Marriage as Parable of Permanence 8

The only passage I know of that speaks explicitly of "authority" in marriage, and using that word (exousia), is in 1 Corinthians 7:4:

"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (NAS)

Paul goes on to say: "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time..." (v. 5, NIV)

This sounds like mutuality to me.

It seems odd, if Paul truly believed in the "husband leads/wife submits" model, that he would make an exception in the area of sexual compliance. Sex is a pretty fundamental componant of marriage, is the means by which two become one flesh, and can serve as a metonym for the whole marriage relationship.

I have no objections to Piper teaching women to submit to their husbands. What I find flawed is that he infers this means men are exempt from mutual submission and that only the male partner has a leadership part to play in the marriage partnership. True egalitarians are not against submission. They object to it being half missing. We want more submission; not less. The complementarian, on the other hand, wants to shirk the most distinctive aspect of Christ's example: kenosis.

Dave, "We want more submission; not less."

That's a great point. I hope you don't mind me stealing it.

I can appreciate his qualifications on what submission is not, I also know there is more to his story about the relations between men and women in marriage and in the church.

But in Piper's view submission does mean

1. women may not teach or preach in the congregation
2. women may not be pastors
3. women may not be leaders or participate in leading in the church an home.
4. women must adopt a particular identity in relation to men in the home and church that is largely defined by pastors and accept their definition of their substance and what it means.

I think submission is about doing the hard work of relationship between one anothers... in the church and household system.

1. it's about listening to one another
2. it's about inviting and including
3. it's about putting aside the me first attitude to others can flourish and thrive in the new community.
4. it's about following the ways of Christ in the character of Christ.
5. it's for both men and women.

If two believers--one man and one woman--are both gifted by the Holy Spirit with the charism of leadership (Romans 12:8), does the complementarian view demand the woman "submit" to the man's leadership *because* he is man? If so, why? Where does that kind of thinking come from? It seems forced into N.T. texts, not derived from the N.T.

This may seem snarky, but I think the complementarian view is all smoke and mirrors to uphold a cultural model of "authority" and "headship" (who created that word?) rather than observe and practice biblical teaching. But that's just me. I am not speaking for anyone else here at Jesus Creed.

@ John #7, to your question in the 1st paragraph: In a nutshell, yes. I've studied w/ complementarian professors, including one who is a recognized authority on NT Greek. He didn't realize the irony when he said to me after an exegetical study I did which overturned commentaries' arguments on a passage, "I'll never read that passage the same way again." Yet, he still thinks men have to have the "senior pastor" role and women can only be in supporting pastoral roles because of his interpretation of 1 Tim. 2.

@ Joanne #5, some complementarians (as the prof above) believe women can be pastors, just not senior pastors. Others take the more extreme view, such as the Lutheran MS pastor who tried to teach my daughter in middle school that "according to [his] role, and the order which is necessitated by sin, wives must submit to their husbands in everything. [he quoted Eph.5] So, I give my wife permission to cook and clean the house." To which my daughter responded, "doesn't that sentence begin with 'submit yourselves to one another'?" He told her that she was taking it "out of context" (no, I'm not kidding!), and she said, "I don't think so, I think you are!"

BTW, Scot, I showed our now-college-aged daughter your comments on that exact Eph. 5 section and she laughed aloud. :)

I think Joanne's point #1 of "listening to one another" as an act of submission (and, I'd add, love) is critical. Being a later life seminarian after working in economics & investment banking, I'd recognized that some/many men have a hard time really hearing women in any area, not just in the church or family. I recall a bank Exec VP responding to a study I'd written that clearly laid out how poor the internal accounting controls were, & thus how exposed to fraud the bank was: "She's just a Yankee and a girl." Most professional women know what I mean when I wonder aloud if there doesn't seem to be an exceptionally hard pushback when a woman speaks the truth to those in authority, in contrast to when another man may speak the same truth.

Well Mr. John W. Frye...you may speak for me! Spot on, brother, spot on!!

Heavy sigh....

@ 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.

opps, #16 is Joanne.