Tag: gender

Spirituality, Homosexuality and the Primordial Cosmic Unity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Recently, I’ve explored the issues of homosexuality. I reviewed The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche (Harvest House) and Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill (Zondervan). Both books demonstrate concern and awareness of the plight of people struggling with same-sex attractions yet still aiming to be committed to the Christian call for sexual chastity.

Yes, I do believe Christianity calls us to live a life devoted to holiness and that does mean no sex outside of heterosexual marriage. We are to live in light of God’s created intent for this world: one man, one woman together in mutual love and submission for life, as husband and wife. But this is a fallen world and we all battle sinful urges which compel us to violate God’s standards for a holy life. Innately, and biologically even, we are driven toward pride, dishonesty, sinful strife, jealousy, and yes we are drawn to fantasize sinfully over objectified people of either gender. Some struggle one way, others another, but just because we were born as sinners and have a bent toward sinning, doesn’t mean we are not called to “abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.”

I wanted to point out a significant book review which brought up something I hadn’t truly considered before when it comes to this controversial topic. Dr. Peter Jones of Westminster Seminary, California, reviews a new book by Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are (IVP, 2011). His review is worth the long read as it covers where we are in evangelical Christianity today on this issue. One of the points in his review is “the worldview implications of sexuality”. Without further ado, I want to excerpt a good portion from his review here for your benefit. Please do read the whole review, however.

Such thinking not only ignores biblical morals but also denies biblical cosmology. Homosexuality and other forms of sexual blending have deep religious significance within pagan cults. Paris mentions the berdache, the he/she that appears in over one hundred tribes as a “two-spirit” man or woman who functions in the opposite gender, but she claims we know little about them, except that they perform spiritual rituals (67). She also mentions ethnic groups in Siberia, Borneo and the Philippines that “grant religious roles for those of ambiguous sexual biology or those of same sex attraction” (67-8). Never once does she inquire as to what those religious roles might be, nor the spirituality there practiced.

The End of Sexuality fails to recognize that homosexuals have functioned consistently, from the mists of time and all over the globe, as occultic shamans in all kinds of pagan religions. Mircea Eliade, a world-renowned authority on world religions, and one of the architects of the new spirituality, demonstrates that through time and space a commonplace figure in the pagan cultus is an emasculated priest. This common religious universal, or archetype, is identified with a particular kind of spirituality. We see the myth of a bisexual or androgynous god in ancient Mesopotamian and Indo-European nature religions, as well as in the myths of Australian Aborigines, African tribes, South American Indians and Pacific islanders, all still surviving today. In all these religions, observes Eliade, “ritual androgynisation” is a “symbolic restoration of Chaos, of the undifferentiated unity that preceded the Creation.” Homosexual androgyny, the joining of male and female in the same person, functions in these countless traditional religions as “an archaic and universal formula for the expression of wholeness, the co-existence of the contraries, or coincidentia oppositorum…symboliz[ing]…perfection…[and] ultimate being.”

Homosexuality is not limited here to morals or the lack thereof. It is employed as the attempt to define the very nature of the cosmos as inherently divine. It is for this reason that the Old Testament denounces homosexuality in such strong terms, since it is a sign of pagan religion. Paris’s dismissal of Scripture’s teaching on homosexuality as “the five or six passages” fails to see the injunctions as part of a major polemic against anti-creational paganism. The context of the much-cited prohibition against homosexuality states, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan” (Lev 18:3; see Lev 20:23). Leviticus presents sexual activity between two men as an example of the pagan religion of the Canaanites, which the people of Yahweh should avoid. In other words, it is the religion (implicit in the act, in its rejection of God the Creator), more than the morals, which is in view.

Certainly, not all homosexuals see these religious connotations, nor have they come to homosexuality for religious reasons. Nevertheless many contemporary homosexuals see this deep connection. It is what J. Michael Clark, professor at Emory University and Georgian State University, and a gay spokesman, understood about the berdache. Clark, once a Christian, could not find an adequate place for his sexuality in biblical faith, and turned to Native American animism for an acceptable spiritual model. He found in the berdache, this androgynous American Indian shaman, born as a male but choosing to live as a female, “a desirable gay spiritual model,” because the berdache achieves “the reunion of the cosmic, sexual and moral polarities,” that is, the classic pagan “joining of the opposites.” …

Other notable contemporary homosexuals understand their sexuality in occultic religious terms. Professor Emily Culpepper, an Ex-Southern Baptist and now a lesbian pagan witch, sees gays and lesbians, in her words, as “shamans for a future age.” She reserves a spiritual role for homosexuals, for a shaman is “…a charged, potent, awe-inspiring, and even fear-inspiring person who takes true risks by crossing over into other worlds.”

A contemporary gay theorist, Toby Johnson, inspired by the modern-day popularizer of pagan mythology, Joseph Campbell, believes that present-day gay consciousness represents a new religious paradigm, for:

  • it undermines the authority and legitimacy of the institutions of traditional religion;
  • it helps to see the world with a harmonious, non-dualistic vision;
  • in its ecstatic pangs of longing inspired by same-sex beauty, it experiences reverberations and recollections of humanity’s common mystical oneness with Gaia; and
  • it helps humanity to get over dualistic, polarized (male-dominant) thinking, and thus save the world in awareness of common planetary identity.

With the place of homosexuality firmly established as an essential component of cultic and religious nature worship, it was inevitable that a Jungian, June Singer, would give the ultimate expression of the deeply religious importance of homosexuality. She said already in 1977, “the archetype of androgyny appears in us as an innate sense of…and witness to …the primordial cosmic unity, that is, it is the sacrament of monism, functioning to erase distinction…[this understanding of sexuality was] nearly totally expunged from the Judeo-Christian tradition…and a patriarchal God-image.”

Clearly, Singer’s non-binary definition of sex does not fit “a Christian understanding” of creation (34). How powerfully, in its pagan self-understanding, it opposes what Paris also opposes, a “rigid sexual dimorphism” (32). Paris says that “viewing sex on a spectrum…male and female…positioned on the same line, not in two separate categories…makes a credible space for intersex people,” but, alas, such a view also makes an enormous space for occultic spirituality–once the connection of sex with spirituality is made (33).

The theological implications of this opposition to sexual binary categories are enormous. Such naiveté plays into the hands of the non-binary, or non-dual spirituality, which, in its Hindu form, is taking over much of the Western mind and soul. Philip Goldberg, author of American Veda: How Indian Spirituality Changed the West, calls this a spiritual “revival,” based on the Hindu term Advaita, meaning “not two.” The spiritual synthesis, to which progressives believe we are advancing, will be “non-dual,” non-binary. Goldberg declares that Advaita and “non-dual…oneness, unity around non-separation” are “the generic term[s] increasingly used to describe the present and coming spirituality in America””meaning that God and the world are not two.”

I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I wanted Dr. Jones’ case to be established here. This spiritual aspect of homosexuality needs to be understood as evangelicals grapple with the increasing prominence of this issue today. The “otherness” of the Bible’s teaching on this issue should make sense given this wholistic viewpoint. It really is a different spirit and a different religious perspective that fights against the Created order presented in Scripture.

For more on this check out my review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill particularly. There I explain how I see Christianity impacting those who have homosexual tendencies.

[HT: Sharper Iron Filings]

“Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality” by Wesley Hill

~ Bob Hayton ~ 49 Comments

Homosexuality. The word stirs many reactions today. Many Christians who don’t know homosexuals personally, remain puzzled and scared by this term. Many suspect the word does not picture a reality, only an intentional perversion of God’s created order. Pat answers are easy, and when it comes to homosexuality a simple Bible-based condemnation seems all that is in order. It is easier and more convenient for us to file the word, and whatever reality it represents, away into a tidy corner — far away from our experience.

But in today’s world, we can no longer afford to ignore homosexuality. It is all around us, and if we open our eyes, we’ll see it is affecting people we rub shoulders with at work, it’s in our children’s schools, and even has entered our churches. The debate is here, and more. It’s not just a debate, there is a secret battle being waged in countless hearts around us. A battle to believe in Jesus despite personal homosexual attractions.

When the church takes a very public, vocal and aggressive stance against homosexuality and perceived encroaches on the church’s favored family ideal, we inadvertently make it hard for those among us struggling with identity questions of their own. On the other hand, when churches change their message, dismissing Biblical statements condemning homosexual practices outright, or employing some cunning and inventive “exegesis”, the core of Gospel truth is betrayed. And any message left over is spiritually bankrupt. What is needed is a careful balance between a Scriptural approach to homosexual practice as sin, and a gracious acceptance of sinners who are struggling to follow Jesus.

That balance is hard to achieve and frankly, quite rare today. Consider the words of an anonymous Christian who struggles with homosexuality:

What if the church were full of people who were loving and safe, willing to walk alongside people who struggle? What if there were people in the church who kept confidences, who took the time to be Jesus to those who struggle with homosexuality? What if the church were what God intended it to be? (pg. 113)

This perspective may be new to many of us. When is the last time that you or I have known someone struggling with homosexuality? Not one given over to it, but one who professes to be a Christian yet openly admits to struggles in this area? What would it be like to be a Christian struggling with this? Can you even be a Christian if you experience homosexual desires? Isn’t Jesus supposed to miraculously heal you of such a warped perspective?

In a new book from Zondervan, Wesley Hill bravely steps forward to share his own journey with us. In Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality Hill tells the story of his life-long struggle with homosexuality. He shares the hopes and struggles, the loneliness and longing, the despair and perplexity that is life for homosexual Christians. What Hill has to say needs to be heard throughout the church today. His honesty and candor, and his gospel-centered, graceful, hopeful perspective make the book a joy to read. He offers hope for all who struggle against sin this side of the resurrection.

The book is well-written and captivating. Hill finds the right balance in conveying what it is like to think like he does, and feel like he feels, without dragging the book down into a cesspool. He keeps the story moving and intersperses reflections on the testimony of other self-professed Christians who struggled with homosexual desires.

Hill grew up in a Christian home, went to a Christian school and went to a Christian college (Wheaton). He even pursued Christian ministry. He would appear a typical conservative-minded Christian from a loving home. But he learned as a young teenager that something was different with him. He had no sexual attraction for women, at all. Instead, his feelings were directed toward the other sex for apparently no reason that he has yet been able to discover. One story he tells captures his reality well. He was attending a dance at a friend’s wedding. A friend, set him up to dance with a gorgeous girl. And yet even in close quarter with this stunning beauty, he felt no attraction. Instead his eyes were wandering against his will to a man across the room who he couldn’t help but notice.

Hill’s story goes on throughout the book. He is still young (in his late twenties) and realizes he doesn’t have all the answers. But he hopes his story helps others like him come to grips with who they are, and the calling Christ has for them. Hill realizes that some homosexual Christians do experience a healing of their broken desires. But many do not. He writes for “homosexual persons who have tried — and are trying — to ‘become heterosexual’ and are not succeeding and wonder, for the umpteenth time, what exactly it is that God wants them to do.” (pg. 19)

Hill’s testimony of the struggle and perplexity that surrounds homosexuality, helps explain the attraction of homosexual accommodation by the Church. It’s surely easier to remain connected with one “soul-mate” than to struggle against one’s natural impulses. Hill observes:

Occasionally it strikes me again how strange it is to talk about the gospel — Christianity’s “good news” — demanding anything that would squelch my happiness, much less demanding abstinence from homosexual partnerships and homoerotic passions and activities. If the gospel really is full of hope and promise, surely it must endorse — or at least not oppose — people entering into loving, erotically expressive same-sex relationships. How could the gospel be opposed to love? (pg. 56)

Hill goes on to challenge this “easy way out.” He explains how and why abstinence from forbidden pleasures is essential to upholding the true Gospel. “One of the hardest-to-swallow, most countercultural, counterintuitive implications of the gospel is that bearing up under a difficult burden with patient perseverance is a good thing.” (pg. 71).

Hill’s struggles bring alive the hidden suffering of Christians struggling with this sin. There is an intense loneliness. First, it is hard to share with other Christians that you struggle with this issue. Second, if you agree that abstinence is God’s will, you will pull back from non-sexual relationships with others of the same sex for fear of temptation or rejection (if they knew the real you). Finally, for those who cannot just “switch” their inbred sense of attraction, for those who cannot just “become heterosexual”, or those who through long years of effort find they cannot, these are faced with a lonely future with no possibility of waking up next to the one you love and sharing life together. Hill shared some of his personal diary notes on this point: “And don’t you think we’re wired (Genesis 2!) to want the kind of companionship that can only come through marriage?” (pg. 106).

An even more devastating point comes in Hill’s discussion of lust. He quotes Dallas Willard to the extent that to merely look (or see) and desire someone sexually is not wrong. Rather, looking to desire someone is wrong. The second glance is the one with evil intent. Hill shares what it feels like to “look and desire” in a homosexual way, and how this is even more hopeless than those who struggle against inordinate heterosexual desires:

For me and other gay people, even when we’re not willfully cultivating desire, we know that when attraction does come — most of the time, it could be as unlooked for and unwanted as it was for me that day on the dance floor at my friends’ wedding reception — it will be attraction to someone of the same sex. And in those moments, it feels as though there is no desire that isn’t lust, no attraction that isn’t illicit. I never have the moment Dallas Willard describes as “looking and desiring” when I can thank God that he made me to be attracted to women… Every attraction I experience, before I ever get to intentional, willful, indulgent desire, seems bent, broken, misshapen. I think this grieves [God], but I can’t seem to help it. (pg. 136-137)

This experience of brokenness and uncontrollable desires is not uncommon. Hill speaks for many when he writes these words. Hill quotes Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust, “There are probably nearly as many Christians with homosexual feelings who do not believe that homosexual sex is right for Christians as there are those who are advocating its acceptance.” (pg. 16)

The beauty of this book is that Hill not only describes the struggle, he also explains how he has found peace with the burden. His “life as a homosexual Christian… has simply been learning how to wait, to be patient, to endure, to bear up under an unwelcome burden for the long haul.” (pg. 50). Rather than seeing his struggles and shortcomings as “confirmations of [his] rank corruption and hypocrisy”, Hill has gradually learned to view his journey “of struggle, failure, repentance, restoration, renewal in joy, and persevering, agonized obedience — as what it looks like for the Holy Spirit to be transforming me on the basis of Christ’s cross and his Easter morning triumph over death.” (pg. 144). His insights on sanctification deserve to be quoted in full:

The Bible calls the Christian struggle against sin faith (Hebrews 12:3-4; 10:37-39). It calls the Christian fight against impure cravings holiness (Romans 6:12-13, 22). So I am trying to appropriate these biblical descriptions for myself. I am learning to look at my daily wrestling with disordered desires and call it trust. I am learning to look at my battle to keep from giving in to my temptations and call it sanctification. I am learning to see that my flawed, imperfect, yet never-giving-up faithfulness is precisely the spiritual fruit that God will praise me for on the last day, to the ultimate honor of Jesus Christ. (pg. 146)

What Christian cannot say amen to that? I found Hill’s honesty and frank discussion of his wrestlings against the sinful pull of his soul, inspiring and hope-giving even for broken heterosexuals like me. We could learn a lot from listening to homosexual Christians who are fighting to follow Jesus with a pure heart.

Hill encourages others struggling with this sin to be open about their struggles with others, to seek help, and find a church community to be a part of. Hill’s message also challenges churches today to be a community of Christ-loving people who minister with His gracious hands and loving heart to all those in need around them.

This book packs quite the punch for 160 short pages. It has opened up the struggle of what it means to be homosexual to me in a new way. It gives me hope and confidence that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does work, even for those with such a burden to bear. I pray and trust this book will make a wide impact among churches of all kinds, but especially the more conservative churches.

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the Gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

One brief personal note, too, if I may. As I read the acknowledgments, I was delighted to find many names I recognized from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis where I was a member for four years. It’s a joy to think that my former pastor John Piper and the apprentice program he and others have poured their lives into was blessed to make a positive impact in Wesley Hill’s life. It shows that conservative evangelical churches can and do minister to struggling homosexual Christians.

I pray more churches would avail themselves of resources like this book and aim to think through what a full-fledged, Biblical perspective on homosexuality really means. I cannot recommend this book any more highly.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Zondervan direct.

The Bible on Hair Care

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

No, I haven’t yet found a Biblical defense for using Pert’s Plus. I’m talking about what the Bible says about hair length.

This may be a surprise to you, but listen to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

What do we do with this teaching? In my fundamentalist upbringing, we had hair rules, and for us guys: hair check. If our hair was getting anywhere near our shirt collar or ear lobes, we would be in trouble. Demerits and/or detention would come in a hurry!

It’s easy to discount such standards as tomfoolery. Along with the head covering that 1 Cor. 11 refers to, we can easily contextualize this command as appropriate for Corinthians only. But are we doing justice to Paul’s appeal to “nature” here?

This is the question that a bunch of reforming fundamentalists and I have been addressing in one of our forum topics over at our new group site: Transformed by Grace. The discussion has avoided hard and fast extra Biblical rules, and has been quite profitable. Let me share one small quote, out of several I gave in the discussion. This is from Tom Schreiner in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway):

Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated–what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.

I agree. On this point, I concluded with the following:

I do think women’s hair should be generally long, and men’s generally short. There is some room for varying styles and cultural fashions, but I do think today many of the short, short hairstyles worn by women are both non-attractive, and not glorifying to God.

What do you think? Does the Bible deal with our hair care? What about hairstyles today, is everything neutral or a-moral? Should a Christian look to the Bible before they run to a hairdresser? Please join the discussion in the comments here, or visit the Transformed by Grace forum on the question.

One last point: the Biblical view of a distinction between the genders being reinforced by our dress is also taught in Deut. 22:5. I dealt with that passage (often misused to condemn all women who wear pants) in an earlier post.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage — 1 Pet. 3:1-7 (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

This is part 2 of an outline from a lesson I gave for my small group, recently. Read part one first.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage (1 Pet. 3:1-7) —
Part 2: The Husband

I realize this is a thorny topic for many. I’d like to recommend a couple resources before I continue here. For much of this lesson, I’m dependent on a chapter from Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem). Wayne Grudem’s chapter “Wives Like Sarah, and Husbands Who Honor Them” focuses on these seven verses in 1 Peter. Also,a pastor at C.J. Mahaney’s Covenant Life Church, in Gaithersburg, MD has written an extremely helpful book from this complementarian perspective on marriage: Love That Lasts: When Marriage Meets Grace. Gary and Betsy Ricucci (Betsy is C.J.’s sister) have really outdone themselves with that book, you’ll find it very practical. I’d also recommend perusing the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s website, where you will find a rich resource with many online articles covering all aspects of this issue, from the practical to the apologetical. Finally, feel free to check out the few posts I have made on these topics (listed here and here).

2. Considerate Leadership — The Husband (1 Pet. 3:7)

A. Definition.

1) Leadership

Because this verse is tacked on to the instructions for how a woman should submit, we can understand it as applying to how a husband leads his wife. he must do so considerately. It should also be noted that 3:1-7 clearly shows that the husband leads, and leadership is not equally shared. Both submission and leadership are not optional. “Husbands cannot rightly opt out of family leadership and become passive non-participants in decisions and activities. Neither can they rightly make the opposite mistake and exercise harsh, selfish, domineering authority in their families….” (Grudem)

2) Considerate Leadership

“In an understanding way” literally is “according to knowledge”. So husbands are to live together with their wives according to knowledge. Exactly what that knowledge is, is not specified. Likely it would include knowledge of God’s Word relating to marriage, and intimate knowledge of his wife (emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.). Living according to this knowledge means understanding your wife and treating her carefully and lovingly, yet realizing the Biblical call to lead her and the family.

This call to live understandingly with the wife parallels the Biblical emphasis in the commands to husbands as it relates to marriage. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ sacrificially loved the church (Eph. 5:25). They are to love them as their own bodies, love them “as yourself” (Eph. 5:28, 33). Husbands are to love their wives and “not be harsh with them” (Col. 3:19).

B. Rationale for Considerate Leadership.

1) The wife is the “weaker vessel”.

This means, most basically, that she is vulnerable to being taken advantage of. In the context, she has a lesser role (not lesser importance, mind you) with regards to leadership. She is also physically weaker, and she has emotional vulnerabilities (hinted at in vs. 6). Emotional sensitivity is a great strength, but it opens one up to a likelihood of being “hurt deeply by conflict within a marriage or by inconsiderate behavior” (Grudem). Since the wife is vulnerable both in light of her position as under the husband, as well as her physical makeup, such a strong call for husbands to be considerate, and to show honor is needed.

2) The wife is a joint heir with her husband in the faith.

In Christ we are all one, there is no “male or female” even as there is no “Jew or Gentile”. Hence we should live together considerately, and men should treat their wives honorably.

3) This matter is vitally important and affects our prayers.

Prayers are hindered if the husband harshly treats his wife. Prayers are helped if he gives her honor. God cares about our marriages, and maintaining a healthy and godly marriage is very important — it pleases God.

C. Qualities of Considerate Leadership.

1) Consideration and Kindness for the wife. — living with her “in an understanding way”.

2) Honor for the submissive wife.

Husbands should not just be considerate, they must actually go out of their way to bestow honor on the godly and submissive wife. The word for “woman” is used only here in the Bible and refers to the idea of “feminine one” — a woman in tune with her godly femininity. This woman is the one worthy of honor.

3) Prayerful direction of the family.

Vs. 7 makes it seem that husbands should be praying and that prayer if vital for families. We should pray for our families and lead them from our knees.

Submitting to God's Will in Marriage — 1 Pet. 3:1-7 (part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

I’m reproducing the outline from a lesson I gave for my small group, recently. I think 1 Peter 3:1-7 is a beautiful passage on marriage that often gets overlooked. Much can be gained from studying just these seven small verses.

Submitting to God’s Will in Marriage (1 Pet. 3:1-7) —
Part 1: The Wife

Introduction

The preceding section (the last half of chapter 2) focuses on the Christian’s call to submit to God in society. He is to submit to ordinances and rulers, kings and governors, and by so doing is to honer God. Chapter 3 verses 1 and 7 both tie in to that context with the words “Likewise”. In marriage both the wife and the husband are called on to honor God through submission to His roles for marriage. in this, they follow the example of Jesus Christ, Who submitted Himself to God and left us an example that we should follow in His steps (2:21). Whether with regards to civil government (2:13-17), employment (2:18-20), marriage (3:1-7), or the church (5:5), we are to be subject to God-ordained authorities “for the Lord’s sake” (2:13).

1. Beautiful Submission — The Wife (1 Pet. 3:1-6)

A. Definition of Submission.

The idea of submission is clearly defined by this text.

Vs. 1-2 — Being subject = husbands see “your respectful and pure conduct”.

Vs. 3-5 — The adornment of a godly woman is the internal “gentle and quiet spirit” which has unfading “beauty”. This internal adornment also involves “submitting to their husbands”.

Gentle means “meek”, “not insistent on one’s own rights”; “not pushy, not selfishly assertive,” or “not demanding one’s own way” (Grudem). “The word refers to the humble and gentle attitude that expresses itself in a patient submissiveness; it could be used in the context of a meek and quiet spirit as a response to slander (Balch, from Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the New Testament, by Cleon Rogers). The adjective form of “gentle” used here, occurs only 3 other times, two of them describing Christ’s gentleness (Matt. 11:20, 21:5, and also Matt. 5:5). The noun form is more frequently used (cf. Gal. 5:23).

Vs. 6 — “Submitting to their husbands” includes willing obedience and respect.

To summarize, submission is “respectful’, “pure”, has unfading “beauty”, involves a “gentle and quiet spirit”, is meek, does not demand one’s own way, and at the very least includes willing obedience and respect. Wayne Grudem defines submission as “an inner quality of gentleness that affirms the leadership of the husband”.

B. Benefits of Submission.

Vs. 1-2 — The conversion of a lost husband (even to a lost man, submission seems right and beautiful, and even compelling).

Vs. 4 — A strong personal beauty which does not fade.

Vs. 4-6 — Special favor from God. A submissive spirit is “of great worth” to God. Being known as “daughters of Sarah” means proving to be genuine Christians, and even more than that, proving worthy of the kind of special honor Sarah receives.

vs. 7 — Honor from a godly husband (and indirectly from all godly men).

C. Hindrances to Submission.

Vs. 1 — The difficulty of a lost (or even a backslidden / overbearing) husband. (Even such a difficult situation does not permit one to shirk the Biblical call to submission.)

Vs. 3 — The temptation to live for worldly status, sexy recognition, etc.

Vs. 6b — Fear of the consequences if she submits (fear of the unknown, worry over her well-being or sense of personhood, fear of other’s thoughts of her, fear of a disobedient or unbelieving husband).

D. Strength for Submission.

Vs. 3-4 — Focus on what God thinks (submission is to Him, “very precious”).

Vs. 5 — Hope in God. He is good, His way is right, His promises are true.

Vs. 6 — Be mindful of the Gospel, and your status as Sarah’s daughters (God’s people).

2:13, 21) — Remember Christ’s example, and that all of this is for the Lord’s sake (it pleases Him).