Why submission is not a dirty word (or, What it means to glorify God in our bodies)

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. — Ephesians 5:21

When I counsel couples preparing for marriage, I spend a lot of time discussing this one sentence from Paul’s letter to Ephesus. I believe this one line has the power to make or break a marriage. I also believe it takes just about a whole lifetime to live into.

This one line helps me understand our created design. It tells me I am designed for a relational posture that points away from self toward Christ. Submission is not oppression; it is a self-giving posture that calls me to something bigger than myself. We submit because it is a healthier way to live.

And we submit because God is God. I don’t submit because Steve (my good husband) is perfect or always right or because he is “large and in charge.” I submit because I am designed to glorify God. Steve doesn’t submit because he is weak or I’m overbearing. He submits because he wants to reflect the character of Christ.

In the theological world, submission has become something of a controversy. Our arguments center not around submission itself, but around two 25-cent words that speak to how men and women relate: complementarianism and egalitarianism.

A complementarian worldview says men and women are equal in dignity but different in roles. In this way of viewing human design, the man has responsibility of authority and the woman has the role of helping. In its most extreme form, it may even imply that the image of God is given to men alone. Complementarians are adamant that the power given to men is to be used only in self-sacrificing ways and this, of course, is on target. The danger is that it emphasizes roles over gifts. Where Genesis paints the picture of partnership, complementarianism introduces a hierarchy.

An egalitarian worldview says men and women are equal in dignity and equal in responsibility. Both men and women are created in God’s image and both are given responsibility to rule over His creation. Egalitarians emphasize our responsibility to live out our design. I believe this worldview is more consistent with Paul’s extensive teaching on spiritual gifts. The danger of egalitarianism is that it can actually minimize our differences and may even demonize them, when in reality men and women have clear distinctions.

So which “ism” is it — egalitarianism or complementarianism? My answer is YES. We are both! There are obvious ways we are different — physically, emotionally, socially. Our physical differences especially reflect deeper realities. Men in general are wired to provide and protect; women in general are wired for nurture and community. Those differences complement each other and make life interesting and enjoyable.

When we reduce our differences to roles, though, we forsake our spiritual side. We are more than plumbing and wiring. We are redeemed people with bodies and stories and spiritual gifts designed to be in partnership with God to build the Kingdom on earth. Women also provide for families; men also nurture their children. Both men and women bear responsibility for building up their homes and communities, to “build homes and live in them,” as Jeremiah says. “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:5-7).

We are not just roles. We are people with gifts and calls and destinies, created to welcome and advance the Kingdom of God on earth in the communities where we’ve been planted.

Does any of this matter in real life? Well … I’m glad you asked.

Paul knew what he was talking about when he counseled couples to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. We add dignity to difference when we learn to submit to each other rather than establish power bases. We love well when we place ourselves at the feet of Jesus.

In other words: The only possible way I can love you is through the power of Jesus Christ.

This is how women and men are designed to work. Submission means placing our SELVES at the feet of Jesus. The way Jesus poured out his life in service, husbands are to pour out their lives for their wives.  Husbands, it is not your job to ask, “How submissive is my wife to me?” It is your job to ask, “When my wife looks at me, how much of the Servant Jesus does she see?”

The way Jesus loved and honored others, wives are to love their husbands. Wives, it is not our job to ask, “Is my husband being the man of the house the way I think he ought to be the man?” Rather, it is my responsibility as a follower of Jesus to ask, “How can I love and encourage him so that when the world looks at us, we will reflect the image of God?”

God has called us to serve one another in love. So often, my tendency is competition not cooperation, suppression not servanthood. Meanwhile, what Paul is asking us to do is not to build ladders, but bridges — to turn to one another and serve one another in love.

When Jesus says, “This is my body, given for you,” he is painting a picture of God’s Kingdom and of human design. And when we give ourselves for each other, we also become a picture of the Kingdom.

This is what it means to glorify God in our bodies.

Read More

What makes us tick: men, women and leadership

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ — Ephesians 5:21

Men and women are designed for a relational posture that points away from self and toward both God and others. Submission is not oppression; it is a self-giving posture that calls men and women to something bigger than themselves. Husbands and wives, men and women, submit to God and one another because they are designed to bear the image of God.

In the theological world, submission has become something of a controversy. The arguments gather not around submission itself but around the nature of human design. Is this design a hierarchy or a partnership? In the debate over that question, two terms surface. Let’s look at them, shall we?

Complementarianism

A complementarian worldview says men and women are equal in dignity but different in roles. In this way of viewing human design, the man has responsibility for “loving authority over the female” and the woman has the role of “willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man.”¹ Antagonism is introduced into this design at the Fall, leading the woman to compete for authority. Complementarians are adamant that the power given to men is to be used only in self-sacrificing ways, in keeping with the character of Christ. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, who have both written extensively on this view of human design,² claim that the male-female hierarchy has been so from the beginning. They argue from Genesis, chapter two, that woman was taken out of man, and that man was given dominion over the whole earth before woman came on the scene. They both lean on their heavy exegesis of the word “helper” to suggest a woman’s supportive role.

Complementarianism emphasizes the distinctions between men and women, as well as their roles. In the healthiest view of this theological stance, men and women bear God’s image equally, with the man having the role of leader and the woman having the role of helper. In its most extreme form, complementarianism may imply that the image of God is given to men alone (“God did not name the human race ‘woman’”²).

Do you see just how dangerous this theology is if you follow its trajectory all the way out? At the very least, the danger of this approach to human design is it emphasizes roles over gifts. Where Genesis, chapter one, paints the picture of partnership, complementarianism introduces a hierarchy.

Egalitarianism

An egalitarian worldview says men and women are equal in dignity and equal in responsibility. Both men and women are created in God’s image and both are given responsibility to rule over His creation. The emphasis is on responsibility rather than role, on being rather than doing. As Tim Tennent writes, “Submission is not the duty of one, but the call of all.”³

Egalitarians emphasize our common responsibility to live out our design. This worldview is more consistent with all of Paul’s extensive teaching on spiritual gifts. Body and soul, character and ministry, gifts and call, are all interwoven, so that humans are divinely prepared for service and expected to live out that call.

Egalitarianism emphasizes equality while acknowledging that men and women have clear distinctions — physically, emotionally, socially. Their physical differences reflect deeper realities. Men in general are wired to provide and protect; women in general are wired for nurture and community. In this way, both complementarianism and egalitarianism have merit. The problem comes when we limit the roles of women. The differences between men and women do not necessarily equate to roles as a complementarian worldview might suggest.

The real theological test is in the Trinity. Remember that we are made in the image of God. If indeed, Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as a hierarchy (a notion that destroys unity of essence), a hierarchical relationship between men and women is justifiable. But if within the Trinity, Father, Son and Spirit are equal in both essence and relationship, any other theological stance falls short by limiting a Trinitarian worldview to the same terms we might use to define fallen humanity.

A hierarchy within the Trinity tears at the fabric of unity; likewise, a hierarchy among humans tears at the fabric of created design. Sin set us against each other; Christ calls us to stand together against the real enemies — the powers and principalities of the air.

Submission means placing “self” at the feet of Jesus for the sake of a greater mission — the building of the Kingdom of God. This is the biblical design for women and men and we add dignity to the work of the church when we learn to submit to one another’s strengths, rather than establishing power bases.

When Jesus says, “This is my body, given for you,” he is painting a picture of God’s Kingdom and of human design. When men and women enter into true partnership with one another, they also become a picture of that Kingdom.

 

1. Ware, Bruce. “Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions.” posted June 26, 2007. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

2. Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A
Response to Evangelical Feminism. Illinois: Crossway Books. 2006. see especially loc 2224.

3. Tennent, Timothy. “Marriage, Human Sexuality, and the Body: Egalitarianism vs.
Complementarianism (Part XI)” TimothyTennent.com website.

Read More

Is God Crazy? (or is it me?)

The Gods Must Be Crazy is the story of a remote African tribal village that finds a Coke bottle in the jungle. It seems to have fallen from the sky, though in fact it was dropped from an airplane. These tribal people have never seen anything like this before. They aren’t sure what its purpose is. They find uses for it — to pound things and crush melons and even make music.

This foreign thing makes life interesting. Separated from its purpose, it also creates jealousies and envy and even anger — something this village hadn’t experienced before. There isn’t enough of the bottle to go around. Everyone has their own reason for needing it and the bottle becomes a reason for them to compete rather than being in partnership. At the end of a day people grabbing the bottle from each other and using it get their needs met at the expense of others in the group, they all sit around a fire, and the narrator says, “A strange feeling of shame had come over the family and they were very quiet.”

This story is such a great example of how human design works. When a thing is separated from its purpose — when our bodies are separated from our spirits — we lose sight of the point of them and can even begin to misuse them for things other than their intended purpose. In doing so, we discover our own selfishness, much like Adam and Eve.

Before the fall, before we lost sight of our created design, God created partnership. The first creation story in Genesis describes the work of man and woman together.

“God blessed them,” Genesis 1:28-29 states, “And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.’” This was the work of the first people, to steward the rest of creation in partnership with one another.  If the first creation story emphasizes partnership, the second creation story in Genesis emphasizes the unity of man and woman.

Genesis 2 paints a beautiful image of mutual servanthood: the woman comes out of the man to give him companionship and the man comes out of his home to give her companionship. There’s this very deep sense of interrelatedness. There is a clear sense from the creation story of God’s intentions for men and women: to populate the earth and to give us to each other for companionship.

Men and women are cut from the same cloth, as it were. It is the combination of the two — male and female — that reflects the image of God.

Then comes the Fall. Genesis, chapter three, turns a partnership of equals into an antagonistic relationship. Adam and Eve, both condemned by their own failings, will experience suffering in this life. Adam will fight against the ground as he works it for his existence. Eve will no longer have a partnership with Adam; he will rule over her.

And God isn’t the crazy one in this story; this is our doing. Genesis 3 shows us just how the enemy of God distorts the created design. Why didn’t anyone tell us? Why didn’t they tell us that on this side of the fall line, we’d deal with shame and it would drive us to destroy ourselves. Why didn’t they tell us that the enemy would make it his number one priority to separate us from our created design, to separate us from our truth, to separate us from God, from each other? Why didn’t anyone spell it out for us, that there is an enemy whose main goal in life is to convince us that self-protection and self-interest and just plain selfishness is our only hope.

No one told most of us that so much of our pain comes from this break with our created design.

If that were the whole story, it would be a deep discouragement, but it isn’t. Sin might have been what broke us, but Jesus is putting us back together. Jesus, a sacrifice for sin, hung on a cross to become the first of a new kind of humanity. Jesus is restoring us to our created design.

Jesus came to restore what the enemy broke. So we thank God for the cross. When Jesus overcame the effects of fallenness, he became the first of a whole new kind of human, which means we can become a whole new kind of person.

This is what makes Easter worth the celebration. It is the holy day for new beginnings. It tells us that no matter what we’ve done, no matter how far from God we’ve wandered, not matter how much water has gone under that bridge, we can begin again. This is the promise of the cross. It is that there is no mistake so far out there that it can’t be made right. There is no wound so deep that it can’t be healed.

God can make all things new. As long as there is an empty tomb, it is never too late.

Read More