Someone, somewhere else in cyberspace, quipped at me in a comment about having a theology I "like" when I spoke of marriage and "mutual submission." I guess the implication was I gravitate to what I want, not what is true, but as I also thought what I said was true first and foremost, decided to spell it out in a comment back to the person on that site.
As far as marriage goes, I actually prefer the term "mutual servitude." Reasoning as follows:
I am aware that there is no command given to husbands to submit to their wives. There is no command that the husband is to rule his wife, or to enforce submission from her, either. There are commands for wives to submit themselves to their own husbands. There is instruction that we should be submitting to one another. In some sense, Ephesians 5 says we all should be submitting to each other.
Husbands are commanded to be like Christ in Ephesians 5. And this is what Christ said about those who would be leaders, and those who would be like Him (which logically has to include Christian husbands, since they are called the heads of their respective wives). It applies very much to what Paul said to husbands in Ephesians 5:
"You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
This passage applies to husbands in Ephesians 5 because in Ephesians 5 Paul was telling husbands to imitate Christ in this way. Paul was not telling husbands to assume the authority and power of Christ at His Second Coming. For a husband to wield authority as though he were the authority figure to be obeyed would be contrary to the command of Jesus. Jesus said so. He said that to wield power and authority the way the heathen world at large did (and still does) is forbidden. Christ explicitly told his disciples that a gentile conception of authority was not to characterize their relationships with each other.
The gospel of Mark teaches those who are in positions of power are to lay aside their prerogatives, as Christ did in His kenosis (Philippians 2). This would apply to a husband giving up his life for his wife. Unless I'm misreading those verses from Mark and Ephesians, Christ and Paul teach a husband's leadership is done with an attitude that he is her servant, her slave, not her overlord. Some call it servant-leadership. And that's why many claim that marriage is a relationship of mutual submission, although I prefer the term "mutual servitude."
The reason I prefer that term is because there is no direct charge to the husband to be submissive to his wife, except by extrapolation from Ephesians 5:21. I believe this still applies when two believers get married, or else it doesn't apply at all, but there are direct instructions, given in the Bible, to husbands and wives that differ. A wife is to be a subject of her husband, not the other way around, according to the NT. The husband is the head of his wife, which can mean "source," and "authority," and in this case it probably means both. So, yes, a husband is head of his wife. But he is commanded to lay aside the prerogatives that go with this title, as Christ did in His first appearance and instead assume the role of a slave to his wife. And the wife is commanded to reverence and be subject to her husband and be submissive to him. It is indeed a mutual servitude, but it is complementary at its core. The one who is a subject remains a subject. The one who is a head is to lay aside those prerogatives and assume the duties of a slave. This is a picture of Christ's kenosis and the Church's relationship with Him which is to be a witness of the gospel to the world.
It's too bad that many theonomists (such as Doug Phillips of Vision Forum) have, as Don Veinot (Midwest Christian Outreach) said, have such a "pagan conception of authority" for the man in marriage. Also the Baylys and their continual clamoring over men being the authority figures and their complaints against women such as Anne Graham Lotz, who is peerless in showing forth the Savior of the world at her conventions. Such talk from Vision Forum and the Baylys mars the picture of Christ serving the world, and hence the witness to the world of a suffering, serving, dying Savior. What a shame!
