[Vision2020] submission vs. thoughtfulness

[keely emerinemix]

Michael has made a few points on Biblical submission, generally using as his 
springboard St. Paul, the New Testament epistles, and the cultural 
conditions of the first century church.  It would take volumes for me to 
respond to these, and I feel only minimally qualified to do so.  But I am 
gifted with a fairly extensive array of basic social skills, and so I'd like 
to make a couple of basic comments, particularly in response to his "first 
date" analogy.

If my friend Doris  and I were going to have lunch, and I wanted to go to 
the Breakfast Club while she wanted to go to Mikey's, I imagine both of us 
would go hungry before we'd insist on going to the place of our own choice.  
I'd say to Doris that Mikey's is fine; Doris would assure me that BC is just 
peachy with her.  We'd go to either one, or find something else.  No 
scorekeeping, no resentment, and, pertinent to this debate, no power 
exercised.  Just thoughtfulness, kindness, and reciprocity -- the basis, in 
Christian love, for Biblical submission.

Clearly it would be different if I said that Greek food made me break out, 
or that I was morally opposed to places that sell beer and thus couldn't go 
to Mikey's in good conscience.  Again, Doris would sooner die than compel me 
to violate either health or conscience -- another criteria of both human 
decency in relationships and Biblical submission.  We would all agree that 
if Doris made me go to Mikey's -- insisted on it, both as a condition of our 
relationship and of fidelity to Christian doctrine (Doris being a member of 
my Bible study group) -- then she would be an oaf, a jerk, and, as pertains 
to her Christian maturity, a rather difficult toddler in the faith.

These preceding paragraphs say much not only about the mechanics of 
successful relationships, but of Biblical submission as well.  True, the 
Bible goes further -- we are to submit to one another, and not on the basis 
of gender, to mirror not only the love Jesus shows the church but also the 
fidelity the church shows Jesus.  A study of the word "head" -- kephalo -- 
would just as easily argue that "man is the head of the woman" means 
"source," as in the Creation story, just as "God is the head of Christ" 
means that, as the Apostle's Creed affirms, that Jesus "proceeds from the 
Father."  Orthodox Christian doctrine denies that Jesus is now eternally 
submissive to the Father and should deny, but often doesn't, that that has 
to do with gender relations today -- relations whose only proper expression, 
they assert, is the eternal submission of wives to husbands and the 
"ontological leadership role" of men over women in church, home, and 
society.

Jesus did it differently and gives us a radical new view of how women and 
men can and should work together in His original intent for creation.  Where 
Doug Wilson errs, and where all patriarchal churches err, is in setting 
aside the clear testimony of the Gospel, Jesus' own actions and interactions 
with men and women, and a more penetrating analysis of Pauline 
pronouncements on gender for a few "easy" verses that seem to suggest that 
rigid roles for men and for women are what God intended.  They would deny 
that prooftexting is an appropriate way to understand and expound on 
Scripture, but it works well for them and, to be generous, follows the 
pattern of church and society over the years.  But it's not what Jesus 
intended; indeed, Galatians 3:28 is the most socially and soteriologically 
explosive passage in the NT because it mirrors the radical "new way" of 
Jesus -- which mirrored the "original way" of the Garden, where there was no 
hierarchy, no patriarchy, no sin and no power, only intimacy and love.  It's 
that redemption of a corrupt world that Christians seek in Jesus Christ.

Doug Wilson's own writings make it clear that the man is the leader in the 
home; his actions only affirm it (male elders, no Logos leadership for 
women, husbands-only HOH meetings, etc.).  Problems in the home, he says, 
are generally because the man has not exercised true "headship," for which 
he should apologize to the wife before correcting her and setting forth a 
better course.  He may well intend this to be done in gentleness and love, 
perhaps even a measure of mutuality, but many men will take it as a mandate 
to exercise power and privilege in the home.  Some, we know, will take it to 
mean that violence and degradation are OK, too -- the human heart has no 
limits in how it can sin, and men hardly need "orders" to exercise power 
over those  portrayed as ontologically submissive, weaker, and powerless.  
The preacher, then, may not be accountable for the abuse that results, but 
surely is responsible for opening the door through which abuse rushes.

It will be a great day when a Christ Church man stays home with the kids and 
cherishes his physician, teacher, engineer or fighter pilot wife who works 
outside of the home -- and not to make any point other than this:  we are 
all richly gifted, ought to be blessed with the option of glorifying God in 
many beautiful and diverse ways, and should affirm that the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ demands no less, whatever else the men who proclaim it insist.

keely

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/