great book on this. She develops this organic metaphor much more deeply. However, I’ve used it for illustrating egalitarianism.
Hope it helps you as you share the freedom you’ve found in your gender!
I don’t believe this can be a one-size-fits-all solution, or that you can say one is “more beautiful than the other”. You and Dale clearly thrive with an egalitarian relationship, and as you pointed out, it’s beautiful. I don’t desire that. I don’t feel that’s the relationship God created me to have. I know it’s not. I LOVE to be led. Does that make me less than? Does that mean I just haven’t realized my full potential? Does that mean that surely, I just don’t know better? I sure don’t think so.
My husbands gifting among others, is wisdom. That man is wise beyond his years. Although God created me equally as capable, he did not gift me with the same degree of wisdom as my husband. Jeremy lovingly consults me on everything. He will take all of my opinions about an issue into account as I will his, before making decisions. Mostly, we come to decisions together and agree upon what should happen, but sometimes Jeremy has to make the final call because… have you ever actually been in a row boat with two people paddling? (I can predict your argument to that…but thats not really my point)
Luckily, I’ve married a good man who has proved that he can trusted with such a thing.
And guess what? My way works just as beautifully as yours.
Krysta,
I appreciate hearing your thoughtful response.
I’d like to clarify the two positions, briefly.
The position of complementarianism or patriarchalism is that some roles should always be played by the man (namely leader) and some always be played by the woman (namely submissive supporter). A quote from the leading complementation groupCouncil on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood may help illustrate, “In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.”
Egalitarians say all roles in home and church can be played by anyone provided they are gifted for that role. Egalitarians do not insist that women always lead or that every decision be made by everyone. Rather egalitarians believe that gender does not outfit any man or woman for any role of leadership or submission. A quote from the egalitarian organization, Christians for Biblical Equality may help “CBE affirms and promotes the biblical truth that all believers—without regard to gender, ethnicity or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility in church, home and world.”
It makes sense that your husband’s spiritual insight and wisdom deem him best suited to play a leadership role in key wisdom requiring areas. But I daresay you have wisdom beyond your years as well. I’ve seen it.
That you both take each other’s counsel also makes sense. So far your marriage is neither complementation or egalitarian. That you want someone to make the final call also makes sense. No one likes impasses.
It is only if you believe that a man ought to lead a woman in marriage or in the church because he is male that tips you toward complementarians.
Egalitarians say . . .
When a man is more gifted, he ought to make the final decision.
But when a woman is more gifted, she ought to make the final decision. At least this is the pattern I find in Scripture: Deborah, Esther, Ruth, Mary Magdelene, Priscilla offer some good examples of women taking the lead in men’s lives.
That you love to be led is interesting and attractive and very appreciated by me. I believe all humans love being led in areas they lack expertise. However, I’d like to suggest a litmus test to determine if at core you’re truly more egalitarian or complementation:
Do you believe your husband ought to lead you if he is not more gifted than you?
I come across many couples where the man is bearing a burden of leadership without the gift of wisdom that your husband has.
Here’s a more down to earth example.
If your husband wanted to lead the family meal plan, shopping list and culinary organization, would you also enjoy being lead?
If not, why?
The beauty I see in your marriage is much like the beauty in mine, two people leading out of their giftedness, not their gender.
Feel free to push back.
Love it. Thanks for this Jonalyn!
You continue to help calm my anger over complementarians with sound thoughts on the alternatives
I was thinking with the dancing metaphor…though the male typically ‘leads in the dance – really, in all truth, the woman (dancing) is just as informed on the dance steps, has practiced just as hard at all the steps and routines, and is working equally in sync with her partner’s rhythm. So in a way, she’s not being led at all (Of course, this pertains to more professional dancers – if it were me on the dance floor…I’d need some leading as I have not a clue how to dance a waltz
)
Was also thinking in regards to the male leading. Another view point, (and I’m not sure if complementarians have an opinion on this? I’m sure they do…), is from perspective of a single woman. I wonder if they think I ought to defer to male leadership as a single woman without a husband?
Of course, I know without question that I do not need to, God is very present to my life, provides me with His wisdom directly, communicates with me very clearly and leads me with grace and truth. I would never expect a man’s leading for my spiritual or personal life. The Holy Spirit was sent to ALL – men and women – speaks to us personally, wisdom and grace are, I think, equally and joyfully doled out to all who seek!
Now – I would accept another’s perspective and insight from spiritual and personal experiences as I seek to mature but I would do this with a husband as well as my mom or dad, my sisters, my good friends, my pastor or a counsellor. But, in the end, it is I who makes the choices and I am responsible for my own walk with God.
I can’t imagine suddenly getting married and handing all my personal responsibility, choices and relationship with God to the care of another -what growth and maturity and relationship with my God I would miss out on!
(PS: LOVE the articles on Soulation around talking wtih God – really profound for me, I had been somewhat curious about this and had some experiences in the past where I thought I felt God ‘spoke’ to me but didn’t trust it. Your writing really helped me to better discern my voice and God’s. And now that I get it – it has become so clear! Thanks for this, powerful in transforming my interaction and relationship with God
)
C.J.,
It is easy to be angry. I’m glad this post helped you consider the goodness and beauty in egalitarianism. I think we have so much data in healthy marriages coupled with scripture that we can explore the beauty of each perspective squarely. We have less to fear, in my mind.
Very good point about women not being led at all! They’re doing steps they already know. Reminds me of one of my favorite movies: Strictly Ballroom. And what happens when the man and the woman invent new steps… they get thrown out. Come to think of it, this is a great movie to make a metaphor of the complementation movement.
Glad to hear my posts on talking to God were helpful… they were a challenge to write!
Stricly Ballroom is a FAVE of mine and my family. Love that it relates to this topic!
I’m sure those were hard to write – I’ve been trying to tell friends and family about it, and it’s difficult to put into words and not sound a bit cooky.
You pulled it off though i think!
CJ,
I’d be interested to know if, when you have a particularly hard time making your mind up about something, you seek out friends, parents, pastors, or a person who’s opinion you respect before making up your mind?
That’s all that happens between me and my husband.
I’ve been thinking about this discussion a lot and I’m not really sure that at the end of the day I could say I’m a “complementarian” because I certainly don’t think you (CJ) need to defer to male leadership as a single woman. That sounds ridiculous to me. However, if you were feeling unsure, would I suggest you get some insight and wisdom for a Godly person whether or not they are male or female? Absolutely.
All this said, I’m sure if you were a fly on the wall, you would see that my marriage probably functions most like an egalitarians. However, do I see my husband as the head of my family. I see him fit and capable to make decisions on behalf of our family even if he doesn’t fully have my support…although, I’d be careful here, because he always eventually gets my support since I trust him immensely. Because (and I say this in all humility) in the realm of certain things (finances, career moves) he is much more knowledgeable than I and qualified to make those decisions. He prays for me, lifts me up, and encourages my own relationship with Christ, never trying to veto what I hear from God on what needs to be done.
So does that make me an egalitarian or a complementarian? I don’t know, and I’m not sure I need to pick a camp, because I respect both. I think God uses and designed both. I think it’s when people abuse either, that we get the wrong idea about one or the other. As I said before, I think they are both beautiful pictures.
Thanks for the question Krysta!
Yes, I definitely seek guidance from all of the above – mostly my family at this point. I am VERY close to my parents and sisters, and because they know me better than anybody, I trust their opinions and guidance in big decisions. They challenge and/or affirm in various ways. Thankful I have such people to journey with me!
As you say – that happens with your husband – and this is how I would picture a relationship, if I ever have one! I hope I could trust my husband to know me well enough that he could join me in my struggles and decisions, push me and pray for me! I hope to have such a relationship as you enjoy, sounds like we probably agree on this
And ultimately, I seek God’s guidance primarily, particularly in terms of big life choices (i.e. the grad program I’m attending, job opportunities, etc). Then, I seek family and friends insight to ensure my decision meshes with who I am.
And from what you say, your relationship does sound egalitarian (esp in your comments below). I would agree that using the gifts of each partner (as Jonalyn said) is ideal. I would likely feel similar to you – I simply don’t like doing finances and would love if my partner took this on. Whereas, my sister is great with finances and this gift helps her marriage as her husband just gets stressed out and overwhelmed by them! I love that each relationship has its own balances.
A big struggle of mine is that complementarians, I think, believe that men are spiritual leaders and are responsible for their wife’s spiritual life too. This seems strange to me – as you asked, I will seek perspective and opinion – but that does not mean it is anyone else’s responsibility. My area of giftedness also lies in seeking the spiritual, challenging how its lived, learning/reading/discussing these things – I can’t imagine someone leading me better than I lead myself, to be honest! (except the Holy Spirit of course!)
I would seek a partner to balance me in being more present instead of questioning everything all the time, having a sense of humour rather than getting too serious as I can tend to do, as well as sharing prayer life/spiritual life concerns and exploring how we can pursue those separate and together.
I think I’m rambling now, will finish there, but appreciate your thoughts – I really love hearing how partner’s mesh and balance each other – it is a lovely thing, thanks for sharing a bit of your own experience!
Jonalyn,
I didn’t see your response before! Thanks you for writing back since I find your definitions most helpful. I didn’t have all the information and was relying on what I thought “complementarians” and “egalitarians” were based on things I already believed about them. I put them in my box- Dang!
This quote: “It is only if you believe that a man ought to lead a woman in marriage or in the church because he is male that tips you toward complementarians”
I don’t believe this.
Also, to answer your question, I most certainty do not enjoy being led in the meal planning. I learned this lesson when Jeremy went hard core Vegan in my foodie household.
I agree with you 100% since your clarification, Jonalyn. I think ideas I had about “titles” is what was skewing my thought. I enjoy my husbands leading in areas, so I must be a complementarian, right?
Thanks for clarifying to this woman who is trying to follow hard after Christ without the benefit of hours of study each day. Although, I’m logging more and more!
Great feedback, Krysta.
Love reading your process and it’s helping me learn to be more clear. I wish I had been clearer about these terms from the get-go. That’s a good lesson for me.
That vegan example is great and good way to show that you care deeply about leading out of giftedness and not gender. Sometimes it’s easy to relegate some areas (food, child-raising) to feminine roles and assume our “final word” in these areas isn’t as key or important or ‘spiritual’ as, say, financial decision.
But I think all things are opportunities to be spiritual. And Jesus cared a lot about children and food’s meaning.
Everything you said is spot on with these definitions except this line “I enjoy my husband’s leading in areas, so I must be a complementation, right?”
actually I think you’re an egalitarian because you believe men shouldn’t automatically lead, but you like your man leading in some areas.
If you think men should always have the final tie-breaking vote you’re complementation, if you don’t think men should always have the tie-breaking vote you’re egalitarian.
Hope that’s clearer than mud, now.
It means a lot to me that you care enough to ask and push me on this!
Gratefully,
Jonalyn
We were complementarians when we entered our marriage, and after a year we came up against a major tie-breaker vote. I remember it hitting so hard and seeming so arbitrary for a decision to be made like that (with my voice buried in a decision that majorly affected my life). It was agonizing, but I finally decided to just be honest with him about how it made me feel. The whole ordeal culminated in me asking him to make a choice:
A) We can do things this way, BUT you need to know that I will not be able to be myself. A huge part of who I am – not just a sinful part, but a good and strong and beautiful part – will have to die to make it work.
or
B) We can risk disobeying scripture (we didn’t know what egalitarianism was at the time or that there was any other scriptural way to see things outside how we’d been taught)and find a way to live honestly together. And, if we do it this way, I can’t promise that you’ll always get your way but you will have a wife who is much more whole and real and honest.
Thankfully, he chose B! We’ve learned a lot since, and I’m grateful for how things have gone. Two funny observations, though:
1) In the first year of marriage tie-breaker votes happened. In the 10 years that followed, we haven’t needed them! Since it’s no longer an option for either of us to pull that card, it just has not happened – ever. We have found a way to resolve every single thing together and find an option we could both be happy with.
2) I have learned that some parts of us (not all, but some) are actually compatible with traditional roles. Sometimes it’s true to who we are, but when it is or when it isn’t, the important thing is that we have the freedom to be the *people* we’re made to be.
Thanks for writing on this. It’s fun to reflect.
Really appreciate hearing your story Daisha. How strong of you to make that known to your husband, was probably scary to challenge what you’ve always been taught! Thanks so much for sharing this, amazing faith and honesty
Daisha,
Very grateful to hear your example.. I love what you shared with your husband, loved this line “but a good and strong and beautiful part – will have to die to make it work.”
This is perhaps the biggest struggle I have with patriarchy: it silences strength in women. And women and men suffer.
I think also, your experience of finding tie-breaking votes didn’t need making once you removed them on the list of options.
My husband and I find the same thing in our marriage. We don’t face power struggles where SOMEONE has to make the decision. We find a way to make our cases known to each other, we listen, we pray, we wait, we decide in ways that honor each of our giftings, desires, fun-o-meters, etc. There is much peace as a result.
That point that men suffer too doesn’t get the attention that it should, but it is so true. As the mother of three boys, I want to raise them to know how to live in freedom too!
I was actually just explaining why I initially thought I must be complementarian before I understood the meaning correctly. I don’t think so now.
Thanks for your feedback!
Do you mind if I post a link to this thought provoking post?
Please re-consider your position on “submisssion”
I object to submission in Eph 5 and elsewhere referring to wives (with the exception of Col 3:18) being referred to as a “COMMAND”. I believe in biblical inspiration down to the very grammar used and command grammar is NOT used (with the exception of Col 3:18).
Also, Eph 5:24 is in the immediate context of Eph 5:21-22 and seems to be overlooked by the majority of egalitarian analyses. To a committed comp, this oversight undermines your argument. YOU have said that submission is a “command” so what does that look like when “wives are subject in EVERYTHING” Eph 5:24?
I have written about this here: The Elephant in the Egalitarian Room “wives submit in everything” Ephesians 5:24
Charis,
Great point, command is not the best way to characterize this Greek verb. It’s more “submit oneself” or “choose to submit yourself”, right?
But since our culture sees this as a command and you could argue that every teaching of God in scripture is a command to us, don’t you think it is permissible to talk of this as a command. I use the word ‘command’ to point to the feeling many experience when reading Scripture. Thank you for your correction.
I appreciate your blog and perspective. I think I approach scripture from the hermeneutic that the context and original audience’s understanding of the text is more significant to understanding each text. I would lean to this rather than verb form primarily in interpreting Scripture.
I’m curious if you’ve read Gordon and Fee’s How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth? or other hermeneutic texts? If so, which one/s?
Eph 5:24 – by itself it certainly looks like a umbrella command, doesn’t it?
However, since even complementarians will make exceptions to this verse (Wives do not need to submit of themselves when the husband asks them to do something unbiblical) I think we need to admit that no one is following this verse in the umbrella form. A view you point out in your post linked above.
I think that it’s interesting that you say it’s the wife’s unique vulnerability that causes her to already be subject to her husband in everything. I get that. You write in your post ““Wives are subject to their husband in everything” Ephesians 5:24 is a description of a wife’s state of vulnerability to her husband (echoing the description in Genesis 3:16), not a prescription for wifely behavior. I am subject to my husband in everything like I am subject to gravity, without choice or volition on my part.”
I disagree for two reasons.
I believe the judgment of Gen 3:16 is precisely what Jesus came to reverse not to enforce. Consider the way Jesus takes the sting out of death and comes, as the words to Joy to the World explain “as far as the curse is found.” More on this in the final chapter of Ruby Slippers. To think that Paul is re-stating the judgment without reference to how Christ changes (and reverses) the gender war is contrary to what I’ve seen Jesus do, in the way he healed on earth and the way he’s worked in my own life. He came to set captives free, to end oppression, not to enforce it.
Maybe you are saying the same thing, but with different words?
I see patriarchy as as form of oppression. For Paul to re-state it as part of his marriage instruction seems lacking in redemption of what Jesus can do to change marital relations.
Though I believe women are more vulnerable than men (even more so in the 1st century) as I’ve explained in Chap 5 of Ruby Slippers, I believe our vulnerability is a strength, it’s a reason the head is also subject to us. The head needs the body to move in this world, to be the hands and feet, so to speak.
Our vulnerability, like the vulnerability of a microscope makes us more skilled (i.e. we get more practice) in the Christian virtues of humility, peace, patience, long-suffering etc. These are ways we lead men, not more ways we are subject to men.
So what does Eph 5:24 mean?
I believe it means that in all that we do we are connected (not subjugated) for good or for evil to the man we married. This connecting means how we interact with him is part of our witness to the world of what love, mutual submission and love mean.
Maybe we agree, but I’m using different words?
I like your thinking and good challenge on this passage!
This discussion of the entire Eph 5 marriage passage by Dale Fincher was helpful and fun for me to read: http://soulation.org/daleblog/page/2?s=the+mystery+of+submission
I think you might enjoy it, too.
Hi Jonalyn,
Sorry I didn’t see your reply until now (it didn’t make it through the email subscription???)
I took hermeneutics in the 80′s with Prof Robertson Mcquilkin of Columbia Biblical Seminary. He has his own book “Understanding and Applying the Bible”.
Seems to me that hermeneutics has shifted since I took it. Back then the emphasis was “context is king” meaning the textual context more than the historical context.
We spent a lot of the class learning and practicing the use of various tools for Greek (and Hebrew) word study. We learned that exegetical preaching (focusing on ONE passage) is preferable to topical preaching (Not that women could preach. We were not allowed to take homiletics or preach, but we could take hermeneutics).
No disrespect to more recent seminary grads who have learned the latest hermeneutical approaches, but I do think there is a place for countering patriarchy with old fashioned hermeneutics as well (as the people who preach patriarchy very often seem to be relying on old fashioned word studies- “submission” means “placed under” like the military, etc, etc…).
As far as Gen 3:16, I agree with Don Johnson’s analysis of it which you will find here. MUCH is read into Gen 3:16 that simply isn’t there!
-The notion that God “CURSED” us (not there, He cursed the ground and the serpent).
-The newly vogue mapping of women to sin in Gen 4:7 with female “control” demonized and male “control” baptized
-the assumption that all the consequences are bad instead of seeing an element of God’s grace and hope (which Don sees)
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it *in hope*;” Romans 8:20
We are definitely on the same page with advocating for equal respect for women. I have your book and enjoyed it and I read Dale’s blog on submission ages ago and left some comments then (Gem). When I tried to discuss your book with my daughters and DIL, I was subjected to ridicule and made a laughingstock by my beloved patriarchal husband
and I am afraid my (very gifted and capable) daughters are still in the fog thinking they need a husband to “lead them”.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Love, Charis
correction- I have to give my 14 yod credit. She is quite and outspoken feminist and the 24 yod has an egalitarian marriage.
The 27, 19, and 16 yod however, have a worrisome attachment to comp thought.
The 19 yo had Keller’s marriage book which I skimmed while she was home (she’s a single college student).
Love this background. Thank you for sharing and referencing these links and ideas.
Keller it seems is becoming more attractive to younger minds in surveying the literature, more than Piper and Grudem.
Would love to talk more about how we could link arms in writing a post for both our blogs gently critiquing Keller. Would you be interested? Email me!
LOL!
Patriarch husband would definitely NOT approve!
Unfortunately, I gave the book back to my 19 yo daughter and did nothing resembling a thorough reading. Karen had the book because an older mentor type person was concerned about her fear of relationships.
She expressed to me that she appreciated how respectful Keller is to singles. She also resonated with his classifications of people as tending to approach relationships with unrealistic romantic expectations OR with extreme cynicism. She said she falls into the latter group.
I liked the part at the beginning where he speaks of marriage being two imperfect people. Despite our love feelings, we don’t really know each other at the beginning. Disappointment and adjustment is a “given” which will bring about spiritual growth if we will learn how to navigate the experience in a biblical manner.
I intensely disliked the “submission” chapter (written by the wife) because she attributes “leadership” to the husband and “submission” to the wife and claims this is the illustration of the gospel to the world. I’m sorry I can’t be more specific here. There are some really choice quotes one could use, but I don’t have the book and I won’t spend money on one and have it lying around lest my patriarchal husband dig for ammunition: “ME leader! YOU submit!”
Not that I dislike Mrs Keller, or Mr Keller. They come across as very likeable and relationally healthy. Should my daughter ever have the opportunity to live in NYC and attend their church (which she would like to do), I expect their personal ministration might even give salve to some of her wounds. (Of being raised by a sometimes harsh, critical, rejecting patriarchal father and uber-submissive mother who failed to stick up for them and correct him in front of them lest they learn to “disrespect his authority”.)
To me, the early portion discouraging fairy tale expectations contradicts the later claim that the marriage is supposed to be a picture of the gospel (husband leads, wife submits).
In my own marriage, I became very disappointed and disillusioned around the 15 year mark. I realized that this kind of reading/understanding of Eph 5 is something of a “bait and switch”. In some ways they make it sound so lovely and satisfying… But the reality is that you have two imperfect people in marriage and if a wife is expecting “love” and “sacrifice”, in response to her “submission” sets her up for disappointment and sets the marriage up for failure. It’s a fairy tale.
A wife needs to be a STRONG ezer willing to renounce the “Sapphira spirit” and stand up and correct her husband firmly and consistently when he is off track and taking the marriage toward death.
My 19 yo daughter is a strong intelligent accomplished young lady (she is a rising senior at Harvard). I will send her the link and see if she might be willing to provide more of her impression of the Keller’s book.
She told me she “wants to marry a husband who can lead her”. (Exit Mama shaking in boots…)
I would love to dialog with your daughter!
A few thoughts:
1. Is it true that certain pathologies follow necessarily from certain marital structures? If so, then this is fairly deterministic and undermines individual agency.
2. Have both views been fairly characterized? Is the post pitting the virtues of one view against the vices of another?
3. Isn’t the “beauty” of one or the other deeply contingent and culturally situated?
Hi Adam,
First, I appreciate your questions, but I’d like to invite you to use not only your well-sharpened mind here, but also your array of emotional sensitivity and depth.
These will humanize our conversation in a way that I think we both and other readers will benefit more. I say this because your questions have a slightly clinical feel that I believe don’t fully capture your depth.
To answer your questions
1- yes, certain pathologies do follow from certain structures. But they do not follow absolutely, in other words free agency is always a variable. For instance, benevolent dictators are possible, but the role of dictator lays ground work for oppression. The same, I would argue, follows from patriarchy. If men are always given the tie-breaking vote, they are more easily tempted to suffer from the “lone ranger” mentality, invulnerability as a strength rather than a vice, reducing their partner’s role and gifts when her strengths threaten his “God-given” role as leader. It’s not absolute, as I have seen patrarchialists/complementarians function with benevolence. However, I would say that most loving patriarchalists are functioning as egalitarians
2-GREAT question… I would like to challenge you or others to point out any mischaracterizations of the complementation view here. As a woman who has lived both views in my growing up years and in my marriage, I believe I’ve cast them both accurately without leaning on only the vices of complementarianism. For instance, most women in patriarchal marriages love having the guy row them across the lake. It’s more relaxing and fun to be the lovely maiden.
3- No, I don’t believe the essence of beauty is culturally located. I believe beauty is found in the character of God which is not relative. Providing space for more volitional strength and emotional authenticity are marks of beauty throughout all cultures and ages because both are part of the God of Israel’s MO.
This is one of the best posts I’ve ever read on the subject. I almost laughed out loud when I read your comment on the “narcissistic delusion” that must be responsible for some men thinking they must always be the leaders.
It’s said with a healthy touch of humor, but I’ve known so many of these guys (in fact, as a homeschooler, I saw a bunch of them in the making). I think it’s one of the great dangers of misusing biblical texts – it can lead us to delusion or otherwise unhealthy mental states.
Thanks for a beautiful piece.
Jonathan
You give me a lot of hope in your comment. Thank you for noticing the gentle humor. I appreciate this point that unhealthy male dominance begins young!
My pleasure.
Oh, and I’m completely with you that complementarianism is just patriarchy re-branded to look “cool” or something.
We need to keep calling them out on this.
And thanks for the shout out.
Blessings.
Jonalyn,
I just happily stumbled upon your site and will be visiting often. I appreciate your explanation of the words of Paul regarding “headship”. I first heard that explanation from Phillip Payne in his book “Man and Woman, One in Christ”. I have spent the last 2 decades making sense of the patriarchy that I was raised in (my father was a pastor). My husband and I do not enter into power struggles, perhaps because it is our second marriage, and our first marriages blew up because of power struggles. What is beautiful for both of us is that we are for each other. We want what is best for one another. Sure, we differ in the way we handle some situations, but under-girding our relationship is love. We love each other. In that love we experience YAHWEH. It is good.
Glad you found my site!
Fascinating point that eliminating the chance for power struggles became part of making your second marriage work! I love how you’ve explained that love flourishes when one person does NOT have the tie-breaking vote.
Ok, as you know, I believe the egalitarians have a HUGE leg up on complementarians in how they explain their position. I want to see a bunch of “compassionate complementarians” come forward and explain how very similar the two positions really are, at least from the scriptural truths. I am still doing lots of study on all of this and am way behind you, so I won’t try to go toe to toe with you one bit from the hermeneutical points! But from my vantage point, I do take issue with at least these two characterizations of egalitarianism, rather than complementarianism from this post:
“A husband who can re-direct his energy toward his own gifts, and row with all he has knowing his wife has picked up the oar beside him and can keep pace with his energy, his will and direction”
“A husband and wife who bear responsibility before God for their own soul’s growth.”
To me, both of those are GREAT examples of the complementarian position. Yes, there are ways that egalitarians and complementarians disagree. But those two examples are ways they agree, as far as I understand the positions. The stances you created for the complementarian position is more of a older view, not a modern view from what I can tell. (Not that there aren’t tons of buffoons out there touting that as still the traditional view of gender relationships.) The 51%/Trump card debate to me is a silly one. And I laugh at how Tim Keller says, Ok, if you’re going to do that, you get ONE, your whole marriage, guys, so make sure it’s a good one. In reality, I just don’t see complementarian marriages working like that. It’s a marriage of equals and mutual respect. I don’t think that is presented enough, but that is the true belief of the complementarian side. (There are nuances, but those two facts still remain, and should not be overshadowed by the nuances.)
Something I’m very interested in this “debate” is stopping the mischaracterizations on either side. Are there selfish beasts on the complementarian side that make the whole thing stink? Yes. Are there raging feminists on the egalitarian side that make that side lose credibility? Yes. But I’d rather find ways to parse out a more loving reality- that there are LOTS more of us in the middle ground- only disagreeing on one or two key issues. The rest of it looks very similar. I imagine most of the marriages of our generation are much more egalitarian than in our parents generation, and I think that is awesome and beautiful. I want us to hold both sides in the light and see as much truth as possible and strive for unity. But, I will say, if nothing else, that I LOVE my egalitarian brothers and sisters, especially in the job you’re doing lifting up women the way Jesus did. I am so saddened that my complementarian brothers and sisters have done such a bad job in that arena. I think, if they are “right” in the theological sense, they have stabbed themselves in the back by being so wrong in their manner that no one can hear them.
Marlo,
Good points. Here, here to realizing the middle ground!
I certainly don’t want to critique an out-moded perspective. I know Emerson Eggerich believes in the tie-breaker vote in Love and Respect, which is both recent and popular.
I’ve observed that most complementarians function as egalitarians, as equal share holders. I’d say if complementarians say only use one tie breaking vote a la Keller, then they’re functioning as egalitarians. They know the spiritual leadership of the man cannot ever be regularly exercised because it wreaks havoc on the belief that women are equally equipped and gifted to spiritually lead. This is egalitarianism with a token nod at patriarchy.
Perhaps it would help if you shared how soft complementarians such as Keller define male headship/leadership?
We may be closer than I think!
Marlo,
Great to hear these points.
I’ve been out of town on vacation (so good for our souls, that) and am just now beginning to catch up.
Thank you for offering these examples of things you took issue with in mischaracterizing complementarians (C’s. I appreciate hearing your perspective.
A few responses to the two quotes you thought fit C’s, too.
1- “A husband who can re-direct his energy toward his own gifts, and row with all he has knowing his wife has picked up the oar beside him and can keep pace with his energy, his will and direction”
A few questions for how this can be a difficult for C’s. Many wives in true C marriages are subconsciously or consciously holding themselves back from giving their work, their opinion, their power in the marriage because they have been taught by C theologians that a woman is too much. A woman has the power of demasculinizing a male. A woman can feminize too much a male soul. A woman’s body can trip a man up. A woman can rob a man of his God-give role and power, etc.
All lies, I believe, but still alive and present with C teachings. This keeps women from using their energy, will and directives to challenge and keep pace with a man. The C teaching that a woman is not directed by God to lead a man is what holds her back.
2- “A husband and wife who bear responsibility before God for their own soul’s growth.”
Many C’s will read Eph 5:26 as God’s command for them to act as priests of their home, in effect taking responsibility away from the wife for her own sanctification and soul’s growth.
Take for instance this quote from christiannet.com (emphasis mine)
Ephesians 5:26 depicts the husband’s role in a Christian marriage as a god-fearing man leading a holy life. That lifestyle makes the husband a fit vessel to spiritually sanctify and cleanse the woman. To sanctify means to set apart or separate for holy service to God and to ones mate. The marriage bed becomes holy and undefiled, and the marital relationship is exclusive and monogamous. When the husband lives a life pleasing to God, by example the head of the household becomes a “living epistle,” demonstrating to the wife what a righteous lifestyle should entail.
Throughout their union, the husband’s role in a Christian marriage as high priest requires intercession for the household. A sanctified man approaches God in prayer and fasting, interceding on behalf of a submissive wife. Constant fellowship, sexual intimacy, and continual communication cleanse the female so that she can stand before God without spot or blemish.
I disagree, but this is why I suggested that egalitarians offer a more beautiful picture of how each soul is responsible before God to use their gifts in their marriage and cannot absolved themselves of their own responsibility, especially as regards sanctification or cleansing.
Jonalyn, that excerpt was just the type of thing a guy I knew once said to me, that he was the priest in his home for the benfit of his family. I just don’t get how that squares with Scripture as a whole, nor see how it would play out practically in real life and a real marriage.
Tim
the priest in his home… that is something I’ve heard many times, too.
Practically, I can’t see how this can play out without muting women.
“A wife who can initiate and persuade, advocate and protect without fearing she is leaving her God-ordained role?” FEARING
I appreciate this thought because this is what I see the most going on in male-dominated relationships where women don’t live their convictions and use their God-given reason and common sense because of fear of doing the wrong thing. I’m tired of seeing women motivated by fear instead of living in the liberty God gave us. Decisions should be based on the Holy Spirit’s direction, not the authority of a male leader because the individual is accountable to God. I believe based on Scriptures that when we all stand before God, He won’t say to the women, well, you took your pastor’s advice so willingly putting yourself back in an abusive situation is OK. This concept of needing to be under the protection of the authority of a male figure limits the power of the Gospel, because woman is not under man, but under God. I see that idea of having to live out the decisions of a man as a final authority to be it’s own special brand of legalism. It’s one of the most clever Lies – one that limits the strength of what women can be when fully . I appreciate the Biblical example of Abigail and Nabal and David in 1 Sam. 25, of Deborah the judge, and other examples and verses in Scripture that provide a more whole and balance picture – versus pulling a few verses out of the New Testament and reading them with our current cultural view instead of with the awareness of the culture they were written to!
HRH Elizabeth just celebrated her Diamond Jubilee after 60 years on the throne, and her predecessor who also did this was another women – Victoria. How does Elizabeth’s husband handle this? Accounts show he is tremendously supportive. I would love to explore a relationship like that – closer to the way men an women were created to live, before the affects of sin. I think working towards recovering that is a worthy goal, given that Jesus died to remove the power of sin and death. We all sin and we’ll all die, but we’re not longer bound to them. Ideas preventing men and women from fully living that relief out is just so sad!
A good bio exploring the relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and her husband? Anyone know of one?