Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

[tall73]

Yes, because that is necessary for children. A necessity that does not extend to a competent adult.

Then why was Eli condemned for not restraining his adult children?

Our friend @ValeriyK2022 pointed this out some time ago.

I have said, all along, there is no problem with headship without control. But I have never, ever seen anyone advocate for a form of headship/submission that does not involve a control dynamic; so I have asked you to put that forward. And you have not answered that question.

I answered it at length in the creation material, in the role material, etc. which you never addressed.

tall73 said:​

​

But there are also times when authority is exercised and does call you to what you may not want to do, but should, because God commands it.​

It's one thing to call someone to something; it's another thing to enforce it. It's the enforcement that becomes a problem.

Jesus indicated a role for the church that does resolve issues, with authority. And I don't think you will call Him into questions as you do Paul.

Matthew 18:15-18 15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.​

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (NKJV)​

And Paul taught the same thing. Was it spiritual abuse for Paul to say that the man should not have his father's wife?

1 Corinthians 5 1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.​

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.​

​

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.​

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.” (NKJV)​

2 Corinthians 7:8-10 8 For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. (NKJV)​

I think there are times where it's a fair question. Paul did not always express himself in an exemplary manner.

I will accept Peter's testimony regarding what Paul wrote:

2 Peter 3:14-16 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (NKJV)​

In a sense, and to a degree. But leaders in the church have absolutely no right to try to control the church members. None. And when we do, grave harm results.

It is not controlling to state what the Scriptures say in warning.

When an older elder invited me to go with him, to appeal to his long-time friend who had been a Christian for years, but now had begun an affair while his wife was dying of cancer, was it wrong of us to tell him that he should break off that affair and return to his wife?

It was not control. And he and his wife were certainly not hurt by us when he did break off the affair and go to be with his dying wife.

Should we have worried about spiritually abusing him? Of course not.

To attempt to coerce someone into a course of action, by using Scripture to do so, is absolutely spiritual abuse. We can point out a Scripture; we can invite someone to reflect on it; we can encourage them to consider a particular perspective on what it means. But at the end of the day, their response to that Scripture is not ours to dictate.

This is not spiritual abuse! This is what you are called to.

James 5:19-20 19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. (NKJV)​

It's simple logic. Husbands are not the only ones to love as Christ loved the Church; that is for all of us to do. It is not a characteristic peculiar to headship.

Again, of course it is not peculiar to headship. But it is also not opposed to headship, which is what you argued. Christ still had authority as Head. The apostles were sent with authority. Overseers have authority. Parents have authority. They all love, and serve.

Love does not undermine authority.

I was thinking of Philippians 2:7; the self-emptying of Christ, the setting aside of his divine power in order to take on a human existence.

He gave up prerogatives, but He yet retained Divinity and all authority and power. Even the winds and waves obeyed Him. He served, but not by giving up His power. But by using it for others.

It's that self-emptying, that self-lowering, as it were, that husbands are being exhorted to.

And not to resign headship, but to use that power as Christ did for the church.

It still says they should be head, in imitation of Christ.

Authority is not control. As a priest I have authority; I also have a profound responsibility not to use that authority to control others, but to encourage, to equip, to enable, to serve them.

And to call to repentance. You must give account for the souls under your care. Paul said he was innocent of the blood of all men as he spoke to the Ephesian Elders:

​

Acts 20:20-21 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (NKJV)​

​

Acts 20:28-31 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. (NKJV)​

​

​

It's all been very vague. In particular, I have not seen you spell out what control a husband can rightly have, or not have, in your view. At times you seem to be saying he needs no control, at other times you seem to be saying there is nothing he can't control. You react defensively to any suggestion that the control might be abusive, but you don't set limits on his control.

Of course I have set limits on any violence, on rape. I have said micro-managing, or limiting the ability of the woman to lead out in various areas is not at all helpful. I have said that ignoring the advice of your wife is similarly wrong. I have said that wives should not be kept from theology, from from teaching in some settings, as did Priscilla, from working outside the home, as did Lydia, because we see these in Scripture. I have indicated that wives were given dominion over the earth along with husbands. I have indicated that if the husband does not show honor to his wife his prayers will be hindered. I pointed out that God would not accept the offerings of the people who had broken faith with the wife of their youth in Malachi. I noted that husbands cannot command wives to do anything against the command of God. I have agreed that both have a claim to the body of the other regarding sexual relations per I Corinthians 7. I have indicated that the text says that a husband is to love his wife as Christ love the church. and as his own body. I have noted that I see no point in deciding what we do for a day off, etc. as I don't think that is at all what is meant by headship. I have stated that in many respects our daily interactions do look much like those of egalitarians, because we are in agreement, with each other, and with doing what the Lord says. If we do have disagreement it is because we are not walking in the Spirit. And that is the biggest limit of all, because if we are grieving the Holy Spirit of God within us it convicts us. I have said that husbands are called to lead their family in the Lord, as Joshua did. But they are not at liberty to lead their family contrary to the Lord.

I have spelled out that women have a nurturing role involving carrying, bearing, caring for children, as the text states. I have noted both have a disciplinary role towards children but that the husband is particularly warned against improper use of authority, but also is held accountable for his children. An overseer is to have his children in submission to him, and rule his house well. And no, that is not just about Rome, as Eli's example points out. It is about whether he is able to oversee the church, as the text says.

I have said that all authority must be exercised as delegated by God, within the bounds of His will, not the husbands, that the husband is to put the interest of his wife and children first, etc.

I actually have no clear idea of exactly what you're advocating for, in practical, day-to-day life, terms.

I have no clear idea of what you do either.

But the epistles were written to actual churches by NT apostles to instruct them, and they did. And they instructed them in headship, and submission, in imitation of Christ and the church. They are clear enough. I am not the example in headship, Christ is.

In the end, God allows us (even within the contingency of being created beings, completely dependent on God for our very existence) a degree of freedom.

Are you free to leave those in your care to wander from God, and not call them back? Do you not think that heaven rejoices when one sinner repents?

He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they repent.

Notice the freedom He did NOT give to Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 33:7-11 7 “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.​

10 “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?” ’ 11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ (NKJV)​

​

Notice the freedom He did not give to Paul:

1 Corinthians 9:16-17 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. (NKJV)​

God allows us to make choices, even poor ones, and takes on Godself the price for setting right what we mess up. God does not act like a cosmic puppeteer with us, but gives us scope to have agency, dignity, and free will, and still seeks out relationship with us, even when we're not very good at that relationship.

God doesn't force us to comply, so why on earth would we think a husband has a right to?

God does not force you to comply. God does tell you as an overseer to oversee the flock God bought with His own blood. And that requires you to call to repentance, warn, rebuke, and yes, seek, and appeal, and be gentle as a father with his children, as Paul also affirms.

It is not one or the other.

 

[Paidiske]

Then why was Eli condemned for not restraining his adult children?

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Eli was accused of honouring his sons more than God. But Eli was not just a father; he was judge over Israel, and high priest. He had responsibility that went beyond what would be usual for a father with adult sons.

I answered it at length in the creation material, in the role material, etc. which you never addressed.

I don't think you've answered clearly at all. Referring to creation material tells me nothing about how you see this playing out today. Nor did your answer about roles. It was all very vague.

Jesus indicated a role for the church that does resolve issues, with authority.

Authority, yes, but not control. Notice that it is still open to the brother to refuse to hear the church.

It is not controlling to state what the Scriptures say in warning.

It certainly can be.

Should we have worried about spiritually abusing him? Of course not.

All of us who have any authority, any power, should always be vigilant and careful about our potential to abuse. Of course we should.

That anyone would not is terrifying.

This is not spiritual abuse!

I repeat; any attempt to use Scripture or spiritual authority to control others is spiritual abuse.

But it is also not opposed to headship, which is what you argued.

It certainly sets some parameters about what headship can and cannot mean.

He gave up prerogatives, but He yet retained Divinity and all authority and power.

I'm not sure that's quite true. We see Christ being subject to various human limitations; and that is part of the self-emptying.

But the point is more, that he put himself on our level, rather than exploiting being above us.

And to call to repentance.

To call to repentance, yes. To manipulate, shame, or threaten into repentance, no. How people respond is up to them, not up to me.

I have noted that I see no point in deciding what we do for a day off, etc. as I don't think that is at all what is meant by headship.

But then what do you think it means? What, in practical terms, are you arguing for?

If it's not the right to make unilateral decisions about sex (not just the fact but the particulars, including around fertility), if it's not the right to make unilateral decisions about how she spends her time, what she studies, what work she does, how she relates to God personally or corporately, not the right to make unilateral decisions about her relationships with extended family and friends, not the right to make unilateral decisions about money, not the right to make unilateral decisions about her leisure time and activities, not the right to make unilateral decisions about how she manages her health and appearance, if it's not the right to use various forms of power and control to enforce those unilateral decisions, then just what is it?

And, perhaps more crucially, if it's not any of these things, and the husband tries to do them anyway, what response is she allowed to have?

Are you free to leave those in your care to wander from God, and not call them back?

I can call them back; not force them back. They are free to leave if they wish.

 

[tall73]

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Eli was accused of honouring his sons more than God. But Eli was not just a father; he was judge over Israel, and high priest. He had responsibility that went beyond what would be usual for a father with adult sons.

Yes, we talked that through earlier in the thread. Yet, he was still accountable for his sons, as a father and as high priest. He was over his house, which had also been given the priesthood. God judged his house because of it.

1 Samuel 3:13 13 For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. (NKJV)​

​

Was he supposed to restrain them?

But, according to your view, as a father, and as a leader of the people, shouldn't he have been concerned about using improper control, or authority? Shouldn't he have have been concerned that he might perhaps ask them to do something they didn't want to do?

The text tells us they wanted to force people to give them their sacrifices in the way they preferred. The text tells us they wanted to sleep with the women who served at the tent of meeting.

According to your view, might it have been abusive to point out the Lord condemned that?

Should he have approached things as their equal, and perhaps just agreed to do a bit of what each of them wanted?

This is of course absurd. He should have used his legitimate authority as father and as high priest to restrain them.

 

[tall73]

I don't think you've answered clearly at all. Referring to creation material tells me nothing about how you see this playing out today.

Of course it does. Because the goal should be for the family to be like it was before sin entered the picture. But also, the NT refers to the creation material in discuss how it should play out even today, and in discussing headship. The headship was there already, but it was not burdensome in the garden.

 

[tall73]

If it's not the right to make unilateral decisions about sex (not just the fact but the particulars, including around fertility), if it's not the right to make unilateral decisions about how she spends her time, what she studies, what work she does, how she relates to God personally or corporately, not the right to make unilateral decisions about her relationships with extended family and friends, not the right to make unilateral decisions about money, not the right to make unilateral decisions about her leisure time and activities, not the right to make unilateral decisions about how she manages her health and appearance, if it's not the right to use various forms of power and control to enforce those unilateral decisions, then just what is it?

Well what was God's Headship before sin?

And that is why the garden matters as well. There was headship. There was not abuse.

 

[tall73]

Notice that it is still open to the brother to refuse to hear the church.

Of course. We certainly don't kidnap anyone.

And when I visited with the old elder, the man didn't have to open the door to his friend. But he did. The man didn't have to sit with us and talk. But he did. The man didn't have to weep with us and confess his sins, practically before we said a word, because he knew what he was doing was out of step with everything that is holy and good, leaving his wife alone while she was dying so he could indulge his pleasure. He did weep with us, and pray with us. I did not have to worry about us abusing him, because the man who was there with me had loved him all his life, and was loving him still.

 

[Paidiske]

Was he supposed to restrain them? The text says he was.

But what the text does not say, is exactly how this was supposed to happen. I was struck, reading it over again today, at the description of him as elderly and failing physically; I wondered whether he felt threatened by his sons. I wondered whether there had come a point where he had, in practical terms, lost any ability to restrain them. I thought perhaps his failures as a parent were early in their lives, and then he was relatively powerless to restrain them later.

Now granted, that's all speculation. But my point is, it's a very sparse text, and it tells us very little about what's going on. It's certainly not a sound basis for a theology of family governance.

But, according to your view, as a father, and as a leader of the people, shouldn't he have been concerned about using improper control, or authority?

Yes, certainly.

Shouldn't he have have been concerned that he might perhaps ask them to do something they didn't want to do?

No; the issue is not with asking. And in fact I note that the text does record him as remonstrating with them.

According to your view, might it have been abusive to point out the Lord condemned that?

No.

Here's the thing. We can discuss a text like this in an abstract way till the cows come home. Meanwhile, between my last post and this one, I had a pastoral conversation with a woman who has never attended my church, but met me by chance at something outside the church, and asked whether I'd be willing to meet.

This woman, this beloved daughter of God, has been in an abusive, violent, controlling marriage for 41 years. She is, at this point, beginning to navigate separation, get counselling, learn about trauma and understanding her own reactions, and so on. She is, I think it's fair to say, deconstructing her life to date, and trying to work out what it means to be a healthy and whole person, mother, grandmother. She went to her church leaders (in a patriarchal, complementarian church) for advice on what the Bible says about her situation; and their advice to her was to submit more, be more attentive to her husband's needs, and specifically, have more sex.

She came to me in her profound distress hoping that perhaps a woman in ministry might be able to offer her something safer and more pastorally appropriate, and I hope I did.

But I share that story because this, this is the lived reality of headship and submission, in real lives, for real people. This is where this theology ends up. With a battered wife told by her pastor to give her husband more sex, because God tells her to be in submission to her husband in all things.

And then people try to pretend it's all shiny and loving and harmless, where I'm picking up the pieces with devastated broken people all. the. time. I'm heartbroken and furious and rapidly running out of any tolerance for the absolutely disgusting "ministry" offered by so many clueless people who only compound harm and trauma.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course it does. Because the goal should be for the family to be like it was before sin entered the picture.

But that doesn't say anything about the practicality of day to day life now.

The headship was there already, but it was not burdensome in the garden.

I don't see anything resembling headship until the fall, and the rule of the husband being part of our fallen condition. If the aim is for the family to be as it was pre-fall, then there should not be rule of one by the other.

Well what was God's Headship before sin?

I'm asking you what you think it should be now. I still have no idea what you're advocating for.

Of course. We certainly don't kidnap anyone.

Well, that's the extreme. But there are other tactics we also should not use.

 

[tall73]

But what the text does not say, is exactly how this was supposed to happen. I was struck, reading it over again today, at the description of him as elderly and failing physically; I wondered whether he felt threatened by his sons. I wondered whether there had come a point where he had, in practical terms, lost any ability to restrain them. I thought perhaps his failures as a parent were early in their lives, and then he was relatively powerless to restrain them later.

​

1 Samuel 3:13 13 For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. (NKJV)​

​

God judged him for not restraining his sons. He had authority, that wasn't just dependent on physical strength, and God said he did not do what he should have done. And early or late, it is still the same problem. God held him accountable for failing to restrain his sons.

Now granted, that's all speculation. But my point is, it's a very sparse text, and it tells us very little about what's going on. It's certainly not a sound basis for a theology of family governance.

Somewhat ironic that you are defending Eli for enabling abuse, which God Himself condemned.

You say people who note the text talks about headship are leading to abuse, but you defend someone who wouldn't restrain abuse? When God already condemned Eli Himself? Are you under the impression God missed something in judging Eli?

Yes, certainly.

No; the issue is not with asking. And in fact I note that the text does record him as remonstrating with them.

Exactly. But he did not restrain them, or remove them from their position where they were abusing. Why would you defend that?

You have certainly argued for authorities going after religious figures today who abuse, and rightly so.

So why defend Eli? Do you say that those who enabled abuse in churches today were just old and feeble, and couldn't restrain?

He was obligated to, and didn't do so.

Here's the thing. We can discuss a text like this in an abstract way till the cows come home.

Here's the thing, we have a judgment from God Almighty in this case. There is nothing abstract or in doubt about it. God declared that Eli did not restrain them and should have, and he was held to account for that. Now if religious leaders or fathers, etc. cannot do anything but ask and appeal, then why would God do that?

Because they obviously could, and should, have done more.

Meanwhile, between my last post and this one, I had a pastoral conversation with a woman who has never attended my church, but met me by chance at something outside the church, and asked whether I'd be willing to meet.

This woman, this beloved daughter of God, has been in an abusive, violent, controlling marriage for 41 years. She is, at this point, beginning to navigate separation, get counselling, learn about trauma and understanding her own reactions, and so on. She is, I think it's fair to say, deconstructing her life to date, and trying to work out what it means to be a healthy and whole person, mother, grandmother. She went to her church leaders (in a patriarchal, complementarian church) for advice on what the Bible says about her situation; and their advice to her was to submit more, be more attentive to her husband's needs, and specifically, have more sex.

And they certainly failed in this. They should have corrected him, and protected her.

And it sounds like she has recourse to the civil authorities, who are also God's servants. I hope you are able to help minister to her in this situation.

But then why defend Eli who enabled abuse by his sons?

But I share that story because this, this is the lived reality of headship and submission, in real lives, for real people. This is where this theology ends up. With a battered wife told by her pastor to give her husband more sex, because God tells her to be in submission to her husband in all things.

That is not, in fact, where headship always winds up. That is where it winds up when they are distorting what the text says, to change love your wife as Christ loved the church to violently abuse her.

And there are certainly egalitarians who abuse as well.

I would say there is some selection bias in those who are given tragic advice being more likely to come to you out of desperation than those who did receive actual help from their church, whether egalitarian, or complementarian, or the civil authorities. But I am glad you will be ministering to her, since they did not. It would have been far better had they not enabled her abuse. And God judges today, as He did in Eli's day.

And then people try to pretend it's all shiny and loving and harmless, where I'm picking up the pieces with devastated broken people all. the. time.

Who exactly said that the church that enabled abuse was harmless?

Yet a great many who see that the text described headship do NOT act like that, and the text does not sanction it.

I'm heartbroken and furious and rapidly running out of any tolerance for the absolutely disgusting "ministry" offered by so many clueless people who only compound harm and trauma.

Then why did you defend Eli who God Himself condemned?

 

[tall73]

Tall73 saaid:​

Of course it does. Because the goal should be for the family to be like it was before sin entered the picture.​

But that doesn't say anything about the practicality of day to day life now.

Yes it does. If you want to talk about reversing the curse, then you should look to return, when possible, to life prior to sin.

But if you acknowledge, and we must, that sin is still with us, then you have an even larger theological problem. Because the curse to Eve was that he would rule over her. Like the other curses, pain increasing in childbirth, tending plants becoming more burdensome, etc. it is a more painful experience of something otherwise good.

But we still have to deal with weeds and thistles. And we still have to deal with pain in childbirth. And we still have to deal with sin bringing in discord that was not there before. But we should, whenever possible, as Christians, to live without letting sin impact our lives.

Tall73 said:​

But also, the NT refers to the creation material in discuss how it should play out even today, and in discussing headship. The headship was there already, but it was not burdensome in the garden.​

I don't see anything resembling headship until the fall, and the rule of the husband being part of our fallen condition. If the aim is for the family to be as it was pre-fall, then there should not be rule of one by the other.

a. I spelled out indications of headship. You have not addressed them.

b. You don't see indications of headship when it is plainly stated in two places in the NT.

c. As just argued above, if you acknowledge that sin is still with us, and you want to know how to live in current life, you are arguing against your position, even if you think they were equal until sin. Because we still have the other curses as well.

But we do not want the curse. We should not promote the curse. We want the lack of discord that was there, prior to sin. So yes, it matters what things looked like before the fall.

 

[Paidiske]

Somewhat ironic that you are defending Eli for enabling abuse, which God Himself condemned.

I'm not defending him. What I am wondering about, is where the problem started, and at what point he most effectively could have intervened, and what that intervention would have been. None of which is spelled out for us.

That is not, in fact, where headship always winds up.

Well, I have never - and I do mean never - seen a headship/submission marriage that I would describe as healthy, with no element of control. So I'm skeptical.

And I'm skeptical because I see people who push this far more concerned with telling wives to submit, than equipping couples with tools for good communication, good problem solving, good conflict resolution (who needs all that when she's supposed to submit?).

And I'm skeptical because I have never seen someone advocating for this able to spell out exactly what non-abusive headship and submission actually looks like in practice.

Who exactly said that the church that enabled abuse was harmless?

I was referring to a doctrine of headship and submission in marriage.

Yes it does. If you want to talk about reversing the curse, then you should look to return, when possible, to life prior to sin.

Okay, I agree, but again, what does that mean for how husbands and wives live, make decisions, and so on, today?

But if you acknowledge, and we must, that sin is still with us, then you have an even larger theological problem. Because the curse to Eve was that he would rule over her.

But Christ redeemed us from the curse. In Christ that rule is removed. In Christ there is no place for dynamics of power and control in marriage; which is exactly why the epistle exhorts us to submit to one another!

 

[tall73]

I'm not defending him. What I am wondering about, is where the problem started, and at what point he most effectively could have intervened, and what that intervention would have been. None of which is spelled out for us.

Because the part that is spelled out was what he was held accountable for. When they became vile, and were abusing, he should not have allowed them to continue that.

So whether this started out quite early, or whether they did so while in their positions, once they did so he should have, at the least, removed them from their positions.

Okay, I agree, but again, what does that mean for how husbands and wives live, make decisions, and so on, today?

That there should be no strife, no sin, that they should walk in the Spirit, not the flesh, that there is no need of harshness in any way.

But Christ redeemed us from the curse. In Christ that rule is removed.

So Christians don't have pain in childbirth, and their fields have no weeds?

We try to minimize pain, we try to minimize weds, etc. But we still have the effects of sin, or we wouldn't be talking about abuse at all.

But headship was there prior to sin. God has always been Head. And the angels who minister to Him do not need force, do not questions his kindness. Those who did already fell. There is no need for harshness. But there is still Headship.

Psalm 8 says man was made a little lower than the angels.

Psalms 8:3-6 3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,​

The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,​

4 What is man that You are mindful of him,​

And the son of man that You visit him?​

5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,​

And You have crowned him with glory and honor.​

6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;​

You have put all things under his feet (NKJV)​

(And Hebrews points out how Jesus redeemed even Adam's lost dominion).

Were the angels harsh tyrants because man was a little lower than them? Of course not. And any work they did would be directed by God, who is their Head, and would be for the good of those they were sent to minister to.

We are told we will one day judge the world, and angels. Will that make us tyrants? I see no reason to think so.

1 Corinthians 6:2-3 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? (NKJV)​

In Christ there is no place for dynamics of power and control in marriage; which is exactly why the epistle exhorts us to submit to one another!

Created order had hierarchy, and every level was in harmony, and submitted to God, who is overall. It was not harsh rule.

Well, I have never - and I do mean never - seen a headship/submission marriage that I would describe as healthy, with no element of control. So I'm skeptical.

If you only define headship as control against one's will, etc. then of course you haven't. But God is over the angels, and He is not abusive. Man was a little lower than the angels, and were not abusive.

Parents are over children, but should not be abusive.

Overseers are in authority over the congregation, but should not be abusive.

And we will judge the world, and angels, in the world to come, per Scripture, but that won't make us abusive.

 

[Paidiske]

That there should be no strife, no sin, that they should walk in the Spirit, not the flesh, that there is no need of harshness in any way.

Okay, that's all very nice, but how does it relate to questions of power, control, decision making, and so on?

But we still have the effects of sin, or we wouldn't be talking about abuse at all.

But we don't need to live within a system of patriarchal rule. That's choosing to live under the curse, when we don't have to.

If you only define headship as control against one's will, etc. then of course you haven't.

I keep asking you to tell me what headship without control is, how it works, and you haven't. In all those situations where headship is so often used to control, how does non-controlling headship do things?

 

[tall73]

I keep asking you to tell me what headship without control is, how it works, and you haven't. In all those situations where headship is so often used to control, how does non-controlling headship do things?

How did God and the angels, etc. function prior to sin?

No, this is not a distraction. And I already answered quite a bit regarding what headship looked like ,but it seems since you were only looking for abusive elements, you didn't see it. Nor have you responded to the Eden text analysis.

Authority existed prior to sin. God, the angels, etc. had authority. It was not abuse. They didn't have to force anyone. It was not harsh.

And I have indicated the texts show headship prior to sin for Adam as well.

Additionally, why do you think the curse resulted in the husband ruling over the woman? Why not the reverse?

 

[tall73]

​

tall73 said:​

If you want to talk about reversing the curse, then you should look to return, when possible, to life prior to sin.​

​

​

Paidiske said:​

Okay, I agree, but again, what does that mean for how husbands and wives live, make decisions, and so on, today?​

​

Tall73 said:​

That there should be no strife, no sin, that they should walk in the Spirit, not the flesh, that there is no need of harshness in any way.​

Okay, that's all very nice, but how does it relate to questions of power, control, decision making, and so on?

The new covenant promise of the law written in the heart and mind is "all very nice", and you wonder how they relate to power and control?

I think you are missing some elements.

 

[Paidiske]

How did God and the angels, etc. function prior to sin?

No, this is not a distraction. And I already answered quite a bit regarding what headship looked like ,but it seems since you were only looking for abusive elements, you didn't see it. Nor have you responded to the Eden text analysis.

Authority existed prior to sin. God, the angels, etc. had authority. It was not abuse. They didn't have to force anyone. It was not harsh.

And I have indicated the texts show headship prior to sin for Adam as well.

None of this answers my question. It's like... either you don't understand what I'm trying to ask (quite possibly I am not asking it well), or you don't actually have an answer.

When headship and submission, as a one-way dynamic rather than mutual submission in marriage, is talked about in church (or popular Chritian writing), sure, the ideal may be presented as the couple always thinking alike on everything; but when they don't (which is a basic reality for most marriages at some point), it's always talked about as the husband having responsibility, the husband making decisions, the wife being required to do what he says, what he decides, to suppress her own opinions and emotions, to basically make herself an extension of his will (graciously and willingly, of course!)

I take some quotes from a few sites pushing this view, as examples of what headship/submission is taken to mean:
"Men also have the God-given duties to rule over (exercise control over) their wives as well as lead, provide for, protect, teach, rebuke and discipline their wives." (From here).

"The key to being able to make this work, and still be submissive, is in the fact you don’t tell your man what to do, and you stop when it’s time to stop. Just follow those rules. When you’ve played your role in sharing suggestions, you prepare yourself to accept his decision. The conversation is over when he says it is." (From here; that whole post is instructive).

"I have no doubt where I stand with my wife, and I know she will follow my lead if I feel it necessary to say “we’re doing it this way”. (From here; and he thinks he's not "that husband"!)

That's profoundly unhealthy and controlling. Now, you're saying you're arguing for headship and it's not that, and I'm saying, so what is it? What is your take on what headship/submission means in practice, in these situations where it is usually presented as meaning he's in control? How do they share decision making? How do they handle situations where they disagree about a decision, how do they work through different viewpoings and feelings about something, if the dynamic isn't that what he says goes, because he's the bloke?

And, if it really isn't, when the rubber hits the road, the man is in control, how is what you're advocating for actually any different from egalitarianism and mutual submission?

Additionally, why do you think the curse resulted in the husband ruling over the woman?

Because that's what the text says. "He shall rule over you," is an expression of human fallenness and sinfulness.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

Additionally, why do you think the curse resulted in the husband ruling over the woman?​

Because that's what the text says. "He shall rule over you," is an expression of human fallenness and sinfulness.

Yes, it is an expression of human fallenness and sinfulness. Because ruling over was not the original intent. Though we mean that in different ways.

But my question was getting at, why was the man the one ruling over, and not the woman?

 

[Paidiske]

But my question was getting at, why was the man the one ruling over, and not the woman?

He's (generally) bigger and stronger and less physically vulnerable, so it's easier for him to force and dominate, if our sinfulness is going to run in that way.

 

[tall73]

None of this answers my question. It's like... either you don't understand what I'm trying to ask (quite possibly I am not asking it well), or you don't actually have an answer.

I don't think I am misunderstanding your question. I do think some of your questions may be missing elements of headship to start with.

The starting point is always God as Head.

And I do think I have been giving answers, and you are not engaging with my answers, but just asking for something else, which is more in line with your notion of what it should sound like.

But that is OK. People reading along will be sizing up both positions. I will try again. I have spelled out various aspects across a number of posts, referring to Scripture, to my own experience, responding to scenarios you presented, etc. However, I will try to pull it together in this post.

First, I will review some dynamics.

As I mentioned, wives in the text are indicated to have roles specifically designed around children, such as carrying, bearing, caring for children, etc. This is biologically driven, and also referenced in the text. Being fruitful and multiplying, for both male and female, are part of the shared dominion over the earth. The texts quoted earlier show a nurturing spirit for the wife and mother for children, and a role particularly in caring for children in the household. As noted, women are also seen working in other roles, including outside of the home, so this is not limiting the woman's role only to care of children, or limiting the shared dominion over the earth. But it is a prominent role differentiation biologically, and in the text, as it relates to the overall family.

Both have a role in disciplining children. But husbands are particularly held accountable for the results. We see this in the case of Eli, warnings given to fathers in Ephesians 6, texts such as Hebrews 12 which show the particular disciplining role of Fathers, as illustrating the superior discipline of God, in the case of overseers who are to oversee their household well with their children in subjection, etc. (And in this case not only does the husband of one wife suggest men in this role, but also your view that Roman ruling of households was operative in the context would rule out women being primarily described in these terms , even if you don't think such would apply in non-patriarchal contexts. )

There is also a coordinating role indicated, in which husbands led their household in service to the Lord (Joshua, Cornelius, etc.)

These two roles overlap. If the father is particularly held accountable for the outcome of the children, then that involves coordination of disciplinary efforts by the husband and wife, and of relationships between the wife and children, etc.

The next dynamic is that all authority of a husband is delegated authority. Delegated authority has necessary limitations in sphere, extent, etc. We have discussed at length how the husband's authority cannot legitimately contradict that of his Head, Christ. But there are also limitations of sphere.

As an example, we saw when dealing with civil authorities, God outlined that they are tasked with a moral role--punishing the wrongdoer, and commending the one who does well. So decisions that go against God's law, or which exceed the scope of authority, are legitimately resisted.

The disciplinary and coordinating roles of the husband are also within a specific sphere. If he is accountable for overseeing his household well, through delegated authority, then the scope is rather broad, but limited to those things dictated by his Head.

In other words, the husband doesn't set the standard for what overseeing well means. He is to oversee the family in such a way that they are following God's commands, God's plan, God's mission. Anything outside of God's defined parameters for what a faithful family looks like are outside of the scope of his role.

To illustrate this aspect, at this point, I will give an illustration from corporate life. Not because I think it is the best illustration of marriage, or the church, but because you seem to want to think of things in terms of control and power structures. So I will work within something more along those lines. But understand, I am not saying a family, or the church, is a corporate structure in that sense.

As you know, I have served in a pastoral role at various times. But currently I am working a regular job (while still getting to preach each week with a very interactive group at a local nursing home, and teaching each week in class going through Scripture with high school aged kids, which I enjoy!)

In my job I am currently tasked with overseeing two departments, both of which I had worked in as a front-line employee previously.

In both cases the people I am overseeing were the ones who trained me initially, which is a bit of an unusual situation.

When carrying out my role, management expects me to oversee the departments, and carry out company policy. I have some input on the procedures, suggested courses of action, etc. but I don't determine it by any means. My teams also have input on the policy, but similarly, do not determine it.

My authority is entirely delegated. And I am accountable for carrying out the mission and aims of the company, within the values spelled out by that company (fortunately the company was founded by a man with decades of pastoral experience, and who values ethics considerably). There are three levels of authority above me.

Now in my day-to-day work, what is the company paying me to do?

I coordinate the teams, keep them moving towards the mission, help with relational issues, clarify processes, take their suggestions to leadership, etc.

We are in an office setting. It would do me no good to micro-manage my teams, determining how to arrange the software windows or bookmarks of each person, or determining whether they use a dark theme or light theme for their applications, or indicating whether they use a standing or sitting desk, or dictate what their conversation is during breaks (within certain limits of appropriateness), or tell them how to manage each part of their case-load, when to call who, etc.

They are all good at their job. They trained me to do the job. And I wouldn't keep my position long, or do it well, if I were interfering in such things all the time, because that is not what the company is paying me to do. I let them do their work, unless there is something that demands my involvement. If the team has a personality clash, I may need to get involved to help work it through. If the team is disagreeing on how to apply some procedure, I may coordinate the discussion (but not so as to dictate, the processes are complex, and we need everyone's input, with some having experience in various aspects). If we cannot resolve the procedure I would usually seek guidance from a higher-level manager. If, however, no one is available at that time, and a decision must be made, then I will at times make the decision, after taking in all the input, and within the guidelines set down by the company, with their aims, goals, values, and mission in mind. I am then accountable for that decision.

Now when I do wind up making decisions, it is when I need to in order to clarify, or to make sure we are carrying out what the company wants. They are not decisions based on my whims. And in some cases, I am compelled to intervene if employees are doing something directly against the company mission, values or policies, even if I would rather not get involved, or it makes things difficult.

In regards to a husband's role, this similar aspect of delegated authority is at play. Eli was held responsible for not restraining his sons when they became vile, rebelling against God.

An overseer is to oversee his family well, and have them in subjection--not just to his own whims, but to the commands of God, as he himself is subject to those commands.

And just as with my role at my company, most procedures are already spelled out. What God expects of people generally, of a family, and of each member of a family, is given in His word. If a matter is not related to God's instruction, it is not something I need concern myself with overseeing. What we do on a day off, how my wife or children spend leisure time (other than immoral activities), etc. are not within the sphere of a husband's role.

So when I said that in our house most decisions are reached in much the same way as those of egalitarian families, that is true. If something is not related to what God expects of our family, I don't have to oversee anything regarding it. And in most cases, since the Lord has already spelled out what is expected of a family, and we all generally agree with such, I don't have to dictate things in that regard either. Now if there is some disagreement as to the best way to carry out the Lord's will, we all discuss. In the vast majority of cases we come to agreement after talking it through (including the children as they got older). Sometimes we may need to pray and wait for an answer, if that is an option.

And as I spelled out, in a very few cases, around four or so if we recall correctly, we could not come to any agreement after protracted discussion, and effort. We had no direct word from God, and a decision had to be made, regarding an important matter. In those cases I offered to make the decision, and my wife agreed to that arrangement. Because by that point we would rather have a course of action on an important matter that needed a decision, rather than continue to be in disagreement.

As I also mentioned, that by no means indicates we have a perfect marriage, or that we always get along, or that we always had wonderfully harmonious relations among the children, etc. The issues in most families are of a more straight-forward type. The conflict in families, as with everything else, come from sin. Since the fall our sin nature results in all kinds of strife, jealousy, striving for dominance, selfishness, lust, pride, etc. Whenever we allow the sinful nature to dictate our conversation, actions, etc. we have incredible problems.

The solution to that truly is to walk in the Spirit. And the husband cannot do that for anyone but himself. Each member of the family must do this, keeping in step with the Spirit, bearing the fruit of the Spirit. But he can coordinate and encourage, and at times, intervene when this fails to happen. The husband is ultimately accountable for helping each member of the family to stay on the same course--not his course, but God's--to prevent rebellion against God, to prevent damage to relationships, to make sure the family is fulfilling its purpose in Christ, and participating in the body of Christ, and it's mission.

Nor does this rule out leadership on the part of the wife. But I do see accountability for the husband spelled out as greater.

Probably the biggest factor in whether a couple succeeds in living out a Christian life besides walking in the Spirit, is whether they can admit fault when they fail to do this, and practice forgiveness, as Christ has forgiven us. There are many opportunities to forgive and ask for forgiveness in a Christian marriage and family, in a sinful world. And couples that cannot do this do not last. And this is particularly important in the case of the father. If he cannot admit when he has failed to carry out God's will, his family will not follow him. Our families know us better than anyone. They know whether we are sincerely living a Christian life, because they see it, or don't see it every day. And when a husband is living a Christian life, the family is more willing to allow that coordinating effort.

If he becomes embittered, instead of loving, and will not forgive, then this undermines the whole process. Hence the warning in Colossians against bitterness. Husbands are also warned not to provoke their children, or abuse their authority. As this also undermines legitimate exercise of delegated authority.

Colossians 3:18-21
18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.
20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. (NKJV)

The husband is accountable for the course of his family. And in that connection I mentioned Eli's guilt for not restraining the wickedness he knew, the rebellion against God, among his children.

And Adam, likewise, did not prevent rebellion, did not keep his household following the Lord, and did himself turn away from God's command. And he was therefore singled out for bringing sin and death into the world.

 

[tall73]

He's (generally) bigger and stronger and less physically vulnerable, so it's easier for him to force and dominate, if our sinfulness is going to run in that way.

Why is the man (generally) bigger, stronger, and less physically vulnerable?