ANSWERING HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT MUTUAL SUBMISSION
Since the release of BLIND SPOT, I've received questions about mutual submission and the true meaning of "head" in marriage. Some come from sincere seekers genuinely wrestling with these concepts. Others come from those deeply committed to traditional interpretations who find my perspective challenging.
Today, I want to address the most common questions and objections I've encountered. My goal isn't to win debates but to provide thoughtful, biblical responses that might help those genuinely seeking to understand God's design for relationships.
"Isn't mutual submission a contradiction in terms?"
This is perhaps the most common objection I hear. The argument goes: "If everyone is submitting, who's leading? Someone has to make final decisions!"
This objection reveals how deeply we've been influenced by worldly power structures. We struggle to imagine decision-making outside a hierarchy where someone must have "final authority."
But mutual submission isn't a contradiction—it's a different paradigm altogether. Think of how the Trinity functions: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit submit to one another in a beautiful dance of mutual honor and deference. There's no power struggle, no "final authority" needed to break ties.
Biblical scholar Dr. Gordon Fee explains: "The relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit is not hierarchical but one of mutual submission and self-giving love. This trinitarian relationship serves as the model for all Christian relationships."1
In practical terms, mutual submission means:
Both spouses listening to each other's wisdom
Both seeking God's guidance through prayer
Both deferring to the other's expertise in different areas
Both working toward consensus rather than one overruling or manipulating the other
When disagreements arise, the question isn't "Who has the final say?" but "How can we find God's wisdom together?" This might mean waiting for clarity rather than forcing a decision—an approach that often produces better outcomes than hierarchical decision-making.
"But doesn't Ephesians 5:22 specifically tell wives to submit to husbands?"
This question reflects a common misreading of the passage. In the original Greek, verse 22 doesn't actually contain the word "submit" (hypotassō)—it's borrowed from verse 21 where Paul commands everyone to "submit to one another."
Biblical scholar Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall explains: "Grammatically, the instruction to wives in verse 22 is dependent on the mutual submission command in verse 21. Paul deliberately connects these concepts to show that the wife's submission exists within the context of mutual submission."2
Furthermore, while Paul addresses wives directly about submission, he never commands husbands to make their wives submit. Instead, he commands husbands to love sacrificially—a radical departure from the patriarchal norms of his day, which emphasized male authority rather than male responsibility.
When we read this passage in its cultural context—where women had little choice but to submit to their husbands under Roman and Jewish law—we see that Paul wasn't reinforcing patriarchy. He was transforming it by placing it within the framework of mutual submission and sacrificial love.
There are several instances where Paul (and even Peter) tells wives to submit as unto Christ. In the same context, every time, both these apostles are telling wives– and slaves!– to go the extra mile. Paul and Peter teach those who are oppressed how to rise up out of obligation (where they have no choice) and enter into the realm of operating in their own power with their own free will. (See my book BLIND SPOT for an in depth look at these passages and their true purpose.)
"What about 1 Peter 3 where wives are told to submit like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him lord?"
This passage must be understood within its missionary context. Peter is addressing women who had converted to Christianity while their husbands remained unbelievers. His concern is evangelistic—that these women might win their husbands to Christ through respectful behavior.
As Dr. Karen Jobes notes in her commentary: "Peter's advice is strategic rather than theological. He's not establishing a timeless hierarchy but providing wisdom for women in a specific situation where their witness is at stake."3
Moreover, Peter immediately follows this with instructions to husbands to honor their wives as "heirs with you of the gracious gift of life" (1 Peter 3:7). This recognition of women as equal heirs was revolutionary in a culture that viewed women as inherently inferior.
Like Paul, Peter works within existing cultural structures while planting seeds that would eventually transform them. He shows these Christian women how to maintain respectful relationships with unbelieving husbands while living out their faith with integrity.
"Doesn't the Bible teach male leadership throughout? From Adam being created first to all the male leaders in Israel's history?"
This argument relies on selective reading that misses the Bible's overall trajectory toward equality and mutual honor.
Regarding creation order, if being created first conferred authority, then logically animals would have authority over humans since they were created earlier. But Genesis actually shows that the sequence moves from simple to complex, culminating in humans as the crown of creation.
As for Israel's predominantly male leadership, we must remember that Scripture often describes what is (descriptive) rather than prescribing what should be (prescriptive). Despite patriarchal cultural norms, Scripture consistently highlights women who broke these molds:
Deborah led Israel as both prophet and judge (Judges 4-5)
Huldah delivered authoritative prophecy to King Josiah (2 Kings 22)
Priscilla taught the eloquent Apollos (Acts 18:26)
Phoebe served as a deacon and carried Paul's letter to Rome (Romans 16:1-2)
Junia was named among the apostles (Romans 16:7)
Dr. Scot McKnight observes: "The Bible consistently reveals God working through women in leadership despite cultural constraints. This suggests God's design transcends the patriarchal limitations of ancient cultures."4
"If mutual submission is biblical, why has the church historically taught male headship?"
This question touches on an important historical reality: the early church's radical equality gradually gave way to accommodation with surrounding patriarchal cultures. The world influenced the church rather than the other way around.
Historical theologian Dr. Kevin Giles explains: "As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, it increasingly adopted the hierarchical patterns of Greco-Roman household codes rather than maintaining the revolutionary equality of the earliest Christian communities."5
This isn't the only area where church teaching has evolved as we've gained clearer understanding of Scripture. The church once used the Bible to defend slavery, racial segregation, and limited women's rights. Most Christians now recognize these positions were misapplications of Scripture influenced by cultural biases.
Biblical interpretation always occurs within cultural contexts, and we must continually examine whether our interpretations reflect Scripture's true meaning or our cultural assumptions. As theologian Dr. William Webb demonstrates in his "redemptive movement hermeneutic," Scripture often accommodates cultural realities while simultaneously planting seeds that will eventually undermine harmful practices.6
"Doesn't nature itself teach the differences between men and women? Aren't we designed for different roles?"
Men and women do have biological differences that influence our experiences and sometimes our tendencies. But we must be careful not to confuse cultural gender roles with God's design.
Throughout history, cultures have defined "masculine" and "feminine" in wildly different ways. Activities considered "women's work" in one culture have been exclusively male in others. This suggests many gender roles are culturally constructed rather than divinely ordained.
More importantly, Scripture's emphasis is on unity rather than differentiation. In Genesis 1:27, both male and female together bear God's image. In Galatians 3:28, Paul declares that in Christ, the distinction between male and female no longer determines our status or opportunities.
Biblical scholar Dr. Philip Payne notes: "The complementary nature of male and female doesn't necessitate hierarchy any more than the complementary nature of the persons of the Trinity requires a chain of command."7
Men and women may have different experiences and sometimes different strengths, but these differences are meant to enrich our partnerships, not establish power hierarchies.
"If you reject male headship, aren't you just conforming to modern feminist culture?"
This objection reverses the actual historical development. The equality of men and women isn't a modern invention that Scripture must be twisted to accommodate. Rather, it's a recovery of the Bible's original vision that was obscured by centuries of patriarchal interpretation.
As Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall observes: "The radical equality of the earliest Christian communities was unprecedented in the ancient world. If anything, later patriarchal interpretations represented conformity to surrounding cultures rather than fidelity to Scripture's original intent."8
Jesus consistently elevated women's dignity against cultural norms. Paul recognized women as co-workers, deacons, and even apostles. The early church included women in leadership roles until the institutionalization of Christianity led to increased alignment with Roman patriarchal structures.
The question isn't whether we're conforming to culture, but which culture—the surrounding patriarchal culture that influenced church history for centuries, or the counter-cultural Kingdom Jesus established?
"Doesn't someone need to lead? Don't families need a clear authority structure?"
This question assumes leadership must be permanent and based on gender rather than context, gifting, or wisdom. But Scripture presents a more dynamic understanding of leadership.
In healthy families, leadership flows naturally based on:
Who has relevant expertise in different situations
Who has more bandwidth at different life stages
Whose gifts are most needed for particular challenges
Biblical scholar Dr. David deSilva notes: "The New Testament doesn't present a rigid 'chain of command' in marriage but a partnership where both spouses contribute their gifts for the family's wellbeing."9
For example, a wife with financial expertise might naturally lead in money matters while a husband with childcare gifts might lead in parenting. Some seasons might require one spouse to take more leadership while the other focuses on other priorities.
This fluid approach doesn't create chaos—it creates resilience. Families function best when both partners can lead when necessary and follow when appropriate.
"Without male headship, won't marriages just become power struggles?"
Actually, the opposite is true. Most marriage counselors will tell you that rigid hierarchies often create the very power struggles they're supposed to prevent. When one spouse believes they should always have final authority, genuine partnership becomes impossible.
Dr. John Gottman, whose research has studied thousands of couples over decades, found that the healthiest marriages practice mutual influence rather than dominant-subordinate patterns.[^10] When both partners know their perspective matters, they're more willing to compromise and collaborate.
Ironically, mutual submission creates the safe space where genuine leadership can emerge naturally without power struggles. When neither spouse feels they must fight for influence, both can lead and follow as needed without threats to their dignity or value.
"Doesn't mutual submission weaken men and marriage?"
This objection reveals a profound misunderstanding of both strength and submission. True strength isn't found in controlling others but in the capacity to serve and lift others up—precisely what Jesus modeled.
As I share in BLIND SPOT:
"Gregory is a man's man. He's six feet tall with shoulders that seem nearly as wide. He was raised in a rough area and wouldn't be afraid to fight to defend those weaker than him—which includes me. That power has never once been used to intimidate me to get his own way. Never even an insinuation of force. Not physically. Not financially. Not emotionally. Not once. Ever."
Gregory's strength isn't diminished by our practice of mutual submission—it's channeled into protection and empowerment rather than control. He's not less of a man; he's more fully human as he reflects Christ's self-giving love.
Far from weakening marriage, mutual submission strengthens it by fostering genuine partnership rather than dependency. When both spouses develop their full potential and contribute their full wisdom, the marriage becomes more resilient, not less.
"But what about complementary roles? Doesn't God design men and women differently?"
Complementarity—the idea that men and women bring different but equally valuable perspectives and strengths—doesn't require hierarchy. In fact, true complementarity flourishes best within equality.
Biblical theologian Dr. Mimi Haddad explains: "Complementarity without hierarchy honors the distinct perspectives and experiences men and women bring while allowing each person's gifts to flourish without artificial constraints."11
The problem with "complementarian" teaching isn't the recognition of differences—it's the insistence that these differences must be organized hierarchically, with men always in authority and women always in supporting roles.
True complementarity allows for:
Flexible roles based on gifting rather than gender
Both partners leading in different contexts
Each person's strengths compensating for the other's limitations
Shared wisdom in decision-making
This honoring of differences within equality better reflects the Trinity, where Father, Son, and Spirit complement each other perfectly without hierarchy.
A Final Word of Grace
If you've been taught male headship your entire life, these ideas might feel threatening. They might seem to undermine everything you've understood about God's design for marriage and gender. I understand that, and I extend grace for that journey.
My own journey from traditional complementarian teaching to understanding mutual submission took time, prayer, and careful study. It wasn't easy to question interpretations I'd accepted for years.
But what I discovered was liberating rather than threatening—a vision of marriage more beautiful, more Christ-like, and more reflective of God's heart than I'd previously imagined. I discovered that the truth truly does set us free.
Whatever your current understanding, I encourage you to:
Study Scripture with fresh eyes, setting aside familiar interpretations
Consider the cultural context in which these passages were written
Pay attention to the overall trajectory of Scripture toward freedom and equality
Observe which interpretations produce the fruit of the Spirit in real relationships
The God who promises to guide us into all truth (John 16:13) is faithful. If we seek understanding with humble hearts, He will reveal His design for relationships characterized by mutual honor, mutual submission, and mutual love.
Blessings,
Susan Dewbrew
1: Fee, Gordon D. God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Baker Academic, 2009, p. 827.
2: Westfall, Cynthia Long. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle's Vision for Men and Women in Christ. Baker Academic, 2016, p. 156.
3: Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Baker Academic, 2005, p. 204.
4: McKnight, Scot. The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. Zondervan, 2018, p. 183.
5: Giles, Kevin. The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity. Cascade Books, 2017, p. 98.
*6: Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. InterVarsity Press, 2001, p. 36.
7: Payne, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters. Zondervan Academic, 2009, p. 79.
8: Westfall, Cynthia Long. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle's Vision for Men and Women in Christ. Baker Academic, 2016, p. 302.
9: deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. InterVarsity Press, 2000, p. 237.
10: Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Harmony, 2015, p. 118.
11: Haddad, Mimi. "Egalitarians: A New Path to Liberalism? Or Integral to Evangelical DNA?" Priscilla Papers 29, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 14-20.
* The core of Webb's approach involves distinguishing between what is merely cultural in Scripture and what is timeless. In applying this method, he reaches different conclusions for different issues. While he finds that biblical texts on slavery and women's roles reflect cultural contexts that Christians should move beyond, he concludes that the biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior represents a timeless moral principle that remains applicable today.