[Vision2020] submission response

[Michael]

Keely,

 

Thank you again for your time discussing this; I've interjected my response
in a way similar to last time around:

 

Keely Writes:

1.  My example of two pals -- two women, two men -- having lunch was
intended; I reject that dating must have, outside of the presumed
heterosexual nature you described, a hierarchical or "pursuer/pursued"
construct.  I like the idea of a man and a woman both feeling free to be
pleased with an invitation and to risk rejection if it's turned down, and
the mature relationships I know of are the ones where two people who love
each other simply decide together what their plans are, either for that day
or for their lifetimes.  A "traditional sociology of dating" hasn't proved
to be particularly good for women or for men.  I think Christ would lead us
to something much more mutual, honest and loving.

 

Me:

I think this is an example of what I take to be the more radical nature of
the social views you are espousing in this area.  My argument is not that
dating "must have" a "pursuer/pursued" construct; I wanted to rather note
that it has had this construct for the last 3000 years, clear into the 21-st
century in liberal America.  The reason I brought it up is that it seemed
there was an interesting form of "submission" involved in this construct,
and one that seems to be a bit off the radar when the concerns are merely
with respect to domestic abuse, oppression, "patriarchy," etc.  We still
seem to see something lovely, non-violent, and unthreatening in the common
practice of the man as "romantic initiator;" in fact, this construct
typically presupposes a certain kind of respect and protection of women.  I
suspect that most Americans, even many of the social liberals, enjoy
watching the new release of Pride and Prejudice (and the better 6 hour long
old one), as well as just about anything like it in our western heritage.
It is hard to imagine how one would defend the claim that the "romantic
initiator" construct "hasn't proved to be particularly good for women or for
men" since it is still hard to imagine a genuine, rival alternative.
Abandoning any sort of pursuer/pursued construct altogether seems like mere
social negation; we remove so much of what we find lovely and replace it
with mere equality or mutuality.  But custom has been perfectly consistent
with equality or mutuality when practices without the attendant corruptions,
and so it seems this is just a radical departure from culture, not a proven,
aesthetically pleasing alternative.  In rejecting romantic initiation and
rejecting femininity and masculinity as fundamental sexual categories (from
dating to marriage) you are not just fighting oppression and wrongful
subjugation.  You are doing far more.  

 

 

Kelly Writes:

2.  The argument that the relationship between husband and wife mirrors in
every way the relationship between Jesus and the Church is useful insofar as
the limits of analogy are respected.  ..   Like all analogy, though, its
usefulness is in the truth it illustrates, not in what it logically can't --
.   But the passage in Ephesians 5 clearly states "submit you, therefore,
one to another," before it commands that women submit to their husbands and
their husbands love their wives.  The mutual, reciprocal command is the
foundation -- it introduces -- the exegesis of the command, which follows
with an obvious parallel construction.  If only women are to submit, then
only men are to love, if we read the parallels literally.  Do we really want
to suggest that, especially when the overarching principle is one of mutual
submission in love?

 

Me:

We cannot limit our interpretation of this Pauline comparison found in
Ephesians 5 to mere analogy.  Paul is typically clear when he is merely
grasping for metaphors or analogies to make a theological point. Here, Paul
makes it clear that the marital relationship at creation foreshadowed Jesus
as groom and the church as bride, and that the new relationship between
Jesus and the church is to now become an actual pattern for earthly
relationship between a husband and wife. After quoting from Genesis, Paul
says, "this mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and
the Church."  Paul is speaking of a "mystery" which is the coming together
of man and women as one flesh, and which is also the union of Christ and the
church.  My point was not that the two relationships have to correspond in
every respect; if so, they would not be two different relationships at all.
Rather, since they are both part of the same mystery, Paul tells us they are
to reflect one another; and one of the few ways Paul explains they are to
reflect one another is in the wife's subjection to her husband.  Paul's
point is therefore clear: the wife, with respect to her role as wife in
reflecting this mystery is to submit to her husband; the husband, with
respect to his role as husband reflecting this mystery is to "save" and love
his wife. We are to love Jesus as he loves us, but this does not negate the
fact that we have a unique role of submission that Jesus does not in the
relationship.  

 

Later on, you say: "Your exposition of other "submission" roles in society
(citizen to police, employee to boss, etc.) falls short because those are
vocations; they are not ontological categories into which beings are born."
My response to this will lead me to the response to the second part of your
paragraph above.  It is true that Paul first says "be subject to one another
in the fear of the Lord" before moving on to marriage in Ephesians 5.
However, Paul here, as well as in Titus, no different from what we find in 1
Peter, embraces the current social institutions and the submission required
for each one.  I was giving the state and judicial system as examples of
institutions that involve submission; and these institutions exist
independent of vocational decisions.  We are born citizens, under a
political authority and within a particular judicial system.  Employment and
military service was just another example of hierarchy; if we have a draft,
however, military service would be little different.  Paul says we should
all submit to one another in the fear of Christ, and then gives the way this
is to look in the various institutions.  The first institution is that of
marriage, where the woman is to submit to her husband.  The second
institution is that of the family, where children are to obey parents.  The
third institution is that of the slavery; slaves are to submit to their
masters as unto the Lord and therefore as freemen, and not as servile
men-pleasers.  

 

We find the same approach by Peter.  Peter begins: "submit yourselves to
every human institution." This included kings and governors.  So Peter
begins with the institution of the state.  The second institution is that of
slavery.  The third institution is that marriage, and Peter writes, 

 

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even
if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word
by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful
behavior.  And let not your adornment be merely external - braiding the
hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the
hidden person of the heat, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and
quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.  For in this way in
former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn
themselves, being submissive to their own husbands.  Thus Sarah obeyed
Abraham, calling him Lord..You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an
understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant
her honor as a fellow heir of grace of life.. 

 

And for the reader's reference, here is the passage from Ephesians 5:

 

giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is
the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and
is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives
should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up
for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing
of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in
splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy
and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as
their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever
hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the
church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall
leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it
refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his
wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

 

So clearly, in both Paul and Peter, we are all to submit to one another; but
submission and application of the gospel takes on a very particular form in
the various institutions of state, marriage, and slavery.  And before the
word "slavery" causes offense here, please note that Paul's injunctions are
to the slaves (he has things to say to masters as well); a Christian servant
was to serve his master in a particular way assuming the existence of the
institution. 

 

The unique command for women to submit to their husbands is clear in other
passages as well.  Writing to Titus, Paul says that he is to teach women to
love their children and submit to their husbands, whereas husbands are to
sensible, good, pure, dignified.  And then Paul goes onto the next
institution: "Urge bond slaves to be subject to their own masters.not
argumentative, not pilfering." And then the third institution of the state
is discussed: "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be
obedient."

 

So Peter and Paul see marriage as an institution, one with respective roles,
just as they see the political state as an institution.  And the gospel did
not obliterate submission in the home; it rather revolutionized it, just as
it did within the institution of slavery and the state.  Just as Jesus did
not propose political revolution, so did he not reject in full the
submission found within the institution of marriage. 

 

 

Keely Writes:

3.  A point I've made before is that while Jesus chose to set aside much of
His majesty and be in complete submission to His Father WHILE HE WAS ON
EARTH, He is no longer in unilateral submission to God the Father, nor was
He prior to the Incarnation.  That's the view of Scripture and, less
important, the view of the Church orthodox for two millennia.  You say that
Christ's being "Son to the Father" implies a role distinction, but you err
in two ways:

 

One, you are taking "son" and "father" in the literal sense that we use it
in English, but the Trinity is far too complex to reside within the
vocabulary we have; we use words like "son" and "father," "male and female
He created them," to illustrate imperfectly the Perfect that surpasses our
language.  We don't believe, for example, that God, who is described in
Genesis as "male and female" (as we are thus created "in His image") has
physical sexual characteristics, much less a two-gendered physical body.  We
accept that within the Person of God the Father, we have a God who is fully
male and fully female in ways that we cannot pack into the word containers
we have.  Indeed, some have tragically used the "maleness" of God to assert
that men more properly mirror the Godhead than do women, an error that must
grieve the One who created us both male and female.

 

Me:

I do not believe I am taking the words literal.  Rather, speaking of Son and
Father before and after the incarnation is legitimate, and Jesus submitted
to the will of the Father as a son and as the Son.  While on earth, Jesus
spoke to his Father, in submission, asking the Father to make his followers
one with him as he was currently one with the father.  Before Jesus humbled
himself, his sonship would have operated differently; and after
glorification, his exaltation to the throne certainly operates differently.
But he is still a Son to his Father; he still originates from the Father.
He still sits on his Father's right hand.  In sum, the Word becoming flesh
revealed the Trinity concretely; Jesus as Son, submitting to his Father,
revealed something to us about his eternal relationship to the Father in
terms of his submissive Sonship. 

 

 

Keely Writes:

Two, you are importing into your argument of "roles" within the Trinity a
hierarchy, however sanctified, that mirrors the relationships and roles we
have here on Earth.  What Jesus DID wasn't simply a "role," it was and is
essential to his Personhood, and the mutuality and harmony of the Trinity,
which your own elders correctly describe as a dance of love and intimacy,
cannot also be one of "leadership" and "follower."  However, EVEN IF IT DID,
it only goes as far as an analogy as its illustration of love and mutuality;
it cannot be used as a model of gender relationships that subjugates women.

 

Me:

This seems to miss the argument.  The point is not gender relationships.
One wife might command the obedience of a male servant who is husband of
another. The point is with respect to the institution of marriage and to the
different roles that the different persons of the Trinity play.  Just as
there is love and mutuality in a Christian marriage where a woman submits to
her husband, so there is love and mutuality in the Godhead in which the Son
eternally proceeds from the Father, and in such a way that when becoming
flesh, he submitted himself to his Father as the eternal Son.  And although
Orthodoxy speaks of the perichoretic mutuality and harmony of the Trinity,
it also speaks of the different roles played by each person of the Trinity.
"leadership" and "follower" is not the precise terms for this, and
"submission" is certainly not ideal.  But my point was not to state that the
Son submits to the Father in precisely the same way a woman submits to a
husband or a citizen to the State.  To be more precise, I would say that the
submission of Son to Father was grounded in the eternal relationship of the
Trinity, just as the unique submission of wife to husband is grounded in the
eternal relationship between church and Jesus. 

 

All for now.

 

Thanks,

Michael

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060618/73a87601/attachment-0001.htm