Chapter Two

EPHESIANS 5:21-33 READ VIA A REDEMPTIVE-MOVEMENT HERMENEUTIC
The Structure of the Passage
In their attempts to make sense of Paul’s train of thought translators have organized his words differently in their rendering of Ephesians 5:21. Reminding ourselves that the original letter to the Ephesians would not have contained paragraph markings, much less verse numbering, one must be careful in seeking to understand how the paranesis regarding married men and women is to be organized. Some translations regarded as being less word for word, such as the TNIV, the Message, and the NLT, choose to organize the paragraph in their translation with v.21 at the top beginning the section related to marriage. In these translations the reader would be led to believe that this sentence is not only the first sentence of a certain train of thought but that it is a heading for the material that is to follow. The TNIV and the Message have the sentence standing alone as a paragraph unto itself. The NKJV, NASB, and the original NIV have the passage included as the last portion of the previous paragraph separating it from the material that is to follow. There are important reasons why one should read v.21 as the first thought expressed regarding men and women in marriage. In fact, some contend that it does serve as a heading for Paul’s revised version of the ancient household code. At the very least, as the following reasons assert, if v.21 is not the heading for the section it should serve as a bridge between the two sections.
1. Verb Ellipsis One of the most obvious reasons to hold that v.21 belongs at the beginning of the train of thought that follows it is the fact that v.22 is dependent upon v.21 for its verb, to subordinate. The earliest manuscripts read v.22 something like this, “women to your husbands as to the Lord”. This verse is dependent upon the previous one for its verb and is not comprehensible without it. Later translations inserted the verb for the sake of clarity as do all English translations. This reliance upon the verb in the previous section is evidence of a continuity of thought between the two sections and implies v.21 is part and parcel of the content related to marriage. Markus Barth’s translation makes this connectedness all the more clear:
Because you fear Christ subordinate yourselves to one another – wives to
your husbands—as to the Lord. For [only] in the same way that the Messiah
is the head of the church – he, the savior of his body – is the husband the
head of the wife.

In his translation the emphasis is not upon the subordination of the wife to her husband but upon the overall subordination of one Christian to another and, from Barth’s perspective, wifely subordination is simply one application the mutual submission that is to take place among brothers and sisters in Christ.
2. Theme of “submission”(hypostasso) v.21 contains the fifth of five imperative participles that begin with v. 19: speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks and submitting. In this respect v. 21 fits with the previous section. But, thematically it follows that v. 21 be connected with the material following it because it appears to give direction to the meaning of submit throughout the household code. In this respect it might be more fitting to view the verse as neither the tail end of the previous section nor the heading of the upcoming one but rather a transitional statement that links the two together belonging equally to each.
3. Theme of “fear” (phobos) Another reason to view v. 21 as a part of the v. 22-33 is the thematic connection through the word “fear” or “respect”. This notion of fear, or respect, permeates the passage as the motivating impulse toward submission, love and respect. It is best interpreted not as terror, or a coercive type of fear, but as a form of reverence or awe that is consistent with worship always keeping mind the sovereign claim Christ has on the life of the Christian . Sampley sees this passage arranged as a literary unity precisely because of this thematic element expressed in v. 21 and v. 33 and is paralleled in v. 6:5 In this respect, the concept of reverential respect for others, begins and ends the paraenesis.
4. Chiastic Arrangement . The chiastic pairings of wives and husbands; husbands and wives gives structural clarity to this passage. It frames the verse in such a way as to direct the readers means of interpretation. These pairings are highlighted in both Sampley and Lincoln view who v.21 as a heading which introduces Paul’s version of the household code. In this respect the verse closes one train of thought while it opens another up. Regardless of where you place v. 21, at the end of the previous section as a summary to the participial phrases, or at the beginning of the next section about marriage, it matters little. Its impact on both the previous section and the latter one is clear. Both grammatically and thematically v. 21 significantly impacts Paul’s section on marriage in v. 22-33 and controls the meaning of submission in the following verses.

The Household Code As An Accomodation To Culture
Martin Luther identified them as the Haustafeln, household codes or household tables. These household codes were descriptions of behavior expected by those who were in a subservient position to the heads of the households in the Greco-Roman world. The casual reader of the New Testament they may not notice that descriptions of family relationships in both Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 have a parallel in the broader culture of the first century.
What Are The Household Codes?
When read from a modern perspective it is easy to assume that the passage in discussion is a description of marriage as twenty first century readers would understand it. However, to understand the household codes it is useful to understand the surrounding culture in which they were embedded. Whereas in recent years political leaders in our culture have declared the stability of the nuclear family as the cornerstone of a working society the political leaders of the first century would likely see the oikos as the cornerstone of a stable empire. However, oikos does not refer to what we have come to know as the nuclear family. In all likelihood the household codes were in place as much, if not more, for financial stability throughout the empire as they were for the health and safety of children within the nuclear family. While not denigrating what the codes say about domestic relationships they should be viewed in the light of the fact that a household of the time included parents and children, slaves and employees, distant relatives and business associates. Talbert contends that rather than applying these behavioral expectations solely to the nuclear family, as is the typical response in modern interpretation, that they should be applied to the family business.
It is clear that the household codes served to provide stability in a culture that demanded a reliable workforce which consequently required the individuals within that culture to know their place and not upset normal social arrangements. Divisions of labor and appropriate interaction leading to political and cultural stability were the driving forces behind the household codes. It has been noted that the infiltration of eastern religions upon the empire was perceived by many to be a threat to social stability and thus the codes were developed and/or reinforced because of this perceived threat. These “eastern” religions were often very attractive to the lower classes and women. This undoubtedly motivated a more reinforced household code within the Greco-Roman culture and its various subcultures. Ultimately, the household codes, regardless of source or motivation, by Paul’s time were descriptions of what was perceived as appropriate and inappropriate behavior by the various members of Roman society and were well known and understood throughout.

Where Did They Come From?
There is a great deal of evidence which links the household codes of Ephesians and Colossians with the thoughts of Aristotle and his observations of Greek domestic life. In fact the couplets in Paul’s writings seem to mirror directly the pairings that Aristotle himself identified and later these were reinforced by Roman Emperor Augustus with his insistence upon a hierarchical stratification in relationships along gender lines. However, it is possible that Paul’s source for the household codes was more of an amalgam and his train of thought influenced by a variety of sources. The source of the code has been a topic of much debate which has produced source suggestions as variant as the early Church, Hellenistic Judaism, Aristotelian philosophy and Stoicism. Paul’s cosmopolitan background would have certainly exposed him, on differing levels, to all of these disparate influences. Regardless of the source, this kind of mindset permeated all of Roman society from the individual to the corporate level thus Paul had to have consciously applied the model of the Greco-Roman Household Codes to his description of how men and women are to relate to one another in Christ.

Paul’s Accommodation To Culture
There is ample reason to view Paul’s use of the Household Codes as a means of connecting with the broader culture that he had set out to reach. Not grounded in a transculturally binding creation narrative they serve a more specific purpose of allowing the new counter culture, Christianity, to exist in a not so friendly world. This point of view must be distinguished from the point of view of those who view the inclusion of the household codes in Ephesians and Colossians as a retrogression from a supposed superior, and more egalitarian, Pauline ethic represented in Galatians. The argument that follows supposes that the inclusion of a Christianized household code in Ephesians represents both an accommodation to the broader culture of the Roman Empire and a means through which the church could advance principles of oneness, love and respect while not disrupting their ability to live within the dominant surrounding culture.

ACCOMODATIONS WITHIN PAUL’S HOUSEHOLD CODE
A cursory reading of Ephesians 5:22-33 could lead one to believe that Paul was simply reinforcing traditional household codes of his day by maintaining a form of patriarchy that keeps women in a servile position. However, when read in its complete context including 5:21 as part of the passage one can see the meaning of it “move” toward a more egalitarian ethic in Paul than is typically believed. This movement toward egalitarianism or “softened patriarchy” is supported by viewing Paul’s address to husbands and wives as both an accommodation to the traditional household codes and an attempt by Paul to radicalize the code within the Christian context. It is undeniable that Paul injects new meaning into the code. His discussion of love and respect; his addressing of subordinate parties; and his omission of key household code demands such as obedience from wives makes it clear that while Paul is evidently using the household code form, or genre, he is expanding it greatly, for the sake of oneness and equality within the Body of Christ. If one, in fact, agrees that Paul is modifying, in a redemptive fashion, the culturally accepted household codes of the ancient world of the first century then there is no reason not to accept that these are provisional, not permanent and that they are descriptive rather than prescriptive commands. In addition, through careful analysis there remains no reason why this household code could not be appropriately adjusted for changes that have occurred within society. What follows are six examples of redemptive-movement within Ephesians 5:21-33 utilizing Webb’s persuasive criteria.
1) Ephesians 5:21 represents “preliminary movement” toward an egalitarian relationship between husbands and wives. The first of Webb’s criteria, preliminary movement, describes how the component of a text may be cultural if it encourages development within it’s own culture and opens the way for further development in subsequent cultures. The submission that is to exist between members of the body of Christ, regardless of social standing or gender, highlighted in 5:21 exemplifies this type of preliminary movement. If this verse is to have any connection to the household code that follows it and it is my contention that it does as described above; then, it follows that 5:21 significantly modifies the household code as it was known throughout the ancient world. It is virtually unheard of for any of the household codes to suggest anything close to equality in standing much less submission from male to female. However, the fact that Paul, immediately after a call for mutual submission then speaks to wives about how they are to submit to their husbands suggests that while he desires to move the code forward he does not push it too far. He seems aware that advocating too much “equality” might lead to difficulties within the culture of the local church but also challenges in the relationship between the local church and the broader culture. He undoubtedly did not want to create unnecessary social disruption in Ephesus or anywhere the church was established. His proclamation of the Gospel was social disruption enough! The mutual submission described in 5:21 envisions a movement within the normal way that first century married couples related to one another that included an emphasis upon love and respect between partners. This type of love and respect, when it existed in marriages, did so because of the extraordinary relationship between the couple and certainly not because it was mandated by law or prevailing cultural mores. Yet this is the type of marital arrangement that Paul wants to promote. It might be interpreted by some that Paul gives with the right hand, v. 21 and mutual submission, and takes away with the left, v. 22 and wife only submission. This is not a necessary inference. Instead Paul is stating a fact of life, that Christians are to relate to one another in such a way that they esteem the other better than they do themselves through submission one to another, that is later expressed within the context of marriage. Paul’s statements in v. 22ff. do not negate what he has already said but instead reinstates a type of marital arrangement, though modified by mutual submission, that is familiar to his readers, acceptable to their current arrangement, and inoffensive to the milieu in which his readers lived. Paul’s modification was not so dramatic as to radically alter the way that the typical household operated yet it was powerful enough to inaugurate a more loving and respectful relationship between husbands and wives as the Christian standard. The word inaugurate is critical here because Paul is putting into the mix and idea, mutual submission, which recommends continued growth in equality between husband and wives.
2. Paul’s address of subordinates in his household code is a “breakout” from the broader cultural perspective. Another distinctive of Paul’s household code compared to that of the typical Greco-Roman codes is that he addresses the subordinates within the code and he addresses them first. The fact that Paul addresses wives tells the reader that wives were present when his letter was read publicly. He expected them to hear what he had to say and not simply rely upon their husbands for the information to trickle down to them. Not only were they assumed present in the public reading of Paul’s letter, as were children and slaves the other subordinate groups, but it implies that they are moral agents capable and free to make decisions about certain aspects of their lives. While the treatment of women throughout the First Century is far from monolithic it is clear from the traditional household codes that wives, women, children and slaves possessed little rights, if any, and did not have the freedom or capability to think or act for themselves. Ephesians 5 changes that by attributing a level of dignity to each of these groups. This is an example of Webb’s third criteria: “breakouts”. A breakout is an example where a biblical writer makes a clear and complete separation from the surrounding culture, whether the surrounding culture is the Judaeo-Christian community or the broader Hellenistic/Roman culture, and establishes a new standard. Paul awards a dignity to these three classes without overtly declaring them completely free or equal. Paul’s address of the subservient class, assuming in them a sense of moral agency, is a definite breakout from the Greco-Roman Culture as well as with the prevailing culture within Judaism.
3. Paul’s emphasis upon love as opposed to assumed authority is another example of a cultural breakout. After addressing wives, the subordinate party, the writer of Ephesians turns to husbands. In his address to husbands we see yet another contrast between the Apostle’s adjusted household code with the household code of the broader culture. Husbands are called upon to love their wives rather than enforce their wives obedience. The husband’s authority is assumed because of the surrounding culture but it not reinforced by Paul. It is implied but not defended. One should not to assume that Paul was promoting the end of all wifely obedience as much as challenging the expectations of husbands regarding their wive’s obedience. Certainly a husband cannot expect his wife’s submission unless he is loving her in a way that is similar to the manner in which Christ loves the church. While Paul breaks with culture by addressing wives as moral agents he goes further by the expectations he places on husbands and the “softening” of the patriarchy expected within that culture. The dramatic imagery of the husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church, the imagery of sacrifice and the imagery of oneness are dramatic alterations to the normal expectations men had related to marriage. From our modern standpoint it is easy for people to wince at the Bible’s description of the submissive wife. However, by the standards of the first century the demands the Apostle placed upon the husband would have seemed more out of place and, indeed, other worldly. On the one hand Paul is preserving the cultural standards of the day by telling or re-telling women to submit to their husbands, with some noteworthy qualifications, but on the other hand he is “subverting his culture’s values by going far beyond them.”
4. The call to submission instead of obedience suggests preliminary movement within the household codes. Related closely to the discussion above is the idea that the call upon wives to submit, rather than obey, holds significance for understanding the overall trajectory of meaning within the text. Why did Paul not include the traditional opinion of obedience for wives? Did he consider wifely obedience wrong? Certainly not, Paul remained, no doubt, a man of his time and thus found that wifely obedience was normal within his cultural milieu. In fact, Paul evidently sees no reason to address this issue of obedience and thus leaves any reference to obedience out but instead touches on a matter of the heart, submission. The use of the middle voice in the verb hypotasso/to submordinate carries the meaning of voluntary action. Paul certainly could have ordered obedience but he recognized that he would be dressing up the external side of the relationship rather than transforming the inside of the relationship. Submission, for both husband and wife, is a state of the heart. Where Paul could have demanded obedience that would leave the heart unaffected he instead calls for submission modeled after Christ’s submission striking straight at the heart of the person. This makes external obedience a by product of a heart rightly motivated by the Spirit.
Submission is further qualified by being “as to the Lord” (5:22) and “as the church submits to Christ” (5:24). These qualifications are connected with 5:21 where submission is rooted in fear and awe of God. Reverence and respect are the appropriate responses to God’s glory and sovereignty and submission is one means of expressing this respect. This harkens back to Webb’s idea of a “softening” of the injunctions to wives. Keener makes the point that while Paul gives extensive discussion to the notion of the love that the husband is to possess and act upon toward his wife that the wife’s command to submit is defined within the passage as “respect” from v. 33. In addition the verb form in v. 21 is rendered “to subordinate oneself under” again, implying a sense of voluntariness in the process of submission.
So where is the development in this text? When Paul defines submission as a matter of the heart and as a means of worshipping God he moves the meaning of the traditional household codes. No longer is wifely obedience the point but instead a life in relationship which is open and free enough that the wife would have little problem obedient, if that was necessary. When Paul moves his readers past the notion of obedience and on toward submission he is slowly moving the tradition to include a new kind of relationship which, on the one hand is not at odds with the surrounding culture yet indirectly challenges it toward greater social progress.
5. Submission conditioned upon love and the husband’s response to Christ is another example of preliminary movement. Here we see Paul putting yet another qualifier upon the relationship between husband and wife. It is also another example of the “softening” of the patriarchy within the Christian realm relative to that of the surrounding culture. At no time before had a woman’s submission to her husband been conditioned upon her husband responding in a Christ like fashion. Throughout the first century culture wifely submission or more appropriately stated subjugation, was assumed and enforced. While love for one’s wife was commendable it was not required.
Both members of the couple are to mutually submit, wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. After addressing wives Paul turns to the men and spends more time and space discussing the responsibilities of husbands than he does their wives. However, in all of the verses Paul addresses husbands he gives only one command though in a variety of ways. That command is for men to love their wives. It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s emphasis on a husband’s love for his wife is based upon the fact that the husband was the one with the power, social and physical power, to rule, dominate or abuse his wife. Just as Paul went to the heart of the matter with wives by focusing on the internal virtue of submission rather than the external behavior of obedience he does the same thing with men by focusing not on the way they “manage” or control their wives but how they love them. This love is expressed in a variety of ways but it is best illustrated by Paul through comparing the love a husband has for his wife with the love that Christ has for the church. A wife’s submissive response to her husband is dependent upon her husband’s responsiveness to Christ. Ultimately there is no submission where there is no love.
Paul appeals to husbands to love their wives based first of all on Christ’s love for the church. This is the model that Paul gives. Husbands, are to base their love for their wives on the way in which Christ loved the church by being self-sacrificial (5:25), serving (5:26-27), and cherishing (5:27). Note that in each of these comparisons between the husband and Christ no mention is made of Christ’s right to demand obedience of the church nor is there any mention of Christ’s superiority, although it is certainly assumed. The model for husbands from Christ life is based upon Christ’s identity as a servant not as a Lord. Paul also appeals to the husbands love for himself. Husbands are to love their wives and care for them in the same way that they would care for their own physical needs and Paul, in fact, makes the point that by doing so a man is “loving himself”. (v. 28) Here, Paul also touches upon the reality of oneness between Christ and the church and thus oneness between husband and wife. No analogy is perfect but this one makes the tremendous point that oneness in marriage is important in much the same way that oneness between God and his church are.

SLAVERY AS A HERMENEUTICAL GUIDE TO THE WIVES TEXT
Central to the Redemptive-movement hermeneutic is the idea that there is continued development, hence movement, in the interpretation and subsequent application of New Testament texts. This movement often takes the form of continuing development in the application of relational and ethical expectations which are expressed in Scripture. In contrast to a redemptive-movement hermeneutic a static hermeneutic, where one reads the words on the page in isolation, when applied to Ephesians 5 leaves one with a picture of wifely submission that is centered around obedience and benevolent patriarchy. (At its best.) Through a redemptive-movement lens one sees something different. The movement within the passage points in a direction of expanding equality between spouses and reduced levels, if not complete abandonment, of hierarchy through the command to mutually submit, love and respect the other.
If, however, this entire household code is read through a static hermeneutic and thus considered to be entirely prescriptive (how things are supposed to be) as opposed to descriptive (how things simply are) then how is the reader of Scripture to respond to the issue of slavery? If Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3 represent the fullest development of how men/women, children/parents, and slaves/masters are to relate then it is demanded of us that we ask the question: what about slaves? Consistency requires that a similar, if not identical, hermeneutic be employed in applying each of these passages. This begs the question, if what the church holds true for someone in slavery today, that the call to obedience to their master was not transcultural, then we are bound to offer the same concession to wives.
Someone advocating a form of continued form of hierarchy between husbands and wives might complain that women and slaves are not identical parties and that requiring that they be read through the same interpretive lens is a set up. However, while they may not be in identical situations women and slaves have more in common than do women and children or slaves and children. First, it should be noted that a women’s place in the first century did not provide here with opportunity to be other than what she was, a woman. This is similar to the situation of a slave in the same time period. It is true that slaves often had the opportunity to gain their freedom, or in some cases, regain it; there was no guarantee of emancipation. Children on the other hand, were not expected to remain children for the rest of their lives. For those who were eligible, that is children who were male and free, the opportunity to function as a free moral agent within the broader society was always an option. This was less likely for slaves and largely impossible for women.
Still others advocating a hierarchical model might suggest that the obedience of children to their parents is more like the submission that is demanded of women in the same passage. However, this still does not highlight more similarity between the two groups because women are not called upon to obey their husbands. Submission and obedience are related but they are not identical terms. Also, Paul clearly sets submission in marriage within the context of mutual submission fleshed out between the two parties in respect and love. Likewise, the masters of slaves are told to “do the same to them” implying a level of mutuality between those two parties. There is no such injunction to children when they are told to obey their parents. Lastly, while wives, children and slaves shared many of the same characteristics in the first century, such as dependence upon husbands, masters or parents, lack of financial independence, lack of social standing or voice, these distinctions have largely disappeared in the current culture in respect to women and those who might have been slaves. However, prudence dictates the obedience of children for their wellbeing and this obedience is not lifelong but a temporary arrangement until such a time as the child is judged as mature enough to make rational and reasonable decisions.
Redemptive Movement Within The Slave Text: 6.5-9
The fact that slaves were addressed at all by Paul is evidence of the fact that they were participants in the early church. Paul expected some slaves to be present when his letter was read and thus he addresses them directly. This fact makes clear that Paul considered slaves (along with women and children) to be people capable of making decisions and capable of controlling and changing their behavior. To a certain degree Paul’s addressing of these subordinate classes of people is revolutionary. He is inaugurating a leveling of relationships between those in positions of authority and power with those submitted to them and in their care.
In addition, Paul highlights the dignity of the person who is a slave by putting them in the same category as their masters, as fellow believers, and thus called to and capable of “mutual submission.” (5.21) This is further illustrated when Masters are called upon within the passage to be responsive to their slaves and to treat them much like they would themselves, “do the same unto them.” (6.8) Slaves and masters are enjoined to identify somewhat with one another and although the slave is not freed by Paul’s words his status is assumed to be somewhat elevated when his master is a Christian also. By being submitted to Christ the authority of the slave’s master is adjusted by the masters desire to be obedient and responsive to Christ. “Once it is said that slaves and masters have the same Master and are both answerable to him, the absolute rights of the master over the slave are relativized.” True, Paul does not abolish slavery in this passage. It was both beyond his ability to do so and beyond the scope of what he was trying to communicate. He is addressing slaves and masters at their interior point of motivation in their relationship to Christ. He is not, at this point, concerned with changing the significantly entrenched societal structure. In spite of this immediate concern of Paul’s it does not change the fact that salvific equality that exists between slave and owner greatly changes the dynamics not only of their relationship but of their social standing within the Christian community. This is based upon the fact that first and foremost slave and master are brothers in Christ as is illustrated so dramatically through Paul’s interaction regarding Philemon.
Attitudes Toward Slavery Changed
With some notable exceptions, the general development over the centuries, has been a gradual rejection by Christians of the permissibility of slavery. It must be noted that this change has occurred in part because Christians have discerned the redemptive spirit behind the texts of Scripture and rather than read the words of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 in isolation they have drawn from the text the overall movement toward a recognition of the equality of all people and they have rejected slavery as simply wrong. This movement is evidenced even within the Old Testament but is more clearly articulated in the New when Paul declares in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither, “slave nor free”, and when he encourages the acceptance of Onesimus, “no longer as a slave but as a brother.” (Philemon 16) Clearly, yet indirectly slavery has come to an end, in part, because of an awareness on the part of Christian believers of the redemptive movement throughout Scripture.
Cultural conditions have changed as the institution of slavery became more and more repugnant. The household code expressed, and modified, by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament no longer reflected the realities of life for subsequent generations as people began to perceive the unacceptability of slavery as an institution. It became, in the minds of many, an affront to human dignity and a violation of the principles set forth in Galatians 3:28, Philippians 2:1-2 and the ethic of love expressed in I Corinthians 13 and the Sermon on the Mount. Over time, through listening to what the text was saying the Christian community has come to the conclusion that slavery does not reflect the ultimate ethic expressed in the New Testament.

Abolition of Hierarchical Marriage Is A Natural Consequence
This example of the Christian response to slavery shows that there is development and growth in the application of texts to the ethical concerns of Christians in the modern day. “We must go beyond the letter of Scripture when the trajectory of scriptural teaching takes us further than what Scripture explicitly says and requires us to recognize that some culturally specified scriptural teachings and commands are no longer mandatory.” So says, Howard Marshall when addressing the concept of equality between husbands and wives. He goes even further by suggesting that the authority of the New Testament is upheld only when it is interpreted in this way with its redemptive purpose and spirit in mind. “Paul’s teaching remains authoritative for today, but it is authoritative, just as he himself would insist, as an expression of the gospel. And it is the authority of the gospel that compels us to move forward into an understanding of how the structure of marriage is no longer to be understood in patriarchal terms.” In the same way that Athanasius and the early church fathers came to an articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, not apart from the words of Scripture but coupled with a discernment of the overall trajectory of Scripture, so we can come to an understanding on the most appropriate structure for marriage in our current day. Wifely submission is not to be rejected as much as it is to be joined by a form of mutual submission where husband and wife esteem one another as equals, defer to one another regularly and relate to each other first and foremost with reverence based upon their mutual commitment to Christ.