This is the second article in a multi-part series on Christianity and covenants. Other topics are:
- Overview
- God and Christians
- Christians and Marriage
- Christians and Employers
- Christians and Finances/Debt
- Christians and the Local Church
- Christians and Governments
- Christians and Animals and the Environment
Husbands and Wives
It is an incredible thing that many churches will sometimes spend valuable sermon time preaching on the evils of homosexuality, pre-marital sex or general “left-wing” debauchery, and yet often ignore fundamental aspects of the marriage relationship as layed out in scripture and deduced in Christian theology. Many Christians view this as a “defense of marriage” against encroaching secular humanism or (leftist) moral relativism. Some even go to the polls or to protests against gay marriage as part of the purely “defensive” effort.
Ironically, these highly visible, yet “defensively” dubious activities, have no ability whatsoever to “save” or “protect” the sanctity of marriage - rather, husbands and wives loving and submitting to one another in light of the gospel is where the power is.
Marriage does not exist as a political tool for the government to use to promote family values or even reproduction. Marriage also is not just any relationship between two people who “love” each other. Marriage is, first and foremost, an image, a covenant that is a representation of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).
The Marriage Covenant
A marriage is not a contract. The husband does not agree to love the wife if she submits to him. The wife does not agree to submit to the husband if he loves her. In fact, the marriage relationship is actually two separate covenants that are acknowledged before God.
When a man and woman take marriage vows, they each make a promise to unconditionally, and unilaterally fulfill a set of promises. It is the same kind of covenant that God makes with man. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) puts it perfectly:
[Husbands:] Your unconditional acceptance of your wife is not based upon her performance, but on her worth as God’s gift to you.
Ironically, even on the CBMW website, a bastion of complementarianism, it was difficult to find a corresponding statement for wives. This was the best I could do:
There are many situations where a husband is selfish, unreasonable, and hypocritical. This alone does not release a wife from her responsibility to respect and submit to him.
But really, the point is simple - the roles and structure in marriage is ordained by God. It is voluntarily entered into by husbands and wives, both of whom engage an unconditional set of vows to one another.
This is what makes marital love so special - it is a self-sacrificing love - a love that does not come from merit or profit. The best synonym I can think of for this kind of love is “commitment.” It means that spouses make a deliberate, intentional choice to overlook each other’s faults, to forgive one another and to commit to one another in the same way that God has done these things toward us.
Christ forgave us while we were still sinners - so we love our spouses, knowing that they have, do and will sin against us. Christ gave himself for us, so we too surrender our lives, our pride and our independence for the benefit of our spouse. Christ clothes us in his righteousness and has saved us - we protect, honour and affirm the role of our spouse and their worth as a child of God.
The marriage relationship comes back to the gospel. As it should - Paul already reminded us of this in Ephesians 5.
Perverting the Gospel
The feminist movement in the hearts of men and women has been the greatest modern assault on marriages. I worded that sentence carefully. It is not simply feminism - in the sense of certain intellectuals, books or even ideology. It is the fact that something other than biblical marriage has encroached upon the marriage covenant in the hearts of husbands and wives.
A quick way to survey these views, is to go back to Ephesians 5, and interpret them in the theology of marriage being an image of Christ and the Church.
Marriage is a 50/50 partnership: If my salvation from sin were a 50/50 partnership with God, I’d be in big trouble. If Christ and I are both responsible for salvation, how can I expect that I maintain it in all of my continuing sin and falling short of God’s standards? What if Christ and I disagree on how best to save me?
Marriage is a give and take relationship: Imagine if the gospel were give and take. Maybe God should stop “taking” all the time and give me a little more leeway to indulge sin? But if I wanted to give to God, what can I bring that is worthy of a perfect, self-sufficient God?
Marriage roles are interchangeable: Perhaps it isn’t me who needs saving, it’s God! And I can save him just as well as he can save me.
Marriage is conditional: God only has to forgive me if I first apologise. God will only save me if I make a vow to praise him forever. What if Christ’s death and resurrection were only available to people of a certain pre-existing righteousness?
Now if marriage has less to do with the gospel, then more egalitarian, even feminist views on marriage are potentially compatible with marriage. However, scripture argues that marriage and the gospel go hand in hand.
This goes back to an earlier point. What is the best way to affirm and support the biblical view of marriage? It is not to attack feminism in others, or egalitarianism - but rather for us to have a deeper knowledge of the gospel. For us to continue to probe the love with which God has loved us and to meditate on the work of Christ on the cross. In doing this, we will have a better understanding and vision for loving our spouses.
It is thinking JUST LIKE THIS that is the reason why Christian marriages fail more than ANY other marriages in this country.
Your relationship with ‘marriage’ is backwards. And so doomed to fail.
People who call themselves ‘Christians’ really need to take another look.
You have CLEARLY missed the mark, and not just where marriage is concerned.
If Jesus Christ were to return to Earth today, I don’t think ‘Christians’ would even recognize him. Instead, you would choose to persecute him, as you do so many others.
Your savior Jesus Christ spoke 1 commandment: Love one another as I have loved you.
So simple. So pure. Yet so difficult for his followers.
Only when ‘Christians’ abandon their judgments & condemnations of others will they experience true love. Both Earthly love and that of our savior.
I have met only a handful of people in my life with a Biblical view on marriage. I say that as a person who has been a church attender since birth. God’s call for husbands is unconditional, sacrificial love for their wives. How many men do you know who do this? God appoints the man as head of his household, making all problems in that household at least somewhat the man’s responsibility. How many husbands and fathers do you see taking personal responsibility for their families holistic well being?
You find me statistics for dedicated, loving husbands with failed marriages. Some might exist, but no rational woman would seek separation from a man literally willing to die for her benefit. Women might not be rational, but they do tend to appreciate someone who puts their interests first in every possible way. My own wife initially found the idea of submitting to be difficult, but as I have dedicated myself to loving her sacrificially and unconditionally it becomes easier for her.
Who do you think is being persecuted here? Jesus was explicitly clear that we are all fallen, evil people. Neither Colin nor myself would dispute this fact. In fact, anyone who thinks themself better than others is likely not really a Christian. To be a Christian, one must first acknowledge that they are themselves evil and that Christ alone can fix that, through no action or merit of our own. As we grow to know Christ better, we realize how even what we thought of as our strengths are really failings and that outside of Christ we are incapable of doing good.
That said, we can look at the standard Jesus called us to as a goal both for ourselves and others. Jesus said “That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.“ This is not a conditional relationship!
You are on the right track here, but failing to see clearly. We do not abandon our judgments of others because what they are doing is not wrong. Instead, we abandon our judgments because we understand that we are ALL doing wrong, and are equally deserving of eternal torment. Hitler was evil, but so am I. It is hypocritical for me to “judge” Hilter while exempting myself from my judgment. By accepting Christ’s love, we become ABLE to love others. Again, this is not from our own strength (that we could brag about), but from Christ’s.
The message of the Bible to the unbeliever is NOT to live a good life and love others. This would be an impossible message with which to comply. The message of the Bible is that we CANNOT make up for our own evil, and need a Savior. Once we have accepted that savior, we are empowered by Him to live a life pleasing to Him. That includes displaying the unconditional, sacrificial love of a husband for his wife or the submission of a wife to her husband. These serve as an example to others of God’s love for us and ours for him.
Statistically that isn’t true. Christians are less likely to get divorced than non-Christians.
I agree. I read a feminist blog regularly. The young feminists there are steeped in an unbiblical culture, and display a worldly view of relationships and marriage. Many of the goals of feminism are not at odds with Christianity–what Christian is going to be against letting women vote, or object to equal pay for equal work?–but the people who identify with the feminist movement are advancing other agendas that are unbiblical. For example, they have aligned themselves with the gay rights movement and the GLBT community. Some of them explicitly state that they are working to change the institution of marriage in our culture.
This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s just young feminist activists who are intentionally and publicly working to destroy the institution of marriage as we know it.
As far as I’m concerned, a lot of people completely ignore context when they’re looking at Ephesians 5:22, both textual and cultural.
Continuing on to chapter 6, 5:22 is really part of a long section giving specific examples to specific groups of people on how to act out the earlier instructions of chapter 5, which can be summed up as ‘Be good, don’t be foolish, and be nice to each other.’ (Very, very paraphrased!) Along with husbands and wives, there are instructions to children, fathers, slaves, and slave-masters. I believe these instructions need to be viewed as instructions to people in relationships as they existed at the time, and not automatically applied to relationships as they exist today.
For instance, when Ephesians was written, it was pretty much a given throughout the Roman world that wives were to obey (not just submit to) their husbands. If I remember correctly, this was the law. Given this, the emphasis in Ephesians 5:22 moves from “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” to “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”, or possibly “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”, since the submitting part was already taken for granted at the time.
Now, I doubt I’m going to change anyone’s mind here on the biblical support or lack thereof for wifely submission, but I thought I should at least throw it out here, so that people don’t assume I agree with Colin and the rest of you all by my silence.
Because really, I disagree with quite a large chunk of what has been said here so far.
Oh, and Atanamis:
Women might not be rational, but they do tend to appreciate someone who puts their interests first in every possible way.
Yeah, thanks for keeping up the “Women aren’t rational” meme. I appreciate it a lot.
Actually, IIRC, ’submit’ isn’t even in the earliest manuscripts of Ephesians 5:22. Of course, you can have a whole other argument then about whether it should be assumed, since submission was talked about earlier, etc.
But to sum, Colin’s interpretation isn’t quite without controversy. There are many other reasons for this, but if I were to go into them all here, it would require writing a book, and others have already written that book.
Speaking of Ephesians 5:22 and women in general, I just read this the other day. He talks about Ephesians 5:21ff (in point #2) in a manner similar to Ardith’s points. As one who sympathises with feminist theologies, I would disagree with Colin’s (as well as Atanamis’s and probably everyone else’s) views here when it comes to ‘perverting the gospel’ (I think I agree on the importance of marriage and the covenant. I don’t think, however, that the analogy between the relation of husband and wife is perfectly synonymous with the relation of Christ and church.
I am already aware that I probably won’t rank in Atanamis’s list of ‘good theology’ (well, Biblical view on marriage in this case).
Ardith - I suspect we have a different framework on this issue. I will say that I think you are making a semantics error one this particular point which is derailing your argument a little.
Namely, “obey” and “submit” are not synonyms.
My wife happened to say “obey” in her vows. We have since talked about this and do not believe that obey was the appropriate term - she should have said “submit.” Obedience is much more akin to the historical role of women as unequal and subservient to men (ala children to parents, slaves to masters). But this is not what Paul says here - he says “submit.”
It is true that submit has often been taken to mean “obey” and I am sure it was taken that way at the time. But this interpretation is faulty in light of the context, as you have pointed out.
Submission is not a word that is relative to culture - I believe the concept of submission is an inherent feature of humanity in all times and places, and it reveals, ultimately, aspects of God’s characteristic order. In this sense, wives submitting to husbands in the context of Christian marriage makes complete sense, and strikes me as a-cultural and a-historical. Submission is a state of mind - an emphases on role and responsibility. I would hardly classify it as a slave to master relationship, or an “obedience” relationship.
Chris, I agree, of course that all aspects of marriage are not completely synonymous with Christ and the church. However, I think that issues of headship, and these seem to be what NT writers emphasise in their epistles, are indeed the main emphasis of similarity.
Colin wrote:
That statement bothers me because it compares the role of the husband to the salvific role of God. That’s just a stretch for me. I’m not saying that the roles of the husband and wife are interchangeble, but perhaps it could be expressed a bit differently. God initiates - man follows. Husband initiates - wife follows. Not sure if I’d bring salvation into it. Perhaps many women want to be “saved” by their man. Just as many men are looking for a woman to save them as well. But maybe things are not as they should be. Maybe the man should be playing more of a saving role.
@Tank, look at what section that is in. It’s one of the ‘perversions of the Gospel’. At least the way I interpret the section is a listing of ‘perversions’ and further detailing of their message. I don’t think Colin is advocating these.
Oh, I’m aware that submission and obedience are not the same thing. I’m just no longer convinced that God commands a gender-based ‘order’ to marriage. There doesn’t seem to be a sufficient Biblical basis, once the full context is taken into account, for complementarianism.
TANK - point taken. Really what I was trying to do here was show that if marriage is a reflection of the gospel, and marriage roles are interchangeable, then the gospel would look very different. I agree with you that the language could be taken as getting into confusion of God versus Church roles with husband versus wife roles - especially regarding salvation. It wasn’t my intention to even imply that the husband’s role is in any way comparable to the salvation role of Christ. Hopefully that makes sense.
“There doesn’t seem to be a sufficient Biblical basis, once the full context is taken into account, for complementarianism.”
I disagree. Taking the entire Bible context into account leads to a complementarian view. Recognizing that marriage was designed from the very beginning to symbolize Christ’s relationship with the Church, His bride, leads one to recognize that the husband is to lead and serve the wife as Jesus leads and serves the Church. Or as TANK put it, the husband initiates, the woman follows.
If we look farther back to the OT in Genesis 3:16: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Because of the fall, women now want to switch roles and control their husbands. One aspect of Christ’s death and resurrection was to fix that relationship back to its original intended state and show His followers what that looked like.
Practically speaking as a married man, this usually works out without much conflict in my marriage. As someone who very much values my wife’s opinion and feelings, I work hard to come to an agreement in everything where we’re both satisfied, and am willing in many cases to be the one less satisfied. Better a piece of bread and all that. But there are times where I have to just say “this is the way it’s going to be.” I’m ultimately responsible before God for our marriage and family, which is a bit humbling if you ask me. The fact that God won’t hear our prayers if we treat our wives poorly is a sobering thing to keep in mind.
I really dislike this kind of universalising relativism (and it’s not just Darius, I’m using this line because it is a perfect example). No theological position develops ex nihilo or even purely exegetically. The Bible, as a text, is a medium. That is, it mediates concepts and ideas, which are further mediated by culture, tradition, personal opinion, etc. ‘Taking the entire Biblical context into account’ doesn’t lead to anything (and this is as much directed to Darius as it is to Ardith). Meaning doesn’t occur in a vacuum and revelation is always mediated. It’s perfectly fine to argue that there is a good Biblical argument for the complementarian view, just as it is perfectly fine to argue that there is a good Biblical argument for the egalitarian view. But, please don’t be so naive as to claim that one’s own reading is the ‘real’ and ‘true’ reading of the text. We humans don’t get that privilege, even as tenured Christians.
cchrisr, isn’t there something that taking the entire Biblical context into account does lead to? Aren’t there some “basic” truths… er, I mean “truths,” that the Bible leads to and aren’t up to how we “mediate” it. Say, for example, the truth that Jesus rose from the dead? Or the truth that God loves the world? I agree that meaning doesn’t occur in a vacuum; we all have prejudices that we bring to the text. But the trick isn’t to say that there isn’t one valid meaning but to recognize our prejudices and put them aside as best we can. The Biblical authors (including THE Author) had a particularly meaning in mind to everything they wrote. It’s our duty as readers to attempt as best we can to understand that meaning. Either the Bible teaches complementarianism, egalitarianism, or some other position on the marriage relationship, but it doesn’t teach them all three.
This is where I disagree. The Bible doesn’t teach doctrine; it describes and explains the figure of Jesus the Christ. It may allude to beliefs and doctrine, but it’s not any kind of doctrinal treatise. I would argue that it should be read as a literary work (i.e. as poetic or imaginative) and not as some kind of textbook (i.e. as a deductive argument or drawn-out systematic theology). In other words (again), the Bible doesn’t delineate ‘truths’ or provide unmediated revelation but points to the embodiment of Truth itself.
Well, the apostle Paul disagreed pretty vehemently with you. He repeatedly told Christians to fight false doctrine by using the Bible to teach them correct doctrine (Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 3 are both pretty clear in this regard).
Except that by ‘the Bible’, he meant the OT and possibly some ‘inspired texts’ that were in circulation at the time (and these do not have any correlation to the NT). Further, he still did not explicate ‘correct doctrine’ but urged the leaders of these communities to correct ‘false’ doctrine. Interpreting his (very particular) case examples as doctrine or as justification for a particular interpretation of the text is beyond the nature of the text we have. That is, such an interpretation is always already mediated. Fight false doctrine, sure; but what is false doctrine and what isn’t? If the history of doctrine (e.g. the ecumenical councils in late antiquities) has shown anything, it wasn’t set in stone with Paul (or John or the NT or Luther or whatever arbitrary end point we wish).
“Except that by ‘the Bible’, he meant the OT and possibly some ‘inspired texts’ that were in circulation at the time (and these do not have any correlation to the NT).”
But it’s clear from 2 Peter 3:16 that the Apostles viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture. So he probably also meant much of what we’ve come to know as the New Testament.
Ah,I’m late to this discussion.
Colin said, “Marriage does not exist as a political tool for the government to use to promote family values or even reproduction. Marriage also is not just any relationship between two people who “love” each other. Marriage is, first and foremost, an image, a covenant that is a representation of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).”
I don’t especially like the wording of the first sentence. Throughout this piece I think you need to differentiate between “marriage” and “Christian marriage,” especially if the words ‘political’ or ’social’ are going to also be in the sentence. Most indigenous cultures have marriage, and those marriages likely do have political and social implications, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.
And here’s a grumpy old lady comment: most of the people writing and commenting (except Darius) are married but without children. I kind of feel like saying let’s have this discussion 10 years from now when you all have a pile of kids and then maybe I’ll view the comments with more credibility. Of course, what the Bible says about marriage is not impacted by whether or not you have kids, but your personal interpretation of what the Bible says may be impacted when you experience how children change the husband-wife relationship.
I personally dislike the complementarian/egalitarian divide. I do like the scriptures that tell us to submit to one another and to love one another. I suspect that I’m a lucky one because I have a very self-confident husband, which allows me a large amount of personal latitude without “putting him down.” I feel sorry for Christian women who intellectually want to submit to their husbands but those husbands are insecure, because that insecurity often turns into attempts to dominate, control, etc. Also, a woman in that situation has little leeway in her personal life without worrying that she is being unsubmissive.
And don’t get me started on “christian” marriages where men abuse women (by abuse I generally mean adultery and violence) and women put up with it because they’re supposed to submit.
I’ve mentioned it before–one of my favorite little stories about this topic was hearing an 80 year old man in my church say, “How could I possibly view my wife as my equal?? To do that, I’d have to take her off the pedestal.”
But anyway, the real point of this article is that Christian marriage and God’s love for us is not conditional, and I agree with that.
‘Taking the entire Biblical context into account’ doesn’t lead to anything (and this is as much directed to Darius as it is to Ardith). Meaning doesn’t occur in a vacuum and revelation is always mediated. It’s perfectly fine to argue that there is a good Biblical argument for the complementarian view, just as it is perfectly fine to argue that there is a good Biblical argument for the egalitarian view. But, please don’t be so naive as to claim that one’s own reading is the ‘real’ and ‘true’ reading of the text. We humans don’t get that privilege, even as tenured Christians.
Mmmm, fair enough. That’s closer to what I was trying to get across, anyway.
The idea that complementarian relationships exist, or that people draw them from the Bible doesn’t really bother me. What does bother me is when I get told that in order to be a good and proper Christian, I have to be in one, or when the general assumption is that all good and proper Christians have a God-given desire to be in a complementarian marriage. Because I don’t see that; it’s not a personal conviction I have, it’s a personal conviction that someone else has, and can’t really be backed up the way “Thou shalt not murder” can. I rather firmly believe that this is one of those areas that Christians can (or at least should try to?) ‘agree to disagree’ in.
“I rather firmly believe that this is one of those areas that Christians can (or at least should try to?) ‘agree to disagree’ in.”
I can somewhat agree with that. I’m more interested in how it works itself out in the lives of Christians. In my experience, those who argue for an egalitarian view TEND to be doing so out of a need for power or control or out of a dislike of husbands being in charge (but there are plenty of exceptions) rather than because they have honestly approached the Scriptures and come away with an egal understanding. On the whole, this is an issue, for me, where orthopraxy matters more than orthodoxy. I have heard of complementarians who are much less Biblical in how they treat their spouse than some egalitarians.
Also, as Jew mentioned above, an egal reading of the Biblical text seems to usually include a very liberal, immoral reading of it on other issues (again, not true of every egal). One needs to be cognizant of that tendency and be careful to avoid the roots of the other dangerous heresies.
Thainamu, thanks for the comment and experience. Very useful. Obviously, my experience is five years of marriage and no children - so my argument is not gong to be coloured by a lot of years of experience - that can both be an asset and a liability.
I definitely don’t think that all Christians have a God-given desire to be in a complimentarian marriage. I can tell you that I fight it tooth and nail - I would love nothing more than to preserve short-term peace in my house by not leading my wife. I would love to be lazy and be a spectator in my marriage. The answer to these problems, I believe, is found in the complimentarian view of marriage - where I am challenged to be a leader, to love my wife, to affirm her role, to humbly submit to God.
And I would argue that “explicit” passages like “thou shalt not murder” are no different than those deductive, systematic principles found by seeing scripture as a cohesive whole. Even the commandments must be interpreted with an external framework in mind - what is murder? who is thou? Etc… If I believe the bible is entirely inspired, and that what we have in front of us is truth, and relevant for me now, then I can use it in a logical way.
Now I agree that this doesn’t exclude an egalitarian reading, however, I think the framework (the logic) of that view is flawed. So I agree with your last point to a degree (and Chris’s point to some, but a lesser, extent) that it’s going to be an agree to disagree. But I hope you can see that I do not think the complimentarian view is “obvious” - I think both my own sinful heart, and the inherent properties of “scripture” as being non-inductive - push against that formation. Nevertheless, I think it is the most logical conclusion reached in a systematic view of scripture.
Can not one do these things from an ‘egalitarian’ view of marriage just as easily? I would suggest for the peanut gallery that I hold a view of marriage that would fall directly in the (post-)feminist camp, yet I don’t disagree with the principles here at all (and the feminist theologians I do know–and yes I do know quite a few–wouldn’t disagree with these either). I don’t see what you’re saying as being really that different from the feminists who would argue a ‘50/50′ partnership (I won’t go through all 4 above) because both attest to love, self-sacrifice, affirmation, and humility in marriage. If God is leading the marriage, then the man isn’t the head and he has no special privilege. It sounds like you are acknowledging that there is an ‘egalitarian’ reading of the Bible, but rejecting any actual acceptance of it. Or, to put it bluntly, it sounds like your ‘agree to disagree’ is really an ‘agree to disagree but actually you’re wrong’.
There’s no proof of this connection at all. (1) Paul didn’t write just the letters that are in the NT. There’s no way to logically jump from ‘the letters Paul wrote to you’ (you being ‘Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia’) to the NT as listed in the canon (the earliest being Athanasius and S., both in the 4th century). And so, I return to my previous point: reading the Bible is always already mediated. Or, to re-frame it in terms of theology: There are no systematic theologies in the Biblical text(s) without (an external) one already serving as an interpretive framework.
Chris, I’ll make no apologies about that. It’s definitely “I agree to disagree but I think you’re wrong.”
“The answer to these problems, I believe, is found in the complimentarian view of marriage - where I am challenged to be a leader, to love my wife, to affirm her role, to humbly submit to God.”
Amen to that. One of the biggest hints to me that a complimentarian view is correct is that both my sinful self and the sinful self of my wife are prone to fight it. Truly following a comp view is very hard work.
Sorry to be the grammar nazi here, but it bugs me:
complimentary (with an i)= telling your wife that she is beautiful, that is, paying her a compliment.
complementary (with an e)= telling your wife that she completes you, that is, two parts make the whole, like two complementary angles make a right angle.
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/complementcompliment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism
Thanks Thainamu, I’m shocked I kept missing that. That bugs me too.
It is easier to discuss the differences between complementarian and egalitarian viewpoints; in the end, no one here is really going to be convinced otherwise, which makes it a nice and safe diversion.
However, the truth of the matter, and the point behind this part in the series is really how the article defines the meaning behind Christian marriage:
“Christ forgave us while we were still sinners - so we love our spouses, knowing that they have, do and will sin against us. Christ gave himself for us, so we too surrender our lives, our pride and our independence for the benefit of our spouse. Christ clothes us in his righteousness and has saved us - we protect, honour and affirm the role of our spouse and their worth as a child of God.”
Wow. That is a definition that shows remarkable breadth and depth of what it means for us to love one another in marriage as Christians. It is discussion and heart searching of this statement that is the more difficult conversation to have. If I truly let this statement sink in, I am both personally challenged and encouraged. Yet it is these issues of the heart are more difficult to discuss.
The biggest difference I see between worldly and Biblical marriage isn’t complementary vs egalitarian, but rather unconditional vs contractual. I do believe the mandates God gives to each partner in a marriage are different, but ultimately they don’t play a big role if both partners are devotedly following God. As Thainamu indicated, a secure husband need not demand submission, but rather guide his wife toward compliance with God’s will. A husband’s mandate to love his wife unconditionally and sacrificially means that a Godly husband CAN’T lord his authority over his wife, since doing so would be neither loving nor sacrificial.
I wrote my own wedding vows (as did my wife). One of the things I stated in those vows was that any plans, desires, or goals I may have had prior to marriage I was laying down for the needs and benefit of my wife. My wife’s needs ought to come first before any other goal I might have professionally, personally, or in ministry. I want friends, neighbors, and students I might have to be able to look at my love for my wife and see a model of God’s love for them. This is consistent with how God has modeled his relationship with us throughout Scripture.
Basically, the only exceptions I would allow for breaking off a marriage are outright abuse or adultery. Even in these cases I think it is desirable to restore the marriage if at all possible, but I am fully willing to allow escape for the wronged party. “No fault” divorces are inherently un-Biblical, and there are no “irreconcilable” differences. If you’re not willing to make a permanent commitment, don’t get married. I’d rather people be up front about their unwillingness to commit and just move in together than for them to duplicitously make vows they aren’t willing to keep.
I think Atanamis and Sadie’s comments speak more towards my original intent, and also call me away from my own part in the derailing of this conversation into egalitarian/complementarianism. The big point is contracts here - I think the rest flows from that.
I’m not sure I agree with that. What I meant to say is that feminism as I’ve encountered it is often rooted in an unbiblical, non-Christian worldview. An egalitarian interpretation of Scripture doesn’t lead to a more liberal view of Scripture on other issues. Some of the conservative Episcopal churches that have broken away from the Episcopal Church USA because of the gay issue are churches that ordain women.
Feminism as I’ve encountered it is unchristian. It is just as opposed to Christian egalitarianism as it is to Christian complementarianism. Now, I know there are Christian feminists. I haven’t looked much into that particular brand of feminism. I expect they would be egalitarian, and I also suspect they have little in common with the larger feminist movement. I could be wrong.
Anyway, I just wanted to make it clear that I’m not dissing egalitarianism. I have egalitarian leanings as regards women in the church, and I tend to lean more complementarian when it comes to marriage roles.