Looking forward to this series. While I have been an egalitarian for quite some time (I would call myself a moderate complimentarian in Bible College, many decades ago) doing some digging into first century Roman household codes has significantly impacted the way I preach these passages. Paul is speaking into a strict hierarchy that wasn’t just “the norm”—it was perceived as “for the benefit of society”—and he turns it inside-out! I believe his statement “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…” was as radically subversive as “kurios christos” was.
If today’s complimentarians focused on that mandate of radical, self-sacrificing love (for wife, children and slaves!), and not on who needs to submit to them, they would sound a lot more like Jesus, and a lot less like the young James and John…
As a person who never pulls apart a cinnamon pull-apart (in my part of the world called a cinnamon roll) and simply takes a bite, I found the choice of cover photo intriguing before I read the article.
Really the photo should have been of monkeybread, which is more interchangeable with cinnamon pull-apart, but alas, Substack’s integrated free stock photos are limited!
I really thought the way it was going to be integrated was that you were going to take a turn and dunk on the tradwife movement, which would have been fine, but this was much more interesting.
I appreciate the non-use of ai to make the cover photo. I've seen too many of those on my feed this morning.
Hey Catherine! I'm surprised (I guess like you) about the pushback that you received on your note! Was it mostly because of the idea that husbands should submit to wives (or men to women)? (Even though Eph. 5 passage at least is already in the context of mutual submission within the Christian community). Was it also related to the fact that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and his people in the Eph. 5 passage? (I'm toying with idea that comp. and egal. theology also points to different understandings of Christ and his relationship to the church / us).
Any ways, love that you're making this a series. Hope you get good engagement. I would love to hear your perspective about submission is within the Christian context and what it entails and doesn't. (I think that could be an important conversation too). Excited for it! Will keep my eyes opened. :)
So I'd ultimately agree with them, in that Christ's will is not subordinate to the Church's.
But is that the only relevant aspect of submission? Christ elevated the Church's well-being above his own; he sacrificed his life for it. Further, his way of bringing the Church under his will was discipleship, teaching, and prayer, rarely a strict exercise of authority.
The disciples tried to do what Christ wanted, but they weren't micromanaged, and their mistakes were generally met with patient instruction, despite the fact that unlike a man, Christ's directions would always be correct.
That's the kind of thing I meant the other day where people might be arguing against different understandings of what the words mean.
As one of the people that was more vocal on your note, I appreciate your approach to thoroughly covering this topic. I strongly believe that while both egalitarian and complementarian approaches to these verses contain both truth and fallacy. Hierarchy and submission can exist together, and submission can exist in distinct forms. I look forward to the rest of the series and the conversation that will come from it!
You know much more about the historical context than I do - are the "parents and children" being addressed literally parents and minors, or does that include grown children who are part of the household? One of the things I find modern churchgoers often forget is that the head-of-household position they imagine was NOT the role of every adult male, and that many fully grown men and women were part of households in which they did not hold the authority. Do you think the words to children apply to these people? (Genuine question, not argumentative.) I've tried to point out to fellow believers that early Christians were not living in the American nuclear family unit of the 20th century, and I often get blank stares!
In context, it includes grown children, including those who aren’t even still part of the household! (For example, in most Roman marriages, a woman was under the legal control of her father more than her husband.)
I am excited for this series. While my beliefs do not align with this take on gender roles, (within a church context) it is super nice to observe nuance being dealt with in a non-aggressive way. It makes it quite easy to read you work, happy to be on this journey.
I look forward to reading what you come up with. It was relatively easy for me to understand the concept of a letter's having been written to a congregation with issues which needed to be addressed. I don't know why it took me so long to come to a similar interpretation of the Gospels. I think that I got wrapped up in the fringes of the Quest for Jesus. I have far more books on Jesus than I do on the Gospels.
With my roots in the CofC, I have no complaints with your interpretation. Preach on!
You know it's funny my family was also Church of Christ but also our church used instruments so I was baffled to get into adulthood and realize the rest of our "totally not a denomination" was against instruments. Anyway I look forward to this series!
Looking forward to reading your writing on this (and comparing it to the Catechism of the Catholic church!)
The only thing I'll say for now is that I believe all three still literally apply. Slavery has now been done away with, but the relationship described there still exists between employers and employees. I never thought of that passage as a metaphor, but as a command for a real thing that existed until fairly recently!
Catherine, love the posture and the challenge here! Pushing for interpretive consistency across the entire household code rather than picking and choosing which clauses to pull apart is so necessary. Excited to follow along!
So glad that you pointed out the importance of consistency. A lot of Christians fail in this area. A good example is Matthew 5. I've always found it peculiar that Americans get all fussy over sex, but violence . . . no big deal. It's largely the opposite in Germany.
If you're going to be offended by one thing, you should be equally offended by the other to be consistent.
I appreciate the methodical approach, here. Looking forward to the next installments—particularly the treatment of slaves/masters.
Thank you! Slavery has been my area of academic focus for the last couple of years, so it will definitely not get short-shrifted!
“By no means” 😘 cute
I feel so seen!
Looking forward to this series. While I have been an egalitarian for quite some time (I would call myself a moderate complimentarian in Bible College, many decades ago) doing some digging into first century Roman household codes has significantly impacted the way I preach these passages. Paul is speaking into a strict hierarchy that wasn’t just “the norm”—it was perceived as “for the benefit of society”—and he turns it inside-out! I believe his statement “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…” was as radically subversive as “kurios christos” was.
If today’s complimentarians focused on that mandate of radical, self-sacrificing love (for wife, children and slaves!), and not on who needs to submit to them, they would sound a lot more like Jesus, and a lot less like the young James and John…
As a person who never pulls apart a cinnamon pull-apart (in my part of the world called a cinnamon roll) and simply takes a bite, I found the choice of cover photo intriguing before I read the article.
Good article nonetheless.
Really the photo should have been of monkeybread, which is more interchangeable with cinnamon pull-apart, but alas, Substack’s integrated free stock photos are limited!
I really thought the way it was going to be integrated was that you were going to take a turn and dunk on the tradwife movement, which would have been fine, but this was much more interesting.
I appreciate the non-use of ai to make the cover photo. I've seen too many of those on my feed this morning.
I have no quarrel with anyone who makes a good cream-cheese frosted cinnamon roll. 😂
Hey Catherine! I'm surprised (I guess like you) about the pushback that you received on your note! Was it mostly because of the idea that husbands should submit to wives (or men to women)? (Even though Eph. 5 passage at least is already in the context of mutual submission within the Christian community). Was it also related to the fact that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and his people in the Eph. 5 passage? (I'm toying with idea that comp. and egal. theology also points to different understandings of Christ and his relationship to the church / us).
Any ways, love that you're making this a series. Hope you get good engagement. I would love to hear your perspective about submission is within the Christian context and what it entails and doesn't. (I think that could be an important conversation too). Excited for it! Will keep my eyes opened. :)
Yes! Most of the pushback was in the vein of “submission is unidirectional in marriage because Christ doesn’t submit to the church.”
So I'd ultimately agree with them, in that Christ's will is not subordinate to the Church's.
But is that the only relevant aspect of submission? Christ elevated the Church's well-being above his own; he sacrificed his life for it. Further, his way of bringing the Church under his will was discipleship, teaching, and prayer, rarely a strict exercise of authority.
The disciples tried to do what Christ wanted, but they weren't micromanaged, and their mistakes were generally met with patient instruction, despite the fact that unlike a man, Christ's directions would always be correct.
That's the kind of thing I meant the other day where people might be arguing against different understandings of what the words mean.
Insightful reframing here, for egals and comps alike. Great stuff as always!
Particularly appreciate this question: "How would these verses have sounded to their original audience?"
As one of the people that was more vocal on your note, I appreciate your approach to thoroughly covering this topic. I strongly believe that while both egalitarian and complementarian approaches to these verses contain both truth and fallacy. Hierarchy and submission can exist together, and submission can exist in distinct forms. I look forward to the rest of the series and the conversation that will come from it!
You know much more about the historical context than I do - are the "parents and children" being addressed literally parents and minors, or does that include grown children who are part of the household? One of the things I find modern churchgoers often forget is that the head-of-household position they imagine was NOT the role of every adult male, and that many fully grown men and women were part of households in which they did not hold the authority. Do you think the words to children apply to these people? (Genuine question, not argumentative.) I've tried to point out to fellow believers that early Christians were not living in the American nuclear family unit of the 20th century, and I often get blank stares!
In context, it includes grown children, including those who aren’t even still part of the household! (For example, in most Roman marriages, a woman was under the legal control of her father more than her husband.)
The scary thing is that some of the patriarchy-advocates might like that idea!
Can you not post pics of cinnamon rolls? Some of us are over here choking down our high fiber cereal and trying to be thankful.
I am excited for this series. While my beliefs do not align with this take on gender roles, (within a church context) it is super nice to observe nuance being dealt with in a non-aggressive way. It makes it quite easy to read you work, happy to be on this journey.
I look forward to reading what you come up with. It was relatively easy for me to understand the concept of a letter's having been written to a congregation with issues which needed to be addressed. I don't know why it took me so long to come to a similar interpretation of the Gospels. I think that I got wrapped up in the fringes of the Quest for Jesus. I have far more books on Jesus than I do on the Gospels.
With my roots in the CofC, I have no complaints with your interpretation. Preach on!
You know it's funny my family was also Church of Christ but also our church used instruments so I was baffled to get into adulthood and realize the rest of our "totally not a denomination" was against instruments. Anyway I look forward to this series!
My dad was converted to Christianity by an Instrumental Church of Christ guy!
Looking forward to reading your writing on this (and comparing it to the Catechism of the Catholic church!)
The only thing I'll say for now is that I believe all three still literally apply. Slavery has now been done away with, but the relationship described there still exists between employers and employees. I never thought of that passage as a metaphor, but as a command for a real thing that existed until fairly recently!
Catherine, love the posture and the challenge here! Pushing for interpretive consistency across the entire household code rather than picking and choosing which clauses to pull apart is so necessary. Excited to follow along!
So glad that you pointed out the importance of consistency. A lot of Christians fail in this area. A good example is Matthew 5. I've always found it peculiar that Americans get all fussy over sex, but violence . . . no big deal. It's largely the opposite in Germany.
If you're going to be offended by one thing, you should be equally offended by the other to be consistent.