quote:

---

Originally posted by Empiress

Our Epistle lectionary text today was from Ephesians:

Eph 5:22-23: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

My students and I wrestled with this text this evening and the student leading the discussion said he was really upset by it and felt it was simply "sexist." I'm inclined to agree (I would have agreed wholeheartedly in the past), but I've felt there is more to it than meets the eye.

I'm wanting to know how you all understand these verses today. Are they merely revealing Paul's cultural conditioning from a patriarchal society or is there something deeper here? How do we pastorally preach on these verses? I'm not looking for a debate, I just want to hear people's honest thoughts.

Thanks,
~e

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

Tigress: from my perspective as a only boy growing up with four girls, I believe most men (both Christian and non-christian) are insensitive jerks (and I include myself in that as well). Men simply do not think much of women's feelings on many subjects, blab on and on about submission as if it were the easiest thing in the world, that women are so much different and need to be protected (catch word for controlled), on and on, failing to recognize that in a male dominated world maybe God wants women to live their own lives free of the "protection" of all these righteous men.
BTW, three of my sisters are unmarried, have wonderful careers and live on their own. And I'm very proud of that!
Tigress, I am not going to quote Bible verses at you. I'll just say that God loves you and he will use you, even if you are a woman .

And isn't it interesting thats its MEN that are most interested in this subject...

---

quote:

---

Military and naval organizations and many businesses retain the same form of organization that was promulgated by the father-in-law of Moses and which is recorded in the Bible. In this type of organization the personnel are formed into groups, each sufficiently small that the leader of the group may personally direct its members.

---

quote:

---

Empiress,
I'm really sorry. I took your question and turned it into a verbal boxing match! Sometimes I just let my emotions get the better of me. I find that I constantly have to go back and apologize to people for my rude and poorly-worded statements whenever I get like this. Anyway, I'm sorry for taking your question and turning it into an excuse to get up on a soapbox and judge anyone who disagreed with me.

---

quote:

---

Maybe you need to check I Tim 2.14 and see that it says Adam was not deceived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

Tigress,

I don't know what Bible you have been reading, but Jesus came to save mankind from their sins. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with women.

Eve was to be a "help meet" for Adam, not his equal in responsibility or leadership. Read I Cor 11 and you will find the creation order is used as a reason for the hierarchy being established the way it was. Your "liberation" from what God has set up has become your prison.

BTW, I sex isn't an issue in obeying your parents. (Eph 6.1-3)
****************

Honorman,

You sure are a weird one. Why do you think I don't have anyone on earth that I have to obey? Do you ever read your Bible? Heb 13.17 says Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves.

---

quote:

---

Dear Rev. __________

Thank you for sharing your e-mail address with me at after-Church coffee on Sunday.

First, let me introduce myself as the father both of one of the CLUB members who prayed for the offering, and of one of the boys who read scripture in Church two Sundays ago. I'll ride on their coat-tails. : )

Second, let me say that I seem to be a person who likes ideas (more accurately: loves ideas). And it in both of these capacities (parent and idea-phile) that I want to share an observation with you. I hope that is OK.

Your two sermons ("The Christian Husband" and "The Christian Wife") share a book-end like connection - husband and wife - you can't have one without the other. But where Christ is mentioned there is another connection too. For some, "Christian" means merely a moral code. But particularly with marriage, which was instituted by God, -- more is involved. So, I want to suggest that your two sermons are actually conditioned by the content of a third sermon. One undelivered: "Christ and the Christian Church.". And it is THAT sermon that I want to discuss with you.

This is not out of place. And I'm certain that you will agree, as your own sermon Sunday pointed out that "marriage needs three partners: the man, the woman, and God." And having listened carefully I notice that most central and important aspects of the topics of husband and wife entirely hinge on this presence of God in marriage, and the example of Christ. Yet, there is something that is very important that needs to be re-examined in this 'phantom' sermon. I think it needs to be carefully 'revisited' and considered. That third sermon - which is in reality the first - is the foundation of all that follows, affecting the details of everything else.

It's a tall order; but a vital one.

This undelivered sermon I'm speaking of, on "Christ and the Christian Church" defines "Christ." Both your "Husband" and "Wife " sermons used Christ as their point of reference. So what one makes of "Christ" relative to the Church plays a major role in everything else.

During the "Husband" sermon I noticed the man was contemplated as being 'outside' of the marriage looking in, and acting 'toward' the marriage or wife. That is a problem. I dare say that a man exists as a husband ONLY within marriage. And a man is only a husband when he is acting within the communion of marriage (which also must be considered in its three-ness). The salient preposition for marriage would have to be "WITHIN."

Not necessarily unique to American culture, the idea of an "individual" falls far short of the Biblical idea of the "person" who exists in communion with others. Pointedly, there is no such thing as an individual Christian (Matt. 18:20). And no husband or wife exists outside of the ontological state of the marriage communion (Gen. 2:24). Something similar is also true of Christ and the Church And the framework within which we consider Christ can lead us well or badly..

Augustine of Hippo had something to say of Christ. And it s worth pausing to consider: "The whole Christ" is "head and body." (The Latin in the book I found this in goes: "Totus Christus, caput et corpus.") Thomas Hopko says something of this that when applied to marriage needs to be referred back to the three-ness of marriage. (Which I'll come back to.) This is a comment with regarding "Christ" and the Church; not the Eternal Son of God. And it requires our attention. Again, Augustine says: "The whole Christ" is "head and body."

John Zizioulas goes so far to say that there is no "Christ" without the Church. (Zizioulas writes: The person of Christ is automatically linked...with a community. This community is the eschatological company of the "Saints" which surround Christ in [the] kingdom. The Church is part of the definition of Christ. (Being as Communion [Crestwood: St. Vladimir's].) At first, that statement might sound mighty un-pious; but it is true that "Christ" does not exist without His Church. The Eternal Son was not eternally The Christ. And I think that I'm correct that in Paul's writing "Christ" designates the "chosen-ness" connected with Jesus salvific work. In Galatians "Christ" (in contrast to "Lord") bears the shame of the Cross. "Christ" is the Savior. Pre-Cross there was not Christ; and I think that goes for pre-resurrected too. This is different than merely calling Him the Eternal Son or even "Jesus." With Zizioulas, "The Church is part of the definition of Christ." And with Augustine, "The whole Christ "is head and body."

What does that have to do with the Husband and the Wife in your two sermons? You said plenty Lets see.

In your "Husband" sermon, during the application part of your sermon, you touched upon the contingency of how in a bad situation the husband might have to lead even if awkward. It seemed like useful pastoral advice, for certain occasions. But it did seems to follow the 'outside' and acting 'toward' type that I'm trying to avoid.

But in the "Wife" sermon I think that you made a point that can be related well to the example of Christ. Personally, I thought that it was the best part of the sermon. You said: "DEMONSTRATE to the husband the relationship of Christ to the Church." Perhaps part of what drew me to that comment was that it is equally applicable in good relationship as in troubled relationships. It fits the Pauline model of the wife who is a witness to an unbelieving husband. It models Christ's suffering. It is being "Christ" to the other. And, as you correctly pointed out, there is freedom in the role of a servant. You spoke correctly of the "voluntary-ness" of such "submission." Yet Paul's example is not really submission to that husband; it is to the Lord.

Other applications you mentioned seemed to slip back into the external framework that I'm on the lookout for. And I think that much of what made it seem that way is the habits of speech that America offers us. We are faced with quite a challenge. But think about it. When you delivered this sermon on the Wife you spent time talking about how the husband would "manage," "discover," "help," "encourage," etc., ALL focusing on the husband as if it was he himself doing this on his own - outside and toward his wife. I'm sure that your life experience is not one of your husband-ness as being autonomous from your marriage. But this American-situation certainly does take its toll. And It can't help but affect our thinking too.

After church I heard a good challenge to your comment that no car has two steering wheels. The question was asked, rhetorically, "Ever hear of a person with two legs?" And they were right!

But before I get to that, I want to come back to this three-ness of marriage. We can't talk about marriage as only being two persons. Nor can we consider the Church without Christ (any more than Augustine would consider Christ without the Church). Following up on Augustine's comment, Thomas Hopko says that, "we may also conclude that if Jesus alone is not the whole Christ, so the people alone are not the whole Church. The Whole Christ, and so too, the whole church, is Jesus the head in communion with those who belong to him, and even "become him" by faith and grace in union with God the Father through the Holy Spirit." (Women and the Priesthood, [Crestwood: St. Vladimir's]) Just as the Church is not whole without Christ - or at least in a way that is analogous - a marriage is not whole without Christ. That's the three-ness.

Biblically there is ONE head of the marriage. And that is Christ. One steering wheel. His.

We would do well to pitch all the ideas, and all the rutted language that surrounds us. More than "Reformed," in John VanderStelt's (Dordt College) words the Church is supposed to be about being "Re-form(ul)ation-al." Paul uses stronger words yet - "Transformed" (Rom. 12:2). And we do that by being, in Paul's words "renewed."

To speak of either "Husband" or "Wife" in our debate-riddled landscape is to discover the need for a good Road-Grader. Let me take a different tack. And an old one.

The Orthodox of my brother-in-law's communion speak of "Charisms" and "modes." They strictly avoid suggesting that traits such as aggressiveness or gentleness belong to one gender or the other. In their traditions is recognition that men and women all share to some degree of what is supposedly (but only supposedly) "masculinity" and "femininity." (Belonick) Men and women are equal in "honor" and "humanity." In fact BOTH are necessary - together - in order for us to achieve our full humanity.

There you have the "two legs" analogy. A right leg is always a right leg. It can - as soccer players know - substitute creatively for the left, but it cannot replace the left, nor ever "be" a left. But they are both necessary and "honorable." And without BOTH of them full, true humanity is not present or possible. (Man by himself didn't even warrant a "good" rating!)

Genesis teaches that man and female are a unity. Together we are not just "good." Together we are, in fact, "created in God's image" (Gen 1:26).

ANY talk of or thinking about "Wife" must be done within the compass of the communion of marriage. If you want to relate wonderful examples like how together a wife can discover and grow in talents and roles. . . then this must be conceived within this circle. The gold circle on my left hand has an inscription placed there by my wise wife: "A CHORD OF THREE STRANDS."

You were absolutely correct to call marriage a "divine pattern and formula" (I took notes.). What you said contained many good things.

But I feel that some of the foundation for your two sermons needs careful reexamination. Otherwise I highly doubt that you would have lead off, "out of the blocks" with words like "roles" and "duties" and "job." Those speak of the atomistic, fragmented, un-reformed world around us. (And as a guest you can probably not even begin to guess what ruts you begin to drive into in a new congregational setting.)

What other terms-of-mind can we use instead? You spoke of "submit" and "defer." I'm not "buying" those. The Orthodox have a wonderful icon called a "Deisis." The Deisis icon has three persons - fittingly. Christ enthroned is in the center. On the left is Mary worshiping the God-man who is our Savior. On the right is John the Baptist.

http://www.fr-d-serfes.org/orthodox/images/deisis.gif

Both Mary and John have their arms upraised in the manner seen in worshiping figures ("oranans") in Christian catacombs. The particualar "Charisms" the Orthodox have traditionally ascribed to the example of Mary and John are these: For John that he "must decrease that He (Christ) may increase. Mary is, as the orans figure http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/art/orans.jpg and "bearing." in Paul Evdokimov's words: "to give birth to Christ in other people. We may be called to physical motherhood, to pass on our faith to our children: or we may be called to spiritual motherhood, to show forth the image of Christ to all men and call them to Him." (Woman and the Salvation of the World, [St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. 1994])

Particulary as the Church is the "Bride of Christ," Mary is an example to ALL of us. We must all be Christ-bearers ("Christians". And it is in this respect that the Church came to be called Christians. But when Mary said "yes"; to the Angel ("Be it unto me according to thy word.") I don't see THAT in terms of "defer-ing. " or resigned "submitting." Two thousand years of Christian tradition seem to reject those images of the Charism of Woman.

Rather, "bearing" and "interceding" and "calling" are ACTIVE, DYNAMIC Charisms.

Early Church writers spoke of the absolute *necessity* that Bishops and Elders minister in conjuction with female Deaconesses. Without both genders it is just not "very good."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel




deisis



orans figure

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul5388

Tigress,

I'm quite sure my wife would disagree with your assessment of women who stay at home. She might even be offended at the slight you are impyling. In fact, she finds her life at home to be much more liberating than when she worked at NASA. For someone to be holding up the need for there to be love toward their neighbors, your position seems to be a very unloving and judgmental.

I am quite sure my wife's position would find much biblical support, whereas your position is totally foreign to the biblical concept of women and what they should be doing.

I also think God wants you to be all you should be, not all you want to be. The Parable of the Talents in Matt 25 says each servant was given talents according to his ability and they were expected to perform according to their abilities, not to bury them. In the same way, they were not expected to perform above their abilities. Women have the ability to be submissive or God would not expect them to be submissive, but they continually rebel against and he shall rule over thee.

---