Intellectuelle

". . . only God’s own authority is perfect and binding. It is the only authority that either husband and wife are bound to follow."

Bingo! (I think)

I would say, because in some ways there needs to be

Are you honestly saying that egalitarians who are married and raise children, are a mirage. What about team partnerships, where two people work together as peers. People do this all the time. What do you mean by "there needs to be"? Is there sociological evidence that there has to be one designated full time leader and that this should be decided by gender and not by ability.

My parents had complementary spheres, but neither one had "authority over" the other. In fact, my parents traditional marriage was so egalitarian that I walked into a "traditional" marriage without realizing that I was about to be deprived of basic human rights.

I agree with many of your premises but question a few details.

Suzanne, that statement was very brief and very general; I thought of going into more detail but didn’t because of post length, etc. (and opening more cans of worms ;-) ) No, I don’t believe there must be hierarchy between husband and wife. What I meant was that organized groups of people need some sort of governing structure in order to function properly.

Bonnie,

Thanks for all the writing you've done on this topic, especially this latest post, highlighting my comments. I fear, though, that we're simply at an impasse here, so I will leave you with parting thoughts on why I continue to disagree with much of your argument and conclusions (and a few points that we do agree).

Yes, I have used a "secular" example of headship to define and illustrate husbandly headship. As I've stated previously, I don't consider such a practice either inherently incorrect or anomalous in nature. In fact, I consider it standard practice when reading text, of any kind. The mere fact that the words are in the Bible does not transform them into something else. The words were written by humans living in a physical reality, writing to people living in a physical reality. The meaning of the words written are derived from writer's intent as framed by context, language, and culture. There's good reason to use "secular" definitions - they're exactly what the recipients would have understood - part of the public meaning. If a particular word is being used with private meaning, whether with another definition, with multiple meanings, or with expanded meanings, the text (author) tells us so.

You say you cannot find support for "the husband is tasked with leading", yet I find it right there in Ephesians 5. Note that this would probably lead to a discussion on how Christ, as head of the church, has authority over the church.

You state that, regarding the husband, "He does not have his own authority." I agree with that. The authority I have is from God - I have been "tasked" with leading. Sorry (well, maybe I'm not), that's what I understand it to be stating.

You state, "Both a man and a woman, or a husband and a wife, are to lead their own lives in accordance with God’s authority and initiate such living themselves – this is what it means to walk in the Spirit." I agree with that. Yet my life is not my own, in the earthly sense, once I become one with my wife.

You question whether or not headship is a role. I believe it is, and I don't understand why such a question would be asked, unless there is some question on the definition of "role". Maybe this is just my stereotypical male trait of pragmatism coming through here, but I think that males are more goal-oriented than females. Nothing inherently right or wrong with that, it just seems to be how we're typically wired. I also believe that there are inherent differences between men and women, and that such differences are part of God's plan (e.g., the roles of father and mother).

An issue I have with your paragraph on Eph. 5 is that the text does not indicate that husbands are to be the head and submit; it states that they are to be the head and to love. It seems to me that the paramount danger of authority is its misuse; hence, we (husbands) are given the admonition to be the head of AND to love our spouse as our own body (note that even though the husband and wife are "one", Paul differentiates between husband and wife here). What I would argue for is that the concepts of headship and authority are expanded, in this text, to encompass a more fuller application, and not to exclude "secular" definitions.

So, here we sit, you and I, on this merry-go-round. I think we've gone around enough, so I'm getting off.

Hey, all. Just found this site. Wow.

Could I ask a question? Which is easier: to love, or to submit?

I mean that in the sense Calvin dealt with when answering folk who thought NT law was a 'kinder, gentler' one than OT.

Calvin's comment was, "As if that were easier!" (to love as Christ loved).

I am a Christian woman with a Christian husband, and I regularly 'submit' to a 'loving' husband.

By the way, both of us ARE sinners, big time.

Must there be a thick black line drawn between complementarian and egalitarian viewpoints? (Sorry, that was question #2.) I don't want to sound like a post-modern thinker who wants everything both ways, but I just don't think things are always that clear cut, even when drawn from a scripture passage. Paul does say he's talking about the mystery of Christ and the Church, at the end of that.

Jan

Rusty, I respect that you’re off the merry-go-round, but I hope you’ll allow me to point out that I think you are misunderstanding what I said about Ephesians 5. I did not mean to say that husbands are both head and submit in marriage; I meant that for both husband and wife, the husband being head and the wife submitting, their task is to walk in the Spirit. In walking in the Spirit, the husband’s headship will be a redeemed one, and the wife’s submission will be a godly one. (It is possible to submit in an ungodly way.) I thought that this would be evident by the parallel between the two sentences plus the rest of the paragraph, sentence 1 being “both being head and submitting in marriage” and sentence 2 being “pertaining to both being a husband (man) or a wife (woman),” plus the rest of the paragraph speaking of both husband (men) and wife (women). But I have modified the sentence to hopefully clarify it. Thanks :-).

Bonnie,

Thanks for the clarification. Re: "I meant that for both husband and wife, the husband being head and the wife submitting, their task is to walk in the Spirit. In walking in the Spirit, the husband’s headship will be a redeemed one, and the wife’s submission will be a godly one. (It is possible to submit in an ungodly way.)"

Believe it or not, we agree on that one!

Thanks for that post, Bonnie! It clarified things for me from the previous post.

That's the problem with posting; you can be misunderstood so easily!

Better to wait and see what comes up next.

Maybe this is just my stereotypical male trait of pragmatism coming through here, but I think that males are more goal-oriented than females.

Rusty!

I resemble your altitude. You leave me almost wordless.

Poor Bonnie, getting a nudge from me on one side and the bye bye from Rusty. That shows what a good job she is doing.

Rusty,

I work full time, and provide, protect, nurture, etc. etc. I do my own house maintenance and I still have the time to write articles on techy sorts of things. This is how I fill my role as single mum. I know you don't want to debate me, so just write me down as eternally befuddled at men who think that somehow they are pragmatic and women are not.

Jan, thanks so much for commenting. In response to your first comment: if you were standing in front of me, I would hug you! I’ve found that as I’ve commented on gender issues, I’ve been “pulled” by the assumption, on both "sides" of the gender debates, that I must identify with one side or the other. I’ve said elsewhere that I would call myself a complementarian if it weren’t for what a lot of them are saying, and in many ways I am egalitarian except that I don’t accept a lot of the prominent egalitarian claims either. I hate being caught between the two sides! Which is why I said in this post that I hate categories (and have said before that I shun labels).

Anyway, glad to hear I cleared things up! (whew!)

P.S. I talked about submission vs. life sacrifice (the husband's love of his wife) in this recent post.

Bonnie,

I am wondering what it is about the egalitarian position that you don't agree with. I look forward to your further thoughts.

(This comment was supposed to follow my last one but I accidentally deleted it. So I attemped to re-compose)

Now that I’ve cleared things up, I’m going to cause more trouble ;-). I do believe that Ephesians 5:21 is not divorced from Eph. 5:22-33, as I explained in the post linked in my last comment. In other words, husbands do submit to their wives! (Rusty, if you’re still watching the merry-go-round, please don’t throw anything at me.) But husbands submit by sacrificially giving their lives, and wives submit as helpmates as per Gen. 2:18-25 and I Cor. 11:9.

Sue, I'm getting around to it, just haven't got there yet :-). I appreciate your patience with me.

The main thing is that I don't see enough acknowledgment of male-female differences, complementarity, and male headship. I see eisegesis (which hopefully I'm not guilty of myself). But, I think that the emphasis upon spiritual gifting, and womens' gifts and abilities being necessary to the church and the world, to both genders and all ages fully, is right on the money.

Sue,

Being the pragmatic one you are, you need to sit back and re-read what I said (and what I didn't say). I did NOT state that men are pragmatic and women are not.

If you want to believe that there is no difference between men and women, that's certainly your right. Laying aside the naked differences between the two genders, my comments in no way mandated a strict definition of the psyches that make up men and women. The context of my remarks had to do with a general assessment of male and female qualities. For crying out loud, have you not heard of "Chix Flix"? Walk into a Hallmark card shop and count the number of men vs. women. See any type of pattern here? Flip the record over (yes, I'm dating myself) and you can pull the same general examples for men. Men and women are wired differently.

What's so controversial about something that is patently obvious with just a little bit of observation?

And re: "Poor Bonnie, getting a nudge from me on one side and the bye bye from Rusty. That shows what a good job she is doing."

Yes, that's it, I admit it, how could I hope to hide it from you?, must be my fragile male ego that has been bruised, I'm running off now, a whimpering shell of my former self - no doubt to get in touch with my feminine side.

Or, maybe it's like I stated (oops, there we go again, actually reading my words as if they have meaning). My arguments and Bonnie's were essentially being repeated - hence my merry go round comment. Why continue? I know Bonnie well enough to know her tenacity, and she knows mine. I know when we're at an impasse. So, being a goal-oriented male (as opposed to a goal-oriented female), I pragmatically decided to get off and spend time doing other things (one of which, it appears, happens to be writing this comment back to you).

Bonnie

The main thing is that I don't see enough acknowledgment of male-female differences, complementarity, and male headship.

First, I don't have any trouble accepting headship but I have not seen kephale connected to "authority" in Greek so naturally it means something different to me than it does to people who think of the organizational use of "head of ___" in English. That use did not exist in Greek.

Second, I am pretty old fashioned on "the wife has the babies and the husband supports her," but after a few years, one notices that men mother very well and women father fairly well too. Maybe it is partly that I am a few years older and some of the complementarity has faded. Plus, as a single mom, I do it all and it feels right. It feels like me.

Male - female difference, lots of fun, but where is the relevance in ministry. Both Paul and Moses talked of leadership as "nursing".

Rusty,

Yes, that's it, I admit it, how could I hope to hide it from you?, must be my fragile male ego that has been bruised, I'm running off now, a whimpering shell of my former self - no doubt to get in touch with my feminine side.

I have no idea what caused this burst of rhetoric. Forgive me for unknowingly causing offense - or hilarity.

Yes, chick flicks, my father and my son both love chick flicks, and both served in the military. My son remarked the other day that now that he has returned from 3 years of very tough assignments that he feels so free to enjoy chick flicks and he expressed regret that other men seem to be insecure about this.

I have to say that I am unable to perceive the point that you are trying to make. No doubt I am being thick about this. I feel you are trying to get a point across but I don't know what it is. Accept my goodwill in this.

I also want to express my enjoyment for the discourse here which so delicately treads some middle ground.

Sue,

Apologies accepted. I apologize for unnecessarily coming on too strong. On the plus side, it appears you found some of my discourse hilarious (which was part of my intent).

Regarding chick flicks, I think you're committing the fallacy of the small sampling. They're referred to as chicks flicks for a reason, aren't they? If not, then why not refer to them as... flicks? I applaud your father and son for loving chick flicks (heck, even though I'd rather see Jurassic Park, I went to - and enjoyed - Little Women), but if I were to have a party with men who don't care for chick flicks, and you were to have a party with men who do, I think there'd be a lot more guys at my party. Your son is certainly free to believe that men have an insecurity about viewing chick flicks, and while that may be true for some, I think the simple reason they don't want to watch them is because they don't like them. Years ago I mentioned, to the lady who cut my hair, that I had recently seen the movie, The Hunt for Red October. Her immediate comment was, "That's such a guy's movie!" I don't consider her insecure for not wanting to go see such a movie - why should I? - she's a woman and, typically, she won't be interested in such a movie. (again, anomalies still exist - there's a 24 year-old woman at work who prefers action movies over chick flicks - probably because she was brought up by her father - in a motherly role - who took her to those type of movies)

The gist of my point was that men tend towards the pragmatic while women tend towards understanding. It's a general statement and certainly not an absolute. There are, obviously, men who tend towards understanding and women who tend towards pragmatism. Interestingly enough, I was inspired to mention this notion of men tending towards pragmatism, and women towards understanding, because of a book I'm reading, written by a pediatrician - a female pediatrician.

Hi Sue,

On kephale and authority I can’t speak to the Greek usages, but I think there is authority involved in the Scripture usages, but it’s not the authority so many comps. say that it is, imo. It’s not an authority to assume a certain role or function but to walk according to God’s love, mercy, and justice as the God-created self that one is, in whatever earthly arrangement or situation one is in. Such walking will include acting-out but the acting-out will flow naturally and directly from one’s being, in response to or in accordance with the situation – in other words, the driving force of it is God, not ourselves.

You could say, as I think Rusty does, that this is an authority to take or act a certain role or function, but then the focus is on the role or function rather than the attitude of the one acting the role or doing the function, which is what I object to. I think it’s the attitude that matters, not the function, and this is what’s spelled out in Ephesians 5 and 6. We were all bought with a price, and are all to be “imitators of God” – Eph. 5:1. **

(I didn’t really realize that what I’ve been trying to point out is the ontology of it all until Sarah supplied that term...it usually takes other people a handful of words to say what I say in several essays, once they realize what I’m trying to say!!).

Second, I am pretty old fashioned on "the wife has the babies and the husband supports her," but after a few years, one notices that men mother very well and women father fairly well too.

I understand what you are saying – in some situations, you do what you have to do even if it’s not “ideal” because that’s your lot and it’s OK and it “works” in that situation. I would also offer that a father is not a substitute for a mother, nor is a mother a substitute for a father. But your comment also illustrates the point I’ve been making that many functions are simply functions and ought not be limited as being the domain of only one gender or the other. (Obviously, some functions are limited to one gender or the other, but those are...pretty obvious.)

This is different from assigning traits to one gender or the other. Again, there are obvious traits characteristic of one gender or the other (mainly physical), but past that, associating traits with gender gets complicated and difficult. Except, I do think that traits are colored by gender. But I haven’t seen anyone define this well and haven’t worked on doing so myself. Maybe I should :-).

**For example, last fall I was asked to speak at the GodBlog conference. You could say that I was given the authority to be a speaker, and to speak at the conference. Technically I suppose this is true, although I viewed it as a privilege, opportunity, and responsibility, rather than authority to speak to a bunch of people. I filled the role and function of speaker, but did so with great awareness that I am under God’s authority, and had none of my own in this role. I performed the function with gratitude to those who gave me the opportunity.

Now, you could also say that I was under the authority of the conference, or the conference organizers, and in a sense I was. Yet we were both under spiritual authority, an authority which is God’s, which we all have as we walk in the Spirit. (That’s the egalitarian part of it.)

***

Do I believe that I am under the authority of my husband’s leadership? Not unless said leadership is in the Spirit. Likewise, he is under my spiritual leadership at times. (I don’t always know when this is...especially unless he tells me.) Does he lead the home? No...we both do. It’s a matter of both of us taking responsibility for the welfare of our home. This isn’t something only he does, nor only something I do at his initiation. We both initiate this, in our different ways. Are those ways due to gender? Somewhat; they’re also due to our personalities & talents & all the other things that we are.

Was our marriage always this way? No. Was our marriage, and our management of our home, better before, or now? Definitely -- hugely – now :-)

Tee hee. I loved Hunt for Red October. But Das Boot created more tension and Crimson Tide had Denzel Washington, so it's a draw. I do not consider myself (nor do those who know me in the flesh) in any way masculine.

Are men more pragmatic? I am often called pragmatic by some and a real idealist by others. I would have no idea what these things mean.

I do think there are gender differences. However, some are created by culture, and probably viewing preference is one. Some are created by our physical differences. Men heft chain saws, women do not.

Some are created by our relationship to childbirth. Do we nurture out of our immediate phsyical experience or out of our desire to rear what our bodies have created. I firmly believe that men and women come to the same qualities out of different physical relations to our bodies, our babies and the environment. We are both the same and different.

I cannot conceive of any way at all that men are more suited to lead. The differences exist, they do not suggest that men are more suited to lead. Please enlighten me.

Hi Bonnie,

I missed your response.

On authority. I believe that man is the head of woman. I do not believe that their is any authority which rests in being biologically male. I believe in the authority of scripture. I accept that there are authority structures. I work in one. There are rules for the administrator and a collective agreement for the employees. I do not believe that marriage is an authority relationship. I most emphatically do not believe that the father has more authority to make decisions for the children that the mother.

I believe in the responsibility of parents for children and the parents have an authority which leads to the child's adult autonomy or maturity. I do not believe this is part of marriage. The father is not wiser, more intelligent, more informed on the needs of children or more pragmatic than the mother. The wife cannot cede to the father's decision without taking full and equal responsibility for the children.

I think you and I are on the same page on male and female characteristics. I am very feminine in some ways, some of them cultural because I like to hang out with other females, so I might as well share their interests. But, equally I have lots of interests that some consider masculine, like exegesis, but there is actually nothing masculine about it.

Personally I think mass media and television hugely exagerrates masculine and feminine stereotypic behaviours and interests. I have been dismayed at the constant mention of TV on gender blog and among the manhood guys. Let's get with the programme and ask what the stereotypic male behaviour was for the Wesley's or the King James Bible dudes. They were really into the "tender" language and poetry and the carefully turned phrase, not hollering and hooting at the latest royal tennis match. At least, I don't see them that way.

Sue,

Ah, see, you're votes for Das Boot and Crimson Tide were based on reasons that (most) men would not have voiced. So, are you liking the action flicks for decidedly chick flicks' reasons?

You state, "I cannot conceive of any way at all that men are more suited to lead."

I find the absolute nature of that statement to be a bit overreaching, not to mention that it is a tad too general, imo. I would not argue that men are more suited to lead, say, a mother's of preschoolers group. But, given that Bonnie's discussion had to do with marriage, I've stated that I believe men have been tasked, as husbands, with being the leader. I also think that the general physiological makeup of a man lends itself towards fulfilling the role of leader (yes, I know I'm treading all over the arguments that Bonnie has made, but I'm not attempting to rehash the argument, just to address your statement). That is not to say that women cannot perform the task, nor even do a better job than a given man. As we both have stated, both men and women can perform certain functions and roles that culture has generally given to one or the other. My argument all along, though, has been with regards to the general makeup and not the anomalies. I work in an industry that is heavily populated with males. Yet, I've worked for, and come into contact with, female supervisors, managers, etc. They've certainly been able to perform their roles but, and hear me out on this, I think they've done it in a male fashion. The ones that have done the best (from a business pov) have approached their business roles with a goal-oriented, take-charge attitude. The business situations that I've seen crumble have typically been those that have been approached with a touchy-feely, let's-all-understand-each-other attitude (whether run by women, men, or both). That may work in a support group, but it doesn't work in business (at least, not in the business climate I've worked in). I'm not arguing in a circle here. Men and women are wired differently, and it plays out in real life.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Of course, I could be wrong.

So, are you liking the action flicks for decidedly chick flicks' reasons?

Yup, just to keep this fun and establish that I am, in fact, a chick.

The ones that have done the best (from a business pov) have approached their business roles with a goal-oriented, take-charge attitude. The business situations that I've seen crumble have typically been those that have been approached with a touchy-feely, let's-all-understand-each-other attitude (whether run by women, men, or both).

So you admit that women, in their basic capacity, can do things in a leadership way. Don't you think that the touchy feely is a cultural attribute of women, not one that they seem to be too burdened with in the scriptures. It is not a universal of women, but a way women are culturally and affect to be in order to share in women's culture.

I also think that the general physiological makeup of a man lends itself towards fulfilling the role of leader.

Don't you ever think that this is all in your head? What about Maggie Thatcher, what about the Prov. 31 woman and Ruth and Tamar and Hannah and Abigail in terms of decisions. I won;t mention the more obvious ones. Mention one woman in the Bible who followed her husbands lead.

Think of Lydia, Chloe, Phoebe, Joanna, Nympha and on and on. Did Paul treat them as followers of their husbands. If married women can only be followers, then women are better off unmarried. Then they can be coworkers and leaders. Women are perfectly capable of conducting themselves as adults, and are not impaired in relation to the male. So any woman who is goal oriented had better not get married, but the man can have his cake and eat it too.

Of course, life doesn't work out this way, but that does seem to be your perspective. What kills me is how into television and the media the "male leader" people are. I mean really, at least, men who think of themselves as the spiritual decision makers could spend less time connecting these skills to the remote. Well, I am just joshing some of the guys around the blogosphere, but men seem a little teenagerish to me, to be having such notions of their own high rank.

Sue,

So you admit that women, in their basic capacity, can do things in a leadership way. Don't you think that the touchy feely is a cultural attribute of women, not one that they seem to be too burdened with in the scriptures. It is not a universal of women, but a way women are culturally and affect to be in order to share in women's culture.

Yes, of course I admit that women can do things in a leadership way.

I think that male and female attributes are a complex thing - we are complex creatures, not driven merely by instinct but by will, reason, and emotion. I also think that culture influences us in some ways (though not as much as some people attribute). But I think that the biggest influence on our psyche is our physiological makeup, and that males and females are wired differently.

Don't you ever think that this is all in your head? [and what follows...]

Don't you?

Suffice it to say (from my side) that I do not subscribe to the subjugation of women that you seem to imply. I do not think that a wife, being under the authority of the husband, is not conducting herself as an adult, much less a "follower" (whatever that means). Yes, I do think that Paul expected the women he addressed to follow their husbands as he (Paul) intended by his writings.

So any woman who is goal oriented had better not get married, but the man can have his cake and eat it too.

It depends what you want to do with your "goal oriented" bent.

Of course, life doesn't work out this way, but that does seem to be your perspective. What kills me is how into television and the media the "male leader" people are. I mean really, at least, men who think of themselves as the spiritual decision makers could spend less time connecting these skills to the remote. Well, I am just joshing some of the guys around the blogosphere, but men seem a little teenagerish to me, to be having such notions of their own high rank.

And we made such amends with our last dialog. I have the option, here, to say what I feel like saying or to exercise some Christian civility.

I choose the civility.

Rusty,

I have led a harsh life and I am not really capable of being civil about gender-based authority. The best I can hope for is to be protected by God from ever experiencing it again. Let's see what Bonnie writes about next.