Scott:
I will addess your comment about the head/body image being the same as the organic unity between thigh and chin if you address the essence of what I said about the claim that unity and order in the church has to do with men and women being obedient to a structure God is said to have ordained at creation. Where in the Confessions, the liturgy or our hynnody is the unity of the one Body associated with an immutable structure that is external to the men and woman who are the One Body of Christ?
Oh. Ok. Didn't know that responding to that point was a requirement for participation in the discussion. But alright...
As I've said many times, the language of "order of creation" is problematic on many levels. What it does preserve, however, is the idea of created difference between the sexes. Something that Genesis and Paul, among others, affirm. So I guess that's to "one-up" any other references.
As to the Confessions, they, too, speak of a created difference between men and women and vis-a-vis each other in the Table of Duties. While this doesn't speak of order in the church (which wasn't at issue in the Reformation), it does address the idea of created differences continuing to pertain in domestic life. In any case, the Confessions don't address the ordination of women as it simply wasn't an issue at the time. So I'm not quite sure what the point is, here, except to note that they do acknowledge created differences.
And to be honest, I can't ever remember singing about an all-male pastorate.
Again, not sure what this proves as the Scriptures do deal with the issues in question, but that's my answer to your question in order to allow you to respond to mine.
As to the head/body image being similar to the organic unity of the thigh and the chin. You know the Greek. I do not. I have, however, read that the Greek term for "body," I think it is ""soma," often refers to the whole body. Hence all who are the One Body in relation to the One Head, Christ, grow up into the fullness of Christ. How does this take place? It is because they are all as intimately related to Him as is one husband is intimately joined to one wife.
Sure. That's how the body imagery is deployed in many places in Paul. Yet Paul also deploys headship language
to make a different point (emphasis just so that this doesn't get missed -- Paul doesn't just toot away on one-note here). I.e., two different things are being discussed -- "organic unity" (to use your term) and male-female relations that revolve around terms like "head," "submission" and "love."
Recall also that Ephesians 5 includes verse 21. Be subject to one another.
Absolutely. I know I've posted a sermon on here sometime back when I preached on just this passage. There, I made the point that there is a mutual submission involved, but that Paul also speaks to each constituency differently. To women, he briefly speaks of a general submission as he clarifies the mutual submission called for in Eph. 5:21. I'd imagine he's so brief because here he really isn't challenging many aspects of the status quo. His address to men, however, is much longer and is more radical for most cultures I know. The man is to submit to his wife by engaging in self-sacrificial love. Not the maudlin type of sacrifice saying that: "Oh, I'll sacrifice my life for you by being willing to die for you, my sweetie!" But rather a type of self-sacrifice that says: "I'll sacrifice my life for you by being willing to live for you, putting your desires and wants ahead of my own." I preached this sermon in Kenya, and let's just say that it made a few eyes open wider.
To repeat in brief, Paul outlines a dual submission in v. 21. He then briefly tells the wife to freely and generally submit generally to her husband for he is her head even as Christ is the head of the church (methinks that Christ is in a position of servant leadership to the Church, no?). He then more expansively addresses the men telling them that their submission to their wives is to be characterized by self-sacrifice on their behalf -- servant leadership, if you will.
