Gay is Not the New Black

by Voddie Baucham

It’s hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it’s difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it’s especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex “marriage” is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual “marriage” and civil rights is Michael Gross’s article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase “Gay is the new black.”1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.”2

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied:

Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”3

Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.4 (emphasis added)

The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn’t take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

Unidentifiable Minority

The first problem with the idea of conflating “sexual orientation” and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person’s claims regarding sexual orientation.5

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label “homosexual” on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. “Pedophiles are not homosexuals!” is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.6

Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn’t enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGSin college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it’s impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn’t a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn’t Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

But this isn’t the only problem with the civil rights angle.

Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the “gay is the new black” argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex “marriage” and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means “the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types.” Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot “interbreed” shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means “the union of a man and a woman.” Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn’t exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a “fundamental right” rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain “races” of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex “marriage” advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven’t had the right to redefine marriage. But don’t take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex “marriage”: “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex.”

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven’t been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, “I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don’t really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight.”

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. “[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.”

Unsustainable Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what’s to stop the “bisexual” from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his “orientation” is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than inLawrence v. Texas. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy wrote:

These matters [of homosexual marriage], involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.12

I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law.13(emphasis added)

Inescapable Confrontation

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex “marriage” to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (Gen 1:27-28), the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.

Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. “Oppose us and you’re no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!” is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we’re not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex “marriage.” In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I’ve only provided a few.

-Voddie Baucham,  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/


1 Michael Joseph Gross, “Gay is the New Black,” The Advocate, November 16, 2008 (available online at http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp).

2 Ertha Melzer, “NAACP chair says ‘gay rights are civil rights,'” Washington Blade, April 8, 2005. It should also be noted that the NAACP recently endorsed same-sex marriage (http://graftedthemovie.blogspot.com/p/watch-grafted.html)—significant since the organization exists for the “Advancement of ‘Colored’ People.”

3 Micheal Steele interview in “The Reconstructionist,” by Lisa Paulo, GQ (March 2009), available at http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2009/03/-the-reconstructionist-michael-steele.html.

5 Even if brain studies, twin studies, etc., provided conclusive links (which they do not), one would still be left with the fact that while blackness and maleness are attributes one cannot deny, homosexual behavior is not. Thus, even if there were a genetic connection, it would be insufficient to propel sexual orientation into the same category as race or sex.

7 The term “Lesbian Until Graduation” refers to young women who participate in lesbian relationships only during the duration of their college life.

8 It is important to note that this is a categorical distinction, and not a determination based on fertility. Otherwise, the same could be said about men and women beyond child-bearing years, or those with defects preventing conception.

9 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pocahontas-marries-john-rolfe. Though it is commonly thought that Pocahontas married John Smith, it was actually English tobacco farmer John Rolfe whom she married on April 5, 1614, in Jamestown, Virginia.

10 See Elizabeth Emens’s February 2003 Chicago Law School White paper,MONOGAMY’S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE,available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/58-monogamy.pdf.

11 North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their motto is “Eight is Too Late.” http://www.nambla.org

12 Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, “John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas ” in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

13 Antonin Scalia Dissenting Opinion, “John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas ” in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

Why Did Baucham Refuse to Participate in the Elephant Room 2?

I hesitate to post more than once a day. It’s hard enough to keep up with the plethora of information in the blogosphere. But, Voddie Baucham’s post on the Elephant Room controversy deserves to be read. He’s an excellent example of a faithful pastor and I’m looking forward to hearing him live at Shepherd’s Conference this year.

I’m posting a few highlights, read the entire article here: http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/elephant-room-2012-01/

Why Did Voddie Baucham refuse an invitation to participate in the Elephant Room? Are the beliefs of  T.D. Jakes actually bad enough to warrant all the controversy? Baucham’s response here:

1. T.D. Jakes has a history of holding to, teaching, and associating with modalism, and ER2 was a forum wherein he would be assumed to be a “brother”.I was already on record concerning Bishop Jakes’s modalism (see:  The Ever Loving Truth, LifeWay, 2004), and I have kept up with the matter.  Jakes had never repudiated Oneness Pentecostalism.  Nor had he come out with an unambiguous, credal/confessional statement on the doctrine of the Trinity.  There was absolutely no basis for me to assume that Jakes was suddenly orthodox, and therefore, no basis for me to welcome him as a brother.

2. The “Word of Faith” gospel he preaches is heterodox and harmful.Even if Jakes had come out with a statement on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would not have done anything to change the fact that he preaches “another gospel.” (Gal 1:8–9)  Having studied the “Word of Faith” movement, and seen the devastation it leaves in its wake, I was disinclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who has been this country’s most popular purveyor of this heresy in the past two decades (Note:  James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll had both preached against the Word of Faith movement and called it heresy, so I did not believe I was informing James of anything he did not know already).

3. Jakes’s influence in the Dallas Metroplex has been negative, at best. My wife is from Dallas, and my in-laws still live there (her parents and five siblings).  I have preached in Dallas on many occasions, and at numerous churches, and have many acquaintances in the city.  I know firsthand what kind of influence T.D. Jakes has had on the evangelical community, and broader Christian witness there.  Suffice to say that he has not brought greater gospel clarity and fidelity.  He has, however, brought a charismatic, theatrical, excessive, “Word of Faith” flavor to the city that permeates many churches (especially black churches).

4. Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer. One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity.  Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.”  In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event.  You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest.  If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience.  It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism.  Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism.  Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically).  He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness.   Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.

Moreover, I rejected the invitation because I did not want to give even the appearance of tokenism.  The participants in the Elephant Room (and ER2), though they disagree methodologically on how we “get there,” are all virtually identical in their general profile.  They are all successful mega-church pastors who have leveraged innovative and/or controversial methodologies to grow their churches, media empires, and/or pare-church ministries.  I, on the other hand, am a pastor serving at a church with less than five hundred members; I’m not on television or radio; and my books aren’t best sellers.  I don’t fit the profile!  Whether MacDonald meant to or not, he was painting a picture of tokenism.  If he meant it, I didn’t want to be used, and if he didn’t mean it, I didn’t want to be the source of misunderstanding.

-Voddie Baucham,  01-30-2012,  http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/elephant-room-2012-01/

Biblical Manhood

Biblical Manhood –Dr. Voddie Baucham:  Genesis 2:15-25

It is not good for man to be alone…

By our culture we have been taught to “define manhood on the ball field, in the bedroom and by the billfold.” …“Those who look for this in a man end up with disillusionment.”

“There is no man in the world that it’s more important for me to disciple then my son.”

Asked about why his son travels with Him eight or so days a month, “With you guys doing this how’s he going to play ball? When people say that to me here’s what I hear, ‘I want to know how your son is going to be able to worship at the alter of the sport god?’ Who cares, I don’t, it’s meaningless, it’s absolutely meaningless. We don’t need another ballplayer; we don’t. We need men with trained minds, we need men with godly, biblical character, we need men with multigenerational vision, we need men who commit themselves and all their faculties to the glory of Almighty God. I am raising a warrior for Christ, that’s what I’m raising. Not an entertainer, that’s not what I’m raising. [People say] ‘Well you know team sports, they build character.’ Do you really believe that? …So the guys in this culture with the greatest character ought to be in the NFL and NBA. Is that you final answer? That’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. How did George Washington build character?Adams?Jefferson? Jesus?”

Three things we see here, even before the Fall that a man must be committed to, at least these three.

I. He must be committed to God honoring labor.

“God does not abide lazy men and neither should we.”

The job of a Father is to protect his daughter from unqualified and worthless men.

Our culture has taught you to value a $200,000 car more than a man’s daughter; fathers give up their daughters to a teenage boy who is not yet a man to manipulate her emotions, yet would never give up the keys to a $200,000 car.

God put Adam in the Garden to work and tend the garden. The Curse did not add work, but rather cursed the ground and added toil, labor and sweat. The Protestant/Puritan work ethic that there is gain in labor is foreign to us. Sloth is sinful, laziness is godless. Proverbs 6:6-11; 26:13-16; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12; The Bible says at times it is wrong to give benevolence, If a man in lazy, God intends for him to be hungry. Even Adam inEdenworked. 1 Timothy 5:8.

Hard work is a Biblical command. Hard work should be done for glory to God, seeking excellence in all my hands find to do. I may be a street cleaner, but I should have the cleanest streets in the city, because I clean them to the glory of God.

Procrastination in school is a mark of laziness. Do you study to maximize your learning, or as little as possible to get the grade you want?

II. He must be committed to the law of God.

Genesis 2:16 –The Law of God given before the Fall, the Law is not an answer to sin and the Fall. Most men do not know the law of God, or have a commitment to it. Do you know the Ten Commandments? If you don’t even know the basics of the Law, how do you know the rest? Part of this is to pass on the law of God to others, especially your wife, and to protect her from attacks on that law.

Genesis 3:1- Eve had not been properly discipled, her understanding of the Law of God was skewed. Adam had not showed proper headship thus Romasn 5:12 can say it is his sin that brought the Fall, not just his eating but his lack of headship. Adam was given headship before the Fall, over the animals and his wife. Headship is not blaming your wife. It is taking responsibility. Even in the curse, God rebuked Adam for listening to His wife and disobeying God.

Ephesians 5 –The man is to wash his wife in the word, He is to be discipling her. Ephesians 6:1-4 –The man is to bring up his children in the feat and admonition of the Lord. It is the duty of the man to disciple and spiritually lead his wife and children. Why would a woman marry an unbelieving man? 2 Corinthians commands marriage only among believers, but even if he is entering the Kingdom by the skin of his teeth, that doesn’t mean he knows God’s law. Until you have met a man who is qualified to disciple you and your children, you have not met a man who is qualified to be your husband. He must be committed to the Law of God.

III. He must be committed to the primacy of the family

Genesis 2:18. For the previous days the pattern of creation was the same: let there be, then there was, then it was good. The first time Creation was not good was when man was alone. Yes there are men who have been called and gifted by God to not take a wife and situations when it is best to not take a wife. However, marriage is the preferred position. Every man should be prepared to be a husband and every woman should be prepared to be a wife. What if God has called them to singleness? Is there one standard of godliness for single people and another or those who are married? No. But Jesus was single. Yes, but he is engaged and there is a coming wedding. If a man is to be Christlike, he should be committed to his family.

In your youth protect your purity, when you become a man guard yourself and pray that God provide for you, in your youth, a wife with whom to start a dynasty. The strongest, wisest, and most godly men in the Bible fell into sexual sin. I am not stronger than Samson, wiser than Solomon or godlier than David so I should get married. It is better to get married over burning with passion.

The Ten Commandments: I am God, you are not going to get another. Don’t even make anything that looks like me. Don’t even mess with my name. Work six days, rest the seventh, Don’t mess with my day. Honor your parents, the authority I’ve put in your life, and here is the first promise. Don’t kill others. Don’t commit adultery. Don’t steel. Don’t lie. Don’t covet.

You are subject to your parents until you take a wife and she becomes the family to whom you should commit yourself. If you do not honor and obey your father and mother you are not qualified to create a new family. Are you committed to a multi-generational view of family, to be a father, to raising children, and to provide so that your wife can devote herself to your children?

This is the minimalist version of Biblical manhood; there is a whole lot more than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDR3xCaXiXc&feature=related

Biblical Womanhood

Titus 2 -Vodie Baucham

“Titus 2 Influencers are married women and men.” Someone who isn’t married and doesn’t have children doesn’t fit the Titus 2 model.”

I. Reverent behavior –She ought to conduct herself in such a way as to bring honor to God and not to draw attention to herself. Both how you present yourself and in your speech.

On the difficulty of finding modest clothes for his twelve-year-old daughter: “You go in the stores and it is hoochie mama central.”

Women should ask: “To what aspect of my person am I drawing attention? And is that honoring to Christ.”

Men should ask: “If you are around a woman and you find yourself doing the male neck exercise…in order to exaggerate so that you do not find yourself [seeing what should not be on display], either there is some more discipleship that needs to happen or she has just told you what she thinks is the most important thing about her…because that’s the thing to which she is trying to immediately draw your attention.”

II. Teaching what is good.

To his son: “look for a partner in raising my grandchildren” A woman who is not giving herself as a helpmeet to another man in a career, but giving herself as a helpmeet to her husband to raise their children.

“Women are these intuitive and emotional creatures, why should we need to teach women to love their husbands and their children? [This] gives away that we do not understand what Biblical love is, we’ve bought into the Greco-Roman myth…that love is a random, overwhelming, uncontrollable sensual force.” The world says “we do not choose who we fall in love with. …That is not the way the Bible defines love, it’s not random, it’s not overwhelming and uncontrollable, it’s not just sensual.”

“A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women, because they yearn for attention from younger women, and God gave them a daughter who could give them that. Why? We don’t what love is.”

Biblical love is “An act of the will accompanied by emotion that leads to action on behalf of its object” Matthew 22

“Greco-Roman is too fickle for family life.” This is why women need to be taught how to love Biblically, not just culturally and emotionally. Because contrary to popular belief, they don’t know how to do it intuitively. [It] is a work of sanctification. [Intuitive, emotional love] is not enough to sustain what God intends to be sustained on the part of Biblical womanhood in the context of [a] marriage relationship. Biblical womanhood does not rely on this…version of love, [it] pushes past that to Biblical love. It is first and foremost an act of the will, it is a choice. It is accompanied by emotion. Love lead by emotion is a roller-coaster. It is not void of emotion either.” An example of this kind of love: Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

III. Self-Controlled -not volatile

IV. Pure -This does not mean, don’t have sex until you get married. Purity is an act to be done now. Married women are to teach younger women to be pure, something that they, as older women, are to still put into practice.

Dig deep in laying a foundation for purity, like the foundation for a skyscraper, so that when the building is built, purity remains. Don’t build a bungalow marriage, but a skyscraper. Dig deep.

V. Working at home. “There is no priority that supersedes the priority of a woman’s role in her home.” There are tremendous distinctions between men and women. Praise God! If men and women were the same, one would not be necessary. “Most women today are raised to be men who are biologically women.” “You cannot have it all, but that’s okay because you do not need it all. I want Christ, and I want His blessing in generations of my family. The more my wife and I have come to understand what it takes to raise children Biblically, the more we realized it wouldn’t even be possible for us if she was out [not focused on her home]. It takes so much we couldn’t do it.” The Bible tells us children are arrows in a man’s quiver, his wife is helping to create inter-continental ballistic missiles for the kingdom of God. “[We] exist to be poured out for the cause of Christ, to be thoroughly used when it is all said and done and to raise, train, disciple and launch from our home as many warheads as is humanly possible, not as few as we can. No warrior goes into battle saying, hey man, just give me as little ammunition as you can. Because my wife is committed to our home, that is the attitude we can have.”

VI. Kind and Submissive to their own husbands. Why does this need to be taught?

A. Women war against submission by nature as a result of the fall. Genesis 3:16. “As a result of the fall, women, you will desire his headship, his role …you are naturally disinclined to submit to a husband.”

B. We have decades of feminist teaching, even from within the church. These teach egalitarianism and that submission is mutual or conditional. Ephesians 5:21 is used to teach egalitarianism.

The problem is, Ephesian 5:5-21 is a paragraph and Ephesians 5:22-24 is a new paragraph; you cannot add verses from other paragraphs to the context of a different paragraph. Submission in 5:21 speaks of submission as we ought, wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters, none of these is mutual. 1 Peter 3, Colossians 3, 1 Corinthians 11:3 have no statement of mutual submission.

It is not conditional, Ephesians 4:22 …in everything, as the church submits to Christ. The only exception is that she submits as he is obedient to Christ, 1 Peter 3:1-2, and sets an example of godliness even when he is not. The Likewise in 3:1 refers back to the previous paragraph in 2:18ff.

“Because you have been lied to, you believe that working for some man you don’t know…has more value than laying down your life beside a man who would lay his down for you. This is biblical womanhood, it is not what we’re accustomed to, it is not even what we’re comfortable with, but it is what is required if we are to see the kind of reformation and revolution [which glorifies Christ].”