Apparently Johnny Mac thinks Driscoll has spiritually raped the Song of Songs and has a go at him in this post.
I wish MacArthur hadn’t had taken the fightin’ fundy turn that he did some time ago, but it seems that is where he is going, as are some of the students I know at Master’s Seminary. It’s a shame.
The strange bit is that this comes on the heels of Driscoll posting a very positive essay about MacArthur and his influence on him. Every good turn deserves another a slap in the face.
14 April 2009 at 10.45 am
I don’t get it. I would love a list of words that these people think are crude or “cusses”. I can’t think of anything that he has said in a sermon that would qualify as such. I’m sure Driscoll is really sweating this anyway (sarcasm).
14 April 2009 at 11.22 am
I’ve lost a great deal of respect for MacArthur over the last few years for the very reasons you mentioned. He’s always in attack mode – and don’t get me started about that crew over at Pyromaniacs. If he can’t see the efficacy and fruit of Driscoll’s ministry then he’s become entirely blinded by his own brand of (three piece suits cover a multitude of sins) fundamentalism.
14 April 2009 at 4.39 pm
I agree Matt. I benefited from MacArthur’s work as a student in Bible college, but then he took some strange turn for the worse with his lecture on Amillenialism, his book on ‘the truth war’ (which is WAY over the top in many places), and now this. It seems like if he doesn’t have anything to fight against then he doesn’t have anything to say.
I stopped reading the Egomaniacs months ago. They are just about everything that is wrong with fundamentalism all conveniently located on one blog.
I also agree with Tom. I would qualify Driscoll’s language as blunt moreso than ‘crude’ or ‘cussing.’ He speaks to his culture in their language. If he didn’t, they wouldn’t listen. Does MacArthur think God would be more glorified in that?
I honestly want to hear what MacArthur or these other types who are having a go at Driscoll would say if they were asked a question by a 20-something about oral sex or contraception or anything sexual. Would they tell them that they shouldn’t ask these questions? Would they give them vague answers full of euphemisms or poetically cryptic language like the author of the Song?
I would argue that Driscoll is being more Biblically sound in his description of the Song than MacArthur is. Here is why:
Euphemisms are only euphemistic if people understand what they mean. We don’t live in the ancient Near East and so ancient Near Eastern euphemisms are lost on us. If someone does not explain what these euphemisms mean (like Driscoll does) then they are not really clarifying anything. And if the ancient Near Eastern euphemism is clarified by using a modern euphemism, how is that better? Both are referring to a sexual act that is known by the audience so both are bringing up sexual acts to their audience. Whether you say that the metaphor in Song 2.3 is a metaphor for ‘oral sex’ or ‘fellatio’ or some other descriptive term or euphemism, you are still saying the same thing.
And I really don’t think there is an argument that saying things like ‘oral sex’ or ‘mutual masturbation’ from the pulpit is wrong. This isn’t a 4th grade homeschool co-op in the mountains of Montana. It’s the real world.
14 April 2009 at 6.04 pm
good point on euphemisms. they only work when they work.
I think it was in “young restless and reformed” that Driscoll is quoted as saying something to the effect that if MacArthur had called him or tried to talk he would have gone to see him. But John didnt, he just wrote about how bad he was. Too bad, I really think MacArthur comes out looking bad through all this.
14 April 2009 at 9.04 pm
I’d like to see Reformed guys be as critical of MacArthur’s dispensationalism as he is of Driscoll’s “crass language.”
14 April 2009 at 10.29 pm
i’d appreciate it if you took the time to point out (in detail) MacArthur’s errors in his post because i thought he did a pretty good job of explaining his position.
14 April 2009 at 11.09 pm
Ok, I’ll go point by point in the order that MacArthur writes:
1. “Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service.”
Driscoll is answering questions that his community is asking. He’s not seeking a short cut to relevance.
2. “If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better. The defenders of this trend solemnly inform us that without such a strategy it is well-nigh impossible to connect with today’s “culture.” (In contemporary evangelicalism that term has become a convenient label for just about everything that is uncultured and uncouth.)”
Again, the reason that Driscoll talks about these issues is not to “connect” to his culture, but to answer the questions they are asking. I’m also not sure why “culture” is in quotation marks. Is MacArthur implying that culture does not exist?
3. “Sermons about sex have suddenly become a bigger fad in the evangelical world than the prayer of Jabez ever was. Everywhere, it seems, churches are featuring special series on the subject. Some of them advertise with suggestive billboards purposely designed to offend their communities’ conservative sensibilities.”
Really? Can he provide evidence for this? Or has it just been that certain sermons about sex have gotten more attention from the press? I highly doubt sermons about sex are larger than the prayer of Jabez was. Unless he can provide verifiable evidence for this assertion, it remains a false hyperbole.
4. “Quite a few pastors have earned widespread media coverage by issuing “sex challenges” to church members. These are schemes that make daily sex obligatory for married couples over a specified time—usually between seven and forty days. (How people are made accountable for this is a question I’m afraid to raise.)”
Has Driscoll done this? No. So why bring it up in an essay aimed at him?
5. “I would be the last to suggest that preachers should totally avoid the topic of sex. Scripture has quite a lot to say about the subject, starting with God’s first words to Adam and Eve (“Be fruitful and multiply”—Genesis 1:22). God’s law has numerous commands that govern sexual behavior, and the New Testament repeatedly reaffirms the Old Testament standard of sexual purity. Finally, in the closing chapters of Scripture we are told that sexually immoral people will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). So there’s simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning sex.”
I agree with this bit.
6. “But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit. There is no hint of sophomoric lewdness in the Bible, even when the prophet’s clear purpose is to shock (such as when Ezekiel 23:20 likens Israel’s apostasy to an act of gross fornication motivated by the lust of bestiality). When an act of adultery is part of the narrative (such as David’s sin with Bathsheba), it is never described in way that would gratify a lascivious imagination or arouse lustful thoughts.”
This bit is simply false. The phrase that is used, for instance, in the title to psalm 51 bluntly (and explicitly) reads in the Hebrew “after he went into Bathsheba.” Ezekiel 23.20 is absolutely lewd, unless saying that a women who lusts after penises the size of donkeys with ejaculates the size of horses does not qualify as being lewd. And let’s not forget about Paul who told the Judaizers that if they didn’t stop knocking about with their talk of circumcision then they may as well cut off their whole penis. Ezekiel 23 is so lewd it has been described as ‘literary pornography’ by one commentator. MacArthur is flat out wrong on this point.
7. “The message of Scripture regarding sex is simple and consistent throughout: total physical intimacy within marriage is pure and ought to be enjoyed (Hebrews 13:4); but remove the marriage covenant from the equation and all sexual activity (including that which occurs only in the imagination) is nothing but fornication, a serious sin that is especially defiling and shameful—so much so that merely talking about it inappropriately is a disgrace (Ephesians 5:12).
Two things here: who defines what is ‘appropriate’ for a community to talk about? Is the Bible inappropriate for reporting the fact that Onan pulled out and spilled his seed on the ground? Does the Bible, which speaks about sex, oral sex, breasts, penises, etc., define what appropriateness is? If not (which it does not seem to), then John has no branch to stand on unless he relies on culture…the same “culture” that he “put” in “quotation” marks at the “beginning” of the essay. Secondly, in Eph 5 Paul is speaking to the ‘sons of disobedience’ who are either sexually immoral or idolaters. It is not specifically speaking about not talking about sex. Otherwise we would only have 65 books in the Bible as the Song would have to be chucked out of the window.
8. “Above all, Scripture never stoops to the lurid level of contemporary sex education. The Bible has no counterpart to the Hindu Kama Sutra (an ancient Sanskrit sex manual supposedly transmitted by Hindu deities.) Nothing in Scripture gives any vivid how-to instructions regarding the physical relationship within marriage.
That includes the Song of Solomon.”
This doesn’t make sense as I’m pretty sure Driscoll never did a sex ed class at Mars Hill or claimed that the Bible had an equivalent to the Kama Sutra. This is a non sequitur.
9. “In fact, Solomon’s love-poem epitomizes the exact opposite approach. It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love—in language suitable for any audience.”
Again, simply untrue. So untrue, in fact, that many Jews were so repulsed by the explicit sexuality of the Song that they did not want to see it in the canon. The reason it seems ‘gentle, subtle, and elegant’ to us is because the author is using ancient Near Eastern euphemisms that the original audience understood and was shocked by. If MacArthur took into account the original audience of the book then he would realize that this evaluation of the Song is false.
10. “But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon’s poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined.”
Two things: first, ‘expounding on the euphemisms’ is simply another way to say ‘exegeting,’ which is what Driscoll was doing. Second, MacArthur’s second sentence is, again, unverifiable at best and false at worst. Rabbis as far back as the Mishnah have expounded the sexually explicit nature of the Song, perhaps even further back (the Mishnah is the earliest one that I am aware of).
11. “Thus we are told that the Shulammite’s poetic language invoking the delights of an apple tree (Song 2:3) is a metaphor for oral sex. The comfort and delight of a simple embrace (2:6) is not what it seems to be at all. Apparently it’s impossible to describe what that verse really means without mentioning certain unmentionable body parts.”
Yes, it is impossible to describe what a metaphor for ‘oral sex’ means without mentioning the penis. I thought that would be obvious.
12. “We’re assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren’t merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon’s Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife’s own desire or conscience. I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, “Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you’re being dirty, he’s pretty happy.”
This bit is so over the top that it would be funny if Johnny Mac wasn’t serious. First, they are not ‘hidden meanings.’ They are what the metaphors really mean. Second, yes, they are proscriptive. Third, Driscoll nowhere mentions ‘gnosis’ or comes even close to a gnostic worldview. Fourth, the NT commands both husband and wives to submit to each other and to have sex with one another so that they do not fall into temptation…and the NT says this without regard to either’s desire or conscience. Fifth, he probably is pretty happy.
13. “Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.”
That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way.”
Like I said above, Jesus does command husbands and wives to have sex with one another. Promoting the idea of sex within marriage is hardly exploitation…unless Johnny Mac doesn’t think the Song is about sex or that Scripture views sex within marriage as a healthy and mutually benefiting exercise (speaking of exercise, it has health benefits as well). The idea that people at Mars Hill are ‘carnally’ leering at the Song is an invention in Johnny Mac’s own head. That is simply not what is going on. Either Johnny Mac knows this and is lying or he doesn’t know this and is speaking in ignorance of the situation. Either way, he’s wrong.
14. “Mark Driscoll has boldly led the parade down this carnal path. He is by far the best-known and most prolific popular proponent of handling the Song of Solomon that way. He has said repeatedly that this is his favorite passage of Scripture, and he has come back to it again and again in recent years, culminating in a highly publicized series released on video via the Internet last year.”
Show me one instance where Driscoll supports a carnal view of sex. You can’t, because he doesn’t. His views on sex are completely biblical and the language he uses, while blunt, is not outside of the type of blunt language that Scripture itself uses at times. To say that he is leading the parade is false…he’s not even in the parade. And so what if that is his favorite verse. Is one not allowed to have a favorite verse in Scripture?
_______
So, there you go. I hope that was a detailed enough evaluation of MacArthur’s errors.
15 April 2009 at 4.35 am
Anyone who associates sex and submission has to be prepared for a negative reaction. Naturally I understand that the submission is supposed to be voluntary but removing from women the right to decide how many pregnancies to undergo, whether to work, homeschool, how to dress, what church to attend and so on, deserves some comment. I don’t know how women are expected to live with this.
15 April 2009 at 7.58 am
Art,
Thanks for this detailed critique of MacArthur’s unconscionable treatment of Driscoll. In reality MacArthur has been going on critical rants for a very long time. One could even say it’s one of the marks of his ministry. I remember reading a poorly argued, historically laughable article against all music he didn’t consider “hymns.” If he didn’t have a brainwashed, sycophantic following of Fundies he would be exposed even more, but I guess they keep telling each other how right they are.
How MacArthur can treat Driscoll this way after Mark’s kind words only last week is simply unbelievable. I gotta hope that Piper, Mahaney, Duncan, et al are working behind the scenes and calling MacArthur–not Driscoll–to repent.
15 April 2009 at 9.29 am
Sue:
You said:
It does deserve some comment. But just for clarification’s sake, did Driscoll say any of these? If so, please provide a source for where you heard him say these things. Otherwise there is no comment needed as this post is about Driscoll and MacArthur’s fightin’ fundy response.
15 April 2009 at 9.58 am
MacArthur jumped the shark some time ago, I think.
The only fear I have with Driscoll is that he’ll contribute to an expectation that pastors should be sex experts. Driscoll may be comfortable offering advice in this area, but there are a lot of pastors who aren’t — and no one should expect this of them. As for the sex challenges that some pastors are issuing, I have this to say: STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM –IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
15 April 2009 at 10.20 am
Manlius: I agree with both of your points.
For the latter point, I hope that Driscoll does not contribute to that type of expectation. Of course pastors should be able to 1) preach the Word, including the bits about sex and 2) be able to helpfully counsel married couples, which sometimes mean bringing up sexual activity (or lack thereof) in the marriage. Beyond that, parishoners might want to try a proper marriage counselor who would be more comfortable speaking about sex in the relationship.
15 April 2009 at 11.37 am
Agreed, Art. Pastors shouldn’t be afraid to talk about sex when it is relevant to a situation, but they definitely shouldn’t pry, either. They also should be careful not to boast. I think Driscoll is great, but he needs to be careful not to brag about his sex life. When I was single and celibate, I used to HATE when my new married friends did this. It’s really unfair to those who are already struggling with the difficult challenge of celibacy.
Now for matters even more important than sex, when does the Sox season REALLY begin?
15 April 2009 at 2.07 pm
Art – I appreciate the detailed analysis as well. I am certainly not as versed in the Song in particular and OT in general as you are. The article rubbed me the wrong way, which I assumed would be the case from Macarthur. My question is, what is to stop Driscoll from becoming another Macarthur type? It would appear that Pastor Mark has the same tenacity, boldness (on the national scene), abrasive personality, etc. Is it his mentors, Piper and Mahaney who will keep him in some sort of balance? The Mars Hill community and Grace community both are large congregations but seem extremely tight under their leadership. I guess I get very nervous when it seems that one man or personality is leading a very large group of people that love almost everything he says. I find this to be the case with both men in view here. Do we find these kind of men intriguing because of the controversy they bring or because they remind us more of the Savior? What are your thoughts?
After all, I have never actually sat down to coffee (Johnny Mac) or a beer (Driscoll) with either and could be completely off. I greatly respect both men as witnesses of the gospel who have done great things for their communities while probably understanding I could never serve in either of their churches.
15 April 2009 at 2.33 pm
Jon: I hope that Driscoll has learned enough from the people in his community about the evils of a fightin’ fundy kind of mentality and that would keep him from turning into one. I don’t know much about the leadership at either Grace or Mars Hill, so I can’t comment on that. I know what you mean, though, that it can be scary when a church turns into a ‘cult of personality’ instead of a body of believers focused on glorifying God. I don’t know enough people at either Grace or Mars Hill to know whether or not that is going on there. From the outside looking in it would seem like such could be the case, but I think to say that it definitely is the case wouldn’t be fair as I am not part of those communities.
I think that having Piper, Mahaney, Keller, etc. as his mentors can only be good for Driscoll. I know that he loves and respects those men and would take their advice if they pointed out something wrong in Mark’s ministry.
I think there is a place for critique (obviously), but where MacArthur takes a turn that I don’t think is helpful is in his seemingly blind and almost completely ignorant critique of Driscoll. Driscoll isn’t innocent either, as I’ve pointed out on this blog that his review of the Shack was nearly as bad as this essay by MacArthur.
I think the difference is that Driscoll was going after the Shack because it dealt with the doctrine of God, which is pretty foundational, while MacArthur spends all his time recently on secondary or even seventh-dary (is that a word?) issues, yet treats them as if they were as primary as the resurrection of Christ. That is what a fightin’ fundy does. I can’t say whether or not Driscoll will end up like that…but I pray that he doesn’t!
15 April 2009 at 2.43 pm
Manlius: I can’t even talk about the Sox right now. My soul is too fragile.
15 April 2009 at 6.10 pm
It seems quite possible that MacArthur and Driscoll are cut from the same cloth- just not during the same generation…
I agree that MacArthur’s critique fails to engage in a thoughtfully constructive manor. Regardless of whether or not MacArthur is right (see Art’s deconstruction), he is wrongly shepherding those who look to him by setting a precedent for critique that lacks kindness, respect, tact, and humility, but champions enemy rhetoric that insinuates stupidity. And we wonder why ecumenical dialogues are so difficult? Leaders are passing on a vocabulary and tone that fail to help us engage lovingly, gracefully and truthfully.
As for Driscoll’s vocabulary, it seems to suffer at the expense of humor and coarse epigrams. I have not heard him speak on sex, but from MacArthur’s rant, he is worried that Christians are failing to esteem sexuality as they should. For the first time in my life, I sympathize with MacArthur in this regard!
Consider the following quote by Peter J. Leithart commenting on Song of Songs :
“Sex is a mystery. Sexual intercourse is a mystery of mutual indwelling that points to the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity…Illicit sex is described in graphic and even obscene terms, but godly sex is never described in these clinical much less vulgar terms. Poetry is the right medium for a description of sex; sex itself is a created metaphor, a symbol of the union of Christ and His church, and poetry highlights its mystery and depth. One of the worst things about the pornography is its reduction of sexuality to bodies and fluids. Pornography is the polar opposite of poetry; by exposing, pornography destroys all mystery.”
(Isn’t there a difference between poetry and euphemism? A euphemism can be poetic, but its goal is to substitute a favorable word for an in auspicious one. Poetry’s purpose is to reveal significance, inspire the imagination and engage thought with an idea, whereas Euphemism tries to beguile or delude the aforementioned.)
I find that many lack the vocabulary to speak (and probably think deeply) on the value of their wife, fiance or girlfriend at the expense of humor. I think the things we joke about reveal what we really hold to be sacred or valuable. Furthermore, rhetoric (not silence!) that fails convey the wonder, beauty, mystery, goodness, and power of sex is capitulation. I do not see evangelicals/mainstream/emergent/ect. as struggling to be relevant in its engagement with a “culture” of sex because I hardly see a difference in its language and humor. Let’s talk about sex, but lets do without the same casual, clinical and uninspiring vernacular produced of a culture that demystifies, devalues and dehumanizes sex.
15 April 2009 at 7.00 pm
For Driscoll the husband decides –
how many kids, when do we have kids, where do we live, where do we go to church
this is from his video on women and marriage
Of course, the wife has lots of say, She is encouraged to express her point of view. After which, if she disagrees, the husband can a) wait for her to come around b) call in the pastor or counsellor or c) expect her to just submit
In all cases, the husband decides. The wife gets to have her personal choice from the menu on “date night.”
15 April 2009 at 7.14 pm
What I am trying to say is that Driscoll offers the potent mix of submission AND sex. It reminds me of something.
15 April 2009 at 7.44 pm
Sue — is that true of Driscoll? I’m showing my ignorance here. I really haven’t listened to enough of him to know.
If you are right, Sue, then I too am concerned about this sort of male dominance in the marital relationship. Proper Christian leadership means serving, not bossing. If anything, the default mode should be that of the husband allowing the wife to decide most things. He should only take charge when what the wife wants to do is obviously opposed to God’s law, thus PROTECTING her from a wrong action.
15 April 2009 at 7.45 pm
Sue,
Can you provide solid proof of where Driscoll has said those very words?
15 April 2009 at 8.20 pm
Sue,
I’d also like some quotations straight from Mark. I heard that sermon and do not remember Mark saying that. I could be wrong, but I’d need to see some quotes from Mark before hand.
15 April 2009 at 8.37 pm
Those were quotes from his sermon.
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/trial/marriage-and-women
They are not exact becauase there seems to be no pause and rewind function on the tape.
I agree that parts of the sermon seem nice, like how he has lots of money to hire a housekeeper for his wife and so on.
But he clearly and explicitly says that if it is not important than give the wife what she wants but if it is important then the husband decides.
This is depsicable. Why does the husband decide when to have kids and how many to have. Why does the wife not have the right to decide what church to go to. Why can’t these things be decided together
And frankly, complementarian marriages are not healthier or longer lasting or have less fights than egalitarian ones. He should be ticked off for false advertising.
It is just like fighting slavery all over again.
15 April 2009 at 8.38 pm
He should only take charge when what the wife wants to do is obviously opposed to God’s law, thus PROTECTING her from a wrong action.
Husbands also need to be protected from wrong action. It should be mutual.
15 April 2009 at 10.03 pm
My full comment with a link is still waiting moderation or stuck in spamland. Driscoll said these things in his marriage and women video. These are citations.
15 April 2009 at 10.04 pm
I can understand why a man might not remember these things because he has little to lose. But a woman loses the right to make the most basic decisions about her own life.
15 April 2009 at 10.35 pm
Sue,
I hope my questioning did not come across as accusatory! One of the problems with MacArthur’s article is precisely that it puts words in Driscoll’s mouth that he has never uttered. I think it only fair then, especially given the context, that we exercise care not to continue the trend.
15 April 2009 at 10.43 pm
Not at all. I am sure that I would find McArthur must worse than Driscoll. Or maybe only somewhat worse. So I am not really following the intent of this post, but just butting in with my own opinion of Driscoll. I am imposing on this thread, so thanks for putting up with me.
I mourn for evangelicalism if either of these two men represent general attitudes to women. I don’t know where this misogyny is coming from but I am deeply hurt by it and think many other women will come to think as I do that evangelicalism is no place for a lady.
16 April 2009 at 5.56 am
Sue — mutual, yes. However, the husband bears more responsibility because he is analogous to Christ in the relationship. The burden on him is greater, and he must be willing to sacrifice all. This should be a sobering thought to a man, and not at all a justification to wield power.
I am a pastor with a congregation. At the deepest and most important level, the relationship between pastor and congregegation is one of mutual submission. I am accountable to them, and they are accountable to me. If I take a wrong action, they need to correct me. If they err, I need to correct them. It’s all mutual. However, the nature of my office makes me more responsible. As a leader of the congregation, God holds me more responsible for what I do or fail to do.
In the world, leaders are also more responsible. However, they get some benefits in return: better compensation, more privileges, the right to demand submission, etc. But pastors of congregations and husbands of wives should have no claim on such benefits. It’s all one way. It’s giving and sacrifice and responsibility but no claims on anything. A corporate boss can demand submission and make you suffer if you don’t. A pastor or husband is not permitted to do this. It’s all cross and no glory.
Congregations and wives are certainly free if they so wish to grant privileges and benefits to their pastors and husbands, but nothing is to be demanded. In this way, congregations and wives actually have the upper hand. In fact, a Christian congregation and marriage should look odd to the outside world. The leaders will look more like servants; those they lead will look like they’re in charge. So be it. As Ken Medema sings, “The world looks different to ya when you’re flying upside down.”
Now if only pastors and husbands would realize that they should not demand benefits for the sacrifices they’re making. If only they would lead like servants, not demanding submission and leading like they must be followed. In other words, if only they didn’t think of their leadership like the world thinks of leadership.
16 April 2009 at 6.40 am
Please allow me to express my thoughts. I apologise in advance. This is total nonsense from an experiential point of view. You write that the husband has greater responsibiliby.
Who carries the baby in her womb? How can the man possibly have greater responsibility for that baby? It is physically impossible. Can anyone say that the husband has a greater right and responsibility to impose a preganancy on his wife than she has to decide this issue. I am not saying that she has the right to get pregnant without her husband’s agreement, but that she ought not to have a pregnancy imposed on her by her husband/leader because after all “he is going to bear a greater responsibility for that child.”
Is the husband’s greater responsibility some comfort to a mother standing by the child’s hospital bed? “Well I shall let my husband make the decision for this child since he has “greater responsibility?” ” Not a bit.
I can only say that this is the most bizarre way for a man to put things to a woman that I can imagine. I hope and pray that women will at some time be able to articulate to men the total inhumanity of these views.
Sorry for my passion, but no one will ever make the years I and many other women have spent under male leadership. May eternity be long enough to erase these sad memories.
16 April 2009 at 6.44 am
Can a man decide on the medical treatment for his wife, for their child? No, he cannot die for his wife, or for his child. If the husband dies and leaves his wife with the retirement plan that he put in place, who lives with that? A man simply cannot live with the consequences of his decisions for his wife. He cannot live her life. He deprives her of her humanity if he “decides for her.” Nothing can ever make up for this. Perhaps God will demand recompense in heaven from men for the way they have treated women. I don’t know about that. But on earth, a man can never make up to a woman the way he has deprived her of her humanity by making decisions for her.
16 April 2009 at 8.40 am
Are you addressing me, Sue? Did you read carefully what I wrote?
My whole point was that greater responsibility does NOT imply that a man can impose anything on his wife. In fact, I would say that there is NOTHING he can impose on her. He is NOT permitted to force her to do anything. She is her own person and maintains her freedom. He certainly should NOT make decisions for her. He must respect her life as it is. The mystery of two becoming one flesh in no way diminishes the wife’s or the husband’s unique personhood.
How can I be clearer than that?
16 April 2009 at 1.03 pm
“The husband bears more responsibility because he is analogous to Christ in the relationship. The burden on him is greater, and he must be willing to sacrifice all.”
Manlius,
This is where the rub comes. Does the husband posses a “greater” burden of leadership in a couples sex life (or any other area)? If we follow your line interpretation of Eph 5, the man indeed can (lovingly) impose his will on his wife for she is to “submit to her husband in everything! (as to the Lord)” for he is her “savior” and “lord” (5:23, 1 Peter 3:5-6). Furthermore there are so many qualifications to your statement that the man is the leader, that he is hardly a leader at all. I would want to say that even in the first century Church Paul expected (even instructed) a greater level of leadership then you are arguing for.
But most importantly, does not 1 Cor. 7 teach complete “mutuality” (v. 3-6) and not passive/soft male leadership regarding the sex life of couples?
“The wife does not have not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. IN THE SAME WAY, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other expect for MUTUAL CONSENT…”
16 April 2009 at 1.27 pm
Brandon,
The words “active” and “passive” were loaded with sexual connotations in Paul’s day (according to MacArthur we shouldn’t explicate them, but I’m darn sure there’s nothing poetic going on!). We need to be extremely careful how we import those terms into modern discussions of sexuality in light of their use then (where they referred to the actual mechanics of sex).
16 April 2009 at 1.54 pm
Really good points, Brandon.
The man is responsible to lead (as you pointed out per Paul’s instructions), but he cannot force his wife to follow. Paul instructs wives to submit; he does not instruct husbands to force them to submit.
As two made one flesh, a husband and wife have certain responsibilities to each other, including sexual relations. But a husband would be out of bounds to impose sexual activity on his wife. He may appeal. He may even be convinced that she is not being obedient to the Lord in fulfilling her responsibilities, but he must never impose. His imposition would be a greater sin than her disobedience, in my view.
The bottom line is that I would agree with you. Sexual relations must be completely mutual. However, the husband is quite likely to be more accountable to God if this area of the marriage relationship is lacking. That’s the cross he has to bear.
16 April 2009 at 2.16 pm
Women think primarily of the children in this discussion. I know some men tend to focus on other issues.
I say that for a woman it goes against her nature, the fibre of her being, to make her less responsible than the father for the children. You must actually destroy a woman, destroy who she is by nature and design, if you subordinate her to her husband in the matter of deciding what is right for the children.
I don’t mean that the father must not be equally involved, but for a father to countermand the mother, to arrive home and undo the decisions of the mother, to overrule her, and undermine her, is simply against the created and the divine at the same time.
Driscoll makes it sound as if the rulership of the husband is benign, but that is just veneer, window-dressing, the sugar on the pill.
16 April 2009 at 2.19 pm
Anyway, I am arguing against Driscoll and the entire complementarian agenda inasmuch as it subordinates woman, but I have no idea if that is what anyone here is suggesting. Please don’t take offense, I am not taking you this way.
16 April 2009 at 4.31 pm
Sue, I for one really appreciate the sincerity of your thoughts and feelings. For the record, I’m not authoritarian, complementarian or egalitarian. Christian marriage, like the communal human relationship of a church, should reflect the image of the Trinity. It’s too simplistic to reduce such a relationship by any of those labels.
What is really important is the presence of Christian love. If true Christian love exists, a marriage can thrive on all sorts of different models. If Christian love is absent, there is nary a model that can save it.
16 April 2009 at 7.21 pm
Manlius,
I have no particular take on what you believe so I am not reacting to that. But since you bring up the trinity I would have to ask if you mean the trinity as in The Shack, or the trinity as in Bruce Ware.
In any case, I am really opposing Mark Driscoll who has said enough to be pinned down on this.
16 April 2009 at 8.32 pm
Manlius:
“reflect the image of the Trinity. It’s too simplistic to reduce such a relationship by any of those labels.”
Could you elaborate on this if at all possible? are you referring to a post you have written or a particular book? I have not heard someone refer to that take on submission before. Just curious.
16 April 2009 at 10.32 pm
Manlius:
While I appreciate your open and kind tone I believe we are on different wavelengths on this issue (and thus its implications for Driscoll’s hierarchal structure for sexual relations). By point was that 1 Cor. 7 (and Gal. 3:28) subtly undercut the patriarchal world of the Greco-Roman culture (and to some extent Jewish culture). At the same time the NT betrays a divine “accommodation” to the cultural notion that leadership chiefly resides with men (in the government, church, or home). However, there are clear “seeds” that the kingdom-invading, sin-reversing power of the gospel that levels all ground at the foot of the cross so that there is no longer leadership distinctions based on class, race, or gender.
A similar trajectory can be noticed with polygamy, or better yet slavery, which are never explicitly condemned. Such notions of equality I believe are native to the nature of the New Covenant which stands in stark contrast to the tribal/patriarchal structure of the Old (thus we have a priesthood of “all” believers, spirit gifting irrespective of gender, the covenant sign to males and females). And if such is the case then it is unfair to say “the husband is quite likely (?) to be more accountable to God if this area of the marriage relationship is lacking. That’s the cross he has to bear.”
No, both parties in a marriage are “equally” accountable to God. Marriage and sex lives run on a principle of mutual deference, love and forgiveness, give-and-take, otherness, etc. Of course the sociological differences of masculinity and femininity will entail complementarity (but without hierarchy!, save Christ). With the aforementioned in mind and with no disrespect intended I view your soft patriarchy (or neither complamentarianism nor egalatarianism) as inconsistent with both the structure of first century Christian marriages and how marriage ought to be run today in light of the gospel (cf. slavery again).
16 April 2009 at 10.40 pm
And although I agree with Art’s thread and respect for the way Driscoll handles sex in marriage, I think Driscoll is dead wrong about how men are the boss of the bedroom. In this sense I resonate with some of Sue’s comments.
Art, care to chime in? Im curious on how you think the gender bender question relates your initial comments.
16 April 2009 at 10.42 pm
Thank you, Brandon.
16 April 2009 at 10.55 pm
I apologize for my absence from this discussion. I was on fiance duty today!
To answer Brandon’s question and to get at some of the issues Sue raised: I don’t think men are nor should be ‘bosses of the bedroom’ nor ‘bosses’ of anything. Being a boss is not the same as being the ‘head.’ Jesus is the head of the church, yet he gave himself up for her. There is not a better picture of how the headship of the husband should look in a marriage (I know just reading ‘headship of the husband’ could cause some to cringe, but that is more a result of the abuse that many men have wrongly perpetuated under the name of ‘headship’ than of the biblical teaching of what leading and being the head truly means.).
If Driscoll does believe that men are the bosses in the bedroom, then he is mistaken. As I said earlier, I do not remember him saying this…but if he did then he is wrong. Scripture gives a picture of mutual submission in a marriage relationship and also gives a picture of leadership defined by serving others, not by demanding things of others.
I do not think that women should be subordinated in any way in any relationship, especially in a marriage relationship. Lord help me to never subordinate Liz! Biblically, I should be willing to give myself up for her, as Christ did for the church. That hardly means calling her to submit to my demands in the bedroom or otherwise.
It seems to me that if a man has to play the ‘submission’ card, then he is not a man worth submitting to. True biblical leaders are servants, driven by love for others. Those people do not need to demand things from people. People willingly follow because they know that person has their best interests in mind as they are driven by love.
16 April 2009 at 11.18 pm
I don’t think Driscoll said that a man should be the boss in the bedroom. He did say that men should decide when and how many children to have. That is more like saying that Driscoll thinks men should be boss of the family. That is what he seems to be saying. Not the same thing. I offer no speculation on Driscoll’s bedroom theories. I do NOT want to go there.
Leadership is a dangerous word to give to most men. They think it means that they have some priority in decision-making and that the wife should defer in decisions to the husband.
When it comes to raising children the wife must participate on par with the husband. I just cannot see a husband as having a leadership role over the wife in front of the kids.
16 April 2009 at 11.23 pm
That’s unfortunate, as I don’t think that is the way to go about it…considering the man doesn’t have to go through pregnancy and labor! More seriously, marriage is a partnership and this view seems more like a “friendly” dictatorship (if such a thing is possible!).
16 April 2009 at 11.28 pm
Who guarantees that the dictatorship is friendly? It is supposed to be friendly but human nature being what it is, some are not friendly. That is why we now live in functional democracies. Men don’t want to live in dictatorships, but apparently they think women do. This is how men treat women as their neighbour. If Christianity does not reject the subordination of women whole cloth, then women will reject Chrisitiatnity.
16 April 2009 at 11.34 pm
Sue: I agree with you (I have been agreeing with you in my comments, in case that wasn’t clear).
16 April 2009 at 11.38 pm
Art,
Thanks. I do see that. I wish more men would speak out against the trend towards keeping women under male leadership, and in favour of treating women like equals.
17 April 2009 at 12.32 am
Art/Sue:
Pardon my hyperbole “boss of the bedroom”, perhaps it was overstated. I know Driscoll and other complamentarians don’t use this phrase but certain things they say intimate in the general direction (I.e. men must exercise leadership in sexual relations by being the “initiators” while women must be the “responders”–Piper).
Art, I am a bit unclear on your view. Is it fair to say that you are essentially in concord with MANlius (jk), Carson, Grudem, etc, or at least closer to that side of the spectrum? Are men uniquely leaders of their families and churches in ways women are prohibited from being based on your reading of Scripture? Im not trying start a debate or anything, Im just genuinely curious.
17 April 2009 at 8.52 am
I heard the same Driscoll sermon as Sue must have.. because he quite clearly said that the man should decide the number of kids, and also stated (not a direct quote) something to the effect that if the woman does not submit, he (husband) must approach her and then take it up with the elders if necessary.
I am pulling that out of the context of his sermon as a whole, to be fair, he gave many, many qualifiers, and then followed it up with literally screaming ( I do mean screaming, podcast it) at men for their lack of leadership and service in their homes.
I do understand where Sue is coming from, because while I support driscoll’s ministry, I differ with his take on gender and women’s roles in particular, which he has gone out of his way to outline regularly in the past few months on Resurgence and in the pulpit. It’s a sticky issue, but as with anything, we must take care to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and disregard an entire ministry based on one point if disagreement. What should be the hallmark of the body of Christ, is that we disagree differently, serve differently, and love differently, which I think is what art was getting at with his post. Above anything else, the behavior of j-mac and those who trot along faithfully behind makes me so, so, sad. It destroys testimony.
Driscoll (ie posting nice things about j-mac) is responding to a disagreement in a VERY different way than j-mac is, and quite publicly.
17 April 2009 at 9.47 am
a: There in no one book I could point you to, except maybe “After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity” by Miroslav Volf, with Jospeh Ratzinger and John Zizioulas. My observations here are based largely on connecting my views on the ecclesial household to the familial household. The Bible and traditional Christian liturgical structures shape my understanding (at least I hope they do.) The tension between the created order that is passing and the inaugurated eschaton is not lost on me; in fact, I have shifted back and forth quite a lot on these issues because of it. I’m not a fan of traditional complementarianism (i.e. Carson, Grudem) and sympathize more naturally with egalitarianism. As a traditional Christian, however, I think there must be a better way to honor the all the complexities of this issue.
Brandon: We are probably pretty close to the same wavelength regarding the practical realities of these issues. In other ways, we clearly do have differences.
This side of the consummation, I do regard male headship as still being relevant, both in the church and in the home. I affirm the trajectory you speak of, but I don’t think it should be realized yet. Both the father of a congregation and the father of a home are icons of Christ in their particular offices. I understand that in baptism we are all in Christ, but in this created order there is still a place for ordained offices, in nature and in the church.
In my view, a woman can have fatherly or pastoral qualities, but she cannot be the father of a household or a church. This is not how Christ has ordained it. Her real submission, however, is always to Christ himself (this is no different than a man’s submission, obviously). One might say that her submission to her pastor or her husband is a liturgical act, recognizing that they are representations of Christ. The husband should recognize that only Christ is her true Master (and his!), and that bossing her around is actually evidence of his own insubordination. The husband must strive to love as Christ has loved. He must not force or demand anything. The wife’s submission to her husband, then, should be only a by-product of her submission to Christ.
The husband should also submit to the wife in the sense that they are brothers and sisters in Christ. As such, they must submit to one another. In fact, I would submit
that their mutual submission in and under Christ should take precedence over her liturgical or ceremonial submission as a wife. Likewise, as a pastor I view my congregants first as brothers and sisters in Christ. My responsibility to see them as sheep under my care should be triggered when I want to serve them in my office (in Word and Sacrament), not when I desire to “lord it over them.”
17 April 2009 at 10.23 am
I should probably read Volf to understand the context of your comments. However, my gut reaction is this. At my age, men seem terrible flawed. Real men. It is hard to separate out the idea of men from what women know to be true about men. These thoughts are best kept out fo church. Thinking about maleness in church is detrimental for most women considering their life experience. Think of a prostitute who becomes a Christian. What is maleness to her? That is what maleness is to all women, unfortunately. Men as individuals can be beloved friends and brothers, but not for their “maleness.” That is best kept under wraps.
Second, women are single mothers, and they are in fact, heads of their household, as many women were in the NT. Anything that says that it is a greater honour that a man has for providing and caring for his family, than a woman gets for doing the same insults women.
I don’t think some men can imagine how insulting this kind of thinking is. It is smutty – thoughts about maleness, and disrespectful of women, in its deference to men only who are “head of the house.”
I don’t think you understand how it comes across but that is how I hear it. Sorry to be frank but men, to me, are now just those little boys in school now in grown up bodies.
17 April 2009 at 11.07 am
Volf is actually a full egalitarian as far as I know. I know for certain that he supports women’s ordination. The book is a presentation as well as an interaction of three different applications (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) of trinitarian theology to ecclesiology. While the focus is on the church, it certainly has relevance to all human relationships. Volf is the main editor, but Ratzinger and Zizioulas have the same amount of space. All three represent their traditions very well. I don’t agree with any of them completely, but I’m a big fan of their insights and their irenicism.
17 April 2009 at 11.13 am
Brandon:
I would not say that I am in agreement with Grudem, Piper, etc. on women in the church.
In terms of the marriage relationship, I would have to look at Eph 5.22-33 closer to answer your question about men being the leader. I think it is pretty clear that Paul was viewing men as being the head, but then he compares that to Christ being the head of the church. And then he goes onto say that husbands should loves their wives as their own bodies. Talk about a confusing line of argumentation! To be honest, Paul’s argument is unclear at best and muddled at worst, at least to me.
As a basic rule in relationships, including marriage relationships, I try to follow Phil 2.3 and consider others greater than myself. If everyone followed that verse in their lives then perhaps none of these debates would ever occur because no women would ever feel subjugated to a patriarchal abuse of power perpetuated by a misogynistic reading of Scripture. Instead, they would feel loved and cherished, as well they should. The same would also be said of the men feeling loved. Basically, the world would be a better place.
17 April 2009 at 11.15 am
Sue, I agree that the church should take great care not to insult the integrity and dignity of single women raising their children. We should encourage them more than we do and support them in any way we can.
However, the church should also be prophetic to the truth that children and the society as a whole are better off when men do not abandon their roles as fathers. We can see how inner city life has been devasted by absentee fathers. Actually, all of our society has been affected by it, but urban society is the most obvious example. I’ve taught for several years at a Christian school and have seen how much kids without fathers have to overcome. We ask way too much of these dear children. It’s very sad.
17 April 2009 at 11.28 am
Sue: while I agree with your remarks and sympathize with plight, we cannot turn this entire discussion in an emotional plea. Personal feeling rage on both sides and everyone is (hopefully) attempting to me faithful the to Text.
Manlius: Again for heuristic purposes I would dub your view as “soft-patriarchalism”. I would disagree that either your view or Carson’s (which have much in common) is in full continuity with the traditional view across church history. Most of the early Church Father’s, Medieval Thinkers, Reformers, and Scholastics believed that women were at a number of levels inferior to men. So in a sense there is novelty to both hard/soft Complamentarianism and Mutuality.
Second, it seems we both agree that the Kingdom is moving towards egalitarianism between sexes (at least in the New Creation). However, I believe we part ways on our reading of the creation narrative(s). My view:
—-Creation:
ontological “and” functional equality (never mind the fact that the former logically entails the latter)
—–Fall:
disruption of marital harmony, man rules over the wife and the wife attempts to rule over the husband
——Old Covenant:
the sinful effects the fall are on display in the broken the broken world of the Hebrew Bible. Thus women posses unfair property right, divorce and adultery legislation even within the Torah (cf. slaves). Yet, their status and rights is several notches better than the surrounding cultures.
——Redemption:
as part of the sin-reversing power of the cross the original intention of creation is restored (mutuality), but also, the new creation in coming at us from the future. Women and slaves status and opportunities are expanded and are pushing toward full equality (eg-equal leadership responsibilities), even as there is still divine accommodation in first-century cultural world of the New Testament text (I.e. submission of women/slaves, life-long obedience of children, Jerusalem Council, etc. And note women the age, education, and opportunities of women/men in martial relationships then and now). But the accommodation passages (think 1 Cor 14:34-35) stand in tension (or contradiction) with other passages (1 Cor. 11:5) leading us to follow the ethical realization of the culturally embedded texts’ redemptive spirit (so william webb).
—–New Creation:
Equality.
Of course this reading pushes past yours and I think the way in which your view is fleshed out may give backdoor credence to a nuanced egalitarianism. That is, if we study the NT texts that deal with this issue and attempt to live them out I think Piper’s view (or even something stronger) is required for consistency. When I read Paul I do not see Tim Keller’s “tie-breaking vote” view of male leadership, nor even the soft-patriarchy. Altough it is love-patriarchy, much better than the surrounding culture, the man is still in charge and the woman still must submit to the man in “everything”. She is even commended for calling her husband “my lord” (as did Sarah to Ab)…..
17 April 2009 at 11.31 am
Fathers are vitally needed as co-leaders and coresponsible. It is very daunting to be a single mother.
But husband as leader over the wife is simply not needed. She is better off without him, if this is his attitude. Unless a husband can take his part beside his wife, and not above her, I would have to say that a woman should just plan her life without him altogether. The damage can be severe. However, the father is badly needed. But, once again, women should be treated in every way as equals. I sense this will be a long time coming.
17 April 2009 at 12.46 pm
Art,
So you do believe women can assume the office of elder?
I hear what you are saying about the word “head” in Ephesians 5, but of course we must determine what exactly the term in its own cultural context. I do not think “source” is a convincing gloss in this case (although may be in other places), but neither is “leader” in my judgement. It think there are convincing reasons for understanding “head” to be understood as denoting the “total dependence on Christ for life and growth in the church and similarly the husband for the wife in the first-century household.” He was her “savior” as the texts says, in the sense she was utterly dependent of her husband in that culture (cf. Christ and the church Col 2:19; 10). This seems to fit also with than the head/imagery as well which can be linked with life and growth.
At the time this entire line of argumentation is useless without understanding the cultural context of the passage. For a very helpful and short article see Gordon Fee’s “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:28-6:9″:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/CulturalContext_Fee.pdf
17 April 2009 at 6.57 pm
while I agree with your remarks and sympathize with plight, we cannot turn this entire discussion in an emotional plea. Personal feeling rage on both sides and everyone is (hopefully) attempting to me faithful the to Text.
Would anyone say this about slavery? Oh don’t be emotional just be faithful to the text!
17 April 2009 at 8.28 pm
Yes I would say the same of slavery. Scripture must shape our understanding about these issues not our, in part, emotions. I don’t emtionally like or fully understand hell but I believe it’s real.
17 April 2009 at 8.41 pm
But it was the appeal to emotion that ended slavery and not the use of scripture.
We are not talking about how you feel about hell, but how you feel about other people in hell. That is, you can explore hell for yourself from scripture all you like, but when you are watching a class of people living in subhuman conditions, do you have the luxury of waiting another several centuries to decide what scripture will reveal on the topic.
Did Christ debate why the leper had leprosy or did he heal?
17 April 2009 at 11.15 pm
Sue:
Im not sure I quite understand your remarks about hell, but allow me to clarify a bit. Our emotions are embedded in the cultural world that we live in and are also affected by our sin and finitude. Because of the image of God and natural revelation they are at time correct by at other times because of the aforementioned they are led astray (cf. Karl Barth). My point is that the Word of God (via the Spirit) helps orient our emotions/experience in ways that are in accordance with his will. But left to themselves are left in a sea of relativism where no ones experience trumps another. For example, perhaps some Christians (many of my dear friends) feel that a full blown egalitarianism wracks havoc on marital relationships and are thus deeply distressed by flattening out leadership roles.
However, if the Church posses a divine word from the omniscient Creator it can allow it to function as a “norming norm” that subjects our experiences to divine revelation. At the same time I am not so naive to believe that the biblical interpretation happens in a vacuum. Reason, tradition, and experience all play a part in our interpretation of Scripture and that we can interpret it rightly (but not perfectly!). When one of these is out of balance, however, bad things result.
So perhaps we might say that theological liberalism resulted from a misappropriation of “reason”, and some of the ills of the Catholic Church during the Reformation from a wrongheaded view of “tradition”, and some of the errors of Liberation theology (or even radical Christian feminism) from an imbalance of “experience”. This is all to say that these three must be in a delicate balance while interpreting Scripture and not of them ought to function as a norming norm that determines our view of what Scripture says.
Indeed, one of the benefits of postmodern sociology has been to show us how much our knowledge is “perspectival” and affected by our cultural community. Thus there is a real need for a Scripture to shape our understanding of what’s “fair”.
17 April 2009 at 11.41 pm
But, in fact, we use our innate notion of what is fair to select scripture. Rather than have scripture speak to us, we do the opposite.
If we believe that it is not worth our while to treat a woman as an equal then we will find interpretations in the Bible to support this. And so we can see that the interpretation of Gen. 3:16 has morphed over the centuries in wildly opposing directions.
The Septuagint interprets teshuqah as meaning that the woman would return to the man out of whom she was taken, just as man would return to the dust of the earth. This is the death of woman, that she is under the domination of man. Not that the LXX was a feminist text, far from it, but simply that this was the death of woman for her sin.
Then Jerome wrote that Eve would be under the power of her husband, it was her just position her sin to be under his power.
Chrysostom felt that in the garden they could be side by side, but because of sin, there must be one who makes the decisions, in order to reduce contention. Because of contention the man must have the lead.
Pagnini brought back the rabbinical teaching that it is the longing of woman to be with her man. She longs for a husband, but he will dominate her. Luther translates this as longing, Coverdale as lust and the KVJ as desire. Every translator puts into the text what he wants.
But now we find that the church is teaching that it is the curse of woman to desire to dominate and master, she is rebellious and will not take the role of underling which she was truly created for. It is because women rebel against their proper position of being under man that we have divorce. It is because of the sin of woman that the divorce rate has risen. I have heard this sermon more than once.
Read the CBMW site to find out what dominators and usurpers women are.
This is just one verse. Some men find what they want – they create misogyny out of thin air. They are permeated with a false view of woman and they create meaning out of scripture. They contemplate and find in scripture the darkness that is in their own soul. And then they offer this darkness to woman who swallows this darkness to her detriment.
18 April 2009 at 6.52 am
Sue: I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but you have definitely kept this conversation real. Thank you for that.
Brandon: I apologize that I’m quite intellectually undisciplined on this topic. I probably seem a bit like a moving target, and I’m sorry for that. Honesty, I’ve never felt very comfortable with any of the positions I’ve held.
To try and be better, let me to submit to some labels if it helps clarify my position. Here they are:
- Ontological equality
- Functional “whatever works”. Each couple is different. It doesn’t matter if the man or the woman gets the “tie-breaking vote.” It doesn’t how things get decided (as long as they get decided when it matters!) It doesn’t matter who is the CEO of the family or how the responsibilties are divided up. I’m sure there are some extremes that would need to be avoided, but I say “whatever works” for a particular couple is best.
- Liturgical complementarity. The man is the “liturgical call” and the woman is the “liturgical response.” Neither is more important than the other, but in this call and response the husband and wife reflect the mystery of Christ and the Church. This is how they present their household as an offering to God.
In this understanding, the husband is the head of household in the way that we have heads of state. There’s the British monarch, with virtually no functional power, and there’s the American president, with quite a lot. But in the end, the man represents his family the way a monarch represents her country or a pastor represents his congregation. (By the way, I have no problem with heads of state being women, as I don’t see any liturgical component in the state as I do in the church or home.)
18 April 2009 at 9.53 am
Sue: I agree everything you said except this line, “rather than have scripture speak to us, we do the opposite.”
I do agree that this can occur, as some of the examples you cited show. And on the other side Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza commits the same error from the other side of the spectrum, reading all biblical texts through the lens of the liberation of women. But our goal should be to avoid both these errors and enter into a hermeneutical spiral where we attempt to spin closer and closer to the meaning of the text, which in turn shapes our emotions.
Manlius: Sorry if I am slow to understand you liturgical complementarity, it is new to me. It seems there is a degree of ambiguity in how exactly it is fleshed out and what precisely “liturgical” means in a martial context. I also have questions about how or why a man can be though of as a puppet leader with no actual power (cf. British monarch). That doesn’t sound like much of a leader at all. Rather it seems like a vestige of a past generations that is “growing dim and ready to fall away.”
18 April 2009 at 10.04 am
I just realized that “puppet king” is not the correct term but you get the idea. My point is: follow your beliefs to there logical ends and read Scripture with tradition rather than through tradition. You are very very close to a nuanced egalitarian view (with would be more consistent, I think).
But thanks for chatting about all this. You too Sue.
18 April 2009 at 12.21 pm
Brandon,
Of course, women commit the same errors of interpretation! We are just as human as men. And there may well be a hermeneutical spiral, but unfortunately I think the general direction of such a spiral is away from its original meaning and not closer. I believe that our presuppositions rule in this matter and our emotions shape the interpretation.
How else can I explain listening to the very top complementarian theologians and Hebrew experts teaching that in Gen. 3:16 Eve rebels against her role and we see this today in the rising rate of divorce.
I went and asked on of them after his sermon how many marriages he knew that had failed for this reason and he admitted that he couldn’t think of any.
He wanted to express his general disapproval of the expanding rights of women and he attached it to the text. He really is a lg scholar, this man, but his emotions, his extreme disapproval of women’s equal rights, have shaped his hermeneutics.
Women live with this daily. It is the reality of women to experience the sheer hatred of women in most sermons in a certain cultural environment. I lived with this too long.
18 April 2009 at 12.24 pm
For the rest, the single woman head of household, is simply treated as non-existant. And yet most of the women mentioned in the NT were single women and head of their house.
If men want to posit and theology which ignores the reality of women’s lives I can hardly be surprised.
18 April 2009 at 6.53 pm
Art, this was an interesting post, and I have to agree with your points on where Johnny Mac (lol) goes wrong. I haven’t heard anything from Driscoll on sex or the Song that is unbiblical or pornographic.
The conversation here has been even more interesting. I have deep respect for Driscoll and his ministry, but I don’t agree with him 100%. Does anyone ever agree with another person 100% of the time? He recently said that Stay-At-Home-Dads are wrong, lame, not doing their job as providers according to Timothy. I can’t agree with this…there is much more to providing than earning money.
However, I generally ascribe to many of the aspects of complementarianism. Sue, you have obviously been impacted very negatively by men and authoritarianism. To call men little boys in grown-up bodies is just dismissive and wrong. Not all women see men and maleness the way you have described, which is so negative. I certainly do not. I have absolutely no problem referring to maleness in the church, or male headship…since it is entirely biblical. I do not see complementarianism as treating women unequally at all. And I am no doormat, not your average shrinking violet. Not even a stay-at-home-mother. To say that my husband bears more responsibility as leader in our household does not diminish my role in the least, it puts a great burden on him. But all decisions are made mutually, prayerfully, and with Christ as the head. Just because so much sexism does still exist in the world does not mean we need to ignore all scriptures referring to male leadership.
18 April 2009 at 6.58 pm
Sarah: I really appreciate your comment. I thought your final point was very well put:
Very well said.
18 April 2009 at 10.55 pm
I would say that in the secular society that I inhabit I do not experience all that much sexism. But my negative experiences with sexism have been among Christians. I don’t know of any non-Christian organizations which promote the submission of women in all things to the will of the husband.
Sarah,
You specifically say that “all decisions are made mutually” and so you have not experienced male dominance in the classic complementarian model of male “final say.” This is what many complementarian preachers and organizations are promoting and it is wrong. If those women who are not suffering under male “final say” would stand up for women who have suffered under “final say” that would alleviate a lot of misery.
You wrote,
“To call men little boys in grown-up bodies is just dismissive and wrong.”
But I think Driscoll did me one better in this respect in his series. Perhaps, if men did not presume to a leadership position over women, then they would not engender this kind of disrespect. Since men and women are both fallible, sinful selfish beings who hurt each other, putting one in charge of the other is basically disastrous.
I don’t think you are suggesting this. But this is what I am protesting. I am specifically saying that the teaching which gives men power over women is wrong. And because women have experienced that power in such negative ways, they are incapable of regarding maleness as an appropriate focus in the church.
The church needs to move towards a more respectful spiritual focus instead of such a carnal focus as gender.
19 April 2009 at 7.58 am
Sue,
Based then on this statement, it would seem that no leadership should ever exist, since any leader (male or female) is necessarily sinful and hence putting her in charge of another person would be “basically disasterous.” Does this also mean that relationships such as employee/employer, leader/people, etc should be rejected as well?
Pax Christi…Nick
19 April 2009 at 9.27 am
Sue, I have experienced a tremendous amount of sexism in the secular world, particularly in my work. I work in a historically male industry and I see it and hear it all the time. It is disgusting and evil and wrong, but it does not prevent me from seeing men as God’s children, made in His image just as I am, and capable of faithfully leading other people, both men and women, in the church and in the home. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit that any of us are capable of glorifying God by leading others anyway. And just because scripture refers to male headship, that does not diminish women’s roles as leaders in a tremendous number of aspects of life. We are to be servent leaders in everything we do, ALL of us. Complementarianism simply DOES NOT EQUAL male dominance in the way you are thinking, have experienced and have heard from perhaps a few preachers. The word Dominance doesn’t even belong in the same sentence. In my opinion if I am concentrating on scripture and on submitting myself to Christ, it does not matter to me if occasionally I need to defer a decision to my husband, so long as it is not going against the will of God. If my husband is loving me as the leader of our home as God has called him, it is in fact a joy to me to do so. He would never ever do anything that he knows would make me completely miserable…it’s just not how it’s supposed to go. As women, we ought to be more concerned with how to serve and less concerned with “being trampled upon”. I heard in a marriage conference something that REALLY hit home with me…people so often go into marriage thinking everything should be 50/50…especially chores and such. But that is just the WRONG attitude and it will never work, life is never “fair”. We need to be thinking 100/100…and only worrying about giving OUR 100%, regardless of what our spouses give. It’s the correct, Christlike attitude and it also works! When we give more, our partners give more.
Your own experiences and opinions are valued, but please don’t continue to speak as if for ALL WOMEN in their incapability to view maleness appropriately in church.
19 April 2009 at 10.30 am
NIck,
I would suggest that morality basied leadership and gender-based leadership are in opposition. If there are only two peoplel, then there is a constant tensioin. Does morality win out, or gender. Obviously, one would say morality, but who is the leader of morality. If you say that the man is then it is gender-based morality. Is that morality? Is there any more morality in men than in women/
There is no moral advantage to putting a male in leadership in a marriate. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A husband who expects a wife to submit in all things, (but never submit himself) is like a toddler who says, what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine too.
But this is the standard complementarian teaching, that the wife is like Christ who always submits and the husband is like God who never submits. This is the doctrine of the ESVSB.
This was written by a male. No one has a right to say that in a marriage one person always submits and the other person never submits. Surely this cannot be lauded as a Christian teaching but it is.
This is not about deference, this is about letting a husband decide how many pregnancies a woman undergoes, whether she homeschools, which house to buy where to live, where to go to church, etc. And on a Focus in the Family site, the husband decides about medical treatment for the children.
This is not about the petty little things, this is about life and death decisions for the children. Would any woman just stand there and let the husband decide, if she disgreed with what would prolong the life of her child.
This is about the perpetuation of terrible sins because of the teaching that the man has final say.
19 April 2009 at 10.39 am
As women, we ought to be more concerned with how to serve and less concerned with “being trampled upon”.
A sprite little saying to women. Think about the facts. One fifth of women are beat up by their partners. They are physicsally trampled upon. I was shocked the first time I heard that a woman, raped by her husband, was told by the elders to bake a pie for her husband. The elders included a judge. But this was in 1992 and marital rape was only against the law since 1986. \it takes some time to get adjusted to the fact that women have rights over their own bodies, and ought to have a home in which they are physically safe. But the churches I attended did not have a ministry to abused women because they denied the existance of this populace in the church. This is sexism at its worst.
What use is a sermon on the submission of women if it will simply guarantee that those women who are abused will be more abused.
There is no moral value in maleness. This does not mean that I do not have equal regard for men I work with. This means that the imposition of gender-based leadership is an immorality to me.
23 April 2009 at 4.37 am
Art, I’m late to the discussion but I would quite like to bring it back to the point about interpretation and preaching of the Song. Clearly I disagree with you (and Mark Driscoll) about much of this and I’m not going to go into it all here, but there’s one thing I’d like to ask you about. In an earlier comment you said that you thought the Song was proscriptive (I think you mean prescriptive) in its portrayal of sex. Can you explain why you think this? That was (one of) the thing(s) I found most shocking about Driscoll’s sermons – that he was setting up his interpretations of the sexual imagery of the Song as if they were commanded for all married couples. I wonder what you think is the basis for that sort of hermeneutic.
23 April 2009 at 10.29 am
Ros: I read your post on the issue and definitely understand where you are coming from, although there are some disagreements between us (reminiscent of the Psalms course we took together!
).
When I said that the Song was prescriptive (thanks for the correction), I don’t mean it in the sense that Driscoll means. I think you are correct that he takes some passages as if they are commanded for all Christian couples. I wouldn’t go that far because, quite simply, that is a genre misidentification on Driscoll’s part.
What I mean is that the Song provides a positive picture or example of love, one that, I think, should be emulated by married couples today. That is, couples should see the physical enjoyment between two lovers in the Song and strive for similar enjoyment in their relationships.
That is what I meant. I’m more than willing to admit that I have not studied the Song to the extent you have, so I am wiling to listen to your insight on this if you think this is incorrect.
23 April 2009 at 11.16 am
That’s a helpful corrective, Art. I agree with your third paragraph completely (though I don’t think that’s all that the Song does, I do think it does that).
23 April 2009 at 11.16 am
Also, you should enable comment threading!
23 April 2009 at 11.24 am
Oh wow. I didn’t even realize that was an option! They are now enabled!
23 April 2009 at 12.41 pm
I think it was introduced a few months ago.
25 April 2009 at 3.19 am
Manlius said: “At the deepest and most important level, the relationship between pastor and congregegation is one of mutual submission. I am accountable to them, and they are accountable to me. If I take a wrong action, they need to correct me.”
In Driscoll’s church, he is not held acountable to the congregation. They have no say whatsoever in the church’s governance, other than voting with their feet or their pocketbooks. A church member must “submit” to the leadership, or face “discipline” and “shunning” with no recourse or appeal. In late 2007, Driscoll had the church’s bylaws rewritten, so that he and four of his hand-picked “executives” were assigned lifetime tenures. Under the new scheme, the church elders were all stripped of their legal authority and voting authority, which they all shared along with Driscoll prior to the power grab. A Google search will yield plenty of online references to what happened, and in January 2009, a New York Times feature article tiltled “Who would Jesus smackdown?” mentioned it on page 4.