Comments
Re: Lessons in Submission
YOU NEED TO HAVE A LONG TALK WITH JULIE AND GET HER TO BE MORE SUBMISSIVE TO ME I BELIEVE SHE WOULD UNDERSTAND IT IF YOU BROKE IT TO HER LIKE YOU DID IN YOUR BLOG WITH THE GOD SAYS SO THING. I TRY TELLING HER THIS BUT IT AINT WORKING COMMING FROM ME. ON A SERIOUS NOTE SERIOUS I AM JUST KIDDING JULIE IS GREAT
Posted by: NICK W at October 20,2005 15:38
Re: Lessons in Submission
It won't work coming from me, either. HA HA I love Julie and I can see how she would have a hard time being submissive to such a pain in the neck!! But really, you guys are cute newleyweds and I pray for the best for you both.
Posted by: tessa at October 20,2005 16:20
Re: Lessons in Submission
One question Nick, "WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS SHOUTING?" But seriously folks, submission is no laughing matter. I struggle so much submitting my will to God's. It's really silly to try to struggle against the One who made everything, but we all do it every day.
Tessa, once again you honor me with your words on this blog and I thank you. Thanks also for your patience with me when I have trouble submitting to you the things that you need from me. And I equally thank you for your patience when I submit to you things that you need me to take a leadership role in. Man, submission is almost as hard to figure out as leadership is. Or maybe they're the same thing. I'm going to quit before my train of thought totally derails. I Love you Tessa. - Matt
Posted by: Matt at October 20,2005 21:08
Re: Lessons in Submission
Not too many things ruffle my feathers like the word submission. It's such a historically loaded word wtih some negative conotation linked to oppression. I think matt got it absolutely right when he attatched leadership directly to submission. I really have a hard time thinking "submission" with out relating it to "dominance" and thats really just not part of the deal. In fact, submission=dominance is a good recipe for failure. I don't disagree with paul in ephesians but I think some folks (not tessa or matt) easily misunderstand it. I think what paul meant when he said "wives submitt to your husbands and husbands love your wives like yourself" (paraphrased) is "Love and honor each other with the decisions you make. Husbands don't make inconsiderate life decesions and wives be supportive of your husbands." On a related side note, Paul was a radical feminest in his day. Its easy for soft feminests like my self to get ruffled by Paul but we've really got to keep him in context. He regularly acknowledged women working with him as equals and addressed women by name in lots of his letters to various churches. For the people reading paul for the first time "wives submitt" wasn't surprising or unusual but "submitt to eachother" and "love you wives like yourself" that was cutting edge ideology. Jesus told us that leaders are servants and the last are really first in his kingdom. I think theres a lot there to consider when we look at what submission and leadership mean for a good marriage.
Posted by: Andrea at October 22,2005 15:46
Re: Lessons in Submission
Man, I should have let you write my blog entry! Amen to all that you said. And I second your initial feelings about the word submission, but I'm so glad that I am learning the proper context of this command.
Posted by: tessa at October 22,2005 19:14
Re: Lessons in Submission
I agree with much of what Andrea says about the importance of historical context in understanding Paul. However, I would take her observations a bit further. In my understanding of scripture, the doctrine of wifely submission is irrelevant to the true spirit of the Bible just as is the doctrine of the submission of slaves to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-9). Southerners used the Bible to support slavery in the pre-Civil War period based on verses written by Paul. Today, people are quick to explain that slaves submission to their masters is a reflection of the times in which Paul was living but yet somehow wifely submission to the husband is timeless and not to be questioned. Does anybody smell a rat besides me?
As Andrea says, Paul was radical for his time. It was radical to say that wives should be loved by their husbands (instead of being beaten, devalued, and degraded). This was the first step toward complete equality and freedom for women, just as commanding masters to love their slaves was a first step toward fulfilling the true spirit of Christ's message: freedom and equality for all (Paul hints at this ultimate vision of Christianity when he says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"--why don't people hold Bible studies on that verse?) But most importantly, I find it amazing that people are holding women's Bible studies on letters that Paul wrote to churches rather than holding studies on what Christ had to say about women. Are we Christians or are we Paulinians? When in doubt, look to Christ.
People in a particular time and place wrote much of what became known as "the Bible" whereas the words of Christ are timeless. To those who want to argue for a literalist reading of every single word of the Bible, I hope you're prepared to believe that slaves should have submitted to their masters. A non-literalist reading doesn't mean that the whole of the Bible can't be interpreted through the timeless vision of Christ. It can. On a personal note, I have a very successful and happy marriage. It is seriously wonderful. We rarely if ever fight. We serve each other without obsessing over our roles. Basically, we fall more in love with each other every single day. We do all of that without following a doctrine of submission.
There's my two cents.
Posted by: Betsy at October 22,2005 22:52
Re: Lessons in Submission
I would like to know more about what Christ (as opposed? to Paul) says about women and their roles. I agree that we are "all one in Christ Jesus" as Galatians 3:28 says, but are we not all man or woman, and some slave or free, and some Jew or Greek? We all have our place in life. However, we live in a fallen world. A place where God's perfect plan has been twisted and perverted by sin, including men's and women's roles in this life. I will not let man's mistake ruin God's truth for me. I will struggle, but not because God (or Paul) was wrong about submission, but because it goes against my very (sin) nature to submit.
Here are some words about Christ, whom we aspire to be like:
Who, being in very nature God
did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
Phil 2:6
People use the Word every day to secure their own plan and values (slavery in the South is a good example). But God's own word says to submit to the authority that He has placed over me in my life. So I choose to submit to God by submitting to my husband, trusting God to guide Matt in the leadership of our family.
God never said it would be easy, in fact, He promised the opposite.
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children. (can i hear an amen?!). Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16
I wouldn't exactly call myself a literalist, but I do feel that every word of the Bible is true then, true now, and true forever. There are many things about God that I do not understand, but does that make them less true? I don't believe so. But the fact that I won't understand everything until I die will not keep me from acting in faith. Which may mean submitting to Matt as the church submits to Christ, even when I am afraid of the implications of such a command.
Posted by: tessa at October 22,2005 23:50
Re: Lessons in Submission
Tessa, I just lost the long comment I wrote in response to this! I'm not going to try to reproduce all of it because it's 2:15 a.m. But I will say that we obviously approach the Bible and the purpose of Christianity very differently. To me, the statement "we all have our place in life" is the exact opposite of the purpose of Christianity. But I don't want to insult the views and convictions that you obviously hold deeply. I respect your convictions.
But I have my convictions as well, and I do think there are plenty of examples of how Christ's message and life are in opposition to some of the more historically limited writings of Paul. Perhaps we can talk about this in person and not on the blog? There is much to say and is probably much too long for a blog conversation.
The Galatians verse says "there is NEITHER Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female..." I think you are ignoring the implications of this. It does not say simply that "we are all one in Christ." I like the verses from Phil you quoted and do not see how they conflict in any way with what I have said.
I don't think it's helpful to randomly quote verses from the OT that support your position. Are you sure you are comfortable with the consequences of that? If so, disobedient children can be stoned, raped women should be required to marry their rapists, prostitutes should be burned with fire, men are not allowed to trim their sideburns or their heads, and women are the literal property of men (I do have citations for all of these verses).
As far "pain in childbirth," why do Christian women get epidurals? Are they thwarting the will of God? This "punishment" simply makes no sense in a context where technology can ameliorate pain.
There is an excellent book by the minister John Shelby Spong called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" that deals with many of these issues. Spong literally tries to "rescue" the message of Christ from all of this oppressive rubbish. I highly recommend the book.
Why be hostile to the idea that Christianity could be liberating? The reason Christ died was to supersede the "law" so that we could reenter paradise with him. Many modern day Christians do not focus on Christ and the meaning of his life and teachings but rather on randomly selected verses about hierarchy and authority. I think that's weird.
Okay, you get the last word. It's your blog. That's all I'll say unless you have a specific question.
Good night.
Posted by: Betsy at October 23,2005 02:56
Re: Lessons in Submission
I have enjoyed reading this discussion- I wish I had more time to comment on blogs, and I especially would like to say more about this discussion than I can right now. The normative issue of the status of women in Christianity is one that I am very interested in. Betsy and Andrea have made some good responses to your entry- which, I might add, really reflects your genuine sincerity to want to do God's will.
For right now I simply want to make one of Betsy's arguments a bit stronger. She rightly pointed to Galatians 3:28 as a corrective for seeing Paul as a traditionalist. However, most translations of this verse, including the translation Betsy used, do not accurately capture the full theological import of Paul's nuanced language. Here is the passage as translated in the New Revised Standard Version:
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
Notice that in the first two pairs the Greek equivalent for "or" is used, while in the third pair concerning gender, the Greek equivalent "and" is used. Most translaters in the past have just translated all the subjections as "or," but in doing so have missed a subtle argument that Paul probably intended to make. We must remember that Paul's thought is thoroughly immersed in the Jewish scriptures- after all, Paul lived and died as Jew- albeit a different type of Jew than most in his day, since he saw Jesus as the Christ. Not only does Paul explcitly quote from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) frequently, but he also writes with "echoes" and allusions to the OT. Recall Genesis 1:27-
"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
"Male and female" he created them, we are told. Most NT scholars now think that Paul, in switching to "and" in the last pair, is intentionally evoking the memory of this passage for his audience. What Paul is getting at is that in the Christian community this distinction from creation no longer matters for Christians. You might recall that in several places Paul refers to Christians as a "new creation" (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:17). Things are different in the new creation- such distinctions are irrelevent.
It gets a little comlex in deciding how to fit passages from Paul like Gal. 3:28 with passages like Ephesians 5. (Or whether they can "fit' at all.) I will try to write more about this later.
I'll end for now by echoing what Betsy and Andrea said about Jesus' relation to women. It is true that Jesus treated women (and all the "outsiders" of is day, for that matter) in a way that greatly contrasted with the treatment they received from society at large. Yet what is often missing from these kind of discussions about the role of women and men in church, family, and society is what Jesus had to say more generally about the kind of power that his follwers were to exercise. Consider the following:
Luke 22: 24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
The "world" defines power as control and domination. Power thought of in these categories prompts people (such as the disciples)to ask questions like, "Who gets to be in charge?" pr "Who gets to be on top?" Jesus completely redefined genuine power- power, according to Jesus, is the willingness to serve and love sacrificially.
We must not forget that Ephesians 5 does not stop with verse 22- "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord." Unfortunately, most men in the Christian tradition have not thought through the full implications of what Paul goes on to say.
Verse 25 reads: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."
Paul says to the women that their husbands are in charge. But we can't stop here. He goes on to define for the men the manner in which they are to be in charge- they are to "lead" by serving, by giving completely of themselves for the good of their wives.
Paul understood very well how Christ redefined power. In 1 Cor. 1:22-25, Paul says that "Christ crucified" shows the "power of God." Godly power is the power of complete self-giving. The reason that Christ crucified shows the power of God is because the crucifixion of Christ is the culmination of a life that was completely offered up to the will of God.
Verse 22 cannot be properly understood with interpreting it in the light of verse 25. If we take verse 22 and fill it in with our own "wordly" notions of power, then this verse becomes a sanction for all forms of misogyny. However, when we read verse 22 in the light of how Jesus (and subsequently Paul) redefined power, this passage can be a source of condemnation for all forms of oppressive patriarchy.
Alright, I have already spent way more time on this than I planned- I am supposed to be studying for a test right now!
Thanks for starting a discussion on this Tessa.
-Heath
Posted by: heath at October 24,2005 14:59
Re: Lessons in Submission
I've just finished reading all my comments for the 50th time. I want to say, why? whaaaa? ouch! and thank you. I hope to be much more respectful in future posts and comments, especially those directed at my dear sister-in-law Betsy. Heath thanks me for starting this discussion, but now I'm thinking, "ooo, be careful." The reason I feel that way is because my attitude towards submission and other people's feelings about it really stinks. I apologize. From now on I will speak from the heart and do my best to keep down the implications made in my previous comments.
Posted by: Tessa at October 25,2005 12:54
Re: Lessons in Submission
Hi Tessa. I am a little confused by your response. Does your "attitude towards submission" or "other people's feelings about it" stink? Also, I feel bad that after my response you are thinking "ooo, be careful." Why do you feel that way? You solicited comments and I just wanted to share some stuff I have been learning at seminary. Anyways, I am curious about your response. Hope you can clarify what you meant.
Best wishes,
Heath
Posted by: heath at October 27,2005 08:57
Re: Lessons in Submission
My attitude towards both stink, Heath. i am thinking "ooo, be careful" about my own attitude in this whole matter. everyone else is responsible for themselves. and you know, sometimes you get what you ask for. I said I wanted people to be honest, but I think I really just wanted people to agree with me. I'm experiencing a particularly trying time of "jerkiness" in my spiritual walk. I'm sorry if you have been offended or confused by my comments. Sometimes there's a shut down between my brain and my mouth (or fingers in this case). I hope you will continue to post comments because I do find them very helpful, and I happen to agree with much of what you said in your last comment. In fact the reason that I don't completely erase this post and pretend it didn't happen is because I have faithful readers who make flatteringly well-thought out comments.
Posted by: Tessa at October 27,2005 14:39