So here's a little bit of my background. I think it's important to know someone's background to gain a better understanding of where that person is coming from when they offer any thoughts on a particular subject. I was raised in the Catholic faith until I became Baptist when I was around 7 years old. When my family moved to Canada, we attended the Free Methodist, Pentecostal, and Alliance church. Eventually, we settled into a Pentecostal church. I lived in North Africa for 2 years where I was a part of an Anglican church. From time to time, I have visited Reformed Presbyterian churches and other non-denominationals. So, I've been around the block. That being said, I've seen both parts of the coin. There are those who are so adamantly against women in leadership and there are those who have put women in leadership!
I find that a lot of people who are in the anti-women being leaders in God's church often use the fact that most of the leaders in the Bible were men. As such, they see it as a stamp of God's exclusive use of men in leadership positions. However, this appeal to silence is simply fallacious. Just because God doesn't say something about a certain issue doesn't mean that God approves/rejects it. If that was the case, then the Bible will be completely irrelevant to us today because there are certain 21st century issues that are not found in the Bible. Does that mean then that we should simply throw away the Bible because it was a book written for an ancient people? In the words of KJV: God forbid! Plus, the Bible has examples of women being put in leadership positions where they had authority over men. Not just some wimpy men... but army generals kind of men. So CLEARLY, God has no qualms putting women in positions of authority over men.
When it comes to the home though, the Bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR how the man is the head over the wife and the wife needs to submit to her husband. There's even a verse for it.
"Wives,submit to your own husbands,as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." - Eph. 5:22-23
Now, let's look at the following verses after that.
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." - Eph. 5: 25-28
The leadership that the Bible is proclaiming in these verses is the very type of leadership that Jesus modeled for His disciples. It's servant leadership. It calls for leaders who are willing to debase themselves for the other. It is Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, the very Son of God Himself, who in an act of utter humility washes His disciple's feet. What woman would not want to submit herself to a man who would put her needs above his? In fact, what man would not want to submit himself to a man who would do that as well? Everyone would want to submit to someone who they knew had their interests above theirs.
However, in my observation of the North American Evangelical church, they use this verse to do the exact opposite. They use this verse to lord their authority over the woman. Honey, the Bible says you have to submit to me. Meanwhile, I will use my authority to make you do what I want you to do because I'm the man and I'm the leader. The gospel message is supposed to liberate us from the chains of sin, from bondage, from slavery, from the very things that the world uses to oppress us. Let's make sure then that that this gospel message we preach is not perverted to shackle the women whom Christ, in His goodness, frees from the very same tyranny that "Christian men" want to inflict upon them.
and scene...
I had to respond... Reading Piper(which I recommend) you should ask the question a different way. Instead of making male vs. female, focus the question towards the responsibility of the church leader vs. its people.
ReplyDeleteSubmission--> I went to a conference and it explained that when people hear submission it's portrayed negatively. (specially in North America) In African culture submission is a sign of respect. And respect for guys = love.
This whole debate about the role women in leadership come from a false pretense. The real question for men and women is "How I am suppose to submit and serve God better ?"
just a though :P
http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf?virtuemart=ae9b6b1aa3d65a141597d055da154879
Hey Sid,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this, good read and some good thoughts. I'm just going to share a few thoughts as well in hopes to contribute to this discussion.
I definitely agree with you that it is not a very strong argument to use the descriptive male leadership portrayed in the Bible to build a strong conviction that God has created male and female differently with different God-given, God-ordained roles. Nevertheless... it is a valid point to an extent.
However, I would argue that the more important reasons why someone like myself, who would hold to a complementarian view, would argue that there are roles that God has set apart for male, and not for women, are in direct Biblical instructions.
Ephesians 5 is indeed a great place to go to in order to get a picture of the roles that Paul gives to husbands and wives. I'm glad you defend the women from men who pervert the text in Ephesians to dictate and lord over their wives, it is definitely a good word.
However, I think it is important not to jump from verse 23 to verse 25 lest we miss the goodness of the Lord's plan in marriage.
"(22)Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. (24) Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."
- Eph 5:22-24
I think in these verses Paul gives us here are very clear about the submission that the Lord desires from to the wife to the husband, for the goodness of them both. "Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord". Why does the wife have to submit to the husband, why doesn't he say that husband has to submit to his wife? There is a way in which as Christians we are to submit to one another (v. 21), but Paul is talking about the specific relationship of marriage here and the reason why he doesn tell husbands to submit to their wives, is explained in v.23 - "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church...". The husband is the head of the wife.
I totally agree with you that v.25 then gives us a great starndard of how the husband is to love his wife. However, these next verses are just that - a picture, a standard of the love that God requires of husbands. This is not where Paul explains the leadership, headship, and submission in marriage - he already did that in vv.22-24. There is an intentional sequence of commands and explanations here vv.21-24 and then vv.25-33.
I would be interested to see how you understand 1 Timothy 2:12 (and the surrounding passages) which talks more about the role of men and women in the church, specifically in leadership. I do know though that this might have to wait for another blog posting :P.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts Sid!
P.S. @mbkingottawa, I totally agree with you and Piper. The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a great resource for how to understand this important issue.
Sorry for the late reply. I didn't see this till today.
ReplyDelete@mbking - Unfortunately, there is no other way to re-phrase this statement other than male vs female since women are not allowed to be in leadership positions simply because of their gender. If both sexes were equal, then yes, I would concede to your point of responsibility of the church leader vs its people.
I agree with you that the real question is "How I am suppose to submit and serve God better ?" However, if a woman is supposed to submit and serve God better by being a leader, would you still agree with her decision vs. if a man would say the same thing?
@Andres - if anything, the men get the harder end of the deal in these verses. The woman just has to submit to the man while the man has to submit to Christ! I'm of the opinion that submitting to Christ is A LOT harder than submitting to some man. I agree with you, that in these verses, it is inescapable to come to the conclusion that the husband is the head of the wife. How that works itself is out becomes the issue.
"I totally agree with you that v.25 then gives us a great starndard of how the husband is to love his wife. However, these next verses are just that - a picture, a standard of the love that God requires of husbands. This is not where Paul explains the leadership, headship, and submission in marriage - he already did that in vv.22-24. There is an intentional sequence of commands and explanations here vv.21-24 and then vv.25-33."
- This is where I will disagree with you. Why is it that when the verses are for women, it is taken in its entirety, while the husband verses are not taken wholly? It is the explanation in vv.25-28 of what a husband should be/act like that we get a clearer understanding of how the relationship between husband and wife should work itself out. Otherwise, it is easy to get the notion that a woman submits and the husband rules with every single person who reads it coming up with their own version of what it is to rule or lead another person. It is these verses that makes the Bible so counter-revolutionary and transformative. Whereas normal people can have notions of leadership/rule that is heavily influenced by their own culture, Paul proposes a type of leadership that is counter-intuitive and Gospel-centered. Within the marriage, both the husband and the wife, are commanded to forget the cultural traditions of their time and in fact, transcend it. The picture of marriage presented here is the same picture of marriage that is shown in the Old Testament between God and Israel. For that to happen, both the husband and the wife, are to submit: the wife to the husband, and the husband to Christ. No one is exempt from the issue of submission.
@mbking and @Andres - CBE is also a great resource for how to understand this issue =)
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/cultural-context-ephesians-518-69
I'm not going to wade all the way in here, but it is not an inconsequential point that the word "submission" does not actually appear in v.22. There is a verbal ellipsis there in the Greek, and the verb is carried over from v.21 in which we read "submit yourselves one unto another." I'd argue that this controls the whole passage, and that mutual submission is the rule Paul is preaching here. He then unpacks how wives submit to their husbands, and how husbands love (i.e. submit to) their wives.
ReplyDelete@Colin - Thanks for that rather important addition to the discussion. And yes, it is NOT an inconsequential point that the word "submission" does not actually appear in v. 22. =)
ReplyDelete