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

[Adventist Dissident]

[/Quote]
Submission
Submission to the headship is called for from the wife, as it is the members of the church to elders. It is compared to the headship of Christ over the body. You mentioned that we agree Christ is at the helm. Yes, we do. But the text still indicates that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Obviously any role the husband has is directed by Christ, and all members of the body of Christ submit to Him, and His will. So Christ is at the helm, but he still says the husband has a role, and the wife is to submit to that role of headship.

How does this work in real life, give examples. What situation do you see potential conflict, that is not spelled out by law that the woman must submit? this is too abstract.

Servant leadership
The husband is exhorted at length to lay down his life for the wife, love her as he loves his own body. More on this later as I have to get to work soon, but this is not just a concession to Roman culture, but is a reversal of the state of affairs from the time of the fall, and hence, a reversal of the curse which brought strife to begin with.

"Exorted" this is the problem right here. Exort means to strongly encourage. meaning it is optional not required. It's on the honor system Christ commands that you are to serve one another in Love . This is not an exortation this is a command. not lording power over people is a command, not an exortation.

Accountability.
Peter notes that God will hold husbands accountable if they do not treat their spouse, a co-heir of life, with honor, as the weaker vessel. They are not to live out the curse. They are to build her up, that their prayers are not hindered.

so you are relying on the honor system, and you are counting on the husband to be Christian and remain Christian. there is too much unaccountablity here.

 

[tall73]

So in your view, is that all that headship is? It does not entail any actual difference in behaviour between husbands and wives? (Since of course wives and mothers also are to serve and build up their households).

It is difficult to see what this means for the marriage relationship beyond the mutual submission we all agree on.

As an overseer do not the saints also build up and serve with you? But scripture says that overseers must give an account, for those in the flock and James indicates teachers have a stricter judgment.

Adam was to protect Eve and did not. And the blame was placed on him.

Leadership is greater responsibility. So yes, the wife also builds up, also serves, also lays down her life. But the husband is more accountable.

 

[Paidiske]

Leadership is greater responsibility. So yes, the wife also builds up, also serves, also lays down her life. But the husband is more accountable.

But - although I'm not sure I agree with you - what I'm trying to get at is, what difference does it make in terms of how they live as a married couple? Is there anything in the dynamic between them that is not mutual, in your view, because of this greater accountability?

Because if not, I feel like we might have just kind of gotten through fifteen pages of discussion to find that in your view, headship makes no functional difference in terms of how people actually behave. And, perhaps more relevantly to your OP, that your view of what headship means does not line up with the Southern Baptist Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement.

 

[tall73]

But - although I'm not sure I agree with you - what I'm trying to get at is, what difference does it make in terms of how they live as a married couple? Is there anything in the dynamic between them that is not mutual, in your view, because of this greater accountability?

Because if not, I feel like we might have just kind of gotten through fifteen pages of discussion to find that in your view, headship makes no functional difference in terms of how people actually behave. And, perhaps more relevantly to your OP, that your view of what headship means does not line up with the Southern Baptist Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement.

Does the knowledge that you must give account for the flock not inform your behavior as an overseer?

And as I mentioned, I am not a Southern Baptist, so I will let them explain how they see it.

 

[Paidiske]

Does the knowledge that you must give account for the flock not inform your behavior as an overseer?

Not exactly. I mean, it impresses the solemnity of the situation, but it doesn't mean I do anything differently than I already would, because I have other motivations for doing the best I can.

What I'm trying to get at is, if your understanding of headship is "God holds husbands more accountable for the flourishing of their households," do you see husbands and wives behaving differently because of that accountability? What difference does it make in terms of how they live, how they make decisions, and so on? Is there any practical difference in roles, in power, and so on, in day to day life as a married couple?

 

[tall73]

On a loosely related note, I think this is one of the tragedies of our current structure, especially in top-down structures, that puts a pastor leading in one or more churches, often with the arrangement driven more by budgeting than any realistic assessment of whether the pastor has time to actually fulfill the overseer role.

I noticed the tremendous difference between my 4 church district spread out over 100 miles, and pastoring a single small church part time.

I had more time with the smaller church to better carry out this role. I always felt I was not able to do it fully in the other.

It is also why I think smaller churches, with less infrastructure, may be better, with multiple overseers, whether paid or not.

The worker is worthy of his hire. But also, I don't think all church leaders were paid.

 

[tall73]

Not exactly. I mean, it impresses the solemnity of the situation, but it doesn't mean I do anything differently than I already would, because I have other motivations for doing the best I can.

We all have multiple motivations. But let me ask then, how is your role different than the members of your church?

 

[Paidiske]

On a loosely related note, I think this is one of the tragedies of our current structure, especially in top-down structures, that puts a pastor leading in one or more churches, often with the arrangement driven more by budgeting than any realistic assessment of whether the pastor has time to actually fulfill the overseer role.

I noticed the tremendous difference between my 4 church district spread out over 100 miles, and pastoring a single small church part time.

I had more time with the smaller church to better carry out this role. I always felt I was not able to do it fully in the other.

It is also why I think smaller churches, with less infrastructure, may be better, with multiple overseers, whether paid or not.

The worker is worthy of his hire. But also, I don't think all church leaders were paid.

I've worked part time, full time, in a team and on my own, in single and multi centre parishes. I don't really think any system is perfect, although there are benefits and drawbacks to different structures. I would not be keen to be part time again. But while I'm always happy to muse about ministry, it's probably getting a bit off topic for this thread.

We all have multiple motivations. But let me ask then, how is your role different than the members of your church?

My role is different, because I have been given particular responsibilities within the structure of the church, not because I will be held more accountable. The church has authorised me to take up particular tasks and functions and responsibilities that it does not so authorise every member.

 

[Rose_bud]

Hey tall73

Thanks for the response.

Yes, and the reason I think that you indicated it sounds like I am an egalitarian is because I view the curse bringing strife to the existing relationship, which I see was headship. But both sides should agree that ruling over is part of the curse, brought on by sin, and is not desirable.

Agree, ruling over, lording over, elevating oneself above the other based on gender, ethnicity class are all consequences of the fall.

I mentioned my wife and I discussing, and we couldn't recall a time I had ordered her to do anything. Because I see the husband's role described in terms of servant leadership, somewhat akin, but obviously in a different sphere, to church leaders. The same elements are present.

Servant leadership is a beautiful phrase coined by Greenleaf, which he practiced in a corporate environment. Although he got the concept from a work of fiction. He also contributed the term to Scripture. A term that had to be reclaimed in South Africa, especially since servant has a derogatory connotation because of our history. As I mentioned earlier, I understand leadership as a gift dispensed by God, the manner in which we exercise the gift is with a disposition of a servant, the way Christ did.
What do you believe the husbands 'role' is? Is it leadership based on gender?

Submission
Submission to the headship is called for from the wife, as it is the members of the church to elders. It is compared to the headship of Christ over the body.


You mentioned that we agree Christ is at the helm. Yes, we do. But the text still indicates that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Obviously any role the husband has is directed by Christ, and all members of the body of Christ submit to Him, and His will. So Christ is at the helm, but he still says the husband has a role, and the wife is to submit to that role of headship.

Wives submit to husbands likewise husbands to wives. The members of the body submitting one to another. In the same manner as elders are the younger ones to submit 1 Peter 5:3. Mutual submission.

I think here we may not be in agreement with how we understand the text or mutual submission. (From the Ephesians text that was pointed out by us both. You indicated that Paul was counter-cultural in how he portrayed this theological image. That husbands even though they had the position of master/head. They were called to lay it aside. A power and privilege they had in the Greco-Roman world. Just as Christ condescending, from the Phillipians 2:5. But yet now you indicate that the position/title of head be exercised again. Or sometimes it is laid down but then at certain instances it is picked up? For making decisions where their is an impasse??? So is it really mutual submission?

Servant leadership
The husband is exhorted at length to lay down his life for the wife, love her as he loves his own body. More on this later as I have to get to work soon, but this is not just a concession to Roman culture, but is a reversal of the state of affairs from the time of the fall, and hence, a reversal of the curse which brought strife to begin with.

I understand, life gets busy.

Accountability.
Peter notes that God will hold husbands accountable if they do not treat their spouse, a co-heir of life, with honor, as the weaker vessel. They are not to live out the curse. They are to build her up, that their prayers are not hindered.

Peter shares this in the context of unbelieving husbands and wives. Which is a totally different dynamic, where the goal is win the other to Christ. The same way Christ did for us when we were enemies Rom 5:10. Slaves to masters the good and bad. Wives to submit to the unbelieving spouse. I would infer from the overall context of Peters epistle and the internal references that the hindered prayer is for the salvation of the unbelieving party.

So in practice, I don't intend to micro-manage my wife. She has leadership in various areas in the family, outside of the family, etc. She is in God's image, a co-heir of life, and she shares in the commands to be fruitful, and to have dominion over the earth.

We talk through decisions, and make them together.

Nor does this rule out wives appealing to husbands or correcting husbands by Scripture, etc.

But I do see that husbands will be held to account for their headship over the family, whether they built it up, and Peter indicates part of that happens even now.

We all are accountable for the gifts God has given us and how we exercise them. Not just husbands.

 

[Rose_bud]

As an overseer do not the saints also build up and serve with you? But scripture says that overseers must give an account, for those in the flock and James indicates teachers have a stricter judgment.

Adam was to protect Eve and did not. And the blame was placed on him.

Leadership is greater responsibility. So yes, the wife also builds up, also serves, also lays down her life. But the husband is more accountable.

Just to clarify. Are you saying that the husband is the teacher of the wife, so more accountable. Therefore he will receive greater judgment?

 

[tall73]

Just to clarify. Are you saying that the husband is the teacher of the wife, so more accountable. Therefore he will receive greater judgment?

No. I am not making an equivalent role between husbands and teachers. Husbands do not all have the spiritual gift of teaching. Nor are they all in roles as teachers in the church.

The reason for mentioning teachers in that context was to point out that some roles, by their nature, carry more responsibility, and accountability. Does everyone have accountability for how they use their gifts? Yes, but James still says this:

James 3:1​

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. ​

​

​

 

[tall73]

My role is different, because I have been given particular responsibilities within the structure of the church, not because I will be held more accountable. The church has authorised me to take up particular tasks and functions and responsibilities that it does not so authorise every member.

They responsibilities you are "authorised" to do are not jobs everyone does. And they don't have the same accountability associated with that role:

Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (NKJV)​

​

While we all look out for one another's interests, leaders in the church will be held to greater account for how they watched over the flock than the member who is not in that role.

 

[Paidiske]

They responsibilities you are "authorised" to do are not jobs everyone does. And they don't have the same accountability associated with that role:

I agree. But where I am confused is what "jobs" you are saying belong uniquely to the husband, that he has the greater accountability.

Where you're losing me is what practical difference is there between husbands and wives, in the way that they should live, day to day, in your view? Because you don't seem to be claiming any, but then I really don't know how that's different to simple mutual submission, or why you would disagree with my initial answer to the thread, that "We are called to submit to one another, and wifely submission to husbands is only within that dynamic of mutual submimssion. It is not a one-way dynamic of control, but a two-way dynamic of service."

 

[tall73]

I think here we may not be in agreement with how we understand the text or mutual submission.

I agree, we are not.

Mutual submission does not mean everyone is equal, or that no one has authority. That is why it is spelled out in a mindset, and actions of service and love, rather than equality of station. Not everyone will have the same role. Christ was still Son of Man, Son of God, the I AM, and while His actions were that of a servant, which was condescension, He did not cease to be what He was. He said to the disciples they call him Teacher and Lord, and they say well. He is Teacher and Lord. And it was in that role that He still served.

John 13:12-17 12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (NKJV)​

The issue is not renouncing titles or station, but serving, whatever one's title or station, or place, in the same self-sacrificing way as Christ.

In the list of relationships following the call for mutual submission in Ephesians 5 you have husbands and wives, parents and children and slaves and masters.

They all involve power dynamics that are not equal, per the text. And of course they all vary greatly in the nature of the relationship.

Parents have legitimate authority over their children. Children submit in an unuequal way. And of course, in the case of children, the relationship is far different, because of the capacity of the child is not the same as an adult. But parents still have authority, children still submit, parents have accountability for their parenting. And parents still can show an attitude of service, humility, and the mindset that is mutual submission with their children, by looking to the child's interests rather than their own, laying down their lives for their children.

And this is a role that would presumably have carried authority even prior to sin. For that matter, Jesus knew no sin, but He also subitted to HIs parent's authority, at 12 years old, even after amazing the teachers in Jerusalem:

​

Luke 2:51-52 51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (NKJV)​

As to slave masters, Paul and Peter both do not call for equal roles, though they are all sons and all inherit in Christ.

But at the same time, slavery is not viewed as a positive role, and not argued for on theological grounds, as are relation of child and parent and wife and husband.

As was already pointed out in I Corinthians 7 Paul said we should not be slaves of men, if you can buy your freedom do so, but if you cannot, don't let it trouble you. And he appealed for the release of Onesimus so that he could serve as a brother. He did not support that role, but he did recognize the unequal relationship, and put limits on its abuse.

 

[tall73]

I agree.

Do you agree with this?

1 Timothy 5:17 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. (NKJV)​

​

​

 

[Paidiske]

Do you agree with this?

1 Timothy 5:17 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. (NKJV)​

​

​

I don't disagree, exactly. But as a priest (an elder) the focus should never be on seeking such honour. It is dangerous to be put on a pedestal.

 

[tall73]

I don't disagree, exactly. But as a priest (an elder) the focus should never be on seeking such honour. It is dangerous to be put on a pedestal.

Yes, agreed completely.

The overseer is not to seek it. And the flock are not to withhold it. But it is still double honor. There are still roles.

 

[tall73]

Peter notes that God will hold husbands accountable if they do not treat their spouse, a co-heir of life, with honor, as the weaker vessel.

Peter shares this in the context of unbelieving husbands and wives. Which is a totally different dynamic, where the goal is win the other to Christ. The same way Christ did for us when we were enemies Rom 5:10. Slaves to masters the good and bad. Wives to submit to the unbelieving spouse. I would infer from the overall context of Peters epistle and the internal references that the hindered prayer is for the salvation of the unbelieving party.

The verse referred to is addressed to believing husbands. They are to honor their wife, as being heirs of the grace of life. He says that if they do not then their prayers will be hindered.

Unbelieving husbands wouldn't be in a position to hear this letter, and wouldn't be praying to the Lord.

So I assume you mean those with unbelieving wives, which you may be arguing for given the parallel to the first portion of the chapter.

But that aspect is not stated here. And depending on how you interpret heirs to the grace of life, may be argued against.

1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. (NKJV)

Either way, in the overall context Peter does how to win over those in the culture, indicating that if they suffer, it should not be as wrongdoers.
But the conduct is all good conduct. Submitting to husbands, and honoring wives is included in that. And in the case of women submitting it is tied to holy women of old, not just the immediate situation.

 

[Paidiske]

There are still roles.

In the church, yes. In marriage... I wouldn't agree.

 

[tall73]

In the church, yes. In marriage... I wouldn't agree.

Ok, let's go with that for now.

Then Mutual submission does not rule out roles. Or even greater honor, or greater accountability, or stricter judgment, etc.

There is legitimate authority, even in a community that practices mutual submission. Mutual submission is a mind of service, following the example of Christ, not a restructuring of all roles to equality in all respects.