(Tim) Since they regularly show up on this blog making comments that demonstrate their impiety and rebellion, I assume no one's learning it here, first, if I say that the church is filled with women who hate God's command that wives submit to their husbands in everything. Such rebellion against God and His Word is nothing new. The scribes and Pharisees were masters of the technique two thousand years ago: "Oh yesssss, we must honor our fathers and mothers. Absolutely! But there's this little thing called Corban..."
Our Lord responded, giving us a pattern to follow in our exchanges with hypocritical rebels today: "You nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition." Those who speak of "mutual submission" as a cover for no submission anywhere or ever ought, at times, to be dismissed precisely as Jesus dismissed them.
But what of the many who speak of "mutual submission," not as an act of defiance, but as a way of making God's order of father-rule less offensive to our authority-hating culture? Are they friends of God?
One dear sister sent me a link to a discussion of Governor Mike Huckabee's comments on mutual submission carried on among feminist rebels who claim the Name of Christ. Skimming what they had to say, I found it interesting how much I agreed with them (all emphases in the original):
- "If I was still a complementarian, I would be thinking that politics has corrupted him..."
- "When I first heard the quote on television, his words seemed promising. Now that I’m seeing what he said in print… that was slick."
- "Notice he never says the husband submits to his wife. He’s definitely playing to both sides of the sex roles debate. ...Of course, he could also talk complementarian but live egalitarian for most practical purposes, like a lot of complementarians tend to do."
- "(T)his was a bit of political double-speak. ...While he uses the word ‘mutually’ I feel like he’s using in such a way that the hearer will hear whatever she or he wants to hear."
- "That makes me sick. It’s downright deceptive. It’s very similar to stuff I’ve heard other complementarians say to make their position more palatable to others and to themselves."
- "I thought his answer was good insofar that it fit with the complementarian tendency to see the absurdity of their position in public discourse and couch it in egalitarian terms."
- "Over the years, complementarians in many ministries have publicly endorsed mutual submission between husband and wife (an unavoidable step, scripturally speaking), while maintaining that the husband is the ultimate leader of the home. Thus, many complementarians would not see Huckabee’s statement as inconsistent with their understanding of headship."
- "Would you rather have Hillary in office, because we sure do know she will never submit to any man?"
- "I think that the underlying assumption of many complementarian framed books is that God created men a particular way and women a particular way and then stopped. ...I like to think that God is still at work, forming, creating, and helping me develop and grow and that my needs change with all of that growth. ...I don’t like how the complementarian thinking on this is so fixed and then dubbed ‘God’s way.’ I see the Scripture speaking about humans united with Christ moving and having their being in him. This is a profoundly transformative dynamic relation."
Well, there you have it. And if you don't mind my saying so, much of it is pretty good. I particularly liked the observation that complementarians often limit the application of God's creation order to the question of who serves as the "ultimate leader of the home." Quite right. This was one of the central reasons I resigned from CBMW. It's also why I almost never identify myself as "complementarian."
Don't you just love that bit about "a profoundly transformative dynamic relation?"
