Dale Fincher: What are the biblical roles of husbands and wives?
chasewarren
· 1 year ago
Dale said: "Notice how he says men shy away from leadership (is this the nature of men historically or a 21st century construction?)"
I would personally say it is a 21st century construction. And here is why: in the past prior to this century women were not placed as equals generally speaking, so men would in a sense be forced into leadership. Now you do have a queen in some countries, however, they were looked upon as leader by their blood, and as seen from both men and women blood-line does not affect leadership capabilities. So most likely the men who were made leaders by society led as the "shy" men in our time, which looking in history many can be spotted.
I noticed how he emphasized the husbands leadership, then team, then leadership once more especially when he spoke about tie-breaker. Now I am not married so I cannot understand his point completely, but I do know according to the Bible you are one flesh once you are married, so as for the husband being the final authority over the wife I am not so sure I would agree. "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." [I Corinthians 7:4]
Is a woman to be submissive to her husband? Yes, that is a biblical principle, yet in the 21st century the word "submissive" is automatically presumed negative. In the family the wife is to be submissive so as one the two can be most effective, not so the wife can be "silenced" in conflict.
As seen in the church the pastor is the "head" and the congregation is submissive to him, they are not being slaves or servants they are merely placing the authority he has over theirs. When conflict arises amongst one another the church works together as an equal voice so as one body in Christ they can be productive.
Likewise for the husband sanctifying his wife, not entirely sure I would agree because once more I believe they are one flesh that as one should hold one another accountable.
-Chase
Dale Fincher
· 1 year ago
Chase, I agree with you... the shyness for men in leadership is a modern phenomenon. There are a lot of cultural factors why this is so, but I would never blame it on a masculine-nature problem. And my own view is that Paul is not making this point at all but rather the opposite.
I don't think you need to be married to understand the tie-breaker argument. I think if couples find themselves in that kind of position they should ask God to bring them to agreement or let the person make the decision who knows the most or is affected the most. Some men don't mind women making decisions. Some women don't mind men making decisions. But that should be based on the people, not based on some sort of principle that can't be found in the text.
Nice use of 'one flesh' theology! And 1 Cor 7 is a great point!
I personally don't think 'submission' there connotes authority under. Submission can be other things as well when used in non-military contexts. Notice Paul doesn't once mention 'obey' though that word is available to him and he uses it when spekaing to children after this section.
Eph 5:21 makes it clear that everyone submits to everyone. So we must do the hard work at getting more at what Paul is saying in Eph 5:22 rather than jumping to conclusion as I think this video and many complementarians, have done.
I would challenge your view of pastor as the 'head.' In the church, there is Person called the 'head.' That is Jesus. And it is actually rather dubious that Scripture says we are to obey our pastors.
I think you're on track for the 'sanctifying the wife' bit. I've always thought this was the job of Jesus. He's presenting the church spotless already, so why does the husband have to add to it? Is Jesus not enough for a woman? Are they suggesting the man stands alone in Christ but a woman must stand with man? So must women be married to be sanctified? (This is why so many women think theologically they are subpar if they are not married.... My view is that this is a terrible reading of the text.)
chasewarren
· 1 year ago
Dale said: "I would challenge your view of pastor as the 'head.' In the church, there is Person called the 'head.' That is Jesus. And it is actually rather dubious that Scripture says we are to obey our pastors."
I 100% agree with you on, Jesus Christ is the head of the church, not sure how one could argue otherwise. My choice for the word "head" was vague my intent was the pastor is considered the physical leader of the church.
Once more I agree that we are to listen to our pastors, however, when I spoke of "conflict" amongst one another it was meant to be stated as this: if, for example, the church is unsure of secondary doctrine then together the pastor and the congregation would work as one to come to the best biblically based resolution.
Dale said: "I think you're on track for the 'sanctifying the wife' bit. I've always thought this was the job of Jesus. He's presenting the church spotless already, so why does the husband have to add to it? Is Jesus not enough for a woman? Are they suggesting the man stands alone in Christ but a woman must stand with man? So must women be married to be sanctified? (This is why so many women think theologically they are subpar if they are not married.... My view is that this is a terrible reading of the text.)"
At first I was unsure on what the actual word "sanctify" meant. Now I do understand what it means and personally I do not see a woman needing a man for salvation as biblical.
Dale said: "I personally don't think 'submission' there connotes authority under. Submission can be other things as well when used in non-military contexts..."
Not sure I understand your point there, if submission is not another authority above your own (again not always the authority forced, could also be you personally giving someone that authority over you) then what is submission?
-Chase
Dale Fincher
· 1 year ago
Hey Chase,
"Sanctify" means to make holy... it's actually a synonym of 'holy.' So the big question is whether a woman can be holy wit h Jesus alone or does she need a husband? It seems on the view professed in the video, she likely needs a man.
As for submission, Strongs says, "In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". "
We could say Jesus submitted to our sin on the cross, but that doesn't mean he was under its authority. In other words, he assumed its responsibility or carried that burden. I have a whole section on this on the "Mystery of Submission" blog posts. See August in the archive.
I like your view about the pastor and the congregation working together. That seems so rarely done these days.
Dale Fincher
· 1 year ago
"Sanctify" means to make holy... it's actually a synonym of 'holy.' So the big question is whether a woman can be holy wit h Jesus alone or does she need a husband? It seems on the view professed in the video, she likely needs a man.
As for submission, Strongs says, "In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". "
We could say Jesus submitted to our sin on the cross, but that doesn't mean he was under its authority. In other words, he assumed its responsibility or carried that burden. I have a whole section on this on the "Mystery of Submission" blog posts. See August in the archive.
I like your view about the pastor and the congregation working together. That seems so rarely done these days.
Philip Kenney
· 1 year ago
That lighting thing in the back was so distracting to me, I had to keep jerking myself out of its hypnotic grasp! I watched it again though, and I think I know what he said now...
The guy understands the issue decently well I think as he mentions multiple arguments from the other side briefly (source, the verb being in verse 21, etc.). The bigger thing about the "head" comment is that he immediately takes the step that is not found in that verse at all: head of HOUSEHOLD. That is a complete step taken without warrant. That is what would question my feeling ideology coming in the backdoor.
When talking about the word "submit" being borrowed in verse 22, he just skips what that could imply and goes straight to his view again. If it is borrowed, then it may mean the two verses are connected and, therefore, submissiveness of the wife is not exclusive but just the only one mentioned by Paul as he continues. Just a thought.
He keeps talking about functionality, but if the wife's function is to submit, then it should be coupled with the husband's function to sacrificial love. These are the two functions I find in this passage. Head could mean many things, but I think we should couple submission with sacrificial love when we start talking about function. Especially considering that given the form of both sentences they were definitely meant to be read together as a couplet.
Tie-breaking, like you mentioned Dale, does not need to be that way at all. It can go that, but it doesn't have to at all, especially in the light of sacrificial love that is to be given by the husband as you said.
I'm not quite sure what sanctifying your wife really means to begin with. That phrase has always blown my mind.
One funny thing happened to Savannah and I yesterday at church. We go to a very conservative church, and our sunday school teacher was talking about marriage. One of the first things he said without any justification or backup from Scripture was: women are designed to follow. We didn't speak up because we are new to the class and didn't want to give a bad taste to them right away. Plus we do not feel it is a huge deal to fight over. When the opportunity is right, we'll probably make our position known to the teacher.
Dale Fincher
· 1 year ago
Philip, good clear thoughts. It does feel 'backdoor.' It's easy to smuggle in 'what we've always thought' about a passage without looking at it again with fresh eyes without fear of someone calling you theological names. The Gospel Coalition has many members in it who are quite emphatic that this view is the only view and all others are 'liberal.'
I like your strategy at church. Roles in marriage issue is not an essential doctrine but a tertiary one--which means we should have utmost freedom to arrive at conclusions based on conscience, scholarship, and the Holy Spirit without suffering a break of 'fellowship' from those who disagree. I think the more we can get word out that there is freedom to disagree, the better off everyone is! Then we can all work to persuade others to the most reasonable conclusion.
Kim
· 1 year ago
Dale, One could do a whole dissertation on this subject. Far from being "clear," even Paul acknowledges that "This mystery is great..." in Eph 5:32.
I see the submission and leadership as predicate. In other words, good submission will follow good leadership and bad leadership will get bad submission.
As with many issues in Scripture, we tend to make the interpretation mechanical, rather than spiritual. So, when Mr. Um talks about leadership he goes to the "tie-breaker" idea. What I see in that verse is a spiritual leadership, one modelled by Christ, of self-sacrifice, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
The sad thing is that if you ask most children (including adult children) who the spiritual leader of their family is they will say "it's mom." The other sad thing is that we've connected femininity to the spiritual fruit. So, when a man exhibits these character qualities he is perceived as feminine.
Enough for now. Maybe more later...
Dale Fincher
· 1 year ago
Kim, good insights. Thanks for weighing in!
I do think bad leadership receives bad submission. However, I don't see 'leadership' for husbands in this passage, neither spiritual nor practical. I see love. And a meta-study on 'head' has revealed that it doesn't mean 'leadership' in most Greek instances. Rather it means something like 'honor' (we see it more definitively used this way in 1 Cor 11). To assume 'head' means leadership and 'submission' always means to be under someone else in the authoritative sense is, to me, reading more into the passage than is there. In the August archives, you can read more of my view of this in the 'mystery of submission' posts.
I am in complete agreement with you that the fruit of the Spirit is perceived as "feminine" in our time. We do group surveys on this and almost every audience, men or women, in different parts of the country, perceive the fruit of the spirit as largely feminine. It is sadly unfortunate. And unfortunate that the 'new masculinity' in the church often perpetuates this misconception...
All Comments
"Notice how he says men shy away from leadership (is this the nature of men historically or a 21st century construction?)"
I would personally say it is a 21st century construction. And here is why: in the past prior to this century women were not placed as equals generally speaking, so men would in a sense be forced into leadership. Now you do have a queen in some countries, however, they were looked upon as leader by their blood, and as seen from both men and women blood-line does not affect leadership capabilities. So most likely the men who were made leaders by society led as the "shy" men in our time, which looking in history many can be spotted.
I noticed how he emphasized the husbands leadership, then team, then leadership once more especially when he spoke about tie-breaker. Now I am not married so I cannot understand his point completely, but I do know according to the Bible you are one flesh once you are married, so as for the husband being the final authority over the wife I am not so sure I would agree. "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
[I Corinthians 7:4]
Is a woman to be submissive to her husband? Yes, that is a biblical principle, yet in the 21st century the word "submissive" is automatically presumed negative. In the family the wife is to be submissive so as one the two can be most effective, not so the wife can be "silenced" in conflict.
As seen in the church the pastor is the "head" and the congregation is submissive to him, they are not being slaves or servants they are merely placing the authority he has over theirs. When conflict arises amongst one another the church works together as an equal voice so as one body in Christ they can be productive.
Likewise for the husband sanctifying his wife, not entirely sure I would agree because once more I believe they are one flesh that as one should hold one another accountable.
-Chase
I don't think you need to be married to understand the tie-breaker argument. I think if couples find themselves in that kind of position they should ask God to bring them to agreement or let the person make the decision who knows the most or is affected the most. Some men don't mind women making decisions. Some women don't mind men making decisions. But that should be based on the people, not based on some sort of principle that can't be found in the text.
Nice use of 'one flesh' theology! And 1 Cor 7 is a great point!
I personally don't think 'submission' there connotes authority under. Submission can be other things as well when used in non-military contexts. Notice Paul doesn't once mention 'obey' though that word is available to him and he uses it when spekaing to children after this section.
Eph 5:21 makes it clear that everyone submits to everyone. So we must do the hard work at getting more at what Paul is saying in Eph 5:22 rather than jumping to conclusion as I think this video and many complementarians, have done.
I would challenge your view of pastor as the 'head.' In the church, there is Person called the 'head.' That is Jesus. And it is actually rather dubious that Scripture says we are to obey our pastors.
I think you're on track for the 'sanctifying the wife' bit. I've always thought this was the job of Jesus. He's presenting the church spotless already, so why does the husband have to add to it? Is Jesus not enough for a woman? Are they suggesting the man stands alone in Christ but a woman must stand with man? So must women be married to be sanctified? (This is why so many women think theologically they are subpar if they are not married.... My view is that this is a terrible reading of the text.)
"I would challenge your view of pastor as the 'head.' In the church, there is Person called the 'head.' That is Jesus. And it is actually rather dubious that Scripture says we are to obey our pastors."
I 100% agree with you on, Jesus Christ is the head of the church, not sure how one could argue otherwise. My choice for the word "head" was vague my intent was the pastor is considered the physical leader of the church.
Once more I agree that we are to listen to our pastors, however, when I spoke of "conflict" amongst one another it was meant to be stated as this: if, for example, the church is unsure of secondary doctrine then together the pastor and the congregation would work as one to come to the best biblically based resolution.
Dale said:
"I think you're on track for the 'sanctifying the wife' bit. I've always thought this was the job of Jesus. He's presenting the church spotless already, so why does the husband have to add to it? Is Jesus not enough for a woman? Are they suggesting the man stands alone in Christ but a woman must stand with man? So must women be married to be sanctified? (This is why so many women think theologically they are subpar if they are not married.... My view is that this is a terrible reading of the text.)"
At first I was unsure on what the actual word "sanctify" meant. Now I do understand what it means and personally I do not see a woman needing a man for salvation as biblical.
Dale said:
"I personally don't think 'submission' there connotes authority under. Submission can be other things as well when used in non-military contexts..."
Not sure I understand your point there, if submission is not another authority above your own (again not always the authority forced, could also be you personally giving someone that authority over you) then what is submission?
-Chase
"Sanctify" means to make holy... it's actually a synonym of 'holy.' So the big question is whether a woman can be holy wit h Jesus alone or does she need a husband? It seems on the view professed in the video, she likely needs a man.
As for submission, Strongs says, "In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". "
We could say Jesus submitted to our sin on the cross, but that doesn't mean he was under its authority. In other words, he assumed its responsibility or carried that burden. I have a whole section on this on the "Mystery of Submission" blog posts. See August in the archive.
I like your view about the pastor and the congregation working together. That seems so rarely done these days.
As for submission, Strongs says, "In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". "
We could say Jesus submitted to our sin on the cross, but that doesn't mean he was under its authority. In other words, he assumed its responsibility or carried that burden. I have a whole section on this on the "Mystery of Submission" blog posts. See August in the archive.
I like your view about the pastor and the congregation working together. That seems so rarely done these days.
The guy understands the issue decently well I think as he mentions multiple arguments from the other side briefly (source, the verb being in verse 21, etc.). The bigger thing about the "head" comment is that he immediately takes the step that is not found in that verse at all: head of HOUSEHOLD. That is a complete step taken without warrant. That is what would question my feeling ideology coming in the backdoor.
When talking about the word "submit" being borrowed in verse 22, he just skips what that could imply and goes straight to his view again. If it is borrowed, then it may mean the two verses are connected and, therefore, submissiveness of the wife is not exclusive but just the only one mentioned by Paul as he continues. Just a thought.
He keeps talking about functionality, but if the wife's function is to submit, then it should be coupled with the husband's function to sacrificial love. These are the two functions I find in this passage. Head could mean many things, but I think we should couple submission with sacrificial love when we start talking about function. Especially considering that given the form of both sentences they were definitely meant to be read together as a couplet.
Tie-breaking, like you mentioned Dale, does not need to be that way at all. It can go that, but it doesn't have to at all, especially in the light of sacrificial love that is to be given by the husband as you said.
I'm not quite sure what sanctifying your wife really means to begin with. That phrase has always blown my mind.
One funny thing happened to Savannah and I yesterday at church. We go to a very conservative church, and our sunday school teacher was talking about marriage. One of the first things he said without any justification or backup from Scripture was: women are designed to follow. We didn't speak up because we are new to the class and didn't want to give a bad taste to them right away. Plus we do not feel it is a huge deal to fight over. When the opportunity is right, we'll probably make our position known to the teacher.
I like your strategy at church. Roles in marriage issue is not an essential doctrine but a tertiary one--which means we should have utmost freedom to arrive at conclusions based on conscience, scholarship, and the Holy Spirit without suffering a break of 'fellowship' from those who disagree. I think the more we can get word out that there is freedom to disagree, the better off everyone is! Then we can all work to persuade others to the most reasonable conclusion.
I see the submission and leadership as predicate. In other words, good submission will follow good leadership and bad leadership will get bad submission.
As with many issues in Scripture, we tend to make the interpretation mechanical, rather than spiritual. So, when Mr. Um talks about leadership he goes to the "tie-breaker" idea. What I see in that verse is a spiritual leadership, one modelled by Christ, of self-sacrifice, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
The sad thing is that if you ask most children (including adult children) who the spiritual leader of their family is they will say "it's mom." The other sad thing is that we've connected femininity to the spiritual fruit. So, when a man exhibits these character qualities he is perceived as feminine.
Enough for now. Maybe more later...
I do think bad leadership receives bad submission. However, I don't see 'leadership' for husbands in this passage, neither spiritual nor practical. I see love. And a meta-study on 'head' has revealed that it doesn't mean 'leadership' in most Greek instances. Rather it means something like 'honor' (we see it more definitively used this way in 1 Cor 11). To assume 'head' means leadership and 'submission' always means to be under someone else in the authoritative sense is, to me, reading more into the passage than is there. In the August archives, you can read more of my view of this in the 'mystery of submission' posts.
I am in complete agreement with you that the fruit of the Spirit is perceived as "feminine" in our time. We do group surveys on this and almost every audience, men or women, in different parts of the country, perceive the fruit of the spirit as largely feminine. It is sadly unfortunate. And unfortunate that the 'new masculinity' in the church often perpetuates this misconception...
~dale