“Strong complementarian women combine things the world cannot explain: a sweet, tender, kind, loving, submissive, feminine beauty, with massive steel in their backs, and theology in their brains.” — John Piper
The rarity of Biblical Submission
I first heard this quote by John Piper on a panel discussion he held five years ago at a “Desiring God” conference. It resonated with me as powerfully then as it did when I saw it again this morning on a status a friend posted.
I’ve always wondered what it is about the idea of submission in general, and then specifically in the Bible, that turns so many women off and, oftentimes, fosters such outright opposition or even hostility.
Is it because after years of unfair treatment and unequal rights, the idea of having to submit to males is repulsive?
I’ve heard women say (Christian too) that submission is difficult because often the men they’re involved with or that are interested in them are simply not men worth submitting to. Or perhaps it is that somehow any notion of submitting would be practically admitting that women are in some fashion not equal to men and that just isn’t fair in the seemingly progressive society and culture that we live in today.
Submission through the cultural lens
No matter what the reason, although I tend to find the latter most prevalent, I believe the pertinent question is this: Is it possible that our society and culture has warped, misinterpreted, and demonized what is supposed to be the beautiful role assignments the Bible has laid out for men and women?
Is it possible that as the quote states, the world simply is unable to explain the paradoxical nature of a sweet, kind, submissive woman, who is also godly, independent, and a leader in many different respects?
I think so. I believe one of the fundamental things Christians forget is that cultural standards are never meant to influence how we think about or interpret the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible should always be the lens in which we view and filter the world that we live in.
We are rapidly beginning to inhabit a landscape of extremes here in America and abroad, one in which we are told that a progressive woman must solely possess strong willed determination, drive, and ambition. That they must be career driven, and that if this comes at the expense of archaic and outdated ideas of what a woman used to be then so be it -all the better. Of course the Bible is viewed as a completely antiquated book that has no concept of gender equality.
I find all of that to be very ironic since the Bible actually portrays multiple women in various roles that embody and reconcile all of the aforementioned characteristics along with the historical concepts of female femininity. Esther, Hannah, Abigail, and Ruth all possessed strength in character, wisdom, leadership, beauty, tenderness and kindness. Yet there seems to be this modern day idea that most of these are mutually exclusive.
Submission in the Bible
Part of embracing the Biblical complimentary roles within a relationship is understanding God’s design for men and women in the context of a partnership. The reality, no matter how much we as people would like to deny it, is that there are a number of skill sets and inherent qualities that I as a man would not be able to bring to a relationship. Similarly, there are qualities that a female partner would be unable to bring to the table.
It’s a matter of how we’ve been wired by God and not at all about inferiority or superiority. It’s important to remember that if we (males and females) are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), then there is an inherent equality that can never be done away with. I believe it is this same inherent, godly equality that’s important to constantly keep in the back of our minds as we filter and think about how we can submit to our God given partners, and how we can serve one another in the context of marriage. Marriages are meant to model the marriage that all Christians have become partakers of since our reconciliation to Christ. In the spiritual model of our relationship to Christ we are called to lovingly submit to his leadership and guidance with the promise that we will always be loved, respected, cherished, protected and provided for. To Christ, our voices, thoughts, opinions and desires matter and are taken into account. This should be no different in the context of an earthly marriage as well.
“Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her…” Ephesians 5:25. We’ve all been called to humble ourselves before the awesome sacrificial love of Christ. God, in turn is calling men to display and pour out that very same love to the women that we choose to spend the rest of our lives with. Women, is not that very definition of love (in fact the greatest example of it) worth coming underneath so that God can be glorified in a unique way? Does this love show the world that you can embody paradoxical qualities of leadership, strength, tenderness, and sweetness?
Maybe it’s time all of us, male and female, wipe our minds of the stereotypical idea of what submission is, and objectively open our Bibles to see what it actually says submission should be.
You are not unequal partners that are to be subjugated to a man’s every thought and whim. You are daughters of Christ deserving of Christ’s love. Christian men are simply called to lead and give that to you.
Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. Clearly this is an issue that could lend itself to an infinite stream of debate and reason. I in no way would be presumptuous enough to assume that a single, relatively short article would definitively clear the air once and for all. My hope was and still remains to draw to light what I perceive to be the overarching principle of Biblical leadership within the context of marriage, as well as the specific mandates (if any) that we find in Scripture. Complementary roles as opposed to Egalitarian roles will always be debated, however I think if we allow a rightly understood outlook of the definition and application of submission to prevail, the remaining conclusion falls somewhere along the lines of what I attempted to convey in this post.
I heard a definition of submission years ago that continues to resonate - “allowing someone to serve you.” This applies to much more than just the husband-wife relationship.
1. According to your article, could you not also say, “Strong complementarian men combine things the world cannot explain: a sweet, tender, kind, loving, submissive, masculine beauty, with massive steel in their backs, and theology in their brains?”
2. Would you please provide the skill sets and inherent qualities that you and all
men bring to a relationship that is completely other than the qualities any female partner would bring to the table?
3. Also, if there is a hierarchy in which the wife “comes underneath,” to one who
holds greater power (authority) then contrary to what you say, they ARE unequal partners even if the husband is loving and kind. A hierarchy in marriage is not necessary to reflect Christ’s relationship with the Church which I don’t think was the point of the Eph text. It reads more as though Christ’s relationship with the Church is the model for the 1st century husband which has implications for today’s marriages. “This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church”.
Would you consider the Holy Trinity as an unequal partnership? Because in it as a lot of submission. The Father sends the Son, and when he’s finished the Spirit comes to help us.
No, because as I understand the historic, orthodox teaching of the trinity each is co-equal in power. However, I wouldn’t use the trinity to analogize relationship dynamics and personal interaction in marriage.
I was responding to your third point that if one holds greater power than it is an unequal relationship despite the love and benevolence of the one with the power. I was attempting to show you that the Trinity is an example of “co-equal in power” despite the fact that they all do the Father’s will. I hope you can soften the language of “ARE” being as in the case of the trinity they are not.
Your third point is what I find to be most provocative so I’ll try to speak to that concisely. I believe the Ephesians text is very clearly calling for a form of submission to the husband that I don’t believe in this context, would be limited exclusively to the 1st century husband. Particularly verse 22. I believe the fact that Paul juxtaposes that call for submission right next to his analogy/example of Christ being the head of the church only serves to affirm this position. Additionally, when I refer to women not being unequal partners, I’m thinking and referring to that being in and from the perspective of God the father as he looks out upon his children. Perhaps another applicable example of this would be Shepherds (Pastors) and their flock. I don’t think any of us would disagree or argue that in God’s eyes were are all viewed as A) His children and B) Equal brothers/sisters in Him. However, the Bible makes a clear delineation between Biblical leadership within a church and the sheep or congregants who submit to that authority. In other words, a hierarchy if you will.
Thank you, Lance, for your reply. I don’t think submission to husband OR wife is a virtue limited to time or culture, that’s why I believe it has implications for marriages today. I believe the bible arose out of and spoke to real people in real time. The Ephesian text was speaking directly to a hierarchical structure in which the paterfamilias held absolute power and control over his property, that is, his wife, children, and slaves. This was cultural and state sanctioned power and authority, not a reflection of Genesis 1 & 2 of shared responsibility and stewardship. If complementarians are going to be consistent with the text and its original audience, husbands/fathers should have absolute power and control over what they should consider their property, wife and children and slaves, except we no longer believe we should own slaves. I don’t deny the reality of hierarchy existed in first century marriages. I just do not affirm that God intends or requires for all times marriage function as a hierarchy. I believe God is pleased by a partnership of co-vice regents who function according to their innate gifts and strengths.
Thanks again for interacting with the comments.
My concern with this line of argument is the presupposition that Piper and Grudem’s interpretation of gender roles IS the primary filter used by complementarians to define God’s intended purposes for women and men.
For the sake of discussion, I would like to draw attention to the work of John Walton and his fascinating insights into the critical chapters of Genesis 1-2. In a context where Piper and Grudem have grounded their gender role theology in the Genesis 2 passage, Walton has instead introduced a revolutionary argument to the creation narrative that could very well become a Game Changer in this whole gender role debate. Check out this recent discussion on Scott McKnight’s blog post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/09/03/a-game-changer-in-the-genesis-1-2-debates/
Some key theological issues that Piper and Grudem have completely overlooked are:
1) The Creation story, and the Garden in particular, are a portrait of the Redemptive Temple theme which exists throughout scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. The spotlight of Genesis 1-3 is on redemption, NOT gender roles.
2) Adam’s priestly roles of “serving and guarding” point forward to the non-hierarchal New Covenant Priesthood of ALL believers where there is only ONE High Priest, namely, Jesus Christ. Men were never intended to be little “high priests” over women.
3) Eve (the bride of the first Adam) represents the Church (the Bride of the second Adam). As Eve was birthed from Adam’s “wounded” side so also the Church is birthed from the wounded side of the 2nd Adam. Both Adams were put into a state of death in order that their Bride could be created and have Life (the first Adam’s death being called a “deep sleep”: Gen.2:21).
4) The term “Helper” is used to describe the role of the Holy Spirit who indwells both men and women as the Bride of Christ. As “Helpers” of our heavenly Bridegroom, we carry out our Priestly mission on behalf of our Great High Priest.
5) When the apostle Paul references Eden in Ephesians 5:31 and 32, I believe he was reminding husbands that they were to see themselves in the role of Eve, NOT Adam. “This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church”.
what a good article….thanks
Excellent article. What culture has taught women is that we don’t need a man…because of that, we (women) have worn the “pants” in our relationships. I was one of those women. Once I became a Christian, God opened my heart to the way He created relationships to function…it was then I tried giving back the “pants” to my husband..the only problem..i wore them so long that he forgot how to put them on….it’s taken time, but i think we are finally figuring out our roles and i love it.
The other thing…the sin of passivity has been around since the beginning….men need to recognize that and stop letting women take their pants…