Keeping the Good

Monday, September 12, 2011

Complementarism and the Enigma of Tradition

Despite their commitment to sola scriptura, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) believes tradition is the supreme manifestation of the correctness of their complementarian theology which maintains that God gave the man authority over the woman.[1] Yet, with their beliefs, they deny that very tradition, for in the past thirty years modern hierarchical theologians have made five major changes in their theology:

1. Genesis 3.16 is no longer seen as a commandment

2. The man is no longer the only one created in the image of God

3. The man is no longer superior, nor the woman inferior

4. Submission is no longer equivalent to obedience

5. Woman are no longer considered inherently more gullible

However, hierarchical theologians uphold still the following:

1. Deborah, Miriam, Junia, and Phoebe did not hold the offices the Bible says they did

2. “Help” (Genesis 2) signifies the woman was created to serve the man

3. 1 Timothy 3 (the office of bishop) is restricted to men

4. “Head” in Ephesians 5 gives the man authority in marriage

5. Sarah is said to have obeyed Abraham, her lord

What hierarchical theologians have given up are theological constructions that affirm the preeminence (superiority) and precedence (greater importance) of the man, and a twofold subjection, in which the woman is subjected to the man first at creation, and again after sin entered. The church began to teach the man’s precedence sometime between the second and the fourth centuries, but the twofold subjection as we know it, found in the Summa Theologica, was created by the scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. He wrote that the woman was created a misbegotten male, wherefore the wiser man had to by necessity rule. The second submission - Genesis 3.16 - was servile in nature, the kind in which a superior uses the inferior for his own benefit. Both concepts became part of our ecclesiastical tradition; Matthew Henry, for example, incorporated both into his theology:

Gen 2:21-25

That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1 Tim 2:13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1 Cor 11:8-9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands.

Gen 3:16

She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim 2:11-12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris-at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.

1 Tim 2:9-15

They must be silent, submissive, and subject, and not usurp authority. The reason given is because Adam was first formed, then Eve out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him; and that she was made for him, to be a help-meet for him. And as she was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression, and that is another reason.[2]

The importance of the concessions that hierarchical theologians have made is seen in that if Genesis 3.15 is a consequence of sin, the twofold subjection becomes an impossibility, and we must affirm that both the man and the woman were created in the image of God. If both the man and the woman are created in the image of God, the man cannot be superior. If men and women are equal, men cannot be more important. If men are not more important, women must submit (cooperate), but not obey. If women do not need to obey, they must be able to speak and voice their own opinions. If women are able to voice their own opinions, they must be equally competent, and not inherently more gullible.

But hierarchical theologians insist also that husbands have authority over their wives and that women cannot teach in the church, and they argue that this practice is rooted in the creation of humankind, particularly the woman’s creation from the man, who was created prior to her. Because of this belief, they must deny every woman officeholder in the Bible, and affirm that Sarah obeyed Abraham as her lord. But now a contradiction is created for if women must be silent, they cannot voice their opinions. If women cannot voice their opinions, obedience becomes necessary. If obedience is necessary, men must be wiser (for who would follow a fool?). If men are wiser, they must be more important. If men are more important, men and women cannot be equal. If men and women are not equal, they cannot both have been created in the image of God. If they weren’t both created in the image of God, it no longer matters what the Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 3 have to say, for the woman is an inferior creature - just as Thomas Aquinas wrote when he created his twofold subjection - and therefore by necessity ruled by the wiser man.

It is not possible to remove parts of an elaborate hierarchy and expect it to remain intact. Complementarian theologians must either re-affirm all of traditional theology – even the ancient link between Genesis 3.16 and 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 (“the law says”) – or abandon their belief in a divinely ordained hierarchy. They really have no other choice.

[1] “In 1987, a group of pastors and scholars assembled to address their concerns over the influence of feminism not only in our culture but also in evangelical churches. Because of the widespread compromise of biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood and its tragic effects on the home and the church, these men and women established The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In opposition to the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism they articulated what is now known as the complementarian position which affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” (“About Us,” The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, http://www.cbmw.org/About-Us”[accessed June 29, 2009]).

Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 11

Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church (347-407)

“But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? “Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, “so also the Father, Christ.” Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. “For the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever admit this? For if the superiority of the Son compared with us, be the measure of the Fathers’ compared with the Son, consider to what meanness thou wilt bring Him. So that we must not try all things by like measure in respect of ourselves and of God, though the language used concerning them be similar; but we must assign to God a certain appropriate excellency, and so great as belongs to God. For should they not grant this, many absurdities will follow. As thus; “the head of Christ is God:” and, “Christ is the head of the man, and he of the woman.” Therefore if we choose to take the term, “head,” in the like sense in all the clauses, the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from Him. Nay, and the woman will be as far removed from us as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, this both we are to the Son and the woman again to the man. And who will endure this? But dost thou understand the term “head” differently in the case of the man and the woman, from what thou dost in the case of Christ? Therefore in the case of the Father and the Son, must we understand it differently also. “How understand it differently?” saith the objector. According to the occasion . For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forwardthe instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God. For as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than we find in men towards the authors of their being, so also His liberty is greater. Since it will not of course be said that the circumstances of the Son’s relation to the Father are greater and more intimate than among men, and of the Father’s to the Son, less. For if we admire the Son that He was obedient so as to come even unto death, and the death of the cross, and reckon this the great wonder concerning Him; we ought to admire the Father also, that He begat such a son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience and giving counsel. For the counsellor is no slave. But again, when thou hearest of a counsellor, do not understand it as though the Father were in need, but that the Son hath the same honor with Him that begat Him. Do not therefore strain the example of the man and the woman to all particulars. (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXIV)

Augustine on the Word "Head"

Augustine, Doctor of the Church (354-430)

1. Mutually Connected Objects: “And with respect to the circumstance that, in that enumeration of mutually connected objects which is given when it is said, “All things are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s,” as also, “The head of the woman is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God,” there is no mention of the Holy Spirit; this they affirm to be but an application of the principle that, in general, the connection itself is not wont to be enumerated among the things which are connected with each other. Whence, also, those who read with closer attention appear to recognize the express Trinity likewise in that passage in which it is said, “For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” “Of Him,” as if it meant, of that One who owes it to no one that He is: “through Him,” as if the idea were, through a Mediator; “in Him,” as if it were, in that One who holds together, that is, unites by connecting. (A Treatise on faith and the creed, 19)

2. Unity: “For one man He hath taken to Him, because unity He hath taken to Him. … But they that abide in the bond of Christ and are the members of Him, make in a manner one man, of whom saith the Apostle, “Until we all arrive at the acknowledging of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” Therefore one man is taken to Him, to which the Head is Christ; because “the Head of the man is Christ.” (Commentary on Psalm LXV)

“Nor is it strange that though distant we are near, though unknown we are well known to each other; for we are members of one body, having one Head, enjoying the effusion of the same grace, living by the same bread, walking in the same way, and dwelling in the same home. In short, in all that makes up our being,—in the whole faith and hope by which we stand in the present life, or labour for that which is to come,—we are both in the spirit and in the body of Christ so united, that if we fell from this union we would cease to be. (Letters of Saint Augustine Letter XXX, 2)

3. Startingpoint: If, then, the baptizer is not his origin and root and head, who is it from whom he receives faith? Where is the origin from which he springs? Where is the root of which he is a shoot? Where the head which is his starting-point? Can it be, that when he who is baptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then Christ who gives faith, it is then Christ who is the origin and root and head? Alas for human rashness and conceit! Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith, for the purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you not allow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the Christian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of the Christian? …But unless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and origin of those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom he had watered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing; whereas the same Paul says, “I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase: so then neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” Nor was the apostle himself their root, but rather He who says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” How, too, could he be their head, when he says, that “we, being many, are one body in Christ,” and expressly declares in many passages that Christ Himself is the head of the whole body? (Augustine, In answer to the letters of Petilian, the Donatist, Bishop of Certa, Book I, Chapter 4.5)

4. Beginning: “Begetter, the latter the Begotten; the former not of the Son, the latter of the Father: the former the Beginning of the latter, whence also He is called the Head of Christ, although Christ likewise is the Beginning, but not of the Father; the latter, moreover, the Image of the former, although in no respect dissimilar, and although absolutely and without difference equal (omnino et indifferenter aequalis) (A Treatise on faith and the creed, Chapter 9.18.)

5. Incarnation: ”But as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” the same Wisdom which was begotten of God condescended also to be created among men. There is a reference to this in the word, “The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.” For the beginning of His ways is the Head of the Church, which is Christ endued with human nature (homine indutus), by whom it was purposed that there should be given to us a pattern of living, that is, a sure way by which we might reach God. (A Treatise on faith and the creed, Chapter 4.6)

6. Servant: According to the form of God, it is said “Before all the hills He begat me,” that is, before all the loftinesses of things created and, “Before the dawn I begat Thee,” that is, before all times and temporal things: but according to the form of a servant, it is said, “The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.” Because, according to the form of God, He said, “I am the truth;” and according to the form of a servant, “I am the way.” For, because He Himself, being the first-begotten of the dead, made a passage to the kingdom of God to life eternal for His Church, to which He is so the Head as to make the body also immortal, therefore He was “created in the beginning of the ways” of God in His work. For, according to the form of God, He is the beginning, that also speaketh unto us, in which “beginning” God created the heaven and the earth; but according to the form of a servant, “He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber. ”According to the form of God, “He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by him all things consist;” according to the form of a servant, “He is the head of the body, the Church.” According to the form of God, “He is the Lord of glory.”(On the Trinity, Book I, Chapter 12)

7. One Man: “Christ is speaking: whether Head speak or whether Body speak; He is speaking that hath said, “Why persecutest thou Me?” He is speaking that hath said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of Mine, to Me ye have done it.” The voice then of this Man is known to be of the whole man, of Head and of Body: that need not often be mentioned, because it is known. (St. Augustine on the Psalms, Psalm LXX) “…But since there were to be His members, that is, His faithful ones, who would not have that power which He, our God, had; by His being hid, by His concealing Himself as if He would not be put to death, He indicated that His members would do this, in which members He Himself in fact was. For Christ is not simply in the head and not in the body, but Christ whole is in the head and body. What, therefore, His members are, that He is; but what He is, it does not necessarily follow that His members are. For if His members were not Himself, He would not have said, “Saul, why persecutest thou me?” For Saul was not persecuting Himself on earth, but His members, namely, His believers. He would not, however, say, my saints, my servants, or, in short, my brethren, which is more honorable; but, me, that is, my members, whose head I am.” (25. (h1) Tractate XXVII, John VII. 1–13.)

8. Universal Body: “…. or this same Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, the Word of the Father, equal and co-eternal with the Father, by whom all things were made, was Himself also made man for our sakes, in order that of the whole Church, as of His whole body, He might be the Head. … so all the saints who lived upon the earth previous to the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, although they were born antecedently, were nevertheless united under the Head with that universal body of which He is the Head. (On the catechizing of the uninstructed, Chapter 19)

9. Mediator: ”That they are made alive in Christ, because they belong to the body of Christ? that they belong to the body of Christ, because Christ is the head even to them? and that Christ is the head even to them, because there is but one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus? But this He could not have been to them, unless through His grace they had believed in His resurrection. (A treatise on the grace of Christ and the original sin, in two books, Book II, On Original sin, Ch 31)

10. One Flesh: ”…Our Lord Jesus Christ speaketh in the Prophets, sometimes in His own Name, sometimes in ours, because He maketh Himself one with us; as it is said, “they twain shall be one flesh.” Wherefore also the Lord saith in the Gospel, speaking of marriage, “therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” One flesh, because of our mortality He took flesh; not one divinity, for He is the Creator, we the creature. Whatsoever then our Lord speaks in the person of the Flesh He took upon Him, belongs both to that Head which hath already ascended into heaven, and to those members which still toil in their earthly wandering. (Psalm CXXXIX)

11. Cornerstone: “We recognize the corner stone: the corner stone is Christ. There cannot be a corner, unless it hath united in itself two walls: they come from different sides to one corner, but they are not opposed to each other in the corn corner. The circumcision cometh from one side the uncircumcision from the other; in Christ both peoples have met together: because He hath become the stone, of which it is written, “The stone which the builders rejected, hath become the head of the corner.” (Psalm XCV.6)

Ephesians and Colossians: More Than Just Twin Epistles

The following words and concepts are found in both Colossians and Ephesians, making their content identical:

Heard of your faith (C 1.4 E 1.15)
Love for all the saints (C 1.4 E 1.15)
Word of the truth of the gospel (C 1.15 E 1.13)
Do not cease to pray for you (C 1.9 E 1.16)
Wisdom and revelation/ wisdom and spiritual understanding (C 1.9 E 1.17)
Inheritance in/of the saints (C 1.12 E 1.18)
Head of the body, the Church (C 1.18 E 1.22)
Fullness (C 1.19 E 1.23)
Peace (C 1.20 E 2.14)
Blood (C 1.20 E 2.13)
Aliens (C 1.21 E 2.11)
Sufferings/prisoner (C 1.24 E 3:1)
Body (C 1.24 E 3.6)
Minister (C 1.25 E 3.7)
Mystery (C 1.26 E 3.9)
Hidden from ages and from generations/the beginning of ages (C 1.26 E 3.9)
Riches (C 1.24 E 3.8)
Hearts (C 2.2 E 3:17)
Rooted and built up/grounded in love (C 2.7 E 3:17)
Filled with all the fullness of God/you are made full in Him (C 2.10 E 3:19)
Raised from the dead/ascended (C 2:12 E 4.10)
Without blame (C 2.15 E 1.4)
Concept: False teachings (C 2.16 E 4.14)
Not holding on to the head/grow up in all things to the head (C 2.19 E 4.15)
Nourished/joined and knit together (C 2.20 E 4.16)
Anger (C 3.8 Eph 4.26)
Lying (C 3.9 E 4.25)
Old man…have put on the new man (C 3.9-10 E 4.24)
Forgiving one another as Christ forgave you (C 3:13 E 4.32)
Love (C 3:14 E 5.2)
Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs… In your hearts to the Lord (C 3:16 E 5.19)
Giving thanks to God the Father through Him (C 3:17 E 5.20)
Wives submit to your own husbands (C 3:17 E 5.20)
Husbands love your wives (Col 3:19 E 5.25)
Children obey your parents (C 3.20 E 6.1)
Slaves obey your masters (C 3.22 E 6.5)
Masters… Master in heaven (C 4.1 E 6.9)
[Paul’s] chains (C 4.18 E 6.20)

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul amplifies what he says to the Colossians in fewer words, wherefore the first named is longer. But why does this matter? It matters because of the argument that mutual submission is found only in Ephesians but not elsewhere, wherefore husbands should not submit to their wives. But if these two letters are identical - and they are - and submission is mutual and voluntary in Ephesians, husbands cannot be excluded from submitting to their wives in Colossians. If want to exclude husbands from submission in Colossians - and elsewhere - we must also agree that wives should not love (agape) their husbands since such directive is not found in either of the two letters.

"Love and Respect" by Emerson Eggerichs - Does It Deliver What It Promises?

John M. Gottman, Ph.D., was one of the first psychologists to begin a scientific research to find what truly makes marriages fail or succeed in the 1980s. He observed that conventional wisdom was often wrong, e.g., conflict and fighting, which had traditionally been considered pathological, proved to be one of the healthiest things a couple could do for their relationship. This proved to be true especially in the early stages of the marriage for they “help couples weed out actions and ways of dealing with each other that can harm the marriage in the long run.”[1] Gottman observed that “a lasting marriage results from a couple’s ability to resolve the conflicts that are inevitable in any relationship.”[2] He found three different styles of problem solving.

In a validating marriage couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise. In a conflict-avoiding marriage couples agree to disagree, rarely confronting their differences head-on. And finally, in a volatile marriage conflicts erupt often, resulting in passionate disputes.[3]

Regardless of the style of conflict solving, the marriage must have “at least five times as many positive as negative moments together if your marriage is to be stable.”[4] If the negative moments exceed the positive, the couple begins the downward spiral which begins with criticism, followed by contempt and defensiveness, and finally withdrawal. The last stage is the most destructive for it hinders communication which is a vital component of a stable marriage. Without communication the couple will eventually become isolated from each other, which leads more often than not to divorce.

When we compare Gottman’s model to the first conflict human beings experiences the similarity is striking: Adam denied any responsibility and criticized Eve for giving him the fruit, and God for giving him Eve, who in turn blamed the serpent. According to Gottman, complaining is one of the best things a couple can do, for it allows the couple to deal with their problems instead of suppressing them. But the crucial difference between complaining and criticism is that whereas complaining is about airing grievances, criticism is an attack or an accusation which will quickly lead to contempt on both sides. Unless the couple is able to use repair mechanisms, such as certain mutually agreeable actions and phrases which communicate their willingness to reconcile, they will become engulfed in negativity which will lead to withdrawal and divorce.[5]

Dr. Emerson Eggerichs’s book Love and Respect is based on Gottman’s research and as far as he remains faithful to the principles of gender differences in communication, the gestures of reconciliation and the breaking of the cycle of negativity (which Eggerichs calls “the Crazy Cycle”), all is well, but as soon as he begins to incorporate complementarian theology into his concept, the trouble begins. Firstly, he perpetuates the belief that Eve conversed with the Serpent by herself and that Adam was later influenced by Eve to disobey God. He couples this with the age-old conviction that women have intuition while men are analytic.[6] Both beliefs are erroneous, for Adam was with Eve as she spoke to the serpent, and both men and women must use both intuition and reason to remain healthy. Secondly, Eggerichs believes “the passage that spells out biblical hierarchy is Ephesians 5:22-24.”[7] He gives hypotasso the definition “to rank under or place under,” wherefore he believes that the wife is to place herself under the man’s protection, while the husband’s responsibility is to “place himself over the female and protect her.” In case of a conflict, the “wife is called upon to defer to her husband, trusting God to guide him to make a decision out of love for her as the responsible head of the marriage.”[8] Also this belief is based on an error, for is built upon false translations of kephale and hypotasso; Paul's "submit" has the meaning "to cooperate" and "head" is a literal head of a literal body, as seen in that the two become "one flesh."

Because a biblical hierarchy based on Ephesians 5:22-24 cannot be reconciled with Ephesians 5:21, Eggerichs attempts to avoid a contradiction by applying Grudem’s concept of differentiating between the submission the husband owes the wife and the one owed by the wife to the husband.

What, then, did Paul mean when he said Christians should submit to one another? For husbands and wives I believe the answer is found in Love and Respect. If husband and wife have a conflict over how to spend money, for example, the husband “submits” to his wife be meeting her need to feel that he loves her in spite of the conflict. He submits to her need for love (see Ephesians 5:21, 25). On the other side, the wife “submits” to her husband during a conflict by meeting her husband’s need to feel that she respects him in spite of the unresolved issued. She submits to his need for respect (see Ephesians 5:21-22, 33).[9]

But if hypotasso means “to rank under or place under” how can the word be applied to the man in his relationship to the woman if it is his responsibility to place himself “over her”? How can the man be “over the woman” and “under the woman” in a hierarchy at the same time? And how does one place oneself under someone’s need?

Evolutionist Steven Rhoads believes the evolutionary process gave the man a higher testosterone level, wherefore the man’s dominion is a natural impulse which should not be suppressed. Eggerichs agrees with Rhoads’s overall principle although he finds a divine origin behind the impulse.

What your husband wants is your acknowledgment that he is the leader, the one in authority. This is not to grind you under or treat you as an inferior. It is only to say that because God has made your husband responsible (review Ephesians 5:25-33), he needs the authority to carry out that responsibility. No smoothly running organization can have two heads. To set up a marriage with two equals at the head is to se it up for failure. That is one of the big reasons that people are divorcing right and left today. In essence, these marriages do not have anyone who is in charge. God knew someone had to be in charge, and that is why Scripture clearly teaches that, in order for things to work, the wife is called upon to defer to her husband.[10]

But is a hierarchy necessary to avoid the dissolution of a marriage? Gottman found that the greatest causes of conflict are “how frequently the couple has sex and who does more housework.”[11] Although Eggerichs does not discuss housework in detail, he believes that, “Sex is symbolic of his [the husband’s] deeper need – respect… When a wife refuses, that symbolizes to him that she does not care about him and does not respect him and his needs. … The rule that never changes is: you can’t get what you need by depriving your partner of what your partner needs.”[12] Gottman could not have agreed more with Eggerich’s statement:

Housework may seem like a trivial concern compared to sexuality, but women see it as a major issue affecting their sex life, as well as the overall quality of their marriage. I’ve interviewed newlywed men who told me with pride, “I’m not going to wash the dishes, no way. That’s a woman’s job.” Two years later, the same guys asked me, “Why don’t my wife and I have sex anymore?” They just don’t understand how demeaning their attitude about housework is toward their wives. Treating your wife as a servant will inevitably affect the more intimate, fragile parts of a relationship. Being the sole person in a marriage to clean the toilet is definitely not an aphrodisiac![13]

Gottman continues, “The message you send your wife when you do so little around the house is lack of respect for her.” Eggerichs places so much emphasis on the man’s need for respect that he misses Gottman’s point that both men and women need love and respect equally. Instead Eggerich believes that “women want love far more than respect and men want respect far more than love.” [14] He also concluded that “women are locked in love” wherefore they have no trouble loving their husbands. But if the instruction for the man to love his wife in Ephesians 5 is necessary because love is not natural for a man, why is the instruction for the man to treat his wife with honor necessary in 1 Peter 3 if he naturally honors and respects her, just as the wife naturally loves him?

At the end, Eggerichs fails to deliver what he promises - a healthy marriage - for he gives the same old advice, repackaged for a new generation, that hasn't worked in the past.

[1] John Gottman, Ph. D., with Nan Silver, What Marriages Succeed or Fail… And How You Can Make Yours Last (New York: A Fireside Book, 1994), 67.

[2] Ibid., 28.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 29.

[5] Ibid., 73, 85, 99. Perhaps it is the volatile couple which has given egalitarianism a bad name for from the perspective of the validating couple the volatile couple’s marriage seems unhealthy. The volatile couple see themselves as equals more than the other types. “They are independent sorts who believe that marriage should emphasize and strengthen individuality.” (42) The danger the volatile couple faces is that their honesty, openness about their feelings and constant bickering can cause too much negativity which may ruin their marriage if they are not careful to ensure they have more positive than negative moments. The standardized Christian couple fits the description of the validating couple in which the responsibilities are divided into separate spheres, the wife being responsible for the home and children and the husband being the final decision maker. The man views “himself as analytical, dominant and assertive,” the woman herself as “nurturing, warm, and expressive.”[5] Although they usually enjoy a stable marriage, the validating couple’s greatest challenge is to hinder their marriage from becoming a passionless arrangement, a friendship instead of a romance. Both conflict solving styles produce equally stable marriages for they fit the temperament of the couples.

[6] Dr. Emerson Eggerichs, Love and Respect (Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publishers, 2004), 230-231.

[7] Ibid., 206.

[8] Ibid., 207, 218.

[9] Ibid., 218.

[10] Ibid., 221.

[11] Gottman, 154.

[12] Eggerichs, 250.

[13] Gottman, 155.

[14] Eggerichs, 48.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Gender Bias in (English) Bible Translations

The idea that the man has authority is not only absent from Genesis 1-3, it is not found in the entire Hebrew Old Testament. But because traditional theology prescribes authority to the man, the concept has found its way into English translations.

For example, the creators of the New King James Version added the word authority to Numbers 5.19-22:

And the priest shall put her under oath, and say to the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you"-- then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman-- "the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot." Then the woman shall say, "Amen, so be it."

The Hebrew has, “If no man has lain with you and you have not gone aside to uncleanness with another than your husband.” The priest was not trying to find out whether the woman had strayed from her husband authority, but whether she had been unfaithful.

In Jeremiah 44.19, the NKJV has a similar addition, “And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands' permission?" The original has “without our men,” for the women poured the drink offerings to the idol with their husbands, not with their permission

In 1 Corinthians 11.10 the NKJV translators make a blatant gender-based decision when they place the man before the woman, although in the original the woman precedes the man.

1 Cor 11:10-12 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

The paraphrased Bible, The Living Bible, is even more blatant. Somehow Phoebe becomes a “dear Christian woman” instead of a deacon, Junia is renamed “Junias” – a name that doesn’t exist – and married couples get this advice:

Honor Christ by submitting to each other. You wives must submit to your husbands' leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord. For a husband is in charge of his wife in the same way Christ is in charge of his body the Church. (He gave his very life to take care of it and be its Savior!) So you wives must willingly obey your husbands in everything, just as the Church obeys Christ (Eph 5:21-24).

Obey? When did submission become equivalent to obedience?

Before you believe your English Bible – or any other translation you might read – keep in mind that translators are also theologians. Professor Alter considers explaining the text a common error in modern translations.

The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English translations of the Bible is the use of translations as a vehicle for explaining the Bible instead of representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this amounts to explaining away the Bible. This impulse may be attributed not only to a rather reduced sense of the philological enterprise but also to a feeling that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to made accessible – indeed, transparent – to all.[1]

In their effort to make the Bible transparent, translators interpret the text at hand in accordance to what they believe the Bible says instead of remaining faithful to the original text. This is why it often seems that the Bible teaches a gender-based hierarchy. But when we return to the original, we find that it is not the case.

Alter, Robert, The Five Books of Moses, A Translation With Commentary, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2004, xix

Mutual Submission in First-Century Christianity

On the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Web site, Grudem challenges egalitarians to provide an example in which hypotasso is being applied “to relationships between persons and where it does not carry the sense of being subject to an authority.”[1] Clement of Rome, who is believed by many to be the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3, is an early witness to the mutual subjection of all believers.

Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work (lit. all breathe together) harmoniously together, and are under one common rule (lit. use one subjection) for the preservation of the whole body. Let our whole body, then, be preserved in, Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift (lit. according as he has been placed in his charism) bestowed upon him.[2]

Polycarp was the disciple of John the Apostle, and in his letter love, humility and good works are all part of mutual subjection.

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” Be all of you subject one to another having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,” that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.[3]

The disciple of Polycarp, Irenaues, wrote in his only surviving work, Against Heresies, “Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing.[4] Also Origen connected submission with salvation in the beginning of the third century.

What, then, is this “putting under” by which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ. For the name “subjection,” by which we are subject to Christ, indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to His subjects, agreeably to the declaration of David, “Shall not my soul be subject unto God? From Him cometh my salvation.”[5]

Mutual submission is not taught only in Ephesians 5.21 - it is also found in 1 Peter 5.5-6. Modern English translations do not convey the meaning, for allelon (“one another”) is connected to tapeinophrosune (“humility of mind”) instead of hypotasso as seen in the NIV, “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another.” But how does one clothe oneself toward another? Not surprisingly, the post-Reformation translations do not follow the Vulgate which connects the humility of mind with “one another” while modern English translations do [1] for the modern church shares its affinity towards a powerful clergy with the patristic church, while the Post-Reformation churches attempted to bring more equality between the clergy and the laity after a millennium of powerful and corrupt bishops by emphasizing the mutual submission of the two.

Clement of Rome agreed with the post-Reformation Bible translators.

For God,” saith [the Scripture], “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.[2]

Clement appears to translate hypotasso with “cleave,” and he considers clothing oneself with humility to be personal, not “toward one another.” First Peter 5.5-6 makes eminently more sense if hypotasso is connected to allelon (“be subject to another”) and tapeinophrosune to each believer’s relationship towards God (“Be clothed with humility, for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”), for the believers are directed to submit to another and to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, so He might exalt them in due time.

[1] Tyndale (1526), Miles Coverdale (1535), The Bishop’s Bible (1568), Geneva Bible (1587), The King James Version (1611) and Wesley’s New Testament (1755) all have “be subject to one another.” The Vulgate translates the text, “Similiter adulescentes subditi estote senioribus omnes autem invicem humilitatem insinuate quia dues superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam.”

[2] The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ch. XXX.

[1] Wayne Grudem, “The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Eph 5:21, Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, http://www.cbmw.org.

[2] Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ch. XXXVII-III.

[3] Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch. X.

[4] Against Heresies, Book IV, Ch. XXXIX.

[5] Origen, Origen de Principiis, Book I, Ch. VI.