Hi Tony!
I’m looking to quote you on 30,000 children died of starvation and most of you don’t give a shit.
Most of you are more offended by my saying shit than the fact that 30,000 children died last night.
Will you re-post it?
Thank you,
Barbara Starling

My guess is that implies spiritual headship to some degree. Although Christ himself is the spiritual head of all households. Speaking to the Israelites, Joshua states:

“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)

As the spiritual head of his household, Joshua is clearly speaking on behalf of his entire family. Joshua’s wife didn’t take these matters into her own hands and make this declaration of faith. Why? Because in the context of ancient Judaism it is assumed that the husband speaks on behalf of his entire family… not the wife. He is the one that leads his family in prayer and worship in the home. There are reasons for this as set forth in the Mosaic Law and other extra-Biblical sources including the Mishnah and Torah.

Okay, so that’s the Old Testament you say. What about the New Testament? In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul is giving strict guidance to spiritual worship. Here he states:

“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the
head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” ()

Paul first lays down this foundational tenet prior to his detailed account of orderly worship. In other words, it is assumed that the man is the leader of the home, therefore, this is also the case within the church. Paul goes into much detail about male leadership within the church in Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, and Revelation. It is worth noting that women/wives are never once mentioned as leaders over men in the New Testament. Again, there is a reason for this. Some reasons given, but are only speculative, is that woman came from man in the Garden. And, it was woman (not man) that first sinned in the Garden. These are indeed hard sayings for a 21st-century post-modern world.

I think we must be very careful in our interpretation of Scripture. Too often we allow our socio-political beliefs to get in the way of our hermeneutics. We tend to politicize Scripture to justify our own beliefs. For centuries, male leadership both in the church and house have never been criticized or questioned until woman’s suffrage and the rise of feminism in the 20th century. There is a reason why Paul wrote what he did and we must not cherry-pick nor dismiss anything as irrelevant simply because of our own selfishness.

I close with this, there is a difference between leadership and servant leadership. Christ was an example of the latter. And, it is this leadership style that we must emulate. As men, we are not some tyrannical dictator, but instead a loving servant to our wives. we lead by example and we lead by loving. This is what it means to be the spiritual leader of our homes.

“For centuries, male leadership both in the church and house have never been criticized or questioned until woman’s suffrage and the rise of feminism in the 19th and 20th centuries.”
For centuries, masters’ leadership over their slaves had never been criticized or questioned either.  Does that mean it was right the whole time?  Or maybe owning another human being would have remained right if only the masters had been peaceful and loving toward their slaves, offering them good spiritual leadership?  Would you similarly ask, “Jeez, why did all those slave revolts and civil rights have to mess up what was obviously the natural way of things?”

Just because women (or those who also care for women’s empowerment and personally motivated self-actualization) were not granted any legal or cultural authority to challenge rampant objectionable patriarchy, or did not have the organized effort to challenge that particular form of systemic oppression, this does not justify the oppression in and of itself.  Unless we use your logic, in which the very existence of oppression validates its own necessity.  

I hear what you’re saying, Greg, but I wonder if you’re doing the same thing that you suggest we be careful of? We do allow our socio-political beliefs to get in the way of hermeneutics, as you point out.  We always read Scripture through foggy cultural glasses, at best, I don’t disagree with you in that. My question for you then, is if in saying that men are to be the spiritual leader of the home, you’re making that conclusion based on your own cultural and traditional beliefs.

I don’t know that there is a right or wrong answer here, but I think what Joe is trying to say is that women don’t need to live believing that they are inferior. Jesus never once made a woman feel inferior, or tell a woman she needed to submit to the leadership of the men in her life. If he would have done that, at least one woman would have been stoned at the hands of the Spiritual leaders.

As a woman, this post gave me courage and freedom. I don’t want to be listed as better than a man or above a man, but am thankful that because of Jesus, I am no more or less deserving of abundant life.

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”  1Timothy 2:11-14
Bible = profitable doctrine

It seems your problem more specifically lies with the lack of women in leadership, and the reaction of the church to the few who are (which i wholeheartedly share). However, this, in my opinion, is entirely separate to the role of headship within a family structure.

Your essay never actually provides a sustainable counter argument, besides sexism (which headship isn’t). you readily bash a preacher for using unsupported non-biblical theology when perhaps it may have only been an over exaggerated interpretation of the verse given by Greg Dill.

You are coming across far more as a reaction which carries within itself little substance, whilst failing to produce a solid argument against the historically cultural patriarchal system. If i may bring attention to the way in which lineage was sited, for example in Matthew 1, the head of the households was the father, through which the family line continued. Its a cultural form of identity, even in many parts of the world today.

I think that woman are perfectly designed to lead and govern in many areas of our world, but i still have a prevailing sense that within in a family we demonstrate submission to one another, with the principle of headship.     

Straw man argument. It doesn’t work.

As hermeneutics is the study of the theory and practice of interpretation of Scripture then yes our culture and socio-political beliefs will affect that interpretation. Translation of the Bible is simple, interpretation is another thing altogether.

“but I wonder if you’re doing the same thing that you suggest we be
careful of? We do allow our socio-political beliefs to get in the way of
hermeneutics, as you point out.”

How would I possibly be interjecting my own socio-political beliefs if I have absolutely nothing to gain from it? In fact, as the head of household I have a bigger responsibility than if I weren’t.

“If in saying that men are to be the spiritual leader of the home, you’re
making that conclusion based on your own cultural and traditional
beliefs.”

No, I am quoting Scripture, not my own beliefs. Verses were provided. Please see: Joshua 24:15, 1 Corinthians 11:3.

“But I think what Joe is trying to say is that women don’t need to live
believing that they are inferior. Jesus never once made a woman feel
inferior, or tell a woman she needed to submit to the leadership of the
men in her life.”

Joe’s argument is that men are NOT the spiritual leaders of their home. Thus the title of the article.

“As a woman, this post gave me courage and freedom.”

Why not let Scripture do this instead of social empowerment. I think women read far too much into this. Paul’s admonition for male leadership is not proscription for subjugation over women.

“I don’t want to be listed as better than a man or above a man”

None of us should be. We are all equal (Galatians 3:28).

“am
thankful that because of Jesus, I am no more or less deserving of
abundant life.”

Amen!

neither does your presumption that you are somehow able to rise above our cultural situation and get at the true heart of the matter.  you seem to believe that God (and paul and the bible through him) exist in a vacuum, in which what was written 2000 years ago must apply the same today, and apparently you can interpret scripture in the same vacuum.  Truly, I congratulate you for that feat, I’ve never seen anyone else accomplish it.  

but tell ya what, i’ll bypass the straw man this time and simply reiterate that just because oppression has existed for centuries (such the church-instilled psychology of female inferiority – it’s no doubt easy for you to ignore an oppression that does not directly apply to you, i’m sure), does not mean it is right or righteous.  your assumption on that front does not work any better than you felt my argument did.  

Greg, it’s always a joy seeing how long it takes you to find a RLC blog about gender and jump on it for a chance to reassert your complementarian ideas – can’t wait for the next time.  peace.

Well put Joe. Having recently challenged a speaker who was using abstractions and generalisations as facts I support your desire to stop the spread of half truths or outright falsehoods, and am in agreement with your take on the male female issue.

When reading this it seems
as if Paul is saying here that women should not be allowed to teach men. But
that is not what Paul is addressing here in this passage. Timothy was the
leader of a new church in Ephesus at this time. In that city, at this time, was the temple to the goddess Diana.  Women were some of the main leaders in
this cult. Part of their rituals within this occult was that these women would prostitute
themselves out to the congregation. Paul is saying here that since they are new to Christianity, they do not need
to hold an authority position over a man until they have been fully instructed
on what it means to be a Christian. Paul expresses this concern by quoting an
old rabbi teaching when he talks about Adam being made first and Eve being the
one deceived. Paul is
saying here that since Adam was created first, God directly gave him the
instructions on living in the garden and left Adam in charge of transferring
those instructions to Eve. But it is apparent that Adam did not fully do this,
thus it made Eve more venerable to be deceived. That’s what’s being addressed here. 

I am a woman elder in my church and during the last few months I have also started taking a few of the messages or sermons.  I can’t tell you how many of the young women in my church have come to me to say how inspired they were to have a woman teaching from the front. I  think what I bring to the front is a female spirituality and outlook. I’m not prepared to sit in the back of the spiritual bus so to speak. I will be this Fall speaking on sexual equality in the church. And I guess the point I want to make is this. For me this isn’t about a dry theological clinical debate where men discusss scripture on this subject as they have for thousands of years. This is about me….my life and how I am accepted and viewed in the church.  How I am treated in real life. Generation after generation of women have been taught to view themselves and our gender in some pretty insulting, oppressive and dishonest ways.  I know one pastor (now) who preached women are by their nature spiritually untrustworthy. This pastor doesn’t upset me….but every man who sat there and let this man insult their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers without standing up and walking out does. Like you….I have also sat in silence for the sake of politeness. Next time let us both standup together. And say enough.  And this is what I have to say to male leadership.  Women will find their spiritual voice…..it is happening.  How that voice emerges is partly up to you.  A strong voice in leadership that has alll the beauty, love and wisdom that is us.  Or one that has risen out of frustration, disappointment and discrimination despite you.  What is the best way? Thank you so much for this article and your support.  It is a beautiful thing.
 

To me, it is clear in many scriptures (even in light of the context of the time) that Paul was still firmly entrenched in the patriarchy of his time (though he did make some other statements that at least asked men to see women as more than  property). I don’t think it is necessary to try and wiggle out of Paul’s viewpoint here. He was who he was in his time. And he was a great leader of the early community of Christ followers. That doesn’t mean that I have to follow and agree with every word he spoke. I follow Christ, not Paul.

What doesn’t work for me is the lack of grace that I see in the conversations of brothers and sisters.  

This isn’t about who WINS, it’s about Jesus.

Maybe it bypassed your attention, but most people in jail are men overwhelmingly. So if you have a problem with conventional Church masculinity, at least take the time to back up what you think the Bible says about men and women instead of showing how sensitive of a guy you are for the girlys. And also mention there are women who actually WANT their men to lead, and not because they’ve been duped (how dare you insult their intelligence), but because they also see it as Biblical.

I’d say your a little more in danger of a foggy cultural lens Kayla, since you’re not saying anything countercultural at all. But you’re right to say the Bible asserts equality. I have lobbying for years to be able to bear children though, but apparently God has made us different for a purpose.

Jay, I’m sorry that you feel the need to respond to these posts with biting remarks. I wish you the best as you continue to sort through questions like the ones presented in this article, and am glad you wish to contribute, as it’s a good thing to learn from each other. Grace and Peace, Kyla

“This is about me”. I think that about summarizes it.

Kyla, some things are worth biting about. The percentage of men in jail due to emasculation is one. When jail is 90 percent female? Then you can talk to me about what bites. The crisis is with men now thanks to feminism.

Then repost “Jesus” a million times? Jesus is not a magic word to quell arguments we need to have.

Dropping the straw man argument for personal criticism doesn’t work either, Slater.  I pray blessings upon you. Peace.

I have discovered that in reading the Bible, all the wisdom is found in the black parts.  The white parts are where men (and women) tend to insert their personal views.  Even if you’re right, God will honor my choice to stick with he parts He inspired.

Without a doubt our culture has evolved since the time of Paul, but i think there is a way in which we can still follow the principle Paul was demonstrating without dishonoring the text and our contemporary culture.  We cant however, claim to honor the text by simply ignoring parts we dont agree with.

I also would like to mention 1 Corinthians 11:1. Paul does not ever, contradict Christ.

But i do understand your case of pointing out the much more evident patriarchal society in which Paul lived. I am completely against the idea of placing women under the notion that they are in any way inferior to men. But perhaps what irks me most, is the title under which this article was posted. To me this article is a reaction to the over bearing and in some cases oppressive behavior in which men exercised their ‘headship’. But this is no reason to entirely diminish the biblical principle of headship.

What does prophesing mean?  Women did this many times in the Bible and in fact Deborah in Old testament times lead Isreal in a time of great distress!  This is a time of  great distress and Men in to many occasions have left Women as head of households and to spititually raise familys. If not them Who?  Women as the Bible tells have a role just as strong and Biblical as Men. If a Women lead Isreal the Home Jesus when Jews needed a leader Most.  We the high and mighty man can learn lessons from women who have been gifted by God.  Preach on Ladies you have ideas and thoughts that men need to hear!!!!!

Well me and about 50% of the church actually. I can’t speak for someone else I can only tell you how I (a Christian woman feels). Is that wrong to express your feelings? We do it all the time.  And when we really listen to each other that is called love and empathy. Expressing ourselves is how we learn about each other.

Funny, when a woman expresses herself about sexual discrimination she is called self centered. Why is that? Well to dismiss what she has to say. To emply what she has to say is in some way flawed by finding flaws in her character.  But that’s okay men have been doing that for hundreds of years. And women have come to expect it. Old news.

Wow

Hey Joe,

I appreciate your clear valuing of women which comes forth in what you’ve written.  Would you be so gracious as to allow someone from “the other side of the aisle” to express his view?

You are right: the Bible never refers to the husband as “priest” of the home.  I would agree that this certainly isn’t the best way to describe things.  But why has this been such a long standing idea in protestant circles then?  

You are familiar with Paul’s command to husbands to “love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph 5.25)  I suppose nowadays most of us men pass over this and assume that just means we should love her “a lot”.  But if we take this verse seriously then one (of perhaps many) of the things it should implicate is the priestly way in which Christ sacrificed himself.

For me, to say that I have a priestly role within the home, means a unique call to sacrificial love.  There is something inherently selfish within me that I must sacrifice to make this marriage and this family work.  No, you are right, it is not Biblical terminology to call yourself “the priest”, only Christ is our high priest.  But if Eph 5.25 is a key verse to understanding how husbands ought to love their wives then classical Protestantism is at least partially justified in using this term.  Christian men should not be selfish consumers of women, they should love their wives as Christ loved his bride, with a priestly love, which sacrifices one’s self.

thanks for reading,
Joshua

Biblical hermeneutics is quite different than hermeneutics. Biblical hermeneutics may be understood as the theological principles of exegesis which is often virtually synonymous with biblical interpretation or methodology. Honest and objective interpretation of Scripture should remain void of personal bias, notion, belief, socio-political stand, and culture. In fact, it should be read and understood within the context of the time and culture at which the author wrote the respective book. Then, rather than dismissing the context it should instead be applied universally to our time and culture as much as feasibly possible.

If it’s truly about Jesus then it’s also about proper interpretation of Scripture and not dismissing God’s word to achieve social or political gain.

Wow, Really?!?!  So men have a UNIQUE calling to love sacrifically more than women? 

Thank you!  I was raised in the Baptist church.  Hear God’s calling while in the Baptist church!  Began serving in the Baptist church!  Was an Associate Pastor in a Baptist Church.  Was originally ORDAINED in a Baptist church.  God called me to preach! I now gladly serve a wonderful Methodist congregation. 

As a Baptist I was told everything from I was going to hell to I might get in heaven but God would be scolding me and I would have no jewels in my crown because I stood in the pulpit and it said sermon on the bulletin.  If I was just a guest speaker it was okay to speak but I couldn’t preach that preaching as a woman was an abomination to God.  REALLY?!?!? So be it!  As a woman preacher I would gladly go to hell if it means others might be able to experience and know the love of Christ.

But, I wonder if you come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior because of a woman….do you go to hell?  If so, most of us are in BIG trouble!

I wouldn’t consider what John Wise said to be a personal view. It’s just context around what you’re reading. What you’re reading can’t be fully understood unless you know the context. I wouldn’t think God would honor ignorance.

You’re saying God will make exceptions to HIS WORD because as humans, we changed our culture? I’m going to say multiple things in this; please don’t focus on what you dislike and then disregard the rest.

In our culture, the music often speaks of (promiscuous) sex, drugs, alcohol, materialism and more. Are these things no longer sinful just because that’s our culture these days? I would say they’re still sinful. Just because our culture has changed, it doesn’t mean God has to. God is never-changing. His Word remains the same. 
Also, a point you’re missing that Greg had pointed out was that there’s “servant leadership.” Men, within their leadership, are also meant to serve our ladies, and furthermore, pull the potential and the best out of them. Who’s to say the woman can’t provide help for the man to lead? Listening to messages from Stephen Furtick, he holds strong to the fact that the man is the one who God put in the leadership position. BUT (and this is a huge but), he credits most (if not all) of his success to his wife. God created us with different roles, and neither is more important than the other. Women go through the pain of child birth, men go through the pain of having a pregnant wife Aha, jokes aside, just because God put men in a leadership position, it does NOT mean men are better, and it does NOT mean women shouldn’t have their opportunities to share wisdom God has put on their hearts. God has just given us different roles, and His Word does not change, even throughout the change of culture.

Our God keeps everything very simple for His sheep because,as we know, sheep are stupid.  Ever wonder why God gave us One way (through Jesus)?  There’s your answer.  

As per the topic at hand, again ‘gave’ us His explanation (in Genesis and then later expounded on the issue in His New Testament) as to why women are submitted to their men.  And frankly, God’s explanation makes perfect sense to me.

Everything that modern day ‘scholars’ offer up pales in comparison.  Oh, I understand their reasoning, but the truth comes from Jesus.  In other words, if Jesus wanted this counsel to be for a certain period of time only, He would have told us so.

It is an ignorant and foolish man who adds to the full counsel of the Lord. 

Two comments on this article: 
First he says…..
“There are several places in the New Testament that say husbands are the heads of their wives, as Christ is the head of the church.  However most scholars agree that the word translated “head” in English implies completion and/or source, not authority”

This is a totally inaccurate and a complete misunderstanding of the word “head”. The word head is from the Gk “kephale’ (kef-al-y) and means to seize or take hold of.  Louw $ Nida Greek English Lexicon says the word means “one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command – one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over”. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Greek words says “metaphorically, of the authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of the husband in relation to the wife, 1 Cor 11:3; of Christ in relation to the Church, Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:19; of Christ in relation to principalities and powers, Col 2:10. As to 1Cor 11:10, taken in connection with the context, the word “authority” probably stands, by metonymy, for a sign of authority”

His interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3, “the head of the woman is the man” meaning “completion” and not “authority” is totally inconsistent w/ the word and verse itself. Nowhere in its 75 usages in the N.T. does this word ever mean “completion”.  I’d like to know what “scholars” he was quoting, because none that I looked at came up w/ that kind of a definition for this word?  Plus, he totally misconstrues the meaning of the verse.

1 Cor 11:3 (ESV)
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
To say that the husband completes the wife would then mean that God completes Christ. But that isn’t Paul’s intent here.  He isn’t talking about completion, but authority.  Christ is equal yet subordinate to the Father.  He demonstrated that continually in His earthly ministry.

John 5:19(ESV)
“So Jesus said to them, Truly truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.  For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise”.
John 5:30 (ESV)
“I can do nothing on my own.  As I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me”
John 8:28 (ESV)
“So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing of my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me”
John 9:4 (ESV)
“We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work”
John 12:49 (ESV)
“For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment – what to say and what to speak”
John 14:10 (ESV)
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works”

Each of these references demonstrates Christ’s submission to the Father’s authority which is what Paul was saying in 1 Cor 11:3.  So he totally butchers this verse to prove his “equality of women”. However, Paul isn’t bashing equality of women because if he is then he is also bashing Christ’s equality with the Father.

He also says, “The girls were being subtly told that there was something inherently inferior about them.  Men are the ideal, and they are not men”  Once again, this is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PAUL IS TEACHING by headship, for if women are inferior to men because they are their “heads” than Jesus is inferior to the Father, who is His head.

Sadly, this is just another attempt to “modernize” the New Testament role of men and women and make scripture more “culturally acceptable”.  Well it may be culturally acceptable but it is BIBLICALLY INACCURATE. Thanks to Pastor Mike Stambaugh who did all this research!

Gary Gilmore

Just to clarify, my point on culture is actually the opposite of what you took away.  I’m not at all saying that we should accept all things in our modern culture as “right” – In fact, I’m saying we should readily acknowledge that certain aspects of our culture as wrong – in the case of this article, a systemic patriarchy that pervades far more institutions than just the home family structure, which ultimately devalues women AS A WHOLE (several people have offered examples of individual relationships that thrive under complementarian structure, which I honestly think is wonderful – and I agree with Greg that that is a great portrait of how a healthy complementarian realtionship should operate – however, the existence of these healthy relationships does not speak to the systemic injustice done to women as a group when we demand this relationship structure as the only viable option to spiritual health).

My actual point – as I intended it – is that just as we should not accept all aspects of modern culture as right, we cannot accept all aspects of the culture 2000 years ago in which Paul was writing as somehow morally superior to modern day either.  It was a society in which warfare was thought of differently, the class system operated differently, slavery was accepted, technology wasn’t quite up to snuff with GPS and iPods yet, healthcare and medicine had much evolving to do, romantic love was not a concept that existed, “homosexuality” was not a concept that existed, “America” was not a concept that existed, evolutionary science did not exist, guns did not exist, and the simple idea that women could ever have any actual authority or intelligence outside the very narrow sphere of influence of the home was a rare thought indeed.  

I do not believe God has changed, but neither do I believe he exists in a vacuum in which our earthly circumstances have no effect on him – furthermore, I do not believe Paul was writing for our time but his – of course we should not accept blindly all the secular cultural elements of modern society, but we should at least look at the difference between our world and the world Paul was writing in (then consider that Paul likely did not expect Jesus to take more than 2000 years to return – Paul was likely writing under the assumption that He’d be back in a few years, tops).  If you believe that all of the differences between the culture of Paul and our culture today amount to little more than us needing to pay more respect to the way things used to be, then I wonder why you all insist so heavily that God stopped speaking to us in new ways 2000 years ago, but has continued to allow us to grow and change without any new or changing guidance.   Okay…maybe i’m done this time.  (why do we feel so compelled to keep coming back?)

You’re totally not even thinking straight. When the Bible was being written, they weren’t thinking of the people 2000 years ahead. They figured people would understand the context around it, but that’s been lost over the years (to a degree). You need context sometimes. It’s not ADDING to what the Lord has to teach us. It’s showing us the full picture.

By that logic, you’re still saying God’s word his null and void, which it isn’t. 

And who’s to say that men being appointed to the leadership position is devaluing women? God just gave us roles, the women’s role being equal to the man’s. It’s just a different role.

Also, homosexuality is talked about quite a few times in the Bible. It existed back then for sure. Read the Bible

the bible talks about dudes screwing other dudes, yeah – but not about sexual identity – the idea of “identity” being anything other than your name does develop until modern psychology developed as a discipline in the mid to late 1800s, and a the idea of sexual orientation developed after that – the very word “homosexual” wasn’t used until i think it was 1892.  up until then, the bible and society did not focus on who a person was interested in sexually, only what they did to people sexually. 

if you seriously considered my post, i’m not sure how you’d come to the conclusion that i find the bible null and void, when clearly i take it very seriously, and it means quite a lot to me – i just happen to think that God’s word is not limited to the confines of that book.  i give God more credit it than that, and i believe my relationship with God is more substantial and holistic than just what i read.  and with that, i’m saying goodnight.  

Really. But not love more. Just love differently.

Are husbands and wives to love each other with the same type of love, which is exactly the same in every characteristic?  Or, is the husband to extend a unique type of husbandly love to his wife and the wife to extend a unique type of bridal love to her husband?

Since Paul did not say, “Spouses, love each other as Christ loved the Church.” but rather painted two separate pictures of the type of love they are to extend to each other than I am inclined to believe the later.

The images of which Paul paint of husbandly love tend to be sacrificial/priestly in nature.    The images painted for wives are equally powerful, just different.

-without wax,
joshua

So you ‘believe’ that the Creator of the universe, the One who breathed every word of the Bible into existence, did not have the wherewithal to know the future and thus prepare a document that would transcend the generations?  

You sir are the one who is not thinking straight. 

In regard to sin nature, the world has not changed one iota, therefore God’s word the Bible is as perfect for today as it was 2000 years ago; it needs no updating for the men and women of the 21st century.

I’ve heard this same line preached at my own church. When pushed back against, it comes down to a whole lot of inference because it isn’t found anywhere in scripture. The spiritual headship/Priest of the home role stems from the belief that men are responsible to be elders/pastors in the church, therefore that potential responsibility ought to be also displayed in the home by all men.

I’ve heard it pushed so far that husbands are spiritually responsible for the decisions and direction of their wives, and held more accountable before God. There is a different standard for husbands.

I don’t even know where to begin with how unfortunate this is.

Peter not sure what you are specifically talking about here?  It is pretty clear in the Word of God  there are role and responsibilities, which completely differs from our equality. The spiritual headship  stems from scripture not inference! Clearly there is no biblical basis for your “pushed so far that husbands are spiritually responsible for the decisions and direction of their wives” statement. Though I do believe we will be held accountable for our headship and our loving servant leadership.  If we’ve failed in that area and consequently not given good leadership which is our role, we will I believe be held accountable.   So if you have some specific “push back” I’d be interested in hearing it, or more then what you’ve heard “preached at your own church”.  Often times I think we hear things differently then what are said (especially in this area) as we see things through our own set of glasses, or our own agendas.

The fact that this discussion has gotten this many people to comment and suggest that the man is in fact the spiritual head of the household discuts me. 

Why do I still have to deal with this? Do you have any idea how *freaking* irritating it is for people to suggest you are somehow second rate? (And don’t say it doesn’t imply that. You are saying God thinks the man should be the spiritual leader and, no matter how you attempt to redefine leader, there is nothing happy, loving or comforting in that for me. It implies I need a leader…that without my husband I am perhaps not fully in communion with God. It implies more things than you know. And, frankly, it makes me feel like *crap* and want to run away from the church for it being unable to deal with independent, strong women who love their men but prefer a partner over a “head.” And to top it off  many preachers still use mainly masculine language in church, participate in slut shaming of women but rarely men, etc.) Masculine language, slut shaming (even for someone like me who followed the pre-marital sex rule) and suggesting my husband is the spiritual head (which, by the way, mine doesn’t think he should be) or that I am somehow limited in my expression in church by my genitalia is more hurtful than you will ever know! It is isolating! It makes me feel empty! It makes me feel stupid! It makes me feel alone! And it causes constant frustration and sometimes even serious depression to a woman who otherwise considers herself quite capable and intelligent outside the 4 walls of the church building.More on my experiences as an evangelcial woman here: http://erinvechols.com/religion/missfit-a-case-for-a-non-essentialist-view-of-gender-in-the-church 

But no one cares about how it makes us feel right?

“Let’s just discuss the theology til we are blue in the face.” “Let’s ignore the consequences of our words and actions (or inactions).” “Let’s not ask the women what they want, how they see the text, how they sort things our theologically.” “So what if, by the way we have these discussions (and the fact we are even having them at all), we turn women away from the church (A statistical fact!), make them depressed, angry or bitter. So what if we isolate them and make them feel stupid. The point is that we dissect the Greek/Hebrew just right and access the cultural context of the text.” 

No! Good theology is only as good as the actions that spring from it. The actions springing from masculine-centered theology is isolation, depression, strained relationships, women leaving the church, etc.

I understand what you are saying. 1) When I think of men to be the head of the home. I think it is a reminder for men to be like Christ and the cross. As a reminder to husbands that Christ did not use power to overcome power. Or he did not seek to be the top power. Instead he laid his life down. So in short to be the ‘head’ is to be like Christ, power under/servant leadership. With expectation that when I lay my life down God is going to make my wife and our home flourish.

Matthew 16:25 – 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

John 12:24 – 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Ephesians 5:25 – 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Dieing to dominant dictator power.

2) Proverbs 31:11 – 11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.

It is not my job to manage my wife’s spirituality. I have to have trust that God is working in her life equally to mine. I often accommodate to my wife’s decisions and goals. I have full confidence in her, in fact she is more of a Godly person than I am. I wish I were half the person of God as she is. She is the Christian who I talk about being.

3) Someone who has the Father heart is not afraid to let someone shine above himself. Controllers need to protect. Father does not need to be seen, he can be in the background.
—

I’ve been looked at with scrutiny for holding this view. Allowing my wife to be who God made her to be without feeling intimidated.  I don’t know? Maybe these are sexist views and I’m blind. Anyone?

I think it is the goal for men and women to become more like the Father. Men if you need to be seen as the head of the home and use scripture abuse to dominate maybe there is a problem. Women if you need to be seen as an equal and you shave your head as way to revolt maybe there is a problem.

Friend, the Bible was not written to this generation. Reading in context is very much impossible. The Bible, especially Paul’s letters, were written to a people who lived 2000 years ago, who’s culture thrived 2000 years ago, who’s land is 2000 miles away. 

Learning the culture of the people this passage was written to is absolutely critical in understanding the full meaning of scripture. Without the understanding of ancient Jewish culture, our view of the Bible is limited to male/female inferiority complexes, as displayed so evidently above. 

The love displayed in scripture transcends all nationalities, cultures, generations, and creeds. The context, however, does not.

If I said something that contradicted scripture it would also be selfish.  This isn’t about me or you.  This is about God and what He has said.  By the way, there are many things I don’t like which scripture requires of me anyway.  I don’t like what it requires of me because I am fallen.  I hope I am not basing my theology in the sensitivities of my fallen condition.  Don’t you?

If I said something that contradicted scripture it would also be selfish.  This isn’t about me or you.  This is about God and what He has said.  By the way, there are many things I don’t like which scripture requires of me anyway.  I don’t like what it requires of me because I am fallen.  I hope I am not basing my theology in the sensitivities of my fallen condition.  Don’t you?

Jay, nothing is worth being rude and unloving. Before inserting yourself as head of the female, learn to love as Christ loved and discuss in love. I wish you well, friend. 

Jay, nothing is worth being rude and unloving. Before inserting yourself as head of the female, learn to love as Christ loved and discuss in love. I wish you well, friend. 

As she sips a cafe mocha.

I think this question is about power. Why do you want it and what are you going to get it? Unforgiveness demands repayment of loss? You owe me power? You owe me equality? You owe me respect? Things the older brother said.

Maybe that is why it says, James 4:3 -3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

My thought hear is when we want to be restored to positions of power we should always be a little weary of our motive and make sure our hearts are pure. Men and Women.

Again men and women power looks like calvary.

I agree with you Nick that nothing is worth being unloving.  I disagree with you that nothing is worth being rude.  I don’t think being rude always means being unloving.  Jesus in the temple and a million other Biblical examples would support that.  I doubt you’ll agree.  Moving on.

The scripture is God inspired so yes it is perfect! God was thinking ahead, but he challenges his readers to not just glance at his word but to dwell on it, mediate on it. Doing so requires studying the scriptures. Learning the historical background is just apart of what we must do as believers. So  if we read passages out of historical context it doesn’t do it justice. It would be like taking a seed and planting it in a rock it wont grow. 

I have said it multiple times, Greg Dill has said it multiple times, but I will say it again – we need to put scripture first and not allow other belief systems to trump scripture.  In fact, I would vehmently argue that if you are a strong Christian, there will be something in scripture that you strongly disagree with but follow anyways, because you know it to be scriptural.  If you find yourself agreeing with everything in the Bible, you are most likely reinterpreting the Bible to fit your existing worldview.

That being said, I think Joe is clearly putting his personal belief system in front of scripture, a classic case of contextualizing something so much that the original point is distorted.  Politicians and athletes are famous for this – “You took me out of context.”  Then they create their own narrative which completely justifies their statement.

What I don’t get is why Joe and other members of the Church are so ashamed of Ephesians 5.  Instead of fighting for it, explaining it in love, and defending scripture, they seek to rewrite scripture, reinterpret scripture, and make scripture fit into their own world view.  When I see Ephesians 5, the first thing that comes to my mind is Jesus washing the feet of his own disciples.  Here is Jesus, the Lord of All of creation, on his hands and knees, washing the feet of his own disciples, including Judas, who would betray Him, and Simon Peter, who would deny knowing Him.  The second thing that comes to my mind is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, the greatest love story of all.

If that’s the idea of “submit to your husbands” – that women should submit to their husbands, and husbands are called to love their wives as Jesus loved the world – the greatest love of all time – I’d say that’s a pretty good deal!

mportant in and of themselves. This is the kind of thinking that leads to schisms such as a recent decision by a North Carolina Baptist association to disfellowship a church for calling a woman to be its pastor. It has also led to the pseudo-masculinity crisis in which som

The social order of men and women in the Bible has to do with the leading of the Church and the leading of them home.  Everything else is open to anyone’s leadership as far as the Bible is concerned, no matter what the gender.  Your examples are misguided.

Erin,

It doesn’t matter how you feel, or how I feel, or how anyone “feels.”  Scripture is Scripture is Scripture.  I’m sure Abraham didn’t “feel” great about being commanded to sacrifice his child to God, but that is what he was about to do.  Scripture isn’t designed to make us “feel’ good.

That being said, the reason for your angst is that you interpret the passage wrong.  What does it mean for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church?  Not only did Jesus wash the disciples feet, but the greatest act of love of all time was what Christ did for the Church – sacrifice his own life for our sins.  So yeah, Paul is saying that women should respect their husband and submit to them as head of household.  It also says that men should try to duplicate the greatest act of love of all time for their wives on a consistent basis.

So, if “submitting” to your husband means that your husband should love you the same amount that Jesus loved the Church… tell me, what is wrong with that?  Because when you say that is wrong, you are also saying that the way Jesus loved the Church was wrong.

Great point – diminishing the biblical principle of headship by pointing out “poor” cases of headship isn’t exactly a sound argument.  Again, the idea of headship is for husbands to love their wives in the strongest way love has ever been shown in the entire universe, the love of Jesus for the Church.

I think many who have commented here take much for granted for the Gospel and its application.

I am a believer, a mother of three young ones and a wife of a husband whose pre-frontal cortex has been severely disabled.  This area of the brain governs judgment and executive decisions one makes.  From driving, to finances, from picking out the clothes you don everyday, to when and how to appropriately cross the street with a toddler, my husband is not able to consistently and safely ensure every day living of our family.

So, I also must work and be the financial head of household because we cannot sustain our family on the type of work my husband can perform and because his impulsiveness leads to poor financial management.  It also makes my husband more naive (think 14-15 year old) and he is gullibly talked out of his wallet and all its contents (sometimes by those on the prowl from church).

I must be the spiritual head of household modeling for my children or none other will exist.  My husband has a poor memory (think Groundhog Day), so holding scripture and lesson to heart and understanding its relevance are challenging to him.  Reading the bible a challenge.  The way his cingulate gyrus functions makes him conflict adverse, so standing up for Jesus, the Gospel, even his family and wife are difficult.  Our family cannot count on my husband for protection.

The Lord made my husband the way he is.  Prayer, faithfulness and grace will lead us through the desert, but we will never emerge from this desert.  Our desert is ever present.  Jesus is our refreshing supply of water.  When we think we cannot go another step without a sip, He is there.

I have no easy answers regarding the topic of Men as the Spiritual Head of the Home.  The Lord has purpose for our lives even if it is to be a difficult one.  I rejoice the Lord made me the way I am so I could step in and be the Spiritual Servant Leader of our earthly household.  In prayer, I feel he is using me pastorally to help other women navigate a life we never dreamed or wished for.  If the Lord could not hold me up as an equal to a man, how could I provide for my family financially, emotionally and spiritually?  If my community embraced this, would I have job or role in my church that would provide for my family in all these ways?

Lord Jesus is purposeful in asking us to struggle with scripture and to be prayerful in its application.  Though I did not want the role as “head”, I am grateful He made me an equal so I can provide and witness to his Holy name in obedience to Him.

The Gospel makes no exceptions for our situation. 

My idea of the Church is anyplace where Biblical teaching is given. I do feel that there is Biblical context to back this up and Women have been used to communicate the word of God. If wrong I apolgyse.

You mention “our equality” but would you be willing to define what that equality means and what it looks like?

Here’s the thing–and this article speaks to this–the issue of accountability or responsibility before Christ was one of the foundational elements of the Protestant Reformation: we are all priests before God, we can all access Christ equally. My pastor and I have talked about this very issue and he believes and has taught the church that men are spiritually responsible for their wives. I cannot see any way in which that does not undermine the authority of Christ, insert men as any kind of head over a woman. Christ is the head of both myself and my wife, and both of us submit to Christ. 

Complementarianism asserts that men have a better connection and relation to God that better suits them to “lead” or “direct” their wives. What does this mean for unmarried women? Unmarried men? Does this make all men more spiritually aware and connected to God than their sisters in Christ? 

Where in Scripture does it say that men are held in greater accountability than their wives? This disrupts the priesthood of the believer. The only “role” which I see the Bible ascribing a greater responsibility and accountability to is that of teacher/pastor. 

Remember Galatians 3:28. Remember how far we have come the division of Jews and Greeks, the division of slaves and their masters. It is time we look at the division between men and women the way we look at these issues, today. It is time that we inspect the soul of a person rather than the look of them. Let us not get so caught up in what scripture says less we forget what it means.

So you are making excuses for men and their own sin that landed them in jail, based on the actions of feminist and the feminist movement in society (which i do not agree with, but really?!) Sounds like you are bitter, and angry toward many woman, which makes it hard to read anything you say and take it seriously, regarding this specific topic at least. Is that biblical, brother? Do I get to stand before God someday and blame my sin on other peoples sin? No, the scriptures say, “Against You Alone have I sinned God.” Ever read that in your Bible?!

Good question. Answer: I’m not discounting personal responsibility. I’m adding systemic causes of the warping of men. Example: I work with kids, many of whom have been molested. Stats say many of them will grow up to be peepholes as a result. If they become pedophiles, should excuse them because they were molested as children? No. But we should seek to guard future generations from conditions which act as fertilizer in which such sins grow enmasse. This article, in my opinion, is dishonest about who is really being affected. I am less concerned with women who deal with issues of self-image than I am with men doing crimes and facing prison. Both are concerning, but one is more serious than the other. By the way, like it or not, the male is important to society. When our fathers have no sense of value in their maleness, boys and girls pay the price. We have heard plenty about the empowerment of women for the past 100 years. There were good reasons for women’s suffrage at first. But it has turned into man-hating. The problem with man-hating is it produces the kind of men we hate. It is antithetical to it’s own purpose.

I thought the exact same thing when I read it.

“I think we must be very careful in our interpretation of Scripture. Too
often we allow our socio-political beliefs to get in the way of our
hermeneutics. We tend to politicize Scripture to justify our own
beliefs.”

This was my thinking while reading “Women should remain silent in church.”  I would love for someone to give me a sound reason why this isn’t what Paul meant.  The thing is, I’m a smart woman, and I just don’t see where some of the cultural context explanations people give make sense.

“Jesus never once made a woman feel inferior, or tell a woman she needed
to submit to the leadership of the men in her life. If he would have
done that, at least one woman would have been stoned at the hands of
the Spiritual leaders.”

I agree with this statement from Kyla as well.  That’s why I want to believe that Paul didn’t mean I don’t belong teaching in church, but I’m not willing to just decide on my own that it doesn’t seem “right” with the cultural upbringing I’ve had and just accept the first explanation that comes along.

I went to a college ministry group that was full of people like that.  They had very strong political and world views that they used to decide their position on different issues.  Then they would turn to scripture and make scriptural interpretations that would support what they thought.  And they said to me this was how they did things.  This isn’t my personal judgment.  We actually had a night where that was the discussion question: Do you turn to scripture first or second?

What I think we all need to realize sometimes is that God is our parent.  Sometimes he tells us things we might not like.  For some reason, Christians want to think they’re in complete and happy agreement with God.  Maybe you’re just not.

I disagree, but my biblical reasons have all been given so I’ll give my personal thoughts.
I’m 20 years old and single. I know that when I get married, I want the man I marry to be more in love with God than he is with me, and I want him to be able to give me solid godly advice or correction. I want my future husband to be the spiritual leader of sorts in our family. It’s all personal preference, but I know that being with someone less spiritually serious or mature than me is stressful and exhausting. It led me closer to God, but not for the right reasons. I want to marry a man who will lead me closer to God through his actions and through him showing me God’s love and who Christ is in his daily life.

Although I believe women can certainly be Bible teachers, with Joyce Meyer being a wonderful example, I do think Ephesians is very very clear as to the man’s role as head of the family. Someone has to be the leader and lead. Psychologists will all tell you the negative consequences of what happens to children when the wife is head of the household. And someone has to be the head. Common sense tells all of us who is to be the head. To think otherwise is to live in denial or it is the result of a large inferiority complex.

Being head of the household is NOT about power, it is about service and responsibility.  The man is responsible to God as the overseer of the family and as a servant to his family.

Women who have a problem with the man as head of the family dont understand what it means to be head of the household.

Well put.

Nowhere does scripture ever promote the idea that women are inferior to men. It says men are to be the head of the family. How does one read “men are superior” into this scenerio?

Jesus never told a woman she needed to submit to the leadership of the men in her life——How do you know this?  Did you live with Jesus and were you there everytime he spoke with women?

All people, men and women need to submit to their spiritual leaders in the church.

Paul, speaking by revelation from God, makes it very clear that men are to be the head of the household.  Rebellious women can fight it all they want. But either you believe and obey scripture or you dont.

Better brush up on 1st Corinthians 13 jay

We need to remember the cultural context as well. @ the time this was written women were
1: uneducated and reliant on men as a result
2: women were possessions … owned by their fathers till a price was paid for them to belong to their husbands.  This is why sex outside of marriage was punished severly (for the women….not much record of men being punished for it) It is because the POSSESSION lost it’s price.

women are now highly educated AND no longer possessions. Society looks down on women being treated as possessions and I would hope the church supports their disdain! sadly, by reading the comments posted so far…it appears it may not!

We have rejected slavery (endosed by the bible) and pedophilia (13 year old girls were easily sold to much older men in those days …. this is now looked down on by society and church  – Ps: how old was Mary and joseph.???) 

So if we have proudly rejected these social norms should we not also reject the attitude of women being submissive /subversive. It is no longer socially relevant or acceptable.

Very well said, Justus. That’s why I like you so much!