John Zens, author of What’s With Paul and Women?
“Who’s in charge?” is a source of friction in many marriages. Latching on to the traditional concept of “male headship,” a number of Christian husbands use this mantra to abuse or marginalize their wives. I would like to suggest that there is a healing paradigm that would liberate couples and vastly improve marital relationships—seek the mind of the Lord together. This paradigm is unfolded in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 is the only place in the New Testament where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. Yet it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.
In the context of this passage Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it shouldn’t happen. There is, then, nothing in this text supporting the contention that the husband’s “authority” should override his wife’s differing viewpoint.
John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (What’s the Difference?, p. 32). But 1 Corinthians 7:5 challenges Piper’s assumed maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband should not overrule his wife with the “final choice.” Biblically, such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action.
Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad decision-making model in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (What’s the Difference?, p. 32). Yet in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, I suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems, and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”
1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would conclude that the husband has the “final say” under presumed authority commonly known as “male headship.” Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it should not be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds.).
It is safe to say that most evangelical husbands have been affected by the “final say” position embedded in traditional ideas about “male headship.” I would invite believing husbands to meditate on 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, pray about it before the Lord, and discuss it with your precious wives. I think you will find that seeking the Lord together and waiting for the “symphony” that brings unity and peace is a far better way to function together in a Christ-honoring marriage. The traditional top-down, hierarchical, the-man-is-in-charge model is out of sync with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.
Remember, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 is the only place in Scripture where the word “authority” is mentioned in connection with marriage. The really striking thing about this “authority” is that it is a mutual authority over each other’s body, and has nothing to do with the husband’s alleged “authority” over his wife. The truth is, compared to traditional ideas about male headship since the 3rd century AD, Paul’s perspective here is revolutionary—especially when it is recalled that in the first century AD women were often viewed as property or chattel.
A good post recently from Jim Martin about marriage relationships.
Piper’s assumption is simply that — an assumption. The ‘final say’ principle is baseless and pointless. I once asked a colleague if his marriage was complementarian or egalitarian. He told me the former. I asked him where that ever showed up practically. He thought for a moment and said that he holds the ‘final say’ when it comes to big decisions. I then asked him how many times in 25 years of marriage he had ever asserted his ‘final say’. Not once.
I don’t know where we get this ‘veto’ notion or ‘final say’ idea, but not only is baseless textually, I think it’s actually quite sinister. It’s a way for husbands to hold power over wives without having anything helpful to offer a relationship by way of navigating the practicalities of life.
Quite helpful. I wish I would have known this twenty-five years ago! And helpful post from Jim Martin.
In 32 years of marriage, my wife and I have always arrived at decisions by mutual agreement. The “final say” has no place in our thinking, except that we are both listening for the what the Lord is saying to us, and HE gets the final say. I blogged a piece a few years ago about marriage, called “Who’s the Boss?” http://www.thefaithlog.com/2005/07/whos-boss.html
In our 24 years of marriage the “final say” question has never come up either.
I do think that this passage about who has authority over the bodies of those married, and how decisions regarding physical separation should be made has very interesting implications.
In a similar way, I often ask folks when this question comes up who they think was “in charge” of the church in Jerusalem. Was it Peter? James? It does not appear to me from the stories in Acts that any one person had the title of “Father” or “Teacher” or even “high priest” or had any kind of “final say” over the issues that arose by virtue of some kind of solo executive power. It looks like several people in the community felt responsible for decisions that were made as God’s people and that all matters were discussed until there was consensus about God’s will. LeaderS in the church in the NT are always plural, other than the Christ, and the whole community often played a significant role as the importance of an issue went up. This ought to at least give strong pause to the idea that it would be different in the family, which church leadership so often mirrors.
Scot,’
You have nailed it. I feel sorry for John Piper, if he has truly based his marriage on “final say,” as he will have then missed much of the richness of marriage. “FInal say” is essentially the US political model–two adversarial parties locked in disagreement, where the winner takes all. In Piper’s thinking, the husband always gets that “tie-breaking” vote. In the Bible, we have not democracy or lukewarm compromise, but as you say, seeking after God’s will or, in other words, transcendence.
While Who’s the Boss was a great [read with sarcasm]80s sitcom, the question of who’s in charge is always the wrong question in a spiritual relationships. God is in charge and the people in relationship are to discern together God’s will.
Of course, the issue of discerning together is very difficult mostly because we are so ready to import our own wills into the process.
To say that the husband is in charge in a marriage is to say he has more right than the wife to mistakenly impose his will on the relationship. Piper seems to state this as a responsibility. I don’t know why God would give a man the responsibility to be wrong.
Husband and wife must work together to discern God’s will in a relationship.
This goes out the door when a couple is driving somewhere. In that case, whoever is behind the wheal gets to make the mistake in following the direction. Better to make a wrong turn than to crash.
In anticipation of a discussion of this issue in a class, I decided to ask our kids who was the boss of our family one evening at dinner.
My daughter said that I was the boss because of where I sat at the table. My older son said that Sarah was the boss because whenever the kids ask me anything, I always said, “let’s ask mom.” Our youngest appealed to the spiritual by saying “Jesus is the boss!”
It was seriously gratifying that there was no clear hierarchical structure in our marriage, at least one that the kids could intuitively identify. I guess it was also nice that they could find at least some evidence that Jesus is the boss of our home!
Diane #6 makes an interesting point about the American political system and how “final say” plays into American notions of good governance. In non-Western (e.g., Confucian) cultures, patriarchy and male headship is so deeply ingrained that people believe, almost without question, that it must be part of the divine creation order. How easy it is, and how dangerous it is, to read our own cultural presuppositions into the Bible text. To take the ideas of male headship or feminine submission and elevate them as virtues is *not* a good idea. If married Christians became truly honest about the state of their marriages, I believe that many would have to conclude that wrongheaded ideas about headship and submission are a major reason why we fail to experience the intimacy and love that God desires for us.
In 11 years of marriage, we have never had the issue of “final say” come up either. What I find interesting is that there is a leadership question at all posed in marriage. When I first became friends with people whom I’ve now been friends with for many years, we didn’t look at each other and say “Who’s going to be in charge here?” The very thought is ridiculous. And yet, it is presented (by some) as being absolutely foundational to a good Christian marriage. Rather, I think that when the question of “final say,” or “who’s in charge” comes up in a marriage, these are symptoms of deeper problems between husband and wife.
Great Post! So needed. When will we get back to the biblical model of men and women leading the family and the church together in community, submitted to one another, under the authority of Christ, in the power of the Spirit? It is beautiful, powerful, redemptive, and sends a message to a fragmented, ego-centered, power-hungry world that, in Christ, we function truly and humbly as one flesh and one body.
I find that many male headship advocates today selectively ignore the clear examples in Scripture of mutual authority and leadership. Why? Is it fear, insecurity, the need to be right, book sales? What drives this now that we have had decades of solid scholarship that shows us otherwise. Like slavery, this may be a shift that, sadly, is harder and takes longer than we would like.
Good post. I think the bottom line on headship is indeed unity as so many have pointed out. And that unity is mutual consent.
The headship issue for me is this: I think Paul was addressing a current marriage structure in the first century. He sought to apply the gospel to the world that existed at that time to slaves, children, wives. We too must apply the gospel to whatever marriage construct that exists so that we can function according to the Spirit of God and the way of Jesus. If we function in the way of Jesus, we have honored God in our relationships with one another…. yes it is that simple and it is that challeging.
It seems like there are some interesting caricatures that exist about those who hold to the Complementarian position. And there is a a bit of righteous indignation and condescension exhibited. Piper is “baseless and pointless” and “I feel sorry for Piper”. Sigh.
Dan (#13), I wouldn’t say that about Piper, but about the notion that he assumes. I think the idea itself is not a good one, without making any comment on Piper himself.
Let’s not forget that Piper himself has preached on how final say can go sideways. In a recent youtube clip he preached about the couple who came to him with a problem. The wife said that her husband did not allow her to go from room to room without permission. When Piper asked her where her husband had gotten the idea to be like this, she responded that he had gotten the idea from Piper.
This is a true story, and there are many like it. There is no point in saying, as Piper did “This is just sick.” If men are given “final say” without a ten foot book of rules on when not to use it they will use it according to their own inclination to be either perfectly normal human beings, or controlling. That is just life.
Did Piper issue a list of contexts where women might make their own decisions? I don’t think so.
Esoecially tragic are the cases where women have been deprived of birth control, either artificial or natural, and have had more pregnancies than their body can bear – all because the husband has final say.
If ministers refuse to believe that cases like the couple who came to Piper do not exist in their own congregation, then they will not provide necessary care for those in need.
Unfortunately a demand for mutual agreement and consensus can lead to suffering as well. There must be some allowance for simply letting the other partner be, for allowing autonomy. Happiness and physical health is only possible with a certain amount of autonomy over one’s own body, AND community or relationship. Being in submission, is a form of community, but often leads to greater isolation and lack of relationship.
Tim @14, OK, I see your point. But don’t you think you are being dismissive of his position? “Baseless and “pointless”. Do you really think that? Is it possible to have a different position but not be portrayed as somehow inferior or deficient?
Not all of us complementarians are Neanderthals. I could easily be like the colleague you cited. I too have been married for 25 years and I can’t remember when “I put my foot down” about some issue. However, as Deets (@7) points out with the analogy of driving the car, both cannot play tug-of-war with the steering wheel without a crash. Hopefully the decision on how to get to the destination has been made before the off-ramp.
A slightly tangential story. My wife and I are from the north and lived in the north until about 10 years ago. When we moved to the south I noticed a big change in the way people relate to us when we are together. In the north, whenever we would go shopping or go out to eat the people helping us (waiters store salespeople etc) would always talk to my wife. But when we moved here, to the south, they all talked to me. I was confused and bothered by this but now have just got used to telling them to talk to her about it, not me.
I always thought we were to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. This gives Him the “final say.”
The times my husband (of 25 years) & I have trouble are the times when we forget this instruction. I agree with Jim Martin.
If taking the wheel and driving the car is to be the analogy, when we go on trips, my wife and I take turns driving. But I don’t think that is really a good analogy. Marriage is not a mechanical operation.
It is also not a military organization where there is a chain of command. It is the most intimate of personal relationships. And as N. A. Beerline pointed out above, when we enter into personal relationships, we do not ask, “Who is going to be in charge here?” Personal relationships require a mutuality, not a hierarchy.
Jeff (19), that last paragraph’s a beauty.
Dan (#16),
Many complementarian marriages are very good partnerships (with hierarchy) – today and over the centuries. No question about it. And when people actually take the gospel message seriously, the NT example, it doesn’t really matter.
Headship and leadership means love – putting the others needs first, patience, no arrogance, feet-washing, self-sacrifice, …
When people play tug-of-war in marriage the problems are much deeper than “final say” and submission.
A lot of self-congratulating here. I wonder though if the real idea of headship is being missed. That the husband takes the lead in sacrifice. If you look at how Jesus loved his bride, the church, it was always by leading in sacrificial service.
Of course this does not mean the wife is not called to serve, but if one needs to serve to a greater level or first, it is to be the husband. Hence Eph. 5 which talks about Christ giving himself up for his bride, and that Christian husbands should do likewise.
So while the CBE thinks they may be making great strides for women, I would never let me daughter settle for what they are offering. I want better for her than a man who will just offer to go dutch with her through life. I want her to have a husband who will lay his life down for her, and lead in service.
Rjs @21, well said.
I think Ted (and rjs’s comment before concurs) makes a good, valid point here, and I was thinking the same myself. I’m also sure both Piper and Zens would say the same, of course within their theological constructs.
…let me add to that that whether you’re male or female, the husband or the wife, one is called to a self-sacrificial love of complete giving in every relationship, so that this call ends up true for the wife toward the husband, as well. All are called to be like Christ in this way. Paul’s point was to a patriarchal society which needed emphasis in the husband giving himself up in love for the wife I take it.
Yes Ted M. I think you are right that some of this is Paul addressing the cultural situation that Paul is dealing with patriarchal men.
Yet the fact that Paul uses the comparison of Christ loving and leading his Bride in sacrificial service makes it transcendent past just that specific context. The church is routinely referred to as Jesus’ bride and Jesus as her groom. Paul is capturing an eternal reality and truth to tell men how they ought to love their wives just as Jesus loved his bride.
As I said before women are also called to love their husbands through serving them, but not in the manner that Jesus loves his bride; this is a command exclusively given to husbands.
Ted, You may have a point. But I believe Philippians 2 (TNIV admirably brings out the intent clearly here, which I hope the NIV revision follows) makes it clear that in our relationships with each other we’re to have the same attitude of mind which Christ Jesus had. And therefore that would apply across the board for everyone in all relationships, marriage included.
…let me again add to try to be careful with the context: In all relationships within the church.
I think it ends up having to be concrete and applicable to all in every relationship, even though it is Paul speaking to the church at Philippi. It is not just for males across the board, and females only to each other.
Dan, I’d just say ‘amen’ to rjs’s comment — well said. It seems to me that a ‘tug-of-war’ isn’t the result of turning away from the ‘final say’ approach. I can’t imagine our family taking a direction where one partner didn’t feel good about heading that way. If one of us had serious reservations, I expect that we’d both consider the other instead of bull-dozing ahead.
I don’t mean to be terribly dismissive, Dan, but I do mean to speak seriously by saying his position is ‘baseless’. I simply mean that there isn’t any foundation for that position. And it does seem to be ‘pointless’ in that while it appears to offer some help in explaining how that sort of relationship could work, it actually doesn’t get us anywhere. It only delivers us into a structured relationship that might help to “get things done,” but does so in a way that is out of line with God’s ideal for marriage.
So, don’t mean to be dismissive, but definitely do mean to speak strongly.
Only slightly off topic, yesterday I heard George Barna list off a few humorous book titles that came across his desk. My favorite:
A Survey of Women Preachers in the American Baptist Movement: a short story
Tim@ 29, I understand your point and why you feel the need to speak strongly about it. We are going to have to agree to disagree. My initial response was to what I think is dismissive language used quite frequently on blogs of positions one disagrees with. It is not fair to” the other side” and it sounds like you don’t understand the position. I’ll concede the last word to you because I have to go to work. Peace.
Amen. And amen! I shall send on.
Very nice post. I was looking for something like this for my brother and this should do..Thanks
In nearly 32 years of marriage, I can’t think of a single instance where the thought, “Who’s in charge?” even came in to my head. I’ve never thought of marriage in those terms at all. Seems to be a category mistake to me.
Thanks for (re)posting Zens’ post, Scot. It’s a wonderful insight that I’d overlooked in 1 Corinthians even after years immersed in that text!
Hierarchical models and expectations can foster really unhealthy relationships. Working with battered women is difficult, and I’m not just talking about the dominating and aggressive behavior of men. All too often women struggle w/ standing firm for fear of losing relationship(s), stability, financial support (esp’ly when they & children are dependents). It is not unusual for women to undermine their own plans to escape abuse. Dependence & enabling patterns seemingly can be just as much a trap as dominance and entrapping patterns.
Mutuality requires both parties to accept responsibility together for the health of the relationship and to foster the health of the other, too.
On a lighter note, my dearly beloved once took a job about which I clearly stated my spiritual unease. Within months, he said, “I’m never going to ignore your spiritual sense again!”
We’ve had other moments when I’ve also sensed that the Spirit was speaking clearly to him, and we’ve gone with that direction. ISTM the Lord gives us an awareness of whom God may be speaking to, when we’re sensitive to listen to the Lord and to each other.
Jordan and I have also never run into a need for headship in our 18…er…months.
I used to be a complementarian but, the more I looked into it, the more I found it unsettlingly full of weird and unfortunate implications. In a fully realized complementarian world (at least the versions I’ve been around), women would have virtually no influence on anything.
It’s heartening to hear serious, Biblically grounded people discussing egalitarianism as good theology.
Question — does Scripture not also say that a wife is to reverence her husband, and that she is to be “subject” to him, in all things? So, maybe the word “authority” is not used in these other passages, but isn’t the concept there?
Is is possible that this passage in Corinthians 7 is in fact about this one area – physical union – and that life in general does require some kind of headship role for the husband??
Now, even if there is a place for the role of husbandly headship, that headship role would have to moderated, balanced, by the whole concept of every believer being submitted to each other, and all of us practicing deference sometimes, but I just wonder what you think about these other passages, then.
I realize my question may not be popular, but it’s an honest question. This is the first time I have heard this passage explained this way and I’m looking for further clarification, consistent with the whole context of Scripture. Thanks.
If mutual authority is practiced in the area of physical union, and the “headship role” is moderated and balanced with every believer submitted to each other and all of us practicing deference sometimes, then that seems to me to be egalitarianism in practice.
A question I have out of really wanting to understand and better grasp the egalitarian position.
Do egalitarians believe there are any roles for the husband and wife in marriage? In other words, is there something unique, distinct, and exclusive that only the husband or wife can bring to the table in a marital union. Sociologically there are interesting studies out there on the effect/role of a mom and dad on kids, I wonder how an egalitarian approach accounts for such realities.
A four year old child is injured and lies in a brain-dead coma. The Christian wife/mother does not want to stop life support and the Christian husband/father does. There is no hope of mutual agreement. She is adamant about not “pulling the plug.” What does the “final say” complementarian husband do? And at what cost to his marriage?
I think that complementarianism is not practiced in most Christian homes; IMO it is a biblical position that is held to keep gifted sisters from equality of full leadership positions (pastors, elders) in the churches.
Your hypothetical is reliant upon a odd understanding of complementarianism John. Also it seems a bit presumptuous to assume other people’s understanding of the Bible is arrived at because they want to oppress women. I think you can do better.
For your hypothetical I think you delve into questions about if Christians are even Biblically allowed to end a life, even one that shows no brain activity. No complementarian holds that the husband is allowed to override teaching of Scripture for his family.
Also, as it has been said on here already, a husband’s headship is to be like that of Christ with his bride, servant leadership. So lets pretend Christians can morally end a life that is brain dead, then the husband would serve his wife by honoring her decision to keep that plug in.
Ryan: Yes, but as I see it, one of the problems with complementarianism is that it elevates the general gender traits over the individual traits. So maybe women are generally more emotional and men are generally more rational (maybe)–but complementarianism builds rules around those general traits and then refuses to bend them even if the two individuals in question are the opposite.
For instance, maybe in most cases a family works best if the husband works and the wife takes care of the kids. Complementarians would make it a rule that the husband must always work and the wife must always take care of the kids unless they’re physically incapable of doing so (this is Mars Hill’s position). Thus, if your individual personalities don’t fall in line with gender norms, it’s a problem. There’s something wrong with you.
I would say a smart egalitarian position would be that different people have different roles in a marriage based on what they, as individuals, are like.
Thanks Colleen for the thoughtful comment. I guess I am just trying to understand from an egalitarian position if there is anything that defines man and woman in marriage besides just anatomy.
If as you say Colleen the roles can vary based on the individuals and what they are like, why do we need two people of the opposite sex? Please do not read this as antagonistic or me trying to play the slippery slope I truly am not. I just am trying to see how roles, gender, and being distinctly man or women is really essential for the egalitarian viewpoint.
Once again thanks for the kinds response Colleen.
I’ll try, Ryan. I don’t think that egalitarians believe in marriage roles. They would say that a role is a part that a person plays instead of actually being him or herself. A man is always the husband and a women is always a wife, but that would not indicate that one is a leader/initiator who makes the decision and one is a follower/responder who submits to the decision. Likewise, a man is always the father and a woman is always the mother.
Most egalitarians seem to be content to let people work out how they will order their own lives. Couples work for consensus or each spouse takes the lead in different spheres. A couple can use either strategy, depending on the issue at hand.
So, no roles. An egalitarian couple can look very traditional just a complementarian couple can look very egalitarian.
So if there are no God-ordained roles, or essentials that a man or woman distinctly bring to the table why do both people have to be of the opposite sex? Why not gay marriage in which both people work out their roles. I guess I want to know from an egalitarian perspective why God has made marriage to be one man and one woman, if the roles are completely malleable, and neither gender brings anything intrinsically unique to the marital union.
Once again, I am not asking to be argumentative or to entrap, just am trying to learn here.
Egalitarians don’t say that men and women are identical. They say that marriages are not hierarchies with husbands having authority over wives.
Ryan, I don’t think that you are being argumentative or trying to entrap. I’m not trying to be argumentative or trying to entrap, either. Can I ask you a question?
Would you say that complementarians believe that marriage is a God-ordained hierarchy in which men bring masculine authority and women bring feminine submission to the relationship?
Ryan,
Let me ask you, is the essence of masculinity tied up in particular roles from your perspective? Is a male unmasculine if he shaves his legs and does the dishes? Is this against nature? Do you believe there are roles that only women fulfill? Is a marriage defined by these roles or by the individual man and woman that constitute it?
You see, if the marriage is defined by the roles that people play in it, then it does not demand a man and a woman. But what if roles are not what define a marriage?
Shalom uvrecha.
Good stuff Dana and trierr!
@Dana
I know that egalitarians do not say that men and women are identical, but what are the differences? Why do men and women exclusively bring to the marital union from an egalitarian view.
And without speaking for all complementarians I would say men have a God ordained role to take responsibility for their wife and family. This is why God confronted Adam and not eve, and it is why in Eph. 5 men are instructed to love their brides in the same manner that Jesus loved his; with sacrificial, servant leadership. I think this discussion sometimes runs into the ditch because there is an glaring focus on hierarchy and power. Instead I think the true call to husbands is that they would initiate in lead in serving, and washing their wife in the Word, or in other words orienting themselves for the holistic well being of their brides.
@trierr
I do not believe masculinity is tied to certain tasks like shaving legs, chopping down a tree or emptying dishes. I actually shaved my legs in high school when I was swimming!
And yes I do believe there is a role that only women can bear children. I know in our culture we tend to look down on that somewhat by certain people, but I earnestly believe and think the Bible teaches that children are a major blessing. What an amazing gift God gives us in children, and the fact that he has exclusively given the role to women to bear them should be held in very high esteem.
I do like your last point trierr, and would love to hear any of your thoughts on what you think defines a marriage.
Thanks both of you for engaging.
Ryan, speaking for myself I would say that men bring maleness to a marriage and women bring femaleness. I think is is possible to generalize about that, but I don’t think that generalities should lead us to expect all husbands and wives to fulfill specific roles.
I wasn’t trying to run the discussion into a ditch of hierarchy and power. Since the original topic was about authority in marriage, I thought I was staying on topic.
I did notice that you gave a description of a husband’s role. Again, I’m not trying to trap you, but the original topic is authority in marriage. Am I to understand that you do not see headship as an indication of authority? It is not specifically mentioned in your description of the husband’s role.
BTW I don’t believe that all complementarian husbands are tyrannical, nor do I believe that their wives are doormats. Not at all. I sincerely believe that there are Christ-centered,God-honoring, emotionally healthy spouses on both ends of the egal-comp spectrum.
Regarding this:
“Also, as it has been said on here already, a husband’s headship is to be like that of Christ with his bride, servant leadership. So lets pretend Christians can morally end a life that is brain dead, then the husband would serve his wife by honoring her decision to keep that plug in.”
The thing about this is that if the individuals were reversed in this situation (the wife wanted to pull the plug and the husband didn’t, so she honored his decision), it would be called “submission.” Why is it that the exact same action, if done by the husband, is called “servant leadership” and if done by the wife is called “submission”?
They both look the same to me. They look like mutual submission. No authority-subordination roles are necessary for husbands and wives to serve and yield to one another in love.
Also, when complementarians say “God-ordained roles,” they are always referring to male authority and female submission to authority. This is not just “roles,” it’s heirarchy. “Roles” do not, in and of themselves, mean one always gets to be in charge and the other always gets to follow. But that’s what “roles” mean in complementarianism.
In my house, “Mom” and “Dad” are roles, and certain things are under Mom’s jurisdiction, and when they are, Dad defers to her– and vice versa. (This is decided based on expertise, really– who is better at what job.) But “Dad” does not mean “always in charge” and “Mom” does not mean “always submits.” To add those things is to add hierarchy where hierarchy need not exist.