mutuality in marriage

The Blessed Alliance w/ Carolyn Custis James - Ep. 140

SHOW NOTES:

Carolyn Custis James talks to us about The Blessed Alliance; the real purpose of the marriage between men and women in light of the mission of God; and the Bible as a foreign text set in the context of patriarchy. It’s a conversation you don’t want to miss!

RESOURCE LINKS:

carolyncustisjames.com

Malestrom: Manhood Swept into the Currents of a Changing World

Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women

When Life and Beliefs Collide: How Knowing God Makes a Difference

The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules

Podcast Editing by: Evan Duszynski

Music by: John Tibbs

Mutuality Matters w/ Blake Dean & Reverend Erin Moniz - Ep. 139

Mutuality Matters on the Brave Marriage Podcast

SHOW NOTES:

Reverend Erin Moniz and Blake Dean talk to us about why mutuality matters for Christian couples, for the church at large, and how it’s impacted their marriages in different stages. If you enjoyed this conversation, be sure to tune in to the Mutuality Matters Podcast, part of the CBE International media network!

RESOURCE LINKS:

CBE International

Mutuality Matters Podcast

Podcast Editing by: Evan Duszynski, MA

Music by: John Tibbs

Another Look at Ephesians 5 - Ep. 138

SHOW NOTES:

When read in light of Aristotle’s household codes, Ephesians 5 means something completely different than what we’ve made it mean today. If Christ is the head and collectively, we are the body and bride of Christ, what does this mean for the way we live out our faith, our family relationships, and our fellowship with the family of God?

If you’ve learned something new here and are enjoying this series on “Marriage, Mutuality, and Gender Roles,” please leave a rating & review!

Podcasting by: Kensi Duszynski, MA, LMFT, CPC

Editing by: Evan Duszynski, MA

Music by: John Tibbs

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Hey friends, welcome back this week to the Brave Marriage Podcast. If you’re just joining us, we’re in the middle of a series on Marriage, Mutuality, and Gender Roles, and so far, we’ve covered the history of Christian marriage in the modern word, mid-century teachings on Christian marriage, for better or worse, we’ve talked to a few couples who would consider themselves mutualists or egalitarians, and a few weeks ago, we took a look at what Genesis 1–3 has to say about marriage, mutuality, and gender roles, so if you haven’t taken a listen to that, you can find it, it’s episode 136. And today, we’re taking a look at the infamous Ephesians 5 passage to see what Paul has to say about marriage, mutuality, and gender roles. 

I gave a talk a few weeks ago to Asbury’s gender equality club on the differences between a male headship model of marriage and a true partnership model of marriage, and as some of the students and I got to talking at the end, one thing that came up was how in evangelical Christianity, we can tend to pick and choose Paul’s words based on what we want him to say, without realizing that Paul’s letters to the Colossians, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, Timothy—they are not letters primarily about marriage or gender roles, they are letters to the earliest Christ followers on Christian living in that time and culture, based on the teachings and ministry of Christ! In all of Paul’s teaching, unlike ours a lot of times, His theology and Christology is rich. 

But today, or it seems to me since the ‘70s and even more so in the ‘90s and early 2000s, we the church have gotten caught up in cherry-picking parts of Paul’s writing that apply specifically to marriage and qualifications for ministry in that time and culture, while neglecting to whole of Paul’s writings, which are relaying a foundation for the Christian faith, based on the teachings, ministry, and life of Jesus Christ, encouraging each of the early churches to remember that they are family, that together, they make up the body and bride of Christ, and that together, Christ has called us to unity, to be one—not a false unity, where people in the church are peacekeepers rather than peacemakers, not a false unity, where people aren’t allowed to think or discern or discuss truth amongst themselves, but a differentiated unity, where each member of the body is valued because of what he or she brings spiritually, and where each member is allowed to be whom God created him or her to be, while at the same time, living in righteousness and right relationship with God and with each other. It’s only after putting Christ above all else that Paul then gives specific instructions to each particular church on how they are to live, based on what they’re struggling with in their cultural contexts. 

In the episode I did on Genesis 1-3, the question we asked at the end was, if God is good, if He is loving, if He created us with full equality and co-rulership over creation, then how, as Christian couples who await the return of Christ, should we live in the here and now? Well, after Jesus ascended after his earthly ministry and left us with the Holy Spirit who helps us and empowers us to be the kingdom of God on earth, Paul spent the rest of his life trying to tell various people and churches how to do just that. And so I believe we could be helped by taking a look at how Jesus taught us to do that before reading Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

As mentioned in episode 136, when the religious leaders came to test Jesus to ask which of God’s commandments was the greatest, Jesus replied in Matthew 22:36-40: “‘Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

In John 13, Jesus tells us to love and serve one another. 

In John 15:12, He said, “My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you.” 

Are you seeing a theme here? Jesus’ heart and vision for the church was much bigger than the nuclear family. His desire was that people of every tribe, tongue, and nation, Jew, Gentile, slave, free, rich, poor, male, female, would know God, love Him, serve Him, and follow His example. We’ll talk in a little while about what Jesus had to say about marriage, but what I want us to understand is that Jesus was concerned with the whole world, and especially the least of these. That His kingdom be expanded in an upside down way, at least, from what we’re all too familiar with in the world. 

In John 17, in His prayer for His followers, His church, His bride, Jesus declares Himself as having authority over all mankind. He prays for those who believe in Him to have eternal life, that they may know God the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Himself who glorified God while on earth by accomplishing the work the Father had given him to do. 

Then He asks the Father, He says in verse 11-12: “I am no longer going to be in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, so that they may be one just as We are,” moving to verse 22, “that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me.” 

Are you seeing a theme here? 

Okay, so Jesus’ teachings are what Paul has on the forefront of his mind when he writes his letters to the earliest churches, including his letter to the Ephesians. In fact, Paul instructs the churches to love one another as often as Jesus did, and what’s more is that he gives the Church instructions for how to treat one another on 59 different occasions, which one author, Robert Sang, has broken down into 4 themes: love, unity, humble servanthood, and edification and encouragement. 

I’ll link his article and this next list in the full transcript on my website, but this is how we are to treat one another as believers as the body and bride of Christ. We are all, as one body, instructed to live in the following ways with one another:

With love, honor, devotion, harmony, encouragement, acceptance, admonishment, teaching, care, service, confession, forgiveness, patience, truth, kindness, compassion, submission, humility, forbearance, prayer, comfort, exhortation, edification, hospitality, likemindedness, stewardship of our spiritual gifts for the sake of one another, and mutually spurring one another on to love and good works. 

Thus, having started with the teachings of Jesus, which informed the teachings of Paul as he relayed them to various churches, it’s from this place that I want us to come to the book of Ephesians. 

In Ephesians chapter 1, Paul recounts the goodness of God, the blessing of redemption, and the headship of Christ in verse 22. In Ephesians 2-4, Paul reminds the church that all of them, Jews and Gentiles alike, are saved by faith in Jesus Christ so that no one should boast about their righteousness, their privileges, or any religious or cultural entitlements. Rather, Paul wants the early church in Ephesus to understand that unity and oneness are the priority, and that everyone is responsible for stewarding their spiritual gifts and building up the body of Christ. Everyone is responsible for leaving hardness of heart and sin behind them, and instead, walking together as one, just the way Christ taught us and prayed for us before he died, so that the church may be built up as a place for the Spirit of God to dwell, and as signpost for the world at-large, that they may know Jesus—just as Jesus prayed in John 17. 

In Ephesians 3, Paul talks about his work on behalf of the Gentile believers, helping them understand the mystery of Christ and the Church—that the Gentiles, like the Jews, are fellow heirs and members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise. Remember the promise that God made when He told the serpent He’d send His Son to make a way for all of humanity, for those who believe, to be reconciled with Him? This—Christ—is the mystery that’s recently been revealed to believers in the 1st century AD. 

In Ephesians 4, Paul turns from a recap of Christian theology, to instructions for Christian practice. Paul tells the Ephesian church to walk in a manner worthy of their callings in Christ, so that every member of the church might mature and grow up into Him who is the head, that is, Christ. 

Are you getting a good picture of these metaphors? Christ is the head; we are His body. Paul has now emphasized this twice. Christ is the bridegroom; we are the bride. His desire for us is oneness, unity, togetherness, that we might serve Him, and point to Him, by mutually submitting to one another. 

This is the mystery of the Gospel that Paul is referring to. That in Christ, we are no longer Jew nor Gentile (Eph. 3:4-6), man nor woman (Eph. 5:31-32), slave nor free (Eph. 6:9)—we are one. 

So, given Paul’s culture, he gives instructions for how various culturally hierarchical relationships should operate—husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters. But counter to his culture, Paul boldly proclaims a different household code, and then in chapter 6, asks the Ephesian church for prayer, that he might keep boldly proclaiming this mystery of the Gospel and its radically countercultural implications!

So get this, here’s what I mean by household code: The Greco-Roman culture had their own hierarchical structure for family life, known as paterfamilias, a Latin word for “male head of the household.” This meant that families were structured with husbands as heads of households and owners of family estates, unless a woman was single and had inherited an estate herself. And culturally, their household codes were based on the teachings of Greek philosophers', which structured authority in the family and in society, hierarchically. Aristotle, in particular, called this the science of household management, basing his ideas on the belief that only the culturally dominant male was fully rational, whereas everyone else had lesser deliberative and reasoning capacities. To quote Aristotle in work, Politics: “the slave has not got the deliberative part at all…the woman has it, but without full authority…[and] the child has it, but in an underdeveloped form.” 

Now, I’d heard about the ancient household codes that families, or paterfamilias, abided by during this time, but I’d never taken the time to read Aristotle’s translated writing until a couple of weeks ago. So I want to read parts of Politics to you so that you can see for yourself how radically different Paul’s teaching to the Ephesian church was. 

From Book 1 [1259a]:

“And since, as we saw, the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before, one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugal—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government)…[1259b] …for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. 

Aristotle goes on to say that a man rules over his children as a monarch, whereas a man rules over his wife as an interactive republic, yet with the permanency of husband as ruler, and the wife as ruled; same for master and slave. The logic here is, men, women, children, and slaves have different reasoning capacities and moral virtues which determine the positions they hold within the domestic economy. Furthermore, the point of this social structure is, very clearly, what Aristotle calls, “the art of wealth-getting.” He says that all are needed within this economy to play their appropriate parts, because without male rulers to delegate, wives to focus exclusively on domestic and administrative duties, and slaves to carry out manual labor and other menial tasks within the household, the household system will fail to operate in a way that makes the art of wealth-getting inefficient and unproductive. But Aristotle does ruminate over whether or not everyone within the household is a full human being…and here’s what he concludes: 

Book 1 [1260a]:

“It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled). 

…Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. …Hence it is manifest that all the personas mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same…one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination…”

I don’t know about you, but the Greco-Roman household codes sound a lot like the logic behind Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to me, which is disappointing because we’re thousands of years from Aristotle and yet, his and others’ ideas linger, despite research, modernity, and common sense totally refuting them. Nonetheless, this is the philosophical and familial context in which Paul was delivering a Christ-centered message to the Jews and the Gentiles. 

So with an understanding of the hierarchical household codes, which were in place for economic efficiency, political gain, and designed for the art of wealth-getting, we now return to Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 5:1-2:

[Verse 1-2]: “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us…”

So, God’s example is love for His children and we are to walk in His ways. How do we do that? Well, take Christ, for example, the Son of God who came in human form, took on flesh, loved us as God does, and laid down His life that we might live. Jesus did not concern himself with political gain or wealth-building; rather, He explicitly taught and modeled that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That is how we, as men and women, are to live as the church, loving each other and laying down our lives for one another, as the metaphorical representation of the body and bride of Christ.

Ephesians 5:3-7: 

[Verse 3-7]: “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. There should not be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure, or greedy person…has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (remember, we got a picture of that kingdom in Revelation 22, with the throne of the Lamb and of God in the city of the tree of life). Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Do not be partners with them.”

Okay, let’s think about this. Let’s think about what kinds of sexual immorality are being exposed in evangelical church leadership right now. Let’s think about the impurity that goes on between couples even in marriage, as Hebrews 13:4 says. Let’s think about the greed and vanity metrics that are often sought after in Christian circles. Or the obscenity or foolish talking (of which I, myself, have been guilty) or the coarse joking that goes on (of which others have been guilty, like telling members of the body of Christ “to go home”). Equally as serious as the instructions Paul gives for how husbands and wives are to live in marriage, Paul says, no immoral, impure, or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God, just as Jesus told the religious leaders and Pharisees in Matthew 23, among other places! This is serious business, but conveniently, this gets forgotten by the time we get to Ephesians 5:22.

That’s why, as the Church, we have to talk about these things openly and honestly. So that we can confess our sins and grow in maturity and into him, who is the head, Christ. 

Ephesians 5:8, 11-13:

[Verse 8; 11-13]: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light and find out what pleases the Lord…. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It’s shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret, but everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.”

Now, this is a refrain from how Paul starts his instructions for Christian living in Ephesians 4:17-25. And we’re going to leave the middle of chapter 5 for a moment to understand what Paul wrote in chapter 4. In chapter 4, Paul says, essentially, do not live as those who listen to Aristotle’s teachings live. They’re darkened in understanding and separated from God due to the hardness of their hearts. They’ve given themselves over to sensuality, impurity, and they are full of greed. But that is not the teaching of Christ or obedience to the Truth that is in Jesus. 

And if this language sounds familiar to you, it’s because Paul, in chapter 4, is using the language of Jesus to talk to the church in Ephesus. Let’s take a look at Jesus’ conversation with the Jewish religious elite in Matthew 19:3-8

“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?’ And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” They said to Him, ‘Why, then, did Moses give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

In other words, everything may be permissible, but not everything is beneficial, especially when you are to be living as one in Jesus Christ. So you can structure your families and paterfamilias as the Greco-Roman household codes instruct. But know that as Christ-followers, you are called to something different, a different way of life! You’ve been given a new life, a new self, so put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore, Paul says in Ephesians 4:25, each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.

And what does Paul say about being one body? Oh yeah, that Christ, the head, gave the church, the members of his body, new life, new status, new legacy, and gifts to equip his people for works of service, until we all reach unity in the faith and in knowledge of the Son of God. And Paul says in 4:14 that once we, Christ’s body, live like this, then we will no longer be infants in our understanding of Scripture, but we will be mature, full grown ups in Christ, who is the head. So whether we’re male, female, black, white, rich, poor, do you think that Christ desires for us to be an immature, greedy, underdeveloped body? No, chapter 4 verse 16 says that from Christ, the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting part, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

This is a very different model from the art of wealth-getting that Aristotle describes, where humans are thought of not entirely equally, but hierarchically according to Aristotle’s philosophy of people’s mental capacities. In Greco-Roman culture, the family is structured: husband-wife-child-slave. But in Christ, according to Paul’s letter, the family is structured: Christ-Church. Period. We are one, all of us seen as children and valued members of His household, His kingdom. 

And if one, then this is how we are to live. Paul addresses everyone in the church at Ephesus as dearly loved children, asking them, as a parent would ask siblings to be kind to one another, to sacrifice for one another, and to submit to one another in love for the sake of the family of God, and in submission to Jesus Christ, our Lord. 

Furthermore, in contrast to Aristotle’s teaching, Paul does not disrespect women, children, or slaves at that time by talking to the men in the church about them.

Instead, after calling them siblings and children and God, Paul totally subverts Aristotle’s pairings, his three divisions of household management, by directly addressing wives first, and husbands second, giving husbands nearly double the instructions for Christian living. Paul then addresses children first and fathers second, and in chapter 6, slaves first and masters second—reminding all that God does not show favoritism. Just as Jesus would’ve done. And Paul, even in his teaching and writing, is modeling the way of Christ in laying down his place as a Jewish man and Roman citizen in that culture by directly engaging women, children, and the cultural “least of these.” 

Jumping to Ephesians 5:21-24:

[Verse 21-24]: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, (submit yourselves) to your own husbands as (you do) to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 

Now, how is Christ the head of the church? Well, I’ll tell you what, he doesn’t proclaim his status in any sort of entitled way or come down on others, except when speaking Truth to those who are acting entitled, proud, and hypocritical, as He does in Matthew 23. Instead, Christ is the head of the church in that He modeled what He told us in Matthew 23:11-12, that “the greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Just as Paul wrote Christ was, in Philippians 2:3-9, when he said:

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness…therefore God exalted him to the highest place…”

This is how Christ is the head of the church. In other words, when Paul says “the husband is the head of the wife” or “wives, submit to your own husbands,” we tend to stop our reading there rather than completing Paul’s thoughts. The actual phrase is “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, which Paul goes on to explain. In other words, “Your cultural context is telling you that your husband is the head of the household, and this is nothing new to you. But what I’m telling you is that, husbands, you are to demonstrate your headship, or your privilege as paterfamilia, in the same way that Christ demonstrated his headship with you. He didn’t lord it over you. He didn’t pride himself on leading you well. Instead, he made himself nothing, caring more about people than profit, more about being faithful to the least of these than being first, and more about subverting cultural expectations and challenging the worst in human nature than sanctifying cultural expectations and the worst in human nature. 

Therefore, husbands were to radically love their wives in the same way Christ did, in submission to her; while wives were to radically respect their husbands, from a place of full personhood, as they would Christ, in submission to him. 

Ephesians 5:25-30:

[Verses 25-30]: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves His wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of His body.” 

Now, I did a word study, as Haley mentioned in our last episode, where we got to see what mutuality in marriage looks like in real life. And in my word study, using an interlinear Bible that puts the Greek above the English translation, where it talks about us being members of His body, in the Greek, it actually reads something like, “for members we are of the body of Him of the flesh of him and of the bones of him.”

Then we come to verse 31:

[Verse 31]: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” 

Paul is always talking about Christ and the Church, because the Bible is a love story about God’s love for His people and the life-giving relationality and spirituality we find in Him and in relationship with each other. 

And I love this, the interconnectedness of the biblical emphasis on love and oneness, from being introduced to God and his plans for men and women and marriage in the book of Genesis, to reading about God’s faithfulness and fidelity in books like Song of Solomon, Hosea, and Malachi, to being introduced to Jesus and His heart for marriage in the book of Matthew, and finally, for Paul’s emphasis on the bride’s unity and oneness in Christ. And even though Paul was single, and preferred that we all be like him in single-minded devotion to Christ, he takes the time to present a picture of what marriage should look like when starting from a place of mutual submission out of reverence for, and service to, God.

Now in episode 136, we talked about how male headship and hierarchy were introduced after the Fall, nowhere reflected in creation or the original state. But again, to borrow some of my husband Evan's words, because I think he describes this passage well when talking to students: Patriarchy is a result of sin and we still live under its effects today. But in Christ, we are to steward our privilege—just as Jesus did, and just as Paul did—to lay down our lives for others so that they may be empowered, and so that there might be relational equity, so that together, we can model kingdom marriages, living in mutual submission, mutual love and respect, and in differentiated unity, as we were created to from the beginning. 

To conclude Paul’s letter, after he gives instructions for the way Christian children and fathers and slaves and masters are to live, Paul concludes:

Ephesians 6:10-17:

[Verses 10-11]: Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 

And what are the devil’s schemes? We talked about those as well in episode 136. 

[Verses 12-15]: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that come from the Gospel of peace.”

So again, Paul is subverting worldly, cultural expectations of Christ and His coming kingdom. Our fight is not against each other but against the hierarchical powers in this dark world and in the spiritual realm. Therefore, subverting what one would expect of battle, Paul tells the church to arm herself with what? With ammo, with sharp comebacks, with a spirit ready to fight? No, we as the Church, the body and bride of Christ, are to arm ourselves with truth, righteousness, and readiness for peace. That is to be our offense! And then Paul describes our defense:

[Verses 16-17]: In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” 

I hope you’re beginning to see how bold and radical this letter is that Paul has written. And that’s why he ends the letter by saying:

[Ephesians 6:18-20]: “Pray in the Spirit on all occasions…being alert and always keeping on praying for all the Lord’s people. Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.” 

Paul is not delivering a message similar to that of Aristotle, similar to those who promote male entitlement or female subordination, as in the church in Ephesus, nor is Paul promoting female entitlement and male subordination, as Haley mentioned last week, regarding Paul’s letter to Timothy. What Paul is doing is radically proclaiming the Good News in his cultural context. And he is crazily, self-sacrificially chasing freedom for people while he, himself, is in chains. 

I’ll leave you with similar questions as last time: Did anything stand out to you from the text that perhaps hadn’t before? How is this rendering of the book of Ephesians or of the Ephesians 5 passage different from the way you’ve perhaps been taught it in the past? And if the primary message of Jesus Christ is love for God and one another, and unity within the Church, what might this mean for you, your marriage, your family, your church, and your community? 

I’ll leave you with a benediction from the last sentence in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

“Peace to the brothers and sisters, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

This has been episode 138 of The Brave Marriage Podcast. I’m your host, Kensi Duszynski. Podcast Editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. Have a great couple of weeks and stay tuned to hear Blake Dean and Erin Moniz talk about why mutuality matters. See you next time. 

Egalitarianism - Ep. 135

Mutuality in Marriage

SHOW NOTES:

What is egalitarianism? How is it different from complementarianism? On this episode, we explore what true equality in Christ means for us all, and how it should lead us to mutuality—in the home, in the church, and in the world. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the podcast!

To work with Kensi Duszynski, MA, LMFT, CPC, visit bravemarriage.com.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Hey there and welcome back to the Brave Marriage Podcast, where today, we’re talking about egalitarianism. My own personal journey from a complementarian perspective to a more egalitarian one has been a decade or more in the making. Part of the reason for that is, like I mentioned last time, through reading and study, I’d immersed myself in complementarian doctrine without even really realizing it. Even though I grew up in a church tradition where women could exercise their spiritual gifts as pastors, what I saw in practice were lots of traditional gender roles and more respect for male leadership than female leadership. So by the time I read I started reading complementarian authors, I just thought, this must be the Christian perspective, this is what we as Christians believe. Especially because in the books I was reading from the local Christian bookstore, which was supplied by a complementarian book distributor, none of the authors were saying, “This viewpoint is called complementarianism and it’s one interpretation of Scripture; we think it’s the best and most true view, but read Scripture for yourself, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, and judge for yourselves which is right.” 

A second reason for my own personal shift was coming to a place in my life where I began to see beyond myself and my own circumstances, to really consider the experiences of others in the world, and how complementarianism and egalitarianism played out in others’ lives. Right, because of certain privileges my life circumstances have afforded me, I didn’t have to question the complementarian view (or the inherent issues built in to the position, as we talked about last week) because they didn’t affect me, personally in a negative way—at least, on a felt level, day-to-day. That doesn’t mean the issues weren’t there all along; it just means that my station in life prevented me from feeling them as others have, and continue to. 

And the third reason is that probably up until I was married, I didn’t know there was a distinctly defined, alternative viewpoint on men and women in marriage and ministry. I thought all of it—complementarian and egalitarian views—could co-exist and intermingle, all pointing to some aspect of God’s Truth, since as 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, “for now we see in a mirror dimly, knowing in part, but then we shall see face to face.” And of course I believe that’s true—that no one person or group holds all the answers—but I think the part about both positions that’s true is the part upon which both perspectives agree: that men and women are created equally, with complementarity, in the image of God. But other than that, I found myself as a Christian college and seminary grad, thinking there was no distinct alternative definition to complementarianism, much less a meaningful difference between whatever those two positions were. Not because I was taught anything remotely complementarian; I went to Wesleyan schools after all. But because between Old and New Testament, Christian Theology, and my Marriage and Family courses, the topic was never specifically taught (for a variety of reasons, I’m sure). 

But I remember hearing a peer in grad school refer to herself as egalitarian, not really knowing what that meant or how that was justified biblically because when you grow up being taught to fear anything that contrasts with hierarchy, traditional marriage roles, complementarianism, you initially hear alternative views with skepticism and fear, especially if some measure of your faith or Christian identity are bound up in extra-biblical ideas. Which is especially confusing, right, when you're taught that it’s biblical manhood and womanhood. But then, I heard the president’s wife of Asbury University publicly call herself an egalitarian and refer to her marriage as such. And it was those two experiences that made an impression on me because I realized they held a distinctly different position, but to be honest—I didn’t know what that was. (Which is wild to me, as I think about it now, because I consider some of the differences, matters of biblical truth and morality, and the difference between relational dysfunction and relational health and flourishing.)

So that’s what this episode is about: defining what egalitarianism is and taking a look at a few more differences between egalitarianism and complementarianism. And just so you know, there will be multiple episodes on egalitarian theology and the concept of mutuality, because there’s too much to share in one episode.  

Starting with a definition: Egalitarianism is the belief that both men and women are created equal in the image of God; not only in spiritual worth and dignity, but also in human worth and dignity and in spiritual calling. Egalitarians believe that spiritual giftedness and leadership are not assigned to individuals based on gender, but are gifted equally to the sons and daughters of God, regardless of race, class, culture, or gender. So rather than believing that there are no meaningful differences between men and women, egalitarians believe that God created male and female differently, both in His image, but that through Christ, and in Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female—for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)! 

Egalitarians have come to the realization, like Peter did in Acts 10, that God is not a God of partiality, even if we’d prefer that He be, or even if our own pride or self-deception leads us to believe that He is. 

Now, Christians have struggled with the equalizing effect of the message of the Gospel throughout history. Let me share the earliest example of this, as it pertains to Jews and Gentiles, recorded after Jesus’ ministry:

The apostle Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, a Jew, like the other 11 disciples, and a man of middle Eastern descent, really wrestled with whether or not the Gentiles were to be considered clean, or as called to the message and ministry of the Gospel as Peter was. 

It literally took a vision from God and a visit from Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile, to help Peter see his own bias and blind spots. But afterward, Peter declared what he’d learned to a large gathering of people around him, saying in verse 28 and 34:

“You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean…I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right.”

I love what’s written next in verses 44 and 47, both because God’s grace is so amazing and because the human condition is so hilariously predictable. Acts 10 says: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.” Then, Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!” And thank God Peter realized this, right, because as Jesus told him, he was the rock upon which God would build His church.

So the early apostles worked to build up the body of Christ, to build up the church on the basis that all were one in Christ Jesus. And they taught the various churches that because of Jesus, humans of every tribe, tongue, and nation could receive the free gift of salvation, receive baptism and the Holy Spirit, and minister the message of the good news of Jesus Christ. Now that looked different depending on cultural context and location, but this was that radical, scandalous nature of the Gospel—that all are welcome, and that in God’s kingdom, the first are last, and the last are first. 

But like the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, who he curses throughout the Gospels, religious leaders throughout every century have found a way to use God’s Word to promote their own power and glory, not God’s. 

Take for example, moving to the slave or free clause, slave-owning Christians and those responsible for creating the slave Bible in 1807, where only about 10 percent of the Old Testament was included (leaving out any reference to the Israelites being delivered from bondage and slavery), and only about 50 percent of the New Testament was included (with Paul’s words to the Ephesians about slaves being obedient to their masters left in, but Paul’s words to the Galatians—that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus—being left out). 

This is horrendous to us now, that a group of people whom God loves and desires to save and pour out His Spirit on equally, would be read and taught the Bible in ways that supported the slave owners’ cause, rather than supporting their freedom and liberation as humans with worth and dignity. Rather than teaching, as Paul taught in Galatians, that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Rather than calling all believers to use their freedom to serve one another in love, not to oppress others or minimize others’ gifts or condemn others as somehow the inferior race, class, or sex. Right? These things have nothing to do with the message of the Gospel and everything to do with the spirit of the age and leaving cultural assumptions unquestioned. 

But as someone who came to see, like Peter, and as someone who helped others see, like Cornelius, abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this say about slave-holding American Christians:

“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.”

Douglass here is noting a discrepancy between the message of Christianity according to Christ, and the message of Christianity according to western culture. 

So Peter, Cornelius, Paul, Frederick Douglass…they’re all defining aspects of the egalitarian position. The realization that using Scripture, abusing its authority, perverting its power, and defiling its beauty for the sake of dominating or oppressing other people is some sort of religion, but as Douglass said, it’s not the Christianity of Christ. 

The egalitarian position is the commitment to the Truth that all humans are created in the image of God; that God sent His Son to save everyone, equally; and that in Christ, there are no longer differences that divide us, as there once were before Christ came, but in Christ, we are free to be one and free to serve God and one another in love. 

What this looks like specifically in marriage, which we’ll talk more about in upcoming weeks, is essentially, the mission statement of Brave Marriage: growing as individuals, doing marriage with intention, and living mutually empowered, purposeful lives. It looks like sharing with one another—sharing power, leadership, truth, decision-making, work and household roles. It looks like supporting one another’s growth, rather than demanding it, on the one hand, or suppressing it, on the other. Egalitarianism in Christian marriage looks like mutually loving, sacrificing, serving, trusting, and respecting each other—not because that’s what you’re supposed to do, as husband and wife, but because you actually do, as a functional outworking of believing you’re equals, created for mutuality and intimacy from the beginning. 

In upcoming weeks, we’ll study Scripture together and we’ll talk to egalitarian couples, but for the rest of this episode, I want to help you better understand the differences between the egalitarian position and the complementarian one, both of which gained traction in the 1970s and formed official positions and organizations in the 1980s.  

So, just as last week, you learned about the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (or CBMW) who represent the complementarian position, this week, I want to introduce you to Christians for Biblical Equality (or CBE), who represent the egalitarian position. Last episode, you learned that those on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood created the term “complementarian” to define a position of complementarity set within tradition and hierarchy. But unlike CBMW, CBE didn’t create the term egalitarian; instead, it was borrowed from political philosophy simply because of its encapsulation of equality between all people. Now, for this reason, I would like to air my complaints with both terms, as I see neither term as particularly helpful—complementarian being deceiving and egalitarian being misrepresentative, as the Gospel is not a political philosophy but primarily, the story of God and His love and relationship to us. 

Great, now that that’s off my chest, I’d like to take the rest of the episode to compare and contrast the beliefs, mission, vision, and values of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) so that you can begin to more clearly see the differences between the two. I think it’s important to know what each group believes, because that will inform the outworkings of the organizations themselves. 

According to their Statement of Faith, available at cbeinternational.org, Christians for Biblical Equality (or CBE) believe: 

Firstly and secondly, “…in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory…and in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.

Now, these two points are important because they distinguish orthodox Christianity from heresy. And while CBMW’s statement of faith almost says the same thing, they omit the phrase, “eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory.” Here’s why that omission is important:

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Trinity, God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are eternally equal in power and glory. In seminary, one of my favorite things I learned about was Trinitarian theology, because that’s how God created my mind to work—systemically and relationally. So before Adam and Eve were created, there was the Triune God. And according to the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:26, and foundational to our Christian theology, God existed in relationship, three spiritual persons in one, equal in glory and power, and mutually indwelling each other; therefore, perfectly modeling this ideal of interdependence and relationality for us. It was Jesus’ humanity that led Him willfully to submit His will to the Father’s for a time, but orthodox Christianity maintains that Jesus was both fully God and fully human; therefore, his place and role among the Trinity is fully equal among the three. 

And to deny that teaching is to adhere to a 4th century heresy known as Arianism. Forgive me for nerding out on you for a moment, but Arius was a 4th century priest who began teaching the church that the Son was created by the Father, different in substance and role, and therefore, not co-eternal or co-equal. But if this were true, then that would effectively render Christ’s death and resurrection null and void in terms of saving us from our sins, because if Christ was created by God, lesser than God, and therefore, not fully divine and fully human as we believe he was, then his lack of humanity would’ve meant that Jesus couldn’t have been the substitutionary lamb who was slain for our sins. And if he wasn’t fully divine, then Jesus wouldn’t have had the power to save us from our sins. 

In other words, if the Son is not co-eternal and co-equal to the Father and Holy Spirit in power and glory, this would deem Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension as meaningless to the Christian faith. And yet, a version of this heresy has become a regular teaching and tenant of faith in some complementarian circles. While complementarian theology maintains that God is 3-in-1, some complementarians also maintain that God is 3-in-1 hierarchically, meaning they believe in God the Father, whose rule is sovereign and supreme over all; in Christ the Son, as the second person of the Trinity who reigns and rules over us but is eternally subordinate to the Father; and in the Holy Spirit, who lives inside of us. 

When I was a student at the Focus Leadership Institute, this 3-in-1 hierarchical theology was then laid overtop of the family, with husband as sovereign leader over the family, wife as subordinate helper, and children, said to be analogous to the third person of the Trinity, birthed out of the intimacy between husband and wife. 

But here’s the deal: to suggest that the Holy Spirit was somehow birthed out of the intimacy or procreativity of the Father and Son is heresy, as is the suggestion that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. In fact, in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea, which is where the Nicene Creed originated, condemned Arius as a heretic of the Christian faith for this teaching and was exiled from the church!

In her book, The Making of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, historian Beth Allison Barr affirms the experience I had at Focus on the Family when she writes: 

By the end of the twentieth century, [this heresy] had a new twist: because Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, wives are eternally subordinate to their husbands.” 

This is why understanding our doctrine, our theology, and our Christian heritage is so important. Because unless we do, we’re likely to repeat the sins of our past in current practice. In family therapy, we call this multigenerational transmission process, whereby the very thing we wish not to do, is what we do and carry forth into the next generation; that is, without intentionality, without history to guide us, and without the Holy Spirit to empower us to do something different. In their fifth statement, CBE believes that: 

…the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.”

And this statement of faith comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where Paul writes: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

With slightly different terminology, CMBW believes:

…that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings, and that they alone are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.”

By inerrant, they mean that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching, often equating inerrancy with a literal interpretation of Scripture. But biblical inerrancy seems to apply most dogmatically to Paul’s instructions to certain churches when it comes to marriage and ministry, but not so much when it comes to other passages, like permanently changing the words in Genesis 3:16 to mean something entirely different—from “your desire shall be for your husband” to “your desire shall be contrary to your husband.”

Historian Beth Allison Barr also takes issue with the concept of inerrancy and modern-day Arianism when she writes: 

It should also not surprise us that evangelicals resurrected Arianism for the same reason that evangelicals turned to inerrancy: If Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, women’s subordination becomes much easier to justify…

Except it is still heresy. Arianism repackaged,” (p. 195).

In their remaining four statements, CBE believes:

…that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation; men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others; the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin; eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.

Here, CBE’s statement of faith includes the most prominent difference between the two positions, in that egalitarians believe that in the beginning, God created male and female, different in gender, yet equal in worth, role, and function; whereas complementarian believe that in the beginning, God created male, then female, different in gender, gender identity, and specific gender roles and functions, yet equal in spiritual worth. Tim and Anne Evans affirm a view of marriage equality in their book, Together: Reclaiming Co-Leadership in Marriage, when they write: 

People with different marriage perspectives (male rulership, traditional-hierarchical-complementarian, and egalitarian) all agree that both men and women are made in the image of God—they are intrinsically equal. However, male rulership and traditional-hierarchical-complementarian proponents would say men and women are not functionally equal. Egalitarian marriage proponents would align with God’s creational marriage design. They believe men and women are intrinsically equal and functionally equal because in the beginning both the man and the woman were given the dominion and procreation mandates,” (p. 127-128). 

(And next episode, we’ll do a deeper dive into the Creation and Fall accounts).

Next point: according to CBE, it’s the Holy Spirit who equips us for all service and sanctifies us from sin as we grow in faith in Christ; but according to CBMW, it’s redemption in Christ, period, which restores husbands to loving leadership and wives to intelligent, willing submission, period. But as we’ll see next week, Jesus says no such thing when asked about marriage, nor does this ideology accurately reflect the sum of Paul’s letters and teaching, either. 

Here’s CBMW’s statement of faith in this regard: 

We believe that God, the transcendent Creator of all things in heaven and earth, created Adam and Eve in His own image; that they sinned, and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is alienation from God; the universal sinfulness and guilt of all men and women since the Fall renders them subject to God’s wrath and condemnation. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall and was not a result of sin. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationship between men and women but redemption in Christ restores this relationship. In the home husbands are lovingly to lead their wives and wives should intelligently and willingly submit to their husbands. In the church, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” 

We won’t have time to break that one down, but just notice that they believe in marital headship as set forth in creation, with the distortion of that relationship being righted through redemption in Christ. On our next episode, we’ll basically have a Bible Study where we look at what Genesis 1-3 and Ephesians 5 have to say, and at some of the original language (at least in Hebrew, I didn’t take Greek). 

Okay, so I hope you can see the differences in the way Christians for Biblical Equality commit to Scripture compared to the way the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood commits to Scripture. 

Take CBMW’s mission and vision for example, which I’ve shortened here but linked in the full transcript, which is to…

“…set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women…because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church…and to see the vast majority of evangelical homes, churches, academic institutions, and other ministries adopt the principles of the Danvers Statement as a part of their personal convictions and doctrinal confessions…

And if you’re just joining us for this episode, we examined what the Danvers Statement actually says in episode 134. By contrast:

CBE exists to promote the biblical message that God calls women and men of all cultures, races, and classes to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. CBE's mission is to eliminate…theological patriarchy. CBE envisions a future where all believers are freed to exercise their gifts for God’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.”

One aims to defend, one aims to advocate. 

One aims to maintain power, one aims to share power.

One aims to serve cultural Christianity, one aims to serve Christ globally. 

One aims to instill obedience and fear, one aims to set people free—men, women, singles, couples, and their Christian communities.

A few final questions to leave you with today as we prepare to take a look at Scripture together next time:

  • When was the last time you read Genesis 1-3 for yourself?

  • When was the last time you read the book of Ephesians for yourself? 

  • When it comes to viewing yourself as a son or daughter of God, a co-heir with Christ, with gifts of the Holy Spirit, to be stewarded alongside your husband, wife, or male or female counterparts, what do you personally have to fear? What might you collectively have to gain? And what might you—personally or collectively—have to lose? 

  • When it comes to your own marriage, what might mutuality look like? How might your marriage look different if you two believed that you were created male and female, equal in worth and dignity, free to share thoughts and feelings, roles, decision-making, spirituality, and intimacy? 

  • What might your multigenerational legacy be if you both saw yourselves as God sees you?

Thank you for listening to the Brave Marriage Podcast. I’m your host, Kensi Duszynski. Podcast editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. I’d love to hear from you between episodes, but I’ll be back with the next one in two weeks. Until then, take care, talk soon. 

For Better or Worse: Christian Teachings on Marriage

Marriage Education in the 20th Century

SHOW NOTES:

What have some of the most popular authors and speakers on Christian marriage had to say over the past 5 decades? We’ll talk what’s good, what’s bad, and what we’ve believed to be true—before questioning our assumptions about what we’ve been taught God wants for our marriage relationships.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome back to the Brave Marriage Podcast, a podcast for couples who want to grow as individuals, do marriage with intention, and live mutually empowered, purposeful lives. I hope wherever you are, that you’re doing well, and enjoying this series on marriage, mutuality, and gender roles. And thank you to those of you who’ve recently left ratings of the podcast, I really appreciate it. 

On today’s episode, we’re picking up where my conversation with Steve and Twyla left off. They had talked about having few resources available to them in the ‘70s as they got married, and I’d like to share a little bit of my story and context as well because what I plan to do today is talk about Christian resources, and especially Christian books on marriage, to help us think wisely about what we’re inputting and how we’re internalizing what it means to be married and to do marriage well as Christ-followers.

So I started reading Christian relationship books in the early 2000s, and back then, the only way to access those resources was through my local Christian bookstore. I lived in a small town and our church had a library, but it wasn’t regularly updated, and I wasn’t sure if my local public library would have the resources I was looking for, so what I had to choose from was whatever my local bookstore sold as Christian. So I picked up a few Christian books on male-female relationships in high school, one by Joshua Harris, one by John Eldredge, and one by Emerson Eggerichs. I read their books, and apart from seeing what was modeled for me at church and at home, I really didn’t have any explicit teaching on marriage, so I thought what I was reading was gold! You know, I started dating early, I was interested in counseling, and so I wanted to know the right way, as a young Christian girl, to go about dating and I hoped, one day, marriage. 

What I did then was I assimilated this information on marriage and male-female relating into my pre-existing schema, into my Christian worldview. I didn’t question what these books were saying; I trusted what these books were saying because I grew up in a small town and apart from youth group and theological conversations with my mom and grandmother, I didn’t know any better. I assumed that if someone was published, then they must be credible and trustworthy, and that what they’re saying in their books must be true. What’s more is that I could see myself in the godly woman role these men were describing. So I never doubted or had any qualms about what I was reading; I just wanted to do what was best and honoring to God! 

So I lived by these teachings, I internalized these messages, not even realizing they ran counter to my church doctrine! Because these authors seemed so sure of themselves, and I thought that by following them, I would not only be pleasing God but also my future husband. That’s just a little part of my story, I’m sure I’ll share more in bits and pieces in the future, but it wasn’t until grad school, until seminary, that my professor of Couples Counseling, Toddy Holeman, had us read Jack and Judith Balswick’s, A Model for Marriage: Covenant, Grace, Empowerment, and Intimacy that I realized: 1) the model for marriage I was reading in grad school resonated with me so much more than anything I’d read before—it felt more true to God’s nature, it felt more intuitive 2) perhaps this Christian teaching on marriage is qualitatively and fundamentally more Christ-like than any of the rules or roles that I was taught through other books, were Christian. 

If you’ve been listening for a long time, you’ll recognize the Balswicks’ names, as I mentioned them and their work on differentiated unity all the way back in episode #004, I believe. For the longest time, I hoped that teaching marriage differently—by teaching healthy relationship dynamics that align with Scripture as a Christian and as a licensed professional—would be sufficient to give listeners a better foundation for their marriages. But the longer I’ve been in the field and immersed in the world of marriage education in the church, the more earnest and eager I’ve become about shedding light on things that need to be exposed, in order that we might live healthier, lighter, freer, fuller, and more loving lives in Christ, within our homes, and within the Christian communities.  

So here’s my plan for this episode. I want to walk you through a few books that I was able to get my hands on in paperback form that I’ve read or others have read over the past five decades in the church. Taking one example from each decade, we’ll talk about what’s good, what’s bad, and after taking a look at each one, I’ll draw out a few themes that I want us to think about as we continue our conversation on marriage, mutuality, and gender roles in upcoming episodes. 

Starting in 1975 with psychologist James Dobson’s “What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women.” Most of the book talks about low self-esteem, depression, fatigue, loneliness, isolation, and financial, sexual, menstrual, and parenting problems, as wives and mothers experience them—from the perspective of Dr. Dobson. What’s good about this book is that I think Dobson is genuinely trying to help husbands at this time better understand their wives. He’s addressing the most common complaints he hears in his office or on his broadcast, and attempts to give men advice on how to love their wives better and remedy problems at home. 

What’s bad is that he tells men in chapter 5 that as husband, he is her sole reflector of self-esteem due to her being isolated at home; thus, he needs to take his job as head of the household seriously to save his wife from mental illness and to fulfill her emotional needs. He also encourages husbands to understand that wives need romance and emotional connection in the same way that husbands, as it was thought at that time, need their biologically-driven sexual appetites fulfilled—sooner rather than later. So I wonder, what parts of this teaching have you heard in the church and believed to be true? What of this do you not believe is true, but are still influenced by nonetheless in the way you relate in marriage or in what’s taught to you in your circles? 

It’s important to remember that Dobson’s teachings are coming out of a time where teachings on marriage were already “bad for women,” (as Steve Lee stated on episode 132), so rather than placing all the blame and responsibility for the husband’s attitude at home on the wife, Dobson seems to be trying to help wives by getting their husbands to take on some responsibility as well. As he wrote in his book, Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives in 1980: “For the man who appreciates the willingness of his wife to stand against the tide of public opinion—staying at home in her empty neighborhood in the exclusive company of jelly-faced toddlers and strong-willed adolescents—it is about time you gave her some help.” So he’s seeing the plight of wives in his work, those who’ve chosen to stay home, going against the cultural tide of change, who are sacrificing their own personhood and self-esteem, as evidenced by their mental health issues, for the sake of the family. But his solution is to try to get men to take better care of their wives. Believing that husbands are biblically called to be the head of the household, he encourages husbands to steward their household rule with benevolence, and loving leadership, rather than ruling their households with cruelty and abuse on the one hand, or passivity and disengagement on the other. 

So I can see where people thought at the time that this advice was helpful, healthy, and loving. Wives at this time probably appreciated Dobson’s advice, encouraging their husbands to do something different in order to relieve their pressure and depression at home. But time, distance, and research in social science shows us the deficiencies in this line of reasoning: 

1) Biological, psychological, and environmental factors all play into mental illness, so in the first line of chapter 2, to state that depression and apathy are merely a fact of life for women that needs to be dealt with and normalized in marriage is not only based on availability bias, but proven to be untrue. Furthermore, if a person’s depression is linked to environmental factors, the solution is not to prescribe more of the same that’s not working (in this case, hulling up in the house, relying on one’s partner to take care of them) but to help a client change environmental factors with the differentiated support of a spouse. 

2) To suggest that a husband is solely responsible for his wife’s sense of self-worth and self-esteem is an immense amount of pressure to place on a husband. If in the ‘50s, the advice of the day was for a woman to play a certain part so prop up her husband’s ego and to make sure he was happy at home, and if that contributed in part to a housewife’s mental health during those decades, then it’s illogical to reverse those roles, changing the advice in Christian spaces to get a husband to play a certain part to ensure his wife’s happiness. All we’re doing there is creating a system of relating in which both husbands and wives feel unhappy to some degree, overly responsible for their partners, and codependent on each other to now meet expectations that have been created through teachings such as this, that neither partner was ever meant to fulfill! 

I was just having a conversation yesterday with a former professor of mine and now colleague and she was saying how worried she is about the low self-esteem she sees among women and the purposelessness and lack of direction she sees among men; I can’t help but think that as a church, we’ve done this to ourselves! The loudest evangelical Christian teachings since the development of the love-based marriage have not led to our mutual flourishing, but instead, for many couples who buy into these teachings, to mutual discouragement with themselves, and their subsequent blame, shame, guilt, lack of freedom, lack of love, and misgivings with each other. (Somebody research that please.) 

3) While Dobson tries to convey the importance of emotional intimacy in marriage for women, in doing so, he diminishes the importance of emotional intimacy in marriage for men—when we know through attachment research that both men and women require a secure emotional attachment to relate in healthy ways with one another. Furthermore, on page 64, he says that men need respect for self-esteem purposes, while women need love for self-worth purposes. Again, both are true, but so is the other side of the coin, that men need love for self-worth purposes, and women need respect for self-esteem purposes. Sixteen years later, we’ll see this treatment of men and women needing love and respect differently in the handbook of complementarianism (which we’ll talk about next episode). And thirteen years after that, we’ll see a Christian psychologist and pastor write a NYT best-seller based on this treatment of a divergence of love and respect based on gender, encouraging couples to heal their marriages based on giving a woman the love she most desires and giving a man the respect he desperately needs. And what’s so wild to me is that when Dobson writes about love and respect, he acknowledges that he’s writing in gender stereotypes and overgeneralizations, and yet, the conventional wisdom for relating in conversative Christian circles holds these virtues as diametrically opposed—even though Paul’s instructions to couples in Ephesus were an outpouring of his instructions for those in the church to mutually submit to one another; not rigid rules for relating between men and women. 

Next, we’ll look at the book, For Women Only, a book of essays by different authors, written in 1988. What’s good about it is, there are many essays written by many different people with different perspectives. For example, there’s an essay by Mary Lou Lacy encouraging women to grow up into spiritual maturity in Christ, seeking Him first daily, above all else, above husband, about children, above all, until women grow up into the fullness of Him, who is the Head, Christ, and learn to love God and others as Christ has called them to. 

However, there’s also an essay by televangelist Robert Schuller called What Does a Man Really Want in a Wife? Five things, he says: 1) a confidante, 2) a companion, 3) a creative climate-controller, and by that he means, his very own source of positivity and possibility-thinking at home—for “No man” he writes on page 116, “will ever leave, or stop loving, a positive-thinking wife who feeds his enthusiasm and self-confidence.” 4) for her to be his conscience, and 5) wait for it—that she be his “consecrated concubine.” He supports his desire for a consecrated concubine to fulfill his biological needs by saying, “we must never forget that God is responsible for this thing called sex” and “many counselors agree that sex is a primary cause of problems in marriage.” 

Now, this is where we see the breakdown between the knowledge of a mental health practitioner, and a Christian person or pastor with a platform disseminating pop psychology and using the Bible to back it up. At least in Dobson’s work, he understands that sexual problems more often expose relational problems in a marriage, rather than causing them, as Schuller misinterprets. But the difference is, Dobson is a parachurch professional, whereas Schuller is a televised pastor to whom evangelicals looked for spiritual guidance and spiritual wisdom on how to relate in marriage. On top of that, there’s a world of difference in what these teachings lead to. When a Christian psychologist understands sexual problems as exposing underlying relational ones, they’re at least a step closer to helping a couple get to the root of their issues. But if Christians are taught by pastors to believe that there’s a causal effect between a lack of sex and relational issues, then what happens in practice is that wives feel pressure to provide sex and husbands feel anxious about not getting it. So they end up doing this dance of pressuring, avoiding, and trying to create desire out of thin air, to solve their relational woes. But what they don’t see is that it’s the teaching itself, rather than the insufficiency of the wife or the enduring need of the husband, that’s perpetuating the problem rather than solving it. Sex and couples therapists will tell you that that type of pressure and perceived insufficiency leads to more problems, relationally, sexually, and psychologically, not less. But it’s hard to know that or to be convinced of that, when Christian leaders and shepherds use God to command their points, which prove unhelpful and harmful when applied to the Christian marriage. 

But again, I want you to ask yourself: Is this something you’ve heard in the church, or been taught in some way, or believed?

Okay, now we’re getting into the ‘90s and what I want to point out is that by this time, research in the field of marriage and family therapy had advanced like never before. Both John Gottman and Sue Johnson had done years of research specifically on couples in marriage and intimate relationships. But when Dobson started writing his books to couples in the ‘70s, the study of marriage relationships was still in its infancy; the pioneers of my field were actually Dobson’s contemporaries because remember, the love-based marriage was extremely new in history, and how to do it well was still unknown. Dobson was a child psychologist who worked with Paul Popenoe, the father of marriage counseling, but Popenoe was a former eugenicist who wrote popular marriage advice—the same advice that Steve Lee said on last episode, was bad for women in the ‘40s-50s. So throughout the 20th century, we have the emergence of the field and study of intimacy in love-based marriage relationships, which paralleled teachings on marriage in the church, some of which was based on Scripture, but some of which was based on pop psychology and pseudoscience before there was actually empirically-validated scientific studies and evidence-based models for working effectively with couples. I just want you to keep that in mind. 

So in 1996, Gary Smalley wrote a book for Christian couples called Making Love Last Forever. What’s good about his book is a lot, compared to what I’ve shared thus far, and that’s because he combines Scripture and evidence-based principles found in marriage and family therapy. In part I, Smalley gives instructions on how to fall in love with life, the idea being taking personal responsibility before trying to make change in your relationship. And in part II, Smalley gives instructions for how to stay in love with your spouse, getting at the fact that love is a personal choice and decision. Both of these overarching principles are good. 

What’s bad though, is the perpetuation of gender-based stereotypes which don’t fit all couples. For example, in Ch. 11, entitled “How to Bring Out the Best in Your Maddening Mate,” he highlights how men love to share facts, while women love to share feelings. On p. 192, he says, “there’s one particular thing we men wish we could control about our wives—sex whenever we want it! But as we’ll see in chapter 14, that’s not how good sex works.” So I’ll give him credit for saying that’s not how good sex works. But I get so frustrated with the perpetuation of stereotypes, because in my practice, thanks to Olsen’s premarital research in the ‘80s, I have premarital reports that directly express the opposite—both in regard to sexual desire and the communication of fact versus feeling. So when couples are taught that these traits are gender-normative, how are they supposed to feel about themselves when they’re wired differently than what these books they’re reading are purporting? I hear these questions time and again from husbands and wives in my own practice who feel, in some way, deficient because their personality or desires don’t line up not only with what our society calls masculine or feminine, but what the church and Christian authors like this, have set out as normative and typical! 

Smalley makes a few points about gender differences that I would call conditioning, such as men tend to be independent, while women tend to be interdependent, and men tend to compete and be controlling, while women tend to cooperate and be agreeable. Twenty years earlier, Dobson observed that women could also be competitive with one another, and in 1991, the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was sure to point out that it’s women who tend to be controlling of men and therefore, need to heed the advice of remaining agreeable and cooperative. 

So how, as the church, are we to make sense of gender differences when all of these authors are saying different things about men and women in their books, based on what they’re seeing in their own work with couples? Well, there are a few things that are important to remember: 

1) Men and women are biologically different in some ways, yes, but they are also culturally conditioned to behave differently over time. The traits that are labelled masculine or feminine in a given time and place don’t stay the same over time; rather, they change and reflect their culture.

2) Men and women are no more prone, disposition-wise, to certain personality traits than the opposite gender. Men and women can both exhibit independence, competitiveness, cooperation, a desire to control, or a desire to be agreeable. Again, I have many research-based premarital reports which say that each of these traits can and do exist in both genders. So what service are we doing to couples when we speak in broad strokes without looking at each individual person and relationship?

3) We are all prone to cognitive biases and attribution errors. The problem is, when we aren’t aware of our bias or blind spots, we teach solutions to problems as we see them—not as they actually are. In the case of these authors, they see the issues as gender-based rather than culturally-based, and so they apply a medical model to treating couples, linear logic that might alleviate symptoms in the short term, but do nothing to actually help couples long-term, especially when systemic issues are at play. What’s worse, is that they call this truth God’s truth, and at that point, couples not only have relational injuries to address, but emotional and psychological injuries as a result of Scriptural misuse.

Let’s take a look at another example of this, moving into the 21st century: Emerson Eggerichs’ best-selling Christian book, Love and Respect, written in 2004. Starting with what’s good about the book, Eggerichs does use the family systems principle of feedback loops in his book. And I think this book had such huge success because for the first time in Christian literature, a psychologically trained Christian minister is saying, hey, these issues you’re facing are cyclical—and he names this dynamic “the crazy cycle.” 

What’s bad about this book is that it virtually names every couple’s dynamic as the same in conflict, while research shows that couples tend to have 1 of 3 different dynamics in conflict. But according to Eggerichs, when couples get into conflict, the problem is that conflict makes most men feel disrespected, while women tend to feel unloved. In contrast, eight years earlier, Gary Smalley quoted Deborah Tannen in his chapter on what drives one’s mate mad, quote: “Many women could learn from men to accept some conflict and difference without seeing it as a threat to intimacy; and any men could learn from women to accept interdependence without seeing it as a threat to their freedom.” 

So, who’s more right? Smalley, in his suggestion that men can better tolerate conflict than women, but that men don’t like feeling like their freedom is threatened? Or Eggerichs’, when he suggests that what men fear most is disrespect, and conflict makes most men feel disrespected? Well, I would say that no human likes feeling disrespected or like their freedom is threatened. So to me, their differing emphases seem more like matters of personal experience than matters of universal truth. For example, Eggerichs’ confesses his own intolerance of being disrespected when on p. 68, he writes, “There are many wives who tell me, ‘Respect and love are the same thing.’ I respond, ‘No, they aren’t, and you know they aren’t.’” “The bottom line is that husbands and wives have needs that are truly equal. She needs unconditional love, and he needs unconditional respect.” 

So from there, the author spends the book outlining his solution, what he’s named “the energizing cycle,” assuring readers that the cycle will be broken if wives and husbands could just learn to spell love and respect, respectively. To spell love to women, Eggerichs tells men that a wife wants her husband to be close, open, understanding, peacemaking, loyal, and in agreement with Dobson, to provide her with self-esteem. On the other hand, he tells women that a husband wants his wife to appreciate his conquest, hierarchy, authority, insight, sex drive, and desire for friendship. On page 252, he uses a case study of a woman who calls her mom to tell her they won’t make it to visit her parents that day because her husband is upset. The mother asks why and the daughter responds, “I suppose because we have not been sexually intimate for seven days.” Eggerichs goes on to say that the mom “let her daughter have it,” replying, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Why would you deprive him of something that takes such a short amount of time and makes him soooooo happy?” 

Again I ask, have you believed this to be true. This shame-based motivation for marital change is a common pattern I’ve seen in Christian teachings on marriage throughout the past few decades. Certainly not all books lead with shame, but it occurs to me that some of the best-selling Christian marriage books do. I’d love to know what’s going on there, that we’d prefer to have shots fired at us, borrowing a phrase from Dobson, than to have someone teach on love in marriage in a way that leads to life and grace and the truth spoken in love.

The last book in my literature review through the past five decades is, A Model for Marriage by Jack and Judith Balswick. The premise of their book is that by looking at the way the Trinity relates, we can take a few different principles and apply them universally to our relationships in a way that will lead all couples, through all times, in all places, toward life, love, and health relationally, and those are the principles of covenant love, grace-filled love, mutual empowerment and servanthood, and the intimacy of knowing and being known. 

In Romans 1:16-25, Paul talks about the power of Gospel and how as humans, we are without excuse when we exchange truth for lies and choose to worship created things rather than the Creator because he says, “for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” And I tend to think that when human-made principles are applied universally, the fruit of such teachings are exposed, as I believe we’re seeing more clearly today in the evangelical church. But when the power of the Gospel is taught correctly, it brings life and health in its transformation of individuals and couples, not death and dysfunction. So I think we have to look at what we’ve been taught, for better or worse, about Christian marriage, and evaluate it accordingly. Does a teaching lead couples closer to Christ and toward freedom and intimacy with each other, or does a teaching lead couples away from Christ or from true intimacy with each other?

To contrast the Balswicks’ teaching on sexuality with the previous books we’ve looked at, they make no mention of gender differences except to say that it's in our being created male and female that we move toward knowing and being known through emotional and sexual intimacy, and that by communing together in sexual union, we reflect the full image of God. On p. 165, they affirm that the erotic expression between the lovers in Song of Solomon goes beyond sexual desire to a longing for the lover, him or herself, making sex a person-centered experience rather than a husband-centered experience that wives are shamed to participate in. Imagine how much difference teachings like these could make if they were the ones primarily taught to couples in the church! 

My main hope for this episode is that you feel caught up to speed on where we are today in the church as it relates to teachings on marriage. This series so far has been in no way exhaustive and there’s so much more I could share, but I think this will give you a good foundation for thinking about what you’ve been taught and why, and how these messages have impacted couples in the church. The most interesting thing to me the more I’ve learned and studied this topic is being able to see how conventional wisdom morphs and changes over time, but how influenced we still are by many of these messages, not really realizing or understanding where they come from. 

Stay tuned for the next two episodes where we’ll dive into Egalitarianism and Complementarianism, to find out what those mean and why it matters to your marriage. Thank you so much for listening to the Brave Marriage Podcast. I’m your host, Kensi Duszynski. Podcast editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. Have a great week and I’ll talk to you again soon.