View Full Version : Submission Schubmission
I wrote an article on the subject of women submitting. I am not claiming to have every answer but am sharing this as a conversation opener. What do you think?
http://www.womenbeyond.com/index.php
I wrote an article on the subject of women submitting. I am not claiming to have every answer but am sharing this as a conversation opener. What do you think?
http://www.womenbeyond.com/index.php
Hey Amie -- good thoughts!
I was also a fan of Rick Springfield ... yeah.
Ok, about submission... whatever it means in Ephesians 5:22, it derives it's meaning from the previous verse. Interestingly verse 22 doesn't have the verb -- only verse 21 does.
And 21 is about mutual submission in the Body -- one to another.
In that era, women belonged to the men, they were property. Obedience was just done, no question. Their lives depended on it. So, the women knew how to obey, and to conform on the surface. But, down at the river, washing clothes, the women would gripe about their husbands... their hearts were not kind toward the men who ruled over them.
So, Paul takes this thing and turns it on his head -- he was radically pro-women (as he was pro-man). Rather than the women conforming while obeying outwardly, Paul wants their submission (a voluntary - not enforced! - yielding to another), to go to their hearts as well. To respect their husbands at a heart level, as honoring Christ.
And the men, who regarded women as a bit better than cattle, were to do something equally radical - to love them as Christ loved US -- to the point of laying down their lives (not just stepping out in front of a runaway chariot to save her life, but to yield his preferences and desires to hers).
Both genders had to do what was counter-cultural, and yet Jesus-prompted: to LOVE, and put the other before themselves.
That's a body-wide directive, and not just in marriage. It would be ridiculous to honor all women in the body as mutually-submission-focused, but then demand that one's wife submit to him, without him ALSO submitting to her.
It's mutual at it's heart, and further explained within the "ownership" style of marriage of that day.
My friend wrote more about this in her fabulous book, "Woman: God's Plan, Not Man's Design" But, dang, my computer is freezing up, and I can't get the link to her chapter ... I'll try to get it up later.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dena,
I hope that you are able to link to your friend's article, I"m definitely interested.
I barely touched on framing submission in its' historical context. I think that women were an example for the church - I think that's awesome. I agree with you though, that it had to do with that ownership style marriage of that day.
If yielding is voluntary, and it can be I agree, what are we yielding up or to? I know that our life experiences make it so we hear terms differently sometimes. Like, I see that as someone giving up themselves. I wouldn't want that from my husband, I want to look for things that are in consideration of us both. That might not be how you see it though, and I'm interested in your point of view also.
Amie
Dena,
I hope that you are able to link to your friend's article, I"m definitely interested.
Yeppers -- I had to shut down the computer -- it seems to get "tired" sometimes...!
I barely touched on framing submission in its' historical context. I think that women were an example for the church - I think that's awesome. I agree with you though, that it had to do with that ownership style marriage of that day.
If yielding is voluntary, and it can be I agree, what are we yielding up or to?
AISI, we're each yielding, voluntarily, to the awareness that Jesus resides in the other(s), and so we yield to whatever He may be doing/saying through that other(s). I believe it's an acknowledgement that we are a Body, and intricately connected in ways we don't even fully realize.
I know that our life experiences make it so we hear terms differently sometimes. Like, I see that as someone giving up themselves. I wouldn't want that from my husband, I want to look for things that are in consideration of us both. That might not be how you see it though, and I'm interested in your point of view also.
Amie
I'm with you on that! God went to a LOT of trouble to make us each unique, for His and our purposes. Heck, I finally, FINALLY like myself (it was a hard-won battle, or really, a giving up of the striving), and I'm not ready to become a nebulous blob of all-in-oneness...! Got me a bit of living to do, after being in a spiritual/emotional "coma" for so long!
It's not a giving up of ourselves, but a considering of one another -- the opposiite of self-absorption. Each one thinking of ways to bless one another (whether in marriage especially, or in the Body at large). Random and senseless acts of kindness - just because!
Not asserting one's "rights" over others, but being aware of our responsibilities for those we're connected with. Mutual respect. Enjoying the delight of watching another get their socks blessed off, even at my "cost" (because I get "paid" joy in the doing so).
Ok, as for my friend's book, here's a link: http://tinyurl.com/5nb5fr
Now, I admit that I haven't re-read it in a while, at least not since coming into my current understanding of theology ... so there may be some traditional attitudes (these are house church folks, but traditional in their theology -- they love me, but are concerned about me!).
And (drum roll, please...!) here's an excerpt, which happens to be on "headship and submission":
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ephesians 5:21-33
One of the most important and misunderstood New Testament passages dealing with husbands and wives is Ephesians 5:21-33. It is a rare occasion when one sees Ephesians 5:22-33 written in its proper context. It is amazing to me that Bible teachers, who should know better, often lift out and expound upon verses 22-33, while leaving behind the verse just previous, verse 21, which is of utmost importance to the totality of this portion of Scripture.
To be completely accurate one needs to go back to the beginning of Ephesians 5 and get the full picture of what Paul is saying to the Ephesians. In fact, this particular teaching does not stop at the end of chapter 5, but goes on to the tenth verse of chapter 6 to complete Paul’s thoughts.
In these chapters he is telling the Ephesian Christians how they are to conduct their lives now that they are children of light and not children of darkness. There were specific areas in which there needed to be drastic changes.
This crucial portion of Scripture, as it relates to the women’s issue, actually begins with verse 18, where Paul says, “Do not get drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit.” He then moves on, in verses 19-21, to describe how one who is filled with the Spirit will respond. They will speak to one another in psalms and hymns; they will sing and make melody in their heart; they will give thanks for all things; and they will be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
Then in what follows, from verse 22 through 6:10, he deals with three separate areas of society in which there has been gross inequity and abuse of power: husbands and wives, fathers and sons, and slaves and masters.
The pivotal verse is verse 21, the one that is so often omitted when quoting the portion in Ephesians 5 having to do with the submission issue. It says, “. . . be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” One simply can not single out one portion of society, that is, one-half of the human race, and say that this Scripture tells them, and them alone, to submit. Rather, Paul is saying there needs to be a general spirit of submission to one another on every level: wives to husbands, husbands to wives; children to parents, fathers to children; and slaves to masters, masters to slaves.
To quote Ephesians 5:22-33 without including verse 21 is a gross exegetical error (Rule #3, Rule of Context, p. 49). Furthermore, to quote verse 22 in its original state would not make sense without verse 21, because the verb in the Greek text was not included in verse 22. The original text of verse 22 actually reads, “wives to your own husbands as to the Lord.” So when most of our translations say, “Wives, (be subject) to your own husbands,” they’re having to insert words that are not in the original in order to make a complete sentence.1 When quoting this portion in Ephesians, verse 21 must be included to give true integrity to the subject.
Marriage in the First Century
To understand the necessity for Paul’s Ephesians discourse here, one needs to understand what marriage was like in the First Century. Marriages in three nationalities were represented and addressed in this chapter. There was the Jewish marriage, the Greek marriage, and the Roman marriage.
Marriage was held in high regard among the Jewish people. It was thought that everyone should be married. However, the Old Testament laws to protect women had been ignored, or made ineffective, making it very easy for a man to obtain a divorce. All the wife had to do to constitute grounds for divorce was to burn his dinner, go out with her head uncovered, or speak negatively about his parents. Or, if a Jewish husband saw a prettier woman he wanted to marry, he was free to do so. Women could not divorce, but if a wife chose to leave her husband, she had to leave her children with him. In general, women were considered inferior to men and held in very low esteem.2 They were considered possessions on the level of animals and had no voice whatsoever in the relationship.
Among the Greeks it was considered necessary to marry in order to provide legitimate heirs to a man’s property, but marriage was not considered particularly satisfying otherwise. Women were very young, about 14, when they married. The men were much older, in the neighborhood of thirty-seven years old. Since it was the responsibility of a Greek wife to manage her husband’s household affairs, it was considered prudent for a man to marry a very young girl so he could teach her the way he wished his household to be managed. Eroticism being part of Greek life, a husband did not need a wife for companionship, love, or sexual fulfillment. It was not considered immoral for husbands to have affairs. However, there were serious penalties for an adulterous wife. The wife’s legal position to her husband was much like a child or a slave. She actually went from the rule of her father to the rule of her husband and, if her husband died, to the rule of her son, if he was old enough. Consequently, in the Greek marriage, there was little common ground between the husband and the wife.3
The Roman marriage was much like the Greek, but Roman wives had more freedom. They could own property, and a wife could obtain a divorce. However, the power over the family clearly rested in the hands of the husband and/or father. Some wives, especially among the upper class, were able to find ways around both the law and their husbands in order to do with their money and themselves as they wished.4 Many Roman women were well educated, and there is historical evidence indicating that a number of them reached highly responsible positions in government.
Because of the general imbalance in the marriage relationships of that day, one can readily see the necessity for Paul to instruct these Ephesian believers as to how husbands and wives were to relate to each other. Women had been forced to outward obedience. However, Paul needed to exhort them to have an attitude of submission in their hearts toward their husbands (their head) even as the Church is to have a heart of submission to Christ (her Head).
Then Paul talked about the reversal, that is, how a husband was to submit to his wife. He taught that a husband’s submission to his wife involved loving her. That concept was totally foreign to that age and society; husbands knew little or nothing about loving their wives. Paul needed to deal in depth with the subject. He proceeded to explain the kind of love a husband was to have for his wife, that is, a sacrificial love that goes beyond what the word “submission” alone denotes. He even went so far as to compare it with the love Christ has for His Bride, the Church; a love that made Him willing to die for Her.
The Meaning of Submission
Submission! What in the world does it really mean? The verb, “to be in subjection,” is from the Greek word hupotasso and means “to place, arrange, or rank under; to subject, to subordinate, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice.”5 Although the word includes a dimension of obedience, it is more a heart attitude of yieldedness than a blind obedience.
One author has this interesting comment:
Two words are constantly confused in reference to woman’s duties, “subjection” and “obedience.” . . . The noun “subjection” is not found (in Classical Greek) outside the New Testament, and we are left to infer that it was coined to describe a relation peculiar to believers. Had the word merely meant “obedience,” such an invention would have been needless. . . . The true sense of the word describes the Christian grace of yielding one’s preferences to another, where principle is not involved, rather than asserting one’s rights.6
When submission between Christians is referred to in the New Testament, it generally means an open attitude of mutual acceptance, sharing ideas, and yielding to the desire of the other, not mindless obedience. Never would one be expected to blindly obey every other Christian, yet, Ephesians 5:21 says we are to submit ourselves to one another.
The apostles plainly taught “subjection” to the civil authorities or powers that be,7 however, they were constantly disobeying those powers when they conflicted with God’s commands in order to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). They weren’t being inconsistent. They simply understood “subjection” to mean an attitude of flowing, yielding, and preferring, or respecting, the God-granted positions of civil authority, not absolute obedience.
In 1 Corinthians 16:16, Paul says: “. . . be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.” Now if this meant blind obedience, this would also mean that the men in the church at Corinth must obey women because those who helped in the work and labor of the Gospel included Phoebe (Romans 16:1, 2); Priscilla (Romans 16:3); Junias, whom many scholars agree was a woman (Romans 16:7); and Tryphaena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12). Those with a traditional understanding would find this command difficult, to say the least.
One can not arbitrarily decide that when the word “subjection” or “submission” is used referring to wives, it means absolute obedience, unless one is ready to place that meaning upon every other similar reference. And that would be both unbiblical and unthinkable.
The husband and wife, in “being subject to one another” (verse 21) are to place themselves second to the other, they are to honor the desires and advice of the other.
Ephesians 5:23 speaks of Christ as not only the Head of the Church but also Her Savior. How deep our worship and submission should be to Him. If the husband is truly laying down his life for his wife, as verse 25 teaches, he will, in effect, be a “savior” in life to his wife, exemplifying a deep level of submission to her. The response from his wife should be one of deep honor and submission. I believe Paul was explaining a deeper level of submission exchanged between husbands and wives than that which should be between all other believers.
However, Jesus Christ is the master of a believing wife just as He is of the believing husband, and He meant what He said when He said, “No one can serve two masters.” All believers are called upon to exercise forbearance, yield one’s preferences, and respect one another’s opinions and desires, but no one, except Jesus Christ Himself, should be master over another human being!
1 Peter 3: 6 – Sarah and Abraham
Another Scripture often interpreted as meaning absolute obedience on the part of a wife to her husband is 1 Peter 3:6,
Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
This verse must be looked at in light of the context in which it is found beginning with 1 Peter 2:12 and going through to 3:12.
The key verse is 2:13. Peter said, “Submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” The Greek word for “institution” is ktis’is and is used nineteen times in the New Testament. This is the only time in the NASB it is translated institution. Every other time it is translated “created thing,” “creation,” or “creature.” To be consistent and correct in the context of this Scripture, I believe ktis’is should be translated “creature” here as well.
Following verse 13, from 2:14 to 3:7, Peter dealt with several areas of society where there was considerable inequity (much as Paul did in Ephesians 5 and 6), but in spite of that inequity, they were admonished to submit. They are to submit to kings (vss. 13, 17) and governors (vs. 14). These were not human institutions, but God ordained. “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Romans 13:1). However these places of authority are held by human creatures. They were also to submit to all men (vs. 17), the brotherhood (vs. 17), servants to masters (vs. 18), wives to husbands (3:1), and husbands to wives (3:7). I don’t believe husbands and wives are part of a human institution as NASB says. Marriage is ordained of God, but husbands and wives are human creatures.
Again, this submission spoken of in 1 Peter 2:13 can not mean abject obedience. Remember, Peter was one of the apostles who said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). So even as he teaches submission to civil authorities, Peter was one who recognized a higher Authority Who must be obeyed.
When Peter begins his discourse to wives in 3:1, he prefaces it with “in the same way.” In what same way? One must read the verses immediately preceding this to get the flow of Peter’s thought. He has just explained how Jesus was reviled and suffered yet did not retaliate, but, sinless though He was, bore our sins in his body meekly and without threats trusting “Him who judges righteously.” Peter is saying, “Wives, this is the spirit and attitude with which you should submit to your husbands.” Then he used the holy women in former times as an example.
These former times were times when women were held at an even lower place in society than when this letter was written. Peter said they, like Jesus, were reviled (remember our discussion of the treatment of Old Testament women in Chapter 3) and suffered at the hands of men. Then Peter used Sarah as an example. Even though Abraham told her to place herself in two situations, first with Pharoah and then with Abimelech, where she could very easily have been taken into their harems, yet because her hope was in God, she submitted to the point of obedience. As God protected Sarah of old when women had few, if any, rights, so God will honor a woman whose attitude leads her to live a submissive lifestyle.
Sarah was one who submitted to her husband’s directive, unjust as it was, even as Christ had submitted to revilings and death, unjust as they were. Sarah’s “gentle and quiet spirit” is given as an example of what pleases God in a woman. But not in women only because in 3:8 and 9, where Peter sums up his comments, he admonishes all to be “humble in spirit.”
Sarah’s calling Abraham “lord” or “master” was indicative of the authority men held over women (predicted in Genesis 3:16) at that time. Remember, with Abraham, God was just beginning to establish His people, a nation into which some semblance of godly order in this otherwise pagan world could be established. That would prepare the way for the coming Messiah Who would restore all things.
One can not deduct from this one verse that God’s plan for women was to include blind obedience to her husband any more than one could say that men should always obey their wives because God told Abraham one time to do as Sarah had said (Genesis 21:12). I do not believe this verse negates a woman’s personal accountability to God, or can be taken to supplant the references to wifely “submission” with the word “obedience.”
In Matthew 23:8-12, we are told,
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
This was the New Testament humility Jesus was teaching and exemplifying.
It is intriguing to discover that all the Greek words for rabbi, master, and teacher reflect the meaning of one word. They are all synonymous with one another. Rabbi means master; master means teacher. Those men who insist on being master, both in word and action, are in direct disobedience to the command of Jesus.
In Hosea 2:16, God is speaking of the kind of relationship He longs to have with the children of Israel,
“And it will come about in that day,” declares the Lord, “That you will call Me Ishi (my husband) and will no longer call Me Baali (my master).”
We can see from this Scripture that the husband/wife relationship is not to be that of a master and his subordinate, but one of mutual intimacy and love.
1 Peter 3:6 is an example of when the teachings of Jesus and the overall biblical principles take precedence over what one might misconstrue one single verse to say.
Mutual Submission
So how does submission work practically in a Christian marriage relationship? Doesn’t someone have to be boss? Absolutely! Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit! Paul made it very clear in Ephesians 5:18 that the key to joyful, harmonious living is to be filled with the Spirit.
I am absolutely convinced that if a husband and wife are both filled with the Spirit, walking closely with Him and listening to His voice, there will be no need for an earthly “boss.” When a decision needs to be made in a family, both the husband and wife need to make it together. Both should go to the Lord and listen for His direction. If there isn’t unity at first, they should continue to seek the Lord until there is.
You say, “Oh, brother, that will take forever!” I can assure you it will, if the couple is not being controlled by the Holy Spirit or not willing to “in honor prefer” the wisdom and understanding of each other.
Even when the Holy Spirit is in charge, important decisions should not be made hastily, but only after the husband and wife have jointly or separately sought the Lord. Many impulsive decisions made by husbands without consulting their wives (and decisions made similarly by wives) which have negatively affected the family (sometimes for many years), could have been prevented if this form of decision making was followed.
In family decision-making, a couple also needs to consider the matter of “domain.” A husband and wife need to work out together, before the Lord, the areas of responsibility each will shoulder. Each one’s interests and giftings should figure into the dividing of these responsibilities. Once they have been established, each of these responsibilities is an area of “domain” and he or she is free to make decisions relating to that segment of their lives. However, even in each one’s area of domain, the other is at some time or another going to be affected. Therefore, one should never be selfish in making any decision, but always keep the husband/wife (and children) in mind. However, each must release the other to manage that area of life as he/she sees fit.
As the years go by, husbands and wives should take time to reassess and make changes if necessary. Different periods of life have different sets of responsibilities. For example, a mother who is raising a family and is carrying the load for the children’s daily care and other homemaking responsibilities might find that her “domain” would change drastically when the children are grown, and she would decide (prayerfully with her husband) that she should take a job outside of the home. This new arrangement might call for a shifting of the husband’s “domain” as well. He might need to help shoulder housekeeping chores that up to this time had been in the wife’s “domain.”
Nate and I do quite a lot of traveling in connection with our ministry. Not long ago as we were preparing for another ministry trip that would have us on the road for a considerable time, Nate came to me about some detail of our itinerary to get my advice. He recognized that I would be affected by the decision since I would be with him. Although we had never actually sat down and spelled it out, it was at this moment I acknowledged to him that our travels were largely centered around his ministry. (I do some teaching at most locations where we go, but he carries the greater responsibility.) Unless he specifically felt he needed counsel or confirmation, the travel decisions were his “domain.”
Conversely, things having to do with the running of the house are in my “domain,” and I am free to make decisions and keep it running as I see fit, always keeping in mind that many things around the house affect him. I dare not be selfish in those areas. It is often necessary to confer.
Now suppose there is a family decision that needs to be made and made immediately. It affects everyone in the family so it must be made by both husband and wife (and there are times when the children should be included), but you are not in agreement. Let me hasten to say, Satan is the master of haste and will do everything he can to convince us a decision just has to be made now. Most of those decisions do not have to be made immediately. If God is in the situation, He will wait and give one time to pray about it. However, from time to time, there are decisions that need to be made more or less immediately.
These are the times when each has to take his/her turn at submitting. Some of these times the wife will have to yield to her husband something like this: “Honey, I don’t really agree with that form of action, but it doesn’t violate my principles. I could feel comfortable with our proceeding your way since I recognize that you know more about the matter than I do.” Likewise, the husband needs to be just as willing to yield to his wife in just the same manner at times when she is more “in tune” with the situation.
A few years ago, our finances were such that both Nate and I felt we could not continue carrying health insurance. For many years, while our children were growing up, we had been without health coverage, trusting God for protection. Now we were at a place where we needed to walk by faith again. About a year after dropping the insurance, the Lord began strongly impressing upon me the need to get coverage again and get it now. Nate never did feel as I did. Nevertheless, because I felt so strongly about it and knowing I am often more “in tune” with the practical things of life, he graciously submitted to my “leading.”
Most insurance plans have a 3-month waiting period before your policy becomes effective. Less than a year after our 3-month waiting period was over, Nate had to spend over a week in the hospital and receive care from two different specialists. With today’s astronomical costs of medical care, his bill ran into the multiple thousands. He would be the first one to acknowledge how grateful he is that I pressed to get our insurance re-instated and that he submitted to my urging.
However, the bigger decisions of life that greatly affect the whole family such as “Do we go to the mission field?” or “Where do we go on vacation this year?” or “How do we spend the income tax return?” need to be made jointly under the leadership and direction of the Holy Spirit in humility before one another.
I am saddened as I observe some husbands who seem to totally ignore their part in Ephesians 5:25-31. They conduct themselves as if life was made to revolve around them and their wishes. What does it mean to love one’s wife so much that a husband would lay down his life for her? Husband, when was the last time you did something for your wife that cost you? I’m not just talking about bringing her a bottle of perfume or a bouquet of flowers, although either would be nice sometimes. I mean it cost you:
1. Time you wanted to spend in some activity of your choice;
2. Energy you expended to give of yourself to her when you were exhausted (knowing full well she was equally as exhausted and yet on-going household demands forced her to keep going);
3. Sacrificing some gadget you had been wanting in order that you could buy something for her instead knowing your budget couldn’t afford both; or
4. Your comfort, in order to increase hers.
It is interesting to me that some husbands seem to think it was written in their marriage vows that they be allowed time to “play,” that is, participate in some activity just for the fun of it even though this takes them away from the home and children for hours at a time. I am not opposed to that (within reason). I think it is great when a husband can have a good time “unwinding” at some sport or activity with his friends. The question I have is, is he equally as concerned that his wife have a comparable amount of time away from the responsibility and pressure of home and children? This involves more than just being there in body so that the children are not alone. It involves stepping in and filling the “gap” left by mom’s absence, such as getting dinner started (or finished as the case may be), helping with homework, or lovingly tucking them in at bedtime. It seems to me that if that didn’t fall into the category of mutual submission (or if a husband couldn’t accept that scriptural understanding) that it certainly would fall into the category of laying down his life for his wife as taught in Ephesians 5:25.
Undoubtedly the underlying reasons for this one-sided thinking are:
1. The erroneous interpretation and translation of the Scriptures as it relates to the woman and why God placed her on this earth; and
2. The license the traditional teaching, sub-consciously, gives men to insist on having their way.
I am afraid that many husbands don’t have the kind of love for their wives that would lead them to lay down their lives for them.
As husbands allow God to reveal His will to them in this area of their marriages, it will take real humility to acknowledge it and courage and discipline to make the appropriate adjustments.
All of us, both husbands and wives, need to re-evaluate our reasons for marriage. Was it just to get love, affection, sex, security, companionship; or was it to give and share these, with a desire to see one’s spouse become all God has called him/her to be?
The “Weaker Vessel”
In 1 Peter 3:7, speaking to husbands, Peter admonishes them to exercise restraint, not authority, towards their wives, living with them “as with a weaker vessel.” To what was he referring? He can not be speaking of emotional weakness. Women are notorious for their emotional strength. He surely isn’t referring to mental weakness. There are too many female PhD’s to support that. Nor can he be talking about spiritual weakness. To say a woman can not hear God’s voice as well as her male counter-part or have as close a walk with God is absurd.
Peter is either referring to the fact that she is physically weaker or perhaps is referring to her legal weakness. Even though womanhood had come a long way since “the days of old,” pagan influences upon society still kept her in a weaker state legally. Peter may have been saying husbands needed to live with their wives in a way that indicated their understanding of her lot in life. He should grant her honor since, even though society didn’t recognize her as a believer, she was a fellow heir of the grace of life.
It is also possible that Peter is using the “weaker vessel” as an example of how a husband is to treat his wife. Vessels were made of clay in Peter’s time and although they had little monetary value, they were guarded carefully because of their sentimental value. “Orientals feel that the clay of the pot is analogous to the clay which is our body; the water within the pot corresponds to God’s spirit within us.”8 So it is possible Peter is comparing the way one would handle a vessel that was cracked or for some other reason fragile and “weak” with the way a husband should live with his wife – with care and tenderness.
Verse 7 goes on to speak of the honor that a husband is to grant his wife. How can that be done? It has been said that the greatest gift a father can give his children is to love their mother. Make sure your children know that you, father, love their mother. Show affection to her in their presence. Our son Gerry remembers as a boy coming in from playing and very often finding Nate and I in the kitchen “huggin’ and kissin’.” He says this gave him a great sense of security because it demonstrated to him that our marriage, and therefore his family, was solid.
Speak well of her in public. Don’t keep your accolades just for the privacy of your home or bedroom. The public touching of one another, the arm around the shoulder, the holding around the waist, even the holding of hands as you walk together down the street, all indicate oneness. It is very lovely to see. The onlooker gets a warm feeling of the joy and unity of marriage. Your demonstration becomes a living witness of God’s intention for husband and wife. (This would not be as applicable in some cultures as it is in the West.)
Show her honor by helping her with her chair as she is being seated at a table. Open the door for her to a building as well as to a car. Some may call that chauvinism; I call it honor. Ask God to show you ways to honor your wife.
Whether or not a husband chooses to grant his wife honor does not seem to be an option. Apparently God felt this was a message that badly needed to penetrate the hearts of the early Christian husbands to whom honoring wives was foreign. In fact, He attached a serious consequence for those who failed to comply. Verse 7 ends with: “. . . and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” There seems to be a direct connection between husbands receiving answers to prayer and the honoring of their wives.
In far too many cases today, honoring wives is no less foreign than in the early church. Husbands, examine your prayer life. Have you been getting answers? If not, perhaps it’s because God has not witnessed your honoring your wife as a fellow heir.
Understanding “Headship”
By now you are, no doubt, asking the question, “But isn’t the husband the head of the wife?” Keep reading.
The answer to that question hinges on the translation of the Greek word kephale translated “head” in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, and whether it means “authority over” or “source of life.”
In the New Testament the word “head” (kephale) is used the same way as the word “head” (ro’sh) is in the Old Testament. It stands for “chief” in speaking of Christ as “head of the corner.” Matthew 21:42, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, Ephesians 2:20, and 1 Peter 2:7 are all referring to Psalm 118:22, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.” To understand that verse one must understand the significance of the “chief cornerstone” of a building when the Psalmist penned those words.
In ancient times a huge stone was used as the headstone or cornerstone to give support to the entire building. The walls of the building were built in such a way that they wrapped around that chief cornerstone, giving the building the support that it needed. Christ is just that kind of support to the Church, binding its members together. Ephesians 4:15, 16 says,
But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects unto Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body to the building up of itself in love.
Colossians 1:16-18 reminds us,
For in Him all things were created (He gave life), both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
There is that chief cornerstone, again, holding things together. Then those verses go on to say that even as He is the One who holds everything else together, “He is also head of the body, the Church.” In other words, He gives life to the Church and holds it together. This whole passage is not talking about “authority” but “source of life.”
Colossians 2:18, 19 tells us to -
Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head from whom the entire body being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments grow with a growth which is from God.
Ephesians 1:20-23 speaking of Jesus, tells us that God:
. . . seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.
But the Church is not there under His feet in this Headship of government, but, rather, is at His side. As Ephesians 2:6 says we are “seated with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus.” Further more, in Revelation 3:21, Jesus didn’t say, “This is My throne; keep away.” He said, “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.”
All through these passages, Jesus is using the head/body metaphor and is speaking of the “head” as that which gives life to the body. None of these passages refer to Christ’s government. They represent Him as the supporter, nourisher, and builder of the body, not Her ruler. It is in this same way that man is the “head” of the wife.
Recent scholarship has increasingly concluded, after continued study of ancient biblical, secular, and medical writings, that kephale means “source of life” rather than “authority over.”9
There are about 180 times in the Old Testament when the Hebrew word ro’sh clearly did mean “ruler,” “commander,” or “leader,” but the Septuagint translators rarely used kephale in translating these portions. They used other Greek words that more accurately defined “chief” when meaning a person of authority.
Kephale would have been the natural word to use in all the 180 instances if the word had been commonly understood to mean “leader or chief.” Its rare usage indicates that translators knew that kephale did not carry this meaning.10
Furthermore,
Examination of the seven passages where Paul used kephale in reference to Christ indicates that, when they are read with common Greek meanings of kephale, we see a more exalted Christ than when we read “head” primarily with the meaning of “authority over”.11
Colossians 2:19 points to Christ as the source of life. Ephesians 4:15, 16 emphasize the unity of head and body and present Christ as the nourisher and source of growth.
Just as Christ personally brings His Church to perfection (Ephesians 4:11-13) by means of the five-fold ministry (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher) “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ,” so the husband’s desire should be to build up his wife until she becomes all God intended her to be.
There is a certain energy a husband is to infuse into his wife. Remember the last time you went to a party and there was one, or perhaps two people, who brought “life” to the party, and without them it would have been rather boring and dull? In fact, they were even referred to as the “life of the party.” There was an influence they brought to the party that sparked life and vibrancy and joy.
Life is not a party, certainly, but there is an energizing element that the husband is to infuse into his wife that gives life to her and results in her being joyfully fulfilled and released to become all God intended for her to become as an individual. This is an extremely vital ingredient in any marriage.
It has been said, and I believe rightly so, that the wife and mother sets the tone or atmosphere for the home. After all, this is her domain given her in Scripture (see pgs. 114-16), so she naturally will exude who she is and how she feels which will strongly affect the atmosphere of the home. However, the ingredient of “life” in the form of love, encouragement, praise, and release from her husband is of utmost importance in helping her be the relaxed and fulfilled wife and mother that will set that tone.
This ingredient is missing in far too many Christian homes. However, before some wife finds herself wallowing in self-pity while reading these pages, let me remind you that even if this dimension is missing in your husband, you can and must find your fulfillment in Jesus. None of us can blame our husbands, or anyone else for that matter, for our lack of joy. Jesus is our joy! It is possible to give up that joy by choosing to walk in discouragement and unbelief, but no one can take it away. Each of us must “abide in the vine” that we might “bring forth fruit.”
Nevertheless, the relationship of a husband and wife who have become one flesh must contain this “life-giving” dimension on the part of the husband if the marriage is to fulfill God’s overall plan. There is nothing in this that gives him the right to dominate, rule, or control, but only to love, encourage, and release.
Whom Should We Obey?
Aren’t we supposed to obey Christ? Yes, absolutely, because He is God! He is KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS! But that is not what these verses are talking about. These verses aren’t dealing with His Lordship as One Who should be obeyed, but with the headship of Jesus, the One Who is the “Source of Life” for His Body.
The Greek word that clearly means authority is exousia, not kephale. Christ’s authority over the Church and over the world is established in other passages of Scripture which use this Greek word exousia. Some examples are:
“But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – then He said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed, and go home” (Matthew 9:6).
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth “ (Matthew 28:18).
For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man (John 5:26, 27).
In all three of these passages, the Greek word used is exousia, a word that does carry a clear meaning of authority.
However, a husband is not King of Kings and should not take Christ’s position as lord of his wife. A woman must answer to her spiritual Master in exactly the same way as a man must. A husband, as the matrimonial head, is a fellow-servant of the King and the one to whom God has given the responsibility of infusing into his wife the fullest life possible.
Jesus, in Matthew 20:25-28, made it very clear how fellow-disciples were to relate to one another. He said the Gentiles exercised authority over one another, but that it was not to be so among His followers. Rather, “whoever would be first let him be your servant.” This is the key to every relationship.
Philippians 2:3-8 admonishes,
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Jesus is the perfect example of One Who came to serve mankind, unworthy as we are. The problem with humanity, and even the Body of Christ today, is that there is more interest in having authority over people — that is, being “in charge” — than a desire to live in a position of humility and servanthood.
Each of us, as Christians in general and husbands and wives in particular, so desperately need to follow Jesus’ example and embrace the brokenness of servanthood rather than revel in the selfishness of being served.
Chapter Six Notes________
1. Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 81-82.
For further reference: Charles Trombley, Who Said Women Can’t Teach? (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge Publishing, Inc., 1985), 151-52.
2. Patricia Gundry, Heirs Together (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 72-73.
3. Ibid., 73-75.
4. Ibid., 75-76.
5. Joseph H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), no. 5293.
6. Katherine C. Bushnell, God’s Word To Women (privately reprinted by Ray B. Munson, North Collins, NY, 1923), 292.
7. Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13.
8. Bishop K. C. Pillai, Light Through an Eastern Window (NY: Robert Speller & Sons Publishers, 1963), 95-96.
9. Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, op. cit., 455.
For further reference: “Does kephale (head) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature?: A Rebuttal.” This 19-page paper by Richard S. Cervin, doctoral candidate for the degree in Linguistics from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is available from Christians for Biblical Equality, 122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451.
10. Alvera Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority & the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1986), 102-04.
11. Ibid., 104-05.
Dena,
I am unable to see how we can give ourselves to one another, when we are yielding up to them. The early church was supposed to "die to self", but I don't think that is ongoing.
"Yielding to the desire of the other"? - What about you? Doesn't what you desire matter? Does it not matter to "the other"?
I don't see at all how “to place, arrange, or rank under; to subject, to subordinate, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice.” is "mutual acceptance" or "sharing ideas". When you are yielding up your desire to the other, then your ideas aren't even the point.
The obediance that went along with being owned under the law was very real. That is not to say that every husband would demand it, mind you. The obediance of the bride (church) to her husband (Christ) was of the upmost important in the changeover of the ages. Jesus worked redemption through them, but they are not responsible for redeeming the world.
I think the issue here may be that she is writing having the paradigm that "we" are the wives being referred to and without consideration of the purpose of those wives obediance. Obediance was a choice and those who made that choice did so for a reason.
The "weaker vessel" was the church as the vessel for Jesus. Carrying out his wishes meant acting as husband.. I really wish I had time to get into that right now but unfortunately I don't. I've got to go do my last minute school shopping. I do hope that you read these words as having a tone of friendship. The fulfilled view offers up a new angle from which to look at these things. I'm just sharing from that point of view - not to change your mind, but to share.
Amie
Dena,
I am unable to see how we can give ourselves to one another, when we are yielding up to them. The early church was supposed to "die to self", but I don't think that is ongoing.
Really? I guess I never saw that that was to stop ... but that we were to learn to cooperate corporately. (Granted, I've not yet looked at this from a fulfilled perspective.)
I guess I see giving ourselves to each other (being generous and gracious), is yielding to them ... considering the needs of others, rather than just myself. Trusting HIM to meet my needs, even as I give of myself to others (this is easy for me to understand, as a mother). Perhaps it's about giving of myself to those who are yet mature, those who are young in faith/awareness, as they're learning to rely on Christ...?
(just thinking outloud here)
"Yielding to the desire of the other"? - What about you? Doesn't what you desire matter? Does it not matter to "the other"?
I guess I don't see that a follower of Jesus oughta be asking, "what about me?" I see it as "what about Him?" Each one yielding to the Jesus who is in each one.
I'm not sure of any other way to think of mutual submission -- do you have a perspective on that? I'd love to hear it.
I don't see at all how “to place, arrange, or rank under; to subject, to subordinate, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice.” is "mutual acceptance" or "sharing ideas". When you are yielding up your desire to the other, then your ideas aren't even the point.
I realize that's the definition according to Strong's concordance, but Strong's relies on the KJV's understanding of the text, which I believe is erroneously based on the exact opposite of what Jesus taught (no one is to lord over another, but to serve). I see that the early church, under the influence of Greek life, and Roman government, got into hierarchical thinking, that was never meant to be part of the Body. This sounds more like the military, than like an extended family.
I see it as how I relate to my father, as an adult. I have freedom to do as I'm led, but it's wise to seek counsel, and my father, who knows and loves me, is a believer, and also a judge, has wisdom. While I'm not under compulsion to obey him, it makes sense for me to consider his advice. There will always be others wiser and more experienced (the "elders", who lead, but by example, not with authority).
Now, granted, this has come from a house church understanding, and not from my unfolding fulfilled understanding.
The obediance that went along with being owned under the law was very real. That is not to say that every husband would demand it, mind you. The obediance of the bride (church) to her husband (Christ) was of the upmost important in the changeover of the ages. Jesus worked redemption through them, but they are not responsible for redeeming the world.
I think the issue here may be that she is writing having the paradigm that "we" are the wives being referred to and without consideration of the purpose of those wives obediance. Obediance was a choice and those who made that choice did so for a reason.
The "weaker vessel" was the church as the vessel for Jesus. Carrying out his wishes meant acting as husband.. I really wish I had time to get into that right now but unfortunately I don't. I've got to go do my last minute school shopping. I do hope that you read these words as having a tone of friendship. The fulfilled view offers up a new angle from which to look at these things. I'm just sharing from that point of view - not to change your mind, but to share.
Amie
I'd really like to hear more, Amie, as soon as you can find the time. I'd like to hear the fulfilled angle, as I'm discovering how MOST of what I've believed has been built on a faulty, no-longer-in-effect foundation...!:9_cool:
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am unable to see how we can give ourselves to one another, when we are yielding up to them. … When you are yielding up your desire to the other, then your ideas aren't even the point.
Really? I guess I never saw that that was to stop ... but that we were to learn to cooperate corporately. (Granted, I've not yet looked at this from a fulfilled perspective.)Dena… there isn't so much an "official" fulfilled view on all this. What Amie is expressing is how coming to a "fulfilled" perspective has enabled her to see a differing reality and thus application of previously held "traditional standpoints" on this particular issue. [hope I'm reading you right Amie?? Let me know otherwise…]
For myself, because I see this whole issue primarily in terms of a meaning relationship between spouses… as opposed to some "male" and "female" divide, I understand submission in terms of "deference" – IOW, there may well be times in a relationship where one feels that maybe their thoughts, feelings or views etc have not been considered to the highest degree, but therein in the larger context of the relationship are comfortable enough to "defer" to their partner – knowing that what may feel "lost on the roundabout" will be "picked up on the swing". IOW, having enough grace to cut each other some slack, EVEN when we might feel a little less than "heard" BUT at the same time knowing the freedom to so speak contrariwise without fear of repercussion IF such is sensed necessary etc.
graham
08-22-2008, 09:11 AM
Great discussion, folks!
I, unfortunately, come to this topic with some history. I preached Male Superiority for around 11 years. I would pride myself on the fact that I'd never met a single egalitarian whose arguments I couldn't crush. (Of course, I'm beyond that now and the only thing I pride myself on nowadays is my phenomenal humility!)
I eventually moved away from that position, partly due to the time I spent seeking to pastor couples where the husband was abusive to the wife. I'm betting we could all guess which verses they relied upon. One of the most painful things I've ever heard is an argument for female subordination, from a wife, with a black eye.
Amie, I loved your post and am intrigued by your approach. Yet, whilst I find myself in general agreement with your understanding of fulfillment here, I think there might be other answers to the question if it is framed in terms of inter-human relationships.
The early church was supposed to "die to self", but I don't think that is ongoing.
I think I can see where you are coming from, when some passages are in view, but I still think the idea can be ongoing. For example, when Jesus said that following him consisted of dying to oneself and taking up one's cross, I don't think that ceases after 70CE. (In fact, I think that most Protestants misunderstand this passage, but that's another story!) Jesus is calling for non-violent and subversive rebels, as the language of crucifixion wouldhave made clear to his listeners. At the time, this would have primarilly been in reference to Roman rule - and I guess Paul then applies that further. Similarly, I think, we today can recognise (and contextualise) it as a call to following Jesus as he leads us into a new way of living.
"Yielding to the desire of the other"? - What about you? Doesn't what you desire matter? Does it not matter to "the other"?
I guess it depends what "you" you are speaking of. Without wanting to go off on a Buddhist tangent, I would want to pause at the thought of "me" and my desires. I'm not sure that's the most helpful place for me to focus, particualrly when relating with others.
Having said that, after 13 years of marriage to - it must be said - a very patient wife, I don't think I see a problem with or contradiction between yielding to another and my own 'rights' (for want of a better word). In fact, I think your final question in the quote above hits the nail on the head. It does matter to the other, as much as our needs and wants matter to them. That, it seems to me, is the beauty of mutual submission. I am free to forget about my desires and concentrate on my wifes, because I am confident that she is freely enjoying concentrating on mine.
Having said all of that, I'm not sure that 'submission' is the best word for this. I think I'd rather just call it love.
When you are yielding up your desire to the other, then your ideas aren't even the point.
My ideas never were the point. And thank goodness for that! :-)
I should add that my focus here is coming from an anabaptist perspective, so let me know if I'm not being very clear or making much sense.
I replied to everyone at once on this post. I like these sort of "round table" conversations!
there isn't so much an "official" fulfilled view on all this. What Amie is expressing is how coming to a "fulfilled" perspective has enabled her to see a differing reality and thus application of previously held "traditional standpoints" on this particular issue. [hope I'm reading you right Amie?? Let me know otherwise…]
Yes and no - how's that for an answer! LOL! As for an "official" fulfilled view on submission, wouldn't it come down to whether one sees submission as ongoing or fulfilled? (Though I think that I'm beginning to see the gray area. :))
The fulfilled view changed my "traditional standpoint" theologically, my heart had always suffered with the tradtional view. I felt rather depressed, sad, and confused because of a previously held doctrine. There was no peace in me. BUT yes, my theological understanding has changed and what we mostly agree on in that area, can infer different things to different people.
You may already know through our long term friendship that the word "deference" can quite take the wind out of my sails. I see "deferring" as choosing to allow another person to take the wheel for a benefit.
I think that in conversation we can choose to cut the other slack, I agree, and even know that is not our last chance at ever being heard. In a relationship, imo, both people are important and both people being heard within it also important.
I hope you'll not take this as a put off Davo, I sense that there's some growing for me to do.
I guess I see giving ourselves to each other (being generous and gracious), is yielding to them ... considering the needs of others, rather than just myself.
Perhaps the source of our seeing things differently is that I see submission as "considering the needs of others, not my own" - myself excluded. Davo did offer an example where that is beneficial, though I do not see it as beneficial in the long term. In a relationship, never ever being heard is like not even being there, isn't it?
I guess I don't see that a follower of Jesus oughta be asking, "what about me?" I see it as "what about Him?" Each one yielding to the Jesus who is in each one.
Why shouldn't any person consider themselves as well as the other? You word it, "Each one yielding to the Jesus who is in each one." Is Jesus not in you? Not that I'm expecting anyone at all to yield to me, but does that mean that we just go on and ignore what is within us?
I realize that's the definition according to Strong's concordance, but Strong's relies on the KJV's understanding of the text, which I believe is erroneously based on the exact opposite of what Jesus taught (no one is to lord over another, but to serve). I see that the early church, under the influence of Greek life, and Roman government, got into hierarchical thinking, that was never meant to be part of the Body. This sounds more like the military, than like an extended family.
I see it as how I relate to my father, as an adult. I have freedom to do as I'm led, but it's wise to seek counsel, and my father, who knows and loves me, is a believer, and also a judge, has wisdom. While I'm not under compulsion to obey him, it makes sense for me to consider his advice. There will always be others wiser and more experienced (the "elders", who lead, but by example, not with authority).
Now, granted, this has come from a house church understanding, and not from my unfolding fulfilled understanding.
For what my opinion is worth, imo you are a very logical thinker and very down to earth. You make a lot of sense.
Per your first paragraph, while it is true that Jesus was in service to the church (and all of humanity for that matter), there was also the post-ascension relationship between them wherein the church (woman/bride) need be completely silent and to utterly yield herself to her bridegroom - no consideration of herself - utter faith in Christ's leadership. Complete obedience was necessary to carry out the plan of God and I see nothing wrong with that obedience. Paul called himself therefore a "slave to love".
When that obedience is projected into today though, then the church in question must first win the claim of God working through them - and where has that gotten Christianity? If Jesus isn't appearing here and there and literally speaking to them, then who are they yielding to if not the doctrines of people?
The women of that day, per the law, made the choice to live as an example for how the bride of Jesus were to behave. They also made the choice to live in the previous society where marital law would have them as a possession. We women imo, were never as oppressed as many believe.
Amie, I loved your post and am intrigued by your approach. Yet, whilst I find myself in general agreement with your understanding of fulfillment here, I think there might be other answers to the question if it is framed in terms of inter-human relationships.
My own theological shift was not to change the harshness/surenss of submission and related obedience, but to reframe it in putting it in its' proper context. In its' proper context, there is nothing demeaning or tyrannical about submission and obedience. I think that impacts relationships.
Similarly, I think, we today can recognise (and contextualise) it as a call to following Jesus as he leads us into a new way of living.
What do you mean when you say "following Jesus"? Would you see it as synonymous to "following our heart"?
I am free to forget about my desires and concentrate on my wifes, because I am confident that she is freely enjoying concentrating on mine.
Is there not irony in this statement in that you are desiring to concentrate on your wife's desires? Would you want her to focus on your desires at the expense of her own or because she desires to?
I think this may be a matter of semantics. We are agreeing, but are learning one another's language on matters.
I am free to forget about my desires and concentrate on my wifes, because I am confident that she is freely enjoying concentrating on mine.
I agree. Another suggestion, "mutual consideration"?
When you are yielding up your desire to the other, then your ideas aren't even the point.
My ideas never were the point. And thank goodness for that!
I don't know whether you meant it as I heard it, and have heard it from others who do mean it this way, but I feel sorrow when people say that their ideas do not matter. That their thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc - do no matter. It all does and I believe that for God, that was the point. We felt miniscule, and he died delivering the message of love to us. Imo, God doesn't love nobodies. (Again, that may not have been what you personally meant - I don't want to imply that)
I guess it depends what "you" you are speaking of. Without wanting to go off on a Buddhist tangent, I would want to pause at the thought of "me" and my desires. I'm not sure that's the most helpful place for me to focus, particualrly when relating with others.
Please feel free to tangent away! :9_cool:
I think that "we" are within - where the heart is. The "ego" is a collection of beliefs about the world around us. We can be ego driven, this is true. We can also drive the ego, which I do not think is the focus of the Buddhist perspective. Often, the ego is demonized or seen as something from which we must disassociate. Imo, that just builds a new identity from which to live (a new ego-driven train of thought).
The heart at times can be invalidated by dissociative thoughts about the ego. Human beings can easily beat ourselves up for being what we coin as "selfish". "You mustn't long for a hug little heart, that is selfish." I do not know how many times I was hit as a child for such "selfish thinking". Wanting to be heard, to be considered, to be loved... all "selfish"? How is it fair to have a human heart and then anything we might want be a bad thing?
I don't mean to present this as an "either/or" mind you. I'm not saying that we should only think of our wants and desires. I think though, that they matter.
Amie
Having said all of that, I'm not sure that 'submission' is the best word for this. I think I'd rather just call it love.
I agree, Graham. Hupotasso took on a "military" meaning under the influence of imperial Rome's control of the church -- it's basically "institutional-speak". Not the language of Jesus.
In The Source NT (which I cannot seem to copy, and which I must type out by hand, so please appreciate my labo(u)rs), the translator (who used extra-biblical documents of that era to better understand the usage of various words), put it thisaway:
"21Be filled with the Spirit while you are supporting one another, out of respect for the Anointed One, 22wives with your own husbands as with the Lord."
The first thing I see is that there's no verb (hupotasso, from which we mistranslate "submit") in verse 22 -- even though most of our modern translations PUT it there (adding to the text). (The NIV, the New Irrational Version, goes so far as to put in an extra-biblical sub-header between verse 21 and verse 22, as if to utterly separate the thoughts, even though it breaks up a sentence...! Any agenda going on here?). However hupotasso is used here regarding wives, it comes out of the understanding of how ALL members of the Body are to support one another.
The second thing I see is that the verb in the sentence isn't even hupotasso ("submit"). Hupotasso/support ("submit") isn't even an imperative, but is acutally a participle -- the verb phrase is "be filled with the Spirit".
The rest of what it says is fascinating ... for the word used for head (Kephale), doesn't truly mean "head" as in "boss" (how we're been taught to understand it). Kephale means "source" ... as in where something comes from.
Woman came out of man - Adam was her source (not, as we're taught, from the mere rib, but from his side -- otherwise he'd have just said, "bone of my bone"). She was hidden in him from before his creation, to be a symbol of how the Church was hidden in Christ, from before the foundation of the world. She was totally there, intentionally, not just an afterthought (as if God suddenly became aware that Adam wasn't going to find appropriate companionship from giraffes and rhinos, and thus had to get extra-creative!).
But, Paul goes on to remind us that all men, since Adam, come out of women, therefore setting up a whole mutual-dependency relationship that shows a flowing and intricate dance -- a much more fitting metaphor for relationship than military order, IMHO...!
(to build a bit on that metaphor, when Mark and I were taking ballroom dance, during the spin, we had to take turns "leading", whichever one was on the outward motion had to pull the other along, in order to keep the centrifical force heading in the right direction ... if only one of us were leading, as was, admittedly, Mark's tendancy, then we'd wobble out of control, and our dance would collapse in on itself ... it takes two to tango!).
If'n anyone is interested in checking out The Source for themselves, here's the PDF version:
http://www.smithandstirling.com/media/The_Source_-_New_Testament_by_Dr_Ann_Nyland.pdf
(you oughta see how she explains the "women saved by childbirth" passage...!)
(bTW, I tend to write in an adamant way, but that doesn't mean that I believe I'm "right", so much as I'm passionate about whatever I've come to believe... subject to further tweaking revelations! I just get so danged excited!!!:woo:)
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
The fulfilled view changed my "traditional standpoint" theologically, my heart had always suffered with the tradtional view. I felt rather depressed, sad, and confused because of a previously held doctrine. There was no peace in me. BUT yes, my theological understanding has changed and what we mostly agree on in that area, can infer different things to different people.
Hey Amie -- if you mean by depressed, sad and confused, that you felt that way by the traditional teaching that implied that women were inherently/positionally inferior, then I agree with you.
I've come to believe that part of our problem is that the Church has become hemiplegic -- half-paralyzed. My former church outright treated us like spiritual Stepford wives. It takes the merging of male and female, together, to best represent God ... at least AISI.
Perhaps the source of our seeing things differently is that I see submission as "considering the needs of others, not my own" - myself excluded. Davo did offer an example where that is beneficial, though I do not see it as beneficial in the long term. In a relationship, never ever being heard is like not even being there, isn't it?
I all too often see that being played out, where the woman gives herself utterly away, for the needs of others, until she's like a juice-box with a dozen straws poking out, completely sucked dry (& everyone clammoring for more). (& yeah, it can happen to men, too, dependingly)
But that's not what I see Jesus and Paul intending ... our nature is to put ourselves first, with a "what about me" mentality, which I suspect may really say that we don't trust that God cares about us, or will care for us (it's one thing to believe it in our consciousness, and another thing to live it out of our depth). If I'm completely trusting that He WILL take care of me, be my very provision, in all ways (including using others to do so), then I won't worry whether or not my needs are being met, at the momet, by someone else. Either it wasn't a need, or God will provide by another way. (ask my husband how God provided for him, during the 17 long years that I deprived him, sexually and emotionally)
Why shouldn't any person consider themselves as well as the other? You word it, "Each one yielding to the Jesus who is in each one." Is Jesus not in you? Not that I'm expecting anyone at all to yield to me, but does that mean that we just go on and ignore what is within us?
We already, naturally, take care of ourselves. This is about Jesus' upside-down Kingdom, where the first is last and the last is first ... where we lead by serving (how "low can we go", not who gets to be in charge). Jesus is wanting us to let Him renew our minds, from the inside-out, so that we come to prefer one another (& in that happening, that means there are umpteen others in my life who are preferring me over themselves). AISI, it connects us as a living Body, a living organism, rather than a bunch of isolated individuals who occasionally bump into each other. Each of us as a vital nutrient that the others need, and I'm to be about sharing that, freelly, trusting that He is also in them, renewing their minds, so that they, too, will give what they have to share with me. It's a mindset of trusting, rather than of self-protecting.
For what my opinion is worth, imo you are a very logical thinker and very down to earth. You make a lot of sense.
That's the lawyer's-kid in me...! It competes with my artist's soul, so that I'm a rather logically-creative, meticulously-angst-ridden, practical-whimsical kinda gal...!:D I ain't no picnic, but I'm rarely boring...
And the "down to earth" part is music to my fluttering-flighty ears!:wave:
Per your first paragraph, while it is true that Jesus was in service to the church (and all of humanity for that matter), there was also the post-ascension relationship between them wherein the church (woman/bride) need be completely silent and to utterly yield herself to her bridegroom - no consideration of herself - utter faith in Christ's leadership. Complete obedience was necessary to carry out the plan of God and I see nothing wrong with that obedience. Paul called himself therefore a "slave to love".
Not sure I'm tracking with this part ... the "utterly silent" and "complete obedience" part sounds more like a traditionalistic lens being applied to the passages to me. First, I don't see how, as humans, we can manage to do much of anything with pure motives, much less with complete adherence. I see that He wants us to love Him with our minds (which would include asking questions, seeking, reasoning together with Him ... even as He gets the final answer, or "just trust Me" answer).
My concern is that too many folks have seen this example of how the Bride defers to the Groom, and believes that men are just in demanding such deference from their wives. I see how, while God's will will always ultimately be done, that He defers to us on many occasions, allowing for us to make free will choices ... in some ways, there's a sense of mutual submission going on between us and Jesus now ... and I see that relationship within the Trinity as well. (But, I'm rather of a mindset that we humans, who seem to love rankings and pecking orders, have imposed our love for hierarchies upon the Godhead, and upon all other relationships, including marriage ... we seem to prefer "rules" to relationship. Rules are predictable, while relationships can be messy...!)
The women of that day, per the law, made the choice to live as an example for how the bride of Jesus were to behave. They also made the choice to live in the previous society where marital law would have them as a possession. We women imo, were never as oppressed as many believe.
How did the women choose to live in that society? They were born there - where else would they go? The Jews were actually more gracious than some of their neighbors, toward women. Still, today, we see the oppression of the women in the middle East, who are forced to wear burkas or be brutally punished, if not killed. I'd call that oppressive. There's an old Jewish prayer, that men would say first thing in the morning, upon waking (presumably in the hearing of their wives), "Thank God that You have not made me a slave, a Gentile, or a woman!" I've also read the dismal quotes about women by many of the early Church fathers ... in more recent times, I'm thinking of how Carrie Nation and other suffragettes were arrested, imprisioned, and tortured in Occoquan prison in Lorton, VA... because they were daring to claim equal voting rights, as women.
I don't so much blame individual men, as much as I see it's the system that both men and women have been raised in.
My own theological shift was not to change the harshness/surenss of submission and related obedience, but to reframe it in putting it in its' proper context. In its' proper context, there is nothing demeaning or tyrannical about submission and obedience. I think that impacts relationships.
It's one thing, I believe, in the context of our relationship with God ... (though I see that HE wants more intimacy in relationship, than a master/servant relationship), and another to try to play that out in our messy humanity. It puts too much of a burden on the one "in charge", and too much passivity on the one "in obedience." I just don't see that God intended humans to be over one another -- at least not in His Kingdom.
(it could be that I'm missing you by a mile -- so feel free to let me know that ... and I have no need to arrive at unanimity in order to have unity -- unity's a given!)
I don't know whether you meant it as I heard it, and have heard it from others who do mean it this way, but I feel sorrow when people say that their ideas do not matter. That their thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc - do no matter. It all does and I believe that for God, that was the point. We felt miniscule, and he died delivering the message of love to us. Imo, God doesn't love nobodies. (Again, that may not have been what you personally meant - I don't want to imply that)
I don't see that anyone is advocating for people believing that they're unimportant, or dismissable. I see that our security comes from knowing who we are, as Jesus sees us (for humans, even the best-intentioned ones, will inevitably let us down, and hurt us). For us to see ourselves through God's eyes, rather than be concerned about whether we're being validated enough by others. But, as He works in each of us, renewing our minds, that would mean that others are indeed building me up, even as I'm building them up -- I see that love reaches out, more than self-medicates.
The heart at times can be invalidated by dissociative thoughts about the ego. Human beings can easily beat ourselves up for being what we coin as "selfish". "You mustn't long for a hug little heart, that is selfish." I do not know how many times I was hit as a child for such "selfish thinking". Wanting to be heard, to be considered, to be loved... all "selfish"? How is it fair to have a human heart and then anything we might want be a bad thing?
Not a thing wrong with having the very heart that God designed for us to have...!:o The problem comes when that heart has been previously hurt (as in what that little girl endured, being hit for wanting a demonstration of love!). When those hurts are unresolved, we form lies in that pain, & those lies then rule us (as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he). When we're driven more by the pain/lies than by truth, then we're reacting out of that pain, rather than responding in love -- and that needs mind-renewal (when He replaces our lies with His truth, we're set free from the tyranny and power of those lies).
I don't mean to present this as an "either/or" mind you. I'm not saying that we should only think of our wants and desires. I think though, that they matter.
Amie, I believe your wants, desires, and needs matter to Jesus. A lot. I don't yet know you well, but I know a little about human nature -- I believe it's possible that He's maybe allowing you to be "triggered" by things that are reminiscent of those old wounds, so that they'll rise to the surface of your consciousness ... so that you can go to Him, and ask Him to show you what's amiss there ... and it's not just you -- we've ALL got baggage from being raised by wounded, imperfect parents, as well as others in our past (hurt people hurt people). I believe that a huge part of life is letting Him get our minds to line up with His truth in our new hearts. It's just my perspective, but I've come to believe that everything we wrestle with can be traced back to a lie we believe -- about God, about ourselves, about others...
And the truth, I've experienced, really does set us free, and mind-renewal becomes a way of life ... which is what I'm sensing this entire website/forum is about ... replacing lies with truth, so we can live in His reality.
(dang, I don't mean for this to sound in any way condescending, patronizing, or demeaning... please forgive me if I've come across that way -- I'm just a healing-hog, and I love to see everyone set FREE!)
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
But that's not what I see Jesus and Paul intending ... our nature is to put ourselves first, with a "what about me" mentality, which I suspect may really say that we don't trust that God cares about us, or will care for us (it's one thing to believe it in our consciousness, and another thing to live it out of our depth). If I'm completely trusting that He WILL take care of me, be my very provision, in all ways (including using others to do so), then I won't worry whether or not my needs are being met, at the momet, by someone else. Either it wasn't a need, or God will provide by another way. (ask my husband how God provided for him, during the 17 long years that I deprived him, sexually and emotionally)
I LOVED the "juice box" analogy!
Looking at this practically suggests that God just isn't providing for a lot of people on this planet because there are a ton of people in need. Just like with relationships imo, God has provided the world with opportunity. Not everyone chooses to take it or even knows how, yet it is there.
Also, there are addicts who need help, people with anger problems, etc who need real plans as to how to acheive their personal goals. God gave people the ability to make those plans and to relegate those plans to God is to not have a plan at all.
We already, naturally, take care of ourselves.
Those "juice cups" are some among many who have no idea how, or whose own heart has been invalidated so they go against that self-caring nature.
I don't see that anyone is advocating for people believing that they're unimportant, or dismissable. I see that our security comes from knowing who we are, as Jesus sees us (for humans, even the best-intentioned ones, will inevitably let us down, and hurt us). For us to see ourselves through God's eyes, rather than be concerned about whether we're being validated enough by others. But, as He works in each of us, renewing our minds, that would mean that others are indeed building me up, even as I'm building them up -- I see that love reaches out, more than self-medicates.
I am not suggesting that we rely on others to build us up or validate us, I am suggesting that we validate ourselves and our own hearts. To take on the role of "juice cup" is to ignore those hearts and to treat ourselves as if we are unimportant.
It wasn't so long ago that I felt guilty for stepping out with friends. I understand now that it is an investment in myself, and therefore my family. I'll be at the conference ie, and will return refreshed.
Not a thing wrong with having the very heart that God designed for us to have..! The problem comes when that heart has been previously hurt (as in what that little girl endured, being hit for wanting a demonstration of love!). When those hurts are unresolved, we form lies in that pain, & those lies then rule us (as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he). When we're driven more by the pain/lies than by truth, then we're reacting out of that pain, rather than responding in love -- and that needs mind-renewal (when He replaces our lies with His truth, we're set free from the tyranny and power of those lies).
The resolution of my past pains does not therefore mean that the past is not a matter of my personal history. I learned a lot from it. I also recognize that the abuse that stood out at home, was reflected spiritually within church walls. I was beaten for being "selfish" and could go to church and be spiritually hit for the same reasons. I know that neither of those attitudes are okay because I remember the pain of them both.
I believe it's possible that He's maybe allowing you to be "triggered" by things that are reminiscent of those old wounds, so that they'll rise to the surface of your consciousness ... so that you can go to Him, and ask Him to show you what's amiss there ... and it's not just you -- we've ALL got baggage from being raised by wounded, imperfect parents, as well as others in our past (hurt people hurt people). I believe that a huge part of life is letting Him get our minds to line up with His truth in our new hearts. It's just my perspective, but I've come to believe that everything we wrestle with can be traced back to a lie we believe -- about God, about ourselves, about others...
The stuff that we're talking about happens daily in the lives of many people, it's not about what I lived with other than that testifying as to the truth. It is not selfish to desire to be heard, to be considered, to be loved, or even a hug. It is not selfish to desire to be count.
Again, I do not think that others fulfill those desires. If I desire to be heard, like with my husband, and at the moment he is just not listening - I have no problem going on and listening to him and hearing him because I know that he will be open later. If he never hears me, I will be sure that I have. There is a difference between desiring to be heard, and needing to be heard.
Not sure I'm tracking with this part ... the "utterly silent" and "complete obedience" part sounds more like a traditionalistic lens being applied to the passages to me. First, I don't see how, as humans, we can manage to do much of anything with pure motives, much less with complete adherence. I see that He wants us to love Him with our minds (which would include asking questions, seeking, reasoning together with Him ... even as He gets the final answer, or "just trust Me" answer).
What does what the first fruits church accomplished, have to do with "us"? I think there needs to be a mental separation between the two. Jesus actually talked to them so it wasn't too difficult for say Paul, not to interpret things for himself and to remain silent. When he wrote, he would even clarify when something was just his opinion rather than something "the Lord sayeth".
My concern is that too many folks have seen this example of how the Bride defers to the Groom, and believes that men are just in demanding such deference from their wives.
And here is truly the meat of it, AND what is happening. The world at large believes that because the Bride defers to the Groom, then men should get as much from their own wives. That's backwards and open-ended and that is because it isn't being viewed through a fulfilled lens.
The women under the law were already choosing the lifestyle that they lived in because as a part of Israel they blindly followed God's leadership. They could have just left. They could have been worshipped as women were in some parts of the world (though I acknowledge definitely not all parts of the world). My point is though that they were already the "types". We can't have "type" then fulfillment, then type, that makes no sense. They were the example for how the Bride was supposed to behave in accomplishing the plan of God.
The fulfilled lens has that plan as having been accomplished and that role therefore long since gone. There is no more need for such an example - not at all. Even during the transition of the ages people were under grace. Not all women chose to live out that role.
Still, today, we see the oppression of the women in the middle East, who are forced to wear burkas or be brutally punished, if not killed. I'd call that oppressive.
I was speaking specifically about the women of Israel's antiquity.
My own theological shift was not to change the harshness/surenss of submission and related obedience, but to reframe it in putting it in its' proper context. In its' proper context, there is nothing demeaning or tyrannical about submission and obedience. I think that impacts relationships.
It's one thing, I believe, in the context of our relationship with God ... (though I see that HE wants more intimacy in relationship, than a master/servant relationship), and another to try to play that out in our messy humanity. It puts too much of a burden on the one "in charge", and too much passivity on the one "in obedience." I just don't see that God intended humans to be over one another -- at least not in His Kingdom.
(it could be that I'm missing you by a mile -- so feel free to let me know that ... and I have no need to arrive at unanimity in order to have unity -- unity's a given!)
I was not speaking of one human being over another, but of the Bride (the first fruits body of Christ of the bible - in the bible times) and the Groom (Jesus). The Bride was to submiss to her Groom. As Paul said, they could only see "through the mirror darkly". They were still partially blind about where they were headed.
I think the point of what Jesus did himself, and within the Bride, was to enable this intimate relationship that we now enjoy with God and one another.
I don't so much blame individual men, as much as I see it's the system that both men and women have been raised in.
I agree. When women view themselves as helpless, victim, oppressed - they often fail to see the choices that they actually do have. Like my Panamanian friend says, "When boys grow up to hit women, who teaches them that?" The "system" supports the idea that women are weak.
And the truth, I've experienced, really does set us free, and mind-renewal becomes a way of life ... which is what I'm sensing this entire website/forum is about ... replacing lies with truth, so we can live in His reality.
The truth is all that is and I agree, it is freeing. I don't think that means that it is always easy, ha! His reality flies in the face of lies - making life difficult when we buck against it.
(dang, I don't mean for this to sound in any way condescending, patronizing, or demeaning... please forgive me if I've come across that way -- I'm just a healing-hog, and I love to see everyone set FREE!)
I'm a pretty strong personality myself. This could be a friendship from hell depending on who you are, lol!
Amie
Amie -
I've got a crazy day today, and may not get to read, digest, and respond the way I'd like to. However, I'm convinced of this: you are a woman I not only WANT to get to know, but I believe that God wants to bless me through you. I believe that you will be instrumental (along with others), in this stage of my journey with Him. I believe that we fundamentally (in the best sense of the word!) believe and desire the same things, and are only seeing through our personal lenses, which only SEEM to be at odds, due to nuances.
I admire and respect you, and have nothing but a good impression of you. I'm looking forward to getting to know you better, here and in person. Our discussions reflect more of the current stage I'm in -- that danged deconstruction of a paradigm stage, where nothing feels firm, and I'm grappling with what's what. Any frustrations or emphatic-ness (that a word?) that you may sense, come from THAT, and are not directed at you... please forgive me if I've come across in any sort of negative way.
I'm excited about whatever it is that God has for me here -- both in terms of relationships (it's all about relationships!), and revelations (& I do love revelations!).
Right now, I really shouldn't be trying to "defend" anything -- as it's all in FLUX...! Egads! I have strong opinions about things I know not of!
Pretty good for a post I had no time to write, no?
I'll do my darndest to check in later - thanks!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
graham
08-23-2008, 05:51 PM
Right now, I really shouldn't be trying to "defend" anything -- as it's all in FLUX...! Egads! I have strong opinions about things I know not of!
Lol! Dena, that quote and this one...
I tend to write in an adamant way, but that doesn't mean that I believe I'm "right", so much as I'm passionate about whatever I've come to believe... subject to further tweaking revelations!
could have been written by me at any point over the last ten years! ;) (Before that, I knew it all!)
Lol! Dena, that quote and this one...
could have been written by me at any point over the last ten years! ;) (Before that, I knew it all!)
Y'know, I'm really getting to like you, Graham!
Oh yeah -- I used to be SURE that I was a valiant possessor of absolute truth!
Doesn't our tradition teach us that...? To declare a claim of truth, to stake that claim, and to guard it from all heretics?
It's like we're on a pathway, following Jesus ... He's talking and tossing out truth-nuggets onto the path. He wants us to examine them, taste them, put them into our backpack, and continue following Him (for it's a journey).
But, some of us have been so mesmerized by the nugget itself,:wow2: that we turn off the path, and set up camp in a parking lot. We create a pedestal for our truth-nugget, put it atop, admire (if not openly worship) it, and get others to join us in the admiration/worship :bow::set12:(we call this a "doctrine."). Those who come by, offering a peek at their nugget, and wanting to also see ours, get attacked -- "No! Thou shalt dispose of thy false nugget, and hearken only to this, the true nugget." If they refuse, then we erect a wall between us and them, with warning signs about the dangers on the other side of the wall (we call this "denominationalism").
So, we've got these wars going on in the parking lot :fence:(various items being thrown over the walls, jabs being taken at each other) ... meanwhile, Jesus is way down the path, saying, "Hey - follow Me.":wave:
I've come to believe that truth isn't so much a concept to grasp & defend, as a Person to know & love.
But there are still times that those nuggets can look mighty mesmerizing...!:shine:
(help me keep up with you, Jesus!)
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
Amy,
When I read your article, my dyslexia kicked in. When God created man, He said, "Aw'damn, I'll have to make another."
Blessings.
I just came back from a conference that included Frank Viola and Paul Young ("The Shack" author).
He (Paull Young) spoke a bit about how there is no hierarchy in relationship ... not in marriage, and not in the Trinity, either. That it's about a dance of mutual responsiveness.
Wish I could share his talk ... rather phenomenal. Papa is up to something...! He's wanting to unleash His reality on this planet, and every person...
He also spoke of how everything and everyone we see is under the designation of "holy unto the Lord."
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
Hierarchies are for governments and human institutions, but not for relationships.
Been strolling down memory lane here ...
so much fun, and so amusing .... to see how my views, and my LIFE, have changed in the past three years (to the date!).
I'm no longer in house church ... no longer in church ... no longer a Christian ... no longer on the marriage bed ... no longer married ... Paul Young and Frank Viola no longer speak to me ...
But I still believe this about relationships:
it's about a dance of mutual responsiveness.
(I kept the best part!)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.