Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Part 1 showed how a 1st Century husband could picture Christ, and a possible reason why the Bible asked Christ-like behaviour of husbands in particular here, while elsewhere all Christians are called to act Christ-like.

The same way the Bible calls everyone to be Christ-like but repeats it to the one who is, like Jesus, in the stronger position, the Bible asks all believers to submit to one another, but in Ephesians 5 repeats it to the wife: “Submit as to the Lord.”

How do we submit to the Lord? We love Him (and submit to Him) because He loved us first. Submitting to the Lord is never about fulfilling Jesus’ selfish desires or ego trips, because Jesus is not selfish. It is about learning from the one who knows best, and living by that knowledge. It is about accepting the glorious riches of heaven that Jesus shares freely. It is about doing the same things Jesus did, and even greater things. (John 14:12) “The same things Jesus did and even greater things” doesn’t sound like gender roles at all!

We saw how the red and blue lines do pretty much the same thing in the second picture as in the Gospel picture. The difference is that the start of the male/ female picture was equality (we do not have that with God), and a total restoration to what God created us to be would also be equality.

Can complementarians today fulfil the gospel picture? Here is a picture of what happens when you impose complementarianism on today’s society:

Does this spell gospel 3

1) Eve was made as an equal to Adam, and the first picture is of equality. 2) In modern Western society, men and women have basically equal rights before the law and equal opportunities. (There are still problems, reasons why feminists rightly complain, but the big picture is one of roundabout equal rights.) (3) Complementarians impose hierarchy and gendered responsibilities on two people with equal opportunities and gifts. Instead of moving them closer together, it moves one person who don’t have more rights (thus no more ability to get legal protection for them both) or wisdom or perhaps even money above another, and turns him into the leader seemingly simply because he has the right genitalia.

Does this look at all like the gospel? To me, it doesn’t. I think modern day Christians can learn from Jesus and the church in Ephesians 5:

When one party has way more of the good stuff (opportunities/ property/rights) than the other party, it seems the Bible suggests a “complementarian” relationship whereby the one with more helps to lift up the one with less, and the lower has the responsibility to learn to use good things wisely (submit to the teaching and discipline needed to handle the good things). But this complementarian relationship does not suggest eternally separate roles, but the lower one becoming more like the higher one.

Of course, this passage does have applications for modern cultures, where a woman can be as likely as the man to be the one with more (knowledge, education, wisdom, opportunity or whatever good thing): Use whatever  you have more of for the benefit of both you and your spouse, lifting him/ her out of their bad situation.  When your spouse is the one who has more, work along with him/her, learning to use the good thing wisely.

Comments on: "Paul envisioned complementarian marriages in Ephesians 5 (Part 2)" (1)

  1. It seems obvious to me by now, that any man who is interested in complentarianism, isn’t doing so for solely “spiritual” reasons. Unless he suffers from such a compulsive OCD or brain damage, that he cannot see beyond this, it seems a bit odd to have such a one-track mind. (Monomania is considered partial psychosis). Men who are drawn to such ideas are merely finding an excuse to vent their misogyny. You do not see many women attempting to justify ways to keep men “under control” wish such fervent zeal. Something is wrong here. Very wrong. To want to deluge the weaker, or physically weaker being (the female) with even more control seems symptomatic of an individual with very pathological self-esteem and ego issues. Someone like this probably is not even able to enter the “kingdom of heaven” with such a personality to begin with. The personality is linked to the soul, therefore, a malefic soul cannot possibly be a good one. Would God want to allow someone with control issues into a peaceful kingdom?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: