Winter 2015
Men and women serving and leading as equals
What does it mean? What should it look like?
CONTENTS 4 6 10 12 15 18
D E PA R T M E N T S 3 From the Editor As Christ Emptied Himself 20 Ministry News
How I Submit to My Wife
Why a feminist with a hairy chest chose to take his beloved’s last name. by Nicholas Rudolph Quient
The Unsuspecting Egalitarians
20 Reflect with Us 21 Giving Opportunities 22 President’s Message Biblical Submission Begins with Submission to God’s Word
An unintentional journey toward egalitarianism. by Catherine Jacobson
23 Praise and Prayer
Just Friends? Intertwined Building Blocks of Friendship and Marriage
ED I TO R I AL S TAF F
Considering submission through the lens of friendship. by Anthony Bankes
Editor: Tim Krueger Graphic Designer: Mary Quint Publisher/President: Mimi Haddad
A High View of Submission
How Ephesians 5 changed one pastor’s mind on women in leadership. by Daniel Hill
Follow Mutuality on Twitter @MutualityMag
Understanding Submission in the Context of the Pauline Epistles What did Paul’s call to submission mean for the early church? by Jasmine Obeyesekere Fernando
Faithfully Undermining Patriarchy Making sense of 1 Peter 3:1. by Elizabeth K. Casey
Mutuality vol. 22, no. 4, Winter 2015 “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19, NRSV). Mutuality (ISSN: 1533-2470) seeks to provide inspiration, encouragement, and information about the equality of men and women within the Christian church around the world.
Advertising in Mutuality does not imply organizational endorsement. Please note that neither Christians for Biblical Equality, nor the editor, nor the editorial team is responsible or legally liable for any content or any statements made by any author, but the legal responsibility is solely that author’s once an article appears in Mutuality.
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the 2011 revision of the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
CBE grants permission for any original article (not a reprint) to be photocopied for local use provided no more than 1,000 copies are made, they are distributed free, the author is acknowledged, and CBE is recognized as the source.
2 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
On the Cover: Design by Mary Quint. Mutuality is published quarterly by Christians for Biblical Equality, 122 W Franklin Ave, Suite 218; Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451. We welcome your comments, article submissions, and advertisements. Contact us by email at cbe@cbeinternational.org or by phone at (612) 872-6898. For writers’ guidelines and upcoming themes and deadlines, visit cbe.today/mutuality.
website :
cbeinternational.org
F
rom the Editor
by Tim Krueger
As Christ Emptied Himself “Submission.” It’s not a four-letter word, but it may as well be. to live in communities not defined by power at all! We are Depending on how it’s used, who says it, and what they to build communities where power is shared as in Eden, for mean, “submission” can be anything from dirty and disgusting to the flourishing of the other. No matter what we might say, a offensive and oppressive. Or, perhaps, even beautiful. submission-leadership model of marriage doesn’t meet that One brand of submission made headlines when it was standard. A relationship where one person must submit and the glorified in Fifty Shades of Grey. And in the West (with the other is encouraged to submit if they decide it’s the most loving apparent exception of sexual fetishes), the notion of submission thing to do is a relationship defined by a power imbalance. is offensive, an affront to freedom and individual rights—the Jesus did not deal in power imbalances. He emptied bedrock of our culture. himself of his power over others. God did not extend a helping For many in the church, submission is simply another word for abuse. Far too many women and children have suffered in churches and communities that teach them that the Bible requires submission to the husband or father in all circumstances, even abuse. On the other extreme, some Christians dismiss the concept of submission altogether as quaint and primitive, saying Bible passages like Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 reflect archaic values and have nothing to say to us today. In evangelical circles, the popular teaching about submission (at least in marriage) is somewhere in the middle: marriage is a relationship where a wife submits and a husband leads (a right he loses if he abuses his power). This, we’re told, hand from a place of power. Jesus did not become like us; he is beautiful; a living model of Christ’s relationship with the became one of us. The Creator-creation relationship ceased to church. If this offends our sensibilities, it can only be because of be defined by a power imbalance. And that is what Christian our sinful pride and selfishness. After all, this model of marriage submission is about. is the Bible’s clear command. Is it radical in our world to ask women to submit to their Is this true? Does the Bible require a submission-leadership husbands? Yes, perhaps it is. It’s certainly not popular, at least dynamic that we’d naturally embrace if not for our sinfulness? I in the West. But it’s also only a fragment of biblical submission. think not. There’s more to the story of submission, and the true What’s truly radical is the challenge to men to love as Christ story is a beautiful one. loved. That is, not simply to wield power kindly or lovingly The Bible tells us we were built for mutuality. In Eden, across the power gap, but to cross the gap itself, to empty female and male were equal partners, with joint stewardship over themselves of power. This is the act of submission required of creation. They were endowed with the power to create, to grow, to those with power and privilege. Now that’s an idea that has the love, and to ensure creation flourished. But humanity abused this power to change the world. power, using it to dominate rather than create, to serve ourselves In this issue, we explore Christian submission. What rather than others. The pursuit of power has driven human does submission in Christian marriages look like? Why does it history ever since. matter? How should we read and apply passages like Ephesians Rightly, Christians decry the pursuit of power and 5 and 1 Peter 3 that tell women to submit to their husbands? I dominance. We humans are a power-hungry lot, to be sure. had the good fortune of working on this issue of Mutuality at Ironically though, our solution is often power-based hierarchy. the same time as I prepared to preach on Ephesians 5:21–6:9. We place one group in power over another, then insist that if those I found myself scribbling notes and quotes from the articles, with less power would simply be content, the power struggles will hoping to squeeze their insights into my talk. I’ve been educated, cease. Problem solved! challenged, and inspired. I hope you will be as well. Of course, history has shown this doesn’t work. What’s more, it is not what the Bible calls for, and it is not what Jesus In Christ, modeled. We are not simply to not seek power. Rather, we are Tim Krueger
God did not extend a helping hand from a place of power. Jesus did not become like us; he became one of us.
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 3
How I Submit to My Wife
Why a feminist with a hairy chest chose to take his beloved’s last name
“If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. . .” (Philippians 2:1–4. NRSV) 4 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
By Nicholas Rudolph Quient
“You know what, why don’t you take Allison’s last name?” My mind instantly went back to the days of my youth, where I remembered that the very idea of doing such a thing would have gotten me kicked out of the youth group. Now there I was, in my midtwenties, preparing for seminary and marriage, with a whole new outlook on life, and this little dilemma presented itself. What was at stake in my last name? My parents, both of whom have journeyed a lot on the issue of women in ministry and mutuality in marriage, had brought me up to respect the person, not the name. I was never called an “Ahern,” though that was my last name. Indeed, my parents seemed quite keen on raising me to love and respect others in the context of who they were, regardless of status. My last name, in short, had nothing to do with who I was, before
website :
cbeinternational.org
others and before God. Character is what God desired, not my last name. So, when a loved one presented the idea, in passing, I was struck by it. I had come a long way in my theology of gender, from my time at Ron Pierce’s Theology of Gender course at Biola University, to reading Greek and starting seminary. But this was something new. My fiancée and I already practiced mutual submission on a daily basis, and when this issue came up, my response was natural and to the point: sure, why not? Of course, in my evangelical subculture, things aren’t always as natural or to the point as this. My parents were supportive, though it was pretty clear that they didn’t agree. But after some time and conversation, we came to see eye-to-eye on the issue, as much as you can. Not everyone was as supportive. I got several
that the woman takes the man’s last name, and that is that. I recall my sentiment quite clearly: I will not be bullied about this. I’m 6 feet tall, bearded, a former swimmer and water polo player, moderately handsome (evidenced by the fact that Allison married me), and a lover of cigars and dark beer. I’m pretty manly (when I take off my shirt, small children point and say things about Bigfoot) and that was the first time I put my foot down on this issue. Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ meant that I wouldn’t compromise my conviction, especially in light of the call to love and serve one another (Eph. 5:1–2). Growing up in a Christian subculture that prided itself on masculinity and not being feminine, I saw very little of the rest of Ephesians 5:25–29 in the
beautiful. I got to act like Jesus; what more incentive did I need? Fast-forward several months, and my wife is working in a fast-paced and grueling sales job. One night while on a sales trip, the subject of the last name change came up with her non-Christian co-workers. Instantly, they asked, “Is this a religious thing?” Then, when Allison explained how I took her name (and wanted to, not being forced in any way), they were struck. When Allison and I went in for our marriage certificate and told the clerk about my last name change, the woman looked at me as if to ask, “you lose a bet?” A friend of mine told me that what I did was “[expletive] sweet.” So, curiously, God has used this in some interesting ways. In being married for just over two years, I can safely say that the most difficult
I saw mutual submission as required for marriage, and I believe that it was the strongest measure of what I could do: I give of myself to her, and I honor her, by esteeming her heritage, her culture, her family, by taking her last name. emails about my choice, some harsher than others. Another loved one was very concerned that Allison was taking control of the relationship, and another intimated that I enjoy being sexually dominated. Of course, Allison and I, since we hadn’t yet been wed, weren’t having sex but the point was clear: my last name meant a lot to some people. It boiled over one night where I was so angry that I nearly had a panic attack and found myself sitting on the living room floor with my loved ones, trying to keep myself from popping off at someone. My mother, to her credit, offered the suggestion that we hyphenate our last names. That issue wasn’t on the table, and for good reason: the actions of others had pushed it off. Even if I wanted to hyphenate my last name (and I didn’t), the issue was about my last name, and not my character. The issue was about the assumption
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
lives of the husbands I knew. With the exception of my father, very few men were willing to sacrifice for their wives in a way that brought the woman up to them. Very few were willing to follow Ephesians 5:21, 25–29, and submission was designated as a female thing. But in reading Scripture, everything I saw ran exactly counter to that claim, not the least of which was the example of Jesus (Phil. 2:5–11). He forsook his prior glory, and came down to our level, in order to bring us back up with him. I saw mutual submission as required for marriage, and I believe that it was the strongest measure of what I could do: I give of myself to her, and I honor her, by esteeming her heritage, her culture, her family, by taking her last name. The example of Christ washing the disciple’s feet indicated that this wasn’t going to be easy. But as offering a model for how to act in marriage, I saw nothing more
aspect of our egalitarian marriage so far is the jointly amusing task of trying to “out submit” the other. When such a treat is framed in this way, I fail to understand why anyone wouldn’t want to submit to his or her spouse. So how do I submit to my wife? I live as Christ did, giving everything for her, serving her, taking her weaknesses as my own. I live for her, as I know she lives for me: in reverence for Christ, one to another, being of the same mind, doing nothing for selfish reasons, and living a wondrous mystery now disclosed (Eph. 5:32). Nicholas Quient is a graduate of Saddleback College and Biola University and is currently an MAT student at Fuller Theological Seminary in biblical languages. He loves his wife Allison (a PhD student at Fuller Theological Seminary), his blind cat Monty, dark beer, and bottled Coca-Cola.
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 5
The Unsuspecting Egalitarians By Catherine Jacobson Mark and I never meant to become egalitarians, at least not until we discovered we already were. This is the story of the long, winding road to recognize and gratefully celebrate that we are egalitarians. In retrospect, we were on that journey from the very first.
First steps I grew up in a Christian home, where my father was presumed to be the boss of our family. My mother seldom questioned or contradicted him in the hearing of their six children. My husband’s mother unquestioningly and consistently acquiesced to her “beloved hubby.” Thankfully both men were godly and they did not exercise leadership or authority unkindly or unwisely. Mark and I both attended a Christian college where students were “gender-specific courteous.” Men were expected pull out chairs and open doors for women. It made little sense to me that a woman should stand awkwardly
in the dining hall, waiting for a man to notice her and pull out her chair so she could sit. Likewise, it troubled me that a man could have his arms full of books and a woman might be carrying nothing, yet the man was still expected to open the door. But, that’s just the way it was.
Marriage Ma rk a nd I entered ma rria ge assuming male headship and wifely submission would characterize our family. For thirty-plus years we rolled along thinking we had a “biblical” complementarian marriage, asking no questions about what that meant. As we started our life together my husband exercised his “godly leadership” by paying the bills. He did not enjoy the task and particularly disliked trying to balance the checkbook. I will never forget the day he was despairing over the difference between the bank statement and the checkbook and I asked, “Would you like me to pay the bills and balance
the checkbook?” With a sigh of relief he pushed the red CorningWare “bill box” across the kitchen table. He has written as few checks as possible ever since. With good reason, he trusted my judgement in financial matters. With less merit, he trusted my math skills, but I have a calculator and have kept the books balanced. It did not occur to us to wonder if he had abdicated his responsibility or if I had failed to submit. We just divided the labor in a way that made sense and matched our skill sets. When Mark went to seminary, I was still typing his papers on a Royal Standard typewriter. I would type after dinner, dishes, laundry, and bathing and bedding children. Late one night I typed while he slept. It dawned on me that he typed as well as I did, he had more time, and there was no particular reason for me to type for him except that it was what seminary wives did. In the morning I asked him if he thought he should type his own papers. He readily agreed and continues to do his own work to this day. At one crucial turning point in our life I was quite confident of a ministry career opportunity we had been offered. He was less so, but was encouraged to move ahead because I thought I could see the way. Again, we never considered whether he was failing to lead. We were simply making decisions in a way that made sense.
Ministry Mark became a pastor, and he preached on submission only occasionally. Meanwhile, I taught a traditional complementarian view the few times the topic came up in Bible studies I led. It never seemed quite fair, but we thought it was in the Bible and we
It did not occur to us to wonder if he had abdicated his responsibility or if I had failed to submit. We just divided the labor in a way that made sense and matched our skill sets. 6 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
website :
cbeinternational.org
It never seemed quite fair, but we thought it was in the Bible and we thought it seemed quite plain. In reality we had not truly thought. thought it seemed quite plain. In reality we had not truly thought. When a couple in our church taught a class on marriage, they scheduled a “submission potluck” to discuss the topic which had come up previously in a session but had remained unresolved. I was not in the class, but was invited to the dinner. I was stunned when the husband of the teaching team said, “I love my wife more when she submits.” Frustrated by the discussion, I proposed we have a “husbands love your wives” potluck. We did, but to my dismay it didn’t generate much meaningful interaction. When the husband of the teaching couple was out of town, the question of whether the wife could teach alone rose to the level of the elder board.
Women did not teach mixed gender adult classes or preach. The possibility of a woman pastor was completely unimaginable. No one thought about it; it was just the way things were. I didn’t want to teach or preach so I didn’t worry very much about it even though the practice seemed unfair and inconsistent.
Discovery In 2002 I had the extraordinary opportunity to go to seminary with expenses paid by my employer. My first class was about women in ministry. I struggled
with and resisted the concept that while women were not inferior, their gender prevented them from leadership in the church and the family. After one class I proposed to the professor that there was no way to exclude women from leadership and continue to maintain they were not inferior. She responded thoughtfully and with a carefully measured agreement. She was a single woman who had borne the burden of being misunderstood in her cross-cultural ministry in Asia and by churches and pastors in the United States. We have continued our discussions on the topic in the ensuing years. I am grateful that her class pushed me to think more critically about gender issues in the church and family and to start asking myself harder questions. My favorite and most life-changing class was Theology of Gender. The reading and writing assignments were mindbenders. The professor forced us to think, rethink, and think again. After reading a massive collection of essays by complementarians, the only thing I could conclude was that the main function of male
headship was to break a tie when husband and wife disagreed. The writers used difficult Scripture passages to support their arguments and their evidences were weak and conflicting. The more I read and thought, the more disenchanted I became with what I had assumed I believed. I collected and read many books about gender including The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, The Second Sex by
earlier. When my parents began to need a lot of extra care, he expertly cleaned our house for several years, giving me the gift of time to tend to them. Neither of us could think of a single time we had not been able to make an agreeable decision. We had never made a move or career change that was not mutually beneficial. He had never asked me to submit and I had never felt it necessary to be led by
the gospel in the eyes of a watching world. Because patriarchy itself is not the timeless principle, male headship and wifely submission have no place in an egalitarian culture. Mark’s days of thinking he was a complementarian were over. We had been practicing egalitarians all along; we just didn’t know it. The road to that realization was hard and rocky,
The timeless principle had to do with Christian men and women acting in a way that did not bring shame on the gospel in the eyes of a watching world. Because patriarchy itself is not the timeless principle, male headship and wifely submission have no place in an egalitarian culture.
Simone De Beauvoir and The Church and the Second Sex by Mary Daly, as well as works by Phyllis Trible, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Nancy Hardesty, and Pepper Schwartz. I was thinking as I never had before. A new world opened, and I was nearly persuaded of egalitarianism, though I was conflicted. I was relieved and reassured when the professor, a friend whom I deeply respect, closed the class by saying, “I would be comfortable to have a woman as my senior pastor.” I began to suspect that maybe I never had been a complementarian. Mark and I talked endlessly about gender issues. He was not as troubled as I was by the inconsistencies of complementarianism, until one day I asked, “What do headship and submission look like in our marriage?” We had no answer. We had long taken care of things based on our skills and according to who had time. Through the years both of us had taken the lead to pick out our cars and houses and arrange financing. We both worked outside the home and shared the load of managing our household. We frequently tried to be the first to leave the house to take the older and less comfortable of our two cars. Mark had taken over the grocery shopping years
him. We had made it our rule to treat each other like Christians and were wellserved by that practice. It was our habit to go out for coffee on Saturdays and for two or three years the topic of conversation for most of our Starbucks sessions was gender equality and inequality. Tears were shed, feelings were hurt, and sometimes we didn’t make a lot of progress. Our deep love and respect for each other and our determination to seek the best for each other carried us through this difficult time. When I was about done with my studies, Mark, by then a seminary professor, was working through key Scripture texts related to the issue. By the time he taught Pastoral Epistles, he had concluded that Paul’s instructions limiting the role of women in church leadership and the “household codes” in other epistles are not timeless principles but instructions specific to the time they were written and to their original audience. He did not try to read gender equality back into the text, but observed that male headship and wifely submission were normal practices within the patriarchal cultures of that time. The timeless principle had to do with Christian men and women acting in a way that did not bring shame on
8 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
but the journey was worth every difficult step of the way. It has made our marriage richer and happier. There are those who have paid for this belief with their careers and friendships. We are deeply grateful to them for making our way easier. A couple of weeks ago we had a meeting with one of the pastors of the church we attend. We met at a coffee shop that has two doors at its entrance. Mark opened the first one for me and I walked through. Without thinking anything about it, I opened and held the second door for him. The pastor watched us come in and was laughing as she said, “How egalitarian of you.” Evidently our journey to egalitarianism has concluded; we celebrate with joy! Catherine Jacobson retired from Providence Health and Services in 2014 after 30 years as an office administrator. She graduated from Western Baptist College (now Corban University) in Salem OR and from Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma WA. Her husband, Mark Jacobson is a professor in the Corban University School of Ministry in Salem, Oregon. They have two grown daughters and three grandchildren. They enjoy cycling and exploring Oregon—their new home.
website :
cbeinternational.org
JUST FRIENDS? Intertwined Building Blocks of Friendship and Marriage by Anthony Bankes
We live in a world brimming with competition. This can be seen through the widely enjoyed form of sports, or in the competing (and not so enjoyable) cultural standards for beauty. Desire for success even leads to aggressively competitive relationships in the workplace. No matter where one turns today, the main message seems to be “Get to the top no matter the cost.” Standing in stark contrast to such selfserving ideas is friendship, a relationship where there is no power struggle. Both parties are equals, walking through life side-by-side, able to look at each other eye-to-eye because it’s not about who’s better or who’s the leader, but about how each person can better serve, love, and
enjoy life with the other. Friendship is a beautiful parallel system that God created for humanity—two people coming to terms with their identities, together as friends, but also as individuals. We often learn the most about ourselves by learning about other people. Friendship is, perhaps, the most basic and important of human relationships. I see this throughout the Bible, especially in one of my favorite passages, Ecclesiastes 4:9–12, where “two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. . . . though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.” Back-to-back, side-by-side, helping the other stand up when they fall
10 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
down, bare their soul, and their heart still feels a little shaky. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard people say that true romance and healthy marriages are built on friendship. I’ve heard that if friendship isn’t the foundation of romance, the relationship is doomed to fail. If the concept of mutual, life-giving friendship isn’t at the center of a romantic relationship, it seems rather forced and dull. Romance has to flow naturally from a place of authentic love (1 Cor. 13), from the desire to honor the other as above yourself (Rom. 12:10) and bear their burdens alongside of them (Gal. 6:2). That’s something required of us as Christians in general, not just as romantic partners.
website :
cbeinternational.org
No one preaching on friendship would ever claim that one friend has to be the servant leader, and the other has to submit. No one would claim that friendships devolve into nothing more than chaotic power struggles if one person isn’t put in charge. So I get confused when I hear people bring up terms like “male headship” and “authority,” “leadership” and “roles,” when discussing the elements of a biblical marriage. I’ve listened to many friends, pastors, and writers alike speak on such topics, convinced that a solid marriage needs a leader in order to avoid power struggles and chaos. Yet no one preaching on friendship would ever claim that one friend has to be the servant leader, and the other has to submit. No one would claim that friendships devolve into nothing more than chaotic power struggles if one person isn’t put in charge. I’m guessing those same friends, pastors, and writers wouldn’t talk about submitting to their best friends. Why? Because friendships aren’t contractual. Christ-like friendships are about doing life together. They’re about side-by-side community, about friends leading in their strengths and submitting out of love, not because the submission is demanded or forced upon them by Scripture, but because it is a natural outpouring of loving someone as you love yourself. That kind of love isn’t just used to describe marriages— it’s the same kind of love used to paint the picture of David and Jonathan’s covenantal friendship, where “Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself ” (1 Sam. 20:17). I don’t think there’s one right way to do marriage. Something as holy and mysterious as the marital covenant can’t be reduced to a set of rules or roles or several Bible verses pulled out
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
of their ancient context. Just as I have seen many glorious marriages based on mutual submission, so have I seen marriages with the man as the head that are still radiantly beautiful. At the same time, I think the “headship” and the “leadership” language starts to sound more and more like an employeremployee relationship, a business leader and an administrative assistant, rather than a one-flesh bond of love and unity. Since when did Christ become not enough as the head of a relationship? Authentic friendships don’t leave room for hierarchies, for static leaders and helpers, for legalistic rankings of authority. And from what I’ve come to learn so far, neither do marriages. With Christ as the head, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, become one in him, taking turns leading and helping, showing weakness and showing strength, because in Christ there is no fear. There is no shame. One is not pigeon-holed into a specific role, but allowed the space and fluidity to grow into who he or she is in Christ. God is constantly creating us into beautiful things—beautiful things that are organic, not forced or hurried, beaten down with never enoughs and just not theres. For most of my life, I’ve heard sermons preached on marriage that only left me feeling restricted, like it was nothing more than a cardboard checklist of dos and don’ts, impossible standards with no room to be afraid and vulnerable and simply human. But I’ve also heard those same pastors talk about friendship, about David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, about
carrying each other’s burdens, and it was like breathing in fresh air that felt free. However, I only felt this way because I continued to box off marriage and friendship as two completely different concepts. Because that’s how they’re often talked about, right? “Oh, they’re just friends.” I still catch myself saying this now. Just friends, like the friendship is either ten times less than a romantic relationship, or a simple stepping stone leading to eventual marriage. It’s easy to paint marriage as the mountain top experience of all relationships, often times diminishing friendship in the process. But that’s the thing—marriage and friendship aren’t in competition. They aren’t two separate concepts on opposite sides of space, racing against each other to cross the finish line. They’re interconnected and intertwined, constantly intersecting to reveal a breathtaking paradigm of mutuality. It’s a paradigm where both are equal and Christ is the head—a paradigm that most are quick to allow into friendships. And if friendship is the most basic building block of healthy romantic relationships, wouldn’t that same paradigm carry over into marriage? Anthony Bankes is a writer, a dreamer, a doubter, a lover of coffee, a Minnesota traveler, and a clumsy Christ follower. He is currently working to finish and sell his first young adult novel, Yellowtree, which explores the themes of gender, sexuality, self-esteem and identity, all of which he is passionate about.
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 11
A High View of Submission by Daniel Hill
Whenever I hear the word “submission” I am immediately transported back to my childhood home. We were staunchly rooted in a conservative, Christian tradition, and my family prided itself on having a high view of Scripture. There were a number of beliefs affected by this high view of Scripture (which, for the record I still hold to!), but few made their way into the everyday vocabulary of my family more often than submission. We were instructed to see complementarian gender roles as one of the foundational building blocks of a godly family, and ensuring a healthy sense of submission was front and center when building that foundation. It would be well into my adult years before I would be exposed to the theology of egalitarianism, so I had no alternative but to embrace complementarianism as the biblical norm. But even as I did my best to accept this view, I couldn’t shake the inconsistencies that came with our steady commitment to a woman’s submission to her husband.
1. Healthy marriages seemed less concerned with submission. I noticed from very early on that there weren’t all that many vibrant, happy marriages around me. So whenever I saw a couple that worked well together, I made it a habit to study them. What I found was a consistent respect in these families for each person’s agency and for processing the challenges of life together. These couples were from the same tradition as me, so I would interrogate them as to how they managed to live functionally as equals while subscribing to a theology of hierarchal submission. Usually I would get some kind of an awkward response like, “Well, the head makes the decisions, but the neck is what actually turns the head.” It didn’t make any sense to me. It was as if they were complementarians who had secretly figured out that treating each other as equals made the most sense. 2. No one had a biblical application for submission. When submission was taught, people rightly wanted to know
12 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
what it actually looked like. The most two common responses were: (1) the husband should have final say over finances, and (2) the husband should have the tie-breaking vote on any major life decisions. While these made logical sense as applications for someone committed to hierarchal submission, I was completely shocked when I discovered that neither of them was actually in the Bible. Wasn’t the Bible the whole reason we cared about this in the first place? How had we so comfortably landed on concrete application points that were nowhere to be found? I was very confused. 3. Which passages were timeless and which were culture-bound? I wrestled with the challenge of when to recognize a Scripture passage as being influenced by culture, and when to recognize it as a timeless teaching. I clearly remember being an authentically earnest student of the Bible, and trying to wrestle with passages like Leviticus 11 (where Christians are not to eat pork or seafood that doesn’t have fins or scales) and 1 website :
cbeinternational.org
Corinthians 11 (where Paul says that a man who worships with a hat on dishonors his head and a woman who worships without her head covered does the same). I was told that these were no longer relevant because times had changed. Hearing this applied to some passages but not others (like Ephesians 5) created all kind of intellectual dissonance for me. In my early twenties, I ended up on staff at Willow Creek Community Church, where I noticed their emphasis on ensuring that women were in prominent leadership positions. I was scared to hear their reasons, because I assumed they were doing theological gymnastics to work around the problematic passages. But I happily discovered that the leadership at Willow was as every bit committed to a high view of Scripture as those in my upbringing had been. I discovered I had been taught a false binary—the “biblical” (complementarianism) vs. the “liberal” view (egalitarianism). I found myself frustrated that I had never been exposed to the litany of great thinkers, scholars, and theologians who advocated for gender equality precisely because they believed in the authoritative role of the Bible. I f elt t remendou s i nter na l dissonance. I had always hoped that the clearer interpretation of the Bible would result in a commitment to gender equality, and was glad to finally be reading scholars who had helped me to see it. But I was conflicted. I felt like I was betraying my heritage, and I feared that I was trying to manipulate Scripture to meet my own desires. Over time, my views shifted. I first went from being certain of submissionbased gender roles to a more middle-ofthe-road position. But eventually, I began to see gender equality as an absolute mark of healthy spirituality. Eighteen years later, that conviction burns brighter than ever. I now pastor a church in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago, and we carry on the tradition of holding a high view of Scripture. Because of our high view of Scripture, we have a corporate conviction that gender equality
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
is what best reflects the heart of God, and that any conversations of submission must be filtered through Paul’s commands to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21). I recently taught through the book of Ephesians, including a sermon entitled “How I became an egalitarian.” I told the same story I shared above, and then summarized these four principles from Ephesians 5 that changed my mind:
1. Submission as taught by Paul is mutual As mentioned above, Paul begins his famous passage in Ephesians 5 by emphasizing the need to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” This seems so clear that I struggle to understand where the controversy is. In the next verse Paul does tell wives to submit: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (verse 22). But every scholar I’ve read acknowledges that this English translation fills in some words that are not there in the Greek. The literal translation would read something like this: “Wives, to your husbands as to the Lord.” What is the significance of that? Whatever instructions he is giving to wives in verse 22 flow from what he first said in verse 21. Once again, it seems straightforward: mutual submission is the context for everything else he is saying.
2. The unique way that Paul challenged women in this text The fact that Paul referenced wives submitting to their husbands in this passage would have been no surprise. The church of Ephesus was located in a thoroughly patriarchal society, so hierarchal gender roles were already built into the fiber of the cultural reality. What is shocking is not that Paul tells wives to submit. What’s shocking is what he doesn’t tell them. In a patriarchal society women didn’t just submit to their husbands—they obeyed their husbands. Women were not allowed to be educated, to be a witness
in a court, or to own property, and were legally required to obey their husbands. And yet, shockingly, Paul chooses not to reinforce this cultural norm. To do so would go against the new community in the kingdom of God where relationships work on the basis of the equality that comes from being created in the image of God. People don’t rule over each other in God’s kingdom; we serve and submit to each other. This ends up becoming a unique challenge placed before the women. In a culture where they were legally expected to obey, Paul only asks them to submit. And not just submit, but to do so in a context of mutual submission. And not because of law or society, but instead “as to the Lord.”
3. The unique way that Paul challenged men in this text In Ephesians 5 Paul tells women twice to submit and once to respect (which is not easy in a tyrannical home). But look how much he has to say to the men: Verse 25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (A huge call to sacrificial living and love). Verse 28: “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself ” (A challenge to affirm the worth of women at the same level they valued themselves). Verse 29: “After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church” (An incredible comparison with Christ’s nurturing of the church). Verse 33: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself. . .” (A huge call to once again match whatever energy they would devote to their own wellbeing to the wellbeing of their wives). We cannot read this passage without recognizing the major challenge to men. Paul is reminding us men that we have been given a disproportionate level of power based on cultural gender standards. It’s not rightfully ours, and in the spirit of love we are to sacrifice, serve, nurture, and pursue mutuality.
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 13
4. Paul’s reference to God’s and female as equals, to steward the earth and remains, that we exist as a community together without gender-based hierarchy. of equals, mutually submitting to one original design In verse 31, Paul references God’s original design, as described in Genesis, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” I don’t have space to go into gender as it’s presented in Genesis, but plenty of good scholarship exists on this topic (I recommend CBE’s many articles on this). The bottom line of these studies is that even in Genesis, God created male
The movement of God was always meant to include the equality of males and females. Genesis 1:28 says, “God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” I believe that if we submit ourselves to the Scriptures, we have little choice but to conclude that we were not made for submission based on gender-hierarchy. Instead, God’s design always has been,
another, out of reverence for Christ.
Daniel Hill is the author of 10:10: Life to the Fullest and is founding and senior pastor of River City Community Church in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago. Daniel is finishing his DMin in community development at Northern Seminary. His wife, Elizabeth, is an assistant provost at Chicago State University, and they are proud parents of Xander and Gabriella.
Truth Be Told
September 14–17, 2016 | Johannesburg, South Africa
Join CBE in September 2016, as we partner with CBE South Africa and GEMA for “Truth Be Told,” a conference focused on ending genderbased violence.
For more information, visit cbe.today/2016conference or email conferences@cbeinternational.org
14 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
website :
cbeinternational.org
Understanding Submission in the Context of the Pauline Epistles
by Jasmine Obeyesekere Fernando Whether through sermons or wedding vows or Christian books, we have been conditioned to see different primary roles for husbands and wives. Many churches teach that a wife’s role is one-way submission to her husband. Sometimes we are vague about what submission means, but feel strongly that there is hierarchy in marriage and that it is of utmost importance. The apostle Paul’s letters are often the basis of these teachings. Yet, is Paul advocating hierarchy in marriage, or is he encouraging mutuality?
Paul the pastor In truth, relationships within households are a relatively small concern in Paul’s
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
writings. Out of all his letters to the churches, only short sections of Ephesians and Colossians and a longer one in 1 Corinthians outline family relationships. This in itself suggests that, contrary to the scale of contemporary debates, the role of husband and wife in marriage is less central to Paul and Christian life than we have made it. Ephesians (along with Colossians and Philemon) was written around 60 AD while Paul was a prisoner in Rome. Paul is sending the newly converted runaway slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon in Colossae with his trusted colleague Tychicus and letters (Col. 4:7–9; Eph. 6:21). They would have
sailed from Rome to Ephesus before proceeding by land to Colossae. He is not writing to correct specific problems, so Paul is free to write about things that are on his pastor-heart to the Ephesian congregation that he pioneered and worked among for three years.
Dynamics for congregational relationships If we remember that these letters were originally manuscripts with no section divisions or headings, we notice in Ephesians that after marveling upon the glory of Christ in us and Paul’s desire that God’s people grow into maturity, he writes a lot about “one another”
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 15
relationships within the body of believers. We are asked to “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2, 3). And “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 4:31, 32). In practical Christian living, it was important to Paul that all believers exercise humility when our opinions and ideas collide in the wider church family. It is in this broad context of church dynamics that we are required to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21). Submission is part of the “one another” (mutual) relationships expected within Christian congregations.
Astonishment for the first hearers: limiting men’s power within the household Within the wider context of submitting to one another in the church family, what would submission have looked like within Christian households in Ephesus? None of Paul’s words to the wives, children, or slaves would have surprised anyone. Obedience to husbands, fathers,
and masters was normal; this was the everyday reality in their world. Paul’s words to husbands, fathers, and masters would have been a complete surprise; they are the ones Paul is challenging. It was counter-cultural in the extreme to limit the power a man had over his wife, children, and slaves. Men would have to chart a new way of life in their homes that included giving up power they were socially and legally entitled to. In each sphere of household authority, men are asked to relinquish power. Husbands are to love their wives, and this is reiterated at least three times, underlining how new this idea was to them. Fathers are not to exasperate their children and instead to bring up their children in God honoring ways. Masters are to treat their slaves in a way that reflects their understanding that they and their slaves share a common Master who shows no favoritism based on social class. When Christian men voluntarily gave up power in these day-to-day relationships, it empowered wives, children, and slaves at home and in the church (which met in homes), even if they still had little status in public life. At the heart of submission is the deliberate surrender of power. Paul gives out this pattern of behavior for all relationships within the body of Christ and for all relationships within the home.
It was counter-cultural in the extreme to limit the power a man had over his wife, children, and slaves. Men would have to chart a new way of life in their homes that included giving up power they were socially and legally entitled to.
16 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
Our motive for such submission to one another is “out of reverence for Christ.” Jesus voluntarily relinquished his power when he became one of us and died in our place (Phil. 2:5–8). We imitate him by letting go of power and exercising humility in our relationships.
Re-owning God’s original design for reciprocal relationships In addressing marriage, a memory of the pre-fall intentions of Genesis is evoked (Eph. 5:31). In the culture of Paul’s day, where love was not a pre requisite for marriage, the repeated emphasis for husbands to love their wives is linked to God’s intent in creation as Paul teaches them that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh” (Eph. 5:31). Our basis for mutuality in marriage is God’s intention in creation when he creates us to be equal image-bearers and he gives us equal stewardship of the world (Gen. 1:26–28). It is by re-owning God’s original design for reciprocal relationship that couples are to rework their married relationship. Even in the sexual expression of our marriages, God desires mutuality. Paul writes elsewhere that wives and husbands have authority over each other’s bodies (1 Cor. 7:4). Just as the practical content of Ephesians and Colossians exhorts a lifestyle of putting off of our old sinful selves and an ongoing pattern of putting on our new God-honoring selves, these instructions for households too are a way of God changing people’s ideas of what is normal. In Jesus’ ministry too, we see glimpses of life in the new kingdom, including life as wives. Married women like “Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household” (Luke 8:3), “Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons” (Matt 27:56) are included in Jesus’s wider band of traveling followers, a culturally novel situation that would have surely caused some disquiet. We see women being a full part of the early church. The Holy Spirit falls on
website :
cbeinternational.org
Jesus voluntarily relinquished his power when he became one of us and died in our place (Phil. 2:5–8). We imitate him by letting go of power and exercising humility in our relationships.
men and women in the same way as the first believers get together on Pentecost. The husband and wife team of Priscilla and Aquila help Paul in ministry and are instrumental in mentoring Apollos who becomes a leader in the church. Indeed each reference to the couple mentions the wife first (Acts 18:18–28), in all probability indicating that Priscilla was the more gifted teacher and leader.
Mutuality then and now “Each of you must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” concludes Paul (Eph 5:33). Neither the Ephesian nor the Colossian passage makes any reference to wives needing to love their husbands. Yet now we take it for granted that love is to be mutual within marriage. In the same way, it is implied that respect too is to be mutual in marriage. As men begin to love their wives, men implicitly show a new respect for wives, giving wives an unfamiliar new dignity and standing within their marriages. Considering the social realities of wide gaps in age, limited access to education and participation in civic life, wives of that era showed respect to their husbands by continuing to defer to their husbands. Today, women’s lives are very different and many men marry wives who are their counterparts at several
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
levels. We work out our marriages within the wide boundaries of mutual love and respect where both spouses freely give up individual power for the sake of each other and their family. We recognize that wives and husbands each bear God’s image fully and mirror him in different ways. We hear each other’s points of view before making decisions that affect our families. As iron sharpens iron, our conversations clarify the issues and help us make better decisions. Each of our marriages can look different yet be mutually enriching and God honoring, depending on how God calls each of us as individuals, couples, and families to follow him. Exposure to new models helps us re-imagine the familiar in new ways. In the context of ministry, as a college student in Sri Lanka I saw the volunteer general secretary of our national college ministry conduct the annual general meeting with his toddler daughter in his arms. A woman led a session for college students with her daughter crawling at her feet. Twenty years ago neither picture was traditional for how one envisaged ministry in Sri Lanka! Marriages too can be re-imagined in new ways depending on our specific contexts. Although our marriage has always been egalitarian in outlook, my marriage has looked traditional from time to time. When we first arrived in
the USA, it was preferring my husband’s career goals over my vocation. During the short window after grad school where I could work in the United States as a foreigner, I stayed home, preferring to nurture my one-year-old daughter myself. At other times our marriage looks nontraditional. One year when the graduate fellowship that I volunteered with met at a time inconvenient to my family’s schedule, twice a month my husband came home in the middle of the day from his tenure track job to pick up our preschooler and be home with him, so that I could go to campus to work with my students. Each marriage will look different depending on the calling of each spouse and the needs of their families. This year during a student conference, my supervisor and I sat for a breakfast meeting sharing the table with our families. She and I talked ministry while our husbands kept an eye on our children. On a larger scale, friends of ours moved to a different city primarily to enable the wife to take up a new job that fit her gifts and calling. Within our congregations and within our homes, out of reverence for Christ, may we learn again and again to freely prefer one another instead of holding on to our power and privilege. In our marriages may submission look like each person creating space for the other to walk in obedience to God’s calling on our lives. Jasmine Obeyesekere Fernando is from Colombo, Sri Lanka, where she worked as a national staff worker for the Fellowship of Christian University Students (FOCUS) and for the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce. She has a BA in English literature from the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka and an MA in international relations from Syracuse University. Jasmine also worked as a volunteer staff worker for InterVarsity’s Graduate and Faculty Ministries (GFM) at the State University of New York (SUNY) Albany, pioneering a grad student chapter. She currently serves on the board of FOCUS, Sri Lanka. She is married to Guy, a professor of accounting at SUNY Albany, is mom to Jayathri and Yannik, and is enjoying Guy’s sabbatical in Sri Lanka.
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 17
Faithfully Undermining Patriarchy Making Sense of 1 Peter 3:1 by Elizabeth K. Casey
“
Jesus submitted to His Father by actively and freely choosing to yield to weak politicians and wicked soldiers. And now Peter says likewise? Is a woman to submit to God by yielding to ungodly husbands the way Jesus willingly yielded to ungodly men? Yes.1
After reading these words from an assigned reading as a master’s student, I began to question much of what I’d learned in the church about the Bible’s teachings on gender. Did the verse this quote refers to (1 Peter 3:1) really mean women should passively submit to abuse? If not, what is it about? 1. Larry Crabb, Fully Alive: A Biblical Vision of Gender That Frees Men and Women to Live Beyond Stereotypes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 59.
18 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
website :
cbeinternational.org
Let’s look at the passage, starting a few verses earlier: Servants [some manuscripts say slaves], be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. . . . When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not
who do evil and to praise those who do good” (ESV, emphasis mine). Peter says to be subject to every human institution. He does not say that every institution is good or treats people justly. Rather, even within a broken and oppressive system, he says to live above reproach. He has a very specific reason. In verse 12 of chapter 2, he gives the reason: “so that when [the Gentiles] speak against you as evildoers, they may see your
The basic ideas of Jesus’ new kingdom tore down hierarchies and threatened the social order. threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. . . Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. (1 Peter 2:18–19, 23–24, 3:1–2 ESV, emphasis mine)
These verses are very difficult to understand. To pretend otherwise is naive or arrogant. Should we conclude that slavery is a good thing? This and other passages were used to justify slavery in the United States for over 150 years, but today most people would agree that was a mistake. We would be wise to remember that mistake when interpreting verses regarding wives and husbands, rather than jumping to a simple conclusion. Was Peter’s intent to keep a hierarchy between men and women in place?
Be above reproach Going a back a bit, we can get a better idea of Peter’s goal in this passage. In verses 13–14 of chapter 2, Peter writes, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (ESV). It’s easy to miss, but this comes up again when he is talking to wives in 3:1–2: “be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct” (ESV, emphasis mine). During Peter’s time, women had little power. They stayed in the home and ran the household and were considered little more than the husband’s property. Peter is writing from within this cultural framework. His goal is not to maintain a hierarchy, but to win people to Christ by living above reproach, even in oppressive situations.
Challenging the status quo I believe that Peter, like Paul and Jesus, envisioned a time when women holding positions of authority would be commonplace. In fact, the basic ideas of Jesus’ new kingdom tore down hierarchies and threatened the social order, and nonChristians recognized it. This threatened the safety of Christians. Women and slaves were already challenging the social norms by following a religion other than their husband’s or master’s. Probably, their lives and wellbeing were already in danger. Peter encouraged them not to jeopardize their own safety or survival by being even more subversive than they had to.
Peter does not only talk to women and slaves, though. He has more subversive words for men. Verse 8 says, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (ESV). Men were the ones with power and privilege in the ancient world, hence Peter refers to women as the weaker vessel. Women had little to no power, and men were the ones who benefitted from hierarchy. These words might not seem radical to us, but for men to act in this way would undermine the social hierarchy that defined their way of life. We see examples of this new way of life in the early church, where women worked alongside men. The Bible mentions women missionaries like Priscilla, women apostles like Junia, and women church leaders like Phoebe.
What about us? If Peter was not supporting slavery or patriarchy, but instead calling Christians to live above reproach, how can we make sense of these verses today? Of course, it depends on our culture. Almost every culture in the world is patriarchal, some more than others. In many cultures, women are still oppressed. Peter’s words can bring encouragement and strength as they face oppression. However, even in very oppressive cultures, you find strong women fighting for equality with dignity, grace, and boldness. Others of us live in cultures where women have much more freedom and opportunity, with access to jobs outside the home, education, and opportunities to hold positions of authority in the private and public sector. In these cultures, the church is one of the main forces restricting the freedom of women, and dishonoring God’s name. By creating space for women to lead, and by undermining the patriarchy that oppresses women, we respond faithfully to Peter’s words. Elizabeth K. Casey holds an MA in counseling from Reformed Theological Seminary. She is a story teller, world traveler, photographer, rock climber, and coffee connoisseur. Read more at elizabethkcasey.com and find her on Twitter @EKCasey1.
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 19
M
inistry News
CBE Prompts Movement on Gender at ETS Each year, CBE has a presence at the annual November meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), including a booth and community meal at the conference and a journal mailing to all US and Canadian members. This year, CBE’s special edition journal for ETS, A Question Mark Over My Head (right) was highlighted by CBE intern Emily Zimbrick-Rogers’ first-of-its-kind research on the experience of women at ETS and the evangelical academy. Zimbrick-Rogers presented her research at a special session at ETS, attended by the incoming ETS president, who issued an apology for the organization’s poor engagement with women scholars over the years. We are pleased to see ETS leadership moving to address women’s concerns, even as others move to formalize the existing preference for complementarian perspectives on gender. We hope to see further developments unfold, so stay tuned!
CBE Surpasses Fundraising Goal We are pleased to report that CBE exceeded its goal of $100,000 by raising $115,474 during this year’s Give to the Max Day (GTMD). This year, we saw a five percent increase in the overall number of donors and a seven-fold increase in the number of contributors to our matching grant. This year’s GTMD funds will be used to support three main projects: an egalitarian marriage curriculum; our 2016 conference on gender-based violence, “Truth be Told,” in Johannesburg, South Africa; and our outreach to academics, denominational leaders, and NGO leaders. Thank you for your support on Give to the Max Day!
Reflect with us
Submission is Victory, Not Defeat
Let’s start by tossing out the whole Fifty Shades of Grey and BDSM stuff right out the window. The objective of Christian submission is not to be hurt, nor is it to hurt. Christian submission is an act of joy, an attitude of love expressed through giving and receiving. “Submission” has other nasty connotations. We’re a freedom loving
people, and submission sounds like slavery. Like bowing the bruised brow in defeat. Like surrendering to an enemy. Even like just giving up: an abdication of ego. Something the defeated and weak do. Surprisingly, Christian submission is not all that much about leadership or following. It’s not even all that much about making compromises and figuring
20 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
out who gets what. These things are influenced by Christian submission, but it’s really an attitude of true humility. True humility is understanding your strengths and weaknesses as accurately as possible, and how they relate to how you interact with other Christians. It requires thought and objectivity. Christian submission is
website :
cbeinternational.org
G
iving Opportunities
Translations As CBE’s international outreach expands, so does the need for more translations of key resources, such as CBE’s statement, “Men, Women and Biblical Equality,” Still Side by Side, the Called Out! youth curriculum, and coming soon, curricula for high schoolers and young adults.
This year, CBE made digital translations free. By next year, we hope to have translations available for free download on a worldwide Christian publish-on-demand network. Not only are translations valuable for individuals, schools, and churches across the globe, they also support other CBE projects. For example, the new DVD series, Is Gender Equality A Biblical Ideal? will be contextualized for use at next September’s “Truth Be Told” international conference and leadership training in Johannesburg, South Africa. Still Side by Side will also be contextualized and translated into Zulu and Xhosa for distribution in South Africa.
CBE’s Chinese translation of Still Side by Side
It costs about $4,000 to translate one 30–40-page curriculum. You can help provide these important resources to youth and adults around the world.
To donate, go to cbe.today/support or use your smartphone to scan the QR code.
about having an accurate understanding about your needs and strengths, the needs and strengths of others, and how best you can act to reach a godly balance that most blesses you and the people with whom God has put you. You’d think marriage would be the easiest of Christian submission situations: mutual submission at its most basic. But here, we so often run afoul of the numbers game. Mutual submission becomes a percentage concept. I give fifty percent, you give fifty percent. This idea is antithetic to Christian submission.
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
We’re not told to balance scales. We’re to meet each other’s needs. It’s not I-metyour-need-last-time-now-you-meet-mine. We’re loving each other, not setting up a trade treaty. Our submission builds us both so, individually and together, we can do what God has in mind for us. Optimally, corporate Christian submission involves recognizing each other’s gifts with rejoicing and each other’s weaknesses with understanding. It means a body of believers that seeks to fulfill each other and to draw strength from each other as the Holy Spirit provides. It
means recognizing our own calling(s) and the callings of others to knit the body of Christ together so eyes can be eyes, feet can be feet, hearts can be hearts, and so on. We sometimes call this equality, but in many ways it is more recognizing, applying, and rejoicing in differences. Christian submission: loving each other and rejoicing in each other as the different people God has made each us so we can become the individuals and people God is striving to make us.
by H. Edgar Hix
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 21
P
resident’s Message
by Mimi Haddad
Biblical Submission Begins with Submission to God’s Word Recently, CBE lost a dear friend and a most gifted intellectual, John Kohlenberger III, after a thirteen-year battle with cancer. A humble but brilliant scholar, John published over sixty study Bibles and reference books. Serving CBE as a board member and advisor, John contributed to our scholarship, vision, and CBE’s “egalitarian speak” for more than fifteen years. A leader in Bible translation, John’s burning passion was to help people understand God’s word, especially as it addressed gender and power. Firmly committed to the biblical teachings on mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), John observed that men and women submit to one another because we recognize Scripture as God’s word, and are therefore compelled to follow its intentions and true meaning faithfully. But, this can be challenging because of human biases complicit in poor Bible translations that distort God’s message and marginalize the voice, agency, and vocation of God’s daughters. To this task John dedicated his time and enormous talent, and his work made it clear that mutual submission is the result of submission to God’s purposes as revealed in the pages of Scripture. In their article “Does Male Dominance Tarnish our Translations,” CBE founders Alvera and Berkeley Mickelsen recognize how human frailty and male bias in Bible translations may lead to a misrepresentation of ancient texts. For instance, consider how the Good News for Modern Man Bible translates 1 Corinthians 11:10: “On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her head to show she is under the authority of her husband.” The Living Letters writes, “woman is under a man’s authority,” and the Phillips Bible presumes,
Poor Bible translations impose a consequence of sin—male dominance over women—on Christian couples. Without careful submission to the intent of the text, we misunderstand God’s intent for submission in marriage. 22 M U T U A L I T Y | Winter 2015
“an outward sign of a man’s authority.” While the Greek does not mention either a “husband” or “man,” these translators insert their presuppositions as if they were part of Paul’s text. Imagine how many faithful Christians around the globe are misinformed and therefore deceived into wifely submission and husbandly authority. The only place the New Testament addresses authority in marriage is 1 Corinthians 7:4. Here both husband and wife share authority equally over one another. It was sin (Gen. 3:16) that ruptured the mutuality husband and wife, male and female enjoyed in a perfect world (Gen. 1:26– 28). Yet, poor Bible translations impose a consequence of sin— male dominance over women—on Christian couples. Without careful submission to the intent of the text, we misunderstand God’s intent for submission in marriage. Scholars have therefore, throughout history, identified other passages (Rom. 16:1–3, 7; 1 Cor. 14:34–36; and 1 Tim. 2:12 are a few) that have been translated in ways that reflect the male bias of the translators, muting and deforming God’s purposes for humanity. How can we become more submissive to God and God’s design for human relationships, despite the challenges of Bible translation? Each of us can become a more skilled student of Scripture. We can learn to read the Bible in its original languages. This is made easier with language and online courses, software, and self-study language books. If you do not read Greek, use an online Greek interlinear Bible. We can use reliable reference books and Bibles (find a list at cbe.today/references) and read the difficult passes using many different translations produced throughout history. If you are multilingual, try reading Scripture in other languages. Be aware of the challenges of Bible translation and always supplement translations by one person with those developed by a team. Remember that translation teams often have many more male than female scholars involved. Because all translations of Scripture are imperfect human endeavors, learning as much as possible about ancient history and culture leads to a better grasp of Scripture’s intended meaning. Pray for the work of translators and for better Bible translations. When we can truly submit ourselves to a more reliable word of God, we will better grasp God’s ideal for mutual submission in human relationships.
website :
cbeinternational.org
P
raise and Prayer
Praise
Prayer
• We are giving thanks for our most successful Give to the Max Day yet! Generous donors contributed over $115,000. Read more on page 20. • CBE’s journal and presence at the Evangelical Theological Society this year has sparked action on the part of ETS leadership regarding ETS’s engagement with women. Read more on page 20. • In November, CBE received a grant to fund several new translations of Still Side by Side.
• We continue to prepare for our 2016 conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. Pray for the logistics of international collaboration, for interest, and momentum. • CBE needs interns! We’re always working on a lot of projects and have many more we would like to work on, but we need interns to make it happen. • Pray for speed and minimal roadblocks as we wrap up two curriculum projects (high school and young adult), so we can focus on our marriage curriculum starting in 2016.
Christians for Biblical Equality
CBE Membership
Mission Statement Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) exists to promote biblical justice and community by educating Christians that the Bible calls women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world.
CBE offers individual and organizational memberships. Membership is available to those who support CBE’s Statement of Faith. Members join a community of believers dedicated to biblical equality, and who together make CBE’s ministry possible. Member benefits include:
Statement of Faith
• Subscriptions to CBE’s quarterly publications, Mutuality magazine and Priscilla Papers journal, including digital access to back issues
• We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons in equal power and glory. • We believe in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ. • We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people. • We believe the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin. • We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice. • We believe that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation. • We believe that men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others.
Core Values • Scripture is our authoritative guide for faith, life, and practice. • Patriarchy (male dominance) is not a biblical ideal but a result of sin. • Patriarchy is an abuse of power, taking from females what God has given them: their dignity, and freedom, their leadership, and often their very lives. • While the Bible reflects patriarchal culture, the Bible does not teach patriarchy in human relationships. • Christ’s redemptive work frees all people from patriarchy, calling women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership. • God’s design for relationships includes faithful marriage between a man and a woman, celibate singleness and mutual submission in Christian community. • The unrestricted use of women’s gifts is integral to the work of the Holy Spirit and essential for the advancement of the gospel in the world. • Followers of Christ are to oppose injustice and patriarchal teachings and practices that marginalize and abuse females and males.
To learn more about CBE’s values, history, and ministry, visit cbe.today/info
bookstore :
cbebookstore.org
• Exclusive discounts at CBE’s bookstore • Discounted registration to attend CBE conferences Visit cbe.today/members to renew your membership, become a member, or learn more about our membership program.
Non-Member Subscriptions Non-member subscriptions to Mutuality and Priscilla Papers are available to libraries and inviduals. Visit cbe.today/subscriptions to learn more.
Get Connected with CBE Connect with CBE online to learn more about us, enjoy the resources we offer, and take part in our ministry. Visit our website to find resources or to subscribe to Arise, our free, weekly e-newsletter (cbeinternational.org ). Follow our blog, the Scroll (cbe.today/blog ). Follow us on Twitter @CBEInt (twitter.com/cbeint). Find us on Facebook (facebook.com/christiansforbiblicalequality).
M U T U A L I T Y | “Submission” 23
Christians for Biblical Equality 122 West Franklin Ave, Suite 218 Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451
Non-Profit Org. U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Jefferson City, MO Permit No. 210
Forwarding Service Requested
Recommended
Reading from CBE
Face-to-Face A Bible-based Discovery of Self and Relationships Carrie A. Miles
Partners in Christ A Conservative Case for Egalitarianism John G. Stackhouse Jr.
What does the Bible really say about the roles of men and women in the church, and in relationship? In these clear, easy-to-understand studies, you’ll discover the freedom, respect, and agape love for which God created you. You will get practical, biblical tools that will help you build relationships based on equality and mutuality. Perfect for group, couple, or individual use.
Are you looking for an approach that takes the whole Bible into account and not just bits and pieces of it? In this revised and expanded edition of Finally Feminist, Stackhouse describes the single approach in Scripture that guides us with clear direction on these important matters of relationships in the church and the family.
Preparing Couples for Love and Marriage A Pastor’s Resource Cameron Lee and James L. Furrow
Partners in Marriage and Ministry A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality Ronald W. Pierce
Preparing Couples for Love and Marriage is a pre-marriage guidance in a flexible foursession framework to help couples begin a successful marriage. It’s not about having all the answers; but helping couples manage difficulties before they become serious threats to the marriage.
Without the usual argument and rhetoric of the current debate, Partners in Marriage and Ministry presents the biblical tenets of gender equality. Journey through Scripture with Dr. Ron Pierce as he draws readers into topics he has encountered in thirty years of teaching classes on gender and the Bible.