We are discussing marriage by examining the recent book of John Piper's called This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence. What then about this "submissiveness" that is so emphatic in Piper's complementarian approach to reading the roles of husbands and wives?
Piper begins with 1 Peter 3 and finds four characteristics of biblical women: they hope in God, they are fearless about the future, they have an inner adornment, and they are submissive.
What submission is not according to Piper:
1. It does not mean agreeing with everything yoru husband says.
2. It does not mean leaving your brain or your will at the wedding altar.
3. It does not mean avoiding every effort to change a husband.
4. It does not mean putting the will of a husband before the will of Christ. "Submission to Jesus relativizes submission to husbands" (100).
5. It does not mean that a wife gets her personal, spiritual strength through her husband.
6. It does not mean she is to act out of fear.
What is it?
It is to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts. "It's the disposition to follow a husband's authority [new word so far as I can see], and an inclination to yield to his leadership" (101).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
#3 Travis
By all means use it! Truth can never be stolen.
To the comment you liked I would also add: we are not looking for less leadership but more--and specifically we are looking for ALL who are gifted and called to lead to do so with all their hearts, mind, soul and strength. The gifts and callings of God show no respect of persons or gender.
Full partnership means full mutuality.
@ Joanne #12 - they might as well rip Gen. 1 right out of the canon, then.
Not to mention the obvious that most parents can observe - boys and girls are very different, as are each from another! I have to say it makes me laugh how abstracted from daily reality some academics have to be to posit such dogma.
I have no disagreement with the obvious fact that boys and girls are different.
Does difference as in a flesh (male flesh and female flesh) sense mean we are have less of God's image?
Definitions of difference usually move to what men and women are designed to do in the church and home. Then arguments are made for why difference means women should be subordinate.
So it's not difference that is the issue... but what is made of difference. That's why the devil is in the details.
opps, #16 is Joanne.
John (@7) - If a woman was called to leadership, she should lead. But the simple question is, does God call women to leadership? Which then brings us back to exegesis.
A small thing to consider is the Old Testament. Yes, Deborah and a few women here and there led the nation politically or militarily, but that is not the spiritual body of the OT (the "church" back then). The priesthood is the closest thing they had to what we have. That was always led by men throughout the entire history of Israel.
It is said of us in the NT that we are now "a nation of priests" (in Hebrews). Does that make us all able to lead like the Levitical priesthood? I'm more inclined to see our priesthood more in the second sense used in the OT when the entire nation is called a nation of priests, mediators between God and the other nations. I think that is what the Hebrews passage is talking about -- the office of Levitical priest pretty much went away (except for Christ taking the High Priest position) since we have no sacrifices or temples left to maintain.
So that is something to consider at least, in terms of biblical theology. I also just wrote a small blog on a different aspect of the whole issue, I'd like to get your opinion on that if you wouldn't mind:
http://christspeak.com/2009/07/13/imagery-marriage-part-2/
I'll have to think over Dave's point up in comment #1 about the mutual submission to sex and how that would fit it, it's something I haven't considered deeply before. Its nice to have good theology discussions online when people are civil about like on this blog :)
Oh, and if any of y'all read this, I just want to say that I'm signing up for all of your blogs on my RSS (Dave, John, Ann, Paul, Pat). They look good.
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.