But leadership is a different thing. People who are being led are free to respond to - and participate in - leadership in a variety of ways. Good leadership is not a dynamic where one person dictates and another submits.
Leadership does involve leading. They are overseers. But they lead not as lording it over as Peter describes. And of course, there is response. But there is also submission to that leadership--willingly, as the text calls for.
The problem is that when we tell wives that God requires that they basically submit in everything, in every circumstance, then there is a degree of coercion and implied threat. "Obey me or displease God," doesn't leave the devout wife much room to move.
I know this sounds like repeating, but it is still true. We don't tell them. The Scriptures tell them.
Ephesians 5:24 4 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)
The leadership of the church leader is legitimate, and should be submitted to by those being led, for the good of both.
The headship of the husband is legitimate--the text describes it--and should be submitted to by the wife.
But that doesn't mean it is about dictating and commanding constantly. That is now how Christian leadership works. And it is not what Peter or Paul describe.
Then I don't know why some Christians constantly argue for it, rather than placing the emphasis on mutuality and teamwork.
I can't speak for "some Christians". But both mutual submission, and submission specifically of wives to husbands are both spoken of.
So both need emphasis.
It is important for the congregation to hear to cooperate with the persuasion of their leaders, just as it is important for the leaders to hear that they are to lead by example, and not lord it over the flock. Both need emphasis.
But there is leadership, and submission, and even mutual submission and looking out for each other's interests, all happening at once. They are all in the text. So they all need emphasis.
A husband following what Peter and Paul said is not going to ingnore what his wife says, or what she is gifted in.
But if a husband does, what recourse does she have?
Recourse to the church. In situations of violence, etc. recourse to the authorities, in our context where they will actually respond.
This is not a marriage dynamic I would ever consent to.
I did not argue that it was something you would consent to. Nor do I argue that I am the model. I was noting it to point out that there is no need for commanding or dictating, or micro-managing, or anything of the sort to exercise spiritual leadership. And that is not what I am claiming.
You agree that it is not necessary in church leadership to command, or micromanage, or manipulate, etc. And yet it IS still spiritual leadership.
What you seem to disagree with here is that headship even involves leadership. But you do that because you won't acknowledge the oft-repeated call for women to submit to that headship. What I am arguing is that all the elements described in the text must be taken into account.
The text describes headship of the husband, submission for the wife, but in the context of mutual submission, and the husband caring for the interests of the wife, and not being harsh, but honoring her, etc.
I have not heard you give any explanation that includes all the elements listed.
You say that submission of the wife is only a concession to the times. But the text does not say that. It says that the man is head of the wife, as Christ is of the church. This is not an argument based on culture!
It says that holy women of old did this. That is not an argument based on Peter or Paul's culture.
And it says that it is fitting in the Lord:
Colossians 3:18 18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (NKJV)
That is not an argument from the culture.
The text says this:
Ephesians 5:24 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)
But you will not explain it in anything other than saying it is a concession to the culture. But it is not presented as such. It is presented in a section that is counter-culture, by your own admission. What Paul calls them to is not what the culture demands. The culture didn't demand the husband act like Jesus or love his wife as Christ loved the church.
Nor do I agree that the alternative is "constant disagreement."
You will have to spell out your view. But make sure it actually speaks to what the text says.
But if you have two committed people, who place God first, and want what is best for each other, and try to resolve all issues by agreement, it is still possible in a sinful world to have completely different views on the best course of action to take on some important matter. And some decisions need to be made, one way or the other. They cannot be deferred indefinitely, because sometimes that is itself a decision. If after protracted prayer, discussion, potentially seeking outside views for wisdom ,etc. there is no resolution of the different views, I would not call that agreement. I would call it disagreement. And it either needs to be resolved through some means, or it will be constant.
But as with the congregation and its leaders, it is not all about decisions, but about influence, persuasion, example, etc.
Then you don't need to make it all about wifely submission.
I don't make it all about wifely submission. I look at what the texts say, mutual submission, husband following the example of Christ in headship, loving his wife as Christ loves the chuch, showing honor so that his prayers are not hindered, etc. not being bitter towards his wife, etc.
AND with that the texts do describe wifely submission.
I have to include everything the texts say in the picture, and the texts indicate wifely submission. And it does so in a context of describing not a concession to culture, but the following of the example of Christ, in a relationship of headship. It describes it as fitting in the Lord. It describes it as what holy women of the past did. That is not the language of cultural concession.
