Some Thoughts on Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19

I wrote parts of this on a different venue, but I felt it needed some revision and a little expansion.  No, my wife and I do not have the perfect marriage.  We still have issues.  But our relationship is better now than it ever has been, and we are continuing to work on it.

I am going to present this topic in two addresses, following the progression of the text as cited in the title.  I will make a direct address to the Ladies, and a separate direct address to the Men.  And so, without further ado, I will plunge in and make a total fool of myself over how much I really don't know about this subject.

Ladies, 

The Greek word behind "to submit" in Colossians 3:18 means simply to obey.  It does not mean absolute surrender to every whim and fancy.  It does not extend to violating the Word of God.  It does not say that your husband can force you to violate your conscience.  It does not mean obey everyone else PLUS your husband.  You do not conform to the pastor's wishes. You do not conform to the expectations of those around you.  The pastor's wife does not run you.  Your Sunday school teacher does not control you.  The Bible teaches simple obedience to your husband.  That's it.

This protects you in more ways than you may realize. For example, if your husband desires you to do something or dress in a way which does not violate your conscience or your understanding of the Word, and someone in the church or the pastor says something to you, you are absolved of all responsibility in the matter because you can point to your husband and say, "I am under my husband's authority, not yours.  If you don't like it, take it up with him." And you can turn and walk away with a clear conscience and leave them sputtering into the wind.  And you should not feel guilty in doing so.  This is now your husband's concern, not yours.

There is another aspect to the word translated as "to submit" that is absolutely beautiful.  It means to append or attach, and it was used extensively to attach an amendment to a legal document or to make an attachment to a letter.*  We already know from a couple of different parts of Scripture that the husband is to leave his family and cleave (cling, hold fast to) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5; Mark 10:7-8).  Where this word comes into play is that she becomes an extension of the husband.  She becomes a second head and a second mind to advise and caution.  She becomes a second pair of eyes to better see dangers and opportunities.  She becomes another pair of arms and legs to help nurture and further the family unit as a whole.  This is not demeaning in the least, but an awe inspiring picture of mutual respect and cooperation.  It is the culminating view of "the two shall become one flesh."  He clings to her, and she becomes part of him.

Think of it in these terms.  We are engaged not only in a day to day struggle just for survival, but also in a battle that is spiritual in nature.  The husband and wife are a team, a single combat unit who must survive together.  The husband provides for and protects his family, but his perception is limited to the 180 degree field of vision in front of him.  No man is capable of seeing everything, no matter how wise he may be.  His wife has his back, looking the opposite direction, and she can tell him if there is something sneaking up from behind.  She can cover the other 180 degrees that he can't see.

Why do I say it like this?  Because women often have a sixth sense about their surroundings that often we men do not have.  She can smell out something that just isn't right or even bad even though she may not be able to define it, and it is usually something that we as men are oblivious to.  And I'm not talking about the garbage (my sniffer doesn't work very well at all.  Just ask my wife).  Their intuition is illogical to us men, and so we often dismiss it, but later discover that she did indeed have a valid point, a discovery made often to our own detriment, and often to the family's.

Thus, the wife completes the man in a very real way.  Her gentleness smooths his roughness.  Her sensitivity confronts his often innocent carelessness toward her and others.  Her softness tempers his hardness.  However, the husband also completes the woman.  His reason helps balance her emotion.  His strength protects her weakness.  And his love dissolves her insecurity.

Gentlemen,

In the very next verse, Col. 3:19, Paul commands the husband to love his wife and not to be bitter against her.  The Greek for "be not bitter" also means not to be harsh, not to be exasperated with, not to be irritated at, not to foster bitter thoughts.  Clearly this verse is meant as a counter to the men so that the wife will not be taken advantage of or be oppressed.

Because our thought processes are so radically different, it is easy for us men to get irritated at you women.  For me, I get irritated when my wife doesn't understand something that to me is as simple as 2+2.  But to her I am asking her to find the derivative of a polynomial equation.  The problem is that she has never had calculus.  So her reaction would be exactly like many of you right now – "Huh?"  And that is where I get exasperated and shut down the lines of communication.  So, then I start thinking, "After all, how can she not 'get' something that is so simple?  I gave her all the information she needs to figure it out during our conversation."  The answer is simple – she doesn't think like I do. I have to consciously remember this, and it is something that I often forget.

Because most of us are physically imposing, at least as far as our wives are concerned, it is easy for us men to try to force our wives into what we believe to be submission.  Some even use the threat of force as leverage to force her into doing something.  Fear may be a good motivator, but if fear of us is how we run our home, then we are doing something drastically wrong.  Fear and respect are mutually exclusive.

We can go on an ego trip and demand ridiculous things of her, all in the name of Biblical submission, and this would be wrong.  We are not to demand of her that she violate her conscience (cf. 1 Cor 8, especially vs. 12; Rom 14).  She is not a servant or a slave.  She is your equal before Christ, but has only been placed in a subordinate role. This does not make her inferior. 

I am to love my wife, which means that I am not to demand of her something that would be humiliating, damaging, harsh, retributive, or would even take away from her identity and dignity.  Biblical love is to view the other person as better than myself, and the last I read my Bible, the wife was not excluded from this.  Therefore, why should I ask of her something that I myself would be unwilling to do?  Why should I demand of her that which will diminish her?  How can I ask of her something that will damage her?  That would be treating her as a servant or even a slave, not as an equal before God. 

Also, in this regard, asking or demanding a wife to consistently wear what she does not like I believe to be a degree of harshness.  I am talking of prints and patterns and styles and colors and even pants.  I have witnessed a young lady of the world be more modest in a pair of tight jeans than a Bible college student in a dress made of many yards of cloth.  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not advocating the wearing of clothing that requires the lady to pour herself into them in order to fit. I am merely saying that the way clothes are worn say volumes more than what is worn.  Modesty has far more to do with attitude than with individual articles of clothing.  If a lady desires to be immodest, she can project that through a potato sack which covers her head to toe and obliterates her form.  "Lots, loose, and long" may sound cute and catchy, but it really is irrelevant. 


We men generally live in our heads.  You ladies generally live in your hearts.  We men think and analyze and value function over appearance.  You ladies value beauty and eye appeal, and it seems like function is often an afterthought.  This not meant as condemnatory.  It is only observation.  There is a completely different perspective in how we view the world around us.  As a result, we men can be harsh without realizing that we are by insisting that you ladies conform to our way of thinking.  We would probably have less frustration in our lives if we just tried to herd cats instead.

Final Thoughts

Here's something to chew on.  God does not desire us to live with a mask on.  He desires honest transparency.  He detests a religious culture in which people have to lie about who they are so that they can survive.  That is not God's work. That is the Devil's work.  This goes for both men and women, and it extends to all areas of our lives, even to dress and music.  Which honors God more - my openly admitting to listening to CCM (something I am settled in my conscience as OK) or pretending that I believe CCM is bad but quietly listen to it when no one else is around?  Which is living according to my convictions and which is living a lie?  Another one - is it better for my wife to openly wear a pair of properly fitting jeans (which both of our consciences are clear on) than to adhere to a particular standard but secretly pine for the freedom to wear them?  Which is living honestly, and which is living a lie?  A pretense at spirituality is still pretense.  A lie is still a lie. 

Just for the record, my wife does wear jeans, and we do openly listen to CCM.  However, should we have visitors that such dress/music will indeed be an issue, we will be happy to surrender that freedom during their stay.  Grace is not about my demanding my rights at the expense of others.  Grace is about the freedom to lay down my rights voluntarily for the benefit of my brother so that I do not cause him to sin against his conscience.

NOTES:

*Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Hodder and Stoughton: London, 1930.

The Cult - Part 2 of 4

To recap, a cult is defined as follows:

A cult is any group or organization which has:

1. A centralized form of  leadership that rules with unquestioned authority
2. A body of convictions, beliefs, and practices set forth boldly as "the truth"
3. A compelling presentation of the group vision to prospects that is inviting and challenging
4. A series of manipulative socializing sessions to instill psychological dependence on the group
5. A definable process of group dynamics used to unethically control and manipulate members
6. A history of abuses of authority by group leaders freely using deception and fear tactics  
7. A history of psychological and spiritual abuses of group members that destroy lives

I dealt with Cult Element #1 in Part 1 of 4.  In this post I will deal with Elements 2 and 3.  For an introduction to this thread, please read "The Cult - Part 1 of 4."

Cult Element #2: A body of convictions, beliefs, and practices set forth boldly as "the truth"

To the average odd cult, this "truth" can come from anywhere, even from meditations on a rainbow or an acid trip.  There is some really goofy stuff people adhere to for whatever reason.  To the extreme Independent Fundamental Baptist, and to some extent in non-extreme churches, this "truth" takes the form of Scriptures taken out of context and twisted to mean what they never said.

Since the pastor's words have become equated with truth (see Part 1), the pastor is able to speak ex cathedra to his flock.  This means that all pronouncements by the pastor in the course of exercising the duties of his office are equated with revealed Truth, and are therefore incontrovertible, or unquestionable.  This authority is extended to any authorized ministers/evangelists outside of the church.  Now, no one is going to find any IFB using the term ex cathedra  in reference to themselves.  It is a Roman Catholic doctrine describing the infallibility of the pope when speaking on matters of faith and practice so long as the pronouncement does not violate Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

Also, be aware that all such "truth" has for its foundation Western culture.  The assumption is that Western culture is the only culture in which the Bible can be properly interpreted, and therefore all other cultures are to conform to the West.  Many of the false teachings in these IFBx churches will fall apart outside of the North America and western Europe.  Remember: the Bible is a universal document, applicable to all cultures in all time periods.  Any interpretation which requires one culture/time period to be the standard for Biblical exegesis will result in a flawed interpretation.

Such truth is often subjective, reflecting rather the personal preferences of the preacher more than the Word of God.  If the preacher has a personal dislike for something or a pet belief, this personal preference often ends up becoming "sin" and it is proclaimed as such from the pulpit. 

Consequently, righteousness becomes equated with a conformity to an external standard as set by the leadership, and Law according to man becomes the basis for a righteous standing with God instead of Grace having provided for the declaration of righteousness pronounced by God Himself on every believer.  Teachings on Grace necessarily become vilified because they allow for independent thinking and the questioning of accepted norms and practices.  Such questioners are then destroyed and vilified so as to prevent the Truth from contaminating more members.  More about this in Part 3.

Ex Cathedra Example #1:  It is a sin for a woman to wear pants (others would add that it is a sin for a woman to wear makeup and earrings and pretty things and have fancy hair):

This corrupted doctrine has its roots in Deuteronomy 22:5.  The reasoning is that slacks/breeches/pants are the accepted clothing of men, and therefore women should not wear them.  Other verses on "modesty" are used from the New Testament to support this and even add to it the portion above in parenthesis.

This false doctrine takes one aspect of the Mosaic Law and applies it to the modern church outside of the teachings of the New Testament on Grace.  Doing so substitutes Grace for Law, and righteousness is gauged by an external conformity to a false interpretation of Scripture.  Deut 22:5 is not so much speaking of cross dressing as to condemn role-reversals.  The central thought of that verse is to understand it in terms of God detesting masculinity in women and femininity in men. 

 Ex Cathedra Example #2: The King James Bible is the revealed Word of God for the world today.

There are a number of flavors in this cocktail of error.  Some ascribe a second work of Grace by the Holy Spirit on to the translators so that the 1611 translation of the KJV has become the new Autographs (original text as physically penned by the author, long since perished in the depths of time.  What we have now are copies).  Others state that where the KJV and the original languages differ, the KJV should be used to correct the original languages.  Others preach that it is not possible for God to save a soul through any Bible other than the KJV, and others go a step further and declare that any one who claims to have been lead to Christ through any Bible other than the KJV is now a two-fold child of Hell and has no hope for eternal salvation.

There are those among the adherents to this error who are attempting to translate the KJV into other languages.  In their minds, those languages do not have the proper Word of God.  God will continue to suffer the use of those inferior translations until such time as the faithful are able to bring to them a true translation.

This corrupted doctrine has spawned some other corrupted teachings. One of the more notable and goofy ones involves taking some obscure statements in the KJV and "proving" that the world is flat (Isa 11:12; Rev. 7:1 - "four corners of the earth"). But this is declared as Truth in some circles because it appears that the infallible KJV teaches it.

The archaic language of the KJV has also lead to a number of minor (sometimes major) misunderstandings about what the Bible is actually saying.  One of minor ones that comes to mind is in Mat 7:13-14. The word "strait" in the KJV is a middle English word meaning "difficult." 

If most die hard KJV only-ists actually cared about the meaning of what they were reading, a lot of "good" sermons couldn't be preached anymore.  If the people actually understood the Word for themselves, then hearts would begin to change (and the authority of the pastor would diminish).

In talking about the KJV, I say this carefully, the main reason I can see for the keeping of the KJV, other than a mere preference for it, is that through its archaic language the leadership can exercise more control over their congregations.  The use of the KJV plays right into the hands of Cult Element #1: A centralized form of  leadership that rules with unquestioned authority.  Because of linguistic difficulty, the Leader is in a better place to tell his followers what he wants them to believe the text is saying.

Many who are proponents of the KJV claim that it is, on average, at a 7th grade reading level.  Some say it is as low as 5th grade, while others say up to 10th grade.  These grade levels are derived from computer models which do not take into account archaic vocabulary and sentence structure, but only the number of syllables and overall numbers of letters in the words, as well as the overall number of different words used (about 8000 in the KJV).  They site readability studies by experts, but fail to explain the difference between readability and understandability.*   In contrast, Christian Book Distributors rates the KJV at a 12th grade reading level.** I believe this is a generous move on the part of CBD.  I would personally rate it as collegiate or even post-collegiate, in so far as our modern age is concerned.

Also consider which Bible is most common among religious cults.  Which Bible do the Mormons give out? The KJV.  Which Bible do the Jehovah's Witnesses compare their New World Translation to? The KJV.  Which Bible is the Bible of choice for cults in general?  The KJV.  This is not because the KJV is a bad translation.  It's surprisingly accurate given the level of Greek and Hebrew scholarship of the day.  No, they choose this Bible because the plain sense of the text is now obscured to some degree by archaic English.

In addition, the language is so old that parts of it cannot be properly understood by modern man without the use of a Middle-English dictionary.  I'm sorry - Websters 1828 dictionary, as holy as the KJV itself to the hard core, is inadequate to explain some of the language of the KJV. I've compared it to a Middle-English dictionary, and there are parts that fall short.

The KJV is nothing more than a translation of the Word of God.  The Greek and Hebrew are superior to any translation, since those are the languages in which God gave us His Word.  As such, the KJV is subordinate to the original languages without exception, and it has the same shortcomings as any translation - a limitation in the conveyance of meaning from one language to another.

2 Peter1:20 says, "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." (ESV)  This verse states that no teaching of Scripture is subject to the whims of individual men.  God gave to us His Word, intending it to be understood plainly, and whether you have a KJV, an NKJV, an ESV, an NASB, or an NIV, you hold in your hands God's words, translated to the best of their ability by the translators.

Cult Element #3: A compelling presentation of the group vision to prospects that is inviting and challenging

The presentation is not so much external as it is internal, by which I mean they often draw in members from among themselves and other churches, or from those who are new believers in Christ to begin with who do not have a church home or who are not yet anchored in their faith.  There are some that are converted and go directly into the IFBx churches, but I do not believe these to be too many.

The general presentation of the group is to present themselves as loving, Christ honoring, Bible believing, truth protecting, sin hating, fellowship minded believers who are doing the Lord's work and awaiting His return.  They present themselves as standing true to the Word of God. 

To the good Christian looking for a good church home, this is a compelling presentation.  The challenge given is to live a righteous life, but the righteous life so defined becomes a laundry list taboos and accepted behaviors.  Any deviation by the members from this "righteous life" is met with manipulation and guilt tactics to bring them back into line with group thinking.  More on this in Part 3.

The ones traditionally most recruited into the IFBx churches have been the children of members.  These grow up listening to the dogma, attend schools which reinforce the error they've learned, and graduate from Bible colleges and universities which espouse the same.  These are usually not presented with any other view points, or if they are, they are presented with such slanted views that everything else looks absurd or wrong. 


There is hope for these young people, however.  I don't remember where I ran across it, but I recently encountered a statistic which seems to indicate that many of these children are leaving the extreme church in large numbers.  The internet has done wonders for the dissemination of Truth, and with the internet now available almost universally, the young people have access to real Truth and are better equipped to see through the fallacies of extreme fundamentalism.  Whether they are seeking for Truth or fed up with religion, either is preferable to them remaining within the extreme environment.  Either way, once a person leaves the cult environment, God is better able to grab their souls and show them what Truth really is.


NOTES:

*http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html An IFBx site.  A note to consider when perusing this site - Readability is not the same as Understandability.  The KJV may indeed have a higher score on readability.  It is very easy on the eyes and it has a majestic cadence which lends itself to reading with ease.  This should be contrasted with the truth that simply being able to read something does not mean that it is easily understandable.  I can read Spanish, German, Latin, and other languages with ease, but I don't understand most of what I am reading because I do not know them very well, if at all.

**http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=652502&sp=1003 

Bible Translation By Grade Level
Translation   Grade Level KJV   12 RSV   12 NASB   11 NRSV   11 ESV   10 NIV   7-8 HCSB   7-8	Translation   Grade Level CEB   7 NKJV   7 NLT   6 GW   5 Message   4-5 NCV   3 NIRV   3