Authority, Part II

General points
No discussion of authority from a Biblical perspective would be complete without a discussion of the roles of men and women in the church. Not surprisingly, the loudest voices on either side of most disagreements in this area are both wrong from a scriptural standpoint. Often, they are overreacting to abuses on the other side. Essentially we have one side that tries to force women into virtual slavery to men, and the other which feels that there should be no bounds whatsoever on behavior. They then support their respective positions by selectively applying scriptures, dismissing passages they disagree with, and/or misinterpreting the Bible.

Foremost, we need to let Scripture speak for itself and submit to its authority as instructions from the Lord. We have addressed the nature of scripture in previous articles, but let's remind ourselves a couple of important points. First, it is the inerrant and authoritative message of God to us humans. Second, we cannot pick and choose what we want from it. If any part of it is questionable, all parts are. We cannot dismiss Paul's letters because his writings do not qualify as canonical. Peter says that Paul's writings are scripture.¹ Nor can we dismiss Peter, since Jesus said that anyone who didn't listen to the apostles (Peter is one), didn't listen to Him,² thus equating their teaching with His. So we have an unbroken chain of doctrinal authority from Jesus Himself to the apostles, to Paul. And Paul states that anyone who preached a different gospel than he preached was accursed.³ He said to have nothing to do with those who departed from his teaching.⁴ We don't want to be in the position of twisting the message of Paul, which is what Peter says that those of unstable mind do.

I bring up Paul specifically because, although he isn't unique in this area, his writings are the focal point of much of the "debate" on the issue of men, women, and authority. Let us examine the various things that people say about women, using the Bible to support their ideas.

Women should be silent
Those who say this are not even properly quoting scripture. "Women should be silent in church" is closer to what Paul says, but still misses the intent.

In I Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing chaos in church meetings. He states "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace - as in all the congregations of the Lord's people."⁵ The previous verses have to do with multiple people speaking in tongues simultaneously rather than taking turns. These directions apply to everyone - men and women. No one should be causing chaos. Then he addresses women specifically in this context.

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."⁶

Note that the scriptural context is that of women asking their husbands about things in the church meetings, not about silence. Imagine the disorder of women constantly asking their husbands to explain what the preacher is talking about while he is preaching! But it was worse than this. In those days, it was common for men and women to sit in separate sides during the service. So, women with questions for their husbands would have to speak loud enough for them to be heard by their husband across the aisle, or they would have to get up to walk over to him. Either way, this kind of constant noise and/or movement would be distracting for everyone in the service, men and women (and preacher).

In those days, men were educated more than women. This was a cultural phenomena - not a Christian one. This lack of education of women extended to religious matters. This is why the women, specifically, were more likely to have questions about what was being preached. The Roman/Greek/Jewish culture effectively banned women from formal education and told them to keep quiet when the menfolk were being taught. The church went against this cultural trend. Women were encouraged to learn and grow spiritually. Paul doesn't say that women should remain in ignorance, rather that they get their basic education from their husbands rather than cause distractions in congregational meetings. Note here the difference between the societal norms of the time and what Paul says. He implies that women should learn - just not in a disruptive way. All believers are encouraged in scripture to grow in knowledge of God. Rather than keeping women down, Christianity (and Paul in particular) lifts them up. He points out that women are equal co-heirs of Christ with men. Nor was Paul alone. Several other early church leaders held the same opinion. For instance, St. Jerome wrote in 407 AD that "Parents should educate their daughters as well as their sons", and he was quoting his predecessor, Origen. This egalitarian approach was picked up by the Reformers who believed that all Christians, men and women, should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This required that women not be illiterate. In fact, compulsory education for both sexes was introduced by Protestants. The reason that women are included in education in western society is a direct result of the influence of Biblical teaching.

Another issue along these lines that I will note is something I've personally observed which Paul doesn't explicitly address, but which falls under the general heading of disruptive behavior in church services. Over the decades, on more occasions than I can count, there have been people carrying on conversations during church services. Nine out of ten times it has been women doing this. It is a problem when men do it too, but I've found it much more common among women. It is a distraction to all around them when women are holding conversation while people are trying to listen to the preacher. On one occasion, my wife turned to the women behind us to ask them to be quiet during a sermon, only to find that one of them was the pastor's wife! Mind you, these conversations are rarely of a spiritual nature. But even if they were, having them during the sermon is rather rude to everyone else. Everyone ought to be quiet during the giving of a message so that everyone else can hear it. This isn't to say that one cannot laugh if the preacher says something funny, or that the occasional "amen!" is wrong. But disorder is wrong and that is what Paul was addressing - women asking their husbands questions was simply one facet of the issue.

For those who want to continue to argue that women are to be a silent, shadowy background to ministry, consider that Paul was constantly pointing out women who were essential to his ministry at the ends of his letters. He also indicates that each Christian receives spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit.⁷ This includes prophesy (which has to do more with speaking forth the words of God than with telling the future). Philip had four daughters who were prophets.⁸ Women also received gifts of exhortation and encouragement. These gifts would be useless if the women did not exercise them in the church (which is the reason the gifts are given⁹). Nor is there any indication that such gifts were only to be used with other women and children. In any case, how could they possibly exercise their gifts if they cannot speak?

Women should be submissive
The idea of submission of women is taken out of context. Specifically, people refer to Paul saying, "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."¹⁰ to the Ephesian Church, "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."¹¹ to the Colossian church, and Peter's statement "Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives."¹²

Remember that scripture must be interpreted in the light of other scripture. In the case of submission, there are other passages that must also be considered. For instance, the verse just prior to the one listed above to the Ephesian church is "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ."¹³. This indicates that all believers ought to submit to each other, both men and women. So, why specifically call out women? Apparently the women in Ephesus needed a reminder. I don't know if this was a consequence of some issue in the church in Ephesus, or a cultural issue in that society, or the result of the the new freedom women had in Christ that they took too far. But in any case, men were to submit to women and women to men. Likewise, he tells the Romans, "Outdo one another in showing honor."¹⁴ This applies to all believers.

Similarly, Peter states "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.'"¹⁵ We are to act with humility towards others, whether men or women. He also adds that the young are to be submissive to the elders. This seems to indicate that the young he was speaking to felt that submission to others didn't include their elders.

The real issue is one of humility. Submission to others is contrary to pride. This demonstrates itself in any number of ways, from cruel men to contentious women. Neither sex has a corner on being abusive, though men are more likely to be physically abusive and women are more likely to be verbally abusive. But what does Paul tell the Philippians? "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves"¹⁶. Again, Peter says "Honor everyone."¹⁷ And Jesus, after washing the disciples' feet tells them "Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet."¹⁸. Washing of others' feet was a task for the most menial of servants. For Jesus to wash feet was an act of humility that serves as an example for us. All believers ought to be the humble servants of others, whether men or women, showing respect and honor. So, when we consider scripture holistically, we find that submissiveness is not a unique requirement of women, but of all believers. It simply appears that the women in some parts of the early church needed extra exhortation in this area.

Women should wear head coverings
The idea of women being required to wear head coverings comes from 1 Corinthians 11:4-13. The first thing to note is that this is the only place in scripture where this injunction is found. One is on shaky ground when derives a whole doctrine out of a single verse or paragraph from the Bible. At very least, this is a minor issue. Compare it to the endlessly repeating themes of Holiness, Love, Redemption, Sin, and Judgment. But human nature is to fixate on less important issues. I firmly believe that is why many subjects are not expounded upon in scripture - because they are unimportant and God doesn't want us to major in minors. I wouldn't address this minor issue except for the fact that there are people out there insisting on this practice. There is actually a "head covering movement" among some believers. To have a movement for such a minor issue only illustrates the human tendency to make mountains out of mole hills.

Does that mean that we should ignore any given passage in scripture? Of course not! But here is the second problem: this short passage is often torn out of context of both scripture and culture. I've heard both sides of the argument and I can confidently say that the loudest voices on both sides tend to address this in a shallow way. Even those who do deep dives into the original Greek of this passage have a tendency to leave out context. The first context is one of legalism. Jesus did not set us free so that we would be subject to a New Testament neolegalism. When people start to impose requirements and restrictions on church members, chances are that grace has been replaced with legalism. Paul repeatedly deals with the idea of trying to live in the flesh rather than in the Spirit. Living by a bunch of ordinances is contrary to this.

But there is a more immediate context. This passage is the final part of a longer passage that starts in chapter 10. Of specific note is 10:32-11:1, where Paul states "Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God - even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." Then he addresses an area of concern where they are not following his example of not causing anyone to stumble. How is a woman praying with her head uncovered going to cause anyone to stumble? Without launching into a detailed examination of the practices of the day (worthy of a couple articles in itself), I can say that there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the practice of women wearing head coverings was a Greek cultural norm of the time.

But, as important as that is, even that ignores the built-in context that Paul, himself, provides. It is a matter of acknowledging authority, as ordained by God. I will address this below in more detail, but it is clear that demonstrating authority with the presence or absence of head coverings was something specific to that time and place. One might as well insist that everyone implement a policy of enforced foot washing because that was something they did back then and Jesus told his disciples to wash each others' feet. Such a tack ignores the underlying point by making the means themselves the point.

Finally, since Paul also mentions the subject of short vs long hair, some have taken that as yet another rule for women to follow. But it seems clear that he was referring to the problem of blurring the distinctions between the sexes as a way of illustrating his point in the differing authority of men and women. And it should be noted that this whole issue seems to be, based on the underlying Greek (and some cultural context), specifically referring to husbands and wives (and fathers and daughters).

Men, Women, and Authority
Now we get to the most contentious issue today about the role of women in the church. Before we go further, I want to reiterate that the Bible is our standard - not our modern philosophy. Where they differ, we who follow Jesus need to submit to the authority of scripture. Nonetheless, we must be sure to interpret the scripture correctly. Some think that the issue is tricky, but it is fairly straight forward. The issue is that there are some who are afraid of the controversy, and others who are very loud with their personal, and unbiblical, beliefs. May we never shy away from the clear teaching of scripture, rightly divided. And may we never let fear be a factor. Many people are silent on this issue out of fear of the repercussions from those who will not bend to the authority of scripture.

There are two separate, but related, issues here. One has to do with the role of women in the church in regard to authority. The other has to do with marital relationships. We will address them in turn.

The main issues with women in church derive from the issue we already discussed about women being silent in church, and from Paul's comments to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."¹⁹

Some would say that "she must be quiet" means that women shouldn't speak or talk back to a man. But this ignores the immediate antecedent. The silence is in relation to teaching or assuming authority over a man. That is, she should hold her tongue when it comes to trying to assume authority over a man. It is hard to order someone around if you aren't speaking. This is not a teaching that women need to be silent. In fact, it would be contrary to the operation of many gifts of the Spirit within women. Nor does it mean that a woman with the gift of teaching cannot exercise that gift, even among men. Rather, the cultural context of teaching a man implied authority. Think of the term "teacher" used to refer to Jesus. It meant more than someone merely passing on knowledge - it implied a superiority of the teacher in authority. Again, the role of all believers is to submit to each other. That is why Jesus said to call no one "teacher".²⁰ Both Paul and Jesus call for all believers to humble themselves and not try to gain honor and authority over others. But our carnal flesh fights against this. There seems to have been a particular problem with women in the church, whom Christianity lifted up from the social status they had before, in taking their freedom and status in the Kingdom a little too far.

But men have too often tried to make women second-class citizens of heaven. There were some positions of authority in the early church to provide oversight and organization. But it was a pretty flat hierarchy. Paul's instructions have to do with women occupying these official positions of authority in the church. It does not mean that men cannot learn from women. If that were true, then the gifts of encouragement, exhortation, teaching, and prophecy would be of no use except in men. Nor would rebuke or correction be within the realm of women. But there is no indication that such should be the case.

Does this mean, then, that women cannot be elders or pastors? It entirely depends upon the function of those positions in a given church. The issue isn't with the label, but with the function of those positions. If elders exercise authority over others in the church, then Paul excludes women from that position. Likewise, if "pastor" means a shepherd who oversees (which is what the Greek word translated "pastor" means), then women are excluded. But if "pastor" simply means someone who regularly preaches, then I don't think this passage is contrary to that. It all depends upon how the pastor functions.

So, Paul does exclude women from certain specific functions, but not to the extent that some people think. On the other side, there are women who refuse to acknowledge even these few restrictions and insist that "anything a man can do, a woman can do." Some outright reject these passages, or Paul's writings entirely. I've already addressed the problems with treating the Bible like a smorgasbord where you can choose which parts you want and leave the rest. Some people won't go that far. Instead, they will try to explain away this (and other) passages that they don't like. But they often ignore the immediately following context that Paul gives as the reason why he doesn't allow women to have authority over men.

Paul notes a difference between men and women. I don't know if this difference was inherent in them as they were created, or if this is a consequence of the fall, but Paul is stating here the principle that women are more prone to being deceived. This may anger some women, but consider what it says about men. Adam sinned without being deceived. Which is the greater sin? The woman was deceived, but the man choose the woman over obedience to God! That is one reason why we talk about the need of the Second Adam - not the second Eve. It is also one of the (many) reasons that a believer should not marry an unbeliever. It it is hard to follow God with a believing wife, how much harder with one who is not a believer!

Paul uses this dynamic to explain why women are not allowed to be in a position of authority over a man. It has nothing to do with cultural norms, since he is referring back to the original man and woman. It has to do with something that is intrinsic to men and women. Does this mean that men are not deceived or that women do not choose to sin? Of course not. But there seems to be a tendency toward specific weaknesses in men and in women. This is the foundation of his justification for his restrictions. One can argue all they want about this, but the scripture is plain. Trying to force some other meaning onto the text is not supported by the linguistic, historical, cultural, or scriptural context.

I believe that we see an example of a church that did not follow Paul's directions here, when Jesus addresses the church in Thyatira,²¹ He says of Jezebel, "By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols." No doubt this included actual false teaching, but the fact that she was able to lead so many into immorality indicates that she must have held some position of authority in that church or she would likely have been driven out of it.

Again, this isn't to say that there aren't men who have led people astray. There have been many. Nor is it to say that there aren't women who are spot-on with their theology and lifestyle. I personally know many. But Paul is dealing with principles, not specific individuals. Therefore, for the sake of the church, he imposes this restriction. Some may think this unfair. But so is having to forgive people who constantly do you wrong. Or having to obey ungodly civil authority. Or the fact that a perfectly Godly man cannot serve as an elder simply because one of his children is rebellious due to no fault of the parents. Or any other number of things that are, to our human minds, "unfair". We've become so fixated on the idea of "fairness" in our society that we've let it corrupt our understanding of God and of the Bible. Fairness is irrelevant. Humble obedience is what is important.

Some would argue that this is the tail-end of a whole passage of anti-women sentiments, such as "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."²². But the fact is that men ought also to learn in quietness and submission. So why was this directed specifically at women? Any time scripture that is applicable to both sexes is addressed to one in particular, it implies that there was a specific problem within a specific church or culture. Maybe Timothy was dealing with a group that contained some contentious women. So Paul addresses that situation. His directions that women should "dress modestly, with decency and propriety" should also apply to men, but apparently there was a tendency among women, specifically, that needed to be addressed. Certainly, we see that in modern Western society both sexes could dress more modestly.

Marriage
Now let us address the issue of authority in marriage. Paul's aforementioned instructions to Timothy do not include a context that addresses the issue of women assuming authority over men specifically to the church or to marriage. Therefore, it is a general doctrine that applies to believers in both situations.

Lest we be tempted to dismiss issues of the authority of husbands as merely the artifact of ancient culture, we need to consider what Paul says.

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."²³

Though the Father and the Son are coequal members of the Trinity, the Son defers to the authority of the Father.²⁴. Likewise, then, though the husband and wife are one flesh²⁵, the wife is to defer to the authority of the husband. Not because she is less than the man, as Christ is not less than the Father, but because it is an authority structure ordained by God for His purposes. Just because we are co-heirs with Christ²⁶ does not mean that He is not our Lord. Likewise, just because women are coheirs along with men²⁷ does not mean that men do not have operational authority in the marriage relationship.

Paul also uses the concept of temporal priority: that which comes first in time has priority over that which follows. This concept is used throughout scripture. For instance, Christ is the firstborn of creation²⁸ (i.e. came before creation), therefore He has priority over creation. Paul states "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."²⁹, indicating the temporal priority of man over the wife. It is Adam's sin that condemns his descendants, not Eve's. As the first of created humans, Adam's priority means that he sets the precedent for all who follow.

Some will doubtless point out many examples of men who misuse their authority to treat their wives as slaves. Granted. But there are evil worldly authorities that wield that authority unjustly, yet we are not allowed to rebel against them if we are under their authority. This is why is it supremely important to make sure you are marrying someone who understands this concept, and a man who will not misuse it. And like with human authorities, our ultimate authority is God. A man forfeits his authority when he decides to rebel against a higher authority. A woman is not subject to her husband's leading if such is clearly against the command of God.

This brings up the issue of the proper use of authority by a husband. Paul says "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."³⁰ There is the submission motif again. But here, Paul draws a parallel between the relationship of Christ to church, and the relationship of husband to wife. Thus, the wife is not the slave of the husband, though he has authority. Just as Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve³¹, the husband must be the servant of the wife, doing even the most menial of services for her (as Jesus demonstrated by washing the disciple's feet). She is not his personal slave, at his beck and call for whatever he desires. At the same time, she is not excused from the submission that all believers are called to.

The husband has a solemn duty to the wife. Peter instructs him to treat wives with understanding and honor³². This ought to apply to the wife as well, but Peter felt that men needed the extra exhortation in this regard. Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church³³, even to the point of dying for them. At no point is it implied that wives should die for their husbands. With greater authority comes greater responsibility. Also implied with this authority is the need for the man to be educated in proper doctrine by being intimately familiar with the Bible, under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. How sad is it that some women have far more Biblical understanding than the man that ought to be an example to their families! This isn't to say that women should intentionally be less Biblically literate - simply that men shouldn't be ignorant of spiritual things themselves.

This brings us to the point of authority. There is a purpose for authority. Jesus is our example in this area. He used His authority to teach and correct (ie disciple) His followers. He didn't use it as an excuse to treat them as slaves to meet carnal desires. He lived in poverty along with his disciples instead of exacting money from them so He could live in earthly splendor. He washed their feet instead of expecting them to wash His. Everything He said to them was calculated to encourage their faith, correct their misunderstanding of spiritual matters, and set an example for them to follow.

Paul states "So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of it."³⁴ He explicitly states that the purpose of the authority that God gave him was to build people up. The purpose of a man's authority over his wife is that of building her up. Further, he contrasts this with tearing others down. The exercise of authority is not to tear the wife down. This is in contrast to what we observe in society. As Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave".³⁵ By His word and His actions, Jesus' teaching was that someone in authority ought to be serving others.

Paul later expounds upon the purpose of authority when he gives instructions to Titus, whom he put in authority over the churches in Crete. Over the course of the letter, he covers four aspects of the authority of Titus over the church: encouragement of believers, setting an example for them to follow, teaching them sound doctrine, and rebuking those speaking heresy. In other words, the authority was to be used to instruct and encourage so that the church would be built up. Other than rebuking those who were trying to sabotage the gospel, the authority was exercised in a gentle manner. This matches Jesus' example.

So it is to be with the husband. He is to serve his wife, including building her up and not tearing her down. The purpose of authority is not to "put her in her place". It isn't to micromanage her every action. It isn't to decide how she votes in elections. It isn't to demand sex every moment that you want, regardless of how she feels. It isn't to shut her down when she expresses a contrary opinion. It isn't to berate her - especially in front of others. It isn't to ignore her or her needs.

But authority also means that you don't merely take a "hands off" approach either. It is an active servant-hood that looks for ways to serve her before she asks, or even before she recognizes that she needs something. It is to encourage her every chance you get. It is to protect her from harm. It may occasionally involve correction that leads to Godliness. Such correction must be selfless and gentle. If correction only (or primarily) benefits you, then it is not selfless.

Ideally, marriage is a partnership. Both spouses ought to be servants of each other, encouraging and exhorting each other. Both have the Spirit if they are both believers. The Spirit may very well speak correction through the wife to the husband. Neither partner is always in the right. Humility is essential for all believers. Everyone ought to be building everyone else up. So, then, what is unique about the authority of the husband? I think it is this: he has the ultimate authority in the marriage, but he will only "put his foot down" when it involves the well-being of his wife and children. His authority is quietly exercised in servant-hood, gentleness, and building up of his wife. He only overrides her to avoid imminent spiritual, financial, relational, or physical danger.

The position of the wife is that she must submit to the husband's authority when he does make a decision as the ordained authority in the marriage. She is not prevented from speaking her mind, teaching her husband things, or exercising her free will in any area except where the husband has insisted on a specific path or action. Of course, she is released from this constraint if the husband demands behavior that is clearly contrary to God's commands - including his submission to government authorities. No wife is obligated to take part in defrauding others, committing theft or vandalism, or taking up arms against the government, as just a few examples. But, as with the husband, she must use gentleness in her role.

And here is where many rebellious people want to bring up examples of degenerate husbands as a reason why a wife should not be under the man's authority. But the Bible's clear teaching is that we are to submit to authorities and show them honor up to the very point where they demand that we do something contrary to God's will. There are no exceptions for the worthiness or foolishness of the authority. In His sovereignty, God has taken all of this into account. Therefore, be very careful who you marry! Both partners should understand the Biblical teaching on authority. And if things start out okay, but then change - that too is under His sovereignty. That doesn't mean you need to stay with a physically abusive spouse, or that you are unable to leave a situation which involves infidelity. A man should never strike his wife no matter how much provoked. Nor should the wife. Neither should be yelling or screaming at the other. But you are never excused in these areas just because your spouse is carried away by their passions. We are all called to live in peace with everyone else as far as it depends on us.³⁶ We are all servants of God as well as each other.

Proverbs 31 is often used as an exemplar of a wife. Though this is true, what is often ignored is what it implies about the husband. He is the opposite of someone who is micromanaging his wife. Wives are to be built up, not controlled. Note that she is busy taking part in commerce as an entrepreneur, investing in the future, and maintaining her assets - all without the input or direction of her husband. The picture is of a woman who takes the initiative to prosper without the direction or control of a man. The husband is only mentioned insofar as heaping praise on her. That is, he is building her up rather than trying to control her. He does not own her. He does not get to punish her for wrongdoing. God Himself will discipline either spouse for sinful behavior. Concern for the spouse in regard to this discipline should lead to gentle corrective words from the other in hopes to head that off, if possible.

Marriage should be a partnership in all things: physical, spiritual, and financial. Therefore, neither partner should be causing harm to the other in any of these areas. That is a reasonable expectation of both parties. So is the expectation of marital fidelity. The wife has the additional expectation of the man protecting her up to, and including, dying for her. In other words, basically what is in the typical marriage vows and clear Scriptural teaching. Any expectations beyond this are probably unreasonable and can only lead to resentment and other evils.

With such clear Biblical teaching, why is this an area of such contention in the western church? I think is comes down to three things. First, a lack of viewing the Bible as our authority. Whether this is shown in ignoring it or twisting it, or simply being in inexcusable ignorance of it, when we set ourselves outside of the clear doctrines of the Bible, we find ourselves on the road to destruction. Second, selfish pride. In both sexes, this lack of humility affects everything in a relationship. It strikes at the heart of intimacy by building walls between individuals. Men give into the temptation to harshly dominate the wife as if they were a slave driver. Women give into the temptation to rebel against the authority God has ordained, even trying to rule over the man. The man is still required to exercise gentleness, be a servant, and try to build up the wife even if she is contentious. The woman is still required to be a servant even if the husband is an ogre. The sin of the one does not excuse the sin of the other.

Third, cowardice. The issue of authority is not the only Biblical topic which is subject to dismissal or revisionist treatment due to people being afraid of the backlash from others. It is one thing to endure opposition from the world - we ought to expect that, though many fail here - but when it is fellow believers that oppose us when we are in obedience to scripture, many quail in response. Women are afraid of those who insist that being under the authority of the husband means they are willing participants in the "Handmaid's Tale" and have somehow betrayed all women. Men are afraid of being accused of "toxic masculinity" for daring to live out what the Bible instructs. The world, and worldly Christians, will always misconstrue Biblical principles and those living them out. But we have a higher calling. And if we are not willing to bear ridicule and hostility in the course of living Godly in Christ Jesus, we cannot but fail.

Note that being in submission to one another does not mean we are to be floor mats that others may wipe their shoes on. In fact, being passive to that degree only invites abuse. There is no indication in scripture that any believers were called to endure abuse from each other without speaking up. Even when Paul indicates that we shouldn't go to court with each other, he implies that those in the church should be judging the matters instead. That is, disputes were to be resolved within the body, not in the world. Jesus laid out a process by which an offended believer was to seek justice within the church. This should still be our model. So servant-hood is never a matter of passively enduring wrongs from another believer. It is an active choice to serve others regardless of their behavior - whether or not they are acting as a servant to you.

Summary
Women are not merely part of the church; they are an essential part of the church. As Paul teaches, we cannot say to any other part of the church that we do not need them.³⁷ And historically, women have often carried the burden of evangelism and missions more than men. One third of the people that Paul singles out for praise in enabling his ministry at the end of his epistles are women. This is remarkable in that time and place. Women are not second-class citizens of the Kingdom of heaven - they are coheirs of Christ, along with men.

Because of this, husbands are to be supportive of their wives. Women deserve honor and respect as full co-heirs with men. But that doesn't mean they are not subject to the authority of others, as ordained by God. It also means that men ought to be very careful, deliberate, and humble about wielding authority. We are all called to be mindful rather than subject to our passions.

1 2 Peter 3:16.
2 Luke 10:16.
3 Galatians 1:8.
4 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14.
5 1 Corinthians 14:33.
6 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
7 1 Corinthians 12:7.
8 Acts 21:9.
9 1 Corinthians 12:7, 14:12.
10 Ephesians 5:22.
11 Colossians 3:18.
12 1 Peter 3:1.
13 Ephesians 5:21.
14 Romans 12:10.
15 1 Peter 5:5.
16 Philippians 2:3.
17 1 Peter 2:7.
18 John 13:14.
19 1 Timothy 2:12-14.
20 Matthew 23:10.
21 Revelation 2:20.
22 1 Timothy 2:11.
23 1 Corinthians 11:3.
24 John 5:19, 20:21, etc.
25 Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:31.
26 Romans 8:17.
27 Peter 3:7.
28 Colossians 1:15.
29 1 Timothy 2:13.
30 Ephesians 5:24.
31 Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, John 13:1-17.
32 1 Peter 3:7.
33 Ephesians 5:25.
34 2 Corinthians 10:8.
35 Matthew 20:25-27.
36 Romans 12:18.
37 1 Corinthians 12:21-26.