Statement #1: The submission of wives to husbands is not forced, coerced, or even cajoled; it is given freely. To me this is the implication of 22-24, when the wives’ submission is said to be of a kind offered “to the Lord” and is analogous to the submission the church owes its bridegroom, Christ. The submission of Christians to God is not one of domination or involuntary enslavement, and a wife’s submission to her husband is also not one of domination or involuntary enslavement.

Statement #2: The husband’s headship should be of a kind that invites voluntary submission, not discourages it. Husbands are exhorted to love their wives sacrificially and in a self-emptying way; the point is obvious enough in the text and I will not take the time here to develop it much further. What I would like to highlight, though, is how the goal of a husband’s self-emptying love is analogous to Christ’s work on the cross: “so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (27). Theologically, it seems the analogy is one of purpose and intent. The husband’s desire for his wife should be her sanctification, holiness and purity. In this way husbands will “love their own bodies” (28) or, theologically speaking, preserve their own holiness. Let me bottom line this: The purpose of the relational dealings between husband and wife is each other’s sanctification.

Statement #3: Marriage is for the Gospel. At this point in the text, I believe the question becomes what is at stake in this relationship or why does this matter? Paul’s answer to this question lies in 31-32. His answer is the primary reason why I am and will remain a complementarian, and why I will (by the grace of God) always lead my family to worship in churches that affirm a complementarian attitude to male/female relationships. So, what is at stake? ” ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (31-32). In pointing back to Genesis 2 and saying that it refers to “Christ and the church,” Paul is making a statement about marriage: Christ’s winning of his bride, the church, by his work on the cross is theologically prior to the institution of marriage, and marriage itself was created to point to this greater and higher truth of Christ, that is, the Gospel. And it is not just any marriage that makes this remarkable Great Commission claim. Only a marriage with loving, Christlike headship and loving, Christlike submission fully and completely proclaims the Gospel in everyday life.

So when I opened by claiming that the right and true proclamation of the Gospel is at stake in this debate, I meant that according to Paul’s understanding of Genesis 2 and the creation of marriage itself, marriage lived to the glory of God reflects the multifaceted Gospel of grace at least partly because of the headship and submission found there. With all respect to my egalitarian friends, if mutual submission is the primary motif in this passage it does not properly proclaim the Gospel. This does not mean that egalitarian marriages cannot reflect the Gospel at all, but they cannot do so as fully and with as much vigor. When discussing this with a friend I used the analogy of a luxury sports car. Many expensive sports cars are engineered to run on high grade, 93 octane fuel. If you put the good stuff in, they run beautifully: the engine purrs, the car accelerates smoothly, and everyone is impressed by the car’s performance (and the car’s manufacturer). If you put the lower octane gas in, the car will still start, and it will still go fast. But it won’t go as fast; the acceleration might be stuttered, the engine could knock and groan a bit. The car will still be beautiful, and people will still be impressed. But they won’t be as impressed. And they just might walk away thinking about how great the car could have been.

I do not want my friends and acquaintances to see my marriage and to walk away thinking about how good it might be, but about how awesome and beautiful the Gospel definitely is. At the end of the day, my wife and I are complementarians because we do not want anything – even a disputed interpretation that is of secondary importance – to get in the way of the maximum glory of God.

1. Evan

2. McKenzie (probable nickname: Mack or Macky)

3. Noah

4. Ryan

5. Tyler