Submission Schubmission

By Amie May

I grew up in Memphis, Tennessee. Granted I timed out for a few years of high school in Texas. In Memphis "back in the day", wrestling was a big part of the culture. Correction, "rastlin" was a big part of the culture. I grew up where Jerry Lawler was "King", Andy Kaufman was a destestable bad guy (I secretly was a fan), and Randy "the Macho Man" Savage would piledrive some scumbags ("Ooohh yeah!"). I never sat around through the "nobody" matches. I timed things just right and would be in front of the TV for the main event. The matches most important to me were the ones with Andre "the Giant" (He was a real giant!), and that wierd guy with the snake.. anyone remember his name? Just kidding - Jake "the Snake" Roberts.

In my preteen years I would support the pretty boys. Rastlin' became more about swooning than slammin' folks. By then I had realized that a man with a 300 pound body of muscle hitting you with a chair would cause lasting damage.

I played "girl stuff", like Barbies and dolls. I goo-goo eyed Rick Springfield and the sort like most girls of the 80's. I also played some mad neighborhood football and was every bit as good as the boys. As a matter of fact, I ranked really high among our numbers. The only boy in our neighborhood who could beat me rastlin' was my big brother. He didn't make me say "uncle", he made me say that he was King. I took a good "poundin" before I would submit.

Back when I struggled internally with the idea that women are presented as lesser beings in the bible, are to "submit" to their husbands, and be silent in church (and I was reared with the teaching that the church was "two or more gathered in my name" so that was pretty much any theological discussion) - I didn't really think about the term "submit" and what it meant.

Have you ever really thought that over? Nowadays I watch the UFC from time to time. Those men are fierce fighters and when things are going too far, or just plain bad for the loser, they have the option to "tap out". They yield victory or "submit". There are submissive holds in many sports. The idea is to defeat the opponent forcefully, or to gain that yield.

When my husband and I were planning to get married, I shared with him my views on the wife submitting. He asked when we started the rastlin' match! Seriously, he was perplexed with the view itself because it paints him (and all men) as a man interested in defeating his wife, keeping a submissive hold over her, or pushing her to the point of "tap out". Sure I believed in giving that to him before the match started, but that isn't what he wanted and that is the point. Not all men want submission out of women. Some are interested what we feel and would rather seek solutions than have us "longsuffering". Some want to be considerate of us and want to hear from us so they can make educated choices concerning our relationships.

This might lead some readers to believe that my husband must be submitting, or that ours is a relationship of "mutual submission". No so. Rather, this is a "submission-free" marriage. There is no intentional vi for ultimate control and if we catch ourselves unintentionally doing so, we see that as a problem in need of solution.

I've heard the suggestion that in the case of an unresolvable disagreement a woman should submit to her husband. Yet, compromise truly leaves no disagreement unresolvable. I am talking about compromise birthed of disagreement, and not of struggle for control. Without struggle for control, there is no need for submissing on anyone's part and that's just reality. So why would the apostle Paul call for it? Well I've got news that my sisters out there might be happy to hear, but let's start at the start, shall we?

In the book of Genesis chapter 1, we have humanity ("aw'dawm") being created in God's image. Humanity is further described as consisting of "male and female". "Male and female" are there in both equally human ("aw'dawm"), and equally in God's image.

Genesis 2 opens with "aw'dawm" being formed of the dust of the ground and receiving the breath of life. In the original Hebrew language, there is no reason to believe that "aw'dawm" is a proper name as of yet in the story. Now don't let the "him" fool you. It was common in Hebrew language to defer to "him" when the subject is non-specific in sex.

As we read on, God says that it isn't good that "aw'dawm" be alone. "Alone" is isolated and separate. Its meaning is described as a branch with no tree, or a solitary part of a body. A group or an individual can be set apart in such a way. God then makes the decision to make a suitable relief to this isolated state of "aw'dawm".

Hebrews viewed nouns in terms of function and in very concrete, personal ways. The rib of "aw'dawm" functions as a support structure, or that which holds the form of a body. According to the story, "aw'dawm" is put to sleep and a "wife" is formed of that which supported the body of "aw'dawm".

As the story in the original Hebrew does not offer any reason to make "aw'dawm" a proper name, there is no reason to believe that "wife" or "ishshah" is of the female sex. We can know however, that the word "ishshah" is a feminine noun which tells us that the function (not the sex) of "ishshah" is female.

If you are confused, perhaps something more familiar with clarify this. Paul writes to the church in Corinth, "For I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God. For I have promised you to one Man, to present you a pure virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) He is speaking metaphorically here. The church in Corinth was of the "bride" of the Christ. We know though, that the church's sex was not female. Rather, the church's function was female. The story in Genesis 2 is told in kind and perhaps it should not be so surprising since Adam was a type for Jesus: "but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the coming One." (Romans 5:14).

"Aw'dawm" declares that "ishshah" will be called "ishshah" because "ishshah" was taken out of "iysh". As you can see, this sort of reorganization affected the original "aw'dawm". "Aw'dawm" will now function as "iysh", or "husband".

So far this is in line with the later descriptions given by Paul of Jesus and the Church. Certainly we can say that Jesus was an individual, yet at the same time we can question, "Or was he?" After all, did he not speak through Paul? Through Peter? And others? Did they not fully identify themselves as Jesus? (his body) Rather than singular vs plural, this truly becomes something more complex.

This is helpful in harmonizing with Genesis 5:1, 2 which read: "This is the book of the generations of Adam: In the day that God created man. He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created."

"Ishshah" was born of the support structure of "aw'dawm". "Iysh's" function was quite literally male in that he would give "Ishshah" seed. She would conceive. One day, "Iysh" would no longer function but return to dust (Jesus would take on that function) as a consequence of consuming poison. Recognizing that, "Iysh" said that "Ishshah" would be called "Eve", or "child bearer" and somehow Eve's choice to consume the same poison would make her function (bearing children) a painful one.

This story is the story of the beginning of the end of an isolated human existance, the beginning of relationship, and what would become a vi for control. Ding! Ding! Ding! "Let's get it on!"

Believe me, I could write for days on this topic. For now, I'll cut this short and to shorten the in-between parts, God sets us up. By the time Jesus is working through the first century church, each sex has a fully established role under the law. That role however, becomes a real function. Too understated, or should I say "never-stated" is the function of the women in the biblical church.

Israel's leadership grew corrupt in the bible story, and saw its' own determinations of law as authoritative. That leadership determined who was "in" and who was "out" and when Jesus showed up on the scene declaring that the "outs" were "in", a super struggle of sorts began. With thousands of years of service under their belts, women knew exactly how to behave in situations like these and they were the prime example for how the then church should behave in functioning as "bride" and "wife".

Jesus himself could have called heaven down on the "bad guys" and cooked 'em all. He could have probably come up with a really good catch phrase too "brother" (-- Hulk Hogan). His choice was to serve, to turn the other cheek, and to love his enemy. His choice, was to submit. Sometimes I wonder if there was mainly women at the foot of the cross because they could relate more to what he was doing and maybe even a hint of why he was doing it. They had submitted control to men in general (in keeping with the law) and they were not without reason. They were a part of God's plan and most definitely NOT a lesser being.

Submit today though? Why?