A few questions and answers from my new class, Advanced Principles Of Family and Marital Counseling.
What is your initial impression of biblical complimentarianism as it pertains to the Christian family and to the Christian church?
Being
a product of Southern Seminary (CBMW) and having taken classes with
such renown Complmentarianists as Bruce Warren, Randy Stinson, and
Russell Moore, this was not an initial impression at all. My belief
lines up with CBMW with a few exceptions. For instance, I believe that
is permissible for women to teach adult males, pray in the presences of
males, and to hold certain leadership positions in the church. The
exceptions of elder/ presbuteros as in 1 Peter 5:1 (pastor/ poimen as in
Ephesians 4:11, or bishop/ episcope
as in 1 Timothy 3:1) I personally take the view each of these is the
same office, and excluded to male leadership. The same is true of
deacons.
As
for those who almost ubiquitously point to 1 Timothy 2:12, let me
anecdotally say that women should worship by singing , which is a form
of speaking. Seriously, though, Paul was not condemning women teaching
men, but of holding the office of Preacher/Teacher. Even a ridgid a
complimentarian as John MacArthur states that, “Paul does not forbid
women to teach under appropriate conditions, and circumstances, but to
fill the office and role of pastor or teacher in the life of the
church.”[1]
So
my view on complimentarianism as it pertains to the church is that male
leadership is essential, not because women are inferior in any regard,
but because it is the command and will of God. The same is true for male
headship in the home.
How would you define male headship? Do you find this concept to be
supported by Scripture? Support your response with Scripture.
When
I practice leadership in the home, if I do so by the commands of the
Bible, then that leadership is sacrificial. Just as Christ sacrificed
for His bride, I am to sacrifice for my bride. When we love our wife’s
as Christ loved the church; what women would not want to submit to that
kind of leadership? We all have specific gifts and experiences that make
us more adept at certain roles. I remember hearing Adrian Rogers say
that Joyce kept the “books” in their home, because she was better at
money than he was. But she did those books under his authority.
Submission
should not be confused with subservience. The role of the husband is
one of great responsibility. The Bible states that the husband is the
“head” of the wife. The Greek word translated head here is Kephale.[2]
A lexicon has defines the word as such: anything supreme, chief,
prominent of persons, master lord. It is apparent that the husband is
to have the role of authority in the marriage relationship. While many
egalitarians have a problem with this concept, their arguments fail to
meet with the criteria found plainly written in the Scriptures.
As Wayne Grudem points out, an argument that the word kephale actually means “source” makes no sense.[3]
A man cannot be the source of his wife. And the argument that he is the
source of happiness is contrary to the definition of kephale. Instead,
it should be seen that the husband is the authority. This does not
force the wife into subservience, however. When looking at the original
intention for marriage, one sees that the wife, in this case Eve, was to
be a helper for her husband. The Hebrew word for meet found in Genesis
2:18 is ‘ezer and literally means “one who helps.”
They
are to be a partnership, in essence as well as in application. The
husband should consult his wife on most every question of the family and
marriage. He should cherish her input and her wisdom. Any man who
believes that a woman is of inferior intellect has obviously never
considered Proverbs 31. True leadership is finding the right dynamic,
where each individual is contributing his or her utmost to the
partnership so that it is performing at its highest efficiency.
Having
said that, the headship, or authority, ergo responsibility, squarely
lies with the husband. The husband may delegate out certain
responsibilities to his wife, but ultimately, he is responsible to the
family and to God for the outcome and conduct of his charge. That is
male headship.
The
husband’s roles are laid out in Ephesians 5. The roles are headship, a
self-sacrificing attitude, and a determined will. He is to show
authority (headship), love his wife above himself (self-sacrificing),
and be as determined to see the marriage succeed as Christ was to see
His bride redeemed (determination.) In 1 Peter 3:7 husbands are
admonished to give honor to their wife. Husbands should not make them
the butt of jokes or allow them to be seen as anything beyond the
honored bride that they married.
How would you define female submission? Do you find this concept to be
supported by Scripture? Support your response with Scripture.
The
word submission has a nasty connotation in the modern culture and
society. It has become common practice for the word “submit” to be
removed from many wedding ceremonies. This portion being replaced by
custom vows or a more modern flair on the traditional, such as, “I
promise to stand by your side.” The point is that when the words
submission and marriage come up in conversation, many “liberated” women
cringe. It truly is a shame that the word has come to be a synonym for
slavery. Again referencing Ephesians 5, the Greek word for submission
is hupotasso and is define as such: “A Greek military term meaning "to
arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a
leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in,
cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".[4]
So
it is easy to see that the non-military term of “voluntary cooperation”
is in view here. The wife is voluntarily giving herself to her husband.
In this there is a beautiful illustration of the husband-wife dynamic
that is so prevalent in the God-Believer relationship. We must willingly
give ourselves as slave of Christ, if we are to be in a right
relationship with Him. According to Tony Evans, there is also a
relationship illustrated in the fact that God is Trinitarian in nature,
and that the marriage illustrates that characteristic of God in the
three-way affiliation between man-wife-God.
It
is John Piper’s belief that most women who reject this complimentarian
view do so because they do not understand the role of the husband.[5]
This is a great explanation, because when a husband loves his wife the
way Christ loves the church, she would flourish in that environment.
Submission is not about losing one’s identity or power; it is about
trust. Trust in the husband, and more importantly, trust in God.
Just
some closing thoughts from me personally. The conclusion of the
matter is not as simple as it would seem. The power struggles of
everyday life will work their way into the marriage. When she wants to
go shopping on Black Friday, and he has his eye of the football
schedule, interests will collide. And there is the command that husbands
and wives are to submit to each other in Christ. (Ephesians 5:21)
Hopefully some clarity can be seen in the fact that submission and love
are so very similar to each other. There are circumstances where it is
appropriate for the husband to submit. If he has entrusted her with the
family finances, (ala Dr Rodgers) he should submit to her decision that
there is insufficient funds to purchase a new big screen television. And
likewise, wives are to love their husbands. Nevertheless, this system
of male headship and female submission is God honoring and is proven to
work at making a successful marriage.
[1] MacArthur, John. Commentary; 1 Timothy. Moody Press. 1995. 86.
[2] Lexicon. [online] http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/kephale.html
[3] Grudem, Wayne. Does Head Mean Source. [online]. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf
[4] Lexicon: [online] http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotasso.html
[5] Piper, John. Desiring God Blog. [online] http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/is-a-wifes-submission-culturally-outdated
No comments:
Post a Comment