The nastiness of the gender debate in the church can be seen in microcosm in a post and comment thread at Denny Burk on the words of Bruce Ware. Lydia sums it up:
The whole issue of authority/submission has become an idol. Everyone is talking about who is in charge, who has authority, who is not submissive, etc. Careers are built around this issue in Christendom.
Why aren't the men talking about being the most humble servant? Or a bondservant like Paul?
Instead, the whole focus is on a woman's 'role', her place and being submissive and the sin of being unsubmissive. Even to the point of teaching that she has to do a work to be saved: Childbirth. No matter how they spin it, that is what is being taught.
It makes me weep for all of us.
The focus is also upon a man's role, suggesting that he not be a wimp and instead stand up and be a leader. This does not, however, mean demanding or even expecting unilateral submission from a woman. Both men and women need to lead by being strong in the Lord and standing up for (and doing) what is right.
Jim West sums up Ware.
If it's sinful for women to 'desire to have their own way' why isn't it sinful for men too?
I pointed out this double standard in both the thread at Denny Burk and one at Suzanne's bookshelf, and no one responded to it directly. There was, however, an attempt to obfuscate, reverse the blame, and say that this wasn't really what Ware was saying (i.e., that others were misinterpreting him). If that's not really what he meant, then he shouldn't have said it! Here's what he said:
What happens in sin is that that very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and, really, seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;
and the husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches.
(A link to this message can be found in Mr. Burk's post. The excerpt quoted is about 9 minutes in.)
It is not wrong for a woman to want to have her way, or even to work to have her husband fulfill her will, unless this is the only, or the predominant, thing she does in relationship to him. Of course she should also serve her husband and seek to help him fulfill his will as much as it is right and proper. Likewise, a loving husband will be concerned with his wife's will and desire that it be honored insofar as is right and proper. I suppose this might be thought an egalitarian notion, and therefore someone might say to me, "Then what does it mean for a husband to be a head and a wife to submit to him?"
I would answer that I think it has to do with the woman being made from man for man; not that man was made first, but that woman was made from man, for man. I do not believe that a husband can fully achieve God's purposes for him unless he has the help of his wife on all fronts -- spiritual, physical, mental, emotional. In other words, all of her given to all of him. This is why God made woman for man, because none of the animals was a suitable helper, and it was not good that man should be alone (Genesis 3:18, 20-24). Likewise, a wife cannot fully achieve God's purposes for her unless her husband is loving her as his own body (Ephesians 5:25-33).
