My good friend on TMB, Dena, posted this idea once in a thread talking about the husband being the "head" of the wife, and whether that entailed authority over her or not, and if it entailed any authority at all, what would it look like? The thread got fairly heated as I recall, but I stopped paying much attention when I read Dena's post. Literally -- her post was so thought-provoking that I had to walk away from the computer and think about it for an hour or so. And the best part is, she discusses authority in the church as well as in a marriage. Here's what she had to say (with emphasis mine -- pay special attention to it, at the end!). Check it out!
Within the house church, we don't have titles, or positions, or offices... we have individuals whom God has called to various functionings... those who function as deacons (practical servants), those who function as elders (spiritual servants), those who function as teachers, shepherds, evangelists, prophets, apostles...
None of them are "over" anyone else... they're servant-leaders (servants who lead by example). There's no hierarchy -- just Jesus as Head, and all the other brothers and sisters functioning, as called, under HIM - in unity.
They don't have "special rights" to be above anyone else... but they do have "special responsibilities", as called by God, to serve others in their various capacities. We don't so much submit to the person, or the position, or the title... we submit to the calling that the Lord has on that person...! Because that calling is for the blessing of the rest of the Body -- it's the Lord Himself, working through that person, and it's really to HIM that we're submitting!
And the PURPOSE of their servant-leading is to bring the whole of the Body into full, functioning maturity -- to reflect Christ.
So, within marriage, God has called the husband to a particular responsibility ... he's usually larger, stronger, and therefore more able to be a protector of the wife than vice versa. He's designed by God to focus, to zero in, to concentrate, on one specific thing (while the woman is more global, balancing several things at once - each has it's strengths and weaknesses), and to take initiative in a particular direction.
We're designed to work in concert -- not with him as the "boss," but with him making a way for me to go (as he would if he were literally leading me through a dense forest/jungle... getting rid of the obstacles, making it easier for me to navigate.
Perhaps, since this world, the cultures, even the historical Church, tends to be suppressive of women, and God would know this would happen, as a result of the Fall, He designed men with the task of creating an environment for his wife to thrive... to protect her, to lift her up, to encourage her, to present her to others in a way so that others would respect her and receive what she had to share... so that she wouldn't be sidelined...?
It's not because I'm "less than", it's because the enemy has sought to destroy the influence of women, and thus, my husband's responsibility is to present me as a person worthy of equal honor in the Body ...
And, I'm to submit to what the Lord has called him to do... to not get in the way, but to cooperate with what He is doing.
Because the PURPOSE of the husband's servant-leading is to bring the whole of the marriage into full, functioning maturity -- to reflect Christ.
My previous research on "kephale" (Greek "head") showed me that it had a connotation of the husband as "point-man" -- the first one into battle. Physically speaking, this makes sense because men are nearly always physically stronger than women. But Dena points out that part of his job as protector might very well be to make sure she gets equally respected by others who might not otherwise listen to her.
Since Grey does an admirable job of that, and I adore him for it, I am definitely inclined to agree with Dena!
Showing posts with label headship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label headship. Show all posts
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
That Offensive "S" - word
Tell any intelligent, modern, non-Christian woman that if she accepts Christ she will have to start submitting to her husband, and she will very indignantly tell you where to stick your "submission." Crumpled up so it's all corners first, just exactly how far in, and sideways.
And very rightfully so.
Being an intelligent, modern, Christian woman, the daughter of teachers, I must confess that I had a similar reaction. Then after getting involved with a certain extremely conservative message board, I came under "conviction" that I'd been all wrongheaded about it, and began "submitting" to Grey the way they told me I should have all along. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't a slave, and I was still free with my opinions and all, but I began leaving the final decision-making up to him the way the church told me I should. (Note: this is a classic example of "false conviction," which is that state in which you're hearing nothing about the issue from the Holy Spirit, but plenty about it from people who speak with enough authority that you start to wonder if they're right. They almost never are!)
Well, he hated it. The pressure started building up more and more in him, until finally he blew up like Mt. Vesuvias (and if you know Grey, you know he is NOT usually an angry or violent fellow) and demanded that I STOP submitting to him. He wanted his wife back, the equal partner he had married.
Feeling like he was asking me to go against the Bible, I tentatively started speaking up more, making more decisions, that sort of thing... and I also began researching the submission issue on my own. The more I delved into it, the more I realized that I'd been sold a bill of goods by the church. Submission means nothing like what I'd been taught: it isn't subjection, obedience, or anything that even implies bowing to authority. Here's what I came up with:
The Greek word for "submission" in the Ephesians 5 passage is "hupotasso," and it has two meanings. One of them is military, and it means "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". Yes, I know this does sound like obeying authority, but hear me out. The other meaning of "hupotasso" is a non-military one, and it means: "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".
You show me the couple whose marriage is based in the military, and I'll show you an unhealthy marriage. I think it's safe to assume that we can go with the non-military meaning here, given above: which, if you think about it, sounds like a recipe for a very healthy marriage instead of one based in the concepts of commands and obedience.
It gets better. You'll notice it mentions "assuming responsibility," doesn't it? This tells me that submission has much more of a connotation of helping by shouldering part of the load than it does of accepting someone else's commands. Assuming responsibility is something a leader does, is it not? And yet, that's one of the definitions of "hupotasso." So, Biblically speaking, wives are to "submit," among other ways, by leading and assuming responsibility.
Hmmm. Doesn't sound much like obedience or subjection to me. But hey, don't take my word for it: one of the Greek lexicons I used to look this up is located here. Feel free to check it out for yourself.
And just for fun, after I worked out the whole "submission" gig, I wondered hey, what about the passage that says the husband is head of the wife? What's up with that, if we're not talking about an authoritarian relationship? Here's what I found out about that:
The Greek word used there for "head" is "kephale." I checked it with a secular Greek-English lexicon and discovered something surprising. In all the different contexts of the word's use, nowhere does it come across as "leader" or "authority." Some definitions were: crown, completion, consummation, sum, total, head of man or beast, generally, top, brim of a vessel, source of a river, mouth; generally, source, origin, starting-point. (These ones were especially interesting in light of the fact that Adam was the "source" of Eve in a very literal sense: God made her out of his body.)
Most of these definitions apply to Christ's relationship with the church, but not a single one of them implies authority. I especially like the ones that mention crown, completion, and sum total; if this is what the husband is to be toward the wife, then that goes along very nicely with 1 Cr. 11:6, which says that the woman is the "glory" of the man. One of the definitions of "glory" here is "a most glorious condition, most exalted state," and another is "magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace."
That sounds like another fine example of Greek parallelism, saying the same thing in different words. The husband is the consummation of the wife, and the wife is the exalted state of her husband.
Here is an excellent site that explains this concept much more fully, and also goes more deeply into the Greek literary technique of parallel writing. Very interesting reading, it is! Now that I'm learning more about the scriptures in their original languages, I'm discovering all sorts of nasty little secrets that the translators have kept to themselves over the years, that the church has taught as doctrine for centuries.
And very rightfully so.
Being an intelligent, modern, Christian woman, the daughter of teachers, I must confess that I had a similar reaction. Then after getting involved with a certain extremely conservative message board, I came under "conviction" that I'd been all wrongheaded about it, and began "submitting" to Grey the way they told me I should have all along. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't a slave, and I was still free with my opinions and all, but I began leaving the final decision-making up to him the way the church told me I should. (Note: this is a classic example of "false conviction," which is that state in which you're hearing nothing about the issue from the Holy Spirit, but plenty about it from people who speak with enough authority that you start to wonder if they're right. They almost never are!)
Well, he hated it. The pressure started building up more and more in him, until finally he blew up like Mt. Vesuvias (and if you know Grey, you know he is NOT usually an angry or violent fellow) and demanded that I STOP submitting to him. He wanted his wife back, the equal partner he had married.
Feeling like he was asking me to go against the Bible, I tentatively started speaking up more, making more decisions, that sort of thing... and I also began researching the submission issue on my own. The more I delved into it, the more I realized that I'd been sold a bill of goods by the church. Submission means nothing like what I'd been taught: it isn't subjection, obedience, or anything that even implies bowing to authority. Here's what I came up with:
The Greek word for "submission" in the Ephesians 5 passage is "hupotasso," and it has two meanings. One of them is military, and it means "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". Yes, I know this does sound like obeying authority, but hear me out. The other meaning of "hupotasso" is a non-military one, and it means: "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".
You show me the couple whose marriage is based in the military, and I'll show you an unhealthy marriage. I think it's safe to assume that we can go with the non-military meaning here, given above: which, if you think about it, sounds like a recipe for a very healthy marriage instead of one based in the concepts of commands and obedience.
It gets better. You'll notice it mentions "assuming responsibility," doesn't it? This tells me that submission has much more of a connotation of helping by shouldering part of the load than it does of accepting someone else's commands. Assuming responsibility is something a leader does, is it not? And yet, that's one of the definitions of "hupotasso." So, Biblically speaking, wives are to "submit," among other ways, by leading and assuming responsibility.
Hmmm. Doesn't sound much like obedience or subjection to me. But hey, don't take my word for it: one of the Greek lexicons I used to look this up is located here. Feel free to check it out for yourself.
And just for fun, after I worked out the whole "submission" gig, I wondered hey, what about the passage that says the husband is head of the wife? What's up with that, if we're not talking about an authoritarian relationship? Here's what I found out about that:
The Greek word used there for "head" is "kephale." I checked it with a secular Greek-English lexicon and discovered something surprising. In all the different contexts of the word's use, nowhere does it come across as "leader" or "authority." Some definitions were: crown, completion, consummation, sum, total, head of man or beast, generally, top, brim of a vessel, source of a river, mouth; generally, source, origin, starting-point. (These ones were especially interesting in light of the fact that Adam was the "source" of Eve in a very literal sense: God made her out of his body.)
Most of these definitions apply to Christ's relationship with the church, but not a single one of them implies authority. I especially like the ones that mention crown, completion, and sum total; if this is what the husband is to be toward the wife, then that goes along very nicely with 1 Cr. 11:6, which says that the woman is the "glory" of the man. One of the definitions of "glory" here is "a most glorious condition, most exalted state," and another is "magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace."
That sounds like another fine example of Greek parallelism, saying the same thing in different words. The husband is the consummation of the wife, and the wife is the exalted state of her husband.
Here is an excellent site that explains this concept much more fully, and also goes more deeply into the Greek literary technique of parallel writing. Very interesting reading, it is! Now that I'm learning more about the scriptures in their original languages, I'm discovering all sorts of nasty little secrets that the translators have kept to themselves over the years, that the church has taught as doctrine for centuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
