Two "models" of Christian Marriage (??)

[_Rick_C]

On another thread, FBF member "JC" posted links to some sermons by a guy named Greg Boyd in Minnesota. I listened to a few of them. Interesting . . . .

Here's a link to: Greg Boyd's Church: Controversial Issues Page

What are the appropriate roles of husband and wife in a Christian marriage?
We affirm that biblical paradigm of a God-centered, agape-oriented covenant marriage relationship. We also recognize the disagreement among evangelical Christians regarding the nature of gender roles within marriage. Some believe the Bible teaches a timeless principle of male headship, where headship is defined as the model of servant-leadership exemplified by Jesus Christ. Others believe that the idea of male headship expressed in Scripture is a culturally-conditioned teaching, and that the ideal model of marriage is that of mutual submission and leadership by gifting, within an egalitarian relationship. We believe that, when guided by the principles of agape-love and servant-leadership, either model of gender roles in marriage can serve to foster God-glorifying covenant-marriages. To that end, we offer the following biblical challenge and encouragement.

(1) To those couples who follow the model of male headship: Husbands strive to avoid both self-centered control and worldly authoritarianism, and seek to exemplify the self-sacrificial servant-leadership demonstrated by our Lord Jesus Christ toward his bride, the church. Wives, strive to avoid both selfish independence or passive apathy in the marriage, and seek to exemplify the active, passionate submission that characterizes the church's love for its eternal groom, Jesus Christ.

(2) To those couples who follow the egalitarian model: Strive to avoid a marriage characterized by indecision, and seek to lead and/or follow in the various areas of your marriage as God has gifted each of you. In all things, exemplify a heart-attitude of submission toward each other, after the pattern of self-sacrificial servanthood demonstrated by our Lord Jesus Christ toward our heavenly Father.

Nothing to comment for now. Just thought this might be well worth looking into.

[Guest]

May I suggest another category, "Complementarian", should be in the poll.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Homer,

I've done a few polls in the forum and after a couple "edits" or so you can't add new categories. (It's too late now).

In Steve's various "relationships" lectures he talks about egalitarian stuff. Unfortunately, I can't recall if it was in "Friendship" or in a marital (or non-marital) relationship lecture.

I think I know what you are getting at though. How the Bible teaches the sexes compliment one another:

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Ge 2:20b-24, NIV)

We could say the Bible teaches a "complementation" in marriage using the above text, and others. The woman is simply said to be the man's "helper" which indicates she is to assist him somehow. This doesn't necessarily solve the the issues of which is the correct model: male headship or egalitarian (?). But it does seem to indicate some kind of subordinance, submissiveness, or secondary "rank" (for lack of vocabulary) on the woman's part.

Btw, I haven't voted yet . . . .
Interesting reply, Homer.

[Guest]

Hello Homer,

I think I know what you are getting at though. How the Bible teaches the sexes compliment one another:

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Ge 2:20b-24, NIV)

We could say the Bible teaches a "complementation" in marriage using the above text, and others. The woman is simply said to be the man's "helper" which indicates she is to assist him somehow. This doesn't necessarily solve the the issues of which is the correct model: male headship or egalitarian (?). But it does seem to indicate some kind of subordinance, submissiveness, or secondary "rank" (for lack of vocabulary) on the woman's part.

Hey Rick C,
I don't understand what you mean by the part I bolded in your quote. What about those verses indicates to you subordinance, submissiveness, or secondary "rank" (for lack of vocabulary) on the woman's part? I'm not starting an argument here, it's just not clear to me.
Thanks,
Michelle

[_Rick_C]

Hi Michelle,

I couldn't log in to the forum for a while but Derek helped me fix it.
He "helped" me? Yes, he did!

What about those verses indicates to you subordinance, submissiveness, or secondary "rank" (for lack of vocabulary) on the woman's part?

I'm not sure what I meant, either.
So I looked it up in the neXt bible:
the Hebrew word translated as "helper" is:
Pronunciation: "ay'-zer"
Origin: from 05826
Reference: TWOT - 1598a
PrtSpch: noun masculine
In AV: help 19, help meet 2
Count: 21
Definition: 1) help, succour
1a) help, succour
1b) one who helps from 5826; aid:-help.

My wording and focus wasn't quite right! Taking my needing help to log in as an example; actually it was I who was in a subordinate position! Iow, I needed help. Derek could do what I couldn't (by myself) by helping me log back in. So, in this sense, it was he who had "rank" in that he could do what I couldn't. With Derek's "aid" and my submitting to his instructions ... I got back in the forum. Also, the added meaning of "succour" has nothing at all to do with any kind of submission, rank, and so on.

Thanks for calling me on this, Michelle. I stand corrected! I think I need cuppa cawfee #2 .... To be honest, I don't know what I was thinking! I feel stupid, lol TYVM tho

[Guest]

My understanding of "complimentarian" is that the husband and wife compliment each other. They are different and together can function in a superior manner in comparison to a same sex couple in regard to raising children. They serve one another. The model is Christ and His Church where, although He is head, He is also servant.

(My wife and I are the old-fashioned couple - I held a job while she worked hard being a mom and homemaker, a treasure. Complementarian for almost 48 years now. It works!)

[Guest]

Hi Michelle,

I couldn't log in to the forum for a while but Derek helped me fix it.
He "helped" me? Yes, he did!

What about those verses indicates to you subordinance, submissiveness, or secondary "rank" (for lack of vocabulary) on the woman's part?

I'm not sure what I meant, either.
So I looked it up in the neXt bible:
the Hebrew word translated as "helper" is:
Pronunciation: "ay'-zer"
Origin: from 05826
Reference: TWOT - 1598a
PrtSpch: noun masculine
In AV: help 19, help meet 2
Count: 21
Definition: 1) help, succour
1a) help, succour
1b) one who helps from 5826; aid:-help.

My wording and focus wasn't quite right! Taking my needing help to log in as an example; actually it was I who was in a subordinate position! Iow, I needed help. Derek could do what I couldn't (by myself) by helping me log back in. So, in this sense, it was he who had "rank" in that he could do what I couldn't. With Derek's "aid" and my submitting to his instructions ... I got back in the forum. Also, the added meaning of "succour" has nothing at all to do with any kind of submission, rank, and so on.

Thanks for calling me on this, Michelle. I stand corrected! I think I need cuppa cawfee #2 .... To be honest, I don't know what I was thinking! I feel stupid, lol TYVM tho

Hi Rick,
I wasn't trying to call you on anything, I just wanted you to explain your thinking because I thought I was missing something. Sorry if it was me that made you feel stupid...if I brought you that cup of coffee, freshly ground and carefully brewed, would it make you feel better?

[_Rick_C]

Homer,

Congratulations, to you and your wife. Almost 48 years is awesome! I admire old fashioned couples, including younger folks who are doing it today. There aren't as many as there used to be, but these families are so closely-knit-together! Some of my young(er) cousins (in their early 30's) have this lifestyle. They may not have as much material stuff ... but everything is family!

Michelle,

Thanks, but No Thank You, Ma'am.
The Bible sez it is the man's job to make the cawfee:
I think it's in the booka "He Brews"....

On a more serious note, though, I was embarrassed because:
How did I get that out of the text? It's just not there!
(and I'm supposed to be "big" on exegesis & hermeneutics).
In any event, I just got off work and made some cawfee.
If this cup kicks in I may even vote ....

[Guest]

Rick, maybe I should let it pass, but it bugs me. It's a minor point, and I'm sure some of you would also consider it to be a "stupid point."

You signed as "ixthus". This is confusing. You transliterated the Greek letter "theta" as "th". By the same token, you should transliterate the Greek letter "chi" as "ch". The English letter "x" is not the transliteration of "chi" but is the transliteration of "xi", (even though the Greek letter "chi" resembles the English "x", whereas "xi" does not.

I would demonstrate this with Greek letters, except that I suspect most posters here, do not have a Greek font in their font list on their computers. For that reason, the Greek letters would be seen in some other font, and things would be even more confusing.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Paidion,

"The fish sign" as an aside to the thread.
(How you "say" and write (in English):
You probably know you say "ikthuce."

In English it can be represented by any of the following:
ixthus (this is the most common)
ixthys
ichthus
ichtys
ichthys
ICTYS
IXThYE (like you see in Greek caps in my icon which is a pic from an ancient church). "Th" being the capital Theta.

My first nick on the web was, and still is, "ikthuce4u" (in Beliefnet which I quit for the most part (due to deletion of my posts by this liberal "tolerant" org.: NOT) and it's my yahoo i.d.

You signed as "ixthus". This is confusing. You transliterated the Greek letter "theta" as "th". By the same token, you should transliterate the Greek letter "chi" as "ch". The English letter "x" is not the transliteration of "chi" but is the transliteration of "xi", (even though the Greek letter "chi" resembles the English "x", whereas "xi" does not.

As above, this "ixthus" is the common way it is used in English, especially on the web: (you can Google it for examples). There are organizations and even a music fest that are "IXTHUS" (now in caps). The Greek letter "chi" looks like an X both in Greek and English. Some people transliterate it as "ch" or "C" (e.g., Christ; Greek, Xristos: direct from Greek to English here). I went with the "x" and used lower case. Since there is no one letter replacement for Theta it is commonly typed out as "th". I suppose the upper case would be more technically accurate for the fish sign. But folks usually use the lower case on the web.

Btw, you aren't "wrong." Nor am I. It's just a matter of how a person chooses to type it in English. There's alot involved here, I know!

At B-Greek Mailing List you will see that, if "they" were posting here, it would be: ><IXQUS>!!! I sometimes use B-Greek transliterations when posting about the Greek. Anyways... gtg to work....