We are discussing marriage by examining the recent book of John Piper's called This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence. If you know the debates today among (mostly) evangelicals -- I don't know this debate outside that circle, you know there is a debate between complementarians and egalitarians, though I think the word "egalitarian" is slippery and derivative more from modernist theories of equality and justice than from either biblical teaching or theological perceptions. As I state in my book, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
, I prefer the term "mutuality."Piper doesn't. He's perhaps the leading voice in the complementarian group, and he has two chps in this book on male headship and another chapter on the wife's submission. Some of you are snarling now. Some of you are suspicious of what I might say. I hope both you, and others, keep reading.
Once again, here is the passage: Ephesians 5:21ff
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.What does Piper say then? Here are his major points:
1. In Paul's mystery, the man mirrors Christ and the woman the Church. Christ, he suggests, is both lionhearted and lamblike. Marriage must be understood as an image of the relationship of Christ and the Church.
2. The one flesh of husband-wife mirrors the one body of Christ-Church. I'd like him to have explored what "oneness" means here: is it functionality they are one or is it relationality? Is it being or is it perichoresis? What does "one" mean here?
3. This leads him to the distinguishable "roles" of husbands and wives. Which leads him to critique egalitarians, though I'm not sure who he has in mind since he gives no names and no literature and no references. His definition leaves more than lots to be desired for it is incomplete as it is unfair. Who are the egalitarians? His words: "the ones who reject the idea that men are called to be leaders in the home" (77). Point: this is not how to define your enemies. He's defined them by what he dislikes or by what he thinks is wrong from his angle of what is right. Why not, I want to ask, let them define what they think? They put, he says, all the emphasis on "mutual submission" of vs. 21. Do they? Yes, they will note that -- as I would too. V. 22 depends for the word "submit" on v. 21. There is no paragraph break at 22. V. 22 flows out of v. 21. But, is that where the so-defined egalitarians put their emphasis? No. They put it on love and on loving sacrifice of one another, and they also tend to downplay the appropriateness of the word "role." (By the way, I just read the section on this passage in IVP's Ancient Christian Commentary on the New Testament, and the emphasis is on sacrificial love for the excerpts taken and there is precious little on role. Read it for yourself.) Egalitarians, he claims, seem to stop with mutual submission and fall shy of defining roles and the distinctions between husbands and wives. This may be true of some, but I don't think it is fair to see this of egalitarians as a class.
4. Thus, he continues: "Mutuality of submission and servanthood do not cancel out the reality of leadership and headship. Servanthood does not nullify leadership; it defines it.
5. Sin did not create headship but destroyed it, and here Piper rails against the abuse of headship by domineering and indifferent, lazy males and the abuse of submission by both manipulative obsequiousness and brazen insubordination on the part of wives. Sin made these roles ugly and destructive.
6. Headship: "divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christlike, servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home. Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts" (80). There's not enough "love" or "covenant keeping" in these two definitions for me. I can't believe a woman's submission is about affirming a husband's leadership -- that's too abstract for me. His definitions here appear to be commitments to assignments for one another instead of commitment to one another.
7. Headship basically means leadership with two facets: protecting and providing (nourishing and cherishing). And the next chp has good examples of what he means by all this ...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I remember a romantic dinner at a restaurant with my then fiancée some years ago. He reached across the table and declared his undying love to me and then earnestly told me that he promised "to love me like Christ loved the church." They were the most unselfish and romantic words I have ever heard spoken. As you can imagine, I replay this event over in my mind often, and I must tell you- never once in all those recollections and never in my wildest imagination have I ever interpreted that declaration to have even the most remote connotation of headship or hierarchy, power or provision. I knew immediately that my (now) husband used that analogy to describe a love that is beyond measure and is defined by self-sacrifice. I think putting “feet” to those words helps us truly read the text. One simply can’t make that statement to someone and really mean: “I want to be your Lord, and p.s. you need to respect me.” Interpreting such a statement that way is ludicrous.
What is most disconcerting about Piper’s argument is not that it so obviously pits men and women against each other in an all-out gender arm-wrestling match (although, that is certainly not good). The most disturbing thing to me about Piper’s thesis is that its overall assumption of what it is to be “Christ-like” is flawed. The Jesus who is the Head of our (very mutualialistic, and exceedingly satisfying) marriage was not merely a moral, upstanding powerful man who provides for us, offers us safety and therefore deserves respect (this is what I think Piper et al are shooting for in their interpretation of being Christ-like)...No, the Jesus who is head of our marriage did (and asks us, as his followers, to do) counter-intuitive, counter-cultural things that (let’s be honest) often we are uncomfortable with, and that usually the world does not appreciate. Piper’s definition of Christ-likeness (as I read Scot’s précis of it) is not fully descriptive; it leaves out the most important part- the consequences. The consequence of living a life of sacrificial love (a la Jesus) is that we become more transparent, more vulnerable, and therefore more apt to lose our lives and reputations in the process. He has totally missed the point of the writer of Ephesians. Piper’s definition of Christ and his attributes is dismally limited and simply doesn’t do justice to the Christ/Church analogy.
Mark, you're correct about Ephesians and authorship. In a blog comment, I only feel responsible to affirm what I believe while showing respect for those who disagree. I think authorship is an important point with Ephesians because I believe Paul leaned toward gender egalitarianism.
Dana's post #24 is well worth reading [even if it is long :) ].
I would just add two comments to the discussion.
ONE: 1st Century greco/roman world young women tended to marry at around 18. And until then led protected lives within their patriarchal society. Men tended to marry in their 30's after they had experienced life a bit [if you know what i mean] (Source: Dr. Gordon Fee - i think a paper outlining this is available by him on the Christians for Biblical Equality site). IMO this makes the instruction that wives respect and husbands love (within their patriarchal society where husbands were not expected to 'love' their wives more understandable to us moderns.
SECOND: I find it interesting that the word 'headship' appears nowhere in the NT materials.
@ Mark 31 - I think Jeanette would agree!
@ Dana 24 - thank you for your thoughtful post. I hope you would agree with what I'd add to your remarks:
You wrote: "Marriage is *about* a healthy and holy union of beings who are at once the same (human) and different (gendered)."
I'd add: ...and we, individually and in our unity, reflect God's image as we're reconciled to one another in covenant-keeping love (thanks, Scot, for that phrase).
Plus, I appreciated your thoughts about the embodied individual beings in Christ birthing our unembodied union by the Spirit into the Body of the Church. (bit a rephrase there, I hope I "got" what you meant!)
Some of your paragraph about male and female "principles" seems to be respondive to those who've distorted 1 Cor. 11 to match their ideas of "roles", if I'm not mistaken (because "head" is used there, too). If so, then the /ta panta/ ("all things") remark in the next paragraph makes perfect sense to me - cf. 1 Cor. 11:11-12 where all the prior suppositions of men/women expressed in earlier verses are turned upside down by Paul. [I worked w/ Russ Spittler @ Fuller on exegeting Paul's use of ta panta in 1 Corinthians.]
Is your study of "all things" in the NT specifically a Pauline study, or generally NT?
Ann,
it's the Pauline stuff that jumps out at me.
I'm a huge fan of N.T. Wright, so "faithful covenant love" is ok by me.
And I've lately been received into the Orthodox Church, which is where the idea of male and female "principles" comes from. Christos Yannaras' "Freedom of Morality" discusses this. It is awesome, unfortunately out of print, but if you can get it through a library it would be well worth your time to read it. Everything visible inside an Orthodox church building speaks to/points at the union of heaven & earth, including humans as gendered beings. If, by virtue of his union with it, humanity has been taken by Jesus to the very throne of God, then all the noise about roles has to fade away.
Thank you for your kind words. I surely do wish I knew Greek!
Dana
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.