The following is an article that can be found at the CBMW website. My thoughts follow.
The Gospel and Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
John Starke
October 8, 2009
A good question to ask in order to gauge the importance of an issue is, “How closely related is this issue to the Gospel?” Some would probably accuse me of hijacking the Gospel if I related it too closely to gender issues. After all, gender has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, or substitutionary atonement. Being egalitarian or complementarian is not something that determines our eternal destiny as adopted children of God. Praise God this is true! Yet, a more penetrating question may be, “Do we stand to lose something of the Gospel if egalitarianism is assumed?” In my opinion, the overwhelming answer is Yes.
A biblical test-case can be seen in the flow of thought of Ephesians. The first two chapters show the general/universal understanding of the Gospel. The Gospel is, most fundamentally, God’s plan of redemption on behalf sinners through Christ. Readers of this letter must, first and foremost, come to terms with Paul’s emphasis on the Gospel being God’s work despite human sinfulness. Other than faith, Paul doesn’t attribute anything to the human sinner in the effectiveness of the Gospel. In fact, many argue that the entire phrase “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (2:8) is the “gift” that 2:9 is referring to. The conclusion of chapters 1-2 is that there is nothing peculiar about any individual sinner that would cause them to be the darling of God’s saving work. Rather, as 2:4-5 tells us, salvation is to be attributed to the richness of God’s mercy.
Chapter 3 of Ephesians affirms this conclusion. What God has revealed in Christ is redemption, not only for covenant Israel, but for Gentile sinners as well. If racial status cannot keep us away from the love of Christ, it is easy to conclude that social status, age, wisdom, or gender cannot either. And we see that the rest of the New Testament affirms this same conclusion. The Gospel is for all those – every tongue and tribe – who repent of their sins and believe in the Gospel. Praise God for his infinite wisdom!
Interestingly, Paul does not end his letter with chapter 3. He knows that when the Gospel is believed, it is the power to change the life of the Christian. In other words, after one is forgiven of their sins and saved from the wrath to come, the Christian life cannot be simply reduced to moralism. Rather, the Gospel radically shapes how we live and make choices. So, for example, he writes at the end of chapter 4, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another as God in Christ forgave you.” And also 5:2, “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Paul exhorts his readers to forgive one another and walk in love not because that is how we need to get along until Christ comes back, but because God in Christ loved and forgave us. Paul bases his Christian ethic on the cross of Christ. Interestingly, Paul’s command to walk in love and forgive one another is still as universal as the Gospel. All those who are redeemed in the Lord are to love and forgive one another and even submit to one another.
However, Paul begins to apply the Gospel at a more particular level at the end of chapter 5. Up until this point, Paul displays how the Gospel functions universally to change the lives of Christians. Yet, from 5:22-6:9, Paul shows how the Gospel applies in particular to husbands, wives, parents, children, slaves, and masters. At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband. The Gospel informs a husband of God’s design for him as a man in a way that is different than the wife. Interestingly, the Gospel does not blur gender distinctions, but, rather, gives them definition. Our identity as men and women and how we relate to one another is informed by God’s saving work in Christ Jesus.
If egalitarianism is assumed, there are at least two aspects of the Gospel that we lose. Both are significant.
First, marriage, throughout Scripture, is used to portray God’s saving promises and his covenant faithfulness to his people. If we lose the important distinctions between the roles of husbands and wives in marriage, then we lose a significant biblical understanding of God’s work in Scripture and in redemptive history.
Second, a central concern of Paul in all his letters, especially Ephesians, is not only Gospel clarity, but also how the Gospel applies to the Christian life. If we have confusion as to how men and women ought to act and fulfill divinely intended roles in the Church, marriage, and family, then there will be confusion as to how to apply the Gospel to the Christian life. As we see in Ephesians 5, God has particular applications of his Gospel that are gender specific. If we lose the gender specificity, then we lose a divinely intended Gospel application.
My Thoughts!
I have always thought that the gender issue was not a Gospel issue, but I have thought that your stance in the gender debate reflects your particular understanding of the Gospel. The issues I have with this article are as follows…
1 – We are presented with a very good understanding of Ephesians, except for the issue of unity, which is never mentioned as a theme by Starke. This ignores passages such as Ephesians 1:11, 2:8-21, 3:6, 4:1-16, 25-32, 5:1-2, 18-33, 6:1-9. This allows Starke to say, “Paul begins to apply the Gospel at a more particular level at the end of chapter 5. Up until this point, Paul displays how the Gospel functions universally to change the lives of Christians.”
If indeed Ephesians is about unity in the gospel, then we do not see Paul’s comments in chapters 5-6 as applying the Gospel at a particular level, as much as outlining how the unity of the gospel should seep into all areas of life…and he gives us particular examples. Paul’s concerns in regards to husbands/wives, parents/children and slaves/masters is a continuation of the theme of unity in the Gospel, not the beginning of a new theme regarding distinctions in the Gospel.
2 – If Egalitarianism is assumed, then the portrayal of, “God’s saving promises and his covenant faithfulness to his people” is NOT lost! Egalitarianism does not want to reduce gender distinctions, rather complementarianism seeks to make distinctions that are not Biblical which confuse God’s will for his people. This is clearly seen in the questions that CBMW are faced with from Christians trying to live the complementarian life but unsure about what a wife should do, should not do, who a woman can teach or not teach etc. If Paul was addressing the issues that Starke says, then why did he not enter into some of these issues of how complementarianism is applied to “particular” situations?
3 – If Starke believes that the Gospel is applied in a fundamentally different way for some people compared to others, then he is mistaken. Egalitarians are constantly told that we cannot use Galatians 3:28 in the gender debate, because it is concerning salvation not gender. I will not argue here that the context of Galatians 3:28 is wider than simply salvation (another time perhaps!), but I will say that Starke brings the gender debate to Galatians 3:28. By making this a Gospel issue, it becomes a salvation issue. How can Starke justify Paul outlining particular gender distinctions in regards to the Gospel, but deal with Galatians 3:28 that says, in Christ there is not male or female?
4 – With many complementarian arguments we are warned of the dangers of “blurring gender distinctions”. Although the “slippery slope” argument is often pulled out (an argument with no factual foundation or logic behind it) we are rarely told what we are actually losing in this supposed “gender blurring”. This article is another case in point. What does it actually mean, “we stand to lose something of the Gospel if egalitarianism is assumed?” What does hierarchy bring to marriage that is so important?
Your thoughts?
Related posts:
Dave,
It seems that what Starke is really saying is that egals can be saved but not sanctified.
” If Starke believes that the Gospel is applied in a fundamentally different way for some people compared to others, then he is mistaken.”
I think this is exactly what CBMW teaches.
Does Starke REALLY believe that Paul is ONLY telling a wife to respect her husband? This is what the text says explicitly, does he think the reverse does not apply somehow, that God is carefully carving up spheres of responsibility along gender lines?
Does Starke REALLY believe that ONLY a husband is to sacrificially love his wife? Or perhaps when a wife does it, it should be called something else, submission, so as not to “confuse” the supposed gender roles.
I agree with Starke that Eph 1-3 is more theological and Eph 4-6 is more practical and application oriented. There IS a unity in the letter, how does one work out the unity in Eph 1-3 with the real world situations found in Eph 4-6?
It is a question about God/Christ as husband and Israel/church as wife in terms of what does this mean? But declaring that gender roles inform that question is one of the questions of the debate. That is, he declares something is lost if you do not agree with him, as an egal I declare HE loses something by not agreeing with egalism.
Again, in his last paragraph, he simply assumes gender roles are what is taught and points out that egalism loses this, which is again the point of the debate. As an egal, I believe HE loses something of the gospel in his idea of gender roles that go beyond the physical and that Christian freedom is lost in his model, which IS a part of the gospel of the Kingdom.
He means we stand to lose men leading and ruling over women in the church and home and believes that hierarchal relationship is part of the Gospel and it’s a very comfortable position for him. And that is what is so important in marriage AND the church – to him. Round and round… ;P
I am amazed how they can reword things so many times, their basic theme is “males on top good, females on top bad” but it has so many variations in phrasing. At least they admit egals can be saved, some non-egals question even that.
“If we lose the important distinctions between the roles of husbands and wives in marriage, then we lose a significant biblical understanding of God’s work in Scripture and in redemptive history.”
Yes, Galatians 3:28 that says, in Christ there is not male or female.
Dave,
Thanks, at least, for including all my words from the article. Its amazing how much people misquote when trying to argue against something. I don’t know how time I can use to engage or defend myself, so forgive if I start something I can’t finish.
Just a few responses:
(1) I think your understanding of unity and the application of the Gospel is mistaken. You are right that Paul certainly does unify ALL Christians in the Gospel. What unifies us is God’s redemptive work on our behalf. We are all saved sinners. Praise God! Yet, how we all live in light of that truth is different for men and women at some level. I don’t think I am saying anything that is contrary to how Paul applies the Gospel in Ephesians 5. He applies the Gospel differently (at some level) to men than he does to women. Generally speaking, the Gospel is applied to all Christians in that we are to love one another as Christ loved us. We are to be tenderhearted, kind, and forgiving as God in Christ forgave us. But Paul does apply the Gospel to men and women, children, parents, etc differently. Galatians 3:28 is an example of the Gospel generally applied to all peoples – men and women, not in particular.
(2) You say, “If Paul was addressing the issues that Starke says, then why did he not enter into some of these issues of how complementarianism is applied to “particular” situations?” That’s just it, he does in Ephesians 5 and throughout all his letters (1 Tim 2, Titus, 2, I Cor 11, etc). Paul never alienates these issues from God’s work of creation and redemption.
(3) You ask, “What does it actually mean, “we stand to lose something of the Gospel if egalitarianism is assumed?” What does hierarchy bring to marriage that is so important?” I answered that in my lost section. I will quote below:
“If egalitarianism is assumed, there are at least two aspects of the Gospel that we lose. Both are significant.
First, marriage, throughout Scripture, is used to portray God’s saving promises and his covenant faithfulness to his people. If we lose the important distinctions between the roles of husbands and wives in marriage, then we lose a significant biblical understanding of God’s work in Scripture and in redemptive history.
Second, a central concern of Paul in all his letters, especially Ephesians, is not only Gospel clarity, but also how the Gospel applies to the Christian life. If we have confusion as to how men and women ought to act and fulfill divinely intended roles in the Church, marriage, and family, then there will be confusion as to how to apply the Gospel to the Christian life. As we see in Ephesians 5, God has particular applications of his Gospel that are gender specific. If we lose the gender specificity, then we lose a divinely intended Gospel application.
Thanks for your interaction. I realized when I wrote this that there would be some strong reaction.
Hi John and welcome to our blog! It is great to have you respond to my comments. We always try and present people fairly and accurately in what they have said, I am sorry that others have not done the same. I welcome your comments and wanted to say the following:
I assume that you see Ephesians 5:21 as a “general” application of the Gospel, like you view Galatians 3:28.
I assume you then see 5:22-33 as specific instructions as to how the Gospel is lived out differently, according to gender roles. This is even though there is no textual reason to assume a change of subject, but rather the opposite!
What then do you assume about 6:1-9? Once again there is not textual reason to assume Paul has jumped again from specific to general, general to specific, so is Paul saying that the Gospel is lived out differently in a slave, that a slave has different roles? When a slave is freed and becomes a master, is the Gospel going to be lived out differently in his life?
I assume you only want to limit differences to how the Gospel is lived out in the lives of people to be gender specific, in which case how do you resolve this problem? Comps want to dictate what Paul is saying when the text does not reflect it.
I believe that Paul has had the same purpose from 5:21-6:9…well from 1:1 actually, and that is to talk about the unity that the Ephesians have because no matter who they are, slave/free, male/female – the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same for each of them. Wow, that sounds a bit like Galatians 3:28
One example of the unity in the gospel in the passage is when slaves are told how to behave and then masters are told to “do the same to them” – Paul is hardly making huge distinctions here. And of course we should not forget 5:21!
A big problem I have with what you are suggesting is that Paul does not describe differences in function. He describes what is essentially the same for male/female, parent/child, slave/free, but with culturally sensitive nuances. After all, if a husband is going to give his life for his wife and love her as his own body, then he has certainly submitted to her needs.
It is interesting to note that Paul nowhere here actually outlines a different set of roles for husbands as to wives, which is what I was saying in my post. He does not say to husbands to “lead”, “make decisions”, “enforce submission” or anything remotely like this. If Paul has indeed outlined how the Gospel is going to be lived out differently, then he has done a very poor job! To say one loves and the other submits, in the context that they should both submit (and both love, 4:16), is not outlining distinctions at all.
From Ephesians 5 can you please tell me, what are the gender specific distinctions – how will it look in practice?
I do not believe you have answered my question, “What does hierarchy bring to marriage that is so important?”
I really appreciate the opportunity to interact. Please feel free to respond if you like whenever you have time!
Dave
Dear Mr. Starke,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to reactions to your article. I do agree with Dave, though, that you have not answered the question about how hierarchy is so important to a marriage and I would add that you have not identified how hierarchy is vital to the gospel. In fact I think that it is a serious issue of division to bring in the gospel to the area of gender “roles”. Gender “roles” is an area of secondary doctrine, one that we can have differences of opinion on and still have a loving relationship as fellow Christians. But once you make the gender issue a part of the gospel are you not dividing the body by making this an issue of primary importance? The gospel is not a secondary issue but one of the essentials.
Anyone can attach their pet view of a secondary issue to the gospel, but doing so is destined to divide the body, alienate brothers and sisters in Christ and be in danger of adding to the gospel. The next step would logically be that one must be a complementarian to be saved since anything else would be a distortion of the true gospel. I have already heard talks by CBMW members that come precariously close to making that claim.
The biggest concern that I have is when the gender issue becomes attached not only to the gospel but to the Godhead where complementarians make it an “essential” issue to teach that Jesus is not due the highest honor as He is under the authority of the Father who is the only one who is supreme. Bruce Ware has now gone so far as to teach that we ought not to pray to Jesus. He has wronged our Lord and Savior by removing our intimate relationship with Jesus in prayer.
I am greatly concerned at the divisiveness of the complementarian position and how CBMW and its followers have attached their position to the very essentials of our faith. I would like to know what Biblical text gives you and other CBMW members the authority to compromise the essentials by adding the gender issue as part of the gospel? I have reread your comments and I cannot see how you have answered this so I would like to ask that you reword your comment so that we can all understand. Thanks for your consideration.
Dave,
Thanks for your courteous response. I appreciate your demeanor.
Let me just say about Ephesians 5:21-6:9 that we read it differently. It seems pretty clear that Paul is instructing men and women, parents and children, slaves and masters differently in light of the Gospel. He simply gives them different instructions. His instructions are not informed by any cultural norm, but rather the Gospel (Christ/Church, etc). I understand and agree that Paul is emphasizing unity in the Gospel. Yet, I don’t think unity is contrary to Divinely intended distinctions between men and women.
Cheryl,
Certainly, gender issues are a secondary issue. If you read the first paragraph of my post I stress that this is not salvific in any way. This issue, I would argue, is not “part of the Gospel” (you seem to think that I say this). Nowhere do I say that you must believe that Jesus died for sins, resurrected from the dead, and wives submit to your husbands. The Bible never says, “if wives do not submit to your husbands, then we of all people are to be pitied.”
Yet, I do think it is a clear application of the Gospel that Paul makes in Ephesians 5. Paul gives clear instruction to the home in Ephesians 5:22-6:9 in light of the Gospel. He never divorces these instructions that he gives peculiarly to each person from the Gospel.
I hope I am clear in my points.
” At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband. The Gospel informs a husband of God’s design for him as a man in a way that is different than the wife. Interestingly, the Gospel does not blur gender distinctions, but, rather, gives them definition. Our identity as men and women and how we relate to one another is informed by God’s saving work in Christ Jesus.”
Mr. Starke,
I find it interesting and illogical that complementarians base the ‘role’ of wives in subordination to the ‘role’ of husbands on the fact that the husband possesses male reproductive organs, while at the same time claiming the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son.
The only member of the Trinity we know for sure had male reproductive organs was Jesus, because the Scriptures say He was circumcised, but neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father are ever expressly said to possess them.
So now, if authority lies in the possessing of male genitals, would not that put the Son in authority and the Father and the Holy Spirit in eternal subordination?
Would you please explain the way complementarians justify or reconcile this?
There are people born with both ovarian and testicular tissue and others with ambiguous outer organs. Jesus said some people are eunachs from birth. The Church cannot simply disenfranchise these people.
What is the Church supposed to do with a true hermaphrodite or person like Caster Semenya, the South African runner?
How do complementarians decide which ‘role’ these people are relegated, since Paul never ‘defines’ them?
He does not “in Ephesians 5 and throughout all his letters (1 Tim 2, Titus, 2, I Cor 11, etc).”
I cannot embrace a paradigm that does include every believer in God’s plan.
John,
Your comments come across as inconsistent as they say two opposite things at the same time. While you say that gender has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, you turn around and say ” Yet, a more penetrating question may be, “Do we stand to lose something of the Gospel if egalitarianism is assumed?” In my opinion, the overwhelming answer is Yes.”
The gospel is the very essence of our salvation so if you are saying that the gender issue (egalitarianism) causes something to be lost in the gospel, then you are indeed attaching salvation to the gender issue since one cannot lose part of the gospel without being in danger of losing one’s salvation since the entire gospel is needed for salvation.
The early church had many who wanted to add things to the gospel. Paul wrote Galatians to show that additions to the gospel were actually causing the Ephesians to place themselves outside of grace. We cannot fight any addition to the gospel too strongly.
The gospel is nothing to do with any kind of applications that make the gospel apply differently to the different genders or to our age or to our social standing. The gospel comes to all of us equally in that it is one gospel that saves us all in the same way. Anything that adds to that gospel is divisive and places human tradition on the same level as God’s essentials and it must be completely rejected.
I heard a CBMW audio file by one of the teachers, I think it was Russell Moore, where it was claimed that egalitarians are not “necessarily” lost. The comments came across as if being an egalitarian made one as close to being outside the gospel and thus in danger of losing or even of not having salvation. When the complementarian movement goes this far as to attach the gospel and salvation to the gender issue it has gone too far. I hope that many will stand up and call CBMW to task for attaching the gospel to this issue for the “application of the gospel” is the gospel itself. The “application of the gospel” is faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the accompanying freedom from sin. It cannot be applied in a different way to slave and free, Jew and Gentile, male and female without a deliberate distortion of the gospel message that brings us together in unity under one gospel and one gospel application. We are saved by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus who died for our sins.
Mr. Starke, I know that you realized when you wrote this piece that it would be controversial and you would be accused of hijacking the gospel. I would encourage you to recant your piece and give your objections to the egalitarian message in words other than an attachment to the gospel.
Mr. Starke,
For clarification – I am not in any way endorsing or advocating homosexual behavior.
Just a few thoughts on Mr. Starkes reading of specific roles:
Paul also writes elsewhere that slaves should gain their freedom if they can. And he writes to Philemon that he should treat Oni was a brother in Christ. So we know for a fact that he does not expect slaves to remain slaves unless they have no other choice(which is cultural not scriptural)
We also know that children grow up. Honoring a father and mother may mean the grown child is actuallymaking decisions for them in their old age. (Like Christ told Peter that someone who have to lead him around. So even the kids get to grow up and be adults.
So those ‘roles’ are not cast in stone. They are evolve due to age and cultural considerations for slaves.
I also take into consideration Pauls words to singles. He did not rule out women remaining single nor did he seem to have problems with Lydia and Phoebe, etc in their ‘roles’ in scripture. Even Phoebe described both as a deacon and ‘protasis’.
But what Starke seems to be saying is that a woman by virtue of her female physical attrirbutes is expected to be led all her life. She has 2 masters and 2 ‘heads’ (as they interpret had to mean authority). So, is this only married women?
Not once have I ever seen any comp brave enough to list all the specific roles for women outside the obvious one of bearing and nursing children. They mention them here and there but are very careful not to give a comprehensive list. For one reason, many comps do not agree on what they are.
They mainly focus on submission interpreting it as a subordinate position answering to a leader. So basically, it would be anything the leader thinks is a specific role. We know that 1 Tim 5 renders the manage the home is really where we get the word ‘despot’ so we know scripture teaches the wife is the co ruler of the home.
HI again John!
“Thanks for your courteous response. I appreciate your demeanor.” – No worries, it is a pleasure to have someone from CBMW visit our blog. I hope you feel you can continue to visit!
Perhaps I can identify more clearly what my problem with your article is John.
You said, “All those who are redeemed in the Lord are to love and forgive one another and even submit to one another.”
You also said, “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband. The Gospel informs a husband of God’s design for him as a man in a way that is different than the wife. Interestingly, the Gospel does not blur gender distinctions, but, rather, gives them definition. Our identity as men and women and how we relate to one another is informed by God’s saving work in Christ Jesus.”
If Paul is telling us to mutually submit and love each other as a general application of the Gospel, what are men and women being told to do specifically that is in any way different to this? I see nothing in the passage that says anything other than wives are to submit and husbands are to love, something they have been told to do anyway. On what textual basis do you say, “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband”? If you can show me then you will be able to answer my question as to what hierarchy brings to a marriage that is so important.
So please John, what distinct roles are husbands and wives given in Eph 5:21-33? Submission and love, according to you, are not distinct roles. So what are?
I don’t see Paul, at all in Eph 5 applying anything to men and women. I do read that he is speaking of husbands and wives though. And I notice this all the time – that when Eph 5 is spoken of by the comp, it is spoken of as if it’s about men and women when it’s not. It’s about husbands and wives.
So does Paul apply the Gospel differently (at some level) to husbands than he does to wives?
Is there a different passage that you, John would like to use to say that Paul applies the Gospel differently to men than he does to women that is, unmarried male and female persons?
I would like to know what passage you could have in mind since Eph 5 is out of the question.
For the third and last time – hehe – Eph 5 cannot be about “gender roles” in ANY way because it is not applicable to ALL men and women as it is a gift to be single for Christ and marriage is not God’s ideal for every man and woman.
Frisbie, welcome to our blog!
Kathy, great to have you back, it has been too long! I should have known when there were three comments put up in quick succession that it was you!
How is marriage so important to the gospel?
Have the genders (ALL people) been called to marry? Is that what Christ has commanded? Is that the gospel?
If I’m following comp thought I’m led to – Marriage being vital to the gospel because without it the question is, where is the hierarchy?
Let me better clarify.
If I’m following comp thought I’m led to mariage being vital to the gospel because without it the question is, where is the hierarchy/gospel (Christ/Church, to use your wording John).
Kathy, you seem to work in threes!
Great points though…
Starke: “First, marriage, throughout Scripture, is used to portray God’s saving promises and his covenant faithfulness to his people. If we lose the important distinctions between the roles of husbands and wives in marriage, then we lose a significant biblical understanding of God’s work in Scripture and in redemptive history.”
What specifically is the biblical understanding of God’s work in Scripture and in redemptive history that is lost without hierarchy in marriage?
Specifically, what biblical understanding of redemptive history is lost when a husband and wife mutually love and respect each other?
Specifically what elements of God’s redemptive history are diminished by a husband and wife mutually submitting to the needs or desires of the other and by working together to establish the direction of the home and family to best meet the needs and desires of everyone?
How does a Christian marriage displaying mutual love and respect with each submitting to the other for the benefit and well-being of the relationship or indiviual undermine God’s saving promises and His covenant faithfulness to His people?
LOL! Thanks Dave!
Thanks for interacting with egal responses, John!
Starke: “Second, a central concern of Paul in all his letters, especially Ephesians, is not only Gospel clarity, but also how the Gospel applies to the Christian life. If we have confusion as to how men and women ought to act and fulfill divinely intended roles in the Church, marriage, and family, then there will be confusion as to how to apply the Gospel to the Christian life. As we see in Ephesians 5, God has particular applications of his Gospel that are gender specific. If we lose the gender specificity, then we lose a divinely intended Gospel application.”
If by confusion you mean the idea that both husbands and wives love, respect, and submit to each other throughout their marriage, then what confusion is there about applying the Gospel to the Christian life?
Also, if we see in Ephesians 5, particular applications of the Gospel that are gender specific i.e. “submit”, “love”, “respect”, then if a wife loves sacrificially (i.e. sacrifices her personal dreams or goals to help her husband achieve his or any example) is gender specificity lost? If so, what is the divinely intended Gospel application that is lost?
Conversely, if a husband’s love compels him to submit and to defer his own dreams or goals so his wife could achieve hers (or any other example) is gender specificity lost? If so, what is the divinely intended Gospel application that is lost?
I, too, appreciate John interacting with our questions.
“Starke: “First, marriage, throughout Scripture, is used to portray God’s saving promises and his covenant faithfulness to his people. If we lose the important distinctions between the roles of husbands and wives in marriage, then we lose a significant biblical understanding of God’s work in Scripture and in redemptive history.”
Like His divorce decree for Israel.
) (Just kidding but it does have significance in how God worked in ‘redemptive history”.
I believe that marriage is important. (I always feel like I have to have a disclaimer when debating comps)
But I view as part of the Old Covenant: Be fruitful and multiply and the New Covenant as: Go and make disciples…
When you say that ‘if we lose important distinctions between the roles of husbands and wives then we lose important biblical understanding of God’s work in history…’, Are you referring to men mapping more to God and are the ‘god’ in the relationship? Because it does sound like you are mapping the authority of God to male humans in some way.
Here are my questions for John Starke, if he wished to repond:
1. In Eph 5, a wife is told to respect her husband, does this mean that a husband does not need to respect his wife in some way?
2. In Eph 5, a husband is told to sacrificially love his wife, does this mean that a wife is not called to do the same for her husband?
I see these as specific emphases in 1st century culture, not as aspects of rigid roles. That is, Paul is reminding believers to resist the opposite temptations, such as not loving by husbands or disrespecting by wives.
It is true that God was said in the Tanakh to marry Israel, and he was seen as the husband and Israel as the wife. Does this mean that by the use of this metaphor the men of Israel were somehow made somewhat feminine? I doubt this strongly, that would be carrying the metaphor too far. Given the patriarchal culture of the time, I see this metaphor as God chosing to map God to the husband so it could be understood as the husband had the power back then.
Hi again John!
I had another question – I was wondering what a “Staff Blogger” is? On the CBMW website you are described as a “Staff Blogger”. Are you paid to blog? It sounds like a great job, to be able to be in dialogue with people about issues that you are passionate about! How long have you been in this role?
Dave
Dave,
No, my position is not “Staff Blogger” officially. I am a blogger that is on staff is all that means. I am the Web Coordinator. But I do enjoy my job.
However, I do not have all the time in the world to respond to every remark on this comment list. Sorry. I hope everyone understands that. I have a wife, three kids, job, etc. Possibly this sort of discussion can be picked up along the way some where else.
Cheers.
John
Mr. Starke,
I would be delighted if you would take the time for at least one. Thanks.
Thanks for letting me know John. It has been a pleasure having you here, please feel free to visit again!
I was wondering if you could just respond to my question about what Ephesians 2:21-33 says that indicates a different application of the gospel for husbands and wives. This is basic to your argument and it should be very easy for you to point me to it, if you would not mind. I do not want to keep you from your wife and children and the responsibility that you have to love them!
If you would like to discuss this or anything else without a horde of happy egals looking on you can email me at dave@achurchinryde.com
Thanks again for dropping in!
Dave
Although John has not had time to come back and answer one simple question, he has found time to post this on the CBMW website.
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Mahaney-Potential-Peril-for-the-Gospel
John appears to appreciate being quoted in full, and yet this clip does not even tell us where from the Bible the speaker is speaking from when he outlines his concerns about what the women’s issue does to the gospel.
I thought we suggested to John that this was not a helpful strategy – driving a wedge through the middle of the church by making the gender issue a gospel issue. Perhaps he has been too busy to come up with another strategy?