when reading this text, one needs to ignore the modern verse and chapter demarcations and start at, "submit to one another out of reverene for Christ." mutual submission is Paul's goal. submission that looks like Christ dying on the cross. submission that involves carrying our crosses and the crosses of others. submission that involves humility, sacrifice, and love.
i think the word and concept of "submission" has been grossly misinterpreted in an attempt to keep women in their place and exclude them from leadership. that's an outrage and something we must reject...
hewhocutsdown
· 1 year ago
I really like your recommendation about speech. I have a double-problem: I naturally speak a lot, and when combined with the generalized masculine tendencies outlined above, I squash other people's input unintentionally. I discovered this in a class I took in Women's Studies; I was one of 2 men in the class, and despite trying to shut up, the professor noted that I spoke at a 3:1 ratio compared to the rest of the class. It's not obvious, and it's hard, but these aspects can be tempered to better draw out input from those less apt or willing to speak out.
Zack Allen
· 1 year ago
I know exactly what you mean, bro. It's one of the hardest things to just shut-up and listen. I have struggled with the same thing for so long. I think it is something that is rooted in pride.
I've been watching and learning from my mentor as he just sits and listens to people (even though he probably has the perfect response to give them). People want to be heard...not just women.
Zack Allen
· 1 year ago
This is good stuff, Sarah.
My only hindrance here is that, to me, men and women DO have certain roles in their relationships (especially marraige).
IMHO, men are the givers and women are the receivers. This by no means to say that women can't or shouldn't have equal rights and authority or that women shouldn't be providers along with their husbands (or even in place of their husbands). But that in general, men give and women receive. I think this is even evidenced in sex. The man gives and the women receives. One is going into the other.
What do you think?
SarahLynne
· 1 year ago
I agree. I think it is even more interesting if you start around Eph 2:20. You can see Paul outline what it means to "put on a new self." He rejects the idea that we should really on the proper rules to make us pure and right with God, discusses the ways of the old life (most of which involve relational sin, that is: angry, wrath, malice, slander, obscene talk, covetousness, sexual sin...),
and then, to begin the discussion on the new life he starts with the concept that we there is none of the social divisions in Christ, so we are a new restored, equal people. We are reconciled with each other, and as such the ways of the new life are also largely based in relationships. Here we see terms that ask us to seek reconcilition and to forgive each other, which will mean a that a person who is harmed would have to lay down their rights for the sake of their reconciliation!
then Paul lays down the nitty gritty. He recognizes that within our fallen society the distinctions still exist. We aren't asked to fight against them in a way that would create adversaries, but in a way that shows Christ's nature (which made end up creating adversaries, but not at the Christian's initiation). I think this is why Paul says elsewhere that a wife to a non-believing husband may win her to Christ this way.
Anyway, point is, i agree! context is so often overlooked when i hear this passage preached. it's always been frustrating to me. in regards to the women as pastors or elders question, i think i agree with Yoder when he says that we are "asking the wrong question." this issue may be less of an issue if our church structure was more de-centralized and churches were smaller. I also think both people who still believe males somehow have greater "authority" could still benefit from understanding that within this context. I don't think Paul explicitly rejects male authority, but he does make the enforcement of it pretty impossible (especially in personal relationships), as well as the enforcement of slavery and even weakens parental authority. ultimately it is a very humanizing ethic.
SarahLynne
· 1 year ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean with giving and receiving. I also don't see how this is supported biblically. It seems like it would be hard to prove that women don't offer men something in relationships, that the men don't receive anything from being in a relationship with a women. Sex seems to be the only explicit way you could make that claim, and I extend that as a metaphor into every part of the husband and wife relationship.
I do agree there seem to be different roles, but I the understand standing of them seems to be shallow. For example, Paul talks about the male being the "head" of the relationship in 1 Cor 10:2-16 and likens that to how Christ is the head of men (he also says that about the church in general elsewhere). We often just assume this means "in charge," but in greek literature that word is usually translated at "source." It would make sense to translate this way because when Paul explains he talks about how women "came from" man and then how man comes from women. Also that makes sense, because in terms of Christ and God, it makes more sense to say that Christ's source in the Godhead, than to say the person in charge is "God."
I do think this implies some authority, but I wonder if it is more in terms of how their has already been authority given to that person. So, for example, Christ has authority because he comes from the Godhead, but he chooses to lay it aside in order to bring reconciliation between people and God. Man is also consider to naturally have authority according to tradition that his source is God (which would be why Paul then emphasizes that women came from man), but again modeling Christ is asked to lay down his life for the person who doesn't already have recognized authority.
I love that Paul creates an equalizer for the "man coming from God" tradition by reminding them that man now comes from women.
finally, this idea of being "contentious" fits in with radical subordination. We aren't called to be prone to anger and dispute, to tear down societies structures, but to treat each other differently within them in order to subvert them, lovingly and gracefully. Again, I don't think different roles are wrong. I just think enforcing them in a way that is based in coercion and bullying is wrong. We should always approach relationships with the idea of laying down your ego for the other.
SarahLynne
· 1 year ago
Also, it would be tedious to go into this, but I would always be careful talking about female and male relationships within our culture's history as completely natural and normal. There are always exceptions through-out history in different cultures (and sex is not just a penis penetrating a vagina). I agree that there may be practices that are wrong, but it is based in the way God calls us to live, not because we happen to have been doing things a certain way.
John
· 1 year ago
Yeah-- being a married male- practically speaking I do not agree with this article. My wife does not "submit" to me-however you nuance that term or try and redefine it- in any different or more substantial way than I "submit" to my wife.
I am more egalitarian in my views. I believe in mutual submission, and quite frankly, in issues where we disagree we often work and discuss until we come to some consensus, rather than my views trumping hers in whatever way
I do not have time to write out a book supporting this opinion, but I do think it is biblically sound. I attended Bible college and studied the subject, among others, extensively. Not that that means anything- I simply mention it to say that I am not uninformed on the subject. My conclusion is that this was largely a cultural mandate.
I also have trouble seeing how my wife submitting to my "leadership" really shows Christ to a watching world. I think more often that not it creates just one more, rather silly, obstacle to my many friends who are not Christians. In the past, iust beginning to try to explain this to someone who is not a Christian has gotten me some pretty strong responses, not because they are super liberal or weird-- but just because it is a bizarre concept in our "modern/postmodern/contemporary whatever you want to call it" world. It is similar to trying to any friend why women would need to cover their head or aren't supposed to speak in church. Those things were directly relevant in Paul's time. They are not relevant in the same way now.
I think the issue needs to be subject to interpretation- based on Paul saying this to Christians back then, what does that mean for Christians in our time.
Just one man interpretation.
John
· 1 year ago
and daggonit-- wish I would have proofed that more before sending-- sorry for the typos/grammatical errors.
SarahLynne
· 1 year ago
in response to your third paragraph: I actually think that what Paul would say to Christians in our time is something more like, "Isn't clear that men and women are created equal before God? Why then do you hang on to traditions and practices that even nonChristians know dehumanizes are sisters in Christ and creates division? Husband, do not lord it over your wife, carrying some kind of 'trump' card of decision-making. Remember that you both answer to the same God..."
What I wanted to do was communicate what Paul was doing within the context of his culture. He spoke differently to men and women because they were operating in different roles within that culture. My point is that we aren't abolishing the system, we are making the system inoperable.
Maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too... but I guess this comes from my perspective that we as social animals, are molded and formed by our society. Roles exist in every culture through-out history. There has never been a place where women and men have exactly the same roles, and I don't think we are called to abolish the roles, but operate within them in such a way that does not enforce them coercively, or that communicated inferiority.
Ultimately, if the church had done this, they would've then begin operating within freer and looser roles as people's identities were shaped different by the culture they'd created, and as the society began to create different, and possibly more "equal" roles. That point is, that our equality and freedom is not derived from whether our society tells us we are free and equal, but from the fact that Christ makes up free and equal.
I feel less confident in my understanding of the change in roles, which is why I didn't want to address it. I feel like I need to do more research, and think more about whether this makes sense biblically... but I am definitely feeling like what I am understanding Paul to say, combined with my understanding of what it means to be human (from Anthropology) leads me in this direction.
Casey
· 1 year ago
Sarah Lynne, nice article. Your last sentence hit the nail on the head.
coldfire136
· 1 year ago
I think this is what Sarah might be talking about in the article. You used the word "naturally" in reference to the way you speak. A stronger truth might be that sociologically, religiously, and culturally you have been taught to talk a lot. This is not just your maleness, but your family values and cultural values all playing into it. This is also why I think many teachers think that African-American students "act out" more than white kids in high school. They might say something like "African-Americans just naturally talk more," but it is a sociological and cuttural value system rooted in the fact that black students often see schools as the enforcer of racism and segregation (it is more complicated than this...but it is just an example).
coldfire136
· 1 year ago
The sexual view is dangerous because our reproductive organs were used by Aristotle to "prove" scientifically that men were superior to women and was used in the ancient near east to "prove" that women were to be submissive in a relationship (because their vagina goes inward, which Aristotle interpreted to be a deformed penis...you can't make this stuff up if you wanted to. haha). I just get nervous anytime someone tries to use sex to show something about gender roles. Your metaphor also might be subverted to say, "While the penis is giving the vagina, the vagina envelopes the penis."
----someone with authority can delete this if it is too explicit----------
Jonathan
· 1 year ago
This was excellent. I've always struggled with this area and for the most part ignored it because I had heard it preached in the male dominating fashion, which never sat well with me. I think your article is phenomenal in describing the faces of submission and how they play out in different relationships.
Jablue
· 1 year ago
It's a great point that the burden of action is on the oppressor (men) to come down from their throne of oppression, and it is not for the oppressed (women) to rise up and overthrow the oppressive male hierarchy (Feminism). I believe this presents a much more biblical view to the issue, and it seems far more potentially successful. For it seems right for the one in oppressive power to come down and not the oppressed to rise up into dueling power- that will only compound the problem. Then you wind up with two hierarchical authorities instead of the desired number- zero.
hewhocutsdown
· 1 year ago
You know, I don't think I've ever thought of it that way. I guess when I say 'naturally' I mean both the nature and the nurture aspects of my development - a strong part of that is probably that my father is very articulate and outspoken, and I'm sure that had some sort of effect.
pdxfudge
· 1 year ago
Great article. I would have loved some more interaction with the texts and some more background on the passages and on male/female and slave/master roles in the first century. Check out the 8th (or 9th, I can't remember) chapter of "The Politics of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder for some great background historical info and textual detail. One of the main points he brings out is that in normal Greco-Roman literature women and slaves were not addressed. Their roles are talked about by others, and the many roles of men in relation to women, slaves and children are addressed, but its always to the male and from the male's perspective. The very fact that Paul addressed women, slaves and children (effectively non-people) in his letters, is revolutionary and subversive. By writing to women and slaves, and by addressing them first, he was giving status to those without status and he was giving worth to the worthless. There was something in the good news of Jesus that made women seek to claim this new status, and so Paul is now telling the formerly-statusless-women to submit in humility and witness to this mutual-submission way of Jesus. Paul is
destroyideas
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I don't think the Christian is called to a life of assertiveness. Paul said to lead a "quiet life."
It's not about allowing women to assert them in the same manner as men, but that the men give themselves up as Christ did so they are not asserted over the woman.
eterneles
· 1 year ago
I find it a beautiful subversive passage of living the weak life. A call to the cross is a call to seeing others, in this case, ones wife as worth dying for. To die for someone is to consider your own life less than someone else's life. I struggle with how we have made this so controversial and find it a debilitating conversation in churches today. Why? Because it stems from an idea of worthiness verses worthlessness. In our worthiness, we seek to define our worthiness and protect it. Our worth is where our power lay. When we seek to defend our worth on either side we must become oppressive. Where there is oppression at the focus of life together, there is a high probability that there is no willingness to submit to those who stand outside of our walls. In other words, in places where this conversation does not land in a mutual outdoing unto one another of submission, it is unlikely that there is service to the poor, oppressed, the widow or the orphan. For it is only in our ability to value them more than or at least equal to ourselves that we can serve them, love them and care for them as our God in Christ. "Who, though being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to death –– even death on a cross" (Philippians 2.6-7).
Imagine that conversation in heaven. "Father, you know that it is my job to save the world. You set it up that way, you go down their and die. How will they ever respect me if I am some weak minded fool. Now, as the king, I am telling you to shut up and get down there and you show them how to live. Otherwise, I'm out and we can just sit here and enjoy this wonderful place just the three of us. Now no more talk about whose more important, or powerful, or supposed to lead in the creation process. I got this and we know it. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. I'll let you know when you can do something." It seems that if Jesus concern was a lack thereof for himself, that it is never my job to promote a woman's position instead it is to merely acknowledge mine in humility and down right humiliation of self below not only my wife but all women, men, children perhaps even creation if I believe redemption is of all things. What would that world look like?
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
Sarah Lynne, I really like what you've written. I like your suggestions. It reminds me of the verses about how if we control the tongue we control the whole person.
As a woman, I like what you say about submission. I don't get the impression that people understand that when they submit to authority, the buck stops with those in authority. When women submit to men, then men have to own up to their own failings, they can't pass them off like Adam did to Eve. (My definition of submitting doesn't mean that a wife can't point out the potential consequences of the choices the husband is making.) By submitting to our husbands, we allow God to work in his heart.
BDRhodes
· 1 year ago
Sarah, this is a stellar article. I've been waiting for someone to so directly tackle this topic, and in doing so you brought into focus many things that I have been struggling to find words for for years. Thank you for that.
The comment about language is piercing to me, quite directly. The impulse to NEED to talk has been one that Jesus has been explicitly working on in me for the past thirty months at least. In a church membership class at Imago Dei, my impulse was to answer all the questions, even if someone already asked them. Sometimes the motive was to prove my knowledge, other times to stand up for a better interpretation. The line between those motives was usually blurry.
So, to be perfectly charismatic about it, the Holy Spirit shut me up. I felt the mental impulses to chat, but somehow I felt gently restrained from raising my hand or my voice to answer. It was fascinating to see male friends in the class whom I know well continue to chirp in EVERY TIME.
The experience of the Spirit chastening my tongue for that multi-week class ended with the class, but the lesson and the habit has increased since then.
And here's what I've found it boils down to: CONTROL. For me, I think it was some self-important need to control, steer, or otherwise guide a conversation on my terms. And in church circles, the impulse was usually out of a zeal for standing up for peace, justice, what-have-you. Not a bad reason to chime in. But why should I need to defend Jesus so zealously, every time? It's as if I had a Francis Schaeffer-like impulse to be contentious.
So, I'm learning to listen to others better, instead of thinking up my own contribution or response. And it's almost morbidly fun to watch that (masculine) impulse to chirp-chirp-chirp be squashed by this new discipline of "non-grasping" of situations. I'm learning to be increasingly other-minded in conversations, to stop thinking of my own best opinion and just listen and respond well. It's another bit of learning to love well.
(Yes I'm aware of the irony of writing that much about my own learning to shut up, heheh)
Lastly, I love your line in one of your responses --"My point is that we aren't abolishing the system, we are making the system inoperable." I'm going to be processing that for quite a while, as I think it explains the cross, and the cross-bearing community, in a way that no Che or Guitterez ever could.
Scott
· 1 year ago
Wow. This is by far the best exegesis I have ever heard of Ephesians 5. In particular I was captured by:
"Egalitarians make the mistake of ignoring the ethic of submission in an attempt to make co-masters."
Fabulous.
SarahLynne
· 1 year ago
i started writing this article when I was at the beginning of the Politics of Jesus. When I noticed that chapter I was a little distressed and almost wanted to stop writing and encourage everyone to just read PoJ. Yoder says all of this better than me.
I do think that plays a major role in this discussion though. Where-as before women were forced to submit, in Christ women can choose to submit in imitation of Him, from a place of freedom and integrity.
Jon
· 1 year ago
I love this idea because I think two things come out of this:
1) Men still must refuse to acknowledge any idea that they have some sort of "right" or "power" over their wives, or over women in general in the Church.
2) But also, in redefining our understanding of "submission" as the Apostles applies it to women, it radically robs culture, society and the world of any and all power to define and to dominate. When women submit, it is not to acknowledge the superiority of men, or that husbands have some sort of "right" over their wives, but that the act of submission suddenly becomes a "turn the other cheek".
Suddenly, to be a disciple of Jesus Christ means to imitate Him; the act of imitating Him in submitting, there is no power, and that which had formerly been powerful loses all power. That's amazing. Women who, in imitation of Christ, submit to their husbands are not quietly accepting the "authority" of their husbands, but rather, paradoxically, becoming imitators of the One who is Lord of all things. "Whoever is greatest among you must be least."
Awesome.
Roger
· 1 year ago
Jesus is the way the truth, the life The Parable of the Robin ?one day, as I was walking home from work, I noticed a grassy field full of birds. As I approached, most took flight, finding sanctuary in pine trees or phone lines. Not so with one bird, however. This robin merely flew about twenty feet down the sidewalk I was walking upon. Of course, it wasn't long until once again I was too close for comfort, and the bird flew another few yards or so, and once again began pecking along the sidewalk, as if all its problems had been solved. Of course, it wasn't long until once again I came barging in upon the bird. I began to become a little upset for the little bird. "Look, little guy," I thought. "If you would just fly a few feet to the left or the right of the path, you could go on undisturbed." Since that time, I have observed this type of behavior in other robins. Robins just must be stupid, I suppose. But then again, one day I sensed the Lord telling me, "You are just like the Robin!" I knew what he meant, right away. You see, often in my life I would feel anxiety in my relationship with God. So, I would do something good, like maybe fast and pray, witness about Jesus, or go visit a shut in. Ah, this would bring comfort, but only for a short time. Invariably, this anxiety would come barging in again. Like the robin I was dealing with fear of God's judgment by flying a few feet more down the path -- only my path was the pathe of good deeds! Naturally, the peace never lasted! To find real peace with God I had to fly off the path of good deeds altogether.
Trusting in Jesus is entirely different from trusting in our good works. To trust in Jesus means that He is the one who pays for our sins. He is the one who makes us more Holy. Yes, we participate in the program, but we have given the control of the program entirely over to Lord Jesus. To find lasting peace with God we must jump off the path of good works, and trust in Jesus. Don't just hop a few more feet down the path, friend. Stop trying to do anything! Trust in Jesus Christ to work in you! If you don't think you can trust Him, trust Him to give you the grace to trust! Fly free!
A little Robin saw Jesus on the cross He noticed the thorns on his head And so he flew down to take out a thorn But as he was pulling it out He pricked his wing…. …. From Mother Theresa ??
Amalia Collins
· 1 year ago
I appreciate your writing on this topic--a topic so overlooked in Christian circles, a topic that seems so ackward to talk about--especially for the dudes in the church. I very rarely hear a creative understanding or good interpretation of the Pauline references. Though they are out there, especially when looking at the cultural context of the writings. I really don't think Paul was a misogynist. I've been working through my own struggles as a Christian female-- seeking healing for the patriarchal past of Christianity, desiring to hear Jesus as Christ for who he was and is and his radical example through his interactions with women. Meditating on Jesus' beautiful, holistic, and deeply respectful interactions with women gives me hope for men in the church. That they would be inspired to imitate Jesus in his interactions with women. After all the gospel is all about Jesus not Paul right? Not to disregard Paul, but hey--his commentary often overshadows the deepth of Jesus' revolutionary love and servitude.
One more comment on overcoming female oppression in the church is to think about how much we use "HE" in reference to God--If we are in fact made in the image of God--both male and female they HEY where is "SHE"? This voice of "HE" is heard in the songs we sing, and in the way we talk about God in the masculine voice. The problem I have with this is the male attributes of God are focused on (whether consciously or subconsciously) and the balance is both male and female--the female characteristics of God are something to behold! Nurturing, healing. . .
I could go on for paragraphs more--but thanks for your thoughtful writing!
Jonathan
· 1 year ago
I suppose Jesus made grape juice out of water? The problem here is that people pick and choose what they want to take literally and figuratively. They choose what they want to interpret as a command and not. Does Jesus have the right to demand obedience? Obsolutely, He is God. We are to submit to Him. Do we? no. Does the husband have the right, via the scripture to demand submission from his wife, yes. Is the wife commanded to submit, yes. Remember in love Christ never said to the woman at the well, "you do it your way." He could have, he also could have condemned her. He did niether, this is our example as men. We are to call for what is right, holy and pure. We should have grace, like Christ, to love our wives despite unwillingness/ inability. If we are truly pursuing Christ, our will is to follow Him and to lead others to Him. This being the case the wife should have no issue submitting as it will be as submitting to God's direction.
All Comments
i think the word and concept of "submission" has been grossly misinterpreted in an attempt to keep women in their place and exclude them from leadership. that's an outrage and something we must reject...
I've been watching and learning from my mentor as he just sits and listens to people (even though he probably has the perfect response to give them). People want to be heard...not just women.
My only hindrance here is that, to me, men and women DO have certain roles in their relationships (especially marraige).
IMHO, men are the givers and women are the receivers. This by no means to say that women can't or shouldn't have equal rights and authority or that women shouldn't be providers along with their husbands (or even in place of their husbands). But that in general, men give and women receive. I think this is even evidenced in sex. The man gives and the women receives. One is going into the other.
What do you think?
and then, to begin the discussion on the new life he starts with the concept that we there is none of the social divisions in Christ, so we are a new restored, equal people. We are reconciled with each other, and as such the ways of the new life are also largely based in relationships. Here we see terms that ask us to seek reconcilition and to forgive each other, which will mean a that a person who is harmed would have to lay down their rights for the sake of their reconciliation!
then Paul lays down the nitty gritty. He recognizes that within our fallen society the distinctions still exist. We aren't asked to fight against them in a way that would create adversaries, but in a way that shows Christ's nature (which made end up creating adversaries, but not at the Christian's initiation). I think this is why Paul says elsewhere that a wife to a non-believing husband may win her to Christ this way.
Anyway, point is, i agree! context is so often overlooked when i hear this passage preached. it's always been frustrating to me. in regards to the women as pastors or elders question, i think i agree with Yoder when he says that we are "asking the wrong question." this issue may be less of an issue if our church structure was more de-centralized and churches were smaller. I also think both people who still believe males somehow have greater "authority" could still benefit from understanding that within this context. I don't think Paul explicitly rejects male authority, but he does make the enforcement of it pretty impossible (especially in personal relationships), as well as the enforcement of slavery and even weakens parental authority. ultimately it is a very humanizing ethic.
I do agree there seem to be different roles, but I the understand standing of them seems to be shallow. For example, Paul talks about the male being the "head" of the relationship in 1 Cor 10:2-16 and likens that to how Christ is the head of men (he also says that about the church in general elsewhere). We often just assume this means "in charge," but in greek literature that word is usually translated at "source." It would make sense to translate this way because when Paul explains he talks about how women "came from" man and then how man comes from women. Also that makes sense, because in terms of Christ and God, it makes more sense to say that Christ's source in the Godhead, than to say the person in charge is "God."
I do think this implies some authority, but I wonder if it is more in terms of how their has already been authority given to that person. So, for example, Christ has authority because he comes from the Godhead, but he chooses to lay it aside in order to bring reconciliation between people and God. Man is also consider to naturally have authority according to tradition that his source is God (which would be why Paul then emphasizes that women came from man), but again modeling Christ is asked to lay down his life for the person who doesn't already have recognized authority.
I love that Paul creates an equalizer for the "man coming from God" tradition by reminding them that man now comes from women.
finally, this idea of being "contentious" fits in with radical subordination. We aren't called to be prone to anger and dispute, to tear down societies structures, but to treat each other differently within them in order to subvert them, lovingly and gracefully. Again, I don't think different roles are wrong. I just think enforcing them in a way that is based in coercion and bullying is wrong. We should always approach relationships with the idea of laying down your ego for the other.
I am more egalitarian in my views. I believe in mutual submission, and quite frankly, in issues where we disagree we often work and discuss until we come to some consensus, rather than my views trumping hers in whatever way
I do not have time to write out a book supporting this opinion, but I do think it is biblically sound. I attended Bible college and studied the subject, among others, extensively. Not that that means anything- I simply mention it to say that I am not uninformed on the subject. My conclusion is that this was largely a cultural mandate.
I also have trouble seeing how my wife submitting to my "leadership" really shows Christ to a watching world. I think more often that not it creates just one more, rather silly, obstacle to my many friends who are not Christians. In the past, iust beginning to try to explain this to someone who is not a Christian has gotten me some pretty strong responses, not because they are super liberal or weird-- but just because it is a bizarre concept in our "modern/postmodern/contemporary whatever you want to call it" world. It is similar to trying to any friend why women would need to cover their head or aren't supposed to speak in church. Those things were directly relevant in Paul's time. They are not relevant in the same way now.
I think the issue needs to be subject to interpretation- based on Paul saying this to Christians back then, what does that mean for Christians in our time.
Just one man interpretation.
What I wanted to do was communicate what Paul was doing within the context of his culture. He spoke differently to men and women because they were operating in different roles within that culture. My point is that we aren't abolishing the system, we are making the system inoperable.
Maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too... but I guess this comes from my perspective that we as social animals, are molded and formed by our society. Roles exist in every culture through-out history. There has never been a place where women and men have exactly the same roles, and I don't think we are called to abolish the roles, but operate within them in such a way that does not enforce them coercively, or that communicated inferiority.
Ultimately, if the church had done this, they would've then begin operating within freer and looser roles as people's identities were shaped different by the culture they'd created, and as the society began to create different, and possibly more "equal" roles. That point is, that our equality and freedom is not derived from whether our society tells us we are free and equal, but from the fact that Christ makes up free and equal.
I feel less confident in my understanding of the change in roles, which is why I didn't want to address it. I feel like I need to do more research, and think more about whether this makes sense biblically... but I am definitely feeling like what I am understanding Paul to say, combined with my understanding of what it means to be human (from Anthropology) leads me in this direction.
----someone with authority can delete this if it is too explicit----------
It's not about allowing women to assert them in the same manner as men, but that the men give themselves up as Christ did so they are not asserted over the woman.
Imagine that conversation in heaven. "Father, you know that it is my job to save the world. You set it up that way, you go down their and die. How will they ever respect me if I am some weak minded fool. Now, as the king, I am telling you to shut up and get down there and you show them how to live. Otherwise, I'm out and we can just sit here and enjoy this wonderful place just the three of us. Now no more talk about whose more important, or powerful, or supposed to lead in the creation process. I got this and we know it. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. I'll let you know when you can do something." It seems that if Jesus concern was a lack thereof for himself, that it is never my job to promote a woman's position instead it is to merely acknowledge mine in humility and down right humiliation of self below not only my wife but all women, men, children perhaps even creation if I believe redemption is of all things. What would that world look like?
As a woman, I like what you say about submission. I don't get the impression that people understand that when they submit to authority, the buck stops with those in authority. When women submit to men, then men have to own up to their own failings, they can't pass them off like Adam did to Eve. (My definition of submitting doesn't mean that a wife can't point out the potential consequences of the choices the husband is making.) By submitting to our husbands, we allow God to work in his heart.
The comment about language is piercing to me, quite directly. The impulse to NEED to talk has been one that Jesus has been explicitly working on in me for the past thirty months at least. In a church membership class at Imago Dei, my impulse was to answer all the questions, even if someone already asked them. Sometimes the motive was to prove my knowledge, other times to stand up for a better interpretation. The line between those motives was usually blurry.
So, to be perfectly charismatic about it, the Holy Spirit shut me up. I felt the mental impulses to chat, but somehow I felt gently restrained from raising my hand or my voice to answer. It was fascinating to see male friends in the class whom I know well continue to chirp in EVERY TIME.
The experience of the Spirit chastening my tongue for that multi-week class ended with the class, but the lesson and the habit has increased since then.
And here's what I've found it boils down to: CONTROL. For me, I think it was some self-important need to control, steer, or otherwise guide a conversation on my terms. And in church circles, the impulse was usually out of a zeal for standing up for peace, justice, what-have-you. Not a bad reason to chime in. But why should I need to defend Jesus so zealously, every time? It's as if I had a Francis Schaeffer-like impulse to be contentious.
So, I'm learning to listen to others better, instead of thinking up my own contribution or response. And it's almost morbidly fun to watch that (masculine) impulse to chirp-chirp-chirp be squashed by this new discipline of "non-grasping" of situations. I'm learning to be increasingly other-minded in conversations, to stop thinking of my own best opinion and just listen and respond well. It's another bit of learning to love well.
(Yes I'm aware of the irony of writing that much about my own learning to shut up, heheh)
Lastly, I love your line in one of your responses --"My point is that we aren't abolishing the system, we are making the system inoperable." I'm going to be processing that for quite a while, as I think it explains the cross, and the cross-bearing community, in a way that no Che or Guitterez ever could.
"Egalitarians make the mistake of ignoring the ethic of submission in an attempt to make co-masters."
Fabulous.
I do think that plays a major role in this discussion though. Where-as before women were forced to submit, in Christ women can choose to submit in imitation of Him, from a place of freedom and integrity.
1) Men still must refuse to acknowledge any idea that they have some sort of "right" or "power" over their wives, or over women in general in the Church.
2) But also, in redefining our understanding of "submission" as the Apostles applies it to women, it radically robs culture, society and the world of any and all power to define and to dominate. When women submit, it is not to acknowledge the superiority of men, or that husbands have some sort of "right" over their wives, but that the act of submission suddenly becomes a "turn the other cheek".
Suddenly, to be a disciple of Jesus Christ means to imitate Him; the act of imitating Him in submitting, there is no power, and that which had formerly been powerful loses all power. That's amazing. Women who, in imitation of Christ, submit to their husbands are not quietly accepting the "authority" of their husbands, but rather, paradoxically, becoming imitators of the One who is Lord of all things. "Whoever is greatest among you must be least."
Awesome.
The Parable of the Robin
?one day, as I was walking home from work, I noticed a grassy field full of birds. As I approached, most took flight, finding sanctuary in pine trees or phone lines. Not so with one bird, however. This robin merely flew about twenty feet down the sidewalk I was walking upon. Of course, it wasn't long until once again I was too close for comfort, and the bird flew another few yards or so, and once again began pecking along the sidewalk, as if all its problems had been solved. Of course, it wasn't long until once again I came barging in upon the bird.
I began to become a little upset for the little
bird. "Look, little guy," I thought. "If you would just fly a few feet to the left or the right
of the path, you could go on undisturbed."
Since that time, I have observed this type of behavior in other robins. Robins just must be stupid, I suppose. But then again, one day I sensed the Lord telling me, "You are just like the Robin!" I knew what he meant, right away. You see, often in my life I would feel anxiety in my relationship with God. So, I would do something good, like maybe fast and pray, witness about Jesus, or go visit a shut in. Ah, this would bring comfort, but only for a short time. Invariably, this anxiety would come barging in again. Like the robin I was dealing with fear of God's judgment by flying a few feet more down the path -- only my path was the pathe of good deeds! Naturally, the peace never lasted! To find real peace with God I had to fly off the path of good deeds altogether.
Trusting in Jesus is entirely different from trusting in our good works. To trust in Jesus means that He is the one who pays for our sins. He is the one who makes us more Holy. Yes, we participate in the program, but we have given the control of the program entirely over to Lord Jesus. To find lasting peace with God we must jump off the path of good works, and trust in Jesus. Don't just hop a few more feet down the path, friend. Stop trying to do anything! Trust in Jesus Christ to work in you! If you don't think you can trust Him, trust Him to give you the grace to trust! Fly free!
A little Robin saw Jesus on the cross
He noticed the thorns on his head
And so he flew down to take out a thorn
But as he was pulling it out
He pricked his wing….
…. From Mother Theresa
??
I've been working through my own struggles as a Christian female-- seeking healing for the patriarchal past of Christianity, desiring to hear Jesus as Christ for who he was and is and his radical example through his interactions with women. Meditating on Jesus' beautiful, holistic, and deeply respectful interactions with women gives me hope for men in the church. That they would be inspired to imitate Jesus in his interactions with women. After all the gospel is all about Jesus not Paul right? Not to disregard Paul, but hey--his commentary often overshadows the deepth of Jesus' revolutionary love and servitude.
One more comment on overcoming female oppression in the church is to think about how much we use "HE" in reference to God--If we are in fact made in the image of God--both male and female they HEY where is "SHE"? This voice of "HE" is heard in the songs we sing, and in the way we talk about God in the masculine voice. The problem I have with this is the male attributes of God are focused on (whether consciously or subconsciously) and the balance is both male and female--the female characteristics of God are something to behold! Nurturing, healing. . .
I could go on for paragraphs more--but thanks for your thoughtful writing!