Could we move away from...
Illustration
Could we move away from the appropriated chauvinism of this passage, even from its obvious church symbolism, and look at its introduction to the genius of marriage?
It seems to me this passage speaks of marriage as mutual ministry. The man serving the woman and the reciprocal of that. Each partner in slavery to the other. The ego of each submitted to the welfare of her or his counterpart.
In the book, Anquished English, it is said that "Socrates died of an overdose of wedlock" (page 8). But wedlock is not terminal. Not two people who are wed to each others' hope and locked into each others' identity. That's because "trust is the start of it, joy is part of it, love is at the heart of it." I trust her to make the effort to be who she says she is, and she returns the favor to me. We do our best to bring the fruit of joy to one another. And we have a love for each other where, in agape style, the lovee is exceedingly more important than the lover. All that means is that we're in the marriage thing together, and no individual more or less than her or his mate.
He's written several God-ordained books since this one but Maxie Dunham, several years ago in Dancing at My Funeral, put his finger directly on the pulse -- "The biggest heresy in marriage is alphabetical: Big I, little u. Marriage demands a big We (page 75.)"
I think that's what this much debated, historically controversial statement from the mind and subsequent pen of Paul really means.
-- Barnhart
It seems to me this passage speaks of marriage as mutual ministry. The man serving the woman and the reciprocal of that. Each partner in slavery to the other. The ego of each submitted to the welfare of her or his counterpart.
In the book, Anquished English, it is said that "Socrates died of an overdose of wedlock" (page 8). But wedlock is not terminal. Not two people who are wed to each others' hope and locked into each others' identity. That's because "trust is the start of it, joy is part of it, love is at the heart of it." I trust her to make the effort to be who she says she is, and she returns the favor to me. We do our best to bring the fruit of joy to one another. And we have a love for each other where, in agape style, the lovee is exceedingly more important than the lover. All that means is that we're in the marriage thing together, and no individual more or less than her or his mate.
He's written several God-ordained books since this one but Maxie Dunham, several years ago in Dancing at My Funeral, put his finger directly on the pulse -- "The biggest heresy in marriage is alphabetical: Big I, little u. Marriage demands a big We (page 75.)"
I think that's what this much debated, historically controversial statement from the mind and subsequent pen of Paul really means.
-- Barnhart
