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

[Paidiske]

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.

...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.

I think we are getting somewhere. So would it be fair to say that you see headship playing out specifically as control as the aspects of the life of the household which specifically relate to being obedient to God?

This is what I was trying to ask about earlier, in terms of, what are the limits or parameters of the role.

I still have a problem with it, in that I think there's an awful lot of scope here for that to be profoundly controlling or abusive, but at least it is some clarity in what you're arguing for.

 

[Paidiske]

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

Because biology. More testosterone at particular developmental moments etc.

 

[tall73]

Because biology. More testosterone at particular developmental moments etc.

Was that intentional design or accident?

And if it was intentional design, why do you think that design choice was made?

 

[tall73]

I think we are getting somewhere. So would it be fair to say that you see headship playing out specifically as control as the aspects of the life of the household which specifically relate to being obedient to God?

Yes, with some caveats.

Control only in the event of potential sin, which is why I said headship is not primarily about conflict resolution, originally. God is Lord and always has been. angels and the man and woman were all under His authority prior to sin.

There was no need for harsh control or "ruling over", because all were in agreement regarding His authority, and His character, that God is love, all that God made is good, God is holy, and that He has the best interest of His creation in mind.

But God was still in charge.

In the same way I spelled out indications of headship in the long post about the creation material, and the NT commentary on that. And I spelled out roles.

At the point where sin became a possibility then accountability is particularly prominent, and restraining wickedness is called for. In the sense that Eli restraining his children in their vile rebellion against God would be exercising control, which I agree it would, then yes, control could come into play. But there were many points prior to that where control might not have been necessary to instill the principles of God's kingdom in Eli's children, but in that, you are correct, we have limited information. We only know that at the critical point of dealing with rebellion, already in the context of sin, Eli failed, and decidedly so. And he was held accountable for that failure by God Himself, so there is no doubting the justness of the decree.

Likewise, at the point where Eve is considering eating the fruit Adam failed to restrain her, whether through reasoning, or example, or some more direct means. He was held accountable as the one through whom sin and death entered the world. We know this from God's curse upon Adam including death for all, but also from the NT commentary on the passage in Romans 5 in particular, but also in I Corinthians 15, etc.

 

[Paidiske]

Was that intentional design or accident?

And if it was intentional design, why do you think that design choice was made?

I don't believe our biology is "designed" to that degree.

Control only in the event of potential sin, which is why I said headship is not primarily about conflict resolution, originally.

Yeah, but anything is or can be viewed as a potential sin, so that's not really much of a limitation. Especially when even disagreeing with your husband is viewed as a sin!

 

[tall73]

Especially when even disagreeing with your husband is viewed as a sin!

No. Disagreeing with God is the sin. The husband's authority is delegated. If he is only insisting on his own whims, he is outside of that authority.

 

[tall73]

I don't believe our biology is "designed" to that degree.

Do you believe any of the account of the garden was literal at all?

 

[Paidiske]

No. Disagreeing with God is the sin. The husband's authority is delegated. If he is only insisting on his own whims, he is outside of that authority.

My point is, for a lot of people, if a wife is to submit "in everything," then any failure to submit to him, no matter how trivial or petty, is itself disagreeing with God, and a sin.

But okay; finally we have an answer. Headship/submission to you plays out in terms of the husband managing the household (extended family?) to prevent sin.

So here's an important question: are there ways that the husband can exercise that headship, for the right motives, but in the wrong way? Can he go too far, be too forceful? Or does the fact that his aim is to prevent sin justify any means?

(And no, I don't take the account of the garden literally, although I do take it very seriously as conveying important theological truths).

 

[tall73]

My point is, for a lot of people, if a wife is to submit "in everything," then any failure to submit to him, no matter how trivial or petty, is itself disagreeing with God, and a sin.

But okay; finally we have an answer. Headship/submission to you plays out in terms of the husband managing the household (extended family?) to prevent sin.

Yes. But it is not finally. I have mentioned it at various points, posted various texts about it, etc. But perhaps putting it all in one place will make progress.

So here's an important question: are there ways that the husband can exercise that headship, for the right motives, but in the wrong way? Can he go too far, be too forceful? Or does the fact that his aim is to prevent sin justify any means?

Of course he can go too far, which is what the limits in the text are about. Because headship involves authority difference, there are cautions built in.

As we discussed at length, loving your wife as Christ loves the church, and as your own body, means you should not be beating your wife, raping your wife, etc. That is completely at odds with the text. And neither should you be embittered. Neither should you exasperate your children.

But as I mentioned, the largest limit is that if you are walking in the Spirit you are bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and that rules out a great number of things. Also, you should not grieve the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[tall73]

(And no, I don't take the account of the garden literally, although I do take it very seriously as conveying important theological truths).

So we are accidents in our biological structure? God didn't design male and female differently on purpose? It says He made them male and female. Is that one of the theological truths you embrace?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes. But it is not finally. I have mentioned it at various points, posted various texts about it, etc. But perhaps putting it all in one place will make progress.

It has not at all been clear to me until now that this is what you meant.

Of course he can go too far, which is what the limits in the text are about. Because headship involves authority difference, there are cautions built in.

As we discussed at length, loving your wife as Christ loves the church, and as your own body, means you should not be beating your wife, raping your wife, etc. That is completely at odds with the text. And neither should you be embittered. Neither should you exasperate your children.

But as I mentioned, the largest limit is that if you are walking in the Spirit you are bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and that rules out a great number of things. Also, you should not grieve the Holy Spirit of God.

Okay. So, I could agree that this is an understanding of headship that is not abusive, if you could agree that any attempt to control a wife - to have her act or not act not as she would freely choose - would be abuse, and going too far. That the function of headship is persuasive, but not coercive. (I still wouldn't agree that it's what Scripture calls for, but I could agree that that's not abusive).

However, I also think at that point, headship is so limited that it is, in practice, not very different from egalitarian principles.

 

[Paidiske]

So we are accidents in our biological structure? God didn't design male and female differently on purpose? It says He made them male and female. Is that one of the theological truths you embrace?

Getting really off topic, and I don't particularly want to go into that in detail for now.

I think it would be enough for me to note that I don't attach any spiritual significance to our differently sexed biology.

 

[tall73]

It has not at all been clear to me until now that this is what you meant.

Okay. So, I could agree that this is an understanding of headship that is not abusive, if you could agree that any attempt to control a wife - to have her act or not act not as she would freely choose - would be abuse, and going too far. That the function of headship is persuasive, but not coercive.

However, I also think at that point, headship is so limited that it is, in practice, not very different from egalitarian principles.

I stated from the outset in most cases the difference between headship and egalitarian principles is not great. Just as I acknowledged that the role of an overseer is primarily about example, influence, etc.

And yes, as I stated earlier, and even quoted Chrysostom earlier as stating, the prescription if your wife does not respond to your leading is to love her anyway. God commanded you to do so, and your duty doesn't change because she rejects your leadership.

Now I think we will part ways in that in an effort to prevent sin Eli should have controlled. If necessary he should have removed them from their position entirely.

If an overseer is aware of abuse in the church he should remove the abuser immediately from any access, and also involve the civil authorities.

And if, for instance, my wife were physically abusing my children, and would not be dissuaded, and presumably at that point would not listen to church authorities, I would have to protect them by involving the civil authorities, which are also appointed by God, and which use control by His command.

And of course, as I stated earlier, that may mean physically restraining in the meantime. And yes, I agree a wife should do that as well to protect her children.

I think in some instances you agree with such control, as you seemed to outline earlier. There is legitimate authority, and exercise of authority. But we are not looking for excuses to exercise that. We are, like Paul, wanting to use God-given authority for the purpose it is primarily intended, which is building up, rather than tearing down.

 

[tall73]

Getting really off topic, and I don't particularly want to go into that in detail for now.

I think it would be enough for me to note that I don't attach any spiritual significance to our differently sexed biology.

There is no avoiding the issue of biology. God designed them male and female. That includes the ability to be one flesh (though that has multiple dynamics). That includes the ability to be fruitful and multiply. That involves physical differences. And this is not just from the garden, but quoted by Jesus directly.

God designed it. And roles flow from that.

 

[Paidiske]

And yes, as I stated earlier, and even quoted Chrysostom earlier as stating, the prescription if your wife does not respond to your leading is to love her anyway. God commanded you to do so, and your duty doesn't change because she rejects your leadership.

That's not quite exactly what I was getting at. There are people who would say that loving your wife anyway might include things like controlling her access to financial means, or other non-physically-violent forms of coercion. What I am trying to get at, is whether your understanding would rule out any form of coercion.

Now I think we will part ways in that in an effort to prevent sin Eli should have controlled. If necessary he should have removed them from their position entirely.

If an overseer is aware of abuse in the church he should remove the abuser immediately from any access, and also involve the civil authorities.

I agree with you on the last sentence.

I have some questions - not answered in the text - about the first sentence. It's not clear to me that there was any mechanism in place to remove an Aaronic priest from his position, other than killing him. Are we to draw the conclusion that God expected Eli to kill his sons? That would be consistent with some other OT passages, but I'd have a hard time being very condemnatory of Eli for struggling to do it, or for hoping that he might be able to persuade his sons to change.

And if, for instance, my wife were physically abusing my children, and would not be dissuaded, and presumably at that point would not listen to church authorities, I would have to protect them by involving the civil authorities, which are also appointed by God, and which use control by His command.

Sure. But that's got nothing to do with headship, that would be true for anybody.

 

[Paidiske]

God designed it. And roles flow from that.

Apart from what's necessitated by our reproductive differences, I don't really see any strong argument for gender roles. So whether God designed it or not, I think it's largely a molehill people try to turn into a mountain.

 

[tall73]

That's not quite exactly what I was getting at. There are people who would say that loving your wife anyway might include things like controlling her access to financial means, or other non-physically-violent forms of coercion.

I would suppose it would have to depend on the details. But seeing as how both of our names are on the financial accounts, that would likely involve some adjudicated decisions at some point.

What I am trying to get at, is whether your understanding would rule out any form of coercion.

Any form of coercion is too broad to know what is meant. But I am sure there are other examples that might involve civil authorities, appeal to church authorities, physical restraint to protect others, etc.

As I stated earlier, I do not see reading Scripture to rebuke as abusive either, though you do. If God is Head, then appeal to HIs word is not abuse.

I have some questions - not answered in the text - about the first sentence. It's not clear to me that there was any mechanism in place to remove an Aaronic priest from his position, other than killing him. Are we to draw the conclusion that God expected Eli to kill his sons? That would be consistent with some other OT passages, but I'd have a hard time being very condemnatory of Eli for struggling to do it, or for hoping that he might be able to persuade his sons to change.

By the point they were abusing the sanctuary service, and the women involved in it, they were already at the point that being cut off was the result.

Everything associated with the sanctuary was to be maintained in holiness, and even ministering while unclean could result in being cut-off.

Which is not to say that Eli did not have opportunities while they were being trained to prevent this. And it is also not to say that God couldn't have intervened if He wanted to.

David should have died, by all rights, under the law, and there was no prescribed sacrifice for adultery, or murder. The penalty for a murderer who did so intentionally was to have his blood shed for atonement of the land.

Num 35:33 You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.​

Num 35:34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”​

God still pardoned David when he repented.

And in general practice God often forgave, even when the someone had committed great sin. Perhaps the most striking case was Manasseh, who, since God knows the heart, was even restored to his throne, after leading the whole nation into sin, filling Jerusalem with blood, etc. And because God did know the heart we see that Manasseh did try to reverse the evil he had caused, though he could not do so completely.

This is spelled out as a principle for nations in Jeremiah 18:

Jeremiah 18:7-8 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. (NKJV)​

And for individuals we see this principle spelled out in Ezekiel 18:

Ezekiel 18:21-23 21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? (NKJV)​

The context here is a whole list of egregious sins for which a person may be liable. But God shows mercy to those who repent.

Sometimes in this life that may mean mercy in the next life, but paying the price for our sin here (death penalty for murder, etc.)

The limiting factor is the willingness to repent.

We cannot know the counter-factual, if Eli had convinced them to plea for mercy. However, in this particular account, by the point where Eli warned them we see indications already that they were beyond repentance. They were already experiencing hardening, and God had already purposed to kill them:

1 Samuel 2:22-25 22 Now Eli was very old; and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 23 So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. 24 No, my sons! For it is not a good report that I hear. You make the LORD’s people transgress. 25 If one man sins against another, God will judge him. But if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?” Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the LORD desired to kill them. (NKJV)​

Which means his ability to induce repentance, if their heart was ever open to it (people have free choice) was earlier. And it also means that his only recourse by this point was to remove them himself.

Eli also had recourse to ask God what he should do, at all of the above points.

And as we have discussed, Eli is in a situation where he was both father, and religious, and civil authority in this case. So he had the ability to act.

Sure. But that's got nothing to do with headship, that would be true for anybody.

I am not saying that example is limited to headship. But I am saying it is an example where control might be necessary. And it is predicated on God's commands taking precedence, in all situations.

I am not opposed to the exercise of control, when needed. I do not think we should seek to use it harshly, or when inappropriate, or outside the scope of God's will, etc.

For that matter, in a case where authority was resisted through deceit God commended the midwives in Egypt. I suppose that could get into a larger discussion.

 

[Paidiske]

I would suppose it would have to depend on the details. But seeing as how both of our names are on the financial accounts, that would likely involve some adjudicated decisions at some point.

What I'm getting at is that there are coercive tactics which are not physical or sexual violence, and trying to see where those tactics fit (or don't) within your understanding.

Any form of coercion is too broad to know what is meant. But I am sure there are other examples that might involve civil authorities, appeal to church authorities, physical restraint to protect others, etc.

Physical restraint to protect others is not really what I'm talking about here. Nor is anything that would rise to the level of civil crime.

Appeal to church authorities, though... well, we've already seen that some church authorities advocate and promote abusive dynamics, so I'd be very wary of an attempt to involve church authorities in order to get one's own way in a marital disagreement.

As I stated earlier, I do not see reading Scripture to rebuke as abusive either, though you do.

That's an overly broad statement of my position. I'd say that the use of Scripture to attempt to control or coerce another is abusive.

There's a world of difference between, "Honey, I'm really concerned about x, and part of the reason why is my reflection on y Scripture; can we talk about that together?" And, "You are sinful and in rebellion, I can cite xyz Scriptures to prove that you ought to be doing what I tell you right now, and if you don't, you'll be damned forever, you [insert various terms that would trip CF's profanity filter]."

One is coercive and abusive, the other not. Now, I used two relative extremes of expression to make my point, but the basic principle I would hold to is, if I am using this Scripture to try to get the other person to do what I think they should do (rather than opening up conversation and reflection), that is very highly likely getting into dangerous territory.

If God is Head, then appeal to HIs word is not abuse.

It's not really that simple. We can misuse the words of God, just like we can misuse anything else.

Eli also had recourse to ask God what he should do, at all of the above points.

This is true. And, to be fair to him, we don't even know if he did or not.

I think my reaction to the raising of this story here is that it was obviously a very complex, nuanced situation that developed over quite some time; we get it summed up really in a soundbite; and it seems to me unreasonable to use that soundbite as the basis for a system of family governance, when we really know very little about it.


However, having thought about it overnight (Australian time, at least), it seems to me that there are several points that come up for me out of our discussion:
- You have articulated an understanding of headship that is expressed in persuasive (not coercive) leadership aimed at the prevention/limitation of sin within the household.

- That is not, however, spelled out in Scripture. I am not criticising your position as incompatible with Scripture (it's a lot better than many other complementarians'), but I'm pointing out that it would be very hard to read the relevant texts, and say, the texts clearly mean exactly your position and nothing else. You have made hermeneutical choices, it seems to me, based on principles in addition to a plain reading of the text.

- Your position is also not how headship and submission are generally understood, preached, talked about, written about, in various Christian circles. As partly demonstrated by the fact that it took a good portion of 29 pages for me to understand quite what you were advocating, and how it was different from how headship and submission have been taught and encouraged, in my experience.

- I would also point out that reading the two statements in the OP, your position is much closer to the second, than to what most people would understand on a straightforward reading of the first.

- It seems to me that you are trying to hold a complementarian theology, but set such (ethical, sound) limits on how it is lived out in practice, that it is pragmatically no different from egalitarian marriage (noting that there is nothing wrong with, and much good in, everyone seeking to exercise persuasive leadership aimed at the prevention/limitation of sin within the household).

And with all of that in mind, I'd say, what you are advocating is much closer to mutual submission, than a one-sided submission/headship dynamic, in the practicalities of how it is lived out.

Which leaves me with a couple of points:
- Headship/submission, as it is commonly understood, taught, and promoted to Christians, is not what you are advocating for. It is something far unhealthier, far more controlling and abusive, and far more dangerous. I submit that anyone wanting to take your position - headship is real and important, but basically expressed as persuasive leadership aimed at limiting sin - needs to be much clearer and more strongly advocating for those limits, rather than simply arguing for headship in a way that can all too easily be taken as offering support for the abusive dynamics, and the wider Christian discourse that sets up those abusive dynamics, as being what God prescribes.

- If what you are advocating for is pragmatically no different from egalitarian marriage, perhaps it would be fair to allow that egalitarians are not so off-beam in their application of Scripture, either.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

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.

Archimandrite Joachim Parr lives in the USA (an archimandrite in the Orthodox Church is a priest who is the vicar of a monastery). Here's what he said: "Let me tell you something important for the revitalization of your families. For the last three years or so, our monastery in New York has had a wonderful neighbor. He and his wife have been married for 30 years. They have 8 children and 6 grandchildren One of our monks knew both husband and wife when they were in school.

Prayer was something important to father, so it became important to the family. They came to our monastery for Christmas because they celebrated December 25th. After the service they came for dinner and stayed with us the whole time. We talked. I was making joke of his wife. You know, women want to control everything. They rule at home, they rule everywhere, and they tell everyone what to do.

I joked and told her: “Who is the boss in your house - you or Anthony?” She says, “Lord. And my husband is in obedience to God, and I am in obedience to him.” Here is the answer. Now you know the right way." Archimandrite Joachim Parr describes it as a very pious and very happy family.

Of course, such a family, where Christ is for the family, the husband tries to submit to Christ in everything, the wife to the husband, and the children to their parents, is a great rarity in our time. But we must strive for this. It is this model of the family apostles by the Holy Spirit recommends to Christians.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

That the function of headship is persuasive, but not coercive.

What if a husband, wife or child (no matter) wants to hang himself or commit suicide in some other way? Do you also just need to convince, or can and should you use physical force to keep you from doing this?

This is an extreme example. But you also give many extreme examples.

Of course, there are thousands of nuances and exceptions, and the same recommendation cannot be given to all families. But there should be one standard - this is what is written in the New Testament.

About 10 years ago, I heard about a family where the wife, as a sign of protest against some action of her husband, lay naked on the floor of a cold balcony in winter in order to get sick. And the husband used force - he pulled his wife back into the warm room so that she would not get sick.