Why It Doesn't Hold Water (at least with me)
The whole cultural thing, I mean. The idea that Paul and Peter just stuck those thing about submission in there because they want to go with the cultural flow of the day and that involved submission to husbands. (Just a thought, but the culture of the day involved a whole lot of things that Peter and Paul had no problems speaking out against.) This is just what Jesus was all about, right, quietly challenging the culture of the day? It seems odd to me that we are told that Jesus came to break all the cultural norms yet in this area of submission we are given instructions on submission so that we can fit in with the cultural norms. Until those norms change, of course, then we have to figure it out on our own.
But this is my question for all you out there who graciously take the time to read my wandering thoughts. When God called Abraham to come out from the pagans and start a new nation and people and culture that would belong to God, why didn't God fix this "product of the curse" called submission to husbands and hierarchy? Why didn't he call Abraham and Sarah out together and give them the promises together? Why didn't he make the covenant with Sara as well? Why was Sarah in the tent making the meal when God and Abraham were talking over the promised son outside? Surely if this were a problem, God would not have sat idle with such injustice going on under His very nose.
Abraham was the father of a nation. God spoke with him and told him specific things. Why wasn't reversing the curse of hierarchy one of them? Here was God's chance to start something countercultural without stepping on anyone's toes (thinking of the NT believers here). God was starting His own culture and nation. And as we see later with Moses, God had no qualms about being specific about how He wanted things done. Why didn't He tell Moses to appoint women to the priesthood? Why didn't He tell Moses to be sure that women had a chance to use their gifts by leading worship? Why didn't He tell Moses to make sure that some of those 70 elders were women? Why, when we have a God that is so precise, do try to overlook these glaring ommisions as something of no importance? We can't chalk it up to culture because God was making His own culture and God isn't influenced by the culture. He doesn't weave His plan around the culture making sure what He is commanding isn't countercultural. If that were the case why should we be any different from the world at all. You have no basis for sin because any "thus sayeth the Lord" can be put down as cultural. The Ten Commandment are something to be done away with because "what the world needs now is love, sweet love".
But love is the reason that we are countercultural. Love does not leave people to stew in their sin and unbelief. Love doesn't add more of the same. Love makes a difference. The Gospel is about a Love that makes a difference. A Love that changes us and makes us a trophy of grace. That uses us and everything about us, including our relationship to our husbands, to show forth the Love that is found in Christ.
P.S. I find it interesting that in the book of 1 Peter when Peter is addressing people that are going to undergo persecution for being different and countercultural, he uses the example of Sarah and her submission as an example for the ladies. Some, but not all, of these women were going to be the only believers in their home. This was a not an easy thing. But how were they to live their lives before their husbands? They were to submit with a meekness and quiet faith that would give power to the words they would speak of their newfound faith. This was a powerful combination that would be essential in the salvation of some of those unbelieving husbands. The Spirit would use that to bring some men face to face with Christ.
Other women would be turning their backs on their families to believe and submit to their believing husbands. Think about this in parallel with Sarah. To follow her husband in his quest to find the city whose Builder and Maker was God, she was turning her back on everything that she had known. God had not spoken to her about this. Abraham came and led the family based on what God had told him. And by faith, Sarah did not stumble but submitted to her husband without fear of the unknown. In Hebrews Sarah is commended for her faith. Think of this faith. Stepping out on what she had heard about God from her husband. Having no fear in her submission to her husband even though she had never seen or heard tell of this better country before in her life. Even though none of her family were going to be pilgrims and strangers, she followed her husband and took his God as her own. How silly I must look to the angels when I don't submit to my husband about the little things in my life.
But this is my question for all you out there who graciously take the time to read my wandering thoughts. When God called Abraham to come out from the pagans and start a new nation and people and culture that would belong to God, why didn't God fix this "product of the curse" called submission to husbands and hierarchy? Why didn't he call Abraham and Sarah out together and give them the promises together? Why didn't he make the covenant with Sara as well? Why was Sarah in the tent making the meal when God and Abraham were talking over the promised son outside? Surely if this were a problem, God would not have sat idle with such injustice going on under His very nose.
Abraham was the father of a nation. God spoke with him and told him specific things. Why wasn't reversing the curse of hierarchy one of them? Here was God's chance to start something countercultural without stepping on anyone's toes (thinking of the NT believers here). God was starting His own culture and nation. And as we see later with Moses, God had no qualms about being specific about how He wanted things done. Why didn't He tell Moses to appoint women to the priesthood? Why didn't He tell Moses to be sure that women had a chance to use their gifts by leading worship? Why didn't He tell Moses to make sure that some of those 70 elders were women? Why, when we have a God that is so precise, do try to overlook these glaring ommisions as something of no importance? We can't chalk it up to culture because God was making His own culture and God isn't influenced by the culture. He doesn't weave His plan around the culture making sure what He is commanding isn't countercultural. If that were the case why should we be any different from the world at all. You have no basis for sin because any "thus sayeth the Lord" can be put down as cultural. The Ten Commandment are something to be done away with because "what the world needs now is love, sweet love".
But love is the reason that we are countercultural. Love does not leave people to stew in their sin and unbelief. Love doesn't add more of the same. Love makes a difference. The Gospel is about a Love that makes a difference. A Love that changes us and makes us a trophy of grace. That uses us and everything about us, including our relationship to our husbands, to show forth the Love that is found in Christ.
P.S. I find it interesting that in the book of 1 Peter when Peter is addressing people that are going to undergo persecution for being different and countercultural, he uses the example of Sarah and her submission as an example for the ladies. Some, but not all, of these women were going to be the only believers in their home. This was a not an easy thing. But how were they to live their lives before their husbands? They were to submit with a meekness and quiet faith that would give power to the words they would speak of their newfound faith. This was a powerful combination that would be essential in the salvation of some of those unbelieving husbands. The Spirit would use that to bring some men face to face with Christ.
Other women would be turning their backs on their families to believe and submit to their believing husbands. Think about this in parallel with Sarah. To follow her husband in his quest to find the city whose Builder and Maker was God, she was turning her back on everything that she had known. God had not spoken to her about this. Abraham came and led the family based on what God had told him. And by faith, Sarah did not stumble but submitted to her husband without fear of the unknown. In Hebrews Sarah is commended for her faith. Think of this faith. Stepping out on what she had heard about God from her husband. Having no fear in her submission to her husband even though she had never seen or heard tell of this better country before in her life. Even though none of her family were going to be pilgrims and strangers, she followed her husband and took his God as her own. How silly I must look to the angels when I don't submit to my husband about the little things in my life.
Labels: muddled thoughts, Questions, what do you think
posted by Leigh Ann at 2:54 PM
6 Comments:
you know I agree with you, but I am just too groggy right now to type how and why.
Hope you are okay.
I do love to hear your thoughts whenever you want to share them.
I don't know why I get so hung up on this stuff. Markus just asks why I visit sites that I disagree with. I guess I get upset when so many people who have been reading and studying the Scriptures suddenly think they have missed all these cool things. My heart just sinks when I read the words "I've never seen that before" or "you have such great insight and shed new light on things I have never seen in Scripture". I wonder why people are so willing to trust what others have to say instead of what they read for themselves in the Word of God. But like you have said before too many times their questioning comes from the thought that "God would never require me to do ......"
I guess this shows that I need to trust more in God and His power to work all things out rather than feeling like I have to do or say or write something. No doubt the problem is with me.
I have some thoughts on submission being a cultural thing, but I want to check more carefully with the Bible first. I'll get back to you.
As for submitting just because a husband is a brother in Christ - the Bible says that a woman should submit to her "OWN husband.'' Ephesians 5; Colossians 3; Titus 2; 1 Peter 3 I submit to other believers in a certain way, but honestly, only my husband can ask me to do certain things. Also, the Word says to submit even to an unbelieving husband. I do that. I wouldn't submit myself, at least not in the same way, to the mailman, or the man who runs the dry cleaner, or whoever.
I'm not sure why either one of us still visits there. In your case maybe you have kind motives and hope to restore some? In my case, it's like a morbid curiosity. I've noticed that there are fewer and fewer who disagree "out loud" and of course a friend of yours has recently, publicly said that she cannot go there in good conscience anymore. The portion of Scripture about God sending a strong delusion that they might believe a lie (Romans 1?) keeps coming to mind. It seems that this started with small and has grown or slid down this huge slippery slope to the point that I'm not sure we're even on the same mountain anymore and I shudder to wonder where it'll end.
A while back, Sara and I got to talking (corresponding, really) about the whole concept of "theology of glory" vs. "theology of the cross". Just to summarize here: T of G is essentially a worldly, human way of interpreting the Scriptures; T of C interprets the Scriptures through the lens of the Cross.
A T of G interpretation of the scriptures that speak about submission (to one's husband or authority in general) looks at the scripture and says, well in this world, only the poor and powerless allow themselve to be subjugated to another and that's not in accord with the triumphant Christian life, therefore it must be a cultural thing. (I'm condensing here, but you get the point.)
A T of C perspective sees it differently. It looks at the central moment of all time - the Cross of Calvary - and says, even though it didn't look like it at the time, that was where God has placed his power. It turns our worldy, human expectations upside down. So a T of C perspective would then view what the world sees as lowly and ignoble (voluntary submission) as being honorable, even and act of strength (even if it may be a hidden strength.) Where the world sees weakness, the Christian sees God's power.
Having said all that - I think that there are some things in Scripture that were cultural (head coverings, for example), but the principle of submitting to those in authority over us is not one of them.
Yeah, I dunno. For a Scripture to be only a cultural or conditional thing, shouldn't it spell that out? I don't see the head-covering passage as cultural. (To be honest, I still don't know what to make of it, but I'm trying to stay on topic. :) )
Maybe I should clarify: the Principle behind it - that is to present oneself in a respectful manner for the sake of not scandalizing the sensitivities of others - is not obsolete, but the specifics of how that "looks" can change from culture to culture. What is respectful in Western culture is different then, say a Muslim country. Ack. Now I'm hijacking. I'll shut up now.
Post a Comment
<< Home