Every so often I follow a link, read a blog or an excerpt of a book (or a whole one) which argues against the complementarian view of Scripture and therefore marriage. What I so often find are straw man arguments. They either don’t understand or don’t want to understand the view. They present distortions of the view as the view. That would be like saying Benny Hinn is a mainstream charismatic. He’s not, and to present him as such is unfair. As one writer noted recently on his blog (Kevin DeYoung, I think) you must present your opponent’s view as one they would recognize. Egalitarians, in my experience, have not done this.
While re-reading Desiring God, I was struck by how well Piper presented the standard complementarian position (though I have a few quibbles). Piper sets this within the context of Christian Hedonism. What does marriage look like with people are pursuing their delight in Christ instead of pursuing their own agenda of manufactured, demanding, substandard delights.
It may be helpful to consider dancing for a moment. A traditional dance, with a partner, is coordinated. One person leads, and the other follows. Joy is found in this as they work together for mutual joy. Much of today’s dancing is uncoordinated. You don’t even need a partner. It is chaotic and pleases only the dancer. Unless there is some bump and grind, but one the dance floor that is a vulgar mess, not a picture of marital bliss.
“… husbands should devote the same energy and time and creativity in making their wives happy that they devote naturally to making themselves happy.”
Part of this can be summed up as finding your delight in the joy of your spouse instead of at the expense of your spouse. You delight in giving them joy (long-term, God-oriented joy). But Piper then delves deeper into Ephesians 5, the crux of the issue.
17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Let’s start by remembering that Paul is taking about the Spirit-filled life. The ESV, unlike the NIV, reflects Paul’s grammar in showing submission as part of the Spirit-filled life. Gospel-driven submission is not produced by the flesh, but by the influence of the Spirit. This “one another” is taken by some to argue for “mutual submission”. I think it is better to view what follows as 3 particular relationships in which people are to submit to others: wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (applied today as employees to employers). There is a relationship of legitimate authority that Paul recognizes in each of these. If we are to argue for mutual submission in marriage, then we should argue for mutual submission in the parent-child and work relationships. This runs completely contrary to the marriage relationship that Paul brings into focus to illustrate: Christ and the church.
Paul’s argument, as Piper notes, is that husbands take their cues from Christ and wives take them from the church. Note, this passage does not argue for the submission of women to men. My wife is not to submit to men, generally speaking. She is to submit to her husband, the church elders exercising their legitimate authority legitimately, and any male employers or government officials (as well as female employers and government officials).
Much needless ink has been used debating the meaning of ‘head’ in this context. Egalitarians argue for ‘source’. The same word is used in Ephesians 1, of Christ, and it points to His supremacy, not that He is the source of all things for the church. He rules over everything for the good of the church. The idea is that the head controls the whole body. All voluntary and involuntary functions are governed by the brain- the head. We see this in wrestling, if you control the head you control the whole body.
Piper unpacks this some more using the illustration of the body that Paul brings up. Piper points to the eyes (and we should include ears) as providing guidance for the body. The body is nourished through the mouth which is in the head. The brain uses the rest of the body to provide numerous functions to protect the rest of the body. As the head of his wife, Piper argues, the husband should guide, provide and protect his wife and family. Sarah Sumner’s book, claiming to interact with Piper and Grudem, acts like this section of Piper’s book doesn’t exist instead of refuting it. The exegesis seems reasonable and fitting the context and grammar of the passage. Paul explicitly points to the husband’s need to spiritually (and emotionally) nourish his wife.
Let’s keep in mind that Paul is talking about a healthy, gospel-oriented marital relationship. This is the standard, the goal. The husband’s leadership is one that seeks the best interest of his wife. He uses all of his resources, including wisdom and feedback from his wife to guide, provide and protect her.
I recently read a discussion as to how this might play out in the particular issue of breast-feeding in public. No husband should force his wife to breast-feed their child publicly (or at all). The husband does not “mutually submit” to her, but lives with her in an understanding way: understanding her! He keeps her weaknesses and preferences in mind so he isn’t lording it over her. She’s his wife, not his property. CavWife and I disagreed on an epidural when CavGirl was born. I thought she should try to give birth without (I was probably being cheap). But I listened to the preferences of CavWife and made a decision based on her best interest (pain reduction), not mine (saving $).
Piper clearly says that only submission to Christ is absolute. No husband (parent, employer, head of state etc) can command someone under their authority to sin as a legitimate exercise of their authority. We only submit to those authorities out of reverence for Christ. When they oppose Him we must obey Him instead, being willing to endure earthly consequences.
While the husband takes his cues from Christ and sacrificially loves his spouse as Christ does the church, the wife is to submit to her husband as the church is supposed to submit to Christ. The church recognizes that Christ is the head of the church at least theoretically if not also practically. Yes, the church sometimes goes off and does her own thing, but Jesus goes after her to restore her. The husband is not infallible. He too will sin in the exercise of his authority. Grace is necessary, and sufficient, for both spouses.
“The Fall twisted man’s loving headship into hostile domination in some men and lazy indifference in others. The Fall twisted women’s intelligent, willing submission into manipulative obsequiousness in some women and brazen insubordination in others. The redemption we anticipate at the coming of Christ is not the dismantling of the created order of loving headship and willing submission, but a recovery of it.”
Submission does not mean a stifling of gifts, but a putting them under the direction and authority of the husband. There are things a wife will do better than her husband. Piper uses the illustration of family devotions. The husband leads by gathering the family. But if his wife is a better reader, she may read Scriptures for the family (or lead the singing or…). To go back to the big metaphor Paul uses, the head doesn’t do everything. The body moves to achieve the purposes of the head for the good of the body. The wife uses her gifts.
Biblical headship, complementarianism, is not what I see it portrayed as by some authors and teachers. It does not mean the husband is always right. It does not mean the wife is a simpleton or is stifled. It is a recognition that in a dance, only one partner leads. Or that only one person can drive the car. It recognizes that God placed this responsibility upon the husband to reflect the relationship of Christ with His bride, the Church.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply