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 Wesleyans believe about “once saved always saved”

“We who have believed enter that rest.” — Hebrews 4:3

You never know when you might need to defend your position on the theology around the phrase, “once saved, always saved.” It happened to me a week or so ago while I was purchasing a couple of things from a small-town boutique. The woman behind the counter shared that her mother was a preacher, that for years she preached in a holiness church until becoming a Baptist. She changed theological streams because she couldn’t make herself believe in the Wesleyan doctrine of free will to the extent that it allows us to actually lose touch with our salvation.

Since I live in the birthplace of the Southern Baptist Convention, this isn’t the first time I’ve had this conversation. I’ve come to suspect there is a gross misunderstanding of how Wesleyans approach free will and salvation. Often, it is made to sound as if it is God’s choice to drop us whenever he feels like it. “Mess up on Facebook? You’re fired!” “Yell at your dog? You’re not saved any more.”

That take on the gift of free will misses the mark by a wide margin. Free will is not God’s prerogative to exercise; it is ours. We are the ones who place ourselves in jeopardy of moving beyond His presence, though even that isn’t as easy to do as we make it sound.

Think of it like a parent holding a child’s hand as they walk across a busy street. The parent’s whole desire in that moment is to get her child safely across that street. That parent isn’t making decisions while they walk about whether or not she really likes that child, or whether this parenting thing is worth it. No! All that parent is thinking is, “Let me keep my child safe.”

Now, suppose this parent has a particularly strong-willed and active kid who is easily distracted. Is she going to hold on more loosely or more tightly to that little one? More tightly, of course! But suppose that active and strong-willed child sees a quarter laying in the street just up the way, something shiny enough to get his attention and valuable enough to make him want it. The child begs his mother to let him go after that shiny thing, but she says no. She realizes the danger of loitering too long in traffic. She knows the destination is the other side — not shiny, distracting things. Her sole intent is to get them both safely across; she is not about to let him go.

The child, however, is relentless. The more he watches the shiny thing, the more sure he is that it is worth the escape so when he sees a split-second of opportunity, he wrenches his hand out of his mother’s and darts into traffic. Now he is out from under the cover of his parent’s care, not by her choice but his.

Did the mama let him go? Did she want him to do that? Did she cause him to do that? Absolutely not. The intention of the parent at every point was to get her child through the traffic safely. The intention of the child when they stepped off the curb together and headed into traffic was to go where his mother led him. But that desire only took him so far. Having held onto a predisposition toward shiny things for too long into the journey has kept him from being completely surrendered to his parent’s plan.

And that is how Wesleyans view salvation. God gives it, but we have to accept it. By the same token, God walks us through the journey of salvation, inviting us to work it out daily with fear and trembling, but at every point on the way we must make the choice to keep our hand in His. This is the responsibility we bear for the gift of free will.

So what about that “blessed assurance” we always sing about? Is it so blessed after all? Is there really any assurance? Absolutely! Assurance is not the promise that once you say yes to God, you’ve got it easy. That promise is given to no one, believer or not. Assurance is the promise that with your submission and surrender, God will get you safely through the traffic to the other side. Our decision to simply rest our hand in His — to submit to His will. That is all that’s required, and that is only a struggle if we choose it to be.

And that, brothers and sisters, ought to create a deep well of rest within your soul and mine. Because if I believe God is good, God is for me, and God will see me through to the other side, then the rest is details.

Listen: The biblical meaning of rest is not a cure for exhaustion but a pathway to assurance.* When we are in sync with God, assured of his character and presence, willing to let him carry us safely across the chasm, we rest.

Blessed assurance, indeed.

 

*I recently heard it put this way: The cure for exhaustion is not rest, but wholeheartedness (Brother Rast). I think we’re saying the same thing. When your whole heart is for God, when you are undivided in your devotion, you will be able to rest completely in his care and cover.

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