Part 4 - Egalitarian Relationship Not Ruling Authority
The Body of Christ is the sum of many equal parts, with each having a specific function according to God’s apportioning of complimentary gifts for the good of the whole. However, many in the Church continue to debate who’s in charge and this often depends on the interpretation we place on Ephesians 5:21-33. Ironically, non-Christians seem to have less disagreement about the idea of equality in a marriage, but the church is divided on theological grounds. Some interesting statistics have shown that couples who live egalitarian relationships have happier, healthier, more intimate, more meaningful, and generally longer-lasting relationships than many Christian counterparts.
The Genesis account is compelling in its support for egalitarian marriages, as opposed to a misrepresentation of “headship” within the patriarchal template that some in the Church like to propose. How we apply Patriarchal authority today is more about deciding who's in charge and has little in common with a biblical definition of “headship”. If headship authority defines who’s in charge, rather than a line of accountability to God a marriage is likely to end in divorce. Interpreting headship as “who’s in charge” is responsible for many marriage breakdowns, and tensions within Church leadership.
The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology defines marriage as a co-partnership of equal parts where "neither rules over the other." This represents an egalitarian view of marriage. The Genesis account also attests to this approach and only becomes contentious when the doctrine of headship is introduced. The egalitarian approach is described as a mutual partnership without forced roles, and characterized by a high degree of intimacy. In contrast, a traditional hierarchical view of marriage has distinct roles with the husband in authority over the wife. Traditionalists claim this view should find an echo in every human heart because the root problem in marriage, they say, "is an unwillingness of each to accept the role for which he or she was designed." If this statement were true, marriages based on hierarchical relationships should be the happiest and most intimate of all marriages and have the lowest divorce rate. However, in many countries, born-again evangelical Christian divorce rates are little better. Penn State sociologists, Drs. Alan Booth and Paul Amato have stated, that if a wife changes from a patriarchal marriage to an egalitarian one, she'll be much happier, and much less likely to look for a way out. In the long run, the husbands are happier too.
Why do I believe that God created an egalitarian blueprint for marriage relationships? Because God’s perfection was manifest in the creation of Adam and Eve. They were equal and free, without sin, and in perfect relationship to himself. Neither were acquainted with or motivated by a desire for power and control and we place too much on the meaning of “help mate” In God’ creation, no separation of responsibility is defined by power and authority. The story suggests that both were equally responsible for looking after the garden and their roles were undefined, until after the fall. In the New Testament, we find Jesus drawing us back to the same egalitarian principles, where the body of believers would be released from the laws that bound and controlled them. They would become a counter-culture to the prevailing patriarchal religious order of the day (1Cor12:14-31), where there is a separation of authority but these roles would be exemplified by sacrifice. This is only possible if individual sovereignty is acknowledged and rests within an objective moral framework, outside our time domain. Second, headship must be defined as a line of accountability, not who’s in charge.
For Adam and Eve, the consequences of sin included shame, pride, pain, and separation from God. We’ve suffered the consequences of sin ever since. For women, this is seen in the pain of childbearing and unfrequented love. A Woman’s desire would be for a relationship, but the husband would “rule” over and crush her, and to a greater or lesser degree depending on the culture in question, this has been the case. Gen 3:16: To the woman, he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain, you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." The word for rule is the “verb”, mashal /maw·shal. A primitive root, occurrences; AV translates as “rule” 38 times, “ruler” 19 times, “reign” eight times, “dominion” seven times, “governor” four times, “ruled over” twice, and “power” twice. To reign, rule, have dominion, cause to rule, to exercise dominion. This predisposition, introduced by sin, is not what God intended in the beginning, but it’s been the prevailing reality for humanity and all relationships between men and women. Men have often wielded ruling power in tribes, families, businesses, corporations, nations and empires. Without wanting to distinguish the good from the bad, gender differences or personal preferences, the fact remains that sin has ruled and controlled the corridors of life, exactly as the Genesis account predicted it would. No matter how much we might like to reject the verb “rule” it cannot be interpreted in any way, other than controlling authority. Only through God can we find a better path that respects the biblical account.
The underlying appetite for sin will never be extinguished. All Christians continue to sin and make conscious choices between doing what is right, and doing what is wrong. Why, because God said, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Being “born again” and filled with the Holy Spirit does not remove us from the temptation of sin, it saves us from the punishment of sin. By changing how we think and act toward each other, Christ becomes the cornerstone and the plumbline by which we test right from wrong.
